"I have been but little in," said Ninian hastily...

from Al Jazeera English

Security forces fire on Cairo 'Nakba' rally

At least 353 people were injured, one of them critically, when Egyptian security forces attacked a pro-Palestine demonstration outside the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Sunday night, according to witnesses and the Health Ministry.

Activists told Al Jazeera that army and internal security troops used tear gas, rubber-coated bullets and live ammunition to disperse thousands of protesters who had gathered to mark the 63rd anniversary of the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" - the day in 1948 that Israel declared its independence and thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled form their homes.

At least two protesters were shot by live ammunition, while others were hospitalised after inhaling tear gas or being hit by rubber-coated steel bullets, some of which penetrated the skin, witnesses said.

One protester, Atef Yehia, was shot in the head, while another, Ali Khalaf, was shot in the abdomen. Both survived, though Yehia was being kept on a ventilator and would likely suffer brain damage, his friend said on Monday afternoon. 

The crackdown on the protest also marked a setback for activists campaigning to limit the military's judicial power in post-revolutionary Egypt. A senior police officer told Al Jazeera that 137 protesters had been arrested and would be questioned by a military prosecutor. As they awaited questioning, the protesters was being held in Hikestep military prison on the outskirts of Cairo, according to activists and a human-rights lawyer.

Eden was personally receptive to an attack on Egypt that would allow Britain to reoccupy the Canal, perhaps the entire country. He had immediately demanded such a plan from his defense chiefs on news of the nationalization, to be greeted with the unwelcome news that it was simply not possible, given the current state of the British military, to successfully attack and occupy the major cities of Egypt. Britain did not have the sealift or the combat power to defeat the Egyptian Army. However, with the Israelis doing the heavy lifting, Britain (and France, which wanted Nasir deposed because of his support for the nationalist forces waging a bloody insurgency against France in Algeria) would be able to seize the Canal itself. And their air forces could provide the aerial bombardment that Israel could not (both Britain and France had carriers in the region, and the UK had a significant long-range bomber force on Cyprus).

But Britain (or perhaps simply Eden, who was becoming more and more detached from reality through overwork, nervous strain, and an addictive dependence on Benzedrine) still had visions of regaining its stature in the Arab world, which it couldn’t so as an ally of Israel, especially an ally in an unprovoked war on an Arab state. The French stepped in with a plan: the Israelis would attack, then the UK and France would announce they were stepping in as peacekeepers (under the 1954 agreement that Eden had negotiated with Nasir), declare an exclusion zone around the canal (which would force the Egyptians either to abandon the canal to the allies or resist a peacekeeping operation by force), occupy it, and “protect” it from the Egyptians. This plan was eventually agreed on by all sides and ratified in a secret agreement, the Protocol of Sèvres. And on 29 October 1956, Israel launched its attack.

Of course, this excuse was as thin as onionskin, an implausible tissue that fooled no one for long. Egypt rejected the Anglo-French call for a ceasefire and withdrawal from the canal. Britain and France vetoed a US move in the UN Security Council for a ceasefire in place, as their troops had not yet arrived—sailing from Cyprus at the 5 mph speed of their antiquated landing craft, it took the intervention force a week to arrive. By that time the world had seen through their ruse. Britain’s economy took a tremendous hit, and Eden received an even worse shock. The US, which had known something was being planned but not what, insisted that the British and French withdraw at once. President Eisenhower felt he had been deeply embarrassed by being shut out of British planning; US diplomats had spent the time between the nationalization and the attack trying to find a diplomatic solution in good faith, only to find that Britain had never intended to honor its commitments in the negotiations. The US, opposing a Soviet invasion of Hungary on the pretense of “defending the Hungarian government from unrest”, could not sanction its allies invading a country under the pretext of “peacekeeping”. Secretary of State Dulles threatened British Chancellor of the Exchequer Macmillan with an immediate US sale of all British sterling holdings, the likely destruction of the pound as a world currency, if Britain did not accede to an immediate ceasefire and the insertion of actual peacekeepers by the UN.

Britain caved instantly without consulting France, leaving the latter with the choice of fighting alone or pulling out without having accomplished any of its goals. France withdrew and began reconsidering its military alliances; once again, Perfidious Alboin had betrayed France (or so the French saw it). If this was going to be the value of NATO membership, perhaps France would be better off on its own. Prime Minister Eden, physically and emotionally wrecked by the strain of the crisis, resigned the following January. The British Secret Intelligence Service, ordered in the aftermath of Suez to formulate a plan to assassinate Nasir as a last, vengeful gesture by Eden, first balked, then devised a plan that was sure to be detected by the Egyptian security services. The attempt failed and Nasir, reading between the lines, did not engage in a wholesale purge of British agent in Egypt. Israel, threatened by the Soviet Union and pressured by the United States, withdrew from Sinai. Israel could not control the canal or the Strait of Tiran, but they received US guarantees of their right to free transit. And with UN peacekeepers in Sinai, Egypt could not reestablish their support for the PLO’s guerrillas. Out of the three aggressors in Suez, the Israelis came closest to achieving their goals.

14/50: Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East ( Read more... )