Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Edit suggestion for Header, 01-29-13

The opening paragraph contains a sentence that reads: "Despite the denials of the Israeli, British, and French governments, evidence began to emerge that the invasion of Egypt had been planned beforehand by the three powers" Reading the associated reference, which is a 1950s Time article, it seems a better work for "evidence" would be "allegations" or something to that effect; it does not seem outside the realm of reasonability that the British Foreign Secratary would want the UK, or more precisely his party in the UK, to appear a "belated partner" in a failed operation; therefore, the it seems a quote from him would more accurately be described as an "allegation" rather than "evidence".

Therefore, I suggest we change the word "evidence" in that paragraph to "allegation". Thank you. --Adam7z (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC) [User:Adam7z|Adam7z]] (talk)

Reliance on possible biased source

I was reading through the article (excellent work btw go us) and noticed that most sections of the article that mentioned Israel where sourced by Donald Neff's Warriors at the Suez Warriors at Suez. In them, Israel does not come out sounding so great.

Reviewing the other works of the author [1] I cannot help but notice a disturbing anti-Israel/Jewish theme in his writings ("Jewish Defense League Unleashes Campaign of Violence in America" seriously?). This may call into question the objectivity of his book. Having looked at the portions I could find online, it seems this book might be somewhat biased/POV. Therefore, it might not be the most accurate or complete picture of the Israeli involvement in the Suez Crisis, and thus not particularly suitable as the main source of the article for information about Israeli involvement.

Therefore, I'd like to propose a discussion if it appropriate to allow the article to rely so heavily on this source for the parts of the article that reference Israel.

--Adam7z (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Typo correction requested 2012-09-25

"together the related effects" should be "together with the related effects".

"Israeli destroyers, together two Israeli Air Force Dassault Ouragans" should be "...together with...".

"to acquiescent" should be either "to acquiesce" or maybe "too acquiescent"

"threat to sent troops" should be "threat to send troops"

"Dulles's polices" must have been intended as "Dulles's policies"

"directed the Jews of Egypt" should be "directed against the Jews of Egypt"

209.152.220.14 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This entire article needs significant editorial attention. It is rife with improperly spelled and misused words, and horrible punctuation.

Another one: "Through it would be entirely false" -> "Though it would be entirely false" (in section "US and Soviet diplomacy") 81.98.18.46 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The section "Nasser exploits the superpower rivalry": "arms sales of equal quantity and quantity" should be "... of equal quantity and quality" or vice versa.

Well spotted. I've fixed it. Maproom (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

and the other six listed above. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

and the "Through it would be entirely false" one. Incidentally - there's no need to specify the section, I just copy the defective text, e.g. "hrough it would be entirely false" and do ctrl-F to find it. Maproom (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

British and American spellings

Someone needs to go through the article and standardize its spelling (for instance, it uses "nationalize" half the time and "nationalise" the other). I don't care which one, there just needs to be some consistency.130.74.92.193 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eden's mistake?

It says Eden made a mistake in delaying the military operation until the autumn, by which time public anger in the UK had subsided. Yet wikipedia's article on Eden says an immediate military response would have been impossible. (Herscvhell (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC))

Edit request on 4 May 2013

Second paragraph under "Telescope modified" should day "During the ensuing street fighting" not "During the ensuring street fighting" Dhurley3 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Rather that should be rather than in the article "Events leading to the Suez Crisis" sub-article "US and Soviet diplomacy" in the 4th paragraph 173.180.28.110 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2013

Rather that should be rather than in the article "Events leading to the Suez Crisis" sub-article "US and Soviet diplomacy" in the 4th paragraph 173.180.28.110 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(Fixed.) Duplicate of above. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

excellent article - with tacit invitation to explore - expanding it is not practical given geopolitical realities

It is all in headline: how does one nominate an article for 'featured article' etc? Multitasking so no time today - put it there *also* as note to myself....

