The Logic Off Topic list

Hey does anyone remember what the Suez Incident was? I think it was in 
1956 and the US took the side of the Arabs against England and France. 
This came up on another list, and no one can remember exactly what 
happened.

Billy Joel makes reference to it in his song "We Didn't Start the Fire"

At 01:37 PM 26/09/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Hey does anyone remember what the Suez Incident was? I think it was in 
>1956 and the US took the side of the Arabs against England and France. 
>This came up on another list, and no one can remember exactly what 
>happened.

As I recall (vaguely) the Suez canal was owned and controlled by Brits and
was seized (nationalised) by Nasser's Egypt. (Perhaps the French had an
interest in it too) There was a failed attempt to get up a military
response -- to retake the Canal.

 here is a paste from A web link:
http://novaonline.nv.cc.va.us/eli/evans/his135/MODULES/events/suez56

At the same time as the Hungarian uprising, a serious crisis
           developed over control of the Suez Canal, which connects the
           Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez and the Red Sea.  Built
           between 1859 and 1869 by the French engineer Ferdinand de
           Lesseps, it was acquired largely by Great Britain in 1875.  By
           the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, Great
           Britain enjoyed the right to maintain defense forces in the Suez
           Canal Zone. 
                                   
           Egyptian nationalists repeatedly demanded that Great Britain
           evacuate the Canal Zone, and in 1954 the two countries signed
           an agreement, superseding the 1936 treaty that provided for
           withdrawal of all British troops, and in 1956 all British troops
left.
                                   
           When Egypt concluded an arms deal with Czechoslovakia, the
           U.S. Secretary of State John Dulles announced the withdrawal
           of all U.S. funds and assistance for President Gamal Abdel
           Nasser's, who had come to power in the 1953 nationalistic
           revolution, development program. In response to this treatment
           by the United States and the refusal of Western powers to fund
           the Aswan Dam on the Upper Nile River, Nasser nationalized the
           Suez Canal on 26 July 1956. 
                                   
           The nationalization of the canal surprised the world, especially
           the British and French stockholders who owned the Suez Canal
           Company. Although Nasser promised compensation to the
           company for its loss, Britain, France and Israel began plotting to
           take back the canal and overthrow Nasser as well. When
           attempts to reach an agreement with Egypt on a new form of
           international control for the Canal failed, Israel accused Egypt of
           planning an attack and sent the Israeli army across the Sinai
           Peninsula toward the Canal.  (Britain, France and Israel had
           united in secret, something that they denied publicly for many
           years, and made arrangements for Israel to make the initial
           invasion of Egypt and capture one side of the Suez Canal.)
           When further British and French diplomatic initiatives failed,
           they sent troops to occupy the canal. 
                                   
            The United States opposed this action as a violation of the
           principle of self-determination. The American delegation at the
           United Nations voted in favor of a General Assembly resolution
           calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of the
           invading troops. Great Britain, France and Israel eventually
           accepted these terms. 
                                   
           In March 1957, under the supervision of a U.N. police force, the
           Suez Canal was cleared of wreckage and opened to shipping. 
           The canal was returned to Egypt, and reparations were paid by
           Egypt under the supervision of the World Bank. Overall the
           actions of  Britain and France served to draw Nasser and Egypt
           into further relations with the USSR. The fight over the canal
           also laid the groundwork for the Six Day War in 1967 due to a
           lack of a peace settlement following the 1956 war. 
                                   
           In January 1957, President Eisenhower asked Congress for
           authorization to use military force, if requested, by any Middle
           Eastern nation to check aggression and, second, to set aside a
           sum of $200 million to help those Middle Eastern countries that
           desired aid from the United States. Congress granted both
           requests.  This policy became known as the Eisenhower
           Doctrine.

I couldn't remember but was too curious not to look it up, it rang a bell
but I couldn't quite get it.  Egypt nationalized the canal in 1956.  America
did not get involved with a British-French invasion, apparently in no small
part because America was not informed of the attack.  The US disavowed the
approach, NATO had a relatively minor crisis as a result.  Given that the
USSR was looking to exploit this opportunity as they believed the Egyptians
would let them through the canal, it was a fairly contentious moment within
the US as without.

----- Original Message -----

From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>; <basharar@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: [L-OT] Suez Incident


> Hey does anyone remember what the Suez Incident was? I think it was in
> 1956 and the US took the side of the Arabs against England and France.
> This came up on another list, and no one can remember exactly what
> happened.
>
> Billy Joel makes reference to it in his song "We Didn't Start the Fire"
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Greg Moore wrote:
>Hey does anyone remember what the Suez Incident was? I think it was in
>1956 and the US took the side of the Arabs against England and France.

Try these:

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/suez.html
http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/st-laurent/en/his/history_politician_suez_e.html

These two are a bit biassed towards the US viewpoint, actually, but I 
thought that it was what you would appreciate the most!! I hope they temper 
what is in the rest of this email.

>This came up on another list, and no one can remember exactly what
>happened.

I now speak very cautiously ... and in view of the strident emails of the 
last couple of days, I hope you do not misunderstand me. I think I have 
earned the right to speak my piece.

