Suez Crisis: Israel does not back down.

[Vladimir]

During the 1956 Suez War, the United States used economic blackmail to force Britain, France and Israel into withdrawing. The British and French eventually agreed to a ceasefire, but Israel wanted to keep the Gaza Strip hold the Sinai until it extracted some concessions and promises from the Egyptians.

Eisenhower threatened to cut off aid to Israel, which at the time consisted only of food and economic assistance, to freeze donations by American Jews, ban the purchase of Israeli bonds, and even threatened UN sanctions and expulsion from the UN. Israel was persuaded to withdraw after the USA agreed to guarantee free navigation for Israeli ships.

What would have happened if Ben-Gurion refused to cave? Keep in mind that the Israeli-French relationship was beginning to bloom at this point. Israel could have gotten the French to veto sanctions in the Security Council. The General Assembly might impose sanctions, but they would not be mandatory, simply a reccommendation (the "uniting for peace resolution was not binding under international law: it simply gave legitimacy to Coalition actions in Korea carried out without Security Council sanction). UNGA has called for sanctions on Israel before to absolutely no effect.

However, what would have happened had the US imposed its own sanctions? And how would the Soviet Union have reacted to Israel's refusal to withdraw?

[Snake Featherston]

This will not end well for Israel in the long term. And as it was the Israelis remained in the Canal area into 1957 IOTL, so.......

[Gwax23]

Considering Eisenhower looked back at the whole Suez conflict as one of his biggest foreign policy mistakes (And it was) over time I dont see much. I see a change in us policy to support Israeli gains. Israel would also have the support of both France and the UK.

Also Eisenhower may have threatened such harsh consequences but some of it was simply not possible. The American public wouldnt really go along with such over the top treatment to the new found state. He didnt have the political will to do it.

Sanctions and expulsions from the UN are ASB in my opinion.

Israel holds on to the land maybe a population swap is agreed between Egypt and Israel. Israel settles the area and by today the 2 regions are considered part of the Core of Israel.

No gaza problems, No hamas, Palestinian terrorism, Cross border raids, They keep the oil. More Secure southern border/buffer etc etc etc.

Overall good deal for Israel.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Gwax23

Considering Eisenhower looked back at the whole Suez conflict as one of his biggest foreign policy mistakes (And it was) over time I dont see much. I see a change in us policy to support Israeli gains. Israel would also have the support of both France and the UK.

Also Eisenhower may have threatened such harsh consequences but some of it was simply not possible. The American public wouldnt really go along with such over the top treatment to the new found state. He didnt have the political will to do it.

Sanctions and expulsions from the UN are ASB in my opinion.

Israel holds on to the land maybe a population swap is agreed between Egypt and Israel. Israel settles the area and by today the 2 regions are considered part of the Core of Israel.

No gaza problems, No hamas, Palestinian terrorism, Cross border raids, They keep the oil. More Secure southern border/buffer etc etc etc.

Overall good deal for Israel.

Yes, Egypt will just give up territory taken from it at gunpoint. And the Palestinian nationalists aren't going to be *less* violent without Egypt propping up earlier versions, all this means is a Yasser Arafat expy appears earlier, and Israel outright taking and conquering and settling Arab territory belonging to a separate state is going to be a lightning rod far, far worse than IOTL. Egypt's not going to pull a Lausanne here, either, so you might as well forget that.

[modelcitizen]

The occupation of Sinai and Gaza might have prevented the '67 and '73 wars from occurring. (Maybe.)

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

The occupation of Sinai and Gaza might have prevented the '67 and '73 wars from occurring. (Maybe.)

The same occupied territories Egypt spent decades trying to regain IOTL and which Israel gave up and withdrew settlements from IOTL? No. And the idea that this butterflies away Palestinian nationalism is also rather absurd. Yasser Arafat, as his career in Jordan and Lebanon showed, was far from dependent on Arab states' goodwill for his movement to exist.

[037771]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

During the 1956 Suez War, the United States used economic blackmail to force Britain, France and Israel into withdrawing. The British and French eventually agreed to a ceasefire, but Israel wanted to keep the Gaza Strip hold the Sinai until it extracted some concessions and promises from the Egyptians.

Eisenhower threatened to cut off aid to Israel, which at the time consisted only of food and economic assistance, to freeze donations by American Jews, ban the purchase of Israeli bonds, and even threatened UN sanctions and expulsion from the UN. Israel was persuaded to withdraw after the USA agreed to guarantee free navigation for Israeli ships.

What would have happened if Ben-Gurion refused to cave? Keep in mind that the Israeli-French relationship was beginning to bloom at this point. Israel could have gotten the French to veto sanctions in the Security Council. The General Assembly might impose sanctions, but they would not be mandatory, simply a reccommendation (the "uniting for peace resolution was not binding under international law: it simply gave legitimacy to Coalition actions in Korea carried out without Security Council sanction). UNGA has called for sanctions on Israel before to absolutely no effect.

