Attitude Of Israelis

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31880, 7 January 1969, Page 11

Attitude Of Israelis

(N Z. Pres* Assn —Copyright) | JERUSALEM, Jan. 5. * The severe and al- ’ most universal rebuke J administered to Israel last week for her raid i at Beirut Airport has 1 left a residue of bit- , terness and a sense of isolation, writes James Feron, of the New York Times News Service. Israel has been condemned before, but observers in a! position to compare moods cannot recall an atmosphere; such as the one existing ini Jerusalem now. There is a heightened sense, of solidarity, both politically; and culturally, producing an! attitude of “to hell with! everyone, we’ll go it alone.” I This attitude can be found throughout Israeli society, including the more sophisticated Israelis who normally' stand back from the waves of indignation that occasionally wash over the nation. It is becoming a matter of concern that it may become a factor in forming and executing policy. Some Israelis feel that

Israel may become even more < inclined to lash out against ' attacks overlooked by the .in-1 ternational community, andii to bypass counsels of media-:' tion ii Mr Israel Galilee, a Minis- i ter without portfolio, has in- ■ i dicated, for example, that I Israel had no intention now of seeking redress in the! United Nations Security Council. “Israel has not complained! to the Security Council over the terrorist attacks on Kiryati Shinona,” he said in reply to I a question, “because of the council’s bias and impotence.” Three civilians died in the itown during a rocket attack I from Lebanese territory after j the Beirut raid. More attacks ! have followed across the once j relatively quiet Lebanese i border. i Some Israelis have suggested that the Kiryat Shmona deaths may have . . been the price for the Beirut raid—but this is not a popu- ■ lar view in the aftermath of ■ the severe condemnation. Israeli attitudes toward • foreign governments were exi pressed by the Foreign Minr ister (Mr Abba Eban) who ; said: “The attitude of foreign countries cannot be entirely! I divorced from the traditional I

attitude of the non-Jewish world to the Jewish world.” What he was talking about, of course, was anti-Semitism. The suggestion was that this was evident to him in some 'countries’ policies. It seemed 'to observers that it mattered : less whether the accusation | was true or not than the fact j that it was being expressed openly. In conversations, official : briefings, remarks made over cafe tables, a common I observation continued to be heard. A professor expressed it this way: “They liked us the old way, in the ghettos. They don’t know anything about Jews fighting back, it disturbs them somehow." This extreme bitterness over the condemnation of i Israel’s destruction of 13 Arab airliners tended to submerge the argument, now : beig heard again, that the i raid may have been overdone . and wrongly addressed. There were similar com- ! ments during the week, comparing the diplomatic silence I over the Israeli death suf- • fered in the Arab terrorist ■attack at Athens airport with >,the silence that existed durding World War II over the ' i Nazi extermination of six mllII lion Jews.