"It's not occupied, it's disputed territory."
Their strongest version
No recognized Palestinian sovereign preceded 1967, so (the argument goes) the Geneva Conventions' occupation framework doesn't cleanly apply.
The response
This argument has been adjudicated, repeatedly, at the highest level that exists: the ICJ (2004 Wall opinion and 2024 advisory opinion), the UN Security Council (Res. 242, 2334), every state on earth except Israel, and — decisive detail — Israel's own Supreme Court, which has for decades applied the law of belligerent occupation to the West Bank. 'Disputed' is a term with no legal content, coined for press releases. The 2024 ICJ opinion went further: the occupation itself is unlawful and must end 'as rapidly as possible,' settlements must be evacuated, and reparations are owed. You can dispute a court; you can't call a 15-judge near-unanimous finding a matter of opinion.