Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Coalition military victory

A bold claim is an opinion, there are a number of sources which state that the campaign was an overwhelming military victory, why the need for this not to be included? Shire Lord 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Eastfarthing, it would be useful if you would sign your contributions to this page with your username. It would also be appreciated if you would refrain from labeling good-faith edits as "vandalism" - those sorts of spurious accusations have no place here. I do indeed think that labeling the 1956 war a "Coalition military victory" is a bold claim, especially in light of the fact that two of the members of the coalition, France and Britain, failed to achieve their basic military objectives. What there is support for is something like the phrase, "IDF military victory in Sinai campaign". This would be supported, for example, by Avi Shlaim's well-respected history, "Iron Wall" (p. 183 in the First Edition). But if you want to claim a coalition military victory, which implies a British and French victory as well, that appears to me to be a stretch, and you should cite directly from the relevant works here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I had a problem with sig but now sorted thank you for showing me this. Shire Lord (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Cited sources being removed for ones own opinion is vandalism especially when there is no consensus on this talk page in the first place. If there is a consensus for your edit then I will happily leave it there; shall we perhaps see if others agree with this.? After all Operation Musketeer the military engagement of the Suez Crisis achieved most if not all of its objectives militarily despite the eventual political crisis. Here are just a few of the many quotes - "The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives" by Dona J. Stewart, page 133 - Though a military victory for the British and French, it developed into a political crisis.. "Nasser" by Anne Alexander .. but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory. "The A to Z of Middle Eastern Intelligence" - Page 237 by Ephraim Kahana, ‎Muhammad Suwaed It might be concluded that Operation Musketeer was a military success that ended in a political failure. "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern" Page 11 by Michael Oren Operation Musketeer, the invasion's codename, was a consummate military success.

Additions:Owen L. Sirrs - Nasser and the Missile Age in the Middle East (2007) - although his military had suffered reverses on the battlefield Nasser made much of is victory over France, Britain and Israel p 18-19.
Eugene Rogan - The Arabs: A History (2012) - For Egypt the Suez Crisis was a military defeat turned into a political victory p 303-04. Shire Lord (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you persist in your insulting accusations of vandalism. It's your choice to be disagreeable, and I'll see past it. On the substantive matter, you have to be more careful with your sources. For example, you cite the following half-sentence from Anne Alexander's "Nasser":

"[...] but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory."

But if you actually read Anne Alexander's chapter on the attack on Egypt, she writes about an Israeli military victory in the Sinai peninsula, but does not describe the British and French campaign in that manner. Here's the relevant passage:

"However, neither the Israelis, who had scored a decisive victory in the desert largely because they were mobile and had the advantage of surprise, nor the British and French, were prepared to fight their way house by house through Cairo." (p. 93)

