There cannot be a unilateral move at the UN to establish a Palestinian terror state

These meetings are dedicated solely to slandering Israel in its defensive war against Hamas terrorists who have sworn to repeat October 7th again and again until Israel is destroyed.

Contrary to the propaganda, Israel cannot claim self-defense. The attack was in the unlawfully occupied territory of Palestine, not in Israel. As the occupier of territory taken in the 1967 war of Israeli aggression, no claim of self-defense is possible relative to the unlawfully occupied territory.

Any Israeli claim to the land is not recognized by the United Nations or the International Court of Justice. The most recent vote in the Security Council about creating a Palestinian state was typical with the United States casting the only "no" vote and then casting a veto. Less than a half-dozen nations maintain an embassy in Jerusalem as that is not officially a part of Israel.

The acts of October 7th were not the acts of any nation, nor the acts of the uniformed services of any nation. They could not possibly be the acts of any combatant, but only of civilians. The way they are defined, a civilian is anyone who does not meet all the requirements to be classified as a combatant. They were not acts of war, but criminal acts prosecutable in a civil court.

Those aren’t “unlawfully occupied territories” - Israel was attacked and defeated its attackers, then taking over territories from the attackers. Spoils of war - especially as they were not the aggressors.

Then next, this was an attack on civilians, targeting civilians.

Finally, the attacks were by an elected government - hamas

There is already a terrorist state - its named Gaza.

You are so full of crap I’m surprised it doesn’t fall out of your mouth when you talk.

L

"Contrary to the propaganda, Israel cannot claim self-defense. The attack was in the unlawfully occupied territory of Palestine, not in Israel. As the occupier of territory taken in the 1967 war of Israeli aggression, no claim of self-defense is possible relative to the unlawfully occupied territory."

And speaking of propaganda.... you call it "unlawfully occupied territory"... and yet, if you go back through history, it is full of examples of territory that has been and still is "unlawfully occupied". The USA is a prime example of this, having seized land from Native Americans. But now, to the Jew-haters, Israel is the only bad guy?

"Any Israeli claim to the land is not recognized by the United Nations or the International Court of Justice. The most recent vote in the Security Council about creating a Palestinian state was typical with the United States casting the only "no" vote and then casting a veto. Less than a half-dozen nations maintain an embassy in Jerusalem as that is not officially a part of Israel."

Pardon my french, but EFF the UN and the demon they rode in on. They and that faux 'court of justice' be damned... literally. Creating a Palestinian "state" is no solution, since the vermin occupying that area openly want genocide against the Israelis. I vote that Israel strikes first, instead. Oh wait... they've already been attacked. So I vote that Israel retaliates until the threat is "neutralized" for all eternity. See how that works?

"The acts of October 7th were not the acts of any nation, nor the acts of the uniformed services of any nation. They could not possibly be the acts of any combatant, but only of civilians. The way they are defined, a civilian is anyone who does not meet all the requirements to be classified as a combatant. They were not acts of war, but criminal acts prosecutable in a civil court."

Yeah, uh... wrong. Hamas was duly elected to run the craphole they're calling Palestine. A duly elected government attacked Israel on October 7 and disrupted the so-called peace. Anything that happens now re: Israel's retaliation and/or seizing of more property gained in the resultant war is fair game. Suck on that reality.

And come to think of it, your nic fits your rhetoric. Only... it's not wood you're pushing... but what you're pushing is about the same 'color'.

Let’s not “go back through history” - we can find arguments on both sides.

The simple fact is that Israel didn’t attack its neighbors. Its neighbors attacked Israel, the neighbors lost and Israel gained land. Fair is fair.

“Let’s not “go back through history” - we can find arguments on both sides.

The simple fact is that Israel didn’t attack its neighbors. Its neighbors attacked Israel, the neighbors lost and Israel gained land. Fair is fair.”

No, let’s do. “Going back through history” is the only way to, at least in theory, not repeat it. But you know how demons roll. They love repeating the bad stuff done throughout history. Case in point, all the hatred being spewed right here in the states among “college youths” against the Jews. Here we go again...

