Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: bentway who wrote (160793)	4/21/2005 5:28:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Eisenhower supported PEACE, not Nasser. Who's land was it? Whose canal was it, that was the question at stake. By law and previous agreements, it was British and French. The French dug it in the 1880s with some financial assistance from the Egyptian government; the British had bought out the Egyptian share of ownership. All very legal. Nasser nationalized it, meaning he just took it, thus provoking the crisis, in conjunction with certain other moves, like blockading the Straights of Tiran and cutting off Israel's supplies. So Israel and Britain and France found themselves with common interests. They thought Eisenhower would acquiesce but he did not. He condemned them in the UN, he stopped oil shipments to Europe; he threatened to collapse the British pound by selling US holdings; in short, he forced a ceasefire very much to Nasser's advantage, since it left him clear master of the Suez Canal and all its revenues. He also forced Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai, which they had taken. Nasser was hugely enhanced by 1956. Read en.wikipedia.org

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next