Jump to content

Sudan becomes third Arab state to set aside hostilities with Israel this year


rooster59

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Removing Sudan from the terrorist list. Thats a huge quid pro quo.

 

I think that since things calmed down some in Sudan, the USA was hoping for this to be resolved one way or another, and this was a convenient enough situation to sort it out - without any side losing too much face or credibility.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sujo said:

Removing Sudan from the terrorist list. Thats a huge quid pro quo.

 

Not sure if Sudanese civilians are concerned about an accusation from Uncle Sam outside the UN charter.

 

Most of these Sudanese citizens don’t accept the signing of the deal by their transitional government.

 

Latest protests in Khartoum and Jerusalem can make us dream that there’s a real democracy in the region.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/24/sudans-political-parties-reject-israeli-normalisation-deal

Edited by Thorgal
Link
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Morch said:

The Trump administration approach dodges the main issues, and seeks to create an atmosphere of progress, which supposedly will lead to...something.

I suspect this is a Netanyahu initiative, and that for him it's resolving something that has always been the "main issue" (other than avoiding ending up in jail for corruption). ie Arab enabling of Palestinian intransigence* combined with goading Palestinians into continued conflict with Israel**. This leaves the Palestinians with a far weaker bargaining position, which might just be a recipe for some kind peace. (Ironically, via a kind of anti-BDS delivered from the heart of the Arab world...)

 

*Itself enabled by Arab oil revenues which reduced energy intensity of GDP & US shale oil have already made somewhat irrelevant, and whose irrelevance will only increase as electrific/clean energy replacement progresses.

 

**eg by denying them citizenship & forcing them to live as refugees for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Not sure if Sudanese civilians are concerned about an accusation from Uncle Sam outside the UN charter.

 

Most of these Sudanese citizens don’t accept the signing of the deal by their transitional government.

 

Latest protests in Khartoum and Jerusalem can make us dream that there’s a real democracy in the region.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/24/sudans-political-parties-reject-israeli-normalisation-deal

 

Oh, I'm positive that they were concerned about the implications of being on the USA's little black book. This tends to have negative effects on a country's economy and aid options. The 'outside the UN charter' bit is as usual for your posts, unclear. The list mentioned in the OP is a USA government list, and does not require any sort of 'UN charter' satisfied.

 

I have no idea if most Sudanese citizens accept the agreement or not. The link you provided relates the views of political parties, and overall reads more like playing the domestic politics field more than anything else. But generally, yes - decades of indoctrination cannot be easily undone by signing an agreement. In the same way, the peace agreements between Israel and its two neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) are not popular with the two countries' citizens. For all that, the agreements stands, as leaderships see them as more beneficial to either country's interests - despite the the occasional public opinion hits.

 

As for your last nonsense comment - democracy is a matter of degree. You want to try and claim the situation of democracy is exactly the same in these two countries, or for that matter, the region? Go right ahead, it will be mildly amusing to see the convulsed arguments on offer. Protests, by the way, can be seen as citizens able to express a democratic right, not automatically implying the absence of democracy. 

 

While it is dodgy for a provisional, un-elected government to sign international agreements, it has to be noted that governments in general do not go for a referendum on such matters - even when the agreement implies going against political platforms or voters wishes.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, onebir said:

I suspect this is a Netanyahu initiative, and that for him it's resolving something that has always been the "main issue" (other than avoiding ending up in jail for corruption). ie Arab enabling of Palestinian intransigence* combined with goading Palestinians into continued conflict with Israel**. This leaves the Palestinians with a far weaker bargaining position, which might just be a recipe for some kind peace. (Ironically, via a kind of anti-BDS delivered from the heart of the Arab world...)

 

*Itself enabled by Arab oil revenues which reduced energy intensity of GDP & US shale oil have already made somewhat irrelevant, and whose irrelevance will only increase as electrific/clean energy replacement progresses.

 

**eg by denying them citizenship & forcing them to live as refugees for decades.

 

I don't know how much of it is Netanyahu's initiative - at least at some points during this process he seemed to have been surprised by some of the moves. I doubt Israel and the USA's regional interests are fully aligned despite all the talk.

 

Diplomatically, Netanyahu wants to eat the cake and have it whole. A peace (or barring that, a peace 'process') which bypasses (and hopefully, ignores) the Palestinians. As for the assertions that there's some aim of this weakening the Palestinians' negotiation - it is not clear that Netanyahu has a well defined goal or endgame with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So in a way, even what you propose does not differ much from the usual Netanyahu 'strategy' of simply 'managing the conflict' (rather than striving to resolve it).

