Yesterday, we noted that the latest US State Department human rights report does not refer to "occupied territories" as the reports under the Obama administration did.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just to be redundant on the issue of occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, why can’t you say it is occupied, without all the caveats? Can you say that it is occupied, that you acknowledge that position? It’s been like this since 1967.MR PRICE: Well, Said, and that’s precisely what I said yesterday.QUESTION: Right.MR PRICE: It is a historical fact that Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 war. That’s precisely why the 2020 Human Rights Report uses that term in the current context of the West Bank. It has been the longstanding position of previous administrations of both parties over the course of many decades. Do we think that the West Bank is occupied? Yes.
This actually explains the language in the human rights report - the Biden administration does not use the term "occupied territories" because that phrase is used universally to include Gaza, and it appears that this administration does not consider Gaza to be in the same category as the West Bank.
As far as the Golan and "East Jerusalem" is concerned, it would be politically difficult to say that they are occupied after the Trump administration recognized Israel's annexation of the Golan and "took Jerusalem off the table." So it seems that they will try to stay away from those topics until a reporter forces them to address it.
(h/t YMedad)