Debunking Israeli History: The Suez Crisis, Before and Beyond.

Introduction

A common propgandised image constantly presented and accepted by many on these forums is that Israel was attacked on 6 occasions and every time defended itself from an agressive, attacking Arab army/armies. However, a breif glance at Israel's history since its conception, primarily from 1955-1957 will hastly debunk this myth.

Dayans drums of war

With the stalled negotiations between Israel and the Arabs due to differences in negotations on land settlement and the refugee problem, Dayan (who played a large role in determining naitonal security policy) assumed that a second round of conflict with the Arabs was invetible. As a Jewish patrior concerned with the safety of his nation, he wanted to ensure that the conditions for the next war were convenient for Israel.

He estimated that the Egyptian army would be prepared for war by summer or autumn 1956. With this in mind he aimed to firce a showdown before the military balance shifted in Egypts favour, using a strategy where military reprisals were utilized on a massive scale in order to provoke Egypt into entering a conflict with Israel before it was ready.

Moderates such as Moshe Sharret ensured that such a dangerous path was to an extent avoided and a plan to capture the Straits of Tiran submitted by Ben Gourin (priminister at the time) in consultation with Dayan (who was urging military action) was rejected by the cabinet.

Operation Kinneret

Operation Kinneret is probably one of the most confusing and disapointing segments of Israeli history. Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on December 11 against Syrian gun positions on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (known to Israelis as Lake Kinneret). It was lead by Colonel Ariel Sharon and resulted in fifty killed Syrians with 30 captured and six dead and 10 wounded Israelis. It was an unprovoked act of aggression by Israel.

The justification for the attack was Syrian interference with Israeli fishing on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. However, this is not entirely true. The Syrians fired not on Israeli fishing vessels buts on patrol boaths only when they came withing 250 meters of the shore. The Israeli's were waiting for a pretext to launch the attack, the first to such a scale since 1948.

Israel provoked the incident. On 10 December an Israeli police vessels was sent too close to the shore in order to draw Syrian fire. Shots were fired by a Syrian soldier which scraped some paint off the bottom of the patrol boat. No single person was killed or wounded. This lead to the IDF operation which was entirely out of proportion to the provocation as most observers agree.

French Connection United Kingdom: FCUK

Israel was on the path to war with Egypt. While Britain proved reluctant and hesitant to join Israel along with France in an attack against Egypt, the nationalisation of the Suez Canal (well within legality) prompted them to join France and Israel in an aggresive attack.

The French and Israeli connection was far more defined. Both shared a common enemy in Egypt. France was focued on Algeria at the time (Nasser was supporting a rebelion) and Israel passed intelligence on Algerian rebels and their connection with Israel to France. The French deemed that if Nasser was removed from power the rebellion would face collapse. While this assumption had not real basis Israel encouraged it in order to gather international (and power) support for an attack on their enemy. France in return became less restrictive about supplying arms to Israel even though this involved cintravention of the Triparie Declaration signed by France, the US and Britain.

The idea of a coordinated military offensive against Egypt only came into real circulation after the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt. This was an attempt by Nasser to achieve a strategic blow against the powers, not at Israel. Britain and France were the primary shareholders in the Suez Canal Company.

The Pretext for Invasion

Britain and France did not require Israels help in order to defeat Egypt. Israel was simply a pawn used as a pretext to invade. The plan was for Israel to invade and take the Sinai up to the Suez Canal. France and Britain would issue an ultimatum which Nasser was expected to reject and France and Britain would then invade Egypt.

However, some interesting facts appear in the process of drafting the proposed attack. During this period oil had been discovered in the Sinai and after a discussion between Ben-Gurion and his opposite French connetion he wrote in his diary. "I told him about the discovery of oil in southern and western Sinai, and that it would be good to tear this peninsuala from Egypt" (this information is available from the Ben Gurion diaries) This highlights the expanisionist side of Ben Gurion.

