Engaging In War With Egypt Resulting In The 1956 Suez Crisis

THE 1956 SUEZ CRISIS
By
Course Name
Professor’s Name
University
City/State
Date of Submission
The 1956 Suez Crisis
The Suez Canal has always been regarded as a great landmark throughout history. It is strategically located in an area where it acts as a gateway to the East, by connecting three continents, Africa, Asia, and Europe. Its significance is highly recognized among these three continents since the canal managed to reduce the distance of traveling by ship from Europe to the East by almost half. For this reason, the Suez Canal was equally beneficial for all continents, and neither of them was willing to surrender the canal as exemplified during the Suez Crisis in 1956 (Shlaim 1997, p. 509). The participants in the war, Israel, Egypt, France, and Britain, each had specific reasons for their involvement. The countries had specific interest and unique ties to the canal, which made it difficult for them to resist from engaging in the war. However, whether these countries’ actions or participation in the war can be justified is a question that this essay seeks to answer. Doing so will require an understanding of how the participants were tied to the Canal.
Egypt
Egypt’s participation in the war can be justified by the fact that the canal was built on their territory and therefore, needed to gain control over the canal. The tension between the states began several years before when the Egyptian government constantly requested the British government to withdraw their troops from the canal (Varble 2014, p. 45). The act by Egypt to nationalize the canal was, therefore, a reaction to a continuous threat. Egypt tied the military presence in the canal with a threat to their sovereignty (Kunz 2000, p. 88). Meaning that participation in the Suez war was not only a means of protecting the canal but their sovereignty as well. According to President Nasser’s speech, he assures the Egyptian citizens that “Your country stands solidly and staunchly to preserve her dignity against imperialistic schemes of a number of nations who have uncovered their desires for domination and supremacy” (United States 1956). President Nasser’s statement shows that Egypt’s participation was necessary to protect their sovereignty, which was under threat from the imperialist countries. Furthermore, the 1954 agreement between Egypt and the United Kingdom gave Egypt full control of the Suez Canal (Selak 2017, p. 487). Meaning that the country had an obligation to protect the canal as stated in the treaty.
Israel
Israel’s participation in the war can be justified by the fact that Egypt’s move to seal the narrow straits of Tiran against foreign shipments, as well as the closing of air routes over the straits isolated Israel from the West and made it difficult to conduct trade. As a result, Israel’s economy was crippled, and the country became bankrupt (Tal 2014). The unlawful denial to critical markets in Africa, Asia, and Europe convinced the Israeli government that Egypt was planning to weaken the state completely and eventually wage war against them. Israel’s participation can be considered an act of self-defense, which was necessary for the state to secure their sovereignty and gain access to foreign markets since the blockade alienated Israel from other states.
France
During the time before the Suez Crisis, France was seeking to take control of some of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The resources available in these countries were of great importance to the French. However, President Nasser presented the French with a challenging task since he acted as the main problem that prevented the French from occupying the states in the Middle East and North Africa. The participation of the French in the Suez Canal was triggered by political and cultural reasons. President Nasser’s dictatorship did not align with the Mendes system of governance, and despite efforts by Egypt to get involved with the affairs of France, including the French-Moroccan negotiations, France did not want any relations with Egypt. Moreover, Egypt had great influence on other North African countries, including Algeria and Tunisia. Although this influence was partially dissolved after the war of 1948, Egypt continued to stand by Algeria on their struggle for independence against the French (Morris 2008, p. 22). Nasser’s support of the North African countries threatened the control of the French, and since the Suez Canal was the simplest channel for the French to these African states, then Egypt’s nationalization of the canal was a bigger threat to France. The country’s participation in the war can, therefore, be justified as an act of responding to a threat.
Britain
Britain’s participation was sparked by several concerns. The canal was important for Britain because it offered a shorter shipping route to its colonies, which provided ...