Status of Territories Occupied by Israel in 1967

The territories captured in June 1967 did not acquire a single, permanent status: peace agreements, Israeli legislation, Palestinian self-government arrangements, and later military developments produced different outcomes in each area.[1] Sinai became the subject of a bilateral peace treaty and Israeli withdrawal.[1] East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were brought under Israeli law and administration.[3][4] In the remainder of the West Bank and in Gaza, the Oslo agreements provided for transfers of governmental responsibilities to Palestinian authorities without settling permanent-status issues such as borders and Jerusalem.[7]

The issue therefore encompasses several distinct questions: which authorities exercise governmental powers, where Israeli domestic law applies, how sovereignty is claimed or recognized, and what arrangements remain to be negotiated.[7][5] Israeli military control, Palestinian civil administration, and international recognition do not necessarily coincide: in the West Bank, for example, Palestinian authorities govern specified areas while Israel retains overarching military control.[8] The division into Areas A, B, and C was an interim allocation of responsibilities rather than a final settlement of sovereignty.[9]

The territorial changes also brought a substantial population under a new administration: approximately one million Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli administration after the war.[10] The Palestinian Authority subsequently assumed civil and security responsibilities in specified areas.[8] Those arrangements created a different administrative structure from either the immediate postwar military government or Israel’s incorporation of East Jerusalem into its municipal and domestic legal systems.[7][3]

Territorial disposition became a major issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict. United Nations texts reaffirmed Palestinian self-determination and the objective of a Palestinian state in territory occupied since 1967, while Jerusalem remained among the issues reserved for negotiation.[7][11] Resolution 242 supplied principles for diplomacy rather than a territorial inventory or a detailed administrative plan: its text linked withdrawal with the termination of belligerency, state sovereignty, and secure and recognized boundaries.[2][11] Subsequent agreements addressed particular territories and governmental powers, but did not produce one comprehensive settlement covering all the land captured in 1967.[1][7]

Between June 5 and June 10, 1967, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.[1] These acquisitions brought together territories previously administered by three different neighboring states, rather than a single preexisting political unit.[1] Jordan had controlled the West Bank after the War of Independence; in 1988, it severed its legal and administrative links to the territory.[7]

Judea and Samaria also contain sites central to Jewish history. An Israeli government account describes ancient Jewish ties to the territory and a continuous Jewish presence there over centuries, framing the area as a cradle of Jewish civilization.[12]

On June 19, 1967, Israel’s cabinet agreed to convey through the United States an offer concerning Egypt and Syria: “Israel proposes reaching peace with Egypt [and with Syria] on the basis of the international border and the security requirements of Israel.”[6] After the war, Israel did not extend its domestic law to the West Bank outside East Jerusalem or to Gaza in the manner it did to the eastern part of Jerusalem.[7] An early policy associated with Defense Minister Moshe Dayan opened movement between Israel and the territories, while leaving their eventual disposition unresolved.[13]

The Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242 on November 22, 1967.[2] Its two central principles were withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict and termination of claims or states of belligerency, accompanied by respect for states’ sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.[2] It also called for freedom of navigation through international waterways, a just settlement of the refugee problem, territorial inviolability, and measures that could include demilitarized zones.[2] The resolution did not enumerate the territories or expressly prescribe complete withdrawal to the prewar lines.[11]

Sinai’s later disposition was established through the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, signed on March 26, 1979.[1] The treaty ended the state of war between the two countries and provided for Israeli withdrawal and restoration of Egyptian sovereignty over the peninsula.[12][14] Israel withdrew its forces from Sinai on April 25, 1982, except for Taba.[14] The agreement also provided for demilitarization of the peninsula, linking territorial return to an agreed security arrangement.[15]

Different legislative developments occurred in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.[3][4] After capturing East Jerusalem, Israel expanded Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and applied Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration to the eastern sector.[3] In 1980 it enacted Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, declaring Jerusalem, complete and united, to be Israel’s capital.[3] In December 1981, Israel applied its laws, jurisdiction, and administration to the Golan Heights, which had initially been placed under military administration after the war.[16][4]

The Oslo process introduced a further administrative transformation rather than a final territorial settlement.[7][17] The 1993 Israeli-PLO agreement envisaged a five-year period of gradually extended Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza before a final settlement of Palestinian statehood.[17] Implementation in the West Bank began in May 1994 with Israel’s withdrawal from Jericho and its environs and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority; transfers of governmental authority in Gaza also began in 1994.[1][17] The 1995 interim agreement divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, with different allocations of civil and security responsibility.[17]

Israel’s 2005 disengagement removed Israeli civilians and military forces from Gaza and transferred control to the Palestinian Authority.[18][6] The civilian evacuation was completed on August 21, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces was completed on September 11, 2005.[18] The disengagement plan also provided for evacuating settlements in northern Samaria and regrouping forces outside the evacuated areas.[19] In June 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza, creating a political division between Gaza and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.[6]

