The Times leading article on Monday has given rise to
much speculation. When the Suez crisis first broke in the summer, The Times reacted as if its one determination was to live down painful memories of Munich. The nascent opposition to precipitate action against Nasser was denounced : not, indeed, as appeasement, which might have aroused ribald laughter, but as escapist. When the crisis flared up again a fortnight ago, however, The Times was more restrained. It made little effort to disguise its uneasiness with Government policy. On such occasions, The Times normally tends, after administering its rebuke, to move gradually back to its self-appointed station, alongside, and a little ,above, the Government. By the end of last week, what with the cease-fire and the pro-Eden movement gathering strength, the way seemed clear for reconciliation. Not a bit of it ! Monday's leader was the most forthright anti- Eden pronouncement the newspaper has yet had.'The Times,' it announced, 'has never hidden its misgivings regarding this enterprise. That it was misguided, and yielded Britain no gains at all comparable to the costs in good will and credit, becomes increasingly clear.'
* * *
Previous page
