Fact check: Israel claims that The Geneva Conventions only apply to territories captured in a war of aggression, but not to territories that come under the control of a country in a defensive war where others are the aggressors.

1. Summary of the results

1. Summary of the results:

The statement oversimplifies Israel's legal position. While Israel does dispute the applicability of Geneva Conventions to territories it controls, its actual legal argument (articulated by Meir Shamgar in 1971) centers on the claim that these territories were not previously part of a recognized sovereign state, rather than the defensive/aggressive war distinction. The International Court of Justice and other international bodies have explicitly rejected Israel's interpretation.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints:

• The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly states it applies to "all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict," with no distinction between defensive or aggressive wars
• Israel has adopted a pragmatic dual position: while rejecting the Conventions' application de jure (legally), it claims to follow them de facto (in practice) for humanitarian issues
• International legal scholars like John Quigley have established that even defensive wars do not justify territorial acquisition
• The United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, and International Committee of the Red Cross have all consistently affirmed the Conventions' applicability to Israeli-occupied territories

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement:

The statement creates a false dichotomy between defensive and aggressive wars that doesn't exist in international law. It benefits the Israeli government's position by:

• Misrepresenting Israel's actual legal argument about sovereign territory status
• Implying there's an international legal distinction between defensive and aggressive wars regarding territorial acquisition, which doesn't exist
• Omitting that Israel's interpretation has been "universally rejected" by international legal experts and institutions
• Failing to mention that Israel itself partially acknowledges the Conventions through its de facto compliance policy