The British Government will not alter its arms policy in relation to Israel because the nationalization of the Suez Canal is “not related” to the Israel-Arab question, Lord John Hope, Joint Foreign Under Secretary, declared in Commons today.
The question was raised by Sir Robert Boothby, Conservative, who asked whether in view of Egypt’s aggressive policy the Eden government would not reconsider its decision and allow Israel to purchase those weapons it needed for defense.
Lord Hope replied that the British Government “policy on arms supplied to Middle East countries is based on the Tripartite Declaration which relates to the Arab-Israel dispute Nationalization of the Suez Canal is not related to that dispute. The government, therefore, sees no reason to change their policy as regards the supply of arms to the Middle East as a whole.”
Sir Robert responded by asking: “Do you really mean to tell us that in the light of the present situation the government is going to make no change in its policy of refusing certain classes of modern arms to Israel at Israel’s request and that the government does not recognize any difficulties in the situation that has arisen in the last few days?”
“No sire,” said Lord Hope. “I have tried to tell you what the government’s policy is with regard to this matter–the Arab-Israel dispute–and on that we stand at present.”
This did not satisfy other critics of the government and Emanuel Shinwell, Labor, who charged that if the government had listened to Members of Parliament of all parties who had requested that a proper balance of arms be maintained in the Middle East and if Israel had been supplied with arms, “we might have been able to avoid the present impasse in Egypt.”
Lord Hope attempted to explain, in the midst of shouts from the Opposition benches, that the government believed that a balance existed. He insisted that this is exactly what the British Government, in concert with the other Tripartite Declaration signatories, had attempted to do.
At this point, another Conservative, Walter Elliot, drew attention to the fact that the Foreign Ministers of the Tripartite powers were currently meeting in London on the Suez Canal issue and asked whether it would not be appropriate for them to consider whether new circumstances had not arisen that might affect their agreement. Lord Hope merely promised a statement on the three-power meeting “in due course.”
Laborite John Strachey said that the government policy amounted to arming its enemies and punishing its friends. Conservative Kenneth Thomson was refused an answer to what was happening to the two Egyptian destroyers being readied in Portsmouth harbor to sail for Alexandria. Laborite Sidney Silverman also felt that if the government had taken a “firm” attitude when Egypt first blockaded the Suez Canal against Israeli shipping it would now be in a much stronger position.
The Manchester Guardian called today for the sale to Israel of the weapons it requires to defend itself, thus creating a stabilizing force in the unstable Middle East. The Guardian carefully points out that Nasser’s speech on the canal nationalization was as violent against Israel as against the West and that Nasser has been using the canal to blockade Israel. The best way of deterring Nasser “from going on from one nationalist stroke to another is to see that Israel’s demand for defensive weapons are attended to,” the newspaper declared.
The Times of London today opposed a proposal in the House of Lords by Lord Hore-Belisha, Jewish ex-Minister of War, that Britain consider cutting a canal from the Gulf of Akaba through Israel to the Mediterranean coast as an alternative to the Suez Canal. The Times said the engineering problem and the costs involved would be “daunting” and that such a canal could be cut off by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian shore batteries commanding the narrow entrance to the Gulf of Akaba.
A cable from Cairo said today that Egypt scoffed at the suggestion for a new canal through the Negev desert of Israel. Egyptian officials were reported stating that the Negev belonged to the Arabs under terms of the United Nations resolution partitioning Palestine.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
