TH€
SUEZ C}{N}{L
and
·
~ FREEDOM
OFTH€
SE}{S
WORLD PR~SS OPINION
ISRAEL MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
INFORMATION DIVISION
Jerusalem, August 1959
!Frtm tM Li8rrltJ
D/ .
Cantor Zvee .9lroni
TH€
SUEZC~N~l
ana
FREEDOM
OFTH€
SE~S
WORLD PRES$
OPI~ION
Egypt's blockad~· of Israel shipping and' commerce in the Suez
Canal for more than a decade constitutes a record of lawlessness
and aggression, of deliberate violation of international commitments.
It flouts the 1888 Constantinople Convention which guarantees
that 'the Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in
time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of
war, without distinction of flag' and that it 'shall never be subject
to the exercise of the right of blockade'; it defies the resolutions
of the Security Council of the United Nations calling upon Egypt
'to terminate the restrictions' on Israel shipping and goods through
the Canal wherever bound and laying down the principle that
'the operation of the Canal should be insulated from the politics
of any country.' It also stands in plain violation of Egypt's own
pledges in the United Nations, in October 1956 and April 1957,
to afford and maintain free use of the Canal by all Powers at all
times, in accordance with the Constantinople Convention.
Egypt has gone even further. It detains and molests vessels of
all nations bound to and from Israel, and, at will, confiscates cargo
of every nature consigned to and from Israel.
It is universally recognized, however, that the international claim
to free use of the Canal is indivisible and that the integrity of this
claim cannot be vitiated .with impunity in the case of any one
nation.
The following collection of excerpts from the world press bears
witness to this recognition in defence of Israel's indefeasible right,
a right which she is determined to assert, to unimpeded trade and
navigation through a vital international waterway.
ARGENTINE
Buenos Aires., 6 July 1959
"The Constantinople Convention, which accords free
passage of the Suez Canal in time of war as in time of
peace and decrees free passage through this international
waterway, as well as the explicit decisions of the Security
Council, will take care of all illegal interference with free
navigation and will force Egypt to cease them."
AUSTRALIA
THE AGE
Melbourne., 28 July 1959
"The President of the UAR, with all his prestige as a
spokesman for Arab Nationalism, still needs to play upon
fear of Israel in order to rally support for his policies. He
also needs a "state of war'' with Israel to justify Egypt's
obstruction of Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal."
BELGIUM
LA LIBRE BELGinUE
Brussels., 22 June 1959
"It is said in Jerusalem that the West believes that Arab
quarrels are to our advantage. That is only partly true.
Lacking any other 'unifying element', the political leaders
of the Middle East raise the flag of hatred of Israel every
time they want to rally the Arab peoples around them.
Nasser is doing this now. And it can go much further if
the West continues to tolerate, without reacting, the things
that Nasser does, of the type of those the ruler of UAR is
now doing in the case of the Inge Toft."
3
BRAZIL
0 GLOBO
Rio de janeiro_, 9 April 1959
"As to the first and most spectacular of Nasser's adions~
the arbitrary grabbing of the installations of the Canal and
its military occupation by Egyptian forces, this again is not
giving him the dividends of prestige and economic wealth
that he had anticipated. But that does not keep Egypt
from behaving in the Canal as if that international waterway, opened and maintained by foreign money and technique for almost a century, were just an Egyptian river on
which traffic could be regulated at his will."
CANADA
CHARLO.TTETOWN GUARDIAN
Charlottetown_, 3 July 1959
"To meet the 1956 cns1s the United Nations sent an
emergency force to maintain peace along the EgyptianIsraeli borders. Why can not this force be used to maintain
free transit through the Canal, as guaranteed at that time?"
EDMONTON JOURNAL
Edmonton_, 18 july 1959
"The Egyptian administration has barred the ship from
using the Canal because it is carrying 5,500 tons of Israeli
potash and cement. This discrimination, a direct result of
Nasser's hatred of Israel, is a black blot on the Egyptian
administration's record, all the more so because it is working
a hardship on the Danish operators and crew of the ship."
tlhe montreat Stnr
Montreal_, 14 July 1959
"The Danish freighter Inge Toft is carrying an Israel
cargo to the Far East, but has been detained by Egypt. The
move has annoyed Israel's Asian customers with whom
Nasser has himself tried to cultivate good relations. Mr.
4
Hammarskjold may have borne in on Nasser the risk he
runs of losing friends in Asia for the sake of maintaining
an illegal position in the Canal."
THE OTTAWA CITIZEN
Ottawa, 6 July 1959
"Neither Mr. Hammarskjold nor the UN itself can rest
until this issue is settled, and until Egypt calls off its war
against Israel. Efforts to find a solution, and to persuade
Egypt that it is acting against the cause of world peace,
should be pressed at every opportunity."
28 July 1959
"Despite instructions by the Security Council that all
countries are entitled to untrammeled passage through the
Canal, Egypt has denied the waterway to Israeli ships, or
to foreign vessels carrying cargo to or from Israel.".
THE TELEGRAM
Toronto, 18 June 1959
"Israel's claim to the right of passage of its ships and
cargoes is properly based on the principle adopted by the
Security Council after Egypt's nationalization of the Canal
in 1956. The most important of these stipulates that 'the
operation of the Canal shall be insulated from the politics
of any country.'
"Nasser accepted this principle, but like other dictators
in the past he · applies it as he pleases. There is no justifica~
tion for excluding Israel from his pledge to protect the
vital interests of the international community in the Canal.
To make an exception is to render the pledge meaningless."
WINNIPEG TRIBUNE
Winnipeg, I July 1959
"His (Nasser's) confiscation of Israel's cargoes is not only
an affront to that country but to the UN, which ·endorsed
the resolution for free and open transit in the Canal without
discrimination."
5
CEYLON
CEYLON OBSERVER
Colombo~
30 June 1959
"From the point of view of Ceylon three broad factors
are noteworthy: 1. Ceylonese importers have lost heavily
on the confiscation of the cargo. 2. The Ceylon Government's pleas for the release of the cargo have been rejected
-we believe on four separate occasions, and 3. The Capetan Manolis affair is of a piece with other policy decisions taken by the UAR, a course of action which seems
to involve international politics of a very complex character."