 

Regardless of how eroded the Palestinian 'bargaining position' is - at the end of the day, it still comes back to the same core issues. Without getting into the merit (or lack of) choosing such negotiation tactics, I think that there is a limit as to what terms the Palestinians could be forced to accept.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, evadgib said:

 

Do you realise the trump coordinated agreements to upgrade relations (not a peace plan) signed by Muslim majority nations are subject to Israel ceasing annexation of land in the West Bank; so far Netanyahu has declined to commit to the requirement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Do you realise the trump coordinated agreements to upgrade relations (not a peace plan) signed by Muslim majority nations are subject to Israel ceasing annexation of land in the West Bank; so far Netanyahu has declined to commit to the requirement. 

 

Are they? 'Subject to', that is. Could be wrong, but as far as I understood, dropping the recent annexation drive was not an explicit item on the agreements signed. Rather, it was mentioned in the context of the first instance (vs. the UAE), and as an understanding rather than a formal statement.

 

Netanyahu first denied that there was such an understanding, then the White House pretty much outed him. He then retreated to a version in which the annexation was 'put on hold', which again was refuted by White House sources, and little was heard on the topic since.

 

Netanyahu was, I think, quite relieved to be handed this excuse for not following through on the annexation drive. It basically wasn't 'his' thing, more an issue seized upon during one of the recent election campaigns, then getting a life of its own. Other than among some Israeli right-wing elements it did not manage much by way of traction or interest. There were even right-wingers who campaigned against it (because it implied a recognition of a Palestinian state, but whatever). Following through would have meant actually having a clue as to what it effectively means, where it leads and risking major international crises.

 

The way things panned out, between Covid-19 and the new agreements, the issue was allowed to fizzle - and without Netanyahu having to openly and publicly back track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Are they? 'Subject to', that is. Could be wrong, but as far as I understood, dropping the recent annexation drive was not an explicit item on the agreements signed. Rather, it was mentioned in the context of the first instance (vs. the UAE), and as an understanding rather than a formal statement.

 

Netanyahu first denied that there was such an understanding, then the White House pretty much outed him. He then retreated to a version in which the annexation was 'put on hold', which again was refuted by White House sources, and little was heard on the topic since.

 

Netanyahu was, I think, quite relieved to be handed this excuse for not following through on the annexation drive. It basically wasn't 'his' thing, more an issue seized upon during one of the recent election campaigns, then getting a life of its own. Other than among some Israeli right-wing elements it did not manage much by way of traction or interest. There were even right-wingers who campaigned against it (because it implied a recognition of a Palestinian state, but whatever). Following through would have meant actually having a clue as to what it effectively means, where it leads and risking major international crises.

 

The way things panned out, between Covid-19 and the new agreements, the issue was allowed to fizzle - and without Netanyahu having to openly and publicly back track.

 

Let me say I have always acknowledged your expertise on M.E affairs. From reviewing some media reports have to admit, so far as I'm concerned, it's somewhat hazy. My personal take is annexation is a component of improving official relations between, Israel, the Gulf States and Sudan; you're welcome to disagree and prove otherwise. For the meantime, going back a few months, an except of an article below, there are a number in a similar vein, upon which I base my opinion...

 

The Trump plan would allow Israel to annex up to 30% of the occupied West Bank, including all of its far-flung Jewish settlements. The Palestinians would be left with scattered enclaves surrounded by Israel, which would have overall security control. Netanyahu pointedly refers to it as an entity “that President Trump defines as a state.”

The UAE said its agreement with Israel took annexation off the table, but Netanyahu has said the pause is temporary and that Israel remains committed to the Trump plan.

 

https://apnews.com/article/peace-process-israel-iran-united-arab-emirates-jerusalem-c87ca011c2cd4321d587e9684dfb84e1

Edited by simple1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Let me say I have always acknowledged your expertise on M.E affairs. From reviewing some media reports have to admit, so far as I'm concerned, it's somewhat hazy. My personal take is annexation is a component of improving official relations between, Israel, the Gulf States and Sudan; you're welcome to disagree and prove otherwise. For the meantime, going back a few months, an except of an article below, there are a number in a similar vein, upon which I base my opinion...

 

The Trump plan would allow Israel to annex up to 30% of the occupied West Bank, including all of its far-flung Jewish settlements. The Palestinians would be left with scattered enclaves surrounded by Israel, which would have overall security control. Netanyahu pointedly refers to it as an entity “that President Trump defines as a state.”

The UAE said its agreement with Israel took annexation off the table, but Netanyahu has said the pause is temporary and that Israel remains committed to the Trump plan.

 

https://apnews.com/article/peace-process-israel-iran-united-arab-emirates-jerusalem-c87ca011c2cd4321d587e9684dfb84e1

 

 

Oh, I agree that taking the annexation drive off the table was, one way or another, part of the conditions which made the signing of the agreements possible. My point was that, as far as official agreements go, it was not an actual item as such. Call it a pre-condition, an understanding or whatever.