Manojpandeyanarchocommunist (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of view is not neutral. Qadeer Nil (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Israel's Involvement

Israel's stated aims in its incursion into the Sinai included stopping Egyptian fedayeen (jihadist militants) raids over the border. Such raids had been going on for several years, with the Egyptian government unable or unwilling to crack down on the offending militant groups. Though Israel would not have received the go-ahead from Britain and France without the greater geopolitical concerns of the Canal and the Soviet Union's involvement, the Canal's status was a much lower priority than counter-terror operations, from the Israeli point of view. (Recall: Israel at the time was a far more socialist country than it is today, and had not yet gone through the formative experiences of the 1967 and '73 wars, during which the Soviet Union had aligned itself with the Arab states; as such, Western or Soviet influence over the Canal mattered far less to the new nation of Israel than stopping cross-border terrorist raids. The 1956 Suez Crisis, from the Israeli perspective, was the first in a chain of events which resulted in Israel becoming a Middle Eastern ally of the West, not a symptom of that alliance.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.58.207 (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The point made above, that Israel's major motivation for it's Sinai campaign was to stop Egyption-sponsored attacks, is partially corroborated in Moshe Dayan's "Diary of The Sinai Campaign" (New York, 1967, Schocken Books, p.22 ). Dayan identifies Egypt's use of Gaza as a base for Fedayeen raids and blockade of the Straits of Tiran as being decisive adverse factors that capturing the Sinai would solve. At the same time, while claiming that "we have no aspirations to reach Suez and become an involved party in this dispute," Dayan makes it clear that Israel expected English/French control of the canal to alleviate the Egyptian-imposed embargo on transit of Israel-bound shipping. Stephengeis (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia accepts without question the biased views of the Arab world in referring to Suez as the notion of a Tripartite Aggression without any of the usual "citation needed" requests (that are added for far lesser things) shows that it is not impartial.

Anglo-French authority

Wasn't there a short-lived Anglo-French authority formed to run the canal and collect the tolls? GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the answer. I was thinking of the short-lived Suez Canal Users Association. I will be adding this info in due time. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

The name should be changed to Sinai Campaign, because that is what it is called in Israel, and reflects the fact that the majority of the fighting was not actually in the Suez Canal but in the Sinai Peninsula. 76.185.125.46 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done What it is called in Israel is irrelevant, as the English Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME in English. There are several "Sinai campaigns", causing potential confusion, but a Google search for '"Sinai campaign" 1956' gives 24,600 matches - whilst '"Suez crisis" 1956' gives 511,000 matches. The common name, by over 20-1 is, therefore "Suez Crisis". Arjayay (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents

Legion is part of the French army, no need to separate it from France. You should delete Legion icon 109.190.97.85 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone should remove the Soviet Union from the belligerents list because they weren't involved in any form of direct major combat. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing interference by sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Soviet Union's threat to intervene militarily prompted the US to bankrupt sterling. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)) No the Soviet threat had no direct impact. You can talk rough and actually do nothing --with no troops within range--but that does not merit belligerent status. Rjensen (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) The Soviet threat forced the Americans to bankrupt sterling, as at the time everybody thought the USSR had a vast range of nuclear weapons. Without Bulganin's nuclear threats the US would have supported its allies, like three years earlier in Iran. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)) what reliable sources make that claim?? Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Most biographies of Eisenhower mention the US government only took a hardline approach against its allies after the Soviets threatened to start a nuclear war. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)) well no they do NOT say that. Ike told the British months ahead of time the US would NOT tolerate an invasion, and kept repeating it. The US was not afraid of USSR --it lacked missiles that could threaten US in 1956 but NATO-based bombers could hit Moscow. Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC) The British and French had every reason to believe the Americans would support its allies, just as it had in Iran in 1953. Saving Nasser's regime probably ranks as the most disasterous decision by any US administration ever. The West did not know the USSR lacked these mssiles until 1958, and there was every expectation that the Soviets could nuke Israel and invade western Europe. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)) Eisenhower personally told Eden NOT to do it and that the US would NOT support an invasion. There was no invasion of Iran in 1953. The West certainly did know the USSR lacked missiles in 1956. More important Moscow could not be defended against US bombers. And of course the Warsaw powers had just invaded Hungary, Rjensen (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Eisenhower told Nixon that saving Nasser was the worst mistake of his presidency. Strange how invading Iran, Guatemala, Lebanon and Cuba was somehow OK. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

