Initial Contacts with the British Trade links had existed between the two countries for as long as anyone could remember. Egypt was a key part of the old spice and trade routes between Europe and Asia. British traders had been loading and unloading their cargoes in Ottoman waters for generations.
The Suez Crisis of Sigler In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for Neil Patrick Tubb Introduction Among the most important foundations in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict was the seeds that were sown in the aftermath of the Sinai Campaign, or the Suez Crisis.
Whatever the operation is referred to as, its consequences involving both relations internal to the Middle East and with the world are impossible to ignore.
Looked at simply as an objective event in history, one could note several key outcomes of the war. It marked the beginning of the end of British and French colonial leadership in the region, and the start of an increasingly high American and Soviet involvement.
The war also proved to the Arab nations of the area that the Israeli military machine was not one to be taken lightly, a lesson which would be forgotten and retaught in the "Six Day War". This paper, however, will not have the goal of examining these specific events in relation to the war, nor will it try to determine which factors were most significant.
My aim will be to gain a more complete understanding of the effect of the crisis by reviewing key events of the war from two different perspectives: Through a brief comparison of both the coverage of the War by the differing authors and the varying interpretations seen throughout my study, I will be best able to make an informed evaluation on how the event was, and is today, seen in the political and historical forum.
Comparison of Coverage The war, which was begun on October 29, when the Israelis moved their units into the Sinai peninsula, has had its origins traced back to many historical events. Which is the most important of these is a point of contention for the authors I have studied.
There does seem to be for all parties involved a consensus that the ascent to power of Gamal Abdel Nasser to President of Eqypt inand his move to nationalize the Suez Canal as the main precipitating factor in setting off the conflict.
Why Nasser did this, however, is where my various sources diverge. Quite predictably, sources used from the Egyptian or Arab viewpoint usually pointed to the fact that Nasser was finally freeing a Third World country from the clinging grip of colonial Europe, where Britain and France continued to control much of the Egyptian economy.
There is most likely no doubt that Nasser did nationalize the Suez Canal for partly political motives, and as the already crowned leader of "Pan-Arabism", it seemed that he was showing the world that he was ready to let his deeds match his words. Political decisions are rarely one dimensional, and my Arab sources also indicated other reasons for the move- more of which later.
It was with this backdrop that all the parties involved began to examine their options. Of their motivations and aims, I will refer to in the next section, and on the point of basic facts of the conflict my sources are quite complementary.
It is a matter of history that Israel began the conflict by their phased invasion across into the Sinai on October 29,and agreed to a withdrawal on November 6. None of my readings from either side of this particularly high political fence try to dispute this.
Even that the war was incredibly lopsided and anti-climatic- like it seems so many of these wars were- is not contended by my Arab authors. This surprised me somewhat- as I read from some of the top Egyptian political men of the time and their interpretation of events.
One such former diplomat dispelled any historical illusions which may have been created over time by saying in his memoirs, " The fact wasEgypt had not won a military victory in " Two days after the Israeli invasion, the Anglo-French troops entered the Suez Canal zone and started operation MUSKATEER in order to re-secure control of the area under their joint command.
These invasions were followed by a barrage of international criticism, the most telling of which came from the two superpowers, the United States and the USSR. The weight of this pressure soon became too much to bear for the tripatriate alliance, and Israel withdrew on November 6, followed on November 14 by the British and French.
It is much more interesting, in the study of a conflict such as the Suez Crisis situation ofto examine how each side interpreted the events, in hindsight, rather than just seeing how the events were reported- especially for such a world wide event. First, a look at the different motivations of the leaders- beginning with why Nasser had nationalized the canal in the first place.
