SAMPLE
PRINT PUBLICATIONS

POWER RELATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Case study of the Suez Canal Crisis

This paper will analyze the complicated relationships present during the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. It will address the realpolitik motives behind English actions towards Israel and vise versa. The Sèvres Protocol which outlined an illegal intervention on Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal Company will be used to highlight the realpolitik actions that were carried out within the peninsula. Ultimately this essay will address that the international relationships carried out within the Middle East are only as stable as the benefits that they give to each member. That while there is a current positive relationship between Israel and the West, it is not intrinsic but rather realpolitik motivated.  

Introduction: 

Israel's relationship between the Middle East and “the West” is a complex and contradicting exploration, spanning from religious and cultural divides alongside ideological and political ventures. History is being falsified by both groups who aim to continue their own narratives within generations to come. Currently, this conflict has positioned itself between the Arabs (Middle East) and the Israelis (West). In the context of Europe/North America, The West, has accepted narratives of Israeli democratic superiority over the Middle East's authoritarianism and instability. On the other hand, Israel is seen as an all-encompassing heinous entity determined to spread its ideology towards its designated Holy Land. Throughout modern history, The West has aligned itself with Israel, causing Middle Eastern countries to lament what they describe to be a catalytic relationship in pursuit of destroying post-colonial achievements. However, a historical analysis of this relationship suggests that there is no intrinsic love from Israel towards The West and vice versa. Examining both Israeli and English actions, a complicated bipolar relationship between the two nations is evident. Due to political motivations, there have been many turnabouts within Israeli, Western, and Arab relations. The example of the Suez Canal crisis, which includes the 1956 attack from Israel to Egypt with the help of English and French forces, is an intricate and meaningful case study of the internal motivations behind such maneuvers. The crisis exemplified how the two countries used whatever means necessary, including military power, to advance their political objectives due to their realpolitik ideologies. Therefore, realpolitik has been a driving force within Israeli diplomatic relations, and a prominent example of it includes the Sèvres Protocol.

The Theoretical Frameworks : 

The theoretical frameworks that will be used in this essay are realpolitik and its use of interventionism. Realpolitik was first introduced by the German thinker Ludwig August von Rochau in his 1853 treatise Grundsätze der realpolitik [The Principles of realpolitik] (Bew 2014). Realpolitik centers around the principle that sovereign states should and will perform actions that are in their best national interest, in order to maintain their power and advance when possible. Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian political philosopher, elaborated on the term by outlining the importance of a sovereign to be harsh and rational in order to maintain his position. The theorist emphasized that in order to be a successful leader, one must subordinate the importance of morality and virtue when dealing with important state decisions. In short, drastic times will evidently call for drastic actions, and morality can not be a deciding factor in those decisions. 

Interventionism is one form of realpolitik thinking which is characterized by the use or threat of force, to coerce and alter a political or cultural situation regardless of the intervention's consequential moral implications. Commonly referred to as government interventions, it can be utilized within social and cultural relations both domestically and internationally. Interventionism interrupts organic grassroots movements and therefore, is a calculated attempt at changing politics in favor of the intervener's agenda. We can see the multinational interest at play within the Middle East and Europe, by looking at how England and Israel have both used interventionism in order to benefit themselves. England has strategically switched its alliances from in favor of Israel to opposing Israel whenever convenient and has made false promises to both sides. England has intervened within both Israeli and Arab affairs which in turn has resulted in the further destabilization of the region. Similarly, Israel has portrayed itself as multiple actors, once as a natural ally of the world, later as a Western nation ‘positioned’ in the Middle East, and now as a state of its own not bound to Western or Eastern alliances. The Arab nations living within the region, have also utilized realpolitik measures to sway power and influence; example being the nationalization of the Suez canal by Gamal Abdel Nasser. However, unlike the restrained and passive responses met by Western interventionists, the Egyptian nationalization was met with fierce opposition from the multi-interested states around the region. The French, English, and Israeli forces teamed up to quash nationalization efforts through an illegal military coup directly defying the United Nations. This incident is known as The Sevres Protocol and is a great example of interventionism coupled up with Western Exceptionalism.

Plan of Paper

This essay will break down the historical relationship between dominant hegemonic Western powers like England and Israel. It will focus on each state’s imperialistic goals, capacities, and attempts at fortifying these objectives through realpolitik and interventionism. The 1956 Suez Canal crisis will be used as a case study to highlight the use of interventionism and collaboration between multi-interested states of Israel, England, and Egypt.

