Then I'll provide an answer for you based on international law,
Thus an Iranian attack against Israel’s nuclear facilities would be legitimate for two reasons.
First, Israel already is conducting armed attacks under the plain meaning of Article 51 through Islamic terrorist surrogates such as the MEK so a de facto state of war exists between Israel and Iran.
Second, even if one questions whether armed attacks have occurred (by discounting Israel’s use of surrogates), Israel’s development of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an imminent, existential threat to Iran, all of Israel’s neighbors and the entire world.
Under customary international law, the Article 51 “armed attack” requirement that evokes a right of self-defense can occur when a state perceives that such an attack is “immediately impending and inevitable.” Thus, rather than waiting for an actual attack, a state may execute a preemptive strike on the hostile state.
Historically, two elements must be met to legitimize a preemptive strike: proportionality and necessity.
The necessity element is where attention is usually focused. The acting state must have exhausted all other alternatives of dealing with the problem, and the threat from the hostile state must be imminent. As with most preemptive strikes, imminence related to necessity will be the most contested issue in deciding the strike’s legality.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogs ... -for-striking-israel.html
Now, lets take a look at Israels current (ongoing) attack on Gaza, according to Israel " The Jerusalem Post, which functions as a virtual bulletin board for the Israeli army, told a similar story: "The IDF said it decided to bomb Qaisi’s car due to intelligence that he was plotting a large terrorist attack along the border with Egypt," the paper reported, "similar to the one the [Popular Resistance Committee] carried out last August that killed eight Israelis."
As is so often the case, the Israeli army is lying through its teeth. According to the army's own investigation of the Eliat attack last year, the attackers were not from Gaza as Israeli government spokespeople initially claimed -- they were Egyptian. The army's investigative findings were first reported by Alex Fishman, the military correspondent for the Israeli daily Yedioth Aharanoth, who had treated the earlier attempts to blame Gaza's Popular Resistance Committees for Eilat with extreme skepticism. Bloggers Idan Landau [Hebrew only], Richard Silverstein and Yossi Gurvitz also marshaled evidence shredding the army's case against Gaza.
Finally, in November, Egyptian security forces arrested the suspected mastermind of the Eilat plot, shattering the Israeli army's initial claims about Gazan culpability. By then, however, Israeli forces had already killed 30 Gazans in retaliation for an attack they had absolutely nothing to do with.
This weekend, the Israeli army reverted to falsely blaming Gazans for last August's Eilat attacks, contradicting its own investigation and heaps of evidence proving the attacks were planned in Egypt and carried out by Egyptians. The army has no proof that the men it assassinated on Friday -- Al-Qaissi and Al-Hannani -- were involved in the Eilat attacks, or that they were planning any military operations. So in order to manufacture a violent confrontation, the Israeli military simply concocted a lie that conceals what appears to be political considerations.
http://uruknet.com/?p=m86433&hd=&size=1&l=e
So, murdering people just because you can isn't genocide ?
Thus an Iranian attack against Israel’s nuclear facilities would be legitimate for two reasons.
First, Israel already is conducting armed attacks under the plain meaning of Article 51 through Islamic terrorist surrogates such as the MEK so a de facto state of war exists between Israel and Iran.
Second, even if one questions whether armed attacks have occurred (by discounting Israel’s use of surrogates), Israel’s development of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an imminent, existential threat to Iran, all of Israel’s neighbors and the entire world.
Under customary international law, the Article 51 “armed attack” requirement that evokes a right of self-defense can occur when a state perceives that such an attack is “immediately impending and inevitable.” Thus, rather than waiting for an actual attack, a state may execute a preemptive strike on the hostile state.
Historically, two elements must be met to legitimize a preemptive strike: proportionality and necessity.
The necessity element is where attention is usually focused. The acting state must have exhausted all other alternatives of dealing with the problem, and the threat from the hostile state must be imminent. As with most preemptive strikes, imminence related to necessity will be the most contested issue in deciding the strike’s legality.
http://poorrichards-blog.blogs ... -for-striking-israel.html
Now, lets take a look at Israels current (ongoing) attack on Gaza, according to Israel " The Jerusalem Post, which functions as a virtual bulletin board for the Israeli army, told a similar story: "The IDF said it decided to bomb Qaisi’s car due to intelligence that he was plotting a large terrorist attack along the border with Egypt," the paper reported, "similar to the one the [Popular Resistance Committee] carried out last August that killed eight Israelis."
As is so often the case, the Israeli army is lying through its teeth. According to the army's own investigation of the Eliat attack last year, the attackers were not from Gaza as Israeli government spokespeople initially claimed -- they were Egyptian. The army's investigative findings were first reported by Alex Fishman, the military correspondent for the Israeli daily Yedioth Aharanoth, who had treated the earlier attempts to blame Gaza's Popular Resistance Committees for Eilat with extreme skepticism. Bloggers Idan Landau [Hebrew only], Richard Silverstein and Yossi Gurvitz also marshaled evidence shredding the army's case against Gaza.
Finally, in November, Egyptian security forces arrested the suspected mastermind of the Eilat plot, shattering the Israeli army's initial claims about Gazan culpability. By then, however, Israeli forces had already killed 30 Gazans in retaliation for an attack they had absolutely nothing to do with.
This weekend, the Israeli army reverted to falsely blaming Gazans for last August's Eilat attacks, contradicting its own investigation and heaps of evidence proving the attacks were planned in Egypt and carried out by Egyptians. The army has no proof that the men it assassinated on Friday -- Al-Qaissi and Al-Hannani -- were involved in the Eilat attacks, or that they were planning any military operations. So in order to manufacture a violent confrontation, the Israeli military simply concocted a lie that conceals what appears to be political considerations.
http://uruknet.com/?p=m86433&hd=&size=1&l=e
So, murdering people just because you can isn't genocide ?