It is only semantic matter.
Scholars and politicians sharply disagree on the ultimate legitimacy of the use of preemptive force. However, most do tend to agree on several fundamental prerequisites for a preemptive strike to be conceived as potentially justifiable.
Preemptive force, military doctrine whereby a state claims the right to launch an offensive on a potential enemy before that enemy has had the chance to carry out an attack. The advantage of a preemptive strike is that, by being the first to act decisively, a state renders the enemy unable to carry
www.britannica.com
The point is: justifiable.
But you are the one who play ad-hominem abt me here.
It is according to you and your own rule, not according to justice nor international law.
UN has issued resolution 181 about partition plan, but you keep rejecting and violating by attacking Israel on and on; once Israel retaliated & violated UN law and took over your territory you shouldn't complain and became whinny.
Verdict is the determinant.