CHILE
LA NACION
Santiago~
8 August 1959
"The detention of the Inge Toft constitutes a repudiation
of the assurances given to Dag Hammarskjold and Dr.
Ralph Bunche in Lausanne and in Cairo, to the effect that
there would be no repetition of the above-mentioned (Suez)
incidents."
DENMARK
Copenhagen~
10 July 1959
"Now it is a Danish ship that has been detained for
almost two months, while Nasser demonstrates apparently
the only thing that may have a chance of ideologically
holding together at least some of the Arab States: hatred
of Israel."
J\nrbuus ~tift.stibtnbt
Aarhus~
23 May 1959
"The Inge Toft episode is a matter of principle. It has
6
been a serious disappointment, which will be further ~x­
tended if the Egyptians carry on with their fanatical chicanery. If Nasser obtains support without having to make
concessions, the West certainly can not expect anything
from him. The Shah of Persia was hardly in the wrong
when, during his recent visit to London, he termed Arab
nationalism a danger that had to be carefully watched. It
is a danger that cannot be removed simply b~ yielding."
Copenhagen~
3 July 1959
"While the Danish ship went under charter, Denmark
has a direct interest in seeing an end to the Egyptians'
behaviour. There· must be absolutely free and unhampered
navigation of the Canal. The seafaring nations ought to
stand together for recognition of this principle."
~ibeubt
Copenhagen~
12 Ju,ne 1959
"The Egyptians' seizure of the Danish cargo vessel Inge
Toft, which was on her way from Haifa to ports in the
Far East with a cargo of potash and cement, is against
all laws and may have grave repercussions if it is accepted
by the seafaring nations."
22 June 1959
"When Egypt bars Israel from the Canal, she not only
acts against the Convention she has promised to accept
as valid, but also defies the United Nations. Yet it was
the UN itself that sowed the seeds of this crisis by clearing
the Canal, after the hostilities of 1956, without demanding
Egyptian guarantees for free navigation. It is a strange
thing indeed that, with this issue, in general, and the fate
of the Inge Toft, in particular, still in doubt, negotiations
should be taking place about an Egyptian loan from the
International Bank for the purpose of widening the Cana]."
DAGENS NIBEDER
Copenhagen~
2 July 1959
"It must be hoped that Hammarskjold, during his forth7
coming negotiatiOns in Cairo, will do all in his power to
explain to Nasser that one does not play like this in decent
company, and that there will be consequences to consider,
unless the Canal is immediately declared free-for Israel
cargoes too."
Aarhus_, 25 May 1959
"It is not too early to take steps to teach Egypt what is
practice and right-in accordance with the laws of the UN.
Denmark has, within UN limits, put in a special effort in
the Egyptian-Israeli quarrel. It would be the natural thing
for Denmark to demand of the UN's responsible organs
that the piratical conditions in the Canal shall cease."
POLITI KEN
Copenhagen_, 12 June 1959
"In all fairness it must be said that Egypt's action is
very unwise. The Israel goods are of an absolutely civilian
character, and the blockade against Israel is about to defeat
itself. There can be no doubt who will lose the most in the
long run, both economically and politically."
Soro Amtstidende
Copenhagen_, 1 July 1959
"Obviously, too, international law and order would be
severely undermined if Nasser were permitted unchallenged
to close the Canal to Israel ships merely because he cannot
bear his young neighbour State! Where are we all to end
up, if this kind of policy can be enacted without opposition?"
Vestkysten
Esbjerg, 27 June 1959
"The ambiguous attitude displayed by the Great Powers
with regard to the Danish ship is not all all becoming; it
carries within it the seeds of weakness, of which the UN
ought to be ashamed."
8
FRANCE
L'llURORE
Paris~
8 June 1959
"At the very moment when Ben Gurion himself, more
conciliatory than ever, proclaims that he would accept total
disarmament in the Middle East, will they let Nasser violate
the ruling on navigation in the Canal and mount a new
war-machine against Israel?"
J!t
Paris~
9 June 1959
"At the moment when Israel is trying to develop its
relations with the young States of Africa and Asia, the
Suez route is as vital for its economy as for its security. It
is understandable that the Government of Ben Gurion is
seeking to obtain by every means an international legal
ruling supporting free passage."
2 July 1959
"The declarations which Nasser has just made in the
'AI Ahram' shatter in advance every hope of an amicable
adjustment of the problem of free navigation in the Canal.
"Already for several weeks the authorities of the UAR
had affirmed that they would not consent to grant free
passage to Israel goods. But the question had never before
been handled with the finality and violence that characterised the Egyptian President's latest declarations."
Le Populaire
de Paris
Paris~
25 May 1959
"Today-and particularly since the seizure on 26 February
1959 of the Capetan Manolis flying the Liberian flag and
of the Leal ott flying the flag of the West German Republic
-it is impossible to remain indifferent to an arbitrariness
which not only constitutes a flagrant interference with in9
ternational commercial relations but also directly damages
the interest of the countries in Asia and Africa which need
Israel products for their development.
"Let us then hope, with Guy Mollet (replying last Saturday to a question of the correspondent of the French News
Agency in Israel), that 'the Israelis will maintain their
equaniJility'. But let us also hope that 'the United Nations
take heed of the necessity to insist upon the application
of the principle of the freedom of navigation in the Canal."
LE POPULAIRE :OU DIMANCH'E
Paris~ 21
GERMANY
July 1959
"Confronting Nasser, the Captain of the Inge Toft is still
today a champion of liberty. Alone, marooned on his ship,
between the hostile banks of the Canal, he is holding at
bay that man before whom others, far more powerful than
he, have trembled.
"What a lesson! A hard one no doubt for those cowards
who disguise their absurdities · in the cloak of doctrines!
But how refreshing for real democrats!"
,
DIE8WELT
Hamburg, 21 March 1959
"The Egyptian authorities have stopped a German vessel
in the Suez Canal and stolen its cargo. There is no other
way to describe this act of force even if, for Egypt, the
cargo originated in an 'enemy country'-Israel."
