Analysis Summary:

The article's claim about divided opinions among international law experts is plausible, though the snippet is too short to fully assess. The provided sources confirm the occurrence of Israeli airstrikes on Iran and the UN's concern over the situation. There is a slight bias due to the focus on the legality of Israeli actions, potentially overlooking Iranian actions.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** "International law experts are divided."
  • Verification Source #2: Suggests the attack was unlawful.
  • Verification Source #3: States that both Israel and Iran are bound by international humanitarian law.
• Analysis: The snippet is too short to fully verify the claim. However, the sources suggest a debate exists regarding the legality of the airstrikes. The claim is plausible, but not fully verifiable based on the provided snippet and sources.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #1: Confirms Israeli airstrikes on Iran, resulting in casualties.
• Verification Source #2: Argues that Israel's attack on Iran was unlawful, citing the UN Security Council's stance on similar attacks in the past.
• Verification Source #3: Highlights the UN's concern about the escalating hostilities and the need for both sides to adhere to international humanitarian law.
• Verification Source #4: Confirms the locations of the Israeli airstrikes within Iran.
• Verification Source #5: Mentions Israeli airstrikes in the context of dismantling Hezbollah, providing a broader context for Israeli military actions.