[ad_1]
As soon as Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the channel, the event gained global importance, in the Arab region, large demonstrations were held throughout the Arab world, and the accumulation of events in the arms breakdown agreement, then the nationalization of the channel and then his support for all liberation movements in Africa led to a large increase in Nasser’s popularity in the third world, especially among Arabs and Africans, called him the leader of the Arab nation. In the West, the opposite occurs for three reasons:
The first: that he opposed all the alliances that Great Britain and the United States tried to establish, led by the “Baghdad Pact”, whose main objective was to combat communism and deny hostility towards the Zionist entity, and Abdel Nasser succeeded.
The second: breaking the Western hegemony over the Arab region, eliminating what the Arab rulers considered inevitable, a security protection for their regimes, and raising the level of national consciousness among the Arab people in their various territories.
And the third: the direct attack on Western interests represented in the nationalization of the Suez Canal, which France and Great Britain used to share, and the fear of other nationalizations that could take place in Egypt, some countries of the Arab world and African countries, some of whose revolutionary leaders have a socialist focus.
Egypt and Abdel Nasser came under tremendous pressure from various countries to reverse the nationalization decision. However, the stability of the Egyptian position led to the holding of an international conference in London, convened by the United States, France and Great Britain, on 8/16/56, attended by 22 countries, and Egypt and Greece did not attended. The two guests, in which John Foster Dallas, the United States Secretary of State, presented a proposal on behalf of the United States to establish an international body to manage the Suez Canal, which obtained the approval of 18 countries, while the head of the Indian delegation, Krishna Menon, who was then Indian ambassador to the United Nations, by proposing that this body have a purely consultative nature, which avoids the violation of Egyptian sovereignty over the canal, and this proposal won the votes from the Soviet Union, represented by its Chancellor Dimitri Shepilov, as well as from Indonesia and Silon, which in the future would become Sri Lanka. The success of the US project led to the appointment of a five-year committee headed by Robert Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, and members of Ethiopia, Sweden, Iran and the United States, to follow up on the issue. Abdel Nasser refused to invite the committee to a meeting outside of Egypt, forcing the committee to travel to Cairo, and the meeting was held on 9/3/56, and when Abdel Nasser noticed a condescending tone from Menzies in the hinting at English and French threats to use force, he withdrew from the meeting. The case is due to the failure of the commission in its mission.
Although diplomatic contacts continued and proposals that sought to resolve the issue of nationalization, including another Dulles proposal to establish an international body to administer the canal, called Suez Canal Users Association, short for SCUA, was approved at the Second Conference. London held on 9/21/1956, attended by the eighteen countries that approved the first proposal at the previous conference. For history, I list these countries: Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Turkey, France, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Pakistan, Iran, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Ethiopia, the United States, and Italy. Later, Britain and France took the issue to the UN Security Council, but did not obtain approval of the project to internationalize the channel. Rather, six principles were agreed, the most important of which is freedom of passage, respect for Egypt’s sovereignty, and the determination of fees and expenses by agreement between Egypt and the countries using the canal. And France on 10/29/56 in Geneva to discuss the details.
Egypt and Abdel Nasser came under tremendous pressure from various countries to reverse the nationalization decision, but the stability of the Egyptian position led to the holding of an international conference in London.
During these negotiations, secret Franco-British negotiations were taking place to use force to restore the Suez Canal and overthrow the Nasser regime, and other negotiations between France and the Zionist enemy for the same purpose, and at that time France he was one of the staunchest defenders of this enemy, either supplying it with weapons and planes, and then giving it aid. Mission in the establishment of its nuclear base. The meetings, held in secret for the three countries together, resulted in a protocol in Sevre, a city located on the outskirts of Paris, about 10 km from its center. This agreement was signed on 10/24/56, and was signed by David Ben-Gurion, Prime Minister of the Entity, Christian Pinau, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Patrick Dean, who was Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs British. The meetings that preceded the signing between 10/21/56, in addition to the aforementioned persons, were attended by the French side, Maurice Beourge-Manoury, the Minister of National Defense, Maurice Shalle, Deputy Chief of Staff of the French army, and on the British side, Siled Lloyd. Selwyn Lloyd, the British Foreign Secretary, and Donald Logan, Lloyd’s Special Secretary, in terms of the entity’s delegation, included Moshe Dayan, Chief of Staff of the Entity’s Army, and Shimon Peres, Director General of the Ministry of Defense.