And yes, all’s fair in war... as they say. In Israel’s case, they want peace but all they get is hate-fueled war. Just as prophesized. It all goes back, ultimately, to God and Jesus Christ.

“He’s the ‘Neighborhood Bully’!”

““He’s the ‘Neighborhood Bully’!””

Good thing I’m not in the neighborhood. I don’t do bullies. Not on my playlist.

Hate Jews much?

a bit off subject but has anyone else watched “Fauda” on Netflix? I’m into Season 3 and gotta give it some ad time! They did a pretty good job displaying both points of view, and I give it 5 stars in the brutality/special effects category... Its a tad slow, but its pretty good!!

Those aren’t “unlawfully occupied territories” - Israel was attacked and defeated its attackers,....

Israel was NOT attacked. It claimed a pre-emptive strike, fearing it was about to be attacked. In international law, the one that attacks first is the aggressor. That was Israel. The occupation is unlawful, and it has been so held by everyone but Israel and the United States.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ceirpp-legal-study2023/

The Legality of the Israeli Occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem
Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
United Nations 2023
[Excerpt — Conclusion at pages 100-103]
VI. Conclusion
Throughout the decades, United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Situation of Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories have questioned the legality of the occupation. In 2007, former United Nations Special Rapporteur John Dugard pondered the legal consequences arising from a prolonged occupation: “[W]hen such a regime has acquired some of the characteristics of colonialism and apartheid … Does it continue to be a lawful regime? Or does it cease to be a lawful regime, particularly in respect of ‘measures aimed at the occupants’ own interests’?” Dugard suggested the question be put to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.⁷³⁶ Similarly, in the final report of his mandate, former United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard Falk recommended an International Court of Justice advisory opinion “on the legal status of the prolonged occupation of Palestine, as aggravated by prohibited transfers of large numbers of persons from the occupying Power and the imposition of a dual and discriminatory administrative and legal system”.⁷³⁷
Applying a four-point test, former United Nations Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk concluded that Israel’s annexation of territory, breaches of the principle of temporariness, breaches of its duty as occupying Power to act in the best interests of the occupied population, and failure to administer the territory in good faith⁷³⁸ together indicated that the belligerent occupation had crossed the “red line” into illegality.⁷³⁹ More recently, United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese drew on three separate rationales underpinning the illegality of Israel’s occupation. First, the occupation breaches jus in bello principles of temporariness, is conducted in violation of the best interests of the occupied population, and has resulted in the annexation of Palestinian territory. Second, the occupation breaches peremptory norms of international law, including the prohibition of acquisition of territory through use of force, the imposition of institutionalized racially discriminatory regimes including apartheid, and the denial of the exercise of the right of self-determination. Third, the occupation constitutes an act of aggression.⁷⁴⁰
This study lends its weight to the growing body of evidence that Israel’s belligerent occupation of the Palestinian territory is illegal, basing its conclusions on two separate and stand-alone grounds. First, the study finds that there is evidence that Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 in a pre-emptive strike, a prohibited use of force amounting to an act of aggression. This renders the subsequent belligerent occupation of the territory an illegal use of force ab initio. Second, even assuming for the purposes of argument that Israel’s use of force was a legitimate act of self-defence, Israel is administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in breach the principles and rules of international humanitarian law and peremptory norms of international law. Therefore, the conduct of the occupation, in breach of the principles of immediacy, necessity and proportionality, exceeds the reasonable limits of self-defence and amounts to an illegal use of force. Further, that the occupation is carried out in a manner which denies the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination – including their right to an independent State of Palestine, a right held in “sacred trust” since the establishment of the Palestine Mandate – is further indicative of an unlawful administration of territory in the context of an assessment of proportionality.
The most prescient road map for the de-occupation and decolonization of the Palestinian territory comes in the form of the rich tapestry of Third State and international recommendations advanced in the Chagos and Namibia cases. It is also clear that the general law on State responsibility for grave violations of peremptory norms of international law can draw from the resolutions of the Security Council “as a general idea applicable to all situations created by serious breaches”, including the prohibition of aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal regime.⁷⁴¹ Naturally, the most appropriate forum for examining the legality of the occupation is the International Court of Justice. While the Court briefly examined the issue of self-defence in the Wall advisory opinion, it only addressed new arguments of self-defence and not continuing acts of self-defence ad bellum. There, Israel had argued that “the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter” as per the resolutions of the Security Council.⁷⁴² Responding, the Court found that Article 51 had no relevance to the case of the construction of the Annexation Wall, and the provision did not apply to threats originating in territory held under its effective control.⁷⁴³ Whether the occupation is illegal ab initio or subsequently becomes illegal, the consequences should be the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel’s military forces; the withdrawal of colonial settlers; the repeal of all discriminatory laws; and the dismantling of the military administrative regime; with clear instructions that withdrawal for breach of an internationally wrongful act is not subject to negotiation. Full and commensurate reparations should be accorded to the affected Palestinian individuals, corporations and entities, for the generational harm caused by Israel’s land and property appropriations, house demolitions, pillage of natural resources, denial of return, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity orchestrated for the colonialist, annexationist aims of an illegal occupant.
- - - - - - - - -
⁷³⁶ UNHCR “Implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 Entitled ‘Human Rights Council’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard” (29 January 2007) A/HRC/4/17, para. 62.
⁷³⁷ UNHCR “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk” (13 January 2014) A/HRC/25/67, para. 81(b).
⁷³⁸ UNHCR “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk” (23 October 2017) A/72/43106, paras. 27 – 37.
⁷³⁹ Ibid., para. 64.
⁷⁴⁰ UNHCR “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese” (21 September 2022) A/77/356, p. 5, para. 10(b).
⁷⁴¹ United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 (1999), p. 115, para. 12.
⁷⁴² UN Doc. A/ES-10/PV.21, (20 October 2003) Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, p. 7.
⁷⁴³ International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) International Court of Justice Reports 136 (2004) para. 139. “However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory.”

