Suez Canal Parley Opens in London Tomorrow; Israel Seeks Attention

Although the Israel Government has not yet given public expression of its view on the Suez Canal situation. It is not inactive in the diplomatic talks which are taking place here prior to the opening Thursday of the 22-nation international conference on Egypt’s nationalization of the canal company Some observers here expect more from the private behind-the-scenes talks than from the London Conference itself.

Israel’s view is that Suez passage is not less important to her than to any other nation. On this passage, for example, depends her growing volume of trade with the countries of East and West Africa, such as Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Gold Coast The economy of Israel is complementary to that of a number of these countries and, in the view of informed observers, but for the blockade of the canal, mutually advantageous trade in both directions could well have developed. Israel’s trade with the countries of Asia and the Far East, such as Burma and Australia, also depends on free passage through the Suez Canal.

Another important consideration, and one which she shares with most European countries, is that her economy is largely dependent on oil, normally transported through the canal to the Haifa refinery from oil producing countries in the Middle East. Furthermore, the geography of Israel is such that the Suez Canal serves as a sea connection between Haifa, Israel’s largest harbor, and Elath, its southern outlet to the Red Sea.

Egypt’s blockade works principally through the very existence of blockade regulations and their consequent deterrent effects, and only secondarily through actual assaults and confiscations. Israeli circles have made the point that having no means to overcome the force at the disposal of the Egyptian authorities in the canal, mari-time nations have been compelled reluctantly to respect the very restrictions to which they and the United Nations are totally opposed.

They have had to agree against their own will and interest to avoid bringing cargoes to Israel as the price of passage through the Suez Canal, in which their rights of navigation should have been regarded as absolute and unconditional. The very knowledge that interference is either certain or possible carries out the purposes of the blockade.

Thus, the Israelis are able to explain, in a sense, the fewer the actual incidents of detention and confiscation, the worse is the position and the graver the proof of transgression by the very existence of the regulations. Ships actually detained en route to Israel include: one Danish, one Swedish, one Norwegian, two Italian and four Greek vessels.

ISRAEL LOST TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE OF SUEZ BLOCKADE

Proof that the Egyptian blockade on oil supplies, for example, has been complete and water tight and that the Egyptian Government has extorted from other governments an unwilling surrender to its illegitimate regulations is demonstrated by the fact that scarcely a single one of the hundreds of tankers passing through the canal each year has tried to sell part of its cargo at Haifa. Tens of millions of dollars have been lost to Israel and larger sums to other countries through the need to purchase thousands of miles away oil which should be available locally if Egypt stopped its piracy.

For all these and related reasons, it will be the purpose of the Israel diplomatic initiative during the coming days to make it clear that Israel has the greatest possible interest in the success of efforts now being made to achieve an arrangement by which the international character of the canal and the unrestricted implementation of the Suez Canal Convention of 1888 shall be assured.

The Israelis feel entitled to hope that the maritime powers which are to meet in London will not rest and will not consider the issue of the Suez Canal settled until Israel ships and ships under other flags carrying cargoes to and from Israel are guaranteed free passage through the canal, along with ships of all other nations and ships going to all other destinations. Israeli diplomats are expected to press the point that the London Conference cannot pass in silence over this aspect of the problem of the canal’s future.

Israeli circles point out that as long as Egypt refuses passage to ships of any nation whatsoever and thereby remains arbiter regarding the use of the canal, no other nation can be certain that it may not find itself in a similar position in the future. In this sense, the Israelis regard their aspect of the problem as a testing point for whatever arrangements are eventually arrived at regarding the future of the canal.