EU Divided Over Israel’s Justification for Attacks on Iran
Brussels – Disagreements surrounding the justification of Israel’s recent military actions against Iran are expected to dominate discussions among EU ambassadors on Thursday, complicating the bloc’s efforts to adopt a unified stance. According to sources, the central question is whether Israel’s claim of self-defense is valid under international law.
On Saturday, the European Union urged all parties to adhere to international regulations and exercise restraint to avoid catastrophic outcomes like potential radioactive threats. However, member states are divided on whether to assert that Israel has the right to defend itself. Around 15 countries, including France and Germany, support adding this line to official statements, but consensus remains elusive. Others contend there is insufficient evidence to validate Israel’s claims of self-defense, particularly regarding its pre-emptive strikes aimed at neutralizing Iran’s alleged nuclear threats.
The conflict has raised questions about the interpretations of self-defense under international law, which posits that such actions must be proportionate and in response to an imminent threat. As the debate unfolds, some diplomats expressed concern over a tweet from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who appeared to support Israel’s actions, contradicting the agreed EU language on the matter.
This divergence in positions reflects broader tensions, with critical EU members warning that these military actions could lead to escalated conflict, potentially driving millions of Iranian refugees towards Europe. Former IAEA chief Mohammad El Baradei has also weighed in, asserting that Israel’s suspicions do not constitute an imminent threat, labeling the attacks illegal.
Meanwhile, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reiterated calls for a diplomatic resolution, emphasizing adherence to international law and de-escalation from all sides. The pressure mounts as the situation evolves, with the upcoming summit poised to discuss these critical developments.
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image associated with the presented article. Due to copyright reasons, we are unable to use the original images. However, you can still enjoy the accurate and up-to-date content and information provided.
