What's wrong with referring to Judea and Samaria as the "occupied" territories?

The language of “occupation” insinuates that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is both foreign and illegal. This is highly controversial and founded in fundamental prejudices regarding the Jewish people and the peace process.

The term “occupied territories” is laden with legal and moral prejudice against Israel. Legally speaking, to be an occupier is to illegally occupy the territory of another *state* as the result of a war of aggression. It’s undisputed that Israel gained control of Judea and Samaria in a *defensive* war against Jordan, who itself gained the territory in an offensive war (48’ War) and no longer lays claim to the land. Therefore, per the Oslo accords, sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is subject to a future agreement between Israel and the PA (Palestinian Authority), making the land disputed; not occupied.

In moral terms, the language of “occupation” paints Israel as a foreign entity and the Palestinian Arabs as native. Without denying the connection Palestinian Arabs have to Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are certainly no less connected. Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is an expression of indigenous sovereignty and does not deserve to be labeled as an occupation. Those who perpetuate the notion that Jews are foreigners in any part of the Land of Israel, often base this assertion on the lie that Jews are simply a religious group. The Jewish people, by definition, are an ethno-religious group. A diverse nation who are rooted and identified by their common descent from the aboriginal Judaean population.