{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011417697431018078, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008563273073263558, 'mean_word_length': 4.877094972067039, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Norwegian Policy in the Middle East Crisis of I967

The article discusses motives behind the Norwegian refusal to sign the British proposal for a declaration claiming that Nasser's closing of the Gulf of Aqaba on 22 May 1967 was illegal. A signing of the declaration would have implied a non-neutral stand in the conflict. It is concluded that the case selected indicates a general Norwegian neutralist attitude when armed conflicts between Israel and the Arab countries occur, and that this policy is based partly on security considerations as well as on economic interests. It also appears that the Norwegian stake in the efforts of the United Nations in the area has contributed to the arguments and considerations for maintaining a neutralist attitude. This neutral line has been pursued while the Norwegian people at large have been in sympathy with the Israeli position and at times have articulated demands for a more pro-Israel policy. This has not, however, persuaded the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to change their policy.