Mistakes in results section

Closing discussion started by sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Suez Crisis did not mark the end of Britain's role as a superpower. In reality the UK had not been a superpower since World War II. The Crisis merely demonstrated that Britain had been an American satellite since the Atlantic Charter in 1941. Also the term "UK" should be used, "Britain" had ceased to exist in the 1800 Acts of Union. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)) Historians prefer the term "Britain". as for the role of 1956 lots of RS make this sort of statement: 1) " In many ways the end of the Suez War marks the end of the British Empire and the transfer of influence to the United States" [Karl R. DeRouen, Defense and Security]; 2) "The Suez Crisis is widely viewed as marking the end of British and French ascendancy on the world ..." [Ringer 2006]; 3) "The Suez crisis...signified the end of Great Britain's role as one of the world's major powers." [Ellis, 2009] ; 4) "he importance of the Suez Crisis, both actual and symbolic, in Britain's decline as a Great Power after 1945" [Lucas 1996] Rjensen (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Britain had ceased to exist after 1800 when it became the UK. The UK and France had not been superpowers since World War II, or likely before. The Chanak Crisis, the Fall of France, the Fall of Singapore and the Fall of Hong Kong had already demonstrated this long before Suez. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)) The Fall of Singapore was indeed a massive humiliation - but then so was the Fall of Yorktown in 1782 or whenever it was - Britain recovered from the loss of the USA and went on to be richer and have a bigger Empire than ever. Military humiliations in themselves do not mark the end of a country's first rate status - Rome recovered from a number of humiliations before she finally fell. Russia recovered from her humiliation after the Crimean War and later recovered from the Russo-Japanese War and WW1 and from 1945 became the second most powerful country in the world. In practical terms Britain was dependent on US handouts from 1940-1 onwards, and very much the third of the Big Three by the end of WW2, but people didn't yet see the situation as being one of terminal decline. The point about Suez was that it made clear that Britain was no longer a first rate power (definition: capable of acting independently - something which had not been tested for a while), despite her maintaining a huge air force and conscript army during this period, and despite her believing that her economic travails were temporary and that she was going to hold onto her African colonies (India had been moving towards independence for years before 1947 and was still friendly) and her network of satellite states in the Middle East (Hashemite Jordan & Iraq). Even then, Britain's decline was still slower than is sometimes supposed: one of the reasons why Britain did not join the nascent EEC (as it was then called) in the 1950s was that the idea that Britain, still trying to be the Third Superpower, was on a par with continental countries still seemed absurd. IIRC she was overtaken by Germany in GDP per head in the late 1950s, but it was only in the early 1960s, when France passed her as well, that people really noticed that something was going badly wrong. As an aside, it has been remarked that Winston Churchill's political career (1899-1955) fits neatly between the Diamond Jubilee and Suez, of which coincidence you can make what you will.Paulturtle (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC) World War II was the end of the UK being a superpower, not the Suez Crisis. The Fall of Singapore ensured India would become fully independent after 1945. Germany had already overtaken the UK by the beginning of the 20th century. Churchill did more to destroy the UK as a world power than any other person, so that is hardly surprising. (MohammedBashir1 (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)) I think a bit for referring to Reliable Sources is required in this discussion. At the moment it reads more like personal opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Victory..

What is the Coalition military victory based on? is there any non-French/british/Israeli reliable sources saying Anglo-French-Israeli Victory? also why is the Soviet Union in the Belligerents Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 21:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We really need more sources for this claim. It's also strange that "Israeli military victory" is listed separately from "Coalition military victory," since Israel was part of the three-nation pact, alongside Britain and France. There's no need for a separate "Israeli military victory" label, and the claim of coalition military victory needs much better sourcing. A more accurate and better-grounded statement might be something along the lines of

