Direct dialogue appears to be occurring between Sudan and Israel independently of the Abraham Accords. According to Nailain, a Sudanese website, Mekki Elmograbi, a consultant with the Sudanese government, has criticized the Abraham Accords. He claims these agreements focus on wealthy Arab nations and overlook the crucial issue of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Elmograbi, who serves as an expert at a pro-government think tank and consultant for the Sudanese government, voiced his concerns during his participation in the ‘Hiwar Forum’ at the Moshe Dayan Center in Tel Aviv, Israel. He stated, “Now everyone is paying a high price for this fatal mistake.”
Elmograbi, a progressive Islamist and former diplomat in Washington during Bashir’s regime, has participated in the Hiwar Forum six times, with this being his most contentious appearance. He commended U.S. organizations that have urged the Biden administration to pressure the UAE to cease its support of the Rapid Support Militia with weapons. Despite the UAE’s support for the Hiwar platform and its role as a key sponsor of the Abraham Accords, Elmograbi’s stance reflects a critical view of the UAE’s involvement.
Sources indicate that Elmograbi’s ongoing engagement with the Israeli platform is supported by Sudanese Intelligence Service Director, Lieutenant General Ibrahim Mufaddal. The security sector in Sudan appears to prefer maintaining dialogues with Israel rather than severing them entirely. This strategic decision highlights a complex interplay between Sudan’s internal security considerations and its foreign relations.
Renewed relations between Iran and Sudan pose a significant threat to the continuation of Sudanese Israeli talks aimed at finalizing Sudan’s involvement in the Abraham Accords. Despite this, it seems Sudan is seeking U.S. support to navigate these bilateral negotiations independently of the Abraham Accords, which they perceive as being influenced by the UAE.
The nuanced dynamics of Sudanese Israeli relations, framed by the broader context of Middle Eastern geopolitics, underscore the intricate balance Sudan is attempting to maintain. Elmograbi’s criticisms reflect broader concerns within Sudan about the efficacy and fairness of the Abraham Accords, particularly regarding the neglect of the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the Sudanese security sector’s encouragement of continued dialogue with Israel, despite the regional complexities and renewed ties with Iran, signals a cautious but deliberate approach to its international diplomacy.
This delicate situation reveals Sudan’s desire to secure U.S. backing for a more tailored approach to its relations with Israel, separate from the constraints and influences of the Abraham Accords.