And speaking of propaganda.... you call it "unlawfully occupied territory"... and yet, if you go back through history, it is full of examples of territory that has been and still is "unlawfully occupied". The USA is a prime example of this, having seized land from Native Americans. But now, to the Jew-haters, Israel is the only bad guy?

Hell no. Israel is not the only bad guy. It is just the party acting unlawfully in this example. That a legal determination supported by just about the entire world.

Your examples of excuses for the Israeli misbehavior are too stupid to merit a response.

Pardon my french, but EFF the UN and the demon they rode in on. They and that faux 'court of justice' be damned...

The United Nations and the Internatinal Court of Justice are obviously entities with the lawful authority to determine matters of international law. The law itself is clear, you just don't lie it. You make no argument that Israel did not violate the law, you just throw a little temper tantrum. Good for you.

Who do you think is lawfully empowered to decide the issue, the Knesset?

Yeah, uh... wrong. Hamas was duly elected to run the craphole they're calling Palestine. A duly elected government attacked Israel on October 7 and disrupted the so-called peace.

Are you claiming Palestine is a recognized nation state? Didn't think so.

Gaza is not a nation. Nobody attacked Israel on October 7th as the attack was in the unlawfully occupied territory of Palestine which is not any part of Israel.

Anything that happens now re: Israel's retaliation and/or seizing of more property gained in the resultant war is fair game. Suck on that reality.

Nobody but Israel and the United States supports the Israeli position. Suck on this reality.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ceirpp-legal-study2023/

