Fact check: Israel claims that the Geneva Conventions only apply to territories taken from a recognized sovereign. Egypt was not, nor claimed to be, a sovereign in Gaza, and Jordan’s claim to sovereignty is weak and was only recognized by England and Pakistan. Therefore, there was no sovereign whose property and population comes under the purview of the Geneva Conventions.

1. Summary of the results

1. Summary of the results

The analyses strongly indicate that the Geneva Conventions' applicability does not depend on prior sovereign status of territories. This has been confirmed by multiple authoritative bodies, including the International Court of Justice (2004), the UN Security Council, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

• The original statement omits that 126 representatives at the Conference of High Contracting Parties have explicitly declared settlements illegal
• The statement ignores that the Geneva Conventions were designed to protect civilian populations during occupation, not to determine sovereignty
• The disputed status of territories does not prevent the applicability of occupation law, according to the ICRC
• Almost all international lawyers and every state except Israel consider the Geneva Conventions as part of customary international law

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

• The statement creates a misleading connection between sovereignty and the Geneva Conventions' applicability, when no such legal requirement exists
• It selectively focuses on Jordan's and Egypt's sovereignty claims while ignoring the broader international legal framework
• The argument benefits specific political interests, particularly those supporting settlement expansion in occupied territories
• The statement presents a minority legal interpretation (supported only by Israel) as if it were a valid alternative to the overwhelming international consensus

This is a complex legal issue where Israel maintains one position while facing near-unanimous opposition from the international legal community, including the UN, ICJ, and ICRC. The humanitarian implications for Palestinian populations are significant regardless of the legal arguments about prior sovereignty.