‘The Israeli attack on Iran is not covered by the right to self -defense’

Israel has « the right to defend himself » against the nuclear threat of Iran. That said Chairman Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission on Sunday against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with which she expressed her support for his decision to attack Iran.

But according to what right? International law stipulates that a country may defend itself if it is attacked, or if there are concrete indications that such an attack is on. The Israeli attack of last Friday « does not meet those conditions, » says Marieke de Hoon, associate professor of International Criminal Law at the University of Amsterdam.

The Israeli argument is that a preventive attack was necessary because the Iranian core program is an existential threat to the country. What do you think about that?

« There is a threat, there is a nuclear program. I do not dispute that. But threat only justifies according to international law. Not yet a military attack. The United Nations were set up in 1945 to break the pattern that countries are preventively attacking other countries, because that had already been ready for escalation. attack otherwise the Israeli attack was not covered by the right to self -defense. « 

Could it be that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad has such instructions?

« I think we would know if there were concrete evidence that an Iranian attack on Israel was settled, because that would make the Israeli case much stronger. As long as Israel gives no information about it, there is no reason to assume that it is. »

In what ways does the Israeli attack on Iran violate international law?

« The attack is a violation of the ban on violence, which is the core of the reason why the United Nations were set up, and a crime of aggression, one of the four most serious crimes for which the International Criminal Court was founded. Moreover, killing civilians is a war crime and violates human rights. »

Israel is specifically aiming for nuclear scientists. What does international law say about that?

« Israel therefore violates the ban on violence, but now that it still uses violence, it must also comply with war law. That right requires, among other things, that a distinction is made between fighters and citizens. Scientists are citizens, and according to war law never a legitimate target. The only legitimate targets are scientists, so that do not do soldiers and others that do not. »

What about Iran’s right to defend himself against the Israeli attacks?

« Iran was attacked, so it may defend itself. That is in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. That self-defense is bound by rules. The primary goal must be to stop the attack. And even if you defend yourself, you should not attack citizens. That Iran does, is a violation of the war law. »

If Israel violates international law with his attack, would the international community not have to condemn that?

« Certainly. In 1945, after two world wars, States agreed that they would collectively break through the spiral of violence and from now on stop an aggressor. They called this the collective safety system of the United Nations and anchored this in Chapter VII of the UN-Chart. In this case, the attacked, the attacked attacks. That is why it is wonderful that Von der Leyen supports the aggressor.

Zoom in

« The UN does not stem from soft or naive considerations, but from the experience that allowing such attacks leads to a sliding scale. It sends the signal from that countries can start the attack with impunity if another country does something that they do not like, whether that is political, military or economic.

« Instead, the parties must jointly be forced into the negotiating table. Everything is wrong with the functioning of the UN, but the core principles are wasting, as Von der Leyen does, is dangerous and shows Western hypocrisy. »

As a German politician, Von der Leyen is very committed to the fate of Israel. How could she have reacted differently?

« The Israelis do this because they know that they will be supported in the West anyway. What you would like is that a country feels that it does not just get away with such a violation of international law. The international community, and therefore also the European Commission, should put pressure on Israel to prevent such attacks.

Outgoing Prime Minister Dick Schoof said on Friday that he regrets that Israel is forced to make military action. What do you think of that cabinet response?

« I think it is worrying that the focus is simplified. The reasoning is: Israel is our friend and Iran is our enemy, so such an attack is allowed. The international law seems to play no role in the consideration. It is precisely from the Netherlands, that in the past decades a champion of the international law, you would not have expected any more. For we would expect more. Because we would expect. For as a small country. It is in our interest that the law of the strongest does not apply. « 

To share

Mail the editors