Fact check: Israel says that Geneva Conventions only apply to territories which are captured by aggressors but not those that are captured in a defensive war

1. Summary of the results

1. Summary of the results:

The analyses show that Israel does dispute the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to occupied territories, but not primarily based on the defensive war argument stated in the original claim. Israel's main legal argument, first articulated by Attorney-General Meir Shamgar in 1971, centers on the claim that the territories were not previously under recognized sovereign control.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints:

• Israel's actual legal position is more complex, arguing that:

The territories weren't previously part of a sovereign state

The Convention only applies between two powers accepting it

The Oslo Accords leave settlement issues to be negotiated later

• The international community's position is clear and unified:

The International Court of Justice explicitly ruled in July 2024 that Israel's occupation is illegal

126 nations at a 2014 conference declared the settlements illegal

The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly, and International Committee of the Red Cross all affirm the Convention's applicability

• Israel has stated it will voluntarily follow humanitarian provisions of the Convention, while still disputing its legal applicability

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement:

The statement oversimplifies Israel's complex legal position by focusing solely on the defensive war argument. This framing benefits those seeking to legitimize occupation by presenting it as a security measure rather than addressing the broader legal and humanitarian concerns raised by the international community. The statement omits the overwhelming international consensus against Israel's interpretation, including multiple UN resolutions and the 2024 ICJ ruling, which explicitly rejected all of Israel's arguments regarding the Convention's applicability.