Reply #3: Actually this was the same "defense" used when they bombed Osirak...

[Poll_Blind]

...nuclear reactor in Iraq back in 1981.

From the Wiki on Operation Opera:

International political reaction

At the time, the attack was widely criticized. Israel responded that its actions were self-defensive and thus justifiable under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Many critics, however, rejected the idea of "pre-emptive self-defense". France, in particular, was outraged over the loss of a French national as a result of the attack, and since the raid diplomatic ties between France and Israel have remained strained.

The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 487, calling upon Israel "to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards", and stated that Iraq was "entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it suffered". Israel has not complied with these requests.

The United States supported the resolution condemning the Israeli action, and, temporarily, withheld a contingent of aircraft already promised to Israel.

Since that time, opinion has altered somewhat. Most notably several prominent US politicians — now that the United States is engaged in her own conflict with Iraq — have "retroactively supported" the operation. Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980s view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if the legality of such action under international law is a contested point. However, as no WMDs to present are found in Iraq, it has been criticized that the attack is baseless as a self-defensive act.

PB