Let's look at the situation surrounding Suez very carefully. Probably ... 
the reason that no one on those other lists can remember exactly what 
happened regarding this imbroglio is that it was not particularly important 
to them.

I bow my head humbly and say, very respectfully, that it is just a tad 
naive to believe that the US 'took the side' of the Arabs against England 
and France for some kind of altruistic reason. Truth is ... the US was 
rather more concerned with the steadily increasing influence of the USSR in 
those regions of the world. And ... why should they fear that the power of 
the USSR and the Communists might grow?

Sticking specifically to the Suez Crisis, please remember that although 
frequently classified as 'the Middle East', Egypt is in Africa. England and 
France (and Germany and a couple of other European nations ... they were 
all in it) had long been involved in an imperialist and colonialist spat -- 
throughout all of Africa -- about exactly who could build the biggest 
empire and grind down the maximum number of natives. (If you divine that I 
am not particularly sympathetic to that policy you are quite correct). As 
imperialist powers, their stock had steadily declined. Gradually, the 
countries that had been conquered and colonized were ridding themselves of 
the imperialist yoke and winning for themselves, usually at the cost of 
much blood-letting, the right of self-determination. The independence of 
India a couple of decades before had given hope to all others. Egypt at the 
time, therefore, was concerned with what all colonial countries were 
concerned with ... getting themselves out from under.

If the US had not supported stepped in and supported Egypt (and other such 
countries) in their independence movements then they would have turned to 
the USSR and all the other countries in the Communist bloc who would have 
been only too happy to assist them in attaining a perfectly reasonable 
objective: getting rid of hated imperialists. That was the reality of the 
day. The Czechs and Egypt had already signed an arms deal and the US simply 
did not want any more of the same.

The essential point of the Suez Crisis was that it marked the real end of 
British imperial rule and British neo-imperialistic concerns. Ever since 
Suez Her Britannic Majesty's United Kingdom simply has not been the player 
on the world state that it once was. It has pretty much been reduced to 
assisting the USA -- funnily enough, also a former colony -- in doing 
whatever the USA wants in the hopes that when it is itself in trouble the 
USA will reciprocate. (I mean no offence to any British people on this 
list, by the way, but that's pretty much what it looks like to most people 
in the world).

With the decline of Britain from 'superpower' status, other nations (and 
you will have to gauge for yourself which those other nations " might be) 
felt it "vital" (who knows why?) that someone or other should step in to 
"fill" the power vacuum that they saw as being left behind by "one bunch of 
imperialist lackeys". I have put that deliberately in inverted commas so 
that you understand that it need not be taken as my own personal point of 
view, but rather as being the point of view taken by those who lived in all 
those various countries, both in 'the Middle East' and throughout Africa. 
What THEY saw was that just as they at last being able to show the front 
door to one hated set of imperialists and lackeys another lot was sneaking 
in the back door just as fast as the first lot were leaving. Talk about 
running fast just to stand still.

The problem now was that this new lot were way more powerful then the old 
lot and had more guns and weapons to get their way with. And ... for some 
strange reason they felt impelled to carry on doing exactly what the 
previous lot had also been doing ... which was acting entirely in their own 
best interests.

And ... looked at in that light ...

... if YOU had just worked very hard for many generations and at the cost 
of much blood to get rid of one set of grievous oppressors only to see 
another one spring up to take over the job immediately, would YOU be 
thankful? Why should anyone be thankful for this?

Please do not flame me kind sir ... for I have simply done my best to 
explain the significance of the Suez Crisis which is what you asked about. 
Whether you agree with me or not has got nothing to do with whether or not 
the people who hold this kind of opinion are themselves reasonable for 
holding it. All I have done is do my best to present it to you.

You asked about Suez ...
... and that was the true significance of Suez
... at least ... to many people on this planet.

What you choose to make of that event in world affairs is entirely up to you.



 > > > GA Moore wrote:
 > > >Is there anything you like 100%?

 > > Kool Musick wrote:
 > > Yes. You.

 > GA Moore wrote:
 > OK, Peace to you too brother!

And ... peace to you also, brother. I have genuinely done my best to 
promote understanding. But ... I have my bullet-proof best on to, just in case.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Thanks - thats very interesting!

Sorry all I sent this before realizing that we were having some issues at
work with our outbound mail - so lucky you, you got it over 12 hours, well
after everyone answered.

Oh well...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilson Zorn" <wilson.zorn@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Suez Incident


> I couldn't remember but was too curious not to look it up, it rang a bell
> but I couldn't quite get it.  Egypt nationalized the canal in 1956.
America
> did not get involved with a British-French invasion, apparently in no
small
> part because America was not informed of the attack.  The US disavowed the
> approach, NATO had a relatively minor crisis as a result.  Given that the
> USSR was looking to exploit this opportunity as they believed the
Egyptians
> would let them through the canal, it was a fairly contentious moment
within
> the US as without.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <GAmoore@...>
> To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>; <basharar@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:37 AM
> Subject: [L-OT] Suez Incident
>
>
> > Hey does anyone remember what the Suez Incident was? I think it was in
> > 1956 and the US took the side of the Arabs against England and France.
> > This came up on another list, and no one can remember exactly what
> > happened.
> >
> > Billy Joel makes reference to it in his song "We Didn't Start the Fire"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>