1. ^{{Cite book|title=The Italian Yearbook of International Law|volume=14|year=2005|editor1-last=Conforti|editor1-first=Benedetto|editor2-last=Bravo|editor2-first=Luigi|first=Marco|last=Pertile|chapter='Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=978-90-04-15027-0|page=141|quote=the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars}}
2. ^{{Cite journal|journal=International Journal of Constitutional Law|title=Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review|publisher=Oxford University Press|volume=4|last=Barak-Erez|first=Daphne|author-link=Daphne Barak Erez|year=2006|page=548|quote=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|doi=10.1093/icon/mol021}}
3. ^{{Cite book|chapter=Self-determination and population transfer|last=Drew|first=Catriona|title=Human rights, self-determination and political change in the occupied Palestinian territories|volume=52|series=International studies in human rights|editor-last=Bowen|editor-first=Stephen|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|year=1997|isbn=978-90-411-0502-8|pages=151–152|quote=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}}
4. ^{{cite web|title=The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories|author=International Labour Organization|year=2005|url=http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc93/pdf/rep-i-ax.pdf|page=14|quote=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"}}
5. ^{{Cite book|title=The international law of occupation|last=Benveniśtî|first=Eyāl|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2004|isbn=978-0-691-12130-7|page=xvii|quote=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}}
6. ^{{cite book|author=Rawan Asali Nuseibeh|title=Political Conflict and Exclusion in Jerusalem: The Provision of Education and Social Services|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ojmvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT43|date=8 October 2015|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-317-53576-8|pages=43–}}
7. ^¹ {{Cite journal|title=Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967|last=Roberts|first=Adam|author-link=Adam Roberts (scholar)|journal=The American Journal of International Law|volume=84|issue=1|publisher=American Society of International Law|pages=60, 69, 85–86|quote=p. 60: Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.
p 69: 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
pp 85–86: 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|doi=10.2307/2203016}}
8. ^{{citation|url=https://fmep.org/resource/settlements-in-east-jerusalem/|title=East Jerusalem Settlements|publisher=Foundation for Middle East Peace|date=January 13, 2011}}
9. ^Golan Heights Law, MFA.
10. ^{{citation |title=The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice |last=Korman |first=Sharon |publisher=Oxford University Press |pages=262–263}}
11. ^UN Security Council Resolution 497
12. ^Y.Z Blum "Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace in the Light of International Law and Practice" (1971) pages 24–46
13. ^* "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect." {{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DqIv03qWPc0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+situation+of+workers+of+the+occupied+Arab+territories:+report+of+the#v=snippet&q=%22The%20international%20community%20maintains%20that%20the%20Israeli%20decision%20to%20impose%20its%20laws%2C%20jurisdiction%20and%20administration%20in%20the%20occupied%20Syrian%20Golan%20is%20null%20and%20void%20and%20without%20international%20legal%20effect.%22&f=false |title=The situation of workers of the occupied Arab territories |author=International Labour Office |edition=International government publication |publisher=International Labour Office |year=2009 |isbn=978-92-2-120630-9 |page=23}}* In 2008, a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly voted by 161–1 in favour of a motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" that reaffirmed support for UN Resolution 497. ([https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10794.doc.htm General Assembly adopts broad range of texts, 26 in all, on recommendation of its fourth Committee, including on decolonization, information, Palestine refugees], United Nations, 5 December 2008.)* "the Syrian Golan Heights territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967". Also, "the Golan Heights, a 450-square mile portion of southwestern Syria that Israel occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war." ([https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/62681.pdf CRS Issue Brief for Congress: Syria: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues], Congressional Research Service. 19 January 2006){{dead link|date=March 2016}}
14. ^Occupied territory* "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" (Central Intelligence Agency. [https://books.google.com/books?id=pqanFyF6nI0C&pg=PA339&dq=%22OCCUPIED+GOLAN%22&hl=en&ei=T2BVTJuyLsH48AbYwM3kBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22OCCUPIED%20GOLAN%22&f=false CIA World Factbook 2010], Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2009. pg. 339. {{ISBN|1-60239-727-9}}.)* "...the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal..." ([https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9570.pdf "CRS Issue Brief for Congress: Israeli-United States Relations"], Congressional Research Service, 5 April 2002. pg. 5. Retrieved 1 August 2010.)* "Occupied Golan Heights" (Travel advice: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090720052803/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied |date=20 July 2009 }}, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Retrieved 1 August 2010.)* "In the ICRC's view, the Golan is an occupied territory." (ICRC activities in the occupied Golan during 2007, International Committee of the Red Cross, 24 April 2008.)
15. ^Korman, Sharon. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ueDO1dJyjrUC&pg=PA261&dq=The+right+of+conquest+golan+heights&hl=en&ei=AzpYTMLXE4mhOPufvPEI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20right%20of%20conquest%20golan%20heights&f=false The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice], Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 265. {{ISBN|0-19-828007-6}}. "The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character--such as perpetual demilitarization, or the emplacement of a United Nations force--which would ensure, or tend to ensure, that the territory would not be used against it for aggression on future occasions. But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupant in the territory which it occupies, or to act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community--no less by the United States than by any other state."