There is no unique and complete answer. Among Israelis, there are those who consider that Israel should give up all control of the territory in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) for their own benefit. They believe that direct or indirect control over the Palestinians provokes a moral degradation or because they consider that if Israel is not “disconnected” from the Palestinians, it will result in a bi-national state with a Jewish minority. In these Israelis’ speech, the term “occupation” is commonly used as a clear show of the Jewish tradition of considering land as something less important than life or human values.
For others who discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (where certain jour- nalists and academics stand out), the conflict is presented as “territorial” (“o- ccupation”) to not provoke a discord with their “dialectical materialist concep- tual training. The dialectical materialism (offered by Engels and Marx) defines matter as the substrate of all reality, whether it is concrete or abstract (ideology, philosophy). For a materialist, conflicts are always about oil, land (“occupa- tion”), water, gas, power, etc.
When analyzing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, materialistic analysts adopt two postures. The most radical posture will argue that all Jewish pres- ence in Israel is an “occupation” since they say that Zionism is a manifestation of European Imperialism. One can notice their anti-Semitic DNA when we ascertain that they promote the elimination of a “sole state” in the land, “the Jewish state among nations”.
Others will argue that the conflict explains itself with the “West Bank occupation” by Israel after the Six-Day War (1967). The fact that the ma- jority of the Palestinians live under a Palestinian government or that the Palestinian-A-rabs murdered Jews long before 1967 is an anecdotal fact that cannot contradict the materialistic dogma.