In 1961 the former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel-Nasser invited the then Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie to attend the opening ceremony of the newly constructed Coptic Cathedral in Abbasiya in Cairo. Nasser was seeking to mend the rift between Egypt and Ethiopia triggered by the latter having lodged a complaint against Egypt at the UN Security Council because of its construction of the Aswan High Dam. Perhaps Ethiopia at the time felt that the Mediterranean had a greater claim on the Nile waters than the Egyptian people. At all events, the Security Council rejected the complaint and the High Dam was internationally hailed as one of the most important works of construction of the 20th century. The invitation to Haile Selassie also followed Addis Ababa's accusation against Cairo for dividing up the waters of the Nile between Egypt and Sudan without taking into consideration the future needs of the upper riparian countries and their right to use Nile water in hydraulic projects without having to seek Egypt's approval. However, the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement between Egypt and Sudan called for a periodic review of the water needs of the upper riparian countries and stipulated that any required changes would be deducted equally from Egypt's and Sudan's quotas of Nile water, set at 55.5 billion m3 and 18.5 billion m3, respectively. In addition, Egypt dug hundreds of wells for villages in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda that were remote from the Nile, and it allocated millions of dollars a year for dredging projects in the Ugandan Great Lakes (Lakes Victoria, Albert, Edward, George and Kyoga) in order to clear them of the reeds and other vegetation that blocked outlets and caused water to flood nearby villages. In recognition of these efforts and in admiration of Nasser and the model he set for the rest of the world, African leaders wanted to designate Cairo as the headquarters of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU, subsequently the African Union (AU)) and the meeting point for African leaders under Egypt's and Nasser's leadership. However, Nasser proposed Ethiopia as the headquarters of the OAU in another attempt to convince the Ethiopians of Egypt's good intentions toward them that ultimately proved to be a disastrous mistake. Nasser should have preserved Egypt's status as the leader of the African nations and a meeting point and refuge for African leaders. He should have agreed to make Cairo the headquarters of the OAU. As a result of his mistake, politicians from around the world have flocked to Ethiopia on the pretext of visiting the African Union headquarters. The leaders of Japan, China and the US have been among recent visitors, and most of the leaders of the Asian countries, including India, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Qatar and Israel have all called in on Addis Ababa. Ethiopia has benefited greatly from being home to the African Union, to the extent that the US now plans to have the country replace Egypt as the leader of Africa, meaning that Egypt must be weakened and Ethiopia strengthened. Yet, Ethiopia, both in terms of its geographical location and its natural resources, is not very attractive to foreign investment. It is a landlocked country, with no seaports of its own, and it is thus compelled to use the ports of Djibouti and Somalia for its imports or exports. It possesses no major natural resources in the form of significant quantities of uranium, graphite, diamonds, copper, magnesium or bauxite. Its high altitude, reaching 1,800 m above sea level in Addis Ababa and at Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile, demands that people acclimatise themselves to oxygen shortages. Nevertheless, the US has been able to convince Ethiopia of the need to strengthen its relationship with Israel, even though the latter supported the Eritrean military in the region's war of independence from Ethiopia. As payment, the US has induced international relief and aid agencies and the World Bank to supply huge grants to Ethiopia in order to assist it in development, and it has pressured economic powers such as Japan, South Korea and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to invest in Ethiopia in spite of its lack of resources. Water is Ethiopia's chief resource, and it possesses it in abundance in the form of 123 billion m3 of which about 72 billion m3 contributes to the Nile via the Blue Nile and the Atbara and Sobat Rivers. Most of the rest flows into transnational rivers shared with Kenya and Somalia and a river and lake on the border with Djibouti. Ethiopia also receives 936 billion m3 of rainwater a year, although this shrinks to around half this quantity during drought years. The rainwater feeds the pasture lands that have given Ethiopia the largest livestock wealth in Africa. At about 100 million heads, this livestock accounts for 24 per cent of the country's agricultural GDP. In addition, the rainwater also nourishes the country's developing organic farming industry, the most important products of which are organic coffee, much of which is exported to the EU countries, and flowers, which have attracted Israeli investment. Some 400,000 acres of land are under commercial flower cultivation with such investment, either independently or in partnership with other countries. Even