The Legality of the Israeli Occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem
Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
United Nations 2023
[Excerpt — Conclusion at pages 100-103]
VI. Conclusion
Throughout the decades, United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the Situation of Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories have questioned the legality of the occupation. In 2007, former United Nations Special Rapporteur John Dugard pondered the legal consequences arising from a prolonged occupation: “[W]hen such a regime has acquired some of the characteristics of colonialism and apartheid … Does it continue to be a lawful regime? Or does it cease to be a lawful regime, particularly in respect of ‘measures aimed at the occupants’ own interests’?” Dugard suggested the question be put to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.⁷³⁶ Similarly, in the final report of his mandate, former United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard Falk recommended an International Court of Justice advisory opinion “on the legal status of the prolonged occupation of Palestine, as aggravated by prohibited transfers of large numbers of persons from the occupying Power and the imposition of a dual and discriminatory administrative and legal system”.⁷³⁷
Applying a four-point test, former United Nations Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk concluded that Israel’s annexation of territory, breaches of the principle of temporariness, breaches of its duty as occupying Power to act in the best interests of the occupied population, and failure to administer the territory in good faith⁷³⁸ together indicated that the belligerent occupation had crossed the “red line” into illegality.⁷³⁹ More recently, United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese drew on three separate rationales underpinning the illegality of Israel’s occupation. First, the occupation breaches jus in bello principles of temporariness, is conducted in violation of the best interests of the occupied population, and has resulted in the annexation of Palestinian territory. Second, the occupation breaches peremptory norms of international law, including the prohibition of acquisition of territory through use of force, the imposition of institutionalized racially discriminatory regimes including apartheid, and the denial of the exercise of the right of self-determination. Third, the occupation constitutes an act of aggression.⁷⁴⁰
This study lends its weight to the growing body of evidence that Israel’s belligerent occupation of the Palestinian territory is illegal, basing its conclusions on two separate and stand-alone grounds. First, the study finds that there is evidence that Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 in a pre-emptive strike, a prohibited use of force amounting to an act of aggression. This renders the subsequent belligerent occupation of the territory an illegal use of force ab initio. Second, even assuming for the purposes of argument that Israel’s use of force was a legitimate act of self-defence, Israel is administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in breach the principles and rules of international humanitarian law and peremptory norms of international law. Therefore, the conduct of the occupation, in breach of the principles of immediacy, necessity and proportionality, exceeds the reasonable limits of self-defence and amounts to an illegal use of force. Further, that the occupation is carried out in a manner which denies the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination – including their right to an independent State of Palestine, a right held in “sacred trust” since the establishment of the Palestine Mandate – is further indicative of an unlawful administration of territory in the context of an assessment of proportionality.
The most prescient road map for the de-occupation and decolonization of the Palestinian territory comes in the form of the rich tapestry of Third State and international recommendations advanced in the Chagos and Namibia cases. It is also clear that the general law on State responsibility for grave violations of peremptory norms of international law can draw from the resolutions of the Security Council “as a general idea applicable to all situations created by serious breaches”, including the prohibition of aid or assistance in maintaining the illegal regime.⁷⁴¹ Naturally, the most appropriate forum for examining the legality of the occupation is the International Court of Justice. While the Court briefly examined the issue of self-defence in the Wall advisory opinion, it only addressed new arguments of self-defence and not continuing acts of self-defence ad bellum. There, Israel had argued that “the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter” as per the resolutions of the Security Council.⁷⁴² Responding, the Court found that Article 51 had no relevance to the case of the construction of the Annexation Wall, and the provision did not apply to threats originating in territory held under its effective control.⁷⁴³ Whether the occupation is illegal ab initio or subsequently becomes illegal, the consequences should be the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of Israel’s military forces; the withdrawal of colonial settlers; the repeal of all discriminatory laws; and the dismantling of the military administrative regime; with clear instructions that withdrawal for breach of an internationally wrongful act is not subject to negotiation. Full and commensurate reparations should be accorded to the affected Palestinian individuals, corporations and entities, for the generational harm caused by Israel’s land and property appropriations, house demolitions, pillage of natural resources, denial of return, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity orchestrated for the colonialist, annexationist aims of an illegal occupant.
- - - - - - - - -
⁷³⁶ UNHCR “Implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 Entitled ‘Human Rights Council’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, John Dugard” (29 January 2007) A/HRC/4/17, para. 62.
⁷³⁷ UNHCR “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk” (13 January 2014) A/HRC/25/67, para. 81(b).
⁷³⁸ UNHCR “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Michael Lynk” (23 October 2017) A/72/43106, paras. 27 – 37.
⁷³⁹ Ibid., para. 64.
⁷⁴⁰ UNHCR “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese” (21 September 2022) A/77/356, p. 5, para. 10(b).
⁷⁴¹ United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 (1999), p. 115, para. 12.
⁷⁴² UN Doc. A/ES-10/PV.21, (20 October 2003) Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, p. 7.
⁷⁴³ International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) International Court of Justice Reports 136 (2004) para. 139. “However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory.”

