The revolution and pacts (92). ‘The Dirty Border War'. Sinai raids 3-Israeli shipping. On September 12, 1955, the Israeli government decided to test the Egyptians, so they sent in an Israeli cargo vessel named Bat Galim flying the Israeli flag. Before the ship could enter the Suez Canal, Egyptian forces boarded it, arrested the crew and charged them with having murdered two Egyptian fishermen on their way to the Canal. Three months later, the crew was released, but the Egyptians kept the ship and its cargo. The blockade of the Straits of Eilat (Tiran) at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba had actually been in effect since 1948, but was significantly aggravated by the incident as Egypt announced that it was being tightened and extended to the aerial sphere as well. This move blocked any shipping to and from the Israeli port of Elath. But Nasser had one problem, it would take two years for the weapons from the Communists to arrive and have the Egyptian Army trained to use them. Egypt and Syria, on October 20, 1955, joined in a military pact with a common military command. On October 23, Israeli Defense Minister Ben Gurion called in his top military leader, Moshe Dayan, and told him to prepare the Israeli army to capture the Straits of Tiran, and prepare contingency plans to occupy the Gaza Strip and push for an offensive into the Sinai desert. As Defense Minister Ben Gurion had decided that the time had come for war with Egypt and that Israel would strike first. On October 19, 1954, an agreement was signed between England and Egypt, that the Suez Canal bases were going to be handed over to Egypt and that all British troops were to be withdrawn in a period of 20 months. This meant that the Canal was going to be permanently closed to Israeli shipping. It should be recalled that the Israeli shipping issue had emerged as early as 1951 when on September 1 that year the UN Security Council had issued a resolution calling upon Egypt to remove restrictions on Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal. The following is the text of that resolution. The Security Council 1. Recalling that in its resolution of August 11, 1949 (S/1376), relating to the conclusion of Armistice Agreements between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States (2) it drew attention to the pledges in these Agreements “against any further acts of hostility between the Parties". 2. Recalling further that in its resolution of November 17, 1950 (S/1907 and Corr. 1), it reminded the States concerned that the Armistice Agreements to which they are parties contemplate “the return of permanent peace in Palestine", and therefore urged them and the other States in the area to take all such steps as will lead to the settlement of the issues between them. 3. Noting the report of the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organisation to the Security Council of 12 June 1951 (S/2194). 4. Further noting that the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organisation recalled the statement of the senior Egyptian delegate in Rhodes on 13 January 1949, to the effect that his delegation was “inspired with every spirit of co-operation, conciliation and a sincere desire to restore peace in Palestine", and that the Egyptian Government has not complied with the earnest plea of the Chief of Staff made to the Egyptian delegate on June 12, 1951, that it desist from the present practice of interfering with the passage through the Suez Canal of goods destined for Israel. 5. Considering that since the armistice regime, which has been in existence for nearly two and a half years, is of a permanent character, neither party can reasonably assert that it is actively a belligerent or requires to exercise the right of visit, search and seizure for any legitimate purpose of self-defence. 6. Finds that the maintenance of the practice mentioned in paragraph 4 above is inconsistent with the objectives of a peaceful settlement between the parties and the establishment of a permanent peace in Palestine set forth in the Armistice Agreement. 7. Finds farther that such practice is an abuse of the exercise of the right of visit, search and seizure. 8. Farther kinds that practice cannot in the prevailing circumstances be justified on the around that it is necessary for self-defence. 9. And farther noting that the restrictions on the passage of goods through the Suez Canal to Israel ports are denying to nations at no time connected with the conflict in Palestine valuable supplies required for their economic reconstruction, and that these restrictions together with sanctions applied by Egypt to certain ships which have visited Israel ports represent unjustified interference with the rights of nations to navigate the seas and to trade freely with one another, including the Arab States and Israel. 10. Calls Upon Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all interference with such shipping beyond that essential to the safety of shipping in the Canal itself and to the observance of the international conventions in force. [email protected]
