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

[rooster59]

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

By Matt Spetalnick, Steve Holland and Jeff Mason

 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House senior advisor Jared Kushner applaud as U.S. President Donald Trump is seen on the phone with leaders of Israel and Sudan speaking about the decision to rescind Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., October 23, 2020. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israel and Sudan agreed on Friday to take steps to normalize relations in a deal brokered with the help of the United States, making Khartoum the third Arab government to set aside hostilities with Israel in the last two months.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump, seeking re-election on Nov. 3, sealed the agreement in a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and Transitional Council Head Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, senior U.S. officials said.

 

Trump's decision this week to remove Sudan from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism paved the way for the accord with Israel, marking a foreign policy achievement for the Republican president as he seeks a second term trailing in opinion polls behind Democratic rival Joe Biden.

 

Netanyahu hailed it as a "new era" for the region, but the Palestinian leadership, watching as more of their Arab brethren appear to give their quest for statehood a lower priority, called it a "new stab in the back."

 

"The leaders agreed to the normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel and to end the state of belligerence between their nations," according to a joint statement issued by the three countries that also promised U.S. help for Khartoum to secure international debt relief.

 

Israel and Sudan plan to begin by opening economic and trade links, with an initial focus on agriculture, the joint statement said. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said such issues as formal establishment of diplomatic ties would be resolved later.

 

Trump touted the deal to reporters in the Oval Office with the Israeli and Sudanese leaders on the line in a three-way phone call, saying at least five other countries wanted to follow suit and normalize relations with Israel.

 

"Do you think 'Sleepy Joe' could have made this deal?" Trump asked Netanyahu, using the president's pejorative nickname for Biden a day after their final, rancorous debate of the 2020 presidential campaign. "Somehow I don't think so."

 

Netanyahu, reliant on bipartisan support for Israel in Washington, responded haltingly: ""Well, Mr. President, one thing I can tell you, is, um, uh, we appreciate the help for peace from anyone in America."

 

Trump's aides view his pro-Israel policies as appealing to Christian evangelical voters, who are among his biggest supporters.

In recent weeks the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain became the first Arab states in a quarter of a century to agree to formal links with Israel, forged largely through shared fears of Iran.

 

Trump insisted the Palestinians also "are wanting to do something" but offered no proof. Palestinian leaders have condemned recent Arab overtures to Israel as a betrayal of their nationalist cause and have refused to engage with the Trump administration, seeing it as biased in favor of Israel.

 

"No one has the right to speak in the name of the Palestinian people and in the name of the Palestinian cause," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement.

 

DROPPING SUDAN FROM TERRORISM LIST

 

Trump announced on Monday he would take Sudan off the terrorism list once it had deposited $335 million it had pledged to pay in compensation. Khartoum has since placed the funds in a special escrow account for victims of al Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

 

The White House called Trump's intention to remove Sudan from the terrorism list a "pivotal turning point" for Khartoum, which is seeking to emerge from decades of isolation.

 

The military and civilian leaders of Sudan's transitional government have been divided over how fast and how far to go in establishing ties with Israel. A sticking point in the negotiations was Sudan's insistence that any announcement of Khartoum's delisting from the terrorism designation not be explicitly linked to relations with Israel.

 

The Sudanese premier wants approval from a yet-to-be formed parliament to proceed with broader, formal normalization, and that may not be a quick process given sensitivities and civilian-military differences. It is still unclear when the assembly will be created.

 

"Agreement on normalization with Israel will be decided after completion of the constitutional institutions through the formation of the legislative council,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Omar Gamareldin said on state television shortly after Friday's announcement.

 

The new agreement was negotiated on the U.S. side by a team that included Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, who called the normalization deals the start of a "paradigm shift" in the Middle East.

 

He said Sudan's decision was symbolically significant because it was in Khartoum in 1967 that the Arab League decided not to recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism dates to its toppled ruler Omar al-Bashir and has made it difficult for its transitional government to access urgently needed debt relief and foreign financing.

 

Many in Sudan say the designation, imposed in 1993 because Washington believed Bashir was supporting militant groups, has become outdated since he was removed last year.

 

U.S. congressional legislation is needed to shield Khartoum from future legal claims over past attacks to ensure the flow of payments to the embassy bombing victims and their families.

