I've read it continuously for the last 8 years, from all sources.
Would I deny that pre-emptive strikes only ever serve to worsen a situation? The question is not helpful. We see it in the thread. As it is in every case in the conflict, people figure out what event *they* feel was the actual pre-emptive strike. 1967, that was pre-emptive because Israel fighters were the first to take off. 1948, well that wasn't pre-emptive, because the pre-emptive act was the UN resolution.
Pretty soon the game is on and every action is *immediately* rolled back to an ideological defensive ground.
Quote:
|
because they can hide behind the so-called holocaust guilt
|
Simply bullshit, has nothing to do with it if it ever really did.