News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
Troop movements and other skullduggery are taking place so fast in the Suez area that any comment may be completely outmoded by the events of 5 hours. The general direction of things, however, seems only too clear.
From all currently available information it must be inferred that the British, French, and Israelis have perpetrated an incredible plot. For the moment, these facts are known--
1. From the beginning French have supported the Israeli attack, while the British have moved to an "understanding" of the Israeli position with suspicious speed.
2. The British have offered a ceasefire proposal which demands virtually nothing from the Israelis and is impossible for the Egyptians. The Israelis have naturally agreed to remain 10 miles from Suez; they may never have gotten closer anyway. For the Egyptians to withdraw from Suez would be absurd--they had no choice but to refuse.
3. British ships and paratroopers, of course, are on their way.
4. In the Security Council France and Great Britain have vetoed United States and Russian resolutions urging the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the avoidance of violence by U.N. members.
The whole thing points to an obvious British-and-French inspired pretext for snatching Suez. Even President Eisenhower seems not to be taken in, which reveals how bald the scheme is. It amounts to the most anachronistic type of diplomacy running--the old gun-boat grab, and an inordinantly blatant specimen at that.
To the average citizen the Anglo-French behavior seems so incredible that he cannot imagine what could have been done about it. Actually, however, the United States did have some advance warning in the massing of Israeli troops on the border. Considering Anglo-French feeling about Suez and the Arabs, the President might have anticipated their action. If, immediately upon hearing of the invasion, the President had condemned armed intervention of any country except under the auspices of the U.N. perhaps the British might have been prevented from wading in.
The question remains--what to do now? At the moment, British are in or almost in the Suez area. The best time for bullying them into inactivity is now past. But neither the British nor the Israelis can remain in Suez. An outright demand, however, would only hurt already touchy British pride. First, the British must be persuaded to accept complete Israeli withdrawal. Then, through the U.N. if possible, it must be made clear to them that the maintenance of troops in the area is indefensible. If the U.N. does not work, then economic sanctions must be threatened (quietly). But the President must continue firm, indeed he must be tough, despite British entrenchment, and despite British pride.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.