The Attack

The casus belli for France and Britain to attack Egypt was the nationalization of the Suez Canal and the casus belli for Israel was the closure of the Straits of Tiran, all occuring on sovereign Egyptian territory. On 29 October 1956, as planned, Israeli troops crossed into the Sinai and by 30th of October they reached the Suez Canal. Britain and France issued the ultimatum for both sides to withdraw which, as excpected, was rejected by Nasser of Eygpt. Britain and Rance bombed Egyptian airfields and economic targets in retaliation and invaded using paratroopers only to be forced to halt the attack following American pressure (the US threatened sanctions and utilized UN condemnation and sanctions against all three). The act of agression was halted by a superpower concerned with Soviet expansion in the region resulting from this act of 'imperialism' and 'agression'.

Conclusion

The Suex War undermined the cohesion of the Western alliance, caused the collape of British and French influence in the Middle East, and paved the way to further Soviet advances in the region. It also debunks the myth that Israel was defending itself every time it was involved in conflit, as does Operation Kinneret.

Is this your original work? If it is, congratulations. If it is not, could you provide a source? That would make discussion more profitable and fit within the Terms and Conditions.

reply to post by charles1952


Multiple sources were used including the Ben Gurion: War Diaries, Avi Shlaim: The Iron Wall, Derek Varble: The Suez Crisis 1956. The Suez Crisis (BBC) www.youtube.com... and Moshe Dayan: Milestones

Operation Kineret:

according to the armistice agreements between Israel and Syria, the border was suppose to be east of the sea of Galilee and the Jordan river. Syria broke that agreement and invaded west, what is known as the June 4th lines.
Syrian fishing boats began exploiting the sea of Galilee under the protection of Syrian artillery guns. There was also a great concern that the Syrian will divert the waters of the Jordan river. (as they did eventually)
Given these reasons and the ongoing bombardment of Israeli civilians, both fishing vessels and Israeli villages, operation Kineret took place.

The Sinai war, also known as operation Kadesh:

Egypt closed the straits of Tiran to all Israeli ships and later on for foreign ships used by / for Israel, thus completely preventing any sails from Israel's only harbor in Eilat to the East. This were to have a devastating economic consequences on this Harbor and the city of Eilat. Egypt also nationalized the Suez canal. Contrary to what you say, this act was a violation of The Convention of Constantinople singed in 1888 to insure a free passage for all vessels during peace AND war times, affixing its status as an international canal. The nationalization of the Suez canal and closing the Tiran straits was an act of war.

I don't know what exactly you think you debunked. Your “Dayans drums of war” statement is so hypocrite in light of the events (real ones, not made up) that I can only thank you for giving me a good laugh.

reply to post by gravitational


I was just about to say the same about the Suez Canal.

The OP claims Egypt was within it's rights to not only nationalise but close the Canal to shipping of it's choosing. It was not. It was Treaty bound on both counts and broke them, hence the War. The Suez should remain open to all ships, including warships, regardless of their nationality.

reply to post by stumason


I'm quite used to S1M twisting history.
I would call him a disinfo agent, but that would be a compliment considering his poor job and disrespect for people's intellect

reply to post by gravitational

according to the armistice agreements between Israel and Syria, the border was suppose to be east of the sea of Galilee and the Jordan river. Syria broke that agreement and invaded west, what is known as the June 4th lines.

Got any sources?

The nationalization of the Suez Canal is legal under international law as long they compensated the shareholders and allowed ships of all nationalities to enter.

When Nasser nationalized the Canal there was no legal recourse for the British or French to oppose his actions as long as he continued to operate the Canal efficiently, which he did an he promised to pay compensation to the owners of the company.

There was no legally sanctioned company authorized to run the Canal company even with the claims of the French and British.

John Foster Dulles (Secratary of State under the Eisenhower administration) was well aware of this and even stated.

There had never been an international authority in charge of the Canal: the 1888 arrangments had placed operations in the hands of a private company with an international composition, but had not set up a public international organization.

www.press.umich.edu...

Syrian fishing boats began exploiting the sea of Galilee under the protection of Syrian artillery guns. There was also a great concern that the Syrian will divert the waters of the Jordan river. (as they did eventually)

Syrian vessels only shot at patrol boats once they came within 250 meters of the shore. Do you have any sources that support a contrary argument?