Theme 1: England and its use of realpolitik

England has used realpolitik and interventionism to establish itself, creating an empire ‘where the sun never sets.’ One of the main geographical locations influenced by British interests has been the Middle East. Throughout history England has time and time again intervened, bought out, and/or swayed other countries into doing what is in England's best interest. These manipulative actions span not just to England's former colonies but also to any state or group of people vulnerable enough to intervention. In order to better control the Middle East, England has made multiple agreements with contradicting states, promising them all of the prosperous future that it could help them build. However, England has abandoned these agreements whenever a better opportunity presented itself. While many might credit the British with helping form the formal state of Israel with Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917, its driving force was England's interest in gaining Jewish support for England and the United States against the Central Powers in WWI. If it Had it not been for the first world war, England might not have declared such a statement at all, for a Zionist entitlement of the area would jeopardize England's monopoly over the Arab-dominated East (Linfield 2017). Two years prior to the declaration England had promised a post-war independence for several "Indistinctly defined Arab lands. But those promises, known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, were secret and nebulous—and, therefore, easy to disown" (Linfield 2017). Unfortunately for the Arab states, they lacked the power to repeal or act against such chicanery. England's strategic switching of sides, alongside its monumental Balfour Declaration, exemplifies how realpolitik through interventionism was used to better its own situation while disregarding and often tainting other members‘ interests. 

Furthermore, while the Balfour Declaration implied British support for an all Jewish state, once established, Israel was not guaranteed support from England. In fact, England once again aligned itself with the Arab countries, but as Israel advanced, England vacillated its alliances once more. During the early conflicts in Israel, England continued to sell firearms to the surrounding Arab countries, but since Israel was a threatening external factor toward England's monopoly over the region, it would not be in England’s interest to help increase the military might of this new player (Levey 1995). However, around 1955 with Arab nationalism and resentment towards the imperialist powers, England found itself inclined to sell more to the friendly Israelis than to the Arabs. This arrangement proved to be problematic by helping foster even more violence and resentment between the Israelis and the Arabs. "On 28 February, the Foreign Office authorized the release of six Centurion tanks, but that same night, Israel launched the Gaza Raid against Egypt, and authorization for the tanks was canceled" (Levey, Z. 1995). While the Centurions were canceled the internal navigation towards an English and Israeli partnership was already on its way because ultimately Israel was gaining power and momentum and therefore it could be of use to the English. While England formally condemned Israel's hostility; it found itself reevaluating its strategic interests and who could help secure it better. The losing Arabs or the triumphant Israelis? Furthermore, the hostilities formed in Arab countries like Egypt against Western imperialism were acting as a catalyst between the attempted partnership. Alongside the anti-western sentiment was also an anti-Israel one. Therefore, with the further tensions rising between Israel and its neighboring Arab nations like Egypt, the British Embassy in Tel Aviv wrote in 1952 that " if in the end, we are unable to come to terms [with the Egyptians,] ... we shall need help in this part of the world that only the Israelis could provide" (Levey Z 1995). Therefore, British alliances again started to switch sides, this time in favor of Israel. The Arab nations were now up against who they assumed was on their side (England) and who was not, Israel. Once again realpolitik was at play with its focus on national interests rather than diplomacy and mutual trust. Consequently, because of these actions, four years after the 1952 statement by the British Embassy, England, France, and Israeli forces made a secret pact in Sèvres France to intervene with Abdel Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal Company (Lucas 1990).

Theme 2: Israel Responds in Kind

Since its creation, Israel has utilized realpolitik in order to better situate itself within world politics. Its strategy has been through the use of ‘non-identification’ and later on towards alignment with the West. Politically during the first few years of its creation, Israel was surrounded by enemies on all sides with England acting as an unstable ally vacillating at every opportunity for self-betterment. Therefore a strategy called the non-identification plan was created, emphasizing Israel's neutrality towards world politics. According to Avi Shlaim, historian, and professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford “Non-identification was a pragmatic policy designed to serve the Israeli national interest rather than an ideological conception of neutrality in world politics” (659). Presenting itself as a natural player in the already convoluted world politics, Israel was able to 'stay out of trouble' and grow under little to no serious intervention from dominant world powers. This tactic initially worked to ensure Israeli support from both the West and the Eastern Soviets. Once able to defend itself, Israel formally joined the realpolitik game of international affairs when it started to ally itself with the prominent world powers of the West. Ben Gurion made a public statement at the end of July 1950 that he had intentions to “help build with American assistance an army of a quarter of a million men ‘capable and anxious’ to help the United States, the United Kingdom, and Turkey in resisting Soviet aggression” (Shlaim 661). The Soviets, progressively losing more power, were now under even more pressure from their supposed ally Israel, whom they had helped sustain in the past. This shift was designed with intentions to separate Israel from the East and the Middle East while aligning it with the winning West. “The officials present were asked to stress that Israel was part not of the Middle East but of the West and that they would fight against any communist attack and consolidate their democratic regime in all circumstances”(Shlaim 663). This realpolitik move was instrumental in Israel's growth, because of the military and political advantages that Israel received ever since joining the West. Israel after that, having gained power through this partnership, has used its military might to enforce, restrict, and attack any form of opposition it has faced. 