It makes sense why Anne Alexander calls the Israeli desert campaign a victory, but doesn't use this language to describe the French-British campaign along the canal. Britain and France faced a stubborn, slow fight against citizen militias, and were forced to withdraw under international pressure before they could complete their objective of capturing the canal. What I'm trying to point out to you here is firstly, that you should read your sources more carefully, rather than searching for the first instance of the word "victory" or "success," and secondly, that the reality of the situation doesn't comport with the description "coalition victory." The info box should describe what happened more directly: "Israeli military victory in Sinai campaign; French-British military advance along the canal; withdrawal from Egyptian territory under international pressure." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Eastfarthing|Shire Lord "Cited sources being removed for ones own opinion is vandalism" - no it is not WP:VANDALISM. No need to use that word. Note that by re-stating it, you introduce and maintain a battle-attitude here. That is not the best way to reach consensus. -DePiep (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No consensus had been made at all which is why it is being discussed here on the talk page. I am not trying to insult anyone here; by wiping out a cited source then that creates a battle attitude in the first place; after all it had been in place here for some time. As for Anne Alexander, Thucydides411 you need to read the passage more carefully; that sentence I described & I repeat the quote again with the whole sentence : and it was the old powers (meaning Britain & France) who overreached themselves inviting Israel to join the attack on attack Egypt but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory. Also why focus on one source that I provided? When it clearly says military victory but suffering political humiliation, which is exactly what the infobox describes. I will be prepared to make a change in the info box to balance matters if this helps - perhaps "Coalition military success"? Shire Lord (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Eastfarthing, I'm trying to point out to you the importance of reading your sources carefully, and not cherry-picking half-sentences that seem to validate your point, while ignoring everything else the author has to say. Anne Alexander writes an entire chapter on the invasion, and clearly describes only the Israeli part of the operation as militarily successful, while not describing the British/French component of the invasion as militarily successful. I think the description that accurately describes the events, based on Anne Alexander's chapter on the invasion, is "Israeli military victory in Sinai campaign; French-British military advance along the canal; withdrawal from Egyptian territory under international pressure." That's the wording I propose. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You haven't quoted anything, as either a note or citation from what you have described, instead reading a whole chapter and then reasserting your opinion on it. Here is one from the same book - and it was the old powers (meaning Britain & France) who overreached themselves inviting Israel to join the attack on attack Egypt but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory, Anne Alexander. It is sufficient for a citation/note in the infobox. Plus the others I quoted as above. The whole point of the infobox is short wording but you propose wording that fits more in the article itself. It needs to be short and sharp. "Israeli military victory in Sinai; Anglo French military success". The word Victory, I have taken out; how about that? Shire Lord (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Eastfarthing quoted 2 sources (Kahana& Suwaed, Oren) who support his claim. If there is no support for the opposite view, it seems that it is better to accept his proposal. Ykantor (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Lord Eastfarthing maintained a battle attitude in this discussion without self-reflection. Thucydides411 described the context, and applied a commendable load of patience in answering in the battlefield noise. What you state is not the conclusion here. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle attitude? I am trying to make a compromise with the infobox result with the cited sources as above, unless a consensus is made. Shire Lord (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate Thucydides411's well written context, but eventually we have to converge to wp:rs consequences. There are 2 undisputed wp:rs (Kahana& Suwaed, Oren) who support "military victory" and no support (yet?) to the other view. Hence currently the ruling view is for "military victory", unless you, Thucydides411 and DePiep come with other sources. Ykantor (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Anne Alexander's chapter on the conflict supports the summary I proposed above, not an unambiguous "Coalition military victory." I dealt with Anne Alexander's work in particular, as an example of how we should be reading sources carefully, rather than pulling out individual half-sentences we think support one point or another. I haven't read the other sources yet, because of the time involved in tracking them down and reading them carefully. I would like to point out, however, that Michael Oren should not be considered a neutral source, being just as much a politician as a historian. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also add that another source, "Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim (which is widely considered one of the go-to overviews of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict), describes the Suez War very much as Anne Alexander does, speaking of an Israeli military victory in the Sinai campaign, but not describing the British/French component of the invasion as a victory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It is all very well adding sources but again neither a potential footnote nor inline citation has been provided. Currently and as before the infobox is correct as per WP:RS, WP:CS and WP:IC. You cannot cite an entire chapter and then use an opinion on what it says; that is not how wikipedia works. If not a consensus must be made to change that and this talk page is getting nowhere on that issue, so I propose leaving the infobox as it is with the addition of the above citations and more if needed or Coalition military success or Egyptian military defeat. Shire Lord (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're advocating disregarding what the source actually says, because you can interpret a single half-sentence ripped out of context as supporting your point. That's not how Wikipedia works. The infobox incorrectly summarizes the sources. That's what matters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not disregarding what the source says - I have yet to see any quotes that put that particular chapter to support your view, that is all I am asking. You cannot use whole paragraphs/chapters as footnotes/citations. Alexander twice mentions the fact the coalition had won a military victory regarding the crisis:
And it was the old powers who overreached themselves inviting Israel to join the attack on attack Egypt but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory p 96.
The world had changed since 1956, when he had pulled a political victory out of a military defeat before the astonished eyes of Britain, France and Israel p 139. Shire Lord (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 wp:rs supporting the "military victory" even if Alexander book is not counted. There is no support for the negating view. I propose to add the "Military victory" to the article. If and when a contradictory source will be revealed, then the article may updated again. Thucydides411, Lord Eastfarthing, DePiep, will you accept this proposal? Ykantor (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and would even consider to change result to Military success as a compromise. Shire Lord (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reread this whole thread. It appears to me that the first two posts a already give a good roundup of the thread's main line. What follows is details. My responses:

