NYT is not implying that the “occupation” is “alleged”, as you say. NYT realizes and acknowledges that the final agreement must be a negotiated two-state solution. What they are implying by placing “occupation” in quotes is that those lands are currently in dispute. There is no negotiated peace deal establishing a two-state solution as of yet. Some of the lands of the West Bank, also known of course as Judea and Samaria to the Israelis, will be exchanged for lands in the Galilee that are settled with Arab towns and villages inside Israel’s 1967 borders. Theoretically in a final agreement, many of those lands will be swapped 1:1. So we really don’t know at this time which lands will eventually belong to which state. Do you get it?