Sudan, which has abundant agricultural land of its own that invites investment, has invested in flower farms in Ethiopia. Yet, Ethiopia is a mountainous country which limits its quantity of agricultural land. It has only 24 million acres of such land, half of which were used for growing biofuel crops for international firms until these collapsed due to plummeting oil prices. Therefore, Ethiopia is not nearly as attractive to agricultural investment as, for example, neighbouring Sudan, which has 200 million acres of arable land, of which 32 million are under cultivation and another 32 million are open to investment, or Tanzania, which has 90 million acres ready for cultivation. The Democratic Republic of Congo also has a great deal of agricultural land and a powerful river that pours 1,284 billion m3 of freshwater a year into the Atlantic, in contrast to 84 billion m2 of Nile water. Israel's dirty game: Israel was playing a dirty game not just against Egypt but also against the Arabs and Muslims when its official cabinet spokesman claimed that the countries in the Upper Nile Basin “only reaped terrorism and religious extremism” from the Arab countries. He was alluding to the terrorist attacks in Somalia and Kenya at the hands of the Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen group, more commonly known as the Al-Shabab, as well as recent attacks in Kenya and Uganda. Yet, the Israeli official must be aware that the most dangerous terrorist threat in Uganda, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo comes not from groups claiming to act in the name of Islam but rather from the evangelical Christian Lord's Resistance Army. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation should immediately issue a statement condemning such racist statements and urge African nations not to permit visits that promote religious or ethnic racism against the Arabs. The Israeli government spokesman, reiterating remarks made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, also said that the Israelis were bringing science, progress, civilisation, technology and prosperity to the Nile Basin countries, as opposed to the Arab and Islamic investments that sought to propel these countries “back to the Middle Ages.” This assault conceals another lie, which is that Israel has only allocated $13 million to its Agency for International Development, which is hardly enough to stimulate the development of just one country, whereas Egypt alone allocates between $20 and $50 million a year to its fund to support African nations. This is in addition to the well-digging and river-dredging projects mentioned above. The Egyptian government must make it clear to the Nile Basin countries that Egypt devotes three times as much as Israel does to African development. There was also the Israeli ruse of pledging that, with its agricultural know-how and expertise, it would make Ethiopia the largest dairy producer in the world. This is an illusion, as natural pasturages that depend on rainwater can produce only meagre-sized livestock. A ten-year-old cow fed on such pastures will pale in comparison to a three-year-old calf fed on the types of fodder used in developed nations. But if Ethiopia converted to using dry fodder and hormones to fatten its livestock, it would forfeit its greatest selling-point — naturally fed and free-roaming cattle raised away from the dangers of infectious diseases that are transmissible to humans and that have plagued the meat industries in Israel and Europe. It could also be useful here to remind both Israel and the Upper Nile countries of the Egyptian experience with Israel and the theft of Egyptian livestock and crop strains. During the time of normalisation with Egypt in the field of agriculture, Israel promised to increase the production of goat milk products which sell at considerably higher prices than cow's milk products. Israel purloined the Egyptian zaraybi breed of goat, which is unique among all other breeds for producing twins with every birth and producing more milk. It then proceeded to register this breed under Israel's name with the relevant international organisations. Israel also stole an Egyptian strain of tomatoes that grows in the northern Delta and can tolerate a high degree of salinity. It again registered this variety in its name and then enhanced it to enable it to tolerate a higher degree of salinity. In addition, it stole short and medium-staple varieties of Egyptian cotton, one of which is known as Ashmouni and then used them to produce major international varieties of short and medium-staple cotton. All this should be borne in mind when the African countries review Israeli promises to assist them in the development of future strains of crops, fish, and livestock. On top of this, Israel destroyed Egyptian strawberries, replacing these with a tasteless foreign strain. The same applies to Egyptian mangoes and other fruit. The African nations would be well advised to consult with Egypt regarding Israel's destructive policies. Israel has tried to claim that its prime minister's visit to the Nile Basin countries has brought an end to the isolation that the Arabs imposed on Israel in order to deprive those countries of the benefits of Israeli scientific and technical know-how. What the Israeli officials did not say was that while the country's scientists and agronomists have scored considerable progress in desert