Suez Crisis: Israel does not back down.

Vladimir

Banned
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?
 
Last edited:
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

Banned
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.
 
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. :rolleyes: 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.
 
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.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:

Vladimir

Banned
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.
 
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?).
 
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.


I didn't say that Palestinian nationalism would be derailed.

For what it's worth, I know that the PLO was founded in 1964, before Israel had custody of the West Bank.

I didn't say Egypt wouldn't want the Sinai back. I reckoned that the '67 and '73 wars as they occurred --the 1967 Six Day War that saw Israel pre-empting the intentions of three neighboring countries (maybe the Israelis took Nasser's "Jews into the sea" rhetoric seriously), and the 1973 Yom Kippur War that shocked Israel into reconsidering its national security-- would not occur, certainly not as they did OTL, let alone on those dates.

In OTL in 1967, Israel's neighbors seemed prepared to annihilate the population of Israel in a cooperative genocidal effort. Their stance was based on the premise that such an achievement was feasible with their combined military strength.

However, if the Israelis are seen to take and hold the relatively large Sinai Peninsula, there will not be any sense that killing all the Jews in Israel is an easy, guaranteed thing. Unlike OTL's 1973 war, you will not have Syria and Egypt both wanting lost land back in their possession, you'll have one country that lost land and potential collaborators might not be excited about potentially losing parts of their lands in a similar fashion.
 

Vladimir

Banned
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.
 

Vladimir

Banned
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.
 
I didn't say that Palestinian nationalism would be derailed.

For what it's worth, I know that the PLO was founded in 1964, before Israel had custody of the West Bank.

I didn't say Egypt wouldn't want the Sinai back. I reckoned that the '67 and '73 wars as they occurred --the 1967 Six Day War that saw Israel pre-empting the intentions of three neighboring countries (maybe the Israelis took Nasser's "Jews into the sea" rhetoric seriously), and the 1973 Yom Kippur War that shocked Israel into reconsidering its national security-- would not occur, certainly not as they did OTL, let alone on those dates.

In OTL in 1967, Israel's neighbors seemed prepared to annihilate the population of Israel in a cooperative genocidal effort. Their stance was based on the premise that such an achievement was feasible with their combined military strength.

However, if the Israelis are seen to take and hold the relatively large Sinai Peninsula, there will not be any sense that killing all the Jews in Israel is an easy, guaranteed thing. Unlike OTL's 1973 war, you will not have Syria and Egypt both wanting lost land back in their possession, you'll have one country that lost land and potential collaborators might not be excited about potentially losing parts of their lands in a similar fashion.

Except that IOTL when they took the Sinai and held it for years this led to an endless war with Egypt until it managed to finally cross it and even then Israel had to literally uproot multiple settlements in a very controversial process, and this was in the 1960s. If Israel does this in the same year as Kfar Qassim, Arab propaganda has gifts that will keep on giving. Regardless of the reality of that incident, that and an attempt to control the Sinai by nothing more than the barrel of a gun will lead Arabs to say "See, these Jews shoot people in cold blood and aren't satisfied with Palestinian land, they're going to do this to all of us." Instant major, giant clusterfuck. Israel had good reasons to avoid annexing it the first time and it shouldn't have done so the second.

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.

In 1956 there was the Kfer Qassim Massacre, and in this context, that plus a deliberate annexation of the Sinai and the inevitable settlements and evictions of Arabs will lead these wars to escalate far, far worse than IOTL. In terms of propaganda, those two in conjunction would be a very, very bad move for Israel, of the sort that would actually give the Arabs a bit of a moral high ground for a while, and that's one thing Israel does not need at any point. Note I'm not necessarily saying the claim of the moral high ground is truthful or valid, merely that this is a propaganda godsend the Arabs wouldn't be able to design better if they actually tried (in fact given the competence of the dictators at that time such attempts would no doubt horrifically backfire but that's another question).
 
To be fair, the Suez was a good defensive barrier. Israel won the War of Attrition after all. And the Egyptian crossing during the Yom Kippur War was a brilliantly executed military operation, but that makes me doubt they could pull it off in the 50's/60's.

Still, that doesnt matter. The war cannot be won by the Arabs, it can only be lost by Israel. Military equipment is more important for Israel than defensive barriers and as pointed out, Israel might find its arsenal drying up real quick.
 
To be fair, the Suez was a good defensive barrier. Israel won the War of Attrition after all. And the Egyptian crossing during the Yom Kippur War was a brilliantly executed military operation, but that makes me doubt they could pull it off in the 50's/60's.

Still, that doesnt matter. The war cannot be won by the Arabs, it can only be lost by Israel. Military equipment is more important for Israel than defensive barriers and as pointed out, Israel might find its arsenal drying up real quick.

If they have the 1950s to start benefiting from both Soviet aid and the chance to develop their techniques before war gets ever more technologically complex Israel is seriously screwed in the long term, and its claims to represent liberalism and freedom and democracy start looking increasingly ridiculous when it claims forcibly annexing and settling the Sinai on no better grounds than winning the war is somehow being a free, democratic, modern society.
 

Vladimir

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
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.
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.
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.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
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 :rolleyes:

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.
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.
 
Top