The Enemy Is the Same

In a speech before the Greenwich, Connecticut Republican Women’s Club on June 19 (not reported in the New York Times), Barry Goldwater hailed the triumph of Israel over her adversaries by declaring “the enemy is the same.” It needs to be emphasized that the essential enemy in the present conflict is the same enemy free men have been fighting for more than a generation, sometimes in a war of words, sometimes in the hotter war in the jungles of Vietnam. In the case of the Middle East, both words and weapons were engaged in a conflict where, over-all, the side possessing some $2 billion in Soviet arms was clobbered by a small nation adhering strictly to the West in a fashion that should—I repeat, should—ultimately bring benefit to the free world in its struggle against the world Communist conspiracy. But we must not lose our nerve.

James Burnham asserts (NR, June 27)—not quite in the hectic words of the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations, but in the more subtle language of the “historical truth” of Marxism which, of course, he rejects, but which he nevertheless invokes— that even “if the Americans and British did not provide tactical air eover for Israel’s June 5 strike, they furnished the strategic cover without which the Israeli forces could not have moved. .. .” Now even if all this is true, which I doubt, what does it prove? Only that British and American policy for once acted forthrightly to protect their—and the free world’s—vital interests in a direct confrontation with Soviet arms. Point two of Mr. Burnham’s thesis is that the Arab masses know that America is pro-Israel. To this one can reply that the only thing the Arab “masses” know is what the statecontrolled press, radio and television tells them. Here it is worth noting that the same Arab “masses” regard Soviet Russia as their friend—the nation which has not contributed a red ruble for the relief of the Arab refugees—at the same time they regard America as their enemy, the one nation which has practically sustained these wretched people in their plight. Following this point, Burnham quotes from an Arab letter to the London Economist: “Those who believe that Russia has instigated the latest crisis in the Middle East are ignorant of what is going on in that region.” Now most people who know anything about the area are convinced the Russians did, indeed, instigate the crisis. In any case, if they did not instigate it, they could easily have put a halt to it—by a simple call to Cairo or Damascus. After all, it was their arms that were in jeopardy—and only Arab lives. So they let Nasser bluster and the result was that the world witnessed the greatest military victory in modern times. Why shouldn’t we rejoice? Why shouldn’t we keep pressing the Russians as Barry Goldwater insists? Why should we join the mourners’ bench at the UN? The facts are that Russia armed Egypt and Syria to the teeth. And with weapons of Schrecklichkeit so foreboding that when we found the same Russians emplacing similar missiles in Cuba we were outraged. Israel was confronted with the same outrage. What was she to do? Wait for extinction? Here is the remark of the distinguished President of Syria, Nureddin el-Attasi, made on May 24, 1967: “The entire Arab nation meets in the heart of the campaign around Damascus and around the failure of imperialism in order to destroy the foci of imperialism and its primary base, Israel, and to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” Now what would Mr. Burnham have counseled (had he been in a position to do so) the Israeli government to do in the light of that and even more belligerent remarks from Egypt; the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba; and the armed build-up along its borders under a unified Egyptian command? What would he advise America to do in a similar situation? Or, for that matter Rhodesia?

MG

About the Author

Max Geltman

Featured Tags

In a speech before the Greenwich, Connecticut Republican Women’s Club on June 19 (not reported in the New York Times), Barry Goldwater hailed the triumph of Israel over her adversaries by declaring “the enemy is the same.” It needs to be emphasized that the essential enemy in the present conflict is the same enemy free men have been fighting for more than a generation, sometimes in a war of words, sometimes in the hotter war in the jungles of Vietnam. In the case of the Middle East, both words and weapons were engaged in a conflict where, over-all, the side possessing some $2 billion in Soviet arms was clobbered by a small nation adhering strictly to the West in a fashion that should—I repeat, should—ultimately bring benefit to the free world in its struggle against the world Communist conspiracy. But we must not lose our nerve.

James Burnham asserts (NR, June 27)—not quite in the hectic words of the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations, but in the more subtle language of the “historical truth” of Marxism which, of course, he rejects, but which he nevertheless invokes— that even “if the Americans and British did not provide tactical air eover for Israel’s June 5 strike, they furnished the strategic cover without which the Israeli forces could not have moved. .. .” Now even if all this is true, which I doubt, what does it prove? Only that British and American policy for once acted forthrightly to protect their—and the free world’s—vital interests in a direct confrontation with Soviet arms. Point two of Mr. Burnham’s thesis is that the Arab masses know that America is pro-Israel. To this one can reply that the only thing the Arab “masses” know is what the statecontrolled press, radio and television tells them. Here it is worth noting that the same Arab “masses” regard Soviet Russia as their friend—the nation which has not contributed a red ruble for the relief of the Arab refugees—at the same time they regard America as their enemy, the one nation which has practically sustained these wretched people in their plight. Following this point, Burnham quotes from an Arab letter to the London Economist: “Those who believe that Russia has instigated the latest crisis in the Middle East are ignorant of what is going on in that region.” Now most people who know anything about the area are convinced the Russians did, indeed, instigate the crisis. In any case, if they did not instigate it, they could easily have put a halt to it—by a simple call to Cairo or Damascus. After all, it was their arms that were in jeopardy—and only Arab lives. So they let Nasser bluster and the result was that the world witnessed the greatest military victory in modern times. Why shouldn’t we rejoice? Why shouldn’t we keep pressing the Russians as Barry Goldwater insists? Why should we join the mourners’ bench at the UN? The facts are that Russia armed Egypt and Syria to the teeth. And with weapons of Schrecklichkeit so foreboding that when we found the same Russians emplacing similar missiles in Cuba we were outraged. Israel was confronted with the same outrage. What was she to do? Wait for extinction? Here is the remark of the distinguished President of Syria, Nureddin el-Attasi, made on May 24, 1967: “The entire Arab nation meets in the heart of the campaign around Damascus and around the failure of imperialism in order to destroy the foci of imperialism and its primary base, Israel, and to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” Now what would Mr. Burnham have counseled (had he been in a position to do so) the Israeli government to do in the light of that and even more belligerent remarks from Egypt; the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba; and the armed build-up along its borders under a unified Egyptian command? What would he advise America to do in a similar situation? Or, for that matter Rhodesia?