This is an investment in the Sudanese crises

In the euphoria of announcing the normalization of relations with Sudan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not lost the symbols of a past that has passed, or that they are about to leave the Arab political dictionary. Khartoum was not merely a new Arab capital that joined the ranks of the accelerated normalization, for it “was the capital that in 1967 adopted principles of no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.” This was a remembrance at a time of high, for “Khartoum now says yes.”Recalling memory in symbols, one of the components of the Jewish personality throughout its history, is a general, inherited and well-established feature. First, he wanted to remind his Zionist audience that he had achieved what they had not thought of, perhaps repairing his fractured popularity.
Secondly, he wanted to remind the atmosphere that prevailed in the Arab world after June 1967, when the Sudanese capital, with all its residents, took to the streets to receive Gamal Abdel Nasser, upon his presence to participate in an emergency Arab summit, with confidence in him and confirmation of the will to continue the war until the liberation of the occupied Arab lands By force of arms. This was an exceptional event in history, the most successful of the Arab summit before its conclusion, and the Arab leaders seemed to be preparing to respond to what Abdel Nasser requested.
Thirdly, he wanted to look ecstatic to the foreseeable future, saying: “This is a new era, an era of true peace, which will expand to other Arab countries.”
What peace ?!
It is the peace that heralds the Israeli era in the Arab world, and the reformulation of the Middle East anew with the different balances of power that Israel controls its joints and economic and strategic interactions. It is the peace of force and free normalization. The three nos are clinically dead, and the Arab initiative, which traded for full normalization for a comprehensive withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, met the same fate.
With the power of symbols, the Israeli-Sudanese declaration of normalization closed an entire page of the Arab-Israeli conflict, at the expense of what was left of the Palestinian cause, as if it had become a burden on the Arab regimes. This seemed to be an Israeli investment in symbols, a request to erase the memory of modern Arabs by denying any battles they fought, and any issues that once inspired them.
In the name of Sudan’s return to the international community and its financial and economic reintegration, after its name was removed from the US list of states sponsoring terrorism, normalization with Israel was justified and internal public opinion prepared to engage with it.
In preparation for the kind of peace that is investing in Sudan’s strategic, economic and social crises, voices have been raised about international financial support expected for a country that is suffering cruelly. According to the logic of the market and the benefits, the amount of that expected financial support has not been announced, nor who will pay its dues, the United States and Western partners, or are the bills referred to the wealthy Arab countries?
It has been said that it aims to “prepare Sudan for peace,” a term that requires that there be a war between two parties, or disputes over land, and mutual concessions, and then comes the talk of rewards, grants and temptations! Not to include normalization with Israel as a precondition.

It is the peace that heralds the Israeli era in the Arab world and the reshaping of the Middle East, with different balances of power

As much as Israel could buy that kind of peace, an accurate dispatch of 5 million dollars to Khartoum, in addition to what the United States promised to pump 81 million dollars in humanitarian aid. This gives an early idea of ​​the amount of aid and financial aid Sudan might get in difficult situations it suffers from. It was an investment in the crisis of a poor and exhausted country, without finding passable paths to the future ahead.
With any legal, political and moral reasoning, the link between removing Sudan from the terrorism list and normalization with Israel appeared arbitrary. This was embarrassing, which called for his denial, while the facts were spoken publicly without powders, so that US President Donald Trump announced the two matters together, in one speech aimed at improving his electoral position as a man of peace who brought to Israel what no American president had done before him. That was an investment in timing before the US presidential election.
Then came the link between internal Sudanese peace and peace with Israel, raising questions again about the links that linked the armed groups to Israel, with arming and financing, and what some sought to dismantle Sudan according to Israeli and Western strategic perceptions that it sought.
That link was a kind of investment in the sins of the previous regime, which came at a time when the prices were paid at the expense of the Palestinian cause. Then he was remarkable in the proposed normalization agenda, according to Netanyahu’s formulation of “agriculture, trade and other fields” … then in a second wording, “agriculture and combating terrorism and extremism.”
Agriculture first, as if it is seducing Sudan with Israeli agricultural technology, while the real strategic goal is to put Israel forward on the Nile. Egypt struggles with its national security at its southern borders, invests in the “Renaissance Dam” crisis, and presents itself as a fourth party next to Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia, perhaps it will happen in the future On a share of the Nile water.
This heralds worsening crises on the southern border, and Israeli confrontations that are working to deepen any differences between Egypt and Sudan, such as the border dispute over Halayeb and Shalateen. It is a strategic investment in the regional vacuum that resulted from the absence of the Egyptian role. After the signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978, which established a kind of peace, the waves of which expanded until we reached free normalization that gives Israel everything and deducts everything from the Palestinians.
Worst of all, investing in the turmoil of the transitional phase, which was established after a massive popular uprising that toppled the rule of Omar al-Bashir, and tried to establish a modern democratic government that would elevate the status of Sudan and its people. The transitional government, and the inability of the Sovereign Council on its civilian side to have a say in what is going on, and the transitional government denies the will for change that brought it to power.
It is inconceivable, or correct, that the main achievement of the Sudanese uprising was that miserable fate that disappointed those who wagered on it in the Arab world and within Palestine itself.
There are initial indications of internal crises contesting the right of the transitional government and the transitional sovereign council to sign such agreements, and other signs indicating a broadening of rejection by the main political forces that participated in the uprising. The story has other chapters that have not yet been written.

* An Egyptian writer and journalist

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube Here