How did Israel domain on Egypt?

In January 1954, many of spies of Mossad and Israel’s military intelligence service started sabotaging important facilities and centers in Egypt. Zakaria Mohieldin, Egypt’s interior Minister, in October 5, ’54, announced the arrestment of these spies. The trial of those spies (who were 13 People, by the way) started at September 11, at Cairo’s military court. One of them committed suicide in the jail. The trial ended up taking place in January ’55, and in January 27, warrant sentence of two of them was issued. The two evading leaders of the crew, Abraham Dar, whose other name was John Darling, and Abraham Syed Nourg, who was also called Averi El Ad and Paul Frank, were sentenced to death confidentially. Six of the prisoners were sentenced to death and two of them were exonerated. In January 31, Dr. Marzook and Azar were sentenced to death in a jail in Cairo.
It is notable that this event made a crisis in Israel and cause a struggle between Moshe Shart, the Prime Minister, Colonel Benjamin Gibly, Head of Military Intelligence, and Leuven, the Defense Minister. This spy adventure finally caused changes in the highest levels of Israel’s state. Leuven, who had been the minister since ’53, was disputed and Ben Gourion, for the second time came back to the ministry of defense. Zionist leaders, in order to take revenge of Leuven, beside of having other intentions pertaining to development objectives of Zionist regime, planned to attack Egypt, in this time, and finally in 1956, the nationalization of the Suez Canal from Jamal Abdul Nasser, made them a good excuse to have a tripartite attack Egypt with common collusion between Israel, the Great Britain, and France. After the Camp David Treaty between Israel and Egypt, good relations between the two countries were held. Despite of having some political and borderline disagreements, and from that time, they held economic ties in 1978 and ’79 between the two countries in the time of Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel in that time, in which the agreements were fulfilled particularly in gas and petroleum.
According to the David Camp Treaty, Egypt delivers Israel crude oil, at the expense of 200 million dollars, annually. Also, both sides take a part into constructing a refinery in Alexandria, which cost 2/1 B $ and its capacity was 100 K barrels a day.
The other cooperation was to construct a gas pipeline. In 1996, in order to stand against the plan of the gas pipeline from Qatar to Israel, Egypt offered constructing the gas pipeline. Plus, both sides had offers and deals in the fields of agriculture, electronic networks, implementation of cooperative fishing project, environmental protection, and tourism.
The place of Egypt in the peripheral strategy of Israel
Establishing political relationships between Egypt and Israel's regime was suitable for Mossad's spy activities in the disguise of political representations in this Islamic country. In January 1984, October 1985, and March 1986, many Israeli diplomats, political cadres, and intelligence officers were under attack in Cairo, and some of them got killed. From the time of the assignment of the Camp David Treaty on, fifteen spy networks have been found in Egypt.
In Israel's Marginal Doctors' Plan, Due to the various cultural, political, geographical and demographical features of Egypt, Egypt had a special and unique place. Some of Savak's document, pertaining to the intelligence relationships between Israel, Iran, and also Turkey, clearly shows the objectives and greed of Israelis in Egypt, beside of the importance and position of this country in Zionist’s regime’s peripheral strategy.
Isere Hurl, Head of Mossad, in a conversation with Savak officers, in 1960, describes Israel’s positions on the relationship of Nasser with Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and possible helps from the West to Egypt’s president, and also the concern of related government, and Arabic and African hacks on Jamal Abdul Nasser. He describes it in this way:
Q: It seems that Nasser is willing to form an anti-Communist front. What should we do about this matter?
Isere Hurl: First of all, we should consider what Communism is.
While Nasser is acting like he is fighting against Communism, he has preserved his positions with Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The reason why Nasser claims against Communism is that so far he has been the only factor of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ foreign policy. But today, a rival from Iraq has arisen.
If the West plans to help Nasser and let him be free to continue his expansionist policies, we will get to this conclusion that in north portion of Middle East, Iraq was the only country to implement Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ operating intentions, and in the south portion of Middle East, and Northern and Central Africa, Nasser will freely suppress all the West’s friends, and neutral and in-west-interested countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will perish one after another.
Another conclusion on helping Nasser would be helping Communism to develop faster.