"Hell no. Israel is not the only bad guy. It is just the party acting unlawfully in this example. That a legal determination supported by just about the entire world."

Unlawfully according to you Jew-haters, eh? Sorry, but no ceegar. You don't get to determine what's "lawful" when you're as untrustworthy (corrupt) as you've proven yourself to be via your stance here.

"Your examples of excuses for the Israeli misbehavior are too stupid to merit a response."

Sez you. I posit that your stance is the real test of all things stupid and you failed. Epically, in fact. Israelis are doing what they need to do to survive the willful genocide being waged against them. It's an age-old bigotry that is now rearing its ugly head once again. I'm cheering for them to wipe the anti-Jew demons off of planet earth, but I know that is not in the cards....just yet.

"The United Nations and the Internatinal Court of Justice are obviously entities with the lawful authority to determine matters of international law. The law itself is clear, you just don't lie it. You make no argument that Israel did not violate the law, you just throw a little temper tantrum. Good for you."

Funny. What you're calling a temper tantrum is merely me expressing my opinion... on a political discussion forum. But you being you, like a typical leftist (don't even try denying it), are doomed to repeat your tired, old, stale schtick. Nothing new under the sun with your ilk, I suppose.

"Are you claiming Palestine is a recognized nation state? Didn't think so."

Try reading it again, more slowly, this time. It "might" help your comprehension issue. And stop reading words into what I didn't state for a refreshing change. And while you're at it... stop trying to bore me to death with your endless regurgitation of political BS. It's boring, yes.... but I'm used to the likes of you and your lame tactics.

Bottom line... Israel will do what it needs to do, as it always does, in order to survive. With God's help and with God's sanction. Choke on it.

You don't get to determine what's "lawful" when you're as untrustworthy (corrupt) as you've proven yourself to be via your stance here.

I didn't, the lawful authority did. I just presented the truth.

I'm cheering for them to wipe the anti-Jew demons off of planet earth, but I know that is not in the cards....just yet.

Yea verily, about 16 million Jews are going to rule the world with an iron fist and kill anybody who disagrees by doing God's will. Do you ever listen to your insane self?

A preemptive strike is unlawful. Israel waged a preemptive strike. Take it from that anti-Jew demons at the Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League

Published: 05.16.2017

Israel preemptively attacked Egypt on June 5, 1967. After a month of increasing regional tensions escalated by Egypt (spurred on by the Soviets) and failed diplomatic efforts to calm the situation, Israel’s leaders believed they had no choice but to strike first. Within hours, Jordan and Syrian forces attacked Israelis forces.
In May 1967, events in the region led Israel to expect that an Arab attack was imminent.
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had ordered a withdrawal of the U.N. forces on the border and announced a blockade of Israeli goods through the Straits of Tiran. At the same time, Syria increased border clashes along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.
Israel held back on military action but international diplomatic efforts, led by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, to stop the blockade failed.
[...]

"I didn't, the lawful authority did. I just presented the truth."

Yeah, don't make me laugh. At least, not this early in the am sans coffee. Is that the same "lawful authority" that is behind the stealing of the 2020 election here in the USA? Or the same "lawful authority" that is pushing for the masses to consume insects, not meat... and probably the same "lawful authority" that has mandated "the jab" upon a populace that did not want to be vaccinated? Why yes, I'm betting it is.

"Yea verily, about 16 million Jews are going to rule the world with an iron fist and kill anybody who disagrees by doing God's will. Do you ever listen to your insane self?"

No, they'll not rule the world. But it is written... that until Jesus Christ returns and kicks ALL of the bad guys to Hell, they will continue to be 'under assault'. It's a burden that the people of Israel have become accustomed to.

"A preemptive strike is unlawful. Israel waged a preemptive strike. Take it from that anti-Jew demons at the Anti-Defamation League."

A "preemptive strike" was waged against Israel on October 7. One which killed more Jews than at any time since the first "Holocaust". One which you seem to be A-OK with. You and the other anti-Jew demons currently demonizing Israel for every thing they do now. It's all their fault, right? They had it coming. They asked for it. That's your "mindset". We get it. You're on record and your stance is duly noted. And you are dead wrong.