Israel, now a vital military power in the region, has used realpolitik to attack Arab states and has violently oppressed the Palestinian people, without facing any reprimand from the West. Having gained exuberant military might, Israel was now in the position to move forward with its expansionist efforts. In October 1953, Israelis attacked the village of Qibya, killing 70 Jordanians. While some members of the US cabinet attempted to issue warnings against Israel's expansionism and belligerency. Both the US and The British Cabinet were complacent in dealing with the matter. “The Eisenhower Administration, intent on reaching a settlement of the dispute over the waters of the Jordan River, overlooked the incident, despite stern warnings from Assistant Secretary of State Henry Byroade” (Scott 90). Given the political and military power that Western countries have acquired, it is evident in Israel's case, that having them as allies has been beneficial in expanding its own goals as a state. The moral considerations of killing innocent people is less important than Israel's interests. Therefore they are necessary to be done. In the same respect, the West protects the interests of Israel because of the strategic benefits that Israel provides for them. Of these benefits is the geographical location of Israel within the Middle East. With Israel's help, the West has been able to occupy and continue its own imperialist interests. A prominent example of this relationship could be seen in the 1956 Sèvres Protocol, named after the secret meeting of Israeli, French and English leaders in Sevres in regard to the Suez Canal crisis. If it were not for the Strategic location and military power of Israel, the path to invade Egypt would not have been an option. 

Israel's use of realpolitik can be further examined by Israel's growing interest and outreach to Far Eastern countries like China. An Israeli partnership with China completely disregards the animosity that exists between the West and China. While Israel and the West are allies, this partnership does not mean that Israel will not do what is necessary to advance its own goals. Israel, therefore, has now formed alliances with Far Eastern and Chinese countries. With the advancement of the Far Eastern countries like China, Israel is once again fishing for the best diplomatic opportunities by giving its support to them. (The Israeli Lobby) Given the fact that China and dominant Western countries are not on the best of terms, Israel's positive relationship with them has proven to be controversial. Not only has Israel given its verbal support towards these countries but it has actually “provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers’”(The Israeli Lobby 86). These unauthorized transfers are only possible given that Israel is now more powerful and more independent within the geopolitical climate. According to the Journal of Palestine, Israel is “the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces [are] far superior to those of its neighbors, and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons”(The Israeli Lobby 86). Israel is now powerful enough to stray away and ally itself with other political forces outside of the West. These advancements would not have been possible without utilizing realpolitik and teaming up with the powerful forces from the West. However, this alignment is not from an intrinsic bond between nations, but rather from a strategic and political standpoint to support its own interest. 

Theme 3 - The Suez Canal Crisis - Intervention Writ Large

The Suez Canal crisis was a deciding moment in time, reorienting the alliances between Israel, the West, and the Arabs. Realpolitik was a key player in how each country's international policies were planned out. England changed its partnership once again, this time in favor of Israeli interests and against Egyptian-Arabic ones. Israel sought the opportunity to advance its goals against Egypt and used English support to do it. Ultimately the Egyptian efforts for a nationalized pan-Arab state were not strong enough to play out against the powerful interests of Israel and England. Gamal Abdel Nasser presented a threat towards the already established monopoly over the region by attempting to nationalize the Suez Canal, taking control over from European imperialists. The Suez Canal Company, with its vital role as an economic and trading hotspot, was a key component in the distribution of power within the Middle East and Europe. For a de-colonized country like Egypt to nationalize it, meant a threatening redistribution of power. “Since 26 July, when Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal Company, the British and the French had sought to regain control of the Canal and remove Nasser from power, but they could not find the pretext for military action against Egypt” (Scott 88). The nationalization of the Suez Canal was a heavy step towards the dismantling of the Imperialistic powers. It marked a major shift of power between the European imperialists and their former colonies. To the British and the French, it served a threatening political blow. No longer were the colonies being acted upon; they were themselves working to liberate and govern themselves. The potential for a power switch was too high of a risk for the imperialist European powers who sought to keep the de facto power relations of the time.