 

It was more often commented on with regards to the UAE agreement, probably because by the time the two other agreements were sorted the issue became moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2020 at 12:18 PM, Morch said:

 

Oh, I'm positive that they were concerned about the implications of being on the USA's little black book. This tends to have negative effects on a country's economy and aid options. The 'outside the UN charter' bit is as usual for your posts, unclear. The list mentioned in the OP is a USA government list, and does not require any sort of 'UN charter' satisfied.

 

I have no idea if most Sudanese citizens accept the agreement or not. The link you provided relates the views of political parties, and overall reads more like playing the domestic politics field more than anything else. But generally, yes - decades of indoctrination cannot be easily undone by signing an agreement. In the same way, the peace agreements between Israel and its two neighbors (Egypt and Jordan) are not popular with the two countries' citizens. For all that, the agreements stands, as leaderships see them as more beneficial to either country's interests - despite the the occasional public opinion hits.

 

As for your last nonsense comment - democracy is a matter of degree. You want to try and claim the situation of democracy is exactly the same in these two countries, or for that matter, the region? Go right ahead, it will be mildly amusing to see the convulsed arguments on offer. Protests, by the way, can be seen as citizens able to express a democratic right, not automatically implying the absence of democracy. 

 

While it is dodgy for a provisional, un-elected government to sign international agreements, it has to be noted that governments in general do not go for a referendum on such matters - even when the agreement implies going against political platforms or voters wishes.

>>As for your last nonsense comment - democracy is a matter of degree.

..what a joke coming from you!


You seem as usual to cherry pick your definition of democracy.

 

Whenever Israel's so called democracy is mentioned with its imprisonment of 12 year old Palestinian children, its more than 300 Palestinians in indefinite administrative detention without charge or trial , and not forgetting a daily brutal suppression of 4.5 million Palestinian human and civil rights in a 53 year old illegal occupation, you excuse it as: yes Israel's democracy may not be quite perfect but.... ho ho ho.

 

Sudan's moves 2,500 kms from Tel Aviv, to normalize relations with Israel, despite not having a full mandate from its people, is irrelevant. Would that street demonstrations objecting to a decision made supposedly in the name of its citizens had been allowed to take place in the corrupt unelected aristocracies of UAE and Bahrein.

 

Unless Israel addresses the issue of the elephant in the room, a genuine peace agreement with its 4.5 million occupied Palestinian neighbors, Sudan's pathetic venal effort is a waste of diplomatic space.

 

Not sure a Biden administration will be any different, although at least the Democrats via Bernie Sanders have a voice. They propose to hold Israel accountable for the $38 billion USA gives them.  Watch this space I suppose.

 

All Palestinians need do is stay put until Israel can address the problem that the racist supremacist Zionist project created. 

Trump's Steal of The Century is in the trashcan. An end to apartheid, and a  2 state solution along the lines of the Arab Peace Initiative or a single democratic state with equal rights for all are the only way.


 

 

.

Edited by dexterm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dexterm

 

Your usual personal commentary is dully noted.

 

We have indeed been through this on numerous posts and topics. That you insist on a world view of black and white doesn't change the fact that democracy is a matter of degree.I never claimed Israel was a very good example of democracy, nor ignored its many faults. Guess that's not good enough if one's focus is almost solely bent on painting Israel as the worst nation ever. As said in the past, I think there's a difference between democracy as applied in Israel proper, and the situation in the West Bank/Gaza Strip. If and when Israel goes for an annexation without affording rights, your commentary would be more to the point.

 

There seems to be a certain gap between portraying Sudan's (or rather, the provisional government's) move as "irrelevant", "pathetic", "a waste of diplomatic space" and the levels of frustration and bile spewed in response.

 

That these normalization agreements with peripheral players are not a full substitute for addressing the core issues (ie relations with the Palestinians) has been acknowledged and commented on in my posts on this topic and others. And for all that, it doesn't not make these diplomatic changes as worthless as your seem to claim. Guess it's another expression of that contrived black/white world view.

 

Not much issues expressed with these nasty regimes so long as they fell in line with the agenda pushed. No issues of being supported by such nasty regimes either. It's only a moral chest beating thing when it suits.

 

A Biden administration would probably be a return to the same old USA policy - more even handed than the Trump administration, but unlikely to produce any major breakthroughs. It is unlikely this issue would feature highly on the priority list anyway.

 

The mumbo jumbo of slogans offered as the closing bit have been addressed on multiple occasions - I'll point again it's at a disconnect from history, relevant politics and positions on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...