The Sevres Agreement stipulates the following:
The results of the meetings that took place in Sevres, from October 21 to 24, 1956, between representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom, the State of Israel and France are as follows:
1- On October 29, Israeli forces launched a massive attack against Egyptian forces, with the aim of reaching the Suez Canal the next day.
2- When I take note of these facts, the British and French governments, on October 30, will direct two appeals in a row and at the same time to the Egyptian government and the Israeli government, as follows:
A – To the Egyptian government:
– Cessation of military operations
Withdrawing all his forces ten miles from the canal
Accept the occupation of the main centers of the Canal by the Anglo-French forces, to ensure the freedom of passage for ships from all countries until the final solution
B – To the government of Israel:
– Cessation of military operations
Withdraw all your forces ten miles east of the canal.
In addition to the above, the Israeli government is informed that the French and British governments have requested the Egyptian government to accept the temporary occupation of the main centers along the canal by Anglo-French forces. It was agreed (between Great Britain and France) that if one of the two governments refused, or refused, to give its consent, within 12 hours, the English and French forces would enter with the means necessary to ensure that their demands were accepted.
3- The representatives of the three countries agree that if the Egyptian government does not comply with the terms of the appeal against it, the Israeli government is not obliged to implement the terms of the appeal against it.
4- In the event that the Egyptian government does not agree to the terms of the appeal against it, the Anglo-French forces will launch military operations against the Egyptian forces in the early hours of the morning of October 31.
5 – The Israeli government occupies the western coast of the Gulf of Aqaba and the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to guarantee freedom of navigation through the channel.
6. Israel agrees not to attack Jordan during operations against Egypt. But if Jordan attacks Israel during this period, the British government agrees not to help Jordan.
7 – All arrangements for this protocol must be kept strictly confidential
8 – These arrangements will enter the implementation phase when they are approved by the three governments
In an appendix, France promised to send two squadrons of IVA Mirage and two ships to protect the skies and coasts of the Zionist entity from October 29 to 31, that is, until the start of the Anglo-French attack mentioned above.
I must refer here to Ben-Gurion’s project, which he explained to both conferences, while stressing that only eight years have passed since the establishment of the Zionist entity, to indicate that expansion is an integral part of this entity that refuses to define your borders.
After the disappearance of the Abdel Nasser government and Ben Gurion’s speech here, I think the state of Jordan is not viable. Therefore, the eastern bank of it must be annexed to Iraq, after the settlement of Palestinian refugees there, provided that Iraq signs a peace treaty with Israel, while the West Bank must annex Israel. As for Lebanon, its problem is that its south is mainly inhabited by Muslims, so Israel must expand to the Litani River, and thus Lebanon will become a compact Christian state. As for the Sinai, the canal area is being internationalized and Israel maintains the entire area east of El-Arish and Sharm El-Sheikh and the Strait of Tiran to ensure freedom of navigation in the canal and eliminate the threat from the bases. military in Sinai. Furthermore, Ben-Gurion confided to Dayan that oil had been discovered in the south and west of the Sinai, so it would be good if the Sinai was taken from Egypt and then an oil pipeline could be laid between the Sinai and Haifa.
I have gone into the details of this protocol, because I believe that the battle of the Suez Canal will ultimately determine the positions of the major powers towards Nasserite rule, and their influence will extend until the death of Abdel Nasser in 1970, and that is which I will address in the third and last part of this article.
* Lebanese writer and politician
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
