Scholars disagree on what the law says. I don't normally like to block quote but since you requested:

"The ILC (International Law Commission) repeatedly recognized that not all territorial changes in war are illegitimate. Not all annexations were bad... All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression. There was broad consensus territorial change was only impermissible in a war of “aggression.” Thus the final document provided that
states have a duty “to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation” of the U.N. Charter or other international law rules. But Israel’s use of force in 1967 was defensive... and thus explicitly lawful under the Charter. Thus there is no obligation to refrain from recognizing" it.https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf

>No but it has every intention to do so

Israel has no serious intention of annexing the WB because if it did it would make Jews a minority in Israel.

>Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.

No. There's a difference between acquisition of land as the aggressor and defensively. Jordan acquired the land as the aggressor. Israel acquired it defensively. Typically occupied land that is not needed defensively is to be returned to the host country. In the WB, there is no host country. That's why some prefer to use the term "disputed land" rather than "occupied land." It's not being occupied from any other country. And which is also why the normal laws of occupation don't necessarily apply.