 

(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Steve Holland and Jeff Mason; additional reporting by Khaled Abdelaziz in Khartoum, Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza and Rami Ayyub in Tel Aviv Ali Sawafta in Ramallah, Ahmed Tolba and Nadine Awadalla in Cairo, Nafisa Eltahir and Alaa Swilam; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-24

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

 

[ezzra]

Slowly but surely the walls of blind hate and ignorance the Palestinians have put so much stock in are crumbling down, partly because of economic reasons and has a lot to do with the fact that the Palestinians went up the tree of resistance and uncompromising that they can come down now without loosing face, many Arab states are tired for the continues handouts and stubbornness the Palestinian leadership policies that are in the rut for the last 70 years, and maybe if more Arab countries will continue to jump on the peace bandwagon, the Palestinians too will one day see the light...

[TopDeadSenter]

Can we remember the news cycle pre-Trump? It was doom and gloom, Obama had no idea how to bring peace, he was overwhelmed. Trump ended the hopelessness and bad news as soon as he was elected, nobody was talking about military intervention in Syria any more. We need war against Assad? Er no we don't. Trump's diplomacy is a modern marvel, I don't care what the haters say, he has been a complete legend on foreign policy.

 Thank you Sir for yet another amazing peace deal in the Middle East. In my mind you won the Nobel peace prize, not some lab boffin.

[donnacha]

Finally, one of the rare things that we can all agree on.

No one, of any political persuasion, would be so petty as to fail to acknowledgement that this is a stunning achievement.

This makes it five Arab countries that have turned their backs on hatred: Egypt, Jordan, The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and, now, Sudan.

Is it at all possible that Saudi Arabia might join in?

We know they probably want to because Bahrain, in particular, would not have done so without tacit Saudi support. For Saudi itself to do it would, however, be a huge step, and very tricky in terms of their internal politics. If they did, though, that would effectively seal the deal, peace in the Middle East at last. I did not think I would see it in my lifetime, especially after the extreme mismanagement of the past few decades. Now, thanks to enlightened but tough leadership, it is suddenly a real possibility.

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by donnacha

[KhunFred]

Encouraging. Anti-semitism is more indefensible than it's ever been. History will show Israel to have been the sanest country in the Middle East.

[simple1]

28 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Finally, one of the rare things that we can all agree on.

No one, of any political persuasion, would be so petty as to fail to acknowledgement that this is a stunning achievement.

This makes it five Arab countries that have turned their backs on hatred: Egypt, Jordan, The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and, now, Sudan.

Is it at all possible that Saudi Arabia might join in?

We know they probably want to because Bahrain, in particular, would not have done so without tacit Saudi support. For Saudi itself to do it would, however, be a huge step, and very tricky in terms of their internal politics. If they did, though, that would effectively seal the deal, peace in the Middle East at last. I did not think I would see it in my lifetime, especially after the extreme mismanagement of the past few decades. Now, thanks to enlightened but tough leadership, it is suddenly a real possibility.

 

 

Likely more to do with concentrating Sunni collaboration against the Shiite world. Sudan has paid $335 million in compensation for al Qaeda terror victims, but US has increased aid to the Sudan by roughly the same amount, plus will open the doors for more foreign aid and investment so a good outcome for Sudan, so long as corruption doesn't funnel the funding onto the pockets of a corrupt elite and the government can finally achieve stabilisation.

 

Interesting Netanyahu took a step back from playing trump's game as election day draws near, trump didn't look happy; realpolitik at play.

[donnacha]

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Likely more to do with concentrating Sunni collaboration against the Shiite world.

For sure. The impetus for collaboration has to be hooked on some sort of reality, otherwise it is easier for each state to wallow in the lazy continuation of outdated prejudices. For a new generation of Arab leaders, and MBS in particular, it is incongruous that their citizens can not travel to or trade with a modern, technologically advanced, and relatively wealthy neighbor. The strengthening of Iran over the past decade has been the excuse they were looking for to refocus their foreign policy.
 

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Interesting Netanyahu took a step back from playing trump's game as election day draws near, trump didn't look happy; realpolitik at play.

Yeah, he's a wiley politician for sure, and far more aware than Trump that this is leagues more important than domestic American politics.

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by donnacha

[AndyFoxy]

Great job President Trump......again.