Sinai and the Peace Treaty

Sinai’s status was addressed through an agreement between Israel and Egypt providing for withdrawal, Egyptian sovereignty, and recognized boundaries.[12][14] Its return distinguishes it from territories where Israeli domestic legislation, interim Palestinian self-government, or continuing military control became the principal arrangements.[1][7] The treaty’s demilitarization provisions formed part of the conditions accompanying the restoration of Egyptian authority, rather than leaving the peninsula’s security arrangements wholly separate from the territorial settlement.[15]

The withdrawal milestone of April 25, 1982, concerned the departure of Israeli forces from Sinai except for Taba.[14] Broader accounts describe Sinai as returned to Egypt in April 1982 under the 1979 treaty.[1][15] The peninsula consequently did not remain within the same administrative framework as the West Bank or Gaza, nor was it brought under Israeli law in the manner of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.[1][7]

The West Bank and Palestinian Self-Government

Outside East Jerusalem, Israel established a military administration in the West Bank after the 1967 war.[17] The Oslo agreements subsequently transferred specified governmental powers from Israel’s military government and civil administration to Palestinian authorities.[7] Those transfers provided a framework for Palestinian civil administration and security responsibilities while reserving permanent-status questions, including borders and Jerusalem, for separate negotiations.[7]

Area A, comprising approximately 18 percent of the West Bank, was assigned Palestinian civil and security control; Area B, approximately 22 percent, Palestinian civil control with Israeli security responsibilities; and Area C, approximately 60 percent, Israeli civil and security control.[8] The 1995 interim framework also described security in Area B in terms of joint Israeli-Palestinian responsibility.[17] The central distinction was that Palestinian civilian administration extended into both Areas A and B, whereas Area C remained under Israeli administration and security control.[17][8]

These divisions established different patterns of authority within the same territory rather than creating three sovereign entities.[9] The Palestinian Authority governs and provides security in some areas, while Israel maintains overarching military control.[8] Palestinian self-government therefore operates within a framework that leaves final borders and sovereignty for negotiation.[7][9] West Bank settlements and strategic areas were among the places included in Area C under the interim arrangements.[20]

The application of occupation law has also formed part of the practical legal framework.[21] Israel has applied that body of law in the territories in practice, an approach reflected in Israeli Supreme Court judgments.[21] This practice exists alongside Israel’s governmental position that the territories’ final legal status must be determined through peaceful agreement and negotiations.[12]

East Jerusalem

East Jerusalem received a different domestic legal treatment from the rest of the West Bank.[3] Israel extended Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries to include the eastern sector and applied its law, jurisdiction, and administration there.[3] Palestinian residents received permanent-resident status, Israeli identity cards, social benefits, and the right to work throughout Israel.[3] Israeli courts treated the eastern sectors as part of Israel under Israeli law, while Foreign Minister Abba Eban described the 1967 measures to the United Nations as administrative and municipal integration rather than annexation.[3]

The 1980 Basic Law declared the complete and united city to be Israel’s capital.[3] Security Council Resolution 478 decided not to recognize the law and was adopted by fourteen votes to none, with one abstention.[22] It also called on states with embassies in Jerusalem to withdraw them; thirteen embassies left following the resolution.[3] The city’s future was included in the permanent-status negotiating agenda established by the 1993 Israeli-PLO agreements, but subsequent talks did not resolve its status.[3][23]

In 2017, the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital without taking a position on the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty.[22] That qualification distinguished recognition of the capital from a determination of the territorial limits of Israeli sovereignty within the city.[22] Israeli authorities regard Jerusalem as under Israeli sovereignty, while Palestinians claim at least its eastern part.[3]

The Golan Heights

The Golan Heights passed from Syrian control to Israeli military administration in 1967.[16] Five villages populated mostly by Druze Arabs remained after the fighting; their residents were offered Israeli citizenship, but most declined and retained Syrian citizenship.[16] A 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement established a United Nations-monitored buffer zone.[16]

Israel’s December 1981 extension of its laws, jurisdiction, and administration changed the domestic legal framework governing the part of the Golan it held.[4] Security Council Resolution 497 declared that decision null and void and without international legal effect.[4] On March 25, 2019, United States President Donald Trump signed a proclamation recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.[4] Colombia also recognized Israeli sovereignty in 2026.[16]

These recognition decisions did not replace the position expressed in Resolution 497.[16][4] The European Union stated that it did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, and the broader international position continued to regard the territory as part of Syria.[16][4] The distinction between Israeli domestic administration and external recognition thus remained central to the Golan’s status.[16][4]

Gaza Before and After Disengagement

The Palestinian Authority began receiving governmental powers in Gaza in 1994 under the Oslo agreements.[1] Israel’s 2005 disengagement then removed Israeli civilians and completed the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Strip, with control transferred to the Palestinian Authority.[18][6] The withdrawal did not eliminate disagreement over the significance of Israel’s continued control of much of Gaza’s external perimeter; the legal analysis also notes that Israel did not control Gaza’s land border with Egypt.[21]

