Fact check: In the new round of Israel-Iran conflict, what statements has Israel made regarding the compliance of its attacks on Iran with international law?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Israel has not made any public statements regarding the compliance of its attacks on Iran with international law. The sources examined do not contain any direct quotes, official statements, or documented positions from Israeli officials defending or justifying their military actions against Iran under international legal frameworks ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.

Instead, the available sources focus primarily on:

• UN experts condemning Israeli attacks as flagrant violations of international law ^[1]
• International Commission of Jurists condemning Israel's use of armed force against Iran's sovereignty as a grave violation of the UN Charter ^[2]
• Academic experts arguing that Israel's actions lack legal justification under international law ^[6]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical gaps in addressing the original question:

• No Israeli government response to international legal criticisms has been documented in these sources
• Academic consensus against Israeli actions: International law professors Donald Rothwell and Ben Saul both argue there is "no substantive factual basis for Israel's argument of a right of pre-emptive self-defence" since Iran lacked nuclear weapons capability and intent to use them ^[6]
• Broader geopolitical implications: Scholar Vali Nasr notes that U.S. and Israeli military actions signal a willingness to "bypass diplomatic norms," potentially reshaping regional security perceptions ^[5]
• Multiple international bodies have condemned the attacks, including UN experts and legal organizations, creating a significant international legal consensus against Israel's actions

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that Israel has made statements regarding international law compliance. This assumption appears to be unfounded based on available evidence. The question presupposes the existence of Israeli legal justifications that are not documented in any of the analyzed sources.

The framing suggests there may be legitimate legal arguments from Israel's perspective, but the evidence shows:

• No documented Israeli legal defense of their actions
• Strong international legal opposition from UN experts, international legal organizations, and academic specialists ^{[1] [2] [6]}
• Expert consensus that the attacks violate international law and the UN Charter

This gap between the question's assumption and the documented reality suggests the original statement may inadvertently legitimize actions that international legal experts have unanimously condemned as violations of international law.