And here he faltered, seeking a word he could not remember. After a long pause, he turned and inquired, "There are two political parties in England, the Labor Party and what's the other one?"

"The Conservative Party."

"That's it. The movement is too conservative."

The response of the older generation to the young kibbtuznik's challenge would be that the nation's youth have not known what it is to build a country from nothing. The young people, the elders would and do say, have lost the pioneering spirit. By this the older generation means that the country's youth are unwilling to lead lives of rigid discipline, though danger seems as near as ever.

The young kibbutznik's challenge is a threat to the curious national spirit the Israelis have created by establishing hope in the face of despair. But his charge of conservatism is particularly interesting to liberal Americans. For the militarism and super-patriotism so common in Israel are found only among the more conservative elements in American society. The context of the conservatism is obviously different in the two countries, and American excesses are a greater threat to world security than those of the Israelis. But it seems fair to ask if individuals are restricted by the assumption that certain pre-defined attitudes must be maintained to keep the country secure.

Occasionally these attitudes are questioned. During a trip to a wedding to be held right next to a large military exhibition, a young Israeli woman asserted that she didn't approve of the exhibition.

"There is too much militarism," she explained, "too much emphasis on war."

Her remarks were quickly disputed by an Israeli man traveling with her, "No, I disagree with you. The people hear all the news about the weapons the Russians are sending the Arabs. They need to know that we have weapons, too."

"But the parade was enough," she replied, referring to the controversial military parade through the streets of Jerusalem last May.

"No," her challenger stated simply, "the people are becoming scared again."

The discussion ended there. The man had clearly won his point. He had approached the debate not with condescension or anger, but with the patient attitude of the teacher who must explain a problem to a slow student. In the end the woman could not argue with the assumption that the balance between fear and security had to be preserved.

It would be unfair to suggest that the atmosphere in Israel is at all oppressive. Ultimately, no Israeli doubts that he must maintain a certain posture when confronting the constant threat from outside. The Israeli woman was probably not expressing dissatisfaction so much as fatigue.

Even the most dedicated Israeli feels an occasional urge for a brief respite from the anxiety. You cannot help but sense that the Israelis would be happier if everybody could get up in the morning and just for one day not have to worry about being tough or brave or proud. But this is not possible. For the restrictions that emerge from the people's strong nationalistic impulses are not those placed by the government on the people, or by some individuals on others, but rather by individuals on themselves. And no individual will allow himself a day without the tension between security and fear. Her companion's challenge would not prevent the Israeli woman's raising soon again the issue of excessive militarism, but her own self-discipline would.

How this impression of the people is gained can't be easily explaned. Occasional admissions of discontent him at a more deep-seated malaise, but the most obvious manifestation of this search for escape is the fervor with which the Israelis desire peace. Their understandable eagerness to be free from fear is always accompanied by statements like "then we will not have to spend all our time preparing for war."

This preparation consumes time, money, and emotional energy. And it is the emotional tension that the people have come to dread most.