She does so by claiming that the land is "disputed", not occupied. No, the status is not "disputed" by Israel at all. I'll refer to a VASTLY more authoritative source than the one she chooses - I'll choose the Israeli High Court of Justice, in the case of Beit Sourik Village Council vs. the GoI and the Commander of IDF forces in the West Bank: "23. The general point of departure of all parties ? which is also our point of departure ? is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica)" Occupatio bellica, Bruriah Sarah. The Government of Israel says "yeah, we occupy the land". The IDF commander in the West Bank says "yeah, OK, I admit it - it's under occupation". Heck, even the Beit Sourik Village Council accepts it. And the Israel HCJ says "Well, we're all agreed then - the land is occupied by the IDF", and then proceeds from that agreement towards a judgement in the case. So, Bruriah Sarah...you were saying????
Labor court orders Jerusalem light rail operators to return to work (Haaretz)
from the article: The hot-air summit