>>>Am I to assume your are disputing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_war?
>>
>>Not at all. It says right there that Israel struck PREEMPTIVELY.
>
>It also says that before Israel struck, the following occurred:
>
>"the latter's blockade of Israeli shipping in the Straits of Tiran, removal of UNEF peacekeeping forces from the Sinai, and deployment of military forces in the Sinai on the Israeli border."
>
>and
>
>"On May 30, Jordan signed a five-year mutual defensive treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad."
>
>and
>
>"On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."[13]
>
>At the same time, several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, also began mobilizing their armed forces."
>
>If you can read that article and conclude that Israel was not about to be attacked, please explain.

I agree that Israel was about to be attacked.
But Israel did strike preemptively - meaning FIRST - meaning they started the war.
You, who always is so picky about words, argues this?

If word are enough for the object of the negative words to start a war Israel has the "right" to not start a war with Iran and to strike it preemptively. See how silly that sounds?