Letters to the Editor
Professor G. R. Driver, Michael Astor, Rev. F. Marks, R. B. Kenward, Rev. G. C. Harding, 4.. Player, E. F. G. Haig and others
Nigel Leigh Pemberton, Philip Toynbee Lord David Cech John Allegro F. L. Grant
The Suez Crisis Hungary Sir Max Beerbohm Dead Sea Scrolls Whose Guilt?
THE SUEZ CRISIS
SIR,—War is the seed of war., The Jews arc in Israel in consequence primarily of German brutality and secondly of Labour's ineptitude. However, they are there; and a generation is growing up which knows as little of the rights and wrongs of the case as Englishmen do of those of the Norman invasion. The duty of their Government, as of every other, is to Protect those committed to its charge. Heavily outnumbered, surrounded on three sides by bitter enemies and threatened with 'extermina- tion' by one of them unscrupulously exploit- ing the radio to rouse the fanaticism of an ignorant peasantry, they forestall an attack of which their Intelligence has warned them. They are the physical, the Egyptians the moral aggressors.
There were then three possibilities: (a) The war might be long and indecisive, causing appalling losses on both sides and giving ample opportunity for the intervention of allies, solicited or unsolicited; (b) Egypt would win. The other Arab States would hasten to divide the spoils and Israel, having no hinter- ground, would be massacred or driven into the sea—the West, on humanitarian grounds, Would go to her rescue and Russia would hasten to help her dupes against 'aggression'; (c) Israel would win. Egypt would then call on Arab and non-Arab allies, or these would offer their aid, and Israel would call for help from hers. In each case there would be grave risk of global war.
The United Nations have discussed the problem of Palestine some 200 times without result; can anyone hope for any effective action on this occasion? Clearly the Govern- ment (like the Israelis and surely also the Secretariat of the United Nations) had access to secret information but could not publish it; for the very crisis which they wished to avert might thereby be precipitated. It in con- cert with our allies took the only possible step: it broke the law to save the law and separated the combatants (after giving both sides fair warning of their intention). , The Government has realised, of course, that the Suez Canal is not the real issue at
stake but a mere pawn in the game. The Russians are not giving costly equipment, which the recipients barely have the skill to use, to Syrians and Egyptians as the gifts of a fairy godmother; they expect a quid pro quo, which can only be an invitation to help their 'allies' and in so doing to take over their countries. Even Nasser's seizure of the Canal seems to have been prompted fur this very purpose; he can hardly have acted alone against the world. Thus the Russians, con- trolling, Syria (as they already virtually do) and Egypt, could squeeze out the Israelis and then fan out along North Africa and towards the Persian Gulf and, masters of pipe-line and wells, could cut off Western Europe's supplies of oil, thereby throwing millions out of work and making all the countries dependent on it into breeding-grounds of Communism.
Morality consists not in uttering moral platitudes but in having the courage to do what one believes to be right; wrong belief, unlike failure to do one's duty through cowardice or fear of unpopularity, is not a sin. The Prime Minister, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, has remembered that one who said, 'All these things have I observed since my youth,' stood utterly condemned when the crisis came. We owe him and his colleagues an incalculable debt of gratitude for their fore- sight and courage; they have restored our prestige with all who think (if not with the hysterics), opened the eyes of the world to the danger, roused the United Nations to action (however tardy), saved us, if only for the time being, from another world-wide war and incidentally rescued Egypt from the con- sequences of her folly.—Yours faithfully,
G. R. DRIVER
Magdalen College, Oxford