Have a nice day.

A "preemptive strike" was waged against Israel on October 7.

You pretend to respond to a post quoting the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

This is your "Anti-Jew demons" of the ADL stating it was Israel who attacked first with a preemptive attack.

Anti-Defamation League

Published: 05.16.2017

Israel preemptively attacked Egypt on June 5, 1967. After a month of increasing regional tensions escalated by Egypt (spurred on by the Soviets) and failed diplomatic efforts to calm the situation, Israel’s leaders believed they had no choice but to strike first. Within hours, Jordan and Syrian forces attacked Israelis forces.
In May 1967, events in the region led Israel to expect that an Arab attack was imminent.
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had ordered a withdrawal of the U.N. forces on the border and announced a blockade of Israeli goods through the Straits of Tiran. At the same time, Syria increased border clashes along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.
Israel held back on military action but international diplomatic efforts, led by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, to stop the blockade failed.
[...]

Your absurd version of history never occurred.

Your "Anti-Jew demons" at the Jewish Virtual Library:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-six-day-war#pre

Israel Launches Preemptive Strike
During the last Israel Defense Forces General Staff meeting before the war, on May 19, 1967, the head of Military Intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv said the Egyptians had radically changed their conduct in the preceding days. “Their moves show a willingness to move towards or even instigate a confrontation with us,” he said. Yariv suggested the Egyptians were afraid Israel was close to building a nuclear weapon. He also said the Soviets may have convinced them of “a wider conspiracy to harm Egypt.” Rabin also addressed the question of Western assistance to respond to the Arab threats. “It’s time we stop deluding ourselves that someone will come to our aid,” said Rabin. “This is the most grave situation since the War of Independence,” he said and told his staff they “should prepare for war.”
Thanks to the recordings made by King Hassan II in 1965, along with other sources, “we knew just how unprepared they were for war,” Gazit recalled. “We reached the conclusion that the Egyptian Armored Corps was in pitiful shape and not prepared for battle.” The information in those recordings gave the Israeli army’s leaders confidence “we were going to win a war against Egypt. Prophecies of doom and the feeling of imminent defeat were prevalent among the majority in Israel and the officials outside the defense establishment, but we were confident in our strength.”
Despite this confidence among military leaders, the government made preparations for mass temporary graves for tens of thousands of victims in Tel Aviv parks, a fact journalists were prevented from publishing by the military censor. (18b)
On June 4, 1967, the Israeli cabinet met and voted unanimously to give the defense ministry approval to decide when and how to respond to Egypt’s aggression. Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his memoir:
Once we voted, we knew that we had expressed our people’s will, for amid the alarms and fears of mid-May, our nation gave birth to new impulses within itself. All the conditions which divide us from each other and give our society a deceptive air of fragmentation, all the deeply rooted Jewish recalcitrance toward authority now seemed to have been transmuted into a new metal which few of us had felt before. There had, of course, been some fear, as was natural for a people which had endured unendurable things. Many in the world were afraid that a great massacre was sweeping down upon us. And in many places in Israel there was talk of Auschwitz and Maidenek. The anxiety expressed by friends outside told us that our apprehension was not vain. Yet, as the last days of May were passing into the haze of memory, the people were gripped by a spirit of union and resolve. Men of military age silently laid down their work in factory, office and farm, took up their files of reservist papers and disappeared toward the south.
Eban also noted that thousands of you men were crowding the offices of Israeli consulates and Jewish Agency institutions throughout the world, asking to be sent to Israel for immediate service.
On June 5, 1967, Israel was isolated, but its military commanders had conceived a brilliant war strategy. The entire Israeli Air Force, with the exception of just 12 fighters assigned to defend Israeli air space, took off at 7:14 a.m. in Operation Moked (aka Operation Focus) with the intent of bombing Egyptian airfields while the Egyptian pilots were eating breakfast. ...

You really should inform the "Anti-Jew demons" at the Jewish Virtual Library that the Israeli Preemptive Strike did not occur, it was an Egyptian strike on Israel, and see if they will revise their history for you.