>>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?

I don't care to argue semantics, if that is what you mean. However, did you have a point about the 1967 war?

>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?

I can honestly say I have no idea what you were trying to say with that statement.