Suez Canal crisis: 50 years ago, yet echos today in Lebanon

Tomorrow, July 26, marks 50 years since the day Gamal Abdel Nasser announced his intention for Egypt to nationalize the Suez Canal. The British and French aligned with Israel to fight for control of the canal - and left the United States out of the loop. The European plan failed miserably, and is generally regarded as the last thrash of the dying British Empire. (Good BBC account here.)

In the years since, and certainly during my lifetime, Britain and France haven't considered military involvement with or near Israel - those days are over.

Or are they?

There's actually no plan for military alliance; it would be quite incorrect to suggest European troops would be shelling Hezbollah. The EU, unlike the United States, has called for Israel to cease firing. But for the first time in quite a while (ever?) Israel has said a NATO force in Lebanon - and not the IDF - might be the best solution. And the EU's high representative for common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, says it's a real possibility, and that "several member states of the European Union will be ready to provide all necessary assistance." (Not "EU troops," of course.)

It seems Solana is trying to make the EU the 911 force of the region. He says NATO would be too identified with the United States - and hence, Iraq. So obviously, according to his logic, EU states are the right ones for the job.

As soon as a state volunteers its forces.

Things are certainly not settled yet. The NY Times has an excellent article on the question of which countries would actually send troops into the conflict zone. Many states want to help, but not many want to be directly in the middle:

“All the politicians are saying, ‘Great, great’ to the idea of a force, but no one is saying whose soldiers will be on the ground,” said one senior European official. “Everyone will volunteer to be in charge of the logistics in Cyprus.”

Another tricky part is that Israel would want the force to disarm Hezbollah, and who else in Lebanon (not to mention the greater Middle East) would support that? Israel says it wants combat-experienced troops, not just "peacekeepers." This is not-so-subtle code words for "No blue helmets, thanks."

Side note/Different tangent: NATO also wants to be involved, and even Turkey has said it would contribute troops. This could be seen as evidence for one of two arguments that one could make: Militant Islam has saved "The West" and/or Militant Islam has saved NATO.