WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION? I have heard several. The simplest
is that the editor of The Times happened to be in the United States when the Israelis launched their kick-back in Sinai, and the British and French their ultimatum. He therefore saw for himself the angry reaction in Washington, t nd in the UN. This would not, however, explain why The Times's line has now become still more firmly anti-Eden. One suggestion I have heard is that The Times accepts the theory, widely held every- where except in Britain, that there was collusion between Britain, France and Israel. There is also the possibility that The Times accepted the Government's plea not to prejudge the issue, but to wait for the retrospective justification which, it was promised, the invasion of Egypt would provide. This has since turned out to be no more than the proof of the existence of large quantities of Russian war material in Egypt. But its existence was known; so far from justifying the Government, it condemns them for gross carelessness—or gross deception— in pretending that the balance of power in the Middle East was not being menaced by Russian supplies. Even the Daily Tele- graph has been sufficiently riled by the revelations to criticise the Government, on the grounds that, as late as August, Lord John Hope was assuring the Commons that the balance was preserved! 'Why,' it asks, 'was this said when the Government was already aware of the facts now published?'
Previous page
