Home | About | Donate

Suez: The End of Europe's Empires


Suez: The End of Europe's Empires

Eric Margolis

Sixty years ago, I was home after school, sitting in our living room on New York’s Central Park West, reading a history of Rome and listening to Dvorak’s splendid cello concerto when the announcer on WQXR broke in to announced, “Israeli armored forces are thrusting deep into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.”

So began the 1956 Arab-Israeli Suez war, a conflict that is now all but forgotten though it was a major historic turning point for all concerned.


"After 1956, a powerful US pro-Israel lobby was created to ensure that Israel dominated Congress, the media, and US Mideast policy."

Anti-semite or not, many may have realized this and voted for Trump thinking he would deal fairly with the Mideast issue.


Anytime you hear, in the oligarchical, Western, presstituted, MSM these terms about a foreign leader: BRUTAL DICTATOR; A THREAT TO HIS OWN PEOPLE; HITLER OF THE NILE; COMMUNIST STOOGE; and too many other pejoratives to list here, you can be sure that even if true, that is a red herring because these foreign leaders may be brutal thugs, but are thugs that are not their thugs. They are demonized for stepping on the toes of the oligarchical, economic, elite. These same people like Saddam, Assad, Khadaffi, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad,Castro and many others would not be demonized if they were fawning, puppets of the Empire.

Example: Batista, in Cuba, was a brutal dictator but was praised by the US Government as "great ally" .


I remember the Suez Crisis because it was around that time that I started reading international affairs. The British in particular were still trying to hang on to their Empire, and not many in the West knew about the massive torture and killings of the Kikuyus’ Mau Maus in Kenya during the 1950s or what went on in Rhodesia and Diego Garcia (the 60s/70s) which saw the island depopulated to serve British imperialism.

It was not easy for any empire to rid itself, and I was pretty much impressed by the “East of Suez” debates in the British parliament which generally saw Laborites having the capacity to recognize that certain things do have to come to an end. I recall Douglas Home continuing to insist that Britain remained a “great" power, and was laughed at by Laborites who asked him what about the US and the Soviet Union. Home’s reply, I think, was that the other two countries were “superpowers.”

Perhaps I could never erase the Empire’s brainwashing during my youth, what with one-sided British school texts by a guy called Williamson, but I remember thinking that, unlike the US, the British at least were doing some serious soul-searching about their ill-gotten gains. I never expected that buffoons like Blair and the “historian” Niall Ferguson would emerge in 21st century Britain.


Just curious...as the author does not address this explicitely. What were the reasons behind the US protection of the Arab interests? Too good to be true to believe it was about justice. Was it a strategic way to strengthen US geopolitical spheres of influences vis-a-vis the euro powers?


Left unmentioned by Eric Margolis was the proximity of the invasion of Suez to the 1956 US presidential election. The invasion happened from October 29- November 7, 1956 (the election was on November 6, 1956.
Ike had suffered a heart attack the previous year and the hope was that between his health problems and the distraction of the election that their attempted blitzkrieg would be allowed to occur.
Ike then told Britain, France, and Israel to cease operations and withdraw or else the US would wreck their currencies and economies. They all got the message and halted the military operation.
Dwight Eisenhower was the last US president to tell Israel "no" and make it stick. Israel then subsequently laid plans to dominate US politics through AIPAC and other such lobbying organizations and subversive operations such as those activities of Jonathan Pollard.