>The British, French, and Israelis literally went to war against Egypt over the Suez.

The British and the French were concerned about the Suez, but Israel was not dependent on the Suez and went to war over their navigation being blockaded by Egypt in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, which was a violation by Egypt of maritime law. Aqaba is in the Sinai peninsula which is also bounded by the Suez.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passage_through_the_Su...

I don't see how Egypt's claim against Israel was wrong.

The waters have been internal waters literally for three millennia (or more) until foreigners came in and built a canal connecting what is actually a very narrow gulf to the Mediterranean.

Foreigners come in, unilaterally build a canal and now the locals lose national sovereignty over their waters?

Also, why does Egypt have to agree to the freedom of navigation of a state it did not (at the time) recognize?

Furthermore, why must Egypt agree to the laws of freedom navigation it did not sign?

The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as international law, or a "rules based order". There's only power makes might.

you are talking about the Suez and Israel, and it seems that you didn't read what I wrote

> The British, French and Israelis literally went to war against Egypt over the Suez.

> They only backed up when the US told the Brits and France they would tank their economies still on US life support.

But they did back off. The US was willing to stand up for Egyptian sovereignty even against their own allies. That isn't an example of non-western countries being unable to enact protectionist policies, it's an example of the opposite.

Stand up for Egyptian sovereignty? The U.S. unseated the UK as one of the dominant forces in the region and controlled the Middle East ever since.

I suppose installing el-Sisi is also an example of protecting Egyptian sovereignty:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/ten-years-after-coup-us-stil...

The article is about Dutch, that is European, piracy under the pretense of sovereignty.

My example is about European piracy under the pretense of that foreign ownership supersedes sovereignty.

That is to say, hypocrisy.

The US' role was, of course, hypocritical. I mention it only to illustrate that even the US found the european actions blatantly imperialist.

> The article is about Dutch, that is European, piracy under the pretense of sovereignty.

> My example is about European piracy under the pretense of that foreign ownership supersedes sovereignty.

The British and French did something wrong 70 years ago and the world called them out for it, therefore it's hypocritical for the Dutch to call out a similar wrong thing being done against them now? Nonsense.

Venezuela has threaten war against their neighbours. Maybe a little bird told their president to do so [1], but still...

[1] https://www.latintimes.com/nicolas-maduro-losing-it-venezuel...