Well that is a key item of debate isn’t it? No matter how many resolution are passed by a non-judicial body, the territories are plainly disputed, not occupied in the sense of Article 49. The situation in Judea and Samaria is not one where a country signatory to the Geneva accords was invaded by another and its territory occupied. There was no historic country of Palestine and no Palestinian national identity at the time Israel gained control of the territories in dispute. Jordan ruled the area from 1947–67 during which the UNSC passed no resolutions condemning it for occupying Palestine. Israel took over as the result of a defensive war at a time when the PLO has barely been founded. So it an ex post facto exercise to claim Israel is occupying Palestinian land. Since Britain, the legally responsible power after the Ottomans, received a mandate under the San Remo treaty and the League of Nations to administer the whole mandate territory to prepare it to be a homeland for the Jewish people, the prohibition of Jewish construction of housing anywhere in the mandate is legally unsupported.
While resolution 242 has a land for peace formula, it does not bar Jewish construction on lands conquered in the 1967 war. It does not say Israeli control of Judea and Samaria is an occupation of Palestinian territory.
More recently, at Oslo, the PLO, the US and Israel agreed to Israeli control of zone C. The US failure to veto 2334 contradicts its commitment to the Oslo process. Coming in the waning days of an outgoing administration, after its favored candidate has lost the election, it is actually a slap in the face of American voters and a big middle finger at our Constitutional system.
The building of Jewish communities may or may not be helpful to eventual peace, but it is not an illegal occupation.