24.12.2016 Views

1968_4_arabisraelwar

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

174 / AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK, 1 9 6 8<br />

capitals. McCloskey replied: "We have tried to steer an even-handed course<br />

through this. Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed."<br />

The statement caused consternation among members of Congress and the<br />

press, who interpreted it as complete American indifference to what was<br />

happening. Many saw it as a sign that the United States was prepared to<br />

abandon Israel to its fate—and to those believing Cairo reports that fate<br />

appeared grim indeed, with Arab armies allegedly advancing on all fronts<br />

and Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem under massive air attacks. Concerned<br />

over the impression created by McCloskey that the U.S. was selling out Israel,<br />

Johnson called in Rusk, who proceeded to explain to the newsmen that<br />

the United States was a "nonbelligerent," and that the "use of this word<br />

neutral—which is a great concept of international law—is not an expression<br />

of indifference, and indeed indifference is not permitted to us."<br />

Rusk's clarification failed to satisfy some Senators, among them Dirksen,<br />

Javits, Hugh Scott (Rep., Pa.) and Joseph S. Clark (Dem., Pa.). Clark declared<br />

that "morally, as well as legally, we are an ally of Israel. We are not<br />

neutral." Yet, despite the widespread sympathy for Israel on the first day<br />

of the war, no Senate leader suggested that the United States take military<br />

action to back Israel. The prevailing sentiment on June 5 was forcefully<br />

stated by Senator Richard D. Russell (Dem., Ga.), chairman of the Armed<br />

Services Committee, who told reporters that he was "unalterably opposed to<br />

any unilateral intervention" in the Middle East. Senator Mansfield indicated<br />

that there might have been more sentiment to help Israel, if not for "the<br />

situation in Vietnam." The Administration and the Senate, he said, had both<br />

"kept their cool" in the crisis.<br />

While McCloskey's remarks may have seemed callous at the time, a clear<br />

statement of American neutrality probably was the best support for Israel<br />

under the circumstances. By the time McCloskey spoke to the reporters,<br />

it was evening in the Middle East and the White House had confirmed intelligence<br />

reports that the Israel air force had virtually wiped out the Egyptian,<br />

Syrian, and Jordanian air forces and now had complete command of the<br />

skies. There was no longer any threat to Israel's population centers and therefore<br />

no need for American intervention.<br />

Soviet Reaction<br />

The only danger to Israel was from direct Soviet intervention. A firm<br />

posture of American nonbelligerence was thus useful to counteract the charges<br />

of American air support for Israel, which the Arabs propagated to draw in<br />

the Russians. When the story continued to be repeated despite Defense Department<br />

and State Department protests, Secretary Rusk went before the<br />

television cameras, June 6, and angrily and categorically denied the charge,<br />

which soon proved to have been invented by Nasser and Hussein in a radiotelephone<br />

conversation. According to the account in The Six Day War by<br />

Randolph S. and Winston S. Churchill, the Russians were also angered by

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!