[ad_1]
Remembering memory in symbols is one of the components of the Jewish personality throughout its history, a general, inherited and well-established trait. He wanted, first, to remind his Zionist audience that he had accomplished what they hadn’t thought of, perhaps by repairing his fractured popularity.
Second, he wanted to remember the atmosphere that reigned in the Arab world after June 1967, when the Sudanese capital, with all its inhabitants, took to the streets to receive Gamal Abdel Nasser, in his presence to participate in an Arab summit of emergency, 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 Abdel Nasser’s request.
And he wanted, thirdly, to look ecstatically into the foreseeable future, saying: “This is a new era, an era of true peace, which will spread to other Arab countries.”
What peace ?!
It is the peace that heralds the Israeli era in the Arab world, and the reshaping of the Middle East again with different balances of power controlling Israel over its economic and strategic articulations and interactions. It is the peace of force and free normalization. All three are not clinically dead, and the Arab initiative, which negotiated full normalization for a total withdrawal from Arab lands 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. It was time to get rid of his headaches with a mock peace that would grant Israel what it did not get in the war. This appeared to be an Israeli investment in symbols, a request to erase the memory of modern Arabs by denying any battles they fought and any problems that ever 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 American list of states sponsoring terrorism, normalization with Israel was justified and domestic public opinion prepared to compromise. with the.
In preparation for the kind of peace that is invested in Sudan’s strategic, economic and social crises, voices have been raised about the international financial support expected for a country that is suffering cruelly. According to the logic of the market and profits, has not the amount of that expected financial support been announced, nor who will pay its dues, the United States and Western partners, or do the bills refer to the rich Arab countries?
It has been said that their aim is to “prepare Sudan for peace”, a term that requires there to be a war between two parties, or land disputes, and mutual concessions, and then there is talk of rewards, concessions and temptations! Do not include normalization with Israel as a precondition.
It is the peace that heralds the Israeli era in the Arab world and the reconstruction of the Middle East, with different scales of power.
As much as Israel could buy that kind of peace, an accurate shipment of $ 5 million to Khartoum, in addition to what the United States promised to inject $ 81 million in humanitarian aid. This gives an early idea of the amount of aid and financial aid that Sudan could receive in difficult situations. It was an investment in the crisis of a poor and exhausted country, without finding passable paths towards the future ahead.
By any legal, political and moral reasoning, the link between the removal of Sudan from the terrorism list and normalization with Israel seemed arbitrary. This was shameful, which demanded his denial, while the facts were spoken publicly without dust, so the president of the United States, Donald Trump, announced the two issues together, in a speech designed to improve his electoral position as a man of peace. that he brought to Israel what no American president had done before him. That was a reversal in time before the US presidential election.
Then came the link between Sudan’s internal peace and peace with Israel, again raising questions about the links that linked armed groups with Israel, with weapons and financing, and what some of them were seeking to dismantle Sudan according to the Israeli and Western strategic insights he sought.
That link was a kind of reversal in the sins of the previous regime, which came at a time when prices were paid at the expense of the Palestinian cause. Then it was notable in the proposed normalization agenda, according to Netanyahu’s formulation of “agriculture, commerce and other fields” … then, in a second wording, “agriculture and the fight against terrorism and extremism.”
Agriculture first, as if seducing Sudan with Israeli agricultural technology, while the real strategic objective is to lead Israel towards the Nile. Egypt struggles with its national security on its southern borders, invests in the “water dam crisis. Renaissance “and is presented as a quarter along with Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia, for that to happen in the future. In a part of the water of the Nile.
This heralds a worsening crisis on the southern borders and Israeli clashes that are working to deepen the 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 they reached a free normalization that gives everything to Israel and deduces everything from the Palestinians.
Worst of all is investing in the turmoil of the transitional phase, which was established after a massive popular uprising that toppled the government of Omar al-Bashir, and sought to establish a modern democratic government that would elevate the status of Sudan and its town. Thus, we are faced with the disintegration of the forces of the “Declaration of Freedom and Change”, the engine of change and phase disruption. The transitional government, and the inability of the Sovereign Council on its civil side to have a voice in what is happening, 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 is the miserable fate of the disappointment of those who bet on it in the Arab world and within Palestine itself.
There are initial signs of internal crises that challenge the right of the transitional government and the transitional sovereign council to sign these agreements, and other signs of the widening of the field of rejection of the main political forces that participated in the uprising. The story has other chapters that have yet to be written.
* Egyptian writer and journalist
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
