SIR,—I quote from the Spectator of August 3, 1956, under
the heading 'Safeguarding Suez': 'Whatever the result of the present consulta- tions in London one thing is certain. Events in the Middle East have made a reorientation of long-term British policy a matter of urgency. . . . Would Colonel Nasser have done what he has done if there were British bases in Israel and two British divisions in the Negev? . . . The case for giving Isfael the arms and the support she wants is now, if possible, more conclusive than ever. ... Britain should there- fore supply her with the arms she needs to defend herself and conclude an alliance if necessary providing for the maintenance of a British base on Israeli territory.' I quote further from the Spectator CA November 23, 1956, under the heading 'Conni-
vance?' : . . the delivery of French arms for Israel was greatly stepped up in October. The question is whether this country was impli- cated. . . . For the Government's hands to be clean there must not only have been no agree- ment, there must also have been absence of prior knowledge. . . . The rumours in Wash- ington and elsewhere . . . ; the rumour in Israel . . . ; the rumours in Paris . . . —all these, as well as many other indications in London, add up to a strong prima facie case against the Government.'
If this country, with or without France, had been carrying out the policy with regard to Israel which you recommended in August, could she have avoided 'prior knowledge' of Israel's preparations to forestall the Arab in- vasion which you feared and which she hourly expected? If your policy for Britain and Israel was as right as you evidently thought it was in August, would even 'collusion' or 'connivance' have been anything but the logical next step?
I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of rearming Israel or 'conniving' with her. merely use the above excerpts from a paper 1 have long enjoyed, to illustrate your regent tendency to be wise after the event and to use your belated wisdom without regard for its effect on our international relationships and prestige.
I believe, Sir, that I am not the only reader to be irritated by this tendency.—Yours faith" fully,
GRACE GRAHAM
17 Beaumont Gate, Glasgow, W2
[The policy advocated in the Spectator of August 3 was that of a defensive alliance be- tween Britain and Israel which would have stabilised frontiers in the Middle East and re- moved the temptation for the Israelis to wage a preventive war against Egypt or any other Arab State. There is all the difference in the world between this and connivance in an Israeli offensive towards the Canal Zone. The Spectator's policy was designed to avert this clanger.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
