Guardian’s 1956 Suez Crisis coverage: A historical look at a bold editorial stance

The Suez Crisis of 1956 remains a pivotal moment in British history, and the coverage by the Manchester Guardian offers a compelling case study in journalistic courage. The conflict began on July 26, 1956, when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. This decision targeted the joint British and French enterprise that had operated the canal since its construction in 1869. Viewing the move as a significant threat to their national interests, Britain and France coordinated a military response with Israel to reclaim the canal zone.

The military campaign escalated rapidly in late October. Israeli forces entered the Sinai desert on October 29, followed by an Anglo-French bombing campaign against Egyptian military targets two days later. Despite initial military gains, the coalition faced intense pressure from the international community, particularly from the United States. This diplomatic strain culminated on November 6, when Britain and France accepted a United Nations-mandated ceasefire.

From the outset, the Manchester Guardian opposed the use of force. Under the leadership of newly appointed editor Alastair Hetherington, the paper was vocal in its dissent. It described the ultimatum given to Egypt to withdraw from the canal as an act of folly without justification. By November 5, the editorial tone had hardened, labeling the actions as hideously miscalculated and utterly immoral. The paper argued that the government had ordered an attack without just cause, calling it a disaster of the first magnitude.

The critical stance of the newspaper caused significant discomfort for Prime Minister Anthony Eden. The tension was so high that Eden attempted to prevent the BBC from quoting the Guardian's reports. He even sought to ban the paper's diplomatic correspondent, Richard Scott, from appearing on the airwaves. The hostility extended beyond political circles to the general public. As historian David Ayerst noted, reporters often faced hostility while covering the story. In a symbolic act of frustration, a plateglass window in the paper's Fleet Street office in London was smashed.

Internal political dynamics also shifted as the crisis unfolded. By November 7, both those who had wanted a full commitment to the war and those who wished it had never started were examining the government's decision to halt. Conservative MPs expressed gloom, fearing that Arab states would claim Israel had beaten Egypt, while Egypt had beaten Britain. However, loyalists felt relief that the government had reversed its antagonizing of the United States and avoided the risk of being bogged down in the Middle East while Russia remained in a truculent mood.

The ceasefire took effect at midnight on November 7, following an announcement by the prime minister in the Commons. Allied troops had advanced to positions 30 miles south of Port Said by the time the fighting stopped. The prime minister stated that the ceasefire was subject to confirmation by Egypt and Israel, which the UN Secretary-General provided from New York. He assured Parliament there would be no movement forward from existing positions, though he could not exclude the necessity of supplying troops.

The United Nations deployed an emergency peacekeeping force into Egypt on November 7 to solidify the halt in hostilities. Egypt was granted full ownership and sovereignty of the canal, which reopened to shipping in April 1957. The outcome validated the Guardian's early skepticism of the military adventure.

Contrary to fears that the paper's editorial stance would lead to a drop in sales, circulation actually increased. This growth was particularly notable in the south of the UK. The episode stands as a testament to the paper's willingness to challenge the government during a time of national crisis, cementing its reputation for independent and principled journalism.

The historical record shows that the Suez Crisis was a complex interplay of military action, diplomatic pressure, and domestic politics. The Guardian's coverage, marked by strong language and public scrutiny, played a part in shaping the public narrative. The paper's ability to maintain and grow its readership despite government disapproval highlights the enduring value of a press that is willing to hold power to account.

As we look back at the events of 1956, the role of the media in informing the public and influencing policy remains relevant. The Manchester Guardian's experience during the Suez Crisis illustrates how a clear editorial position can resonate with readers, even when it is unpopular with those in power. The legacy of that coverage continues to be studied as a key example of journalistic integrity in a major international conflict.