Although we do not have any kind of information about what was in the letter that Kerchov has recently written to Nasser, it is not impossible that Kerchov had offered him the division of spheres of influences. Anyways, if today the West lets Nasser be free in his expansionists policies but want to interrupt Nasser’s act of aggression in a region after a certain amount of time, he immediately will resort to Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Today, African countries are afraid of Nasser’s policy. For instance, the majority of Somalia people of Italy, who are soon ready to be transferred, are against Nasser, but if Nasser was to be let free, he would attract them. Also, Nkrumah, the prime minister of Ghana, immeasurably hated Abdul Nasser’s policy and never believed him fighting against Communism, and also Bourguiba, the president of Tunisia, who was a real patriot and a close friend to the West, does not have any bit of confidence about Nasser.
In other words, helping Nasser from the West would result to a great disaster.
By pointing out to the fact that the United States of America, and the Great Britain have in common positions against Jamal Abdul Nasser, Isere Hurl claims that puppet states need to be on the side of the United States of America, the Great Britain, and Israel, and wanted some of Islamic countries to unite against Jamal Abdul Nasser, the president of Egypt, and help Israel implement its policies:
Q: What is the policy of the United States of America and Great Britain about Abdul Nasser? Up to how much it could be affected?
Isere Hurl: About England, I can confidently say that government will never do any mistakes about Abdul Nasser, and there is no worry about it. But circumstances in the Unites States of America differ a bit. Dallas, the prior minister of foreign affairs, thought the way we do, and I think that his substitute, Herter, would agree with us, too. But it is possible that there may be some people in the United States of America’s Middle East Bureau Department that would think the other way and would agree with Abdul Nasser having delegation of freedom. Plus, it is possible that Public Opinion would also support this idea. Because Americans are so emotional, and the way fighting against Communism had affected them made them accept anyone who talk against Communism.
But if we point out to the recent press conference of Eisenhower, we will find out that he thinks the way we do, and he has said that he is ready to help Abdul Karim Qassem, and is against any kind of foreign interference (meaning Abdul Nasser) in Iraq’s internal affairs.
As long as the expansionist policy of Abdul Nasser is to raid the West’s friends, like Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, and Israel, it is barely possible that Americans would ever help Abdul Nasser with this policy.
If free countries of the region, and especially Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel consider a fixed policy, their notion will have a very much importance to Americans. The Turks never doubted their resistance against Abdul Nasser. But sometimes there are rumors about Iran, and this makes Americans consider Iran be suspicious, while if these countries consider a fixed and united policy, it will definitely have very much effect on America’s policy.
The debates of Nahum Admuny, vice-president of Israel’s intelligence service, with Nasiri, head of Savak, in 1971, clearly show the importance of Egypt for Zionist’s regime. In this debate, Admuny tacitly points out to the establishment of the relationships between the United States of America and Sadat, the president of Egypt of the time, and he consults head of Savak and even tries to evacuate his information about Sadat’s trip to Moscow and the readiness of Israelis in direct negotiations with Egyptians:
Mr. Admuny: In the case of attacking Israel, Sadat has claimed that he would temporarily forbear starting a war against Israel, because of the armed conflict between Indians and Pakistanis. We were talking about the weather, let us reminisce what Sadat had said about fogs.
Head of Savak: But I think what he meant was a fog in his politics, not a real fog.
Mr. Admuny: the intended purpose is a real fog. In January ’67, Egypt’s air force insisted on attacking an Israeli’s military convoy in Suez Canal, but unfortunately the fog above the Canal cause this attack not to be performed. This is exactly what Anwar Sadat himself has quoted in his speech.
But it is said that Union of Soviet Socialist Republics didn’t want to interfere two fronts, one between India and Pakistan, and the other one between Israel and Arabs.
Head of Savak: We have received good news based on that the disputes are possible if Israel attends east portion of Suez.
Mr. Admuny: We hope that Suez Canal would open soon. Of course up to the end of the previous year, the circumstances weren’t appealing. In the current year, although Sadat has been saying that the relationships with the United States of America is closed, but American circles have told us that this is not so. So it is obvious that Russians do not want to face Americans directly.
Head of Savak: What is wrong with direct negotiations while Egyptians sit beside you under the same roof in the United Nations? Their refusal must have an aspect of obscurantism.
Mr. Admuny: You know, we have always looked for direct negotiations.
So what do you know about Sadat’s last trip to Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Head of Savak: Apparently, our minister of finance is at Moscow for having some financial and economical negotiations, and I’m afraid, I can’t tell you anything until his return.
Mr. Admuny: In his previous trip to Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics set him under a lot of pressure in order to get expected political results, and they also asked him to use his impact to pursue Sudan to become a Communist country, and also to change Gaddafi’s behaviors as long as he is an anti-Communism person.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has brought out some of its electronic equipment as well as a certain number of its gun from Egypt, and apparently has sent them to India.