However, what would have happened had the US imposed its own sanctions? And how would the Soviet Union have reacted to Israel's refusal to withdraw?

Ike probably plays chicken with Ben-Gurion and wins.

The threat of direct US sanctions against Israel may not sound like much; indirect threats however were. Theoretically, France or the UK could veto any sactions against Israel in the UN, but given the amount of pressure Washington brought to bear on the two countries to halt their little war in Suez to begin with, methinks they'd fall in line. Such diplomatic intimidation of the French could have serious consequences for the Israelis, since they're receiving most of their arms not from the United States (American-made HAWK missiles were not sold to Israel until 1962), but from French manufacturers under American pressure. Certainly, not all of the arms are coming via the French - some of it comes from other NATO states, others through (bizarrely) Nicaragua - but its US patronage that keep the goods flowing.

If Israel decides to take the step to remain where they are in the Sinai, Ike can threaten to suffocate this supply by pressuring the French. Of course, he also knows that the Soviet Union aren't likely to halt their sales - the Czech (read 'Soviet)-Egyptian 'Arms for Cotton' agreement was only agreed the year before - so that makes any actual action quite risky, but in combination with all the other threats, it'd probably compell Ben-Gurion to agree to American demands. It was only in 1958 that Ike really recognised Nasser as a fundamental threat to US interests in the Middle East, and by that extent the importance of Israel as a regional ally; thus in 1956, the threat to take away the prospect of resupply, essential in holding onto the Sinai territory in case of prolonged combat, would appear to have more bite. There's a paper on the nature of arms supply to the IDF on JSTOR, here if you're interested.

[Wolfpaw]

Not a single power will back such a blatant land-grab by Israel. The UK was vastly more concerned with Arab sensitivities over those of Israel, nor does France have any reason to support Israel.

The declared interest of the Anglo-Frech was to protect the Canal from the two armies and do so until a peace could be brokered. Nobody envisioned Israel keeping the Sinai.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

The declared interest of the Anglo-Frech was to protect the Canal from the two armies and do so until a peace could be brokered. Nobody envisioned Israel keeping the Sinai.

France and Britain did not intervene to keep the armies apart. They made a secret agreement with Israel, whereas Israel would invade the Sinai, giving them a pretext to seize the Canal.

The British and French did not like Nasser over his nationalization of the canal, and the French-Israeli relationship was just blossoming, so Israel might be able to persuade the French to veto sanctions.

Israel didn't want to keep the Sinai, it wanted to use it as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from the Egyptians and to annex Gaza.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

France and Britain did not intervene to keep the armies apart. They made a secret agreement with Israel, whereas Israel would invade the Sinai, giving them a pretext to seize the Canal.

The British and French did not like Nasser over his nationalization of the canal, and the French-Israeli relationship was just blossoming, so Israel might be able to persuade the French to veto sanctions.

Israel didn't want to keep the Sinai, it wanted to use it as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from the Egyptians and to annex Gaza.

And it did keep the Sinai after the 1967 war IOTL, and we know what that meant. It does this in the 1950s and that's the best thing to have happened to the USSR in the Middle East yet in the ATL as the USSR now has a genuine claim to be standing up for the principle of avoiding forcible thefts of land (of course this is somewhat hypocritical given this is the USSR we're talking about but since when does hypocrisy matter?).

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

And it did keep the Sinai after the 1967 war IOTL, and we know what that meant. It does this in the 1950s and that's the best thing to have happened to the USSR in the Middle East yet in the ATL as the USSR now has a genuine claim to be standing up for the principle of avoiding forcible thefts of land (of course this is somewhat hypocritical given this is the USSR we're talking about but since when does hypocrisy matter?).

Israel's intention after the Six-Day War was to return most of the captured territories in exchange for a peace agreement (Israel would have kept some territories and never have given up east Jerusalem, though). After the Arab League issued its "three nos", Israel continued to hold the Sinai on security grounds. It wasn't just going to let Nasser threaten it the same way as in the Six-Day War.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by 037771

Ike probably plays chicken with Ben-Gurion and wins.

The threat of direct US sanctions against Israel may not sound like much; indirect threats however were. Theoretically, France or the UK could veto any sactions against Israel in the UN, but given the amount of pressure Washington brought to bear on the two countries to halt their little war in Suez to begin with, methinks they'd fall in line. Such diplomatic intimidation of the French could have serious consequences for the Israelis, since they're receiving most of their arms not from the United States (American-made HAWK missiles were not sold to Israel until 1962), but from French manufacturers under American pressure. Certainly, not all of the arms are coming via the French - some of it comes from other NATO states, others through (bizarrely) Nicaragua - but its US patronage that keep the goods flowing.

