The Nile Basin countries are negotiating to reach an agreement on the use and development of the river they share, an event that must be viewed as having great significance given the place that the Nile occupies in the social and political history of the region stretching back thousands of years, and the place it occupies in the evolutionary history of the human species stretching back millions of years. And while the event may be viewed as a human drama of epic proportion, it has a subplot woven into it which serves to show that something as beautiful as the history of the Nile cannot unfold without being shadowed by something as ugly and evil as the Talmudic state of mind. Let us review the background that is animating the subplot.
There was a time when Israel had run out of workers to do cheap manual work as immigration from the former Soviet Union and its satellites was drying up, and young Israelis were leaving the country in large numbers. Those that stayed home were drafted in the army or they were the religious freaks who would not work because they thought that God, the world and their government owed them a living. In the face of this recipe for economic ruin, the Israelis brought into Israel the people they could identify as being Ethiopian Jews and those who claimed to be. This influx of Blacks into Israel resulted in a racist backlash of such force that the ministry of health was compelled to ban the infusion of White Jews with blood donated by Blacks. In turn, the policy created a controversy which took time to die down but as soon as this happened, the controversy was rekindled by an explosive event. It is that after years of denial, the Israelis finally admitted they were harvesting the organs of the Palestinians they killed for transplantation into the bodies of those same White Jews who would rather die than have the blood of a Black transfused into them. The ironic question was then posed: What would it take to make a Black Jew equal to a White Jew or to a Palestinian Arab in the eyes of the Israelis and those of the Jewish state? Apparently, we have some sort of answer now: Maybe it takes a graduate degree or maybe not.
Here is the story. On April 29, 2010 Wondwosen Michago Seide wrote an article in a publication called Jimma under the title: “On Nile, Ethiopia's diplomacy paying off over Egypt's hard power”, a publication financed by the most blood thirsty organizations you can find in New York, the type that describe themselves as being Jewish oriented. Mr. Seide holds a degree in water science and says he used to do research for the Ethiopian Nile Basin Dialogue Forum but now writes for a publication that was banned in Ethiopia. When you read the article, you get the sense that yes, this man has learned his Talmudic lesson and you hasten to ask: Will they now accept him as an honorary White Jew in the same way that the racist regime in apartheid South Africa of yesteryear considered the Japanese to be honorary Whites when the regime was desperate to find someone who will do business with it? And will the Jews now accept to be transfused with the blood of this Ethiopian with the same enthusiasm they milk him for the credibility he can bring to their hateful incitement?
And you read the article expecting that someone who was educated in water science and who writes about the Nile would say something in the field of his expertise to enlighten the reader on the technical issues that escape the laymen. Indeed, doing just that may have been the natural inclination of this young man but look what the Jewish organizations got him to do instead. They got him to write something in the style of the Talmud, the usual run-of-the-mill incitement to hate; that which says something sordid about the organizations and nothing about water science. The aim of the article is to make Egypt look bad, a familiar theme that is the signature which gives away the identity of the real writers. But how do these people accomplish their aim? Well, what can be said is this: see what Seide was made to write and judge for yourself.
In trying to make Egypt look bad, he writes this: “Egypt ... insisted on the historical rights of the Nile water.” And he says this: “Egypt supports the: No appreciable harm principle.” He also says this: “Egypt tries to speed up projects that are related to the environment and flooding.” As we shall see, he gives these sayings the Talmudic spin and hopes they will make Egypt look bad in the eyes of the reader not realizing that they are having the opposite effect.
And in trying to make Ethiopia look good by comparison, he writes this: “... there were many occasions that Emperors of Ethiopia ... tried to use the Nile as a weapon ... [they] threatened to block the flow of water for various reasons.” He also says this: “In the past ... Ethiopia, avoided Egypt's influence by not taking part in pre-NBI cooperation. Waterbury ... described Ethiopia's measure as: a diplomatic tactic of aggressive silence." And here too he gives those sayings the Talmudic spin and hopes they will make Ethiopia look good in the eyes of the reader.
To spin the readers, he takes them for a ride on the notorious Talmudic carousel of intellectual dyslexia. As if to hit them on the head with a baseball bat and make them see things in reverse, he begins the article with this introduction: “Water can defy gravity and flow uphill towards power. Ethiopia uses water to get more power; Egypt uses power to get more water. In the Nile Basin reality, power plays more of a role than cooperation.” He thus sets the terms of reference at the start by telling the reader that even though Egypt goes to the negotiating table in good faith to negotiate about water while Ethiopia uses the negotiations as an excuse to gain power, it is an African reality that power is more important than cooperation, which is as it should be ... three cheers for Ethiopia.
So then what kind of fantasy does this upside-down reality generate in the mind of its authors, the Israelis and their New York allies who are the ghostwriters of the article? Well, they actually answer the question in the second paragraph like this: “Currently, there is a power tug-of-war between ... Ethiopia and Egypt. For the first time in the history of the Nile Basin, there are indications that the power balance is tilting towards Ethiopia's advantage.” Later on they let out a cry of triumph like this: “After a grueling debate past midnight on April 14, 2010, the riparian countries ADMITTED (emphasis mine) that they could not reach any agreement on the allocation of the Nile waters.” This apparent discord is what they have been dreaming about and now that they believe they have it, they beat their breasts in celebration. If anything, this goes to prove that the power game is more a game in their own mind than it is a reality around the Nile basin.
But to cement the fantasy in their mind lest they relinquish it, and cement it in the mind of the readers lest they become distracted by something else, the authors of the article deliver the famous one-two punch. First, they assert the following unequivocal proposition: “Historically, the power struggle was at the center of the Nile Basin.” Second, they remind the reader of the maxim which says: “He who controls the Nile controls Egypt.” And they claim that this was the motivation that triggered the Egyptian leaders to want to control the Nile Basin. But realizing that this alone will not damn the Egyptians to any great extent, the authors of the article hastened to add the postscript: “by any means.”