In general: after reading the lede (without thinking of this thread), it is hard to conclude "mil vict". Nasser sat in the chair before-during-after along, and the "canal control" aim was reduced to: cities, and a disfunctional (blocked) pond. That was the factual situation, and to argue from there that there was a victory would require a rewrite of the lede (of course, article's sections can not contradict the lede). Again without considering this thread, the article's image File:1956 Suez war - conquest of Sinai (lol, titled: "Anglo-French invasion, Sinai campaign") shows no control of the canal area at November 5. I could conclude that the Israeli part of the campaign was successful.

In general, the sections of the Israeli actions are way too long. Unbalanced in size and importance compared to the French, English and U.S. sections.

Shire Lord here mentions "a number of sources" that would support an overall mil vict. Well, the article today has 359 footnote sources, and dozens of references (works). Then, this discussion only uses three sources. Out of 359 references, only three sources draw a conclusion of mil vict? That's poor. Then, from the start Shire Lord leans on Michael Oren as a source. His work is about the 1967 war, not 1956 (that page 11, was that a introducion chapter of in the main body of the 1967 work?). Anyway, Oren is not that serious a historian. For his Israel Whitewash re the Liberty attacks, Oren was rewarded ambassadorship. I mean to say: why call that a RS? Any historian scrutinized him? And why base a main conclusion about 1956 on a 1967 book?

This thread has show that the RS's (Oren is out anyway) both by number and by quality of argumentation do not convince. Are we really going to conclude on one source quoting incomplete lines that the war was a success? No.

As I said, (and as Thucydides41 more eloquently did), it looks like Israel achieved its military objectives (even reaching the 10-mile line). That may be stated military achievement, but in the tripartite it is a tactical not strategic goal. The article state describe this as a main outcome — also in the infobox.

I conclude thet the notion of "military victory for the coalition" must be removed from the infobox. By the way, is it common to detail "political result" in milhist infobox? Looks like a distraction to me, off-topic. -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And let's not forget: it makes bad reading (eh, the article is unreadible). Then to make it top-heavy from limited sourced, ouch. The lede is quite good though. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet again user opinions (wp:fpo), no wp:rs, yet again no wp:cs and wp:ic to speak of. DePiep could we leave out the acronym LOL and leave that to the forums etc? I will though use it only once, as a retort. Also as a wp:npov you will note that I do not think that the war was a success. On the contrary the war, was a crisis and, despite a military success/victory for coalition (or military defeat for Egypt), it was a political defeat for coalition (or political victory for Egypt). You will find that there are a lot more than three sources I have quoted from, and yes there are a dozen references with 359 footnotes belonging to said sources. Here is near on a dozen potential inline citations with references that backs up what the infobox says and will even leave out Oren for now since you do not approve of him -
"The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives" by Dona J. Stewart, page 133 - Though a military victory for the British and French, it developed into a political crisis..
"Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis, 1956-1978" by Kai Bird, what the British called Operation Musketeer Revise was a military success - but a political folly p 62
"Reassessing Suez 1956: New Perspectives on the Crisis and its Aftermath" (ed) Simon Smith, The Suez crisis - though technically a military defeat for Nasser - enhanced the Egyptian leader's nationalist credentials p 115
"Nasser" by Anne Alexander, .. but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory p 96., & The world had changed since 1956, when he had pulled a political victory out of a military defeat before the astonished eyes of Britain, France and Israel p 139.
"US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Roots of Anti-Americanism" by Kylie Baxter, Shahram Akbarzadeh Although the assault was a military success, it was a political disaster for the allied forces p 47
"The Columbia Guide to the Cold War" by Michael Kort, Although the resulting Suez Crisis produced yet another Egyptian military defeat, Nasser's defiance of the British and French and his clash with the Israeli's made him a hero in the Arab world. p 154
"The A to Z of Middle Eastern Intelligence" - by Ephraim Kahana, ‎Muhammad Suwaed, It might be concluded that Operation Musketeer was a military success that ended in a political failure. p 237
"Operation Musketeer: A Military Success Ends in Political Failure" by R. Rathbun, United States. Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Education Center, United States. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. (LOL the book title is a citation in itself)
"The 1956 War: Collusion and Rivalry in the Middle East" ed by David Tal, The upshot was that Nasser's military defeat was transformed into a diplomatic victory p 14
"Britain, Israel and the United States, 1955-1958: Beyond Suez" by Orna Almog, Nasser, on the other hand, had strengthened his position in the Arab world more than ever, and his military defeat only enhanced his .... etc etc p 115
"The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square" by Steven Cook, The week-long conflict was a military defeat, but a political triumph for Nasser and Egypt. p 69
"Power and Military Effectiveness: The Fallacy of Democratic Triumphalism Power and Military Effectiveness" by Michael Desch, Israel joined France and the United Kingdom in the Suez War in October and November 1956, inflicting a significant tactical defeat but was denied a strategic victory p 96.

