Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army.
The Hague Conventions of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws. Specifically "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[1] The first two articles of that section state:
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Óæ êòî òîëüêî íè ïðèçíàë îêêóïèðîâàííûå òåððèòîðèè îêêóïèðîâàííûìè - è ÎÎÍ â ðàçëè÷íûõ èíñòàíöèÿõ, è Øòàòû, è Åâðîïà, è ìåæäóíàðîäíûé ñóä, è Êðàñíûé êðåñò - à ýòîò èçðàèëüñêèé ìèíèñòð ïð¸ò êàê áûê íà âîðîòà: Íåò, íå îêêóïèðîâàííûå ýòî òåððèòîðèè, à ñïîðíûå!
Íà ÷òî îí ðàññ÷èòûâàåò? Çàïóäðèòü ìîçãè íåñâåäóùèì? Ñêîðåå âñåãî äà, çàäà¸ò, òèïà, very important question: À ó êàêîé ñòðàíû îêêóïèðîâàë Èçðàèëü ýòè òåððèòîðèè? À ñòðàíû òî òàêîé è íåòó, Éîðäàíèÿ íå ïðè äåëàõ, îíà íà ýòè òåððèòîðèè íå ïðåòåíäóåò. Íó à ðàç òàê òî è îêêóïàöèè òî íèêàêîé è íåòó! Áó-ãà-ãà!  ñâåòå òàêîãî õèòðî-ïîñòàâëåííîãî âîïðîñà/îòâåòà ñòàíîâèòñÿ òàêè ïðîñòî íåâàæíî ÷òî äàííûå òåððèòîððè áûëè çàõâà÷åíû â õîäå âîéíû è êîíòðîëèðóþòñÿ àðìèåé.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank ...
The United Nations Security Council,[64] the United Nations General Assembly,[65] the United States,[66] the EU,[67] the International Court of Justice,[68] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[69] refer to it as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area.[70]
According to supporters of Israel's rights, since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no legitimate claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which is Israel. This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 242 notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" regardless of whether the war in which the territory was acquired was offensive or defensive. Prominent Israeli human rights organizations such as B'tselem also refer to the Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation.[71] John Quigley has noted that "...a state that uses force in self-defense may not retain territory it takes while repelling an attack. If Israel had acted in self-defense, that would not justify its retention of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action were defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not."[72]
International law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) prohibits "transfers of the population of an occupying power to occupied territories", incurring a responsibility on the part of Israel's government to not settle Israeli citizens in the West Bank.[73]
Some countries, such as Brazil[74] and Argentina,[75] recognize the State of Palestine and consider the West Bank to be territory of that state.
... _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre èëè âòîðàÿ ðåäàêöèÿ Çàáóãîðíîâà
FAQ
. Ññûëêà íà ñåòüåâóþ ýíöèêëîïåäèþ íå âñåãäà íàäåæíûé àðãóìåíò 
