So the New York Times is the font of wisdom on international law? Actually Israel has an extremely strong case under international law for incorporating all of Judea and Samaria: the land in dispute was taken in a defensive war. That makes all the difference. It is legal to take land from the aggressor. Jordan was the aggressor in the Six Day War of 1967.
In 1967, Israelis leaders begged Jordan not to attack, but Jordan did. It began a war of aggression. It launched attacks from land no one ever agreed it should be ruling in the first place. The parts of Judea and Samaria it ruled were marked by armistice lines accepted as final by no one.
The territory was once part of the British Mandate. This was given by the League of Nations to Britain in order to establish a nation state for the Jewish people there.
The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was never given land west of the Jordan river. It took the land in 1947 and ruled over it till 1967, but it had no justification or legitimacy under international law.
UN Security Council resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from territory taken in the war, but explicitly did not say “all" territory- the word “all" having been removed from an earlier draft. The Palestinians are not mentioned in UNSC 242.
Israel under the Oslo Accords agreed to Palestinian Authority administration of part of the territory. Both sides agreed to negotiate final status, but the Palestinian side has chosen a policy of intifadas and rejected several generous Israeli peace proposals without making a single public counter offer. Its been 20 years since Oslo.
It may be a better policy to negotiate a peace treaty and arrive at an agreed final status for the disputed territory. But under international law, Israel has as much or more right to it than any other polity.