There are more if needed (like I said before). However since we are getting no further on this issue I still support the current infobox as it is, but perhaps changing it to Egyptian military defeat but political victory? However I am in favour of leaving out military victory & political victory altogether. This may be more useful in this article - > Operation Musketeer rather than here. In fact this might be beneficial to the infobox which has too much clutter anyway. What do users think of this? Shire Lord (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Since "we are getting no further on this issue", why won't you ask the Wikipedia:Help desk ? In my experience they would not hesitate to say that if your view is well supported, while the opposite view is not (yet?) supported, then the article should reflect your version. Although they have no formal authority, usually the sides are accepting their response. Ykantor (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - good idea, thank you. I will wait to see if there is any further response. Shire Lord (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

To control the Canal

-@Thucydides411: You removed the "British and French" from the sentence :"The British and French aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian president". Your reason:"The source says that this was the aim of Britain, France and Israel". Since Britain and France formal ultimatum to both Egypt and Israel was to retreat from the canal and keeping a distance of 10 km (?), how come that Israel reason was to control the Canal? Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The formal ultimatum came from the British and the French, but as both the article, and the book you linked explain, the ultimatum was planned beforehand by the British, the French and the Israelis in concert. The book explains that when formulating the plan to invade Egypt, Britain, France and Israel planned the following: a return of the Suez canal to Western control, Israeli annexation of at least part of the Sinai peninsula, and the overthrow of Nasser. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Israel joined Britain and France but Israel aims were different: "Reaching the Suez Canal did not figure at all in Israel’s war objectives. ". I have looked at few books and all of them do not mention the Canal or toppling Nasser as a part of Israel's aim. Moreover, They claim that Ben Gurion planned a war against Egypt sometime before the french initiative. i.e He planned a war and waited for the right timing. Hence it make sense that his aims were different from the Anglo-French aims. Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Each power brought somewhat different goals to the table - the British and French were most interested in taking over the canal, the Israelis in capturing the Sinai peninsula, and all three in removing Nasser from power. But the invasion was planned by all three powers in coordination with one another, and as a coalition, they had a set of goals., but while planning the invasion of Egypt all three powers, in concert, developed a set of aims. The Israeli, French and British government formulated a plan in order to achieve a certain set of aims, including restoring Western control over the canal. That wasn't the aim that Israel brought to the table, but in negotiating with France and Britain, Israel agreed to fight in order to achieve those aims. The source referenced right now in the lede, "The Eisenhower Years," by Michael S. Mayer, doesn't really address the Tripartite Aggression in much detail at all, but the relevant passage is this:

In late October, however, the British and French, without informing the United States, entered an agreement with Israel (which had been plagued by cross-border raids by Egyptian commandos and alarmed by an alliance between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) to take military action to restore the canal to British and French control and to remove Nasser from power.