• Israeli, British and French military advances with subsequent withdrawal.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli military victory is supported by the source: "Despite American displeasure at Israeli actions during the Suez crisis, with their military victory over Nasser and their partnership with the British and the French...". Unfortunately, I can't say the same of the "coalition military victory", since it's completely unsourced. It was a clear military victory for Israel, which succeeded in the battlefield, conquered the Sinai in eight days and achieved its objectives (to reopen the Straits of Tiran, bring UN troops to the border and punish Egypt for the fedayeen raids). But it isn't clear that it was a military victory for the British and the French (certainly not a political one).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you show other sources that claim Israeli military advances amounted to "military victory"? Normally, victory is a more encompassing term, meaning that a more preferable situation is reached, with losses corresponding to the amount gained. That's difficult to say in this case: Israel was forced to give up the territory it took in the initial days of the war, and it faced extremely harsh international criticism for its attack on Egypt. Ben Gurion's goals encompassed the annexation of at least the eastern portion of the Sinai peninsula, something which Israel was forced to give up on under international pressure. Saying that the opening of the straits and the end of the sporadic Fedayeen raids is proportionate to the diplomatic damage Israel incurred is questionable, and needs better sourcing. Unless the preponderance of sources - not just one source - claims an overall Israeli military victory, I think we should just leave it at the bare facts: Israeli, British and French military advances, followed by withdrawal of foreign forces from Egyptian territory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Thucydides411. The solution i think is to call these "temporary" victories & make clear all the gains were lost via diplomacy. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Under the header 'Frustration of British aims' it says in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph 'After the ..., Eden become consumed with an obsessional hatred for Nasser,'. This should be 'After the ..., Eden became consumed with an obsessional hatred for Nasser,'

Balladeertje (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request -- lede

The following is {dubious} unless more sources can be found, as the only citation is ONE historian , not any sort of Academic Consensus nor even 2 or more (plural) historians, as the editor who added this tries to make it sound: "Historians have studied Britain's failure and conclude the crisis "signified the end of Great Britain's role as one of the world's major powers".[19]" ¬¬¬¬

Historical dictionaries are designed to summarize the consensus of the scholars. Lots of scholars emphasize the importance of the Suez crisis. For example look at these books: Keith Kyle, The Suez Crisis: Britain’s End of Empire (2002); Cameron Watt, Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain's Place (1984). Peden in 2012 states, "The Suez crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain's decline as a world power." in "Suez and Britain's decline as a world power" Historical Journal Dec 2012, pp 1073-1096. David French in 2013 stated that "The consensus is that [Defence Minister] Sandys [in the months after Suez] was a prime mover in bringing about a contraction of Britain's military capabilities." Diplomacy & Statecraft March 2013, pp 41-58. Rjensen (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Here it Wikipedia, the job of the editors is to summarize what the reliable published secondary sources have to say, whether we agree with them or not. In my opinion, Great Britain in 1955 was indeed a major power in the Middle East, but was no longer so two years later. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. The UK had already agreed to withdraw from Egypt in 1954. (HeddieLemarr (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

murderous fedayeen raids

-@Thucydides411: You erased the text: "nearly stopping the murderous fedayeen raids." Your reason: "murderous" is an NPOV violation.

-Googling for the term: "murderous fedayeen" resuts in:

---"To them the murderous fedayeen raids and constant harassment were just another form of Arab warfare against Israel"

---"In early March 1955, after a series of murderous fedayeen attacks on Israeli civilians, Sharon sent 149 of his paratroopers to raid the Egyptian forces in the Gaza ..".

- According to merriam-webster.com "murderous" means: "having the purpose or capability of murder, characterized by or causing murder or bloodshed" (among other explanations).

- It seems that "murderous" is an accurate description of the Fedayeen who used to kill innocent civilians. Will you accept the returning of this text to the article? Ykantor (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "murderous" doesn't belong here, in an encyclopaedia article. It's a very emotionally-laden term. We don't write that Ariel Sharon's raid on Qibya was "murderous," and the term doesn't belong here either. It's enough to just say that the Israeli aim was to stop the fedayeen raids, without any emotive language attached. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am an Israeli, and my English is not that good. I did not know that "murderous" has such a bad connotation. I took it at face value i.e according to the dictionary:"characterized by or causing murder or bloodshed"

- The article does not mention what harm the fedayeen did. Since they used to murder civilians,("Fedayeen to attack...almost always against civilians") should not we include it in the article? Ykantor (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)