The Birmingham Post
Jinninsham f»uettt
Birmingham, 8 June 1959
"The Canal is aHeged to be free for the passage of the
ships of all nations, but recently the lnge Toft, a Danish
freighter, has been held up by Egypt because she was
carrying a cargo of cement and potash from Israel to the
10
Far East. Egypt's excuse for this and her attempted confiscation of the cargo is that she is still at war with Israelan excuse that could have dangerous implications for her.
In any case, by this action she is defying United Nations
rulings."
DAILY EXPRESS
London, 3 ] une 1959
"Champion of the world impudence-Abdul Gamal N asser. He stole the Canal from its rightful owners. He grabs
a Danish ship carrying a cargo to Israel through this
waterway.
"At the same time Nasser is asking the World Bank, in
which Britain has a stake, to give him a loan of £70,000,000
in order to develop the Canal.
"So far as Britain's purse is concerned, it should remain
obstinately closed to the Egyptian dictator.
"There are a thousand projects which should rank ahead
of improving a stolen Canal so that Nasser can go on
using it as a blackmailing weapon."
aJht llailn m-tltgraph
anb
.Blmllnt IJDJI
London., 9 June 1959
"Israel has wisely refrained from drawing provocative
attention to her growing trade through this new outlet. But
the time must come when Nasser, if he is not to look increasingly foolish in Arab eyes, will try to close Israel's back
door again. Mr. Hammarskjold seems to think that the
less said about the Inge Toft the better. But unless the
United Nations successfully maintains Israel's rights on the
Canal now, it will have no influence then to restrain her
from defending her own on the Gulf."
2 July 1959
"At present Egypt is treating the Canal, so far as Israeli
cargoes are concerned, as a private waterway, on grounds
which she could apply to any other nation with which she
chose to quarrel. To emphasise the freedom of the . Canal
it is unnecessary to hark back to the original challenge,
when the Security Council pronounced against Egypt in
1951. Let the World Bank tie its 'strings' to the principle
which the Council laid down, and Egypt herself acknow11
ledged after nationalisation: 'free arid open transit without
discrimination, overt or covert'."
The
EcoilOinist
London, 13 June 1959
"The pressure on Cairo would be much greater if the
World Bank insisted before granting its loan that Egypt
should honestly, and in full, carry out its obligations."
THE GLASGOW HERALD
Glasgow, 3 July 1959
"Mr. Hammarskjold may operate in Cairo and Jerusalem,
but the key to the success or failure of his mission is in
Moscow. If the Soviet Government could be persuaded to
go with rather than against the Western Powers on the issue,
search and seizure of any ships or cargoes in the Canal
would soon cease."
MANCHESTER EVENING N.EWS
c
Manchester, 1 July 1959
"This is what Nasser thinks of the United Nations. He
has the same respect for it that he had in 1951, when the
Security Council told Egypt she must stop interfering with
Israeli shipping. He has simply gone on stopping the ships
when it suited him. That is not all. Recently vessels belonging
to Norway, Denmark and the Lebanon have been stopped
with cargoes bound for Ceylon, Japan and the Philippines, and a cargo already paid for by Ceylon has been confiscated-but Nasser is getting away with it. He should be
arraigned now before the United Nations. And the World
Bank, which is considering a loan for Suez, must not lend
a penny until there is a firm guarantee of freedom at Suez."
INDIA
,
New Delhi, 29 July 1959
"A rational agreement on the settlement of the refugees12
the 'orphans' of the previous ·conflicts-should be more
welcome to any real states~an than the shouting of war
slogans and, worse, the closing of a seaway like the Suez
which should be administered for the common . benefit . of
all the peoples in the Middle East. Israel has come to
stay and the sooner that Nasser accepts this, the better
for all."
New
Delhi~
31 July 1959
"President Nasser is not without responsibility for Is.r ael's militant mood, and even Afro-Asian countries
friendly to the UAR have not been happy over his closure
of the Canal to Israeli trade since it affects them as well.
If he is not to alienate fuEther the international goodwill
towards the UAR he should think in terms of a settlement
with Israel."
·nm INDIAN EXPRESS
Bombay~
Madras~
11 August 1959
"President Nasser's repeated declarations that the UAR
will never allow Israel to use the Suez Canal may serve as
a rousing slogan for his people, but they also inevitably
keep the Arab-Jewish tension in West Asia constantly · on
the boil. Even those who sympathise with the UAR's
aspirations and are anxious to solve the problem of Arab
refugees can hardly be expected to appreciate President Nasser's implacable hostility to Israel. To put it
mildly, he is flying in the face of history and harming the
long-term interests of his own people. He is also mistaken
if he believes that repeated denunciations of Israel will
prevail upon the United Nations to revise its earlier resolutions on navigation in the Suez Canal."
26 June 1959
"His (Nasser'·s) actions therefore are contrary to fact and
law. It is time that the President was once again disillusioned, and taught that by honouring his obligations he is
likely to make firmer friends."
13
Calcutta_, 2 July 1959
"Though given a veneer of legality by its War Prize
Commission, recent seizures by Egypt of Israeli cargoes in
the Suez Canal are plainly meant to be provocative."
Bombay_, 1 July 1959
"How Nasser chooses to conduct his relations with Israel
is his own affair but where the Canal and the right of free
passage are involved the UAR is under an obligation to
consider the interests of all those engaged in peaceful navigation. Under a genuine state of war the UAR would be
justified in fully exercising its sovereign rights and denying
free navigation to belligerents but current relations between
the Arab world and Israel, though unsatisfacto~y, cannot
be described as a state of war without resorting to legal
equivocation."
THOUGHT
New Delhi_, 1 August 1959
"The history between the Arabs and the Jews arose in
history; let history look after them. In any case, let not
the Suez become once again a waterway of contention."
IRELAND
THE IRISH TIMES
Dublin, 8 June 1959
"Unfortunately, the basic cause-the fact that Egypt still
regards herself as being at war with Israel-has not been
removed, and until it has been, the danger of a renewal
of outright hostilities always exists. The ·existence of this
danger is apt to be over-shadowed by other and more
immediate causes of international dispute. Yet it remains
as the potential fuse of a worldwide ·explosion. The UN
secretariat has made many efforts to bring the two sides
14
towards a more amicable modus vivendi, and it is high time
that another approach was made."
