:::::::::And in any way, the cases of EJ and GH are different. 
 :::::::::The state of war between Syria and Israel never ended, which makes the occupation to be legal. But I don't see how it could be stated it is not a military one, given the state of war... 
 :::::::::Sharon Korman in The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice, Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 265 writes  "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite charactersuch as perpetual demilitarization, or the emplacement of a United Nations forcewhich would ensure, or tend to ensure, that the territory would not be used against it for aggression on future occasions. But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international communityno less by the United States than by any other state." 
 :::::::::