Hamas’s seizure of control in June 2007 created a political division between Gaza and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.[6] Israel continued to control Gaza’s airspace and land and maritime access points after the withdrawal, while Israel and Egypt imposed restrictions on the movement of people and goods.[24] Israel did not control Gaza’s land border with Egypt, a qualification relevant to legal arguments based on control of the territory’s external perimeter.[21]

A July 2, 2026 account described a later territorial division inside Gaza: Israeli troops were deployed in some areas, while other areas were generally subject to Hamas security control.[5] Israeli-controlled areas comprised more than half of Gaza’s territory, while roughly 85 percent of its population had been living in the other areas as of late 2025.[5] The division and future governance arrangements remained unresolved in that account.[5] These dated developments mean that the 2005 withdrawal and Hamas’s 2007 takeover describe important changes in control, but do not by themselves provide a complete description of Gaza’s subsequent administration.[5][6]

Resolution 242 became a foundation for subsequent negotiations and peace treaties concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict.[25] Its structure connected territorial withdrawal with the security and recognition of states, rather than addressing withdrawal as an isolated requirement.[2] Freedom of navigation, refugees, territorial inviolability, and possible demilitarized zones were also included in the resolution’s framework for a just and lasting peace.[2]

The Sinai agreement demonstrated a territorial outcome achieved through a bilateral treaty: withdrawal and restored Egyptian sovereignty accompanied the end of the state of war and agreed security provisions.[12][14] The Oslo agreements took a different form, transferring governmental responsibilities on an interim basis while leaving permanent-status questions for later negotiations.[7] The difference between those arrangements is significant to understanding why Palestinian self-government did not itself determine final sovereignty or borders.[7][9]

Later United Nations resolutions addressed Palestinian self-determination, Jerusalem, settlements, and the relationship between negotiations and territorial recognition.[11] General Assembly Resolution 67/19 of 2012 reaffirmed Palestinian self-determination and described the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, as remaining under military occupation.[11] It also stated that East Jerusalem’s annexation was not recognized by the international community.[11]

Security Council Resolution 2334 of 2016 declared that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity and constituted a flagrant violation of international law.[11] The resolution called on states to distinguish in their dealings between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.[11] It also stated that the Council would not recognize changes to the June 4, 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, unless agreed by the parties through negotiations.[11] The United States abstained, the other fourteen Council members voted in favor, and Israel rejected the resolution.[26]

On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice issued a nonbinding advisory opinion finding Israel’s continued presence in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 unlawful and stating that it should end as rapidly as possible.[27] The opinion covered the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and connected its conclusion to annexation, assertions of permanent control, and the frustration of Palestinian self-determination.[27] It addressed policies and practices entrenching control particularly in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank.[27]

The advisory opinion’s treatment of Gaza extended beyond the fact of the 2005 withdrawal: the Court considered Israel capable of exercising, and continuing to exercise, certain key elements of authority there.[27] The Biden administration expressed concern about the breadth of the opinion and cautioned against using it to deepen divisions or supplant a negotiated two-state solution.[5] The opinion added a major international legal pronouncement to a diplomatic history already shaped by Security Council resolutions, bilateral peace arrangements, and interim Israeli-Palestinian agreements.[2][27]

The scope of withdrawal required by Resolution 242 has been a substantial diplomatic disagreement since its adoption.[28] India’s representative understood it to require total withdrawal from all territory occupied in June 1967, while British representative Lord Caradon emphasized the draft as a balanced whole and the authority of its actual text despite differing interpretations.[28] Israel and the United States have interpreted the resolution as permitting withdrawal from parts, but not necessarily all, of the West Bank and Gaza in a peace agreement addressing security needs; Arab interpretations have generally called for withdrawal from all the territories captured in 1967.[7][25]

Israel’s government characterizes the West Bank and Gaza as disputed territories, arguing that neither was under another state’s legitimate, internationally recognized sovereignty before 1967 and that their final status must be negotiated.[12] The broadly accepted international legal position instead treats effective control acquired in armed conflict as establishing occupation, notwithstanding the prior sovereignty argument.[21] The terminology itself carries political significance: “Yesha,” an acronym for Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, emphasizes the Jewish connection to the land and is favored by some Israelis for that reason, while Palestinians generally reject it.[29]

Gaza’s post-2005 status turns on competing assessments of effective control.[21] Arguments that occupation continued cite perimeter control, dependence on Israel, and political linkage to the West Bank; arguments that it ended emphasize the withdrawal of civilians and forces and the absence of Israeli control over the Egyptian land border.[21] Israel maintains that disengagement ended its effective control and belligerent occupation, whereas the 2024 advisory opinion reached a different conclusion about continuing Israeli authority.[27]

East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights present disagreements between Israeli sovereignty claims and international recognition, reflected respectively in Security Council Resolutions 478 and 497.[3][4] American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital did not specify sovereignty boundaries, while American recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan was explicit.[22][4] These are significant differences in legal and diplomatic positions, not merely alternative descriptions of identical arrangements.[22][4]