2 july 1959
"Nasser clearly is prepared to resist any proposal which
could be interpreted as reinforcing Israel's rights to use the
waterway. It seems that once again, Suez is about to make
major news."
ITALY
-
COBBIEBE DELLA SEBA
Milan~
19 August 1959
"After the United States had -saved Nasser from certain
collapse and persuaded Israel to withdraw from the Sinai
Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, President Eisenhower made
two promises: the first, on 20 February 1957:
'We should not assume that if Israel withdraws, Egypt
will prevent Israeli shipping from using the Suez Canal or
the Gulf of Akaba. If unhappily Egypt does hereafter violate
the Armistice Agreement or other international obligations,
then this should be dealt with firmly by the society of nations.'
"The second promise was made on 3 March 195 7 in
a letter to Ben-Gurion:
'I believe that Israel will have no cause to regret having
conformed to the strong sentiment of the world community.'
"Today Israel has reason to regret it."
.
LA NAZIONE
Florence~
Milano~
8 July 1959
"Nasser has made himself the subject of discussion again,
and naturally in a provocative way. Violating the Constantinople Convention of 1888, the master of the Canal
has closed it to Israel ships and to neutral ships carrying
Israel cargo."
28 July 1959
"Here the law has been trampled upon by an arbitrary
move; so has the principle of freedom of movement. It
15
does not matter to us that we are dealing here with an
Israeli ship: this is the excuse put forward by the Nasser
Government. Tomorrow the excuse may be a different one.
Nor let it be said-as the spokesman of the Cairo Government has declared-that 'anyone has a right to do what he
pleases in his own house'. For the Canal is not Egypt's
private property in the narrow and restrictive sense of the
word. It is an integral part of that great possession that
is known in the parlance of the cultural world as Freedom."
JAPAN
The Japan
Times
Tokyo, 1 july I959
"Egypt's action affects the interests of all maritime nations, and the hope must be expressed that the Egyptian
Government will listen to Mr. Hammarskjold's representations and agree to resume its recognition of the principle
of free traffic through the Canal."
ALGEMEEN HANDELSBLAD
Amsterdam, II June I959
"One of· the most remarkable aspects of the problem is
that during two years, from the re-opening of the Canal
after the Suez affair until February of this year, ships
carrying goods from or to Israel were permitted to pass
through the Canal without any difficulty. But suddenly,
last February, cargoes from Israel were confiscated from a
Liberian and a West German ship. At the end of April,
'Ralph Bunche, Assistant Secretary-General of the United
Nations, talked the matter over with Nasser-but, as now
appears, without result. Egypt seems to have put a stop
to the tacit agreement that had existed since 1959."
HAAGSCHE
COURANT
The Hague, 5 August I959
"In one respect the pessimists were right: free passage
li
through the Suez Canal has remained a dead letter, at least
insofar as transportation to and from Israel is concerned.
The detention of the Danish freighter Inge Toft is a
recent proof of this contention. The Constantinople Convention of 1888 stipulates, in Article I, that the Suez Canal,
an international waterway, must remain open in times of
peace as in times of war, for the merchant vessels and the
navies of all nations without distinction of flag. Nobody win
be able to say that the Egyptian Government has implemented this stipulation. The contrary is true: the prize law
which has been applied in the Canal for more than 11 years
now is in direct contradiction to the treaty, and it is Israel
which in this case is the victim."
NEW ZEALAND
THE DOMINION
Wellington, 2 July 1959
"What Nasser appears to overlook is that the Security
Council has already declared itself on the issue. As long
ago as 1951 it resolved that Israeli ships had the right of
unrestricted passage. But a weak-kneed United Nations has
allowed Egypt to ignore that ruling with impunity. Now
comes another testing time for that organisation. Successful
flouting of UN authority in the past emboldens Nasser today
to scatter fresh seeds of Middle East unrest."
NORWAY
Oslo, 2 July 1959
"The Egyptians have now put to shame all those who
doubted their technical qualifications to conduct traffic in
the Canal but have, on the other hand, strengthened the
widespread fear that nationalization would convert the
Canal into a trophy for the ambitious dictator."
17
I
PERU
:I.APRENSA
Lima, 31 ] uly 1959
"The need of the young Israeli State to use the Canal
for peaceful purposes is urgent. In the meantime, as long
as Egypt denies free use of the Canal, the tension felt in
· the Middle East cannot disappear."
PORTUGAL .
:
Lisbon, 2 August 1959
"For several weeks now Cairo propaganda has been harping on the theme of improvements in the Canal which
will allow the passage of super-tankers. And now a return
to the familiar agenda of dispute regarding the freedom
of navigation prevents the World Bank from examining
seriously the question of financing the works envisaged."
SWEDEN
·Arbetet
Malmo, 30 June 1959
"It would be a betrayal not only of Israel but also of
themselves if the Western powers and the United Nations
were not to do all within their power to put an end to
these acts of piracy. The Egyptians' behaviour constitutes
a flagrant violation of the legal rights of the maritime nations. Thus it is not only in Israel's interest that fire be
fought with fire."
18
D!GE~S
URETER.
Stockholm, 19 May 1959
"It would be treachery against Israel, against all obligations and declarations, if the Western countries did not
uncompromisingly demand an end to Egypt's aggressive
actions in the Canal and to Nasser's attempts to strangle
Israel. One cannot, one must not, gamble away the opportunity to secure the peace of the Jewish State, when there
is a possibility to press the man who until now has met
every protest with scorn, every appeal with threats."
4 july 1959
"Faced with this spectacle, the Western powers have
still remained passive or, at any rate, refrained from any
official reaction. For tactical reasons, they did not raise the
issue in the United Nations and, of course, waited for
Hammarskjold to take action. After the welcome Hammarskjold received in Cairo, it is difficult to find any sound
reasons for continued postponement. Israel, which has always been asked by Hammarskjold to be patient and to
put her trust in the UN, has waited long enough: it is now
the duty of the Western States to denounce Nasser's actions,
both in the UN and outside it."
~~~
GOTEBOHGS HANDELS- OCH SJOFARTS·TIDNING
Goteborg, 25 May 1959
"Egypt continues successfully to maintain her defiance
of the United Nations.
