And the ambitions of British policy 73 Aswan or Tanta. Above all, how could the 1899 agreement involve England with Egypt in sovereignty over Sudan? The dispatch of a few soldiers, not exceeding two thousand, nor the agreement of a small amount of money, justifies such a partnership. If the voluntary provision, in itself, grants a right, then Egypt should have a right in Syria and Palestine because it was thanks to Egypt's men, its iron and its ports, and its supplies to the English army with food, water, and all kinds of provisions that the opening of those lands was facilitated. Egypt contributed more than four million pounds, in addition to the difference in the prices of what the English army collected, so much so that this difference alone in cotton reached millions, not counting grains of all kinds and livestock, which decreased by a third.

War duration The Marshal acknowledged the value of Egyptian assistance during the Palestine campaign and Syria, and Lord Milner's report stated: "It is only just to mention the services rendered by the Egyptian volunteer corps, whose value was beyond estimation, and without which Palestine would not have been opened." Did Egypt not have a debt to England to help it regain Sudan? Or was Sudan not evacuated due to its pressure on Egypt? Was not England like a guardian over Egypt? Sir Edward Grey said before the English House of Commons on March 28, 1895: "England overlooks, from the perspective of defending Egypt's interests, the special position of the guardian. Egypt's guardianship was not entrusted to us alone, but was also entrusted to and affirmed by the French government."

*** In addition to the Nile being the lifeline between the two countries, there are considerations 10