Let us look at the first proposition. In the same way that DNA yields the best proof as to the identity of a deceased, the word “historically” placed at the beginning of a sentence yields the best proof that the authors of the sentence are the diseased Talmudists. These people want you to believe that every Jew is a born historian even though history is something they improvise on the go to suit the moment then contradict it a moment later when the circumstances change. Thus, when you hear them begin a sentence with the word: “HISTORICALLY,” you must turn around and run like hell because – take it from me -- you would rather have a witch doctor perform brain surgery on you than have these characters tell you about history.
We now look at their use of the maxim concerning the control of the Nile and of Egypt. They want you to believe that because the Egyptians feared being controlled by someone, they were triggered into action to control the Nile Basin. In reality, this is the principle of preemption which is more a Judeo-Israeli strategy than it is an Egyptian one. These Talmudists are so immersed in this sort of behavior that they could not find another accusation to throw at Egypt except to add the postscript: “by any means.” But then you ask: What were these means? and they answer: “In the 19th Century, the Egyptian President Mohammed Ali, launched a hegemonic strategy [Unity of the Nile Valley] a resources capture tactic to bring Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda and Kenya under the umbrella of Egypt.” And they tell you that this Egyptian strategy came after 600 years of continuous provocation by the Ethiopian Emperors who threatened to block the flow of the Nile. And you ask: what resources did the Egyptians try to capture in response to these horrible provocations? And they answer: the waters of the Nile that have been flowing for millions of years, idiot. And they go on to say: if you, the reader, cannot see from these explications why the Egyptians are such a bad people for desiring what they desire and for doing what they do, then you have no business staying on this planet, and you should find another place for yourself in the vast Universe out there.
After a while, dear reader, you get tired of this shenanigan and decide to comb the article one more time to see if you can discover what really bugs these people. This is where you leave the realm of the absurd and plunge into the realm of the bizarre. You find them incite the upper riparian countries to resent Egypt's hegemony, accrued to it by “the virtue of their technical and legal expertise and relative economic and political influence...” In fact, this was the approach that the Israelis and their Zionist allies in America took when trying to pit the Arabs of the Gulf states against Egypt. When they failed to find an Arab in the Gulf who will listen to them, they assembled a bunch of people in New York and in Toronto who looked like Arabs and spoke like them; they put them on television and told them what to say to drum into the heads of the American and Canadian audiences that Egypt was losing influence in the Arab World. But guess what, I have bad news for these pathetic Talmudists. They are doing what the people of Egypt have always wanted. Indeed, the Egyptians told the late President Sadat they did not want a world leader (which he was becoming having kicked the Israelis out of the Sinai) but wanted a leader who will work for Egypt and for them. Mubarak has been this kind of leader and that is why he lasted this long.
What is also bizarre is their use of the current debate on climate change which they try to exploit so as to weave and to spin something anti-Egyptian. Having accused Egypt of trying “...to speed up projects that are related to the environment and flooding,” they say the following a few paragraphs later: “The fear is that the status quo may aggravate the calamities of climate change,” then say this in their final conclusion: “Egypt is going to be less attractive and acceptable in the face of looming climate change.”
And then there is this paragraph which is puzzling considering what it omits: “The unfair nature of the 1959 agreement is self-explanatory from its title [Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters] even if the Nile belongs to 10 countries.” The authors of the article had only mentioned 7 upper riparian and 2 lower riparian countries up to now without mentioning the tenth country, Eritrea. And this is the country that only a few days ago urged the 7 upper riparian countries not to rush and sign an agreement among themselves that will go contrary to international law and serve the purpose of those who want to keep on looting Africa's resources.
The reference to the 1959 agreement brings out the important point omitted by the authors. It is an agreement between Egypt and Sudan on how to share the portion of the Nile that nature has given them millions of years ago. The reality is that the Nile is endowed with 1.65 trillion cubic meters of water every year. About 4% of this water flows north of the Sudanese city, Khartoum where the White Nile and the Blue Nile meet. From there the Nile goes on to Northern Sudan and to Egypt. Of this water, the 1959 agreement stipulates that Egypt is to receive 55.5 billion cubic meters which amounts to only 3% of the totality of the Nile waters; and the rest stays with the other 9 countries. Yes, Egypt gets three quarters or so of the water that flows north of Khartoum but the other countries are all situated south of Khartoum where 96% of the Nile water flows. Thus, to speak of the unfairness of the agreement because it uses the words “Full Utilization” and to suggest accordingly that Egypt gets more than its fair share is such an idiotic proposition, you must conclude that it is Talmudic because only someone endowed with a Talmudic wisdom can be this stupid.
So then, armed with these notions, how do the scheming people in Tel Aviv and New York hope to set the Horn of Africa on fire and feed on the ensuing misery? Well, there is the usual Judeo-Israeli trick which is to fashion an argument aimed at pulling America by the nose and get it to help them do what they want to see done. The argument is this: “America cannot survive without us because there is evil out there trying to destroy America but we can destroy the evil and give America a lease on life. The evil is Al-Qaeda, and we can fight the thing like no American is capable of fighting it.” This is what Israel used to say and this is what these characters are now saying on behalf of Ethiopia. To paraphrase a French saying, the more the thing changes, the more it remains a Talmudic idiocy tailor-made to spring into action the usually sclerotic congressional asses of America.
Finally, if Wondwosen Michago Seide has a note in his pocket saying he wishes to donate his organs in case he drops dead, he better not drop in Israel because the racist characters out there may not deem him worthy enough as yet to donate his organs for transplantation in the body of a White Jew. And the organs may end up in the trashcan.