They toppled the legitimate president Morsi .. What do we expect from the "preferred" dictators of Egypt and Libya?

It seems that the recent "maritime border demarcation agreement" between Turkey and Libya has struck all international balances, just as the "Spring of Peace" operation in northern Syria did. Looking at the reactions to the agreement between two sovereign states, we find that some have other criteria for the concept of sovereignty.

Greece - with its strength and pronouncements in addition to the powers it trusts - will find nothing in front of Turkey, and for this reason it continues to cry out only in the face of Turkey; however, its position on Libya was surprising. I decided to expel the Libyan ambassador in Athens as a reaction to Libya's stance, believing that its borders had been violated.

It is very clear that Libya - in the end - has signed an agreement in which it believes that it is in the interest of the Libyan people completely, and therefore what Greece is asking of Libya is to give up the interests of its people in favor of Greece!

Greece - which expects from Libya what no loyal regime can do for its people - originally needs a special relationship with that country in order to expect a situation like this, but it is clear that Greece does not want to establish that relationship with the legitimate government of Libya.

It is clear that this is due to Greece's desire to see the former revolutionary general, Khalifa Haftar, as Libyan leader. They want a ruler of Libya who does not care about the interests of the Libyan people, but only theirs, no matter how harmful those interests are to the Libyan people.

Just as they wanted to see Abdel Fattah el-Sisi head of power in Egypt. Although we knew what she had uncovered, Al-Jazeera broadcast a documentary program that talks about Sisi giving up seven thousand square kilometers from Egypt's exclusive economic zone in the Mediterranean Sea in favor of Greece. Why, then, does al-Sisi do that, displaying so much generosity at the expense of the interest of the Egyptian people?

Yesterday, Professor Khairuddin Karaman wrote an article in which he said: The real reason behind this is their desire to see a coup as a politician at the head of Egypt, instead of a legitimate president who was directly elected by the people like President Mohamed Morsi, who was ruling on the basis of feeling responsible in front of his people every day. And every hour.

It is very simple: President Morsi belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists have links to extremism and terrorism; these are all myths. But these legends will continue to be narrated as they serve to steal the wealth of Egypt and Libya.

The documentary presented by Al-Jazeera showed that the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Sameh Shoukry, who was negotiating with the Greek side on the demarcation of maritime borders in the Mediterranean, presented a report to President Sisi on the results of the negotiations, in which he explained that there is intransigence from the Greek, and that Egypt will lose - because of That- seven thousand square kilometers of its rights in its exclusive economic zone in the Mediterranean.

Moreover, although Shukri was appointed by Sisi himself, he recommended that the Greek proposal should be rejected. However, Sisi insisted on accepting Greece's demands, which proves that he cares more about Greece's interests than being the ruler of Egypt. Consequently, and with the adoption of the Greek proposal in this regard, Turkey's water regions - which lie off Egypt - have tacitly returned to Greece.

The truth is that the validity of that agreement - signed between Egypt and Greece that ignored the rights of the Egyptian people - remained subject to the conclusion of the Turkey and Libya agreement. Of course, the Turkish / Libyan agreement achieved the interests of both countries, however, the agreement signed by Sisi in the name of Egypt granted - albeit surprisingly - Greek and Greek Cypriots in accordance with gold and preserved their interests.

Thus, Turkey would have achieved an opportunity for Egypt to make up for what it had lost through that agreement, which ignored its interests by a decision from Sisi; this is strange but it is true! Sisi may not be interested in this, but the Egyptian people should appreciate the efforts Turkey made with this agreement.

As for the deputy leader of the opposition Republican People's Party in Turkey, he still believes that it is necessary to correct relations with Sisi and Bashar al-Assad. Why? Is this proposed for Turkey to correct its relations with them, and then subject to similar agreements?

Can't we see these names (i.e. al-Sisi, Haftar and al-Assad) as the names of two dictators who have become "preferred"? These names - which we talk about here as "preferred" dictators - are people who have been appointed to spend the resources and wealth of their countries on others; so what problems can be solved by agreeing with these?

Turkey now represents the interests of its people, and it also - in fact - represents the interests of the people of those countries that are ruled by these "preferred" dictators who have been appointed, and therefore it represents the interests of those peoples incomparably better than those dictators.

Follow very little of Turkey’s new policies, and fully believe that what you will learn from this will make you feel the need to abandon your foreign policy in front of those who see you as “preferred” to them.