"Is the matter to be allowed to rest there? The question
must be properly studied by all the nations having an interest in free passage through the Canal. Israel is not the
only State having cause for protest against the blockade.
The discrimination is directed also against the States under
whose flags the vessels sail. No less harm is done to the Far
Eastern buyers, who certainly do not purchase goods just
to enjoy the spectacle of their being held up half-way to
their destination. New markets are opening for Israel's export trade in that part of the world-also a praiseworthy
development from a general point of ·view. The confiscation
of the Inge Toft's cargo must serve as a signal for action,
supported in the main by the major maritime nations, to
·e nd arbitrariness in the Canal."
19
I
6 June 1959
"We now have Radio Cairo's assertion that the UAR
has decided to confiscate any Israel cargo found on vessels
passing through the Canal, without regard to flag. The
blockade will now be a total one. Already it had constituted
a flagrant violation of the Constantinople Convention and
open defiance of a Security Council resolution. Egypt unabashedly repudiated her previous declarations, which included a promise to honour the Convention. Pertinent in this
connection are the words of the Egyptian representative
who often spoke before the Security Council about Egypt's
'tolerance' with regard to her treatment of Israel shipping.
On 14 O·c tober 1954, he said: 'Egypt has not only displayed tolerance but has also observed absolute silence and has
refrained from any interference with vessels conveying goods
to Israel or coming from Israel ports and passing through
the Canal.'
"Five years later, the question should be put to the
United States and other maritime nations: How much
longer are you going to put up with this?"
2 July 1959
~ "It certainly is possible to speak to Nasser in the language
he understands and that is apt, besides, to put him in a
position where he will be compelled to consent to free
passage in the Canal to 'every vessel ol commerce or of war,
without distinction of flag'."
STOCKHOLMS-TIDNINGEN
Stockholm:~
5 June 1959
"Now it is proclaimed in Cairo that, regardless of nationality, any vessel carrying Israel cargo will have it confiscated. Egyptian promises have become worthless. This arbitrary and capricious practice with regard to obligations undertaken cannot but arouse deep concern in the industrial
Western countries, which are very much dependent on the
Canal. Undoubtedly guarantees that navigation will in point
of fact proceed freely are required. If Israel takes the
question to the United Nations, she ought to be able to
count on firm support for her action on the part of all
States for which the Canal serves as an important link of
communiqttion.''
2 july 1959
" ... Another result will be that no one will dare believe
that Egypt is going to honour the freedom of navigation in
20
I
I
the Canal, in accordance with the 1888 Convention. Today
it is Israel, and to some extent Denmark, that have been
affected. Tomorrow it is liable to be some other country
that will be made to feel the Arabs' wrath."
SWITZERLAND
6emer lilgbloU
Berne, 11 June 1959
"For three weeks the Captain of the Inge Toft, lying
in Port Said, has defied the orders of the Nasser dictatorship, whose henchmen are boycotting the ship and denying
it drinking water.
"It seems in place to point to the stand taken by this
unknown seaman in the face of great temptation to resort
to opportunism: he is fighting for a right-a right not to
be granted or restricted by mere whim or fancy.
"This applies to passage in the Canal as well as to the
Western Powers remaining in West Berlin. The case of the
Inge Toft could be taken up by the Israel Government to
challenge Cairo's revived practice of piracy on an international level, if only to be able once more to pin down
the guilt of a lawbreaker for all the world to see."
JOURNAL DE GENEVE
Geneva, 3 July 1959
"By reviving the conflict with Israel which had to some
extent died down, the President of UAR is essaying a massive political operation. He is trying to remake the unity of
the Arab nations which had been seriously dismembered of
late. Now the only cement that can join them together is
their permanent hostility towards the State of Israel. And
besides, Nasser is out for a personal operation: he is endeavouring to regain the leadership of the Arab world and
restore his prestige."
LA TRIBUNE DE GEIVEVE
Geneva, 8 June 1959
"The Egyptians have constantly resisted the passage of
21
ships flying the Israel flag: they have on the other hand
allowed goods of Israel origin or destination to go through
on several occasions, most recently in March, when a Greek
cargo was concerned. The Inge Toft was the first again
to demand liberty of passage through the Canal. In this
affair Israel has right on her side. The Constantinople Convention of 1888 and the resolution passed by: the Security
Council in 1951, but flouted by Cairo, condemn every contravention of the freedom of passage. In this particular
case Egypt cannot invoke the argument of legitimate defence either. It is impossible not to think that the quarrel,
which will probably be taken to the Security Council, has
been deliberately sought. Why?"
URUGUAY
:CL P.A.IS
Montevideo, 3 August 1959
"The boastful dictator of the United Arab Republic
thinks of himself as master of the future, consequently as
master of the Canal and probably of the Mediterranean
as well. He forgets that the Canal and its continuation to
the West were very near to losing him his job when, after
his Sinai 'victory,' which consisted only of shooting, he
left his shoes behind so as to run more quickly barefooted.
"If he then found Cairo free, it was only because the
people who took over the Canal decided to stop for international reasons."
EL PLATA
Montevideo._, 5 August 1959
"In the light of these precedents ... one has to take the
words of the Egyptian ruler at their face value and view
them as a most serious threat to the security of Israel and
international peace. The position taken by the UAR stands
as a olear contradiction to the principles of humanity and
international behaviour, and is a plain violation of the UN
Charter."
22
Montevideo:~
1 August 1959
"If the Egyptian 'gets away' with it this time, the way
has been paved for further arrogance, further withdrawals
of unhindered passage, and the Canal, instead of being a
road, would become a private alley-way for only certain
States and certain peoples, and this would undoubtedly
reflect on the economy of the Middle and Near East."
U.S.A.
Boston:~ Mass.:~
9 June 1959
"For Israel the cargo is a vital matter. The struggling
economy of the country cannot afford such seizures, which
are little better than piratical. The United Nations has
twice declared that no state of war exists beween Egypt
and Israel, such as Egypt likes to claim.
"The sequel is obvious, the rights of foreign ships carrying Israeli cargo through the Canal must be defined and
upheld."
