1 accusation words in the opening on October 6 2023. Today: 6 today. This article was not filed under it. Today it is filed under Israeli apartheid; Israeli-occupied territories.
Measured, not asserted. Every count, date and revision on this page was taken from Wikipedia's own history and checked against the live article. The words quoted are theirs.
Machine-checked against the full current article on 2026-08-03.
We saved snapshots of this article over twenty years; you are reading the 2015 one. Red dashes: removed from Wikipedia since.Pale dots: rewritten; the numbered note shows what it says now.Red text: written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot.1 tap a number or a side note to jump between them
The opening as it read in 2015
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, however Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War .1 The United Nations Security Council , the United Nations General Assembly , the International Committee of the Red Cross , the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply. Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank , East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.2The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross .3The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law, despite Israel's armistice agreements having all being with High Contracting Parties.4In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure , but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.5The American Journal of International Law . 84 (1). The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law. " 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi (eds.). The Italian Yearbook of International Law . "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law . 4 (3). The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation. In Bowen, Stephen (ed.). Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories . International studies in human rights. It can thus clearly be concluded that the transfer of Israeli settlers into the occupied territories violates not only the laws of belligerent occupation but the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law. The question remains, however, whether this is of any practical value. In other words, given the view of the international community that the Israeli settlements are illegal under the law if belligerent occupation … International Labour Organization (2005). The international community considers Israeli settlements within the occupied territories illegal and in breach of, inter alia, United Nations Security Council resolution 465 of 1 March 1980 calling on Israel "to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem". Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".6However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.7Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel. : Missing or empty |url= ( help ) Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1 November 2007). Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. : Missing or empty |url= ( help ) Roberts, Adam. The American Journal of International Law . 84 (1). SC Res. 446 (Mar. 22, 1979), adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States), reaffirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention, as well as opposing the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. The international law of occupation . In its advisory opinion of July 9, 2004, on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory , the International Court of Justice found Israel in breach of several international law obligations by its construction of a separation barrier on West Bank territory. ... The Court flatly rejects the Israeli claims concerning the inapplicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and concerning the inapplicability of Article 49 to the Jewish settlements in the areas occupied by Israel. Neither of these claims gained serious support from the international community. International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories . Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation . Judicial Protection of Human Rights: Myth or Reality? . Politics and government in Israel: the maturation of a modern state .8
This is Wikipedia's own text, saved in our repository. Their copy of it is revision 662751000.
The opening as it stood in 2010
The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank , including East Jerusalem , is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. This view is largely based on UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446 , 452 , 465 , 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention . The legal arm of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law. International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories . Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation . Judicial Protection of Human Rights: Myth or Reality? .
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 363155863.
The opening as it stood in 2020 38 passages from the previous snapshot no longer appear
legal status of Israeli settlements The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention , or that they are in breach of international declarations. The United Nations Security Council , the United Nations General Assembly , the International Committee of the Red Cross , the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Israeli settlements. Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank , East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980, and 2016. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. 126 Representatives at the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions in 2014 declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross . Israel has consistently argued that the settlements are not in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention since, in its view, Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, and they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" since there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign prior.Successive Israeli governments have argued that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure , but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern these areas de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position. The Israeli Supreme Court itself has never addressed the issue of the settlements' legality.There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or templates on this page, but the references will not show without a template or template (see the help page ).
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 964990290.
The opening as it stood on October 6, 2023
Legal status of Israeli settlements The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention , or that they are in breach of international declarations. The United Nations Security Council , the United Nations General Assembly , the International Committee of the Red Cross , the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories. Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements in the West Bank , East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980, and 2016. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. 126 Representatives at the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions in 2014 declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross . United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 , which passed 14-0 with the United States abstaining, declared that Israel's settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem , "has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law", and demanded that Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities". Israel has consistently argued that the settlements are not in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention since, in its view, Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, and they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" since there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign prior. Successive Israeli governments have argued that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure , but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern these areas de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position. The Israeli Supreme Court itself has never addressed the issue of the settlements' legality. The establishment of settlements has been described by some legal experts as a war crime according to the Rome Statute , and is currently under investigation as part of the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine . There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or templates on this page, but the references will not show without a template or template (see the help page ).
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1172938991.
The opening as it stood in 2025 7 passages from the previous snapshot no longer appear
Legal status of Israeli settlements Not to be confused with Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine .Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip , as well as in the Syrian Golan Heights , are illegal under international law .These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention , and in breach of international declarations.In a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to the Palestinian territories, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements and called on Israel to end its occupation, cease its settlement activity, and evacuate all its settlers. The United Nations Security Council , the United Nations General Assembly , the International Committee of the Red Cross , the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories. Numerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions 446 in 1979, 478 in 1980, and 2334 in 2016.In 2014, 126 Representatives at the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions declared the settlements illegal, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross .Israel disputes the illegality of its settlements, claiming that Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, that the territory is not occupied since there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign prior, and that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not de jure apply.However, all of Israel's arguments have been refuted by the ICJ's 2024 ruling.Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Israel has repeatedly ruled that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.The establishment of settlements has been described by some legal experts as a war crime according to the Rome Statute (to which Israel is not a party), and is currently under investigation as part of the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine .Tomer Zarchin, If Israel is not occupying the West Bank it must give up land held by the IDF at Haaretz , 9 July 2012: 'For 45 years, different compositions of the High Court of Justice stated again and again that Israel's presence in the West Bank violates international law, which is clearly opposed to Levy's findings.' There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or templates on this page, but the references will not show without a template or template (see the help page ).
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1298170747. This is our newest snapshot; the live article may have moved again since.
Today
1 accusation words in the opening on October 6 2023. Today: 6 today. This article was not filed under it. Today it is filed under Israeli apartheid; Israeli-occupied territories. Read the current article and compare.
2010
2015
2020
Oct '23
2025
Counts in the opening at each snapshot. Green: the word gained ground. Red: it was cut. Grey: no change.
Struck red text is no longer in the article; dotted amber text was rewritten. Every revision id links to Wikipedia's copy; the text shown is our own saved copy. Data: /data. Wikipedia text is CC BY-SA; quoted for the record; not affiliated with Wikipedia.