The source that's being cited here doesn't say that it was only the British and French objective to retake the canal. It was the objective of the alliance.

If you really want to make the distinction (which I'm not sure is necessary in the lede), you can say that the three powers, Britain, France and Israel, conspired to engineer a war that would achieve a set of objectives, some of which were shared (e.g., removing Nasser from power), and some of which benefited different parties more (e.g., Israel annexing the Sinai peninsula, or Britain and France regaining control over the Suez canal). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There are other examples of allies with some different aims. During WW2 , although the Soviets were allies of Britain and the U.S. they have not fought against Japan (except for the last few days). After Perl Harbor attack, the U.S declared a war against Japan but not against Germany. A few days later Hitler made one of his greatest mistakes and declared war against the U.S. Some historians speculate that otherwise, the Americans would not have joined the war against Germany. As you say, the bottom line is that each country has different interests and when they form a coalition, some of those interests are agreed upon but not necessarily all of them. As I recall (I am not sure) , Israel aims have not included ending of Nasser regime too. Israel would have been very happy if that would happen, but it was not realistic goal for such a tiny country. Ykantor (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's fine to discuss how the goals of Britain, France and Israel differed, but that discussion has to be well sourced, and might be better suited to a sub-section (where there already is such a discussion) than the lede. One thing to recognize about this issue, however, is that it is somewhat different from other alliances, in that the three allies - France, Britain and Israel - drew up what was basically a contract beforehand, describing how they would provoke the war and what goals they hoped to achieve. When you say that it was unrealistic for Israel to believe that it would overthrow Nasser, it's important to realize that Israel didn't intend to fight alone. They had an agreement with two major European powers that they would enter the war within days of Israel's invasion of Egypt. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I find the buildup by Thucydides411 eloquently convincing. I note that Ykantor in their third contribution says "Hitler made one of his greatest mistakes" which is judgemental (opinion/OR). Also the argument "some of those interests are agreed upon [between the three parties]" sounds a bit off, as interests do not require agreement and even may be kept secret for allies. The targets are not isolated by party indeed. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

-Thucydides411. Yours:"that discussion has to be well sourced". here are some sources:

- "The aims were to be threefold: to remove the threat, wholly or partially, of the Egyptian rmy in the Sinai, to destroy the framework of the fedaiyyun, and to secure the freedom of navigation through the straits of Tiran."

-"the removal of the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba. The blockade closed Israel’s sea lane to East Africa and the Far East, hindering the development of Israel’s southern port of Eilat and its hinterland, the Nege. Another important objective of the Israeli war plan was the elimination of the terrorist bases in the Gaza Strip, from which daily fedayeen incursions into Israel made life unbearable for its southern population. And last but not least, the concentration of the Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula, armed with the newly acquired weapons from the Soviet bloc, prepared for an attack on Israel. Here, Ben-Gurion believed, was a time bomb that had to be defused before it was too late. Reaching the Suez Canal did not figure at all in Israel’s war objectives."

- "The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt

-"Israel's aims were to capture the Sinai peninsula in order to open the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and to seize the Gaza strip to end fedayeen attacks."

- Will you Thucydides411,DePiep , accept if I add the Israeli aims according to these sources?

-"The (1956) war was waged by Israel, the French and the British. As stated before, Israel wanted to pre-emp the potential threat of the arms purchase, The French wanted to retaliate for Nasser's support to the Algerian Liberation movement and the British wanted to prevent Nasser from Nationalizing the Suez Canal." El-Hasan2010p154 Ykantor (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Supported by?

The infobox now says: "Belligerents: ... Egypt, supported by US, Soviet Union". Since this is unsourced, not in the article, and the word "support" is quite a way off of being belligerent, that 'support' should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. In what way did the US support Egypt? The Soviets did send military and economic aid to Nasser, so maybe they should stay? Shire Lord (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Even sending weapons does not make one a belligerent. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Then we should remove. Shire Lord (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] OK. done. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)