The pilots were chatting and not paying attention and the ship veered slightly off course, hit the bank, and spun around.

With tens of thousands of ships making that passage each year, it was bound to happen sometime.

The sandstorm is just an excuse IMO...

Remember that Egypt is a hopelessly corrupt developing country. It doesn't really matter who is at fault. The matter would be decided by an Egyptian court where the judge will rubberstamp whatever narrative and claim the government wants to present.

Remember that Egypt nationalized (stole) the canal in the first place from the UK. The only reason they were not bombed to oblivion was that it suited US goals of further humiliating former European imperial powers after WWII. Egypt operates tha canal as spoils of war and their only real concern would be if shippers begun considering the risks of relying on the Suez authorities higher than going through the Horn of Africa.

> Egypt nationalized (stole) the canal

Nasser paid full compensation for shareholders based on the share price of the company on the Paris Stock Exchange, as he had said he would before the nationalisation.[1] So this was not much different to the nationalisation of companies in the UK that had been happening around the same period,[2] or to the compulsory sales that happen even now in the US.[3]

> only reason they were not bombed to oblivion was that it suited US goals

There was also the Soviet threat against the UK and its allies in the war.

1. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/suez-affair-highlighted-brit...

2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsd68mn/revision/6

3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-orders-chinese-firm-to-se...

The only reason Egypt was not bombed into oblivion is that the colonial powers tried a weak ass illegal move in 1956 that spectacularly and humiliatingly failed, after triumphantly killing a bunch of civilians off course.

I'm not a fan of Arab governments but this comment reads like an angsty 14-year-old nostalgic for the empire they learned about in school.

Not sure that a neo-colonialist viewpoint such as yours brings anything constructive to the discussion.

I am only saying that if the canal was still UK property we could probably at least rely on the courts to impartially decide who is at fault. People don't realize things don't operate the same way in 3rd world countries as they do in the West.

Now the fault lies at where ever Egypt says it does. The only recourse is to hope they are lenient enough to not spook other maritime freight operators.

> I am only saying that if the canal was still UK property we could probably at least rely on the courts to impartially decide who is at fault. People don't realize things don't operate the same way in 3rd world countries as they do in the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_an...

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

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

...

I doubt Suez Canal disputes are adjudicated by some local court out in the the desert. It's either some special tribunal with at least some internationally recognised expertise. Or, most likely, a binding arbitration committee at Loyd's of London.