Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

Mayor of Jerusalem Openly Carrying Rifle

Then they weren't attacked.

Engaging in preemptive self defense doesn't transform the defender into the aggressor.

In 1939, Germany defended itself when it invaded Poland. Germany claimed Poland was massing troops preparing to attack so they had to defend themselves preemptively.

This is the perfect example of how your "preemptive self defense" argument falls apart. Anyone can claim they are acting in self defense while being the aggressor.

Defense does not require taking territory. Nor does defense require keeping that territory for several years.

They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

That's what a preemptive defense is. You begin defending yourself from your attacker before the attack is launched.

They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

unreasoning bigotry

Gosh, a country that preemptively defends themselves against another country could lie? Who would have thunk it?
Any country that defends itself preemptively can lie, international law or not.
In both cases we see a country "preemptively defend" itself and then keep any territory it takes in that "defense." I see a rather real parallel here.

Defense does not require taking territory. Nor does defense require keeping that territory for several years.

oralloy wrote:

They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

That's more accurately called a counterattack.

oralloy wrote:

That's what a preemptive defense is. You begin defending yourself from your attacker before the attack is launched.

Seeing as how the Zionists aren't soothsayers, they assumed that Egypt would attack.

Israel attacked first.

You wish to characterize that as a defensive action. But that is just a wish, and it is not based in reality.

Your view is the equivalent of saying that up is down, and down is up.

Here is what Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin said in 1982:

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Also, in a radio debate, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, said:

“Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

What this means is that Israel was the aggressor,

they were not justified in taking other people's property.

True. But since the truth of the matter condemns Israel for appropriating territory through an act of aggression in contravention of international law, I don't expect the fans of the Israeli regime to concede the point any time soon.

Of course. They are a bunch of sissies afraid of the truth, to put it mildly.

That's a lie.