·
THE BOSTON HERALD
Boston:~ Mass.:~
24 June 1959
"Nasser's bad-boy tactics in Suez threaten to create another crisis if they are not stopped. Israel cannot afford
the luxury of patience, as we found out to our sorrow two
years ago. The guarantors of the 1957 armistice should step
in before there is another explosion."
Boston:~ Mass.:~
22 June 1959
"Nasser is acting like a little boy playing with boats in
a bathtub. And little boys need discipline when they splash
around too much."
23
BROOKLYN DAILY
Brooklyn~ N.Y.~
14 June 1959
"It is to Israel's credit that she has not thus far sent a
martial note to Nasser demanding he stop his hostile actions. Israel does not seek a war-she needs and desires
peace to fulfil her destiny as a sovereign nation.
"But the United Nations is sadly remiss in allowing this
international conflict to continue. We call on that body
to step into the picture and set things to right in the Suez
area!"
BUFFALO EVENING NEWS
Buffalo~ N.Y.~
16 June 1959
"Nasser persists in detaining vessels passing through the
Canal with cargoes for Israel in violation of a Security
Council resolution ordering him to fulfil provisions of the
pact guaranteeing unobstructed passage to ships of all nations in peace or war."
I
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER
Cleveland~ Ohio~
14 June 1959
"Nasser has again been stopping shipping in the Canal.
These have been foreign ships carrying cargoes to and from
Israel. .This is a violation of the six-point agreement, reached
tacitly rather than explicitly, when the United Nations and
the United States ended the Sinai campaign of the Israelis
and the Suez invasion of the British and French."
DAILY,m NEWS
New
York~
5 June 1959
'~Nasser has now taken to grabbing an occasional nonIsrael ship passing through the Canal with an Israeli cargo aboard.
"The latest incidents occurred 21 May, when the Danish
freighter Inge Toft, carrying Israeli goods for the Far East,
was halted at Port Said. The captain is still refusing to
obey an Egyptian court order to surrender the cargo.
"We would call this situation a clear case for the United
Nations to handle, if it can. The United Nations has been
maintaining peace between Israel and Egypt for quite a
24
while now, and here is a chance for it to keep up the good
work."
lJ tmtt tral;,
Rochester, N.Y., 25 June 1959
"Nasser's new role as a pirate is characteristic. He has
been rudely set back in Iraq. He has been disillusioned
with Moscow. He had expected by now to have Jordan
and Lebanon in his camp. He cannot believe that he is
losing his grip-what grip he had-on the Arab world. In
desperation he is groping for a way to rehabilitate himself
as a hero to the Arabs. It will not be easy."
DENVER POST
Denver, Colo., 11 June 1959
"If the UAR were to be swayed by legal arguments, it
would have allowed Israeli ships and cargoes through long
ago.
"The Egyptians' unilateral declaration of 195 7, when
Egypt reassumed control of the Canal after the BritishFrench-Israeli invasion, paid tribute to the Constantinople
Convention of 1888, which declares that the Canal shall
remain open in peace or war to all ships of ·every nation.
"But in relation to Israel, the UAR paid as little attention to that clause as it did to the Security Council order
in 1951 to admit Israeli vessels to the Canal."
EVENING STAR
Washington, 16 August 1959
"The ban on Israeli shipping, now extended to ships of
other nations carrying Israeli goods, is based on the Egyptian claim that, officially, a state of war still exists between
Egypt and Israel. Whatever the legalistic merits of this
claim, and it is disputed by Israel, the plain fact is that
it results in a situation which is hurting Israel, which is of
no benefit to Egypt and which is prejudicial to the outlook
for peace in the Middle East. There seems little prospect
at the moment that this deadlock can be resolved. Still,
political harangues aside, it would be to Egypt's advantage
to resolve it. So it may be that a government which was
intelligent enough to see the advantages of efficient operation of the Canal will also come to see the advantages in
abandoning this pointless discrimination."
25
Hartford:~
Conn..) 18 June 1959
''Control of the Canal is being misused by Egypt in a
way that violates the rules of civilized nations. Only a war
would justify barring of cargo ships from the Canal. And
to justify its hostile actions, Egypt claims to be at war with
Israel. This is a legal fiction without basis in fact. It should
not be accepted by other nations."
THE MIAMI NEWS
Miami) Fla.) 17 June 1959
"This is embarrassing to the United Nations not only
because its officials engineered the original agreement, but
because failure to restore the flow of trade will let Israel
know that she cannot rely on international protection of
her rights. And it will let Nasser know that he can take
increasingly bold steps in his bid for power. Such a failure
must be averted."
THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL
Milwaukee) Wis.) 26 June 1959
"Whatever the reason, the United Nations and nations
party to the Suez agreements have a vital interest here.
Egypt is defying them as well as Israel."
MONTGOMERY JOURNAL
Montgomery:~ Ala.:~
16 June 1959
"Too proud to make peace and too spiritless to wage
war, the Arabs maintain an in-between status, enlivened by
border .raids and such incidents as seizure of the Israeli
cargo recorded above. This is indeed a far cry from the
days of Arab greatness. There are some who believe that
the Arabs will one day resume active warfare and smother
Israel by sheer weight of numbers; but history amply attests that numbers alone are not decisive."
THE MORNING CALL
Allentown)
Pa.:~
26 June 1959
"Mr. Hammarskjold has ironed out many difficulties by
behind-the-scenes conferences. It is particularly important
that he bring about the release of the Danish ship, its
skipper, and its cargo, and that the acknowledged rights of
a little nation shall not be violated. Otherwise an example
for the perpetration of indignities to other small, law-abiding countries, and even to the greater powers, is provided."
Newark> N.J.> 13 June 1959
"Israel's developing trade with the Far East demands
that Israeli cargoes pass freely through the Suez. Israel's
determination that this should be so cannot be treated
lightly."
New York> N.Y.> 14 June 1959
"Cairo has laid it squarely on the line in the case of the
Danish freighter carrying an Israeli cargo that has been
halted in the Canal. Minister of State Aly Sabri's declaration that 'the United Arab Republic cannot allow Israeli
shipping free passage, as this would expose this vital waterway to sabotage and delay' is an open challenge to the
United Nations."