If Israel decides to take the step to remain where they are in the Sinai, Ike can threaten to suffocate this supply by pressuring the French. Of course, he also knows that the Soviet Union aren't likely to halt their sales - the Czech (read 'Soviet)-Egyptian 'Arms for Cotton' agreement was only agreed the year before - so that makes any actual action quite risky, but in combination with all the other threats, it'd probably compell Ben-Gurion to agree to American demands. It was only in 1958 that Ike really recognised Nasser as a fundamental threat to US interests in the Middle East, and by that extent the importance of Israel as a regional ally; thus in 1956, the threat to take away the prospect of resupply, essential in holding onto the Sinai territory in case of prolonged combat, would appear to have more bite. There's a paper on the nature of arms supply to the IDF on JSTOR, here if you're interested.

The British and the French were being pressured to withdraw, not veto. The French wouldn't have given a damn what Ike wanted after he forced them out. They might even veto sanctions and supply weapons to Israel as an f-you to the United States.

[037771]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The British and the French were being pressured to withdraw, not veto. The French wouldn't have given a damn what Ike wanted after he forced them out. They might even veto sanctions and supply weapons to Israel as an f-you to the United States.

And risk a major rupture with Washington? To get what he wants, Ike can simply turn up the pressure if the French don't comply by politely asking the Saudis to restart their oil embargo, which in turn renders Guy Mollet's position even shakier. There would be little appetite to perpetuate a lost cause, especially since the whole idea of France selling arms to the Israelis was an American idea in the first place. They might veto sanctions, but US diplomatic channels would continue to ply their trade regardless. In diplomacy, contrary to what you imply, sovereign nations rarely make decisions based upon emotion, but cold, hard calculation.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by 037771

And risk a major rupture with Washington? To get what he wants, Ike can simply turn up the pressure if the French don't comply by politely asking the Saudis to restart their oil embargo, which in turn renders Guy Mollet's position even shakier. There would be little appetite to perpetuate a lost cause, especially since the whole idea of France selling arms to the Israelis was an American idea in the first place. They might veto sanctions, but US diplomatic channels would continue to ply their trade regardless. In diplomacy, contrary to what you imply, sovereign nations rarely make decisions based upon emotion, but cold, hard calculation.

Guy Mollet was a socialist: If Ike had pushed him too hard diplomatically or asked the Sauis to impose an oil emargo, I can see him thinking that the relationship with the USA is more than its worth, and that neutrality would be a better policy. Mollet then leaves NATO and adopts a policy of neutrality during the Cold War. France leans towards the Soviet Union in a similar fashion like India did, and the Soviets supply the French with oil.

I can see this happening if Israel offers to guarantee free shipping and no nationalization if it gets to keep the canal, which would not be a lost cause.

However, I find it kind of hard to believe that Ike would want a Saudi oil embargo or create a diplomatic crisis if the French had vetoed sanctions on Israel.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Guy Mollet was a socialist: If Ike had pushed him too hard diplomatically or asked the Sauis to impose an oil emargo, I can see him thinking that the relationship with the USA is more than its worth, and that neutrality would be a better policy. Mollet then leaves NATO and adopts a policy of neutrality during the Cold War. France leans towards the Soviet Union in a similar fashion like India did, and the Soviets supply the French with oil.

Because all Socialists are automatically sympathetic to Moscow

France won't veto for Israel. Suez was a popular adventure, but Mollet and all France knew that Algeria was the vastly more important issue. France is not India and cannot afford to go a third way in Europe this early in the Cold War, not while it is still atomically dependent on the US/UK.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I can see this happening if Israel offers to guarantee free shipping and no nationalization if it gets to keep the canal, which would not be a lost cause.

The Israelis can't keep what they never had in the first place.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

France and Britain did not intervene to keep the armies apart. They made a secret agreement with Israel, whereas Israel would invade the Sinai, giving them a pretext to seize the Canal.

Yes, but that's not what their declared intentions were: hold the Canal and mediate a (Nasserless) peace between Egypt and Israel until a UN peacekeeping force was ready to take over the Canal Zone.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The British and French did not like Nasser over his nationalization of the canal, and the French-Israeli relationship was just blossoming, so Israel might be able to persuade the French to veto sanctions.

That would basically be admitting to the collusion that Eden, Mollet and Ben Gurion were pathetically denying. Franco-Israeli relations were kick-started by Suez; they were nowhere near veto-friendly. Future arms sales, sure, but the French aren't going to support territorial seizure.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Israel didn't want to keep the Sinai, it wanted to use it as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from the Egyptians and to annex Gaza.

The Israelis didn't want to annex Gaza. They wanted to stop the fedayeen attacks and secure Israeli shipping rights. The best Israel can hope (and did) hope for in a Tripartite success in the Suez War is a demilitarized Sinai and guarantees not to close the Straits of Tiran.