agriculture and irrigation, they do not have the know-how or the experience with the types of rainfall-dependent agriculture that prevails in the countries at the sources of the Nile. Clearly, Israel wants to transform that mode of agriculture into irrigation-dependent agriculture in order to consume large quantities of Nile water at the expense of Egypt's quota. It is stealthily trying to turn those countries against Egypt by convincing them of their right to the Nile water in addition to their shares of rainwater and subterranean water resources that are regularly replenished by abundant seasonal rains. Israel is trying to persuade the world that it has come to rescue it from Iranian Shia expansionism. This is another deception, as the most extensive Shia expansion is in West Africa and is relatively limited in East Africa. Israel's arrogance: Israeli hyperbole has not stopped there. With consummate arrogance, the Israeli prime minister told the Upper Nile countries that “Israel returned to Africa just as Africa returned to Israel.” He did not mention that his state is barely 68-years-old, and he tried to fool the Ethiopians into believing that their relationship with Israel dates back 3,000 years, as though his fledgling state had a history as long as the history of the pharaohs and as though he and many of his countrymen did not hail from Europe, as opposed to African, Arab or Asian nations. He claimed that the Queen of Sheba, who married the Prophet King Soloman, had come from Ethiopia, whereas it is an established fact that she came from Yemen at the time when Yemen occupied the Lands of Kush, the ancient name of Ethiopia. While Israel plays on such religious themes, it might be useful for the Ethiopians to take a look at the Falasha, the Ethiopian Jews who migrated to Israel only to be shunted into the most menial jobs while being prohibited from leaving Israel in order to prevent them from telling the world how shamefully Israel treats immigrants and how it exploits the poor. It was strange to hear the Israeli prime minister say that his campaign to strengthen Israeli relations with the Upper Nile countries did not come at Egypt's expense. Why, then, out of 54 African nations did Israel home in on just eight and specifically the eight that are located at the head of the tributaries that converge to bring the Nile to Egypt? Why did Israeli officials ask the leaders of those African countries what they had obtained from Egypt? Are such things not to be interpreted at coming at the expense of Egypt, which supported the anti-colonial and liberation movements in Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi and which has invested over $2 billion in Ethiopia alone? The Israeli prime minister's visit to the Nile Basin countries also sought to take advantage of them by inviting them to a counter-terrorism conference. In the end, only seven countries attended, six from the Upper Nile Basin plus Zambia, the purpose being to remind them of the hijacking of the Israeli flight from Tel Aviv to Paris that was forced to land in Uganda in the 1970s. What was left unsaid in the meeting was that had it not been for the excessive violence of the Israeli rescue operation, most of the passengers would not have been killed alongside the kidnappers by the Israeli special forces during a flagrant instance of violating the sovereignty of an African state. But Netanyahu not did shrink from an attempt to give all this a personal touch when he added that his sister was one of the people who died in the incident. He left out the fact that her death was caused by the Israeli special forces and not by the hijackers. Another feature of Israel's African campaign is that it wants to obtain an observer seat in the African Union (AU). Israel has been unable to gain membership in the African Union, even as an observer, because of the overwhelming hatred it has aroused among most other countries in Africa. It is also not located in Africa. Only two countries, Kenya and Ethiopia, have supported the Israeli bid. More importantly, African Union rules prohibit granting observer status to any country that occupies the territory of another country or that fosters terrorism. Israel still occupies Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese land and refuses to restore it to its rightful owners, and it has been guilty of terrorism in Qana, Deir Yassin, and more recently in Gaza on a number of occasions. As an observer in the African Union, Israel would have the right to attend the organisation's sessions, participate in the review of development and political projects and agreements, and obtain copies of documents, even if does not have the right to vote. If granted such a position, Israel will have succeeded in infiltrating the African Union and spying on African resources and capacities. Although two states support the application, the 12 Arab African states led by Egypt must work together to fight this Zionist encroachment into Africa in order to steal its resources and turn the African countries against the Arab countries. The 12 Arab African countries outnumber the eight Nile Basin countries. Africa also has 34 other non-Arab countries, many of which are categorically opposed to Israel, such as Chad, Mali, Senegal and Niger. The Arabs need to join forces with these nations and intensify their efforts to halt the Israeli penetration of the continent and its scheme