17 June 1959
"Whatever the Egyptian logic, impeding traffic in the
Canal is an inflammatory proceeding. The fedayin raids
across Israel's borders, unchecked by the United Nations,
finally goaded Israel into the Sinai campaign that all but
set the entire Middle East blaze. To-day quiet is maintained along the borders by troops of the United Nations
Emergency Force. They might serve a similarly productive purpose by riding ships through the Canal when necessary. Whatever form the answer takes, it becomes increasingly evident that the United Nations will have to
meet this new challenge at Suez."
20 June 1959
"It would be reciting ancient history to point out that
free passage of all ships, in war no less than peace, is guaranteed by the 1888 Suez Convention and reinforced by
United Nations resolutions."
27
I
25 ,June 1959
"Mr. Hammarskjold's trip should be able to determine
whether the UAR hopes to use its blockade of the Canal
as a bargaining weapon or whether it means to choke off
Israel's growing trade with the East. In either case, he must
make it plain to the UAR that its actions are illegal, and
that the object of his visit is less to obtain the release of
a single cargo than to make certain that the Canal remains
open to ships of all nations at all times."
29 July 1959
"The UAR is wrong in using the Canal as a weapon in
its economic blockade against Israel. The blockade itself
is mere spite-work, which harms the countries participating
as much as the country against which it is directed. But
to bar the Canal-still international in many aspects despite its nationalization-is illegal."
New Vorl~ I1Dos1·
New York, N.Y., 5 June 1959
"In 1951 the Security Council dealt with Egypt's barring of Israeli ships in the Canal. The Council very emphatically rejected Egypt's claim that it could exercise belligerent rights against Israel in the face of the armistice
agreement.
"Egypt blandly disregarded that decision of the Council,
even though as a signatory of the United Nations Charter
it contracted 'to accept. and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council.'
"What reason is there to believe it will show greater respect for a decision of the International Court of Justice?"
7 June 1959
·"The seizure of Israeli cargoes on neutral freighters in
the Canal may be a way by which Nasser hopes to extort
blackmail aid from the West, in return for a promise to
cease and desist; or it may be an ·e ffort on his part to win
fanatical support in his struggle with Kassem. On either
score it is an intolerable act which conceals piracy under
the forms of sovereignty."
21 June 1959
"Efforts by Hammarskjold to make the Egyptians see
reason have been fruitless. His messages to Cairo have
received no responsive replies. The recent statement by
Minister of State Aly Sabri that Israeli cargoes would not
28
be allowed to pass 'regardless of the consequences' reflects
an irresponsible truculence that bodes ill for the world."
24 June 1959
"Authorities of the United Arab Republic certainly do
not seem to be carrying out their original projection of allowing all ships of all nations to pass through the Canal.
Not long ago they stopped a second ship within a month
which they suspected of carrying an Israeli cargo.
"It is a pity that they apparently have a feeling that Israel
must be denied access to foreign trade through the Canal.
Such action will make many people doubtful of the wisdom of allowing one nation to control any waterway built
for international navigation.
"Many thinking people will begin to wonder whether all
such waterways should not be controlled by the United
Nations and belong to the people of the World, not to any
one nation."
(Eleanor Roosevelt)
1 July 1959
"Nasser is apparently determined to remain unreasonable
about Israel's rights in the Canal. With Hammarskjold due
in Cairo this week to discuss the problem, the U AR leader
has announced that 'regardless of consequences' he will not
let the Israelis use the waterway.
" 'Regardless of consequences' is a phrase as ominous as
it is irresponsible. It can only augment the world's anxiety
about Nasser's course. To declare, as he does, that ships
owned or chartered by Israel pose a threat to the Canal
is a patent nonsense, and we suspect that Nasser knows it.
His harassment of Israeli commerce, exemplified currently
by his detention of the Danish freighter Inge Toft with an
Israeli cargo, adds nothing to the security of his country;
it does threaten the peace of the entire area."
New York_, N.Y._, 29 March 1959
"Nasser is using the Canal as his own private reserve fo~
his own private purposes. The issue should he aired in the
Security Council without delay."
19 June 1959
"Nasser's argument that he is still at war with Israel and
is entitled to act in the Canal as a 'belligerent' has been
specifically thrown out by the United Nations as contrary
to fact and law.
29
"He seems to believe that in view of the Western preoccupation with the Soviet challenge and his own verbal
quarrel with the Soviets he can now count on greater
Western toleration and help. He should be disillusioned
on that point until he learns to honour his international
obligations."
Oakland~ Gal.~
15 June 1959
"Again in 1957, the Egyptian Government reaffirmed its
obligation to observe the Canal Convention of 1888 which
specifically provides for freedom of navigation for all nations and also its adherence to the orders of the Security
Council. Yet in the instance of the Danish ship carrying
an Israeli cargo the Egyptian Government has flouted not
only the United Nations but also its own declarations of
honorable intent.
"Well, that has happened, so now the onus of enforcing
international law and the sanctity of agreements rests directly on the United Nations."
22 June 1959
"In any case, it is now up to the United Nations to
implement and enforce its 1951 resolution calling for an
end to the ban on Israeli shipping. There is no other way
without violating the basic rules of international comity."
Portland~
20 June 1959
"The United States took a firm position, as did the Soviet Union, in United Nations opposition to the attack on
the Suez and the Sinai Peninsula by Britain, France and
Israel in 1956. It has an equally sound obligation to bring
the UAR government before the United Nations bar of
justice now to force it to respect its own pledges and the
Suez Convention. If the nations of the world fail to make
Nasser play by the rules, how can they expect Israel to keep
turning the other cheek?"
PONTIAC PRESS
Pontiac~ Mich.~
29 June 1959
"At a time when Western relations with Egypt have been
30
improving and when it seemed that Nasser was more aware
of the Communist menace to his country, the blockade is
a setback. It is a denial of his pledged word to respect covenants which govern the international character of the
Canal. The whole world is vitally interested in the outcome
of the current negotiations in Cairo."
~bt ~robibmct Journal
Providence~ R.I.~
17 July 1959
"There is no reason to expect that Nasser will pay any
more attention to further United Nations injunctions than
he has in the past or that he will bring to the administration of a great international waterway the , responsibility
that should govern its use. In the meantime, Israel is put
under serious disadvantage in its attempt to share in world
trade."