The Suez Crisis of The Suez Crisis of took place in Egypt on October 29, (webkandii.com). The Suez Crisis was sparked when the then Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, (Neely ). Origins of the Suez Crisis describes the long run-up to the Suez Crisis and the crisis itself by focusing on politics, economics, and foreign policy decisions in Egypt, Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Based on Arabic source material, as well as multilingual documents from Israeli, Soviet, Czech, American, Indian, and British archives, this is the first historical. The Hungarian Revolution of , or Hungarian Uprising of (Hungarian: os forradalom or os felkelés), was a nationwide revolt against the Communist regime of the Hungarian People's Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November Though leaderless when it first began, it was the first major threat to Soviet control since the USSR's forces.
Apparently, the move was in part a reprisal to the moves of John Foster Dulles, who was the U. Secretary of State at the time, and who had been behind the decision to revoke the funding for the project as a way of punishing Nasser for his " Whatever Nasser had in mind when he nationalized the Canal, both Israeli and Western sources did not see it as a move by an independent country to try and solve its internal economic difficulties or to help bring the Arab peoples together.
The Israelis, for their part, saw it as the culmination of a consistent effort by the Arab world to rid the Middle East of Israel- that this was a natural continuation of events such as the closure of the Tiran Gulf to Jewish shipping, and armed "fedayeen" raids taking place across the border from Egyptian- controlled Gaza.
Israeli leadership was apparently convinced that the Arabs wanted full-scale war with them to make up for losses in the War of Independence- but all Israel wanted was peace and thus only wanted enough conflict that would be to their strategic advantage.
Israel had been trying to progress, but with such moves by the radical Nasser who was the leader of Pan- Arabism which had the destruction of the Jewish State as one of its underlying directives and "Friend of the USSR" in the area Nasser had received weapons shipments from the USSR via Czechsolvakia init looked as if further war would be inevitable.
For Britain, who each shared a fifty percent stake in the Suez Canal Company, that Nasser had nationalized, this move constituted " Algeria was in the midst of an independence battle with its French oppressors, and it was President Nasser who was apparently giving much encouragement to the movement.
The loss of the canal would likely put a final nail in the coffin of French colonial efforts in this important area of the world. Both powers also made comparisons between Nasser and Hitler, making the point that such naked aggression cannot ever again be left unchallenged after the lessons of World War Two.
On one occasion, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, Harold MacMillan, made reference to this, stating that, " N o one wanted to see another Munich. Whereas at least Israel could entertain the idea of using force as a self preservation security option, for Britain and France their position was on very shaky international legal ground.
David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, was to have even said that he considered the Sinai peninsula to be part of Israel that would inevitably be absorbed into the Jewish State.
This line of thinking would logically follow that Israel, ever the territorial opportunist, simply used the crisis of the day as a smokescreen in order to achieve its oppressive goals. The Israeli position is very different in answering why they invaded- they always see themselves as the waiting victim in a sea of dangerous Arab states that crave their inevitable downfall.
One Israeli source stated that although almost all world opinion disagreed, the real reason for the October 29 strike was not collusion with the Europeans, neither was it expansionist dreams that fuelled the attack.The Suez Crisis (Essential Histories) [Derek Varble] on webkandii.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
In July Egyptian President Gamal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, causing immediate concern to Britain and France. They already opposed Nasser and were worried at the threat to maritime traffic in the Canal. This book traces the course of subsequent events.
Mar 03, · What were the events that led to the Suez Crisis, and did it deal a final blow to Britain's self-image as a world power to be reckoned with?
In Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French former diplomat. The Suez Crisis of The Suez Crisis of took place in Egypt on October 29, (webkandii.com). The Suez Crisis was sparked when the then Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, (Neely ). Suez Crisis: Background The catalyst for the joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt was the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egyptian leader .
The Suez Canal is a man-made waterway connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean via the Red Sea.
It enables a more direct route for shipping between Europe and Asia, effectively. The Hungarian Revolution of , or Hungarian Uprising of (Hungarian: os forradalom or os felkelés), was a nationwide revolt against the Communist regime of the Hungarian People's Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November Though leaderless when it first began, it was the first major threat to Soviet control since the USSR's forces.