[Sujo]

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

[Morch]

5 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Can we remember the news cycle pre-Trump? It was doom and gloom, Obama had no idea how to bring peace, he was overwhelmed. Trump ended the hopelessness and bad news as soon as he was elected, nobody was talking about military intervention in Syria any more. We need war against Assad? Er no we don't. Trump's diplomacy is a modern marvel, I don't care what the haters say, he has been a complete legend on foreign policy.

 Thank you Sir for yet another amazing peace deal in the Middle East. In my mind you won the Nobel peace prize, not some lab boffin.

 

Being a dyed in the wool Trump sycophant, that's the sort of commentary expected.

Now let's get back to reality.

 

The two actual (and way more important) peace agreements Israel got with Arab nations (who are actually neighbors, as opposed to the recent additions) - Egypt and Jordan, saw a Democrat President in the White House.

 

Obama's efforts were not centered on peripheral (both in terms of relevance and distance) players, but went to the more hard core issues - as in dealing with the Palestinians (and on another front, Iran). Obviously, much harder to achieve great things there, and certainly more push back from the very same Netanyahu.

 

The Trump administration approach dodges the main issues, and seeks to create an atmosphere of progress, which supposedly will lead to...something. There is no clear roadmap as to where this process is aimed and how core issues will be addressed and dealt with. In a way, it's pretty much a continuation of Trump's usual style - fanfare over substance. 

 

It's not that these developments are worthless, unimportant or anything - it's just that some proportions need to be applied, and context as well.

 

Unless you missed it, USA troops are still in Syria. And the USA, under Trump did engage the Assad regime militarily. The USA is less involved - with the price of ditching allies (the Kurds) and ceding the arena to the likes of Russia, Turkey and Iran. There are good and bad sides to such decisions - it is by no means a great diplomatic maneuver as you try to claim.

 

Trump's foreign diplomacy is not a marvel, other than in supporters' minds. Same goes for this and the two previous instances being peace deals - they are not.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, donnacha said:

Finally, one of the rare things that we can all agree on.

No one, of any political persuasion, would be so petty as to fail to acknowledgement that this is a stunning achievement.

This makes it five Arab countries that have turned their backs on hatred: Egypt, Jordan, The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and, now, Sudan.

Is it at all possible that Saudi Arabia might join in?

We know they probably want to because Bahrain, in particular, would not have done so without tacit Saudi support. For Saudi itself to do it would, however, be a huge step, and very tricky in terms of their internal politics. If they did, though, that would effectively seal the deal, peace in the Middle East at last. I did not think I would see it in my lifetime, especially after the extreme mismanagement of the past few decades. Now, thanks to enlightened but tough leadership, it is suddenly a real possibility.

 

 

Stunning? No. Positive and important, yes.

 

Lumping together them five Arab countries is misleading. The two more meaningful ones (Egypt and Jordan) were a done deal decades ago. Nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. And as opposed to the three current ones, these were actual peace agreements - not 'mere' (and yes, that's still of value) normalizing of relations.

 

I don't think this got anything to do with 'enlightened leadership'. It's just what needs to be done in order to preserve leaders' rule and serve realpolitik. The same way most Arab leaders weren't all that invested in the Palestinian 'cause' beyond it being a convenient political construct. The parameters of the situation shifted, and so positions changed some.

 

All of this still leaves the core issues (as in Israel's relations with the Palestinians) unresolved. Regardless of how many Arab countries sign agreements with Israel, it will need to be addressed at some point. The signing of papers won't do away with the issue.

[Morch]

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.

[Thorgal]

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 October 24, 2020 by Thorgal
Link

[onebir]

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.

[Morch]

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.

[Morch]

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.

[evadgib]

Foreign Secretary statement on normalisation of Israel and Sudan relations

Quote

"I welcome today’s announcement of the normalisation of relations between Israel and Sudan - a positive step between two valued friends. This step is a boost for the democratic transition in Sudan, and peace in the region".

 

[simple1]

17 hours ago, evadgib said:

Foreign Secretary statement on normalisation of Israel and Sudan relations

 

 

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. 

[Morch]

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.

[simple1]

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 October 26, 2020 by simple1

[Morch]

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.

[dexterm]

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 October 26, 2020 by dexterm

[Morch]

@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.