"We've Got Enough on Our Plate"

In 1967 students at Michigan State University eagerly watched Mideast war developments on television, loudly cheering each victory of the Israelis, who were considered to be the "home team." Now, the students are taking the war far more seriously, and the rah-rah spirit is completely missing. Similarly, opinions about the fighting dominated talk shows broadcast by radio stations WBZ and WEEI in Boston during the Six-Day War, and callers were almost unanimously pro-Israel. But Paul Benzaquin, host of the WEEI show, reports that this time callers take less extreme positions on the war. He adds: "It has happened at a time when the U.S. Government is going through convulsions and the war is not the first thing on many people's minds."

Changing Attitude. Clearly, there is a different quality in the American attitude toward the Israelis and their latest war with the Arab world. Once, U.S. public support was almost automatic and emphatically in favor of the Israelis. Last week Gallup released the results of a nationwide survey of 1,500 adults, which was begun Oct. 6. It found that 47% supported Israel and only 6% the Arabs--but a surprisingly large 22% backed neither side, and 25% voiced no opinion at all about the war.

The Gallup survey was conducted before the U.S. decision to resupply Israel, but interviews conducted across the U.S. by TIME since then show no major shift in public sympathies. For example, of 20 people polled at random in a shopping center in Canoga Park, a suburb of Los Angeles, only eleven were willing to take a stand (all supported Israel). To be sure, in all sections of the country there are strongly vocal supporters of Israel like Steel worker Arthur Stawartz, 47, of Homestead, Pa., who declares: "I'd be willing to make some sacrifices for Israel. I'd tighten my belt. We've always helped the little guy, and here's a small country somebody is always picking on." There are also quite a few supporters of the Arabs, such as Ad Copywriter Jeffrey Mullen, about 25, of Boston, who explains: "They are fighting for land that they have a better claim to than the Israelis."

Among those who are adamantly neutral, and wish the U.S. were also, is Robert K. Sells, 38, a telephone-company executive in Little Rock, Ark.. "Take this thing to the U.N. It is not in our interest to get involved. Fueling Israel so it can continue the war is not an act of responsibility. Negotiation is the only answer." Declares Buffalo Attorney Lawrence J. Mattar, 39: "In the light of our present oil shortages, the decision to supply arms to Israel makes no sense. To jeopardize our supply is silly." More people seem to agree with the stand taken by Mayor Robert J. LaFortune, 45, of Tulsa, Okla., who favors sending aid to Israel but not men: "We have an immense stake in the energy reserves of that part of the world, and we also have a commitment to help establish Israel as a nation. So I don't think we should take an active part in the fighting." Boston Bartender Lisa Lee, 25, puts it more bluntly: "I'm not opposed to sending some ammunition, but let's keep our boys out. We've got enough on our plate already."

Private Doubts. In part, the experience of Viet Nam has made many Americans more cautious about getting involved in wars in any part of the globe, U.C.L.A. Historian Peter von Sivers, 32, senses that "in the aftermath of Viet Nam, there is a feeling that a solution must be imposed, that the conflict will go on as long as we radically side with either the Israelis or Arabs." But Americans also view this war as being substantially different from the one six years ago. San Francisco Author Paul Jacobs, 55, who wrote a book about the Middle East in 1970 called Between the Rock and the Hard Place, notes: "The sense that Israel is threatened with extinction is missing, and even among some people in the Jewish community a feeling exists that the fight is over territory rather than the basic existence of Israel. More doubts are being expressed privately about Israeli policy than were voiced during the 1967 war."

Many Americans have a feeling, however, that both their own and their Government's response to the war is being shaped mostly by events. They would have preferred that the U.S. stay entirely out of the conflict but do not believe that it could have. Says Atlanta Stockbroker A. Robert Johnson, 40: "I thought the Americans should maintain a strict hands-off policy, but if the Russians are supplying the Arabs, we must send arms to Israel." Barbara Manard, 28, a graduate student in sociology from the University of Virginia, shares that view, explaining: "No matter what the Arabs say, if they get the upper hand, they'll try to drive the Israelis into the sea." Adds Paul Soglin, the young (28) mayor of Madison, Wis.: "I think both sides are wrong, but my main concern is that no country be annihilated. I'm concerned about the Arabs but more so about the Israelis."

In a frustrated tone of voice, Accountant K.D. Hall, 30, of Little Rock, Ark., exclaims: "Why can't we sit down with the Kremlin leaders and settle this thing before it gets out of hand?" Such a solution would be welcomed by Americans, for many fear that the U.S. might have to send troops to the Middle East if the Arabs invaded Israel itself and the Israelis seemed to be losing. That would not be enough reason for a confirmed dove like Northwestern University Law Professor Robert W. Bennett, who believes that Russia would only counter such a move by sending in troops of her own. Even he admits, however: "I just hope the question remains hypothetical. Frankly, I don't know how I would react if the Israelis were really being slaughtered."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.