Is Aid Charity from America or the Right of Egyptians?
With each crisis between Egypt and the United States of America, American aid turns into a sharp sword with which the U.S. threatens to cut the throats of Egyptians and to deprive them of American bounty. After the investigation of American human rights organizations, which are accustomed to Egyptian sovereignty, the waving of the paper aid, the encroaching on the Egyptian will and the neutralization of laws, sometimes befriending one side and sometimes the other, until Americans leave the prisoner’s dock without any consideration for Egyptians, America will return anew to waving this paper in order to maintain its alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. Is this aid the right of the Egyptians, or is America giving aid whenever it wants and prohibiting it whenever it wants? Is it a weapon to be used in crises to realize America’s goals?
Reality, history and the commitment to provide this aid since the signing of the peace agreement in 1979 until now confirmed the right of the Egyptians in return for their commitment to peace with the Zionist entity. As Article VIII of the Camp David agreement states, “The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.” This means that the financial settlement was a part of the peace process. This settlement in its entirety served as a financial appeasement that the United States presented to the two parties to encourage them to continue the peace process and as an American desire to protect the Zionist entity as a state belonging to America.
Confirming this right, which U.S. President Jimmy Carter approved, was the transformation of the aid in 1982 into nonrefundable grants giving $3 billion to Israel and $2.1 billion to Egypt, so that no American president or adviser afflicted with excess or ruin could one day ask for the money to be returned or shut off. That was another confirmation that this linked aid continues in perpetuation of the peace process as one of the safeguards to protect the Zionist entity. It cannot be reduced or stopped unless Egypt breaches the peace agreement.
As Article VII of Annex II about exploratory activity emphasizes that America was part of the agreement and that it has obligations and commitments to the two parties, America was not just a guarantor, shepherd or architect of the agreement. Rather, it was also an interpreter of it. When a dispute occurred between former President Mohammed Anwar Sadat and Israel about the interpretation of Article VI and about the assault on Arabs and Arab assaults on Israel, America provided the legal interpretation of that article. The aid is also considered part of the compensation that Israel must pay for use of the Sinai.
Egypt failed in universally marketing this aid as the certain right of the Egyptians in return for their peace agreement, which pushed American politicians to use this weakness to transform Egyptians’ right to aid into a sword over their necks. America uses it as a card to play during crises to realize its ends and to implement its interests.
We must learn that America does not give charity and gifts to others for free for many reasons. The first among them is that gifts are strongly prohibited by American law. It is not possible to spend the people’s money without agreement and getting something in exchange for those dollars. There are many people around the world dying of hunger, and it was America — a country of freedom and humanity — throwing wheat to fish in the sea in order to preserve the price of the strategic commodity and to ensure control over the food staple and the global price of wheat. America’s heart did not break and its tears did not spill for sadness for the poor who died of hunger, as they do now with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Despite the Egyptian right, though, the cutting of aid also means a great loss to America and puts it in a crisis before Israel, considering that abandonment of protection to the Zionist entity and Israel’s exposure to threat. It also restores the Egyptian army to Russian arms and lessens American control over the Egyptian army’s apparatuses and equipment and makes it unable to monitor and follow up with the development of the Egyptian army.
The United States was anxious since the first day of the peace agreement to provide military aid to the amount of $1.3 billion in the forms of equipment, weapons and spare parts. As for the economic part of the aid, which reached $815 million, it was paid in the form of agricultural aid, primarily aimed at supporting American farmers and ensuring the export of their products. It was not furthering the prospects of the Egyptian poor. So how does Egypt succeed in emphasizing this right? Does it continue with the approach of the late President Mohammed Anwar Sadat, when he said during the negotiations with his aides, “He sees the forest, and they see not but the tree,” or does the government succumb to the emotional demands of cutting aid and collecting from the people, as was tried before by one of the elders and was repeated now as an experiment by the insurgents, as if they saw only the tree? Does the government see the forest?
Reality, history and the commitment to provide this aid since the signing of the peace agreement in 1979 until now confirmed the right of the Egyptians in return for their commitment to peace with the Zionist entity. As Article VIII of the Camp David agreement states, “The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.” This means that the financial settlement was a part of the peace process. This settlement in its entirety served as a financial appeasement that the United States presented to the two parties to encourage them to continue the peace process and as an American desire to protect the Zionist entity as a state belonging to America.
Confirming this right, which U.S. President Jimmy Carter approved, was the transformation of the aid in 1982 into nonrefundable grants giving $3 billion to Israel and $2.1 billion to Egypt, so that no American president or adviser afflicted with excess or ruin could one day ask for the money to be returned or shut off. That was another confirmation that this linked aid continues in perpetuation of the peace process as one of the safeguards to protect the Zionist entity. It cannot be reduced or stopped unless Egypt breaches the peace agreement.
As Article VII of Annex II about exploratory activity emphasizes that America was part of the agreement and that it has obligations and commitments to the two parties, America was not just a guarantor, shepherd or architect of the agreement. Rather, it was also an interpreter of it. When a dispute occurred between former President Mohammed Anwar Sadat and Israel about the interpretation of Article VI and about the assault on Arabs and Arab assaults on Israel, America provided the legal interpretation of that article. The aid is also considered part of the compensation that Israel must pay for use of the Sinai.
Egypt failed in universally marketing this aid as the certain right of the Egyptians in return for their peace agreement, which pushed American politicians to use this weakness to transform Egyptians’ right to aid into a sword over their necks. America uses it as a card to play during crises to realize its ends and to implement its interests.
We must learn that America does not give charity and gifts to others for free for many reasons. The first among them is that gifts are strongly prohibited by American law. It is not possible to spend the people’s money without agreement and getting something in exchange for those dollars. There are many people around the world dying of hunger, and it was America — a country of freedom and humanity — throwing wheat to fish in the sea in order to preserve the price of the strategic commodity and to ensure control over the food staple and the global price of wheat. America’s heart did not break and its tears did not spill for sadness for the poor who died of hunger, as they do now with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Despite the Egyptian right, though, the cutting of aid also means a great loss to America and puts it in a crisis before Israel, considering that abandonment of protection to the Zionist entity and Israel’s exposure to threat. It also restores the Egyptian army to Russian arms and lessens American control over the Egyptian army’s apparatuses and equipment and makes it unable to monitor and follow up with the development of the Egyptian army.
The United States was anxious since the first day of the peace agreement to provide military aid to the amount of $1.3 billion in the forms of equipment, weapons and spare parts. As for the economic part of the aid, which reached $815 million, it was paid in the form of agricultural aid, primarily aimed at supporting American farmers and ensuring the export of their products. It was not furthering the prospects of the Egyptian poor. So how does Egypt succeed in emphasizing this right? Does it continue with the approach of the late President Mohammed Anwar Sadat, when he said during the negotiations with his aides, “He sees the forest, and they see not but the tree,” or does the government succumb to the emotional demands of cutting aid and collecting from the people, as was tried before by one of the elders and was repeated now as an experiment by the insurgents, as if they saw only the tree? Does the government see the forest?