The Yom KIppur War by

Shoshana

shbehar — 2014-05-15 20:33:14 UTC

I do not think that we should not have launched the pre-emptive attack. I think this because 1^st of all we didn’t actually do it in the end. So if you’re wondering why I think we shouldn’t have, do you think we would have won without it? I also think we wouldn’t have been ready in time. Maybe we could have if we did the pre-emptive attack but I doubt it.

Gabe Ruskin

gruskin — 2014-05-15 20:33:17 UTC

The Yom Kippur War

Should the pre-emptive strike happened or not.

In my opinion they should not have done the preemptive strike. Since we needed arms from the U.S.A. The Egyptians and Syrians would have defeated us if we did not get those weapons. Although if Europe was not boycotting us than I think we should have struck. Since then Europe would have given us arms.

Sam Holland

2014-05-15 20:33:30 UTC

My Opinion

Not knowing the outcome of the Yom Kippur war I think Israel should have set a preemptive strike.

I also think Israel should have been ready at all times though, even if the US didn’t give Israe supplies, Syria and Egypt would have invaded, Israel strike first and less people would have died.

Beloria Levy

blevy — 2014-05-15 20:33:31 UTC

Debate

I think Israel should have not shot first because maybe after Israel shot, Israel would get in to war with Syria and Egypt and it would make no difference if Egypt or Syria would shoot first.

Josh

jsaltsman — 2014-05-15 20:33:44 UTC

The Yom Kippur War

By Josh

I think Israel should have launched a pre-emptive strike because Israel lost 2,500 troops because Israel did not launch a pre-emptive strike. If Israel had launched a pre-emptive strike then they would have lost much less troops. Golda Meir’s decision was wrong because the United States would have supplied Israel almost always. If Golda Meir had asked the United States beforehand she could have saved hundreds of lives.

Avi

sha5avikintzer — 2014-05-15 20:35:22 UTC

I think Israel should have launched a pre-emptive attack because even if we got stuff from the U.S they still lost 2500 men. So even if we got it we lost too many people. I think we should have just launched a pre-emptive attack. The U.S still might have given us artillery and stuff.

lulu

mmaimon — 2014-05-15 20:35:39 UTC

I do not think Israel should have launched a pre-emptive strike because then the U.S. would not give them guns or weapons. The U.S. would not give them weapons because Isreal would have startded the war and not Syria or Egypt.

Jakey Assouline

sha5jakey — 2014-05-15 20:35:46 UTC

I think that Israel did the right thing and didn't do a preemptive strike. I think this because if they did do a preemptive strike thn Egypt and Syria would think that we were scared and weak because we fought first. I also think that it would have made us have less things to protect and not only fight.

Binyamin

2014-05-15 20:37:31 UTC

I think that it was smart of Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Syria. Like Golda Meir said, Golda thought it would not be smart if Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Syria; because then the United States would not supply Israel with weapons that they needed. If Israel did launch a pre-emptive strike against Syria, the United States would think “Oh Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Syria, so they probably have all the weapons that they needed.” Overall I think that it was smart of Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Syria.

I think Israel should have launched a preemptive strike. I think they should’ve launched it because they could’ve had more time to prepare. They would also have the advantage of having all the groups of men together. And I’m pretty sure America would keep supplying Israel. Because America is like Israel’s best friend, and I’m pretty sure they would help Israel no matter what.

kbalkany — 2014-05-15 20:46:38 UTC

-Kaden

2014-05-15 22:00:42 UTC

I don't think Israel should have launched a preemptive .Because the USA would not give them

Supplies.

Shimon

ssgamel — 2014-05-15 22:03:07 UTC

I think Israel should have sent the pre-emptive strike. For example, Israel would have made the Egyptian army go back to Egypt. Israel will have more time to repair. I think

America would keep on helping Israel

nina

2014-05-15 22:05:35 UTC

I think Israel should strike first. Israel should start first so Israel a better chance of winning. Israel will have advantage if they go first. The u.s would be supported Israel even if Israel attacked first. If they attack first they had a chance of winning.

Emma

2014-05-15 22:19:33 UTC

The Yom Kippur War

By Emma

I think Israel should not have taken a pre-emptive strike. If Israel had taken a pre-emptive strike then the U.S. would think they are violent and then they would not give them supplies. If U.S. didn’t give them supplies they wouldn’t have won. On the otherhand the Israelis could have taken a pre-emptive strike. Because then they would have a head start and the Syrians would think they are stronger.