SACREMENTO BEE
Sacramento~ Cal.~
16 June 1959
"By such interference Egypt violates the 1957 armistice
agreement, following the flash war between Egypt and Israel, after the Cairo government had seized the Canal.
. "And what is more, President Eisenhower, in a nationwide address to the American people, gave assurance Egypt
had bound itself to maintain the Canal as an open and
free water passage. He said any violation of that pledge
'should be dealt with firmly by the society of nations.' "
ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS
St.
Paul~ Minn.~
14 June 1959
"There never has been a satisfactory explanation why
President Nasser allowed 40 ships bearing cargoes to and
from Israel through the Canal between April 1957 and
March 1959 without trouble and has since seized three
vessels."
SALT LAKE CITY NEWS & TELEGRAM
Salt Lak.e
City~
Utah, 26 June 1959
"Mr. Hammarskjold can greatly strengthen the co-operative spirit that has developed if he can help smooth out
31
the Inge Toft affair and reassure Israel and other nations
that open and 'effective use of the Canal will continue."
Y!bt inlt tnkt gtribunt
Salt Lake
Santa
New
City:~ Utah:~
16 June 1959
"The Middle East has been relatively quiet of late--and
the rest of the world would like very much to keep it so
for its own peace of mind.
"But that may be the trouble. Dictatorial governments
such as Egypt's seem to require trouble and tension to
maintain a semblance at least of popular support."
Monica:~ Cal.:~
15 June 1959
"Nasser should not be allowed to get away with this. He
should be made to keep his promises and the American
Government should play an affirmative role in seeing that
he does. We were largely instrumental in getting Britain
and France to pull back so that Nasser could take over
the Canal, and we need to make amends for that decision
that not only strained the relations between us and our
major allies, but gave Nasser the power he now wields
over the Canal."
Bedford:~
9 June 1959
"Governments of seafaring nations would do well to
marshal support of Israeli counteraction in this matter, for
it involves highhanded interference with international trade,
expropriation without payment, and the operation of an
important waterway on the basis of political prejudice."
STAR- TELEGRAM
Fort Worth
(Tex.):~
30 July 1959
"The Canal can not be considered an international waterway open to all nations if it can be closed by Nasser to any
nation with which he may happen to be displeased.
"The issue is broader than the discovery of some expe32
diency by which Israel can move its freight. To yield to
such an offer as Nasser is reported to have made would be
to yield a fundamental transit right, and this Israel should
not be obliged to do."
Columbia, S.C., 28 June 1959
"All nations which would ship through the Canal are
concerned in a settlement, not only because their shipping
is subject to the caprice of the Egyptian ruler but because
the prestige and authority of the United Nations is also
at stake."
STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Mich ., 3 July 1959
"Nasser professes to fear that Israel, if permitted to use
the Canal, will undertake destructive acts. While Israel may
take the position that it is no longer at war with Egypt,
Nasser makes it clear that he is still at war with Israel and
apparently is using control of the Canal as an economic
weapon."
THE
SUN
Baltimore, Md., 8 June 1959
" . . . The Inge Toft case does serve to remind us that
interests beyond the interests of Israel and the United Arab
Republic are involved. For the European maritime nations,
commerce with the countries east of Suez is economically
important. And these countries to-day include not only the
regions of South Asia. They include Israel ai well."
Portland, 13 June 1959
"The UAR's seizure of Israel's cargoes is an affront not
only to that tiny country but to all other nations, parti-
cularly those engaged in mant1me commerce. It is time
the issue was 'dealt with firmly by the society of nations.'"
... _···-·-YEN·~~ ffXx ~.O.U·N 1 Y- ..-··-··-··-
_?-:::.:..E.···--·---·---·----
--t·----···-·-----=-~-~~
s· · -·~~a~r-~~~ :;:r~e=== =~:l!~~e=s-~s
Ventura_, Cal._, 27 June 1959
"Why Nasser should be looking for trouble with the West
at a moment when he is trying to lessen his dangerous dependence on the Soviets puzzles all who would be his
friends. Whatever his motives, he should be reminded of
the words spoken by President Eisenhower immediately following the Suez crisis: 'If, unhappily, Egypt does hereafter violate the armistice agreement or other international
obligations, then this should be dealt with firmly by th~
society of nations.'
"And perhaps Ike himself should do the reminding."
VALLEY TIMES
North Hollywood_, 8 June 1959
"General guessing is that he (Hammarskjold) feels that
there is no justification or right to close the Canal to any
nation-notwithstanding the status of Egyptian-Israel affairs."
fl!bt tllasl}ipgton Jlost
Qrimes1ll?tralil
Washington) D.C.) 7 June 1959
"Whatever the Israeli purposes, the U AR action can
scarcely stand the scrutiny of either international law or
sound international policy. Freedom of transit in the Canal
is meaningful only if it applies to everyone.
"Understandably some governments may be reluctant to
irritate the United Arab Republic at a time when relations
between Cairo and non-Communist capitals have happily
improved. The hope is that the matter may be settled
through negotiation. But the world community cannot in
good conscience avoid facing the fundamental problem.
Equivocation in similar instances prior to 1956 helped
create armed conflict. Forthrightness now may avoid new
troubles."
2 August 1959
"Nations which helped to restore the Canal can scarcely
be indifferent to a Cairo decision that some countries are
more equal than others in use of the Canal. The unresolved state of theoretical war between the Arab States and
Israel-an unrealistic condition that has existed for more
than 10 years-does not alter the basic situation. The Security Council has explicitly recognized the right of Israel
to use the Canal. The present controversy does not even
concern ships of Israeli registry. Evidently, however, the
Nasser government regards capricious interference as a weapon of economic warfare against Israeli commerce ...
"Unless the freedom of transit is confirmed soon, there
will be no honorable alternative but to bring the matter
again before the Security Council, or the General Assembly, fo_r public discussion and action-including the imposition of sanctions if necessary. The painful" experience
of 1956 argues strongly for a check on such abuses before
they erupt into major international trouble."
35
Printed in Israel
at The Jerusalem Post Press, Jerusalem
Lay out and cover design by !manuel Grau
Publis hed by the Government Printe r
1959