The West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are all considered occupied territories (by most of the world at least. The State of Israel calls them ``Disputed''. I'm an Israeli citizen, and I must say I disagree with the official stance of my government.)
"Occupied territories" aren't a country though. Otherwise the domain should be related to Egypt or Jordan (whose territories are supposedly "occupied").
The Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem are not self ruled, no.
The term "occupied" relates to the fact that they are governed by the Israeli army, and are not self governed by their native inhabitants (the Israeli settlers unlawfully transferred there do vote for the Israeli parliament, and hence are self-governing in a way, as the Israeli army is under the authority of the Israeli government.)
You are missing some of your history lessons: Jordan and Egypt have recsinded any claims to those territories, instead recognizing the Palestinian people as the one who should rule those territories (the same was recognized by the State of Israel in the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" aka Oslo I Accord)
Jordan and Egypt have recsinded any claims to those territories
That's exactly my point why those territories aren't occupied. The only way to call them occupied if Egypt or Jordan would still claim their authority over them. But as you said - they don't. Therefore while their status isn't clear, they aren't occupied. I.e. they are not more occupied by "Israeli Civil Authority", as they are occupied by the "Palestinian Authority" (i.e. Fatah and Hamas). At least that's how I view it.
Oslo agreements weren't supported by Arabs (de facto), therefore they are morally void for a long time already. UN might support the idea of "occupied" terminology, but UN isn't the only entity who defines it.