to steal Africa's mineral wealth, natural resources and livestock and agricultural strains. Arab drive: Any Arab country can easily come up with five times the $13 million that Israel has promised and give the sum to Africa without linking it to preconditions such as building mosques or permitting Islamic dawa missions to practice proselytising activities. Times have changed, and even the Israelis, who imagine that they are God's chosen people and that the riches of the earth belong to them, have changed. They no longer attach strings to aid and their sole concern is to spread hatred against the Muslims and Arabs. Egypt and the Arab countries must therefore spearhead a powerful drive in the organisations of the Islamic, Arab and Asian countries to halt Israel and its flagrant attempts to disseminate anti-Muslim hatred. They can cite as evidence Netanyahu's speech in which he claimed that Islam was a “backward religion” that seeks to “drag the African countries back to the Middle Ages” and that has “only exported terrorism” to them. The Israeli leader should be prosecuted for his contempt of one of the world's revealed faiths. As for Israel's thirst for Nile water to compensate for its water poverty, Egypt should remind the African leaders that while Israel's population is only eight million Egypt's is 91 million, and that while Israel suffers from an official water deficit of only two billion m3 a year, Egypt's water deficit exceeds 30 billion m3. It seems, therefore, that if there is any surplus in Nile water resources Egypt is more deserving. Egypt is also the largest of the Nile Basin nations and a member of the African continent, unlike Israel whose “from the Nile to the Euphrates” slogan proclaims its expansionist intentions in the fact that it has its sights set on all the countries of the Nile Basin as well as Iraq on the Euphrates. It is to be hoped that Egypt will now respond to false Israeli claims and explain the true nature of Israeli ambitions in Africa, among the countries of the sources of the Nile in particular. Surely Egypt is better poised to work with Kenya in the realm of security cooperation and counter-terrorism than Israel. The foreign ministry should explore the mystery behind Kenya's recent hostility towards Egypt, as was exhibited recently in the unfounded accusation of “insulting Africans” that was levelled against Egypt's representative at the African Environmental Conference. It is interesting to note that Kenya has also been harmed by Ethiopian hydraulic projects. Ethiopia has built four dams on the Omo River, cutting off water from northern Kenya, causing the displacement of 200,000 Kenyans, and destroying Lake Turkana, an important tourist attraction. As for selling water to Israel at Egypt's expense, this cannot be taken lightly. African leaders should bear in mind that Israel invaded Sudanese airspace to bomb an aid caravan that was headed for Gaza. Egypt's national security begins in Ethiopia, from which Egypt and Sudan derive 72 billion m3 of their Nile water quotas. Egypt must protect its artery of life in the shape of the Nile and defend its people against death from dehydration. Indeed, a similar argument was used by Israel to justify its obtaining an official quota of water from the Jordan River. It received international support to prevent it from dying from thirst. Israel has also stolen water from the Litani, Asi and Kebir Rivers in southern Lebanon, again with international support in order to keep its people alive. If these things apply to Israel, surely Egypt's case against countries having a surfeit of water that want to sell it to others is infinitely stronger given Egypt's long-established and just rights to the waters of the Nile. God has ordained that water like air cannot be owned by anyone. We must protect the watercourse that God has created for the Nile and not allow anyone to alter or control its flow because Egypt's quota is officially guaranteed to be maintained at its current level. The Ethiopians did not cause the clouds to bear rain, and Egypt did not dig the bed of the Nile. These are natural, God-given gifts to the peoples of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. Ethiopia has no right to monopolise them. Just as Nasser was mistaken to let Addis Ababa become the home of the OAU even though African leaders at the time wanted the organisation to be based in Cairo, former president Anwar Al-Sadat was mistaken to sign a separate peace with Israel at Camp David without stipulating that there could be no normalisation with Israel until there was a just solution to the Palestinian cause and the establishment of a Palestinian state. One of the consequences of that mistake has been that the 31 African nations that had boycotted Israel until 1978, the year in which Camp David was signed, then established diplomatic relations with Israel. Today, the Egyptian people are paying the price, and Israel, able to enter the African Union via Egypt, is claiming the most precious thing we have, namely the Nile. We can take some comfort from the fact that Netanyahu's visit to Africa has proved a total failure because of the extent to which it relied on religious and ethnic fanaticisms. But we need to bear in mind that more Israeli visits are in the pipeline and we should be prepared to act. The writer is a professor of soil and water sciences at Cairo University's Faculty of Agriculture.
