some uncomfortable questions for the Israeli leadership. In 1973 just days before the Yom Kippur War the Israeli intelligence and military apparatus knew an attack was imminent and Golda Meir was consulted about whether to make a preemptive attack. She chose not to because the US under Nixon/Kissinger had made it abundantly clear that if Israel took that action the resupply of weapons would be a trickle if anything. The nation of Israel therefore had to be seen as "responding" rather than "preventing" in their military actions. There was much criticism of Meir for this decision and people generally called the government's response of not preempting to be a "failure".
There have been reports that there was similar "awareness" and warnings of impending attack given prior to the current escalation. It is reasonable to ask if the current Israeli leadership took a similar view as in 1973. Being seen as "responding" always gives a bit of moral high ground and makes claims of "need for self defense" more acceptable to the outside world compared to initiating preemptive attacks. Did all of this play any role in the current decision making prior to the day of the escalating terror attack?
Did the government take the decision to wait and "respond" under the assumption that the Hamas attack would be lower in ferocity, scale and casualties? The Yom Kippur War of 1973 lists no civilian Israeli deaths but 2656 military dead and 9000 military and civilian wounded. Some of those could certainly have been prevented if Meir decided differently in a very difficult situation which almost tied her hands. How many could have been prevented now? So will the Israeli government be subject to a truthful investigation by it's people regarding it's response in the current scenario? This could drag on a long time and with the current leadership situation willingness to cooperate in a truly independent investigation will not be easy to obtain.
= new reply since forum marked as read