Jonathan - who is an attorney - notes that the term "occupation" gets a lot of commentary from readers of the series. He sums up the definitional problem by writing:
...an occupation exists when a state maintains military control of territory outside its internationally recognized borders.
I think that's a workable definition, but not necessarily helpful for describing the status of areas outside the green (and purple) line that Israel controls.
The problem is in the clause "internationally recognized borders."
The green line is an armistice line and not an internationally recognized border, even though a lot of people living in New York City under diplomatic status like to pretend it is. By strict legal standards, there is no difference between the land on either side of the green line.
Ironically, it is the actions and policy of the Israeli government that lends the greatest strength to the argument that these indeed are occupied territories. Israel has used its military to maintain order in the territories; has not offered inhabitants in them Israeli citizenship; and governs all non-Israelis there under military rather than civilian law. It is highly debatable that this is a de jure occupation, but pretty apparent that it's a de facto occupation.
This is to say that Israel has said - through its actions if not by its words - that it is willing to relinquish some part of the territories as if they were occupied, but not necessarily those determined by the green line. Jericho and Ramallah may be "occupied," but not Hebron, East Jerusalem or Ariel.
This leads us to a maddeningly frustrating conundrum: one can easily argue that parts of the West Bank and Gaza are occupied, but it's anyone's interpretation which parts. We'll have an answer only when the issue is resolved and therefore moot; which is to say when there are internationally recognized borders.
Israel, I think, must develop a coherent legal perspective on this, even if it involves promoting legal concepts entirely new to international law. For example, they could assert that:
The West Bank and Gaza are in legal limbo, surrendered by the now-defunct Ottoman Empire and subsequently abandoned by the British mandate. (Remember that UN GA Resolution 181 did not create international law). Its ultimate disposition must be determined by a peace treaty between Israel and the Arab world, and in the meantime Israel will control the entire area for purposes of security.