Given the Arabic dis-attachment, Israel was a potential asset in helping contain the pan-Arabic movement. A classified partnership between the French, the British, and the Israelis was underway. Due to the fact that the United Nations condemned any interventionist aggression, Gazier and Challe had to “secretly travel to Britain to furnish this pretext.”( Lucas 88). The French pressed England to provide Israel with insurance and political compensation if they were to help the imperialist cause. For Israel, a common enemy between England and France meant that its agenda against Egypt could be materialized now with extra protection from Western powers; never mind the potential pressure from the international community seeing it as the aggressor. Utilizing realpolitik Israel agreed to ‘help’ England and France by intervening in Egyptian affairs. This interventionist effort to contain Nassar is officially known as the Sèvres Protocol. Continuing to use realpolitik, Israel made sure to gain as much as it could out of the transaction: “On 27 September 1956, Ben-Gurion recorded in his diary his insistence that Paris press London to agree that British participation includes a defense of Israel against an Iraqi or Jordanian attack” (Levey 10). Therefore this alliance was based on the personal interest of all parties against their common enemy, not from their intrinsic love for another. Instead, realpolitik and its use of interventionism were used to undermine Arab nationalism and contain the de facto western power over the region. 

The pretext for the occupation of the Suez Canal in order to contain the ‘belligerent’ Israeli and Egyptian forces was a classic use of realpolitik through literal intervention. It was an instance in history filled with many actors all in pursuit of what would be in their individual best interest. In the convoluted alliances, no state could be relied on to be a true friend. The Sevre Protocol was an attempt to contain Nasser by the Israeli, French, and English forces, by laying out an Israeli military attack on Egypt. In this arrangement, Israel would be seen as the aggressor to the international community, in which England would graciously chime in to contain. This incident provided the necessary pretext for “Anglo-French forces [to] establish a 'temporary occupation of the key positions on the Canal” (Levey 1995). The literal occupation of the region illustrates the forceful interventionist method used to take back the nationalization of the Suez Canal and regain imperialistic control. Until the release of the Sevre Protocol, the world believed that England and Israel were at odds with each other, when in fact they were in a secret and illegal alliance. Initially, the plan seemed to work with Israeli forces seizing the peninsula and occupying the Suez Canal, English forces swiftly chimed in to ‘establish’ control, however, the United States of America, was not happy with the military invasion and worked to put an end to it (Orr 104). With added pressure from the US and lack of international support, even with the erroneous pretext, England was forced to retreat: “The war ended in a fiasco. Britain and France ceased to be counted among the four great powers. The era of the two superpowers - the United States and the Soviet Union - had begun” (Orr 104). This transition of power between the powers (England/France) of the past and the world powers of the future (U.S/USSR) indicate that whilst one country will try to do what is in its best interest, in the end, other external factors like a more powerful state, can and will implement and intervene in another state’s affairs in order to carry out their own political plan. Power relations in the Middle East have fluctuated through constant intervention and meddling from external and internal power States. Through the Sevres Protocol, Israel was able to secure protection from powerful states, while really going ahead with what was in its best interest -- the offensive demonstration of its military might to the Arabic world. While England and France lost their place amongst international powers, their dominant goal to neutralize the Nationalistic Arab movement worked. Egypt was weakened, and Nassar was eventually killed.  

Conclusion

Throughout this research, the multi-interested states of England, Israel, and Egypt have shifted their alliances with each other and have worked for and against each other whenever a better opportunity presented itself. Therefore, the alliance of Israel with the West in today's time is not an intrinsic one. England's intentions towards the state of Israel have always been self-motivated, and any support for the establishment of Israel has been through personal motives of self-betterment. Given what was in its best interest at the time, England has lied and betrayed both the Israelis and the Arabs. Therefore, there is and never was an intrinsic love from the British towards the Israeli. It has always been motivated by realpolitik. Israel on the same hand has not always been fond of England even when it did Issue the Balfour Declaration. Israel has identified the English imperialistic attitude and has worked to use its power/influence in its defense and flourishment. By initially keeping a neutral stance Israel protected itself from unnecessary expenses and instead focused on ensuring more power. Its alignment with the West is not because of an intrinsic bond between Western ideals and Jewish culture; it is instead motivated by ensuring relations with the dominant powers. The Sèvres Protocol, any legal plan to invade Egypt and reserve imperialistic power, is a classic example of going against the law, morals, and ideals in order to better one's interest through realpolitik Interventionism. It includes the literal intervention from Israel and England in order to contain a potential threat to the status quo. It is important to talk about the historical instances that have shaped the world from a non-emotional and personal standpoint. Often feelings get in the way of judgment, and people start believing and behaving in ways that are based on lies. The theory of an intrinsic, heavenly, Judeo-Christian bond against the Arab Gentiles is a false idea on many levels. There is no love for the West from Israel or love for Israel from the West. This “love” is really the pursuit of the most advantageous geopolitical allyship that can best Implement each country's desires. The moment when another Power starts to rise and assert its dominance is the moment when these established and settled positive relations change. Therefore the hatred between the Arabs and the Jews is not also not intrinsic. There is potential for change. However, it won't be through altruism but through Power relations and the implementation of realpolitik.