1968_4_arabisraelwar
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION / 201<br />
The New York Daily News, whose anti-foreignism and isolationism are<br />
matched only by its anti-Communism, commented the day after war broke<br />
out that "'most Americans seem likely to sympathize with Israel, a small nation<br />
and a brave one." On June 8, the day after Israel had swept within<br />
18 miles of the Suez Canal, captured Sharm-el Sheikh at the entrance to the<br />
Gulf of Aqaba, taken the Jordanian sector of Jerusalem, and gained control<br />
of the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Daily News argued editorially that<br />
"to the victors belong the spoils." Using the voice of a fictional character,<br />
Cussin' Cousin J. Fussen Rasmussen, the editorial declared:<br />
"I mean let the Israelis keep most if not all of the territory they've overrun<br />
this week, and the hell with squawks and squeals from Nasser, Syria, Jordan,<br />
the UN, or anybody else.<br />
"And I'm not being overly pro-Israeli or anti-Arab. I'm merely talking common<br />
sense."<br />
Israel generally enjoyed a favorable press during the conflict, though it was<br />
rather cool at the outset, no doubt because editors feared American military<br />
intervention. It was in fact more favorable than it had ever been, particularly<br />
among conservative newspapers impressed by Israel's military prowess. (Jokes<br />
abounded about the possibility of General Moshe Dayan's helping the United<br />
States win a victory in Vietnam.)<br />
The most notable gain for Israel in editorial opinion came from the Luce<br />
publications, particularly Time and Life. For years both journals had been<br />
consistently pro-Arab, their criticism of Israel focusing on the Arab refugees<br />
and the status of Jerusalem. They had frequently criticized United States<br />
policy because it appeared to favor Israel over the Arab states. It seemed the<br />
six-day war effected a dramatic change in these long-held views. (Or was<br />
the change a consequence of Henry Luce's death in March?) A Time essay,<br />
"On Facing the Reality of Israel" (June 23), concluded:<br />
The sad persistence of the Arab attitude is perhaps the strongest argument<br />
for Israel's need to protect itself. Since the U.N. has shown its inability to protect<br />
them, Israelis argue that they can give up the real estate they deem essential<br />
to their security only if the Arabs agree to peace—and to reality.<br />
Another Time essay, "Arabia Decepta: A People Self-Deluded" (July 14),<br />
reflected disappointment in the Arabs, taking an unromantic, hardheaded<br />
view of them:<br />
... for two decades, Arab leaders have been . interested in mounting suicidal<br />
wars against Israel. If the Arabs truly weighed their own self-interest after their<br />
latest, disastrous defeat, they would face facts—or so a Westerner would reason—accept<br />
Israel's extended hand, and join in desert-blooming projects that<br />
could lift the whole Middle East to unprecedented heights of peace and prosperity.<br />
To begin this process, they would not need suddenly to embrace the<br />
Israelis, or grovel to them; they would need only to acknowledge the country's<br />
right to exist. What ails them? Are they really a case of arrested development,<br />
doomed for generations to the kind of emotional and political instability<br />
that makes the Middle East one of the world's danger zones?