The Suez Conflict - Source related questions.

7) Study the following interpretations of the Suez Conflict:

i) Nasser was a ruthless nationalist determined to make Egypt the leading power in the Middle East. He was responsible for provoking the Suez War.

ii) The Suez War was brought about by the collusion of Britain, France and Israel in a secret plan to attack Egypt and bring about the downfall of Nasser. These three powers are to be blamed for the Suez War.

Which interpretation is best supported by the evidence in these sources and your knowledge of the period ? Explain your answer

Even before the Suez crisis, the Arabs and the Jews hated each other and had been battling against each other in the “Arab-Israeli Conflict”. Since the 1948-49 war however, a “Cold War” had descended on the conflict. The Suez Crisis was the event that rekindled the conflict’s military flame.

These are different interpretations of who was responsible for provoking the Suez Crisis, and there is evidence to support both these views.

I believe the evidence in the sources and my knowledge of the period best support the second interpretation. This is because most of the sources that support this interpretation are of strong reliability, whereas none of the sources that support the second interpretation are of strong reliability. The strongest Sources that support this interpretation are Sources F, G, H, I, and L.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source F is written by a French historian gives reasons who finishes it off by saying (in the perspective of the Israelis)”He (Ben Gurion) decided that the time had come to strike”, and “Also, it seemed foolish not to profit from the happy circumstance of finding two major, well armed Western powers (Britain and France) on Israel’s side”. The fact that the historian is French and is admitting that Israel attacked Egypt with the collusion of Britain and France, makes the Source’s reliability in supporting the second interpretation very strong.

Source G is an extract from the points of the “Protocol of Sevres”. Point 1 of the protocol is “Israel will launch a large-scale operationon the evening of 29 October with the aim of reaching the Canal Zone on the following day”. This point is clearly stating that there is a plan for Israel to attack Egypt, but we need to use point 7 in order to pin the blame onto Britain and France as well. Point 7 is “The provisions of the Protocol are to remain strictly secret and to enter into force as soon as they have been confirmed by the three Governments”. We know that the other two of the three nations are Britain and France as all three nations have signed the protocol. This document is not available at the British record offices, as Eden sent Dean, the British representative for the agreement of the protocol, back to destroy all evidence of the protocol, as he only wanted a verbal agreement.

Source I is the view of Anthony Nutting, Britain’s Foreign Office Minister, on the subject of the Suez War. His sentences include “…we belaboured with our truncheons the assaulted and not the assaulter”, which means that he is criticising Britain for Attacking Egypt instead of Israel.

Source H Is a speech by Anthony Eden in which he emphatically denies that Britain was in collusion with Israel. Point one in Source G proves that he was obviously lying. Source L is a British cartoon displaying that Britain France and Israel are being told off by the UN for bullying Egypt. If a British cartoon is criticising British actions then it is extremely likely that the actions depicted have happened as normally cartoons are bias to the nationality of the artist..

The Sources that support the fact that Nasser was a ruthless nationalist determined to make Egypt the leading power in the Middle East, and was responsible for provoking the Suez War are Sources A, B and C.

Source A however has no value in terms of reliability as it is a British cartoon depicting Nasser and is almost certain to be bias. Also it is common knowledge that cartoons generally tend to exaggerate the point they are making. Source B is mainly supporting the fact that Nasser was a normal, down to earth man except for one part of his speech when he says that the canal employees are “…forbidden to leave their employment….for any reason whatsoever”. This displays a hint of dictatorship. Also it appears that he may also only want control of the canal so that he can attain the money that it produces.

Source C shows a photograph of the ships Nasser had scuttled in the canal in order to block the canal. On the face of it, this seems to be reliable evidence that this was an aggressive action by Nasser in a bid to aid his takeover of the Middle East. However, Source G powerfully shows that this first opinion is not the correct one to take. Source C states that Nasser had the ships sunk on the 31st of October. Source G extracts points from the Protocol of Sevres. Point one states that on the night of the 29th Israel would attack Egypt in order to reach the Canal the following day. Nasser must have been provoked by the Israeli invasion into blocking the canal in order to stop it being captured.

Centre Number – 25176 03/05/2007 Candidate No. 9014

Centre Name – Uppingham School