• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Israel and Sudan to sign peace treaty by year's end

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Israel says peace deal with Sudan to be signed by year’s end

From the article:

"Israel and Sudan committed on Thursday to completing a normalization agreement in the near future following what Foreign Minister Eli Cohen described as a “historic diplomatic visit” to the Sudanese capital Khartoum.​

Cohen said upon landing back in Israel that the plan was for a full agreement to be signed by the end of the year — though only once Sudan’s current military leadership has transferred power to a civilian government, a process that is still unfolding."
The whole concept of the Abraham Accords sounded unbelievable at the time it was first announced. It's cool that the process is still on the move.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
The Abraham Accords face widespread opposition in the Arab world because they promote normalization without reform of Israeli policies or recognition of Palestinian statehood, and this peace treaty is between Israel and an unelected—or dubiously and nominally "elected"—Sudanese government. Like the Abraham Accords, I don't see it changing anything except for a forcibly ruling minority and people who were already supportive of them.

These treaties seem to be a bandage that merely kicks the can down the road. The conflict is still intensifying, and I think officials realize this but are unwisely ignoring it. At some point, that pressure valve may blow up in their faces.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The Abraham Accords face widespread opposition in the Arab world because they promote normalization without reform of Israeli policies or recognition of Palestinian statehood, and this peace treaty is between Israel and an unelected—or dubiously and nominally "elected"—Sudanese government. Like the Abraham Accords, I don't see it changing anything except for a forcibly ruling minority and people who were already supportive of them.

These treaties seem to be a bandage that merely kicks the can down the road. The conflict is still intensifying, and I think officials realize this but are unwisely ignoring it. At some point, that pressure valve may blow up in their faces.
I find it incredible (and somewhat ridiculous) that you see the need to insert the Palestinians into any Israel-related thread.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I find it incredible (and somewhat ridiculous) that you see the need to insert the Palestinians into any Israel-related thread.

There's no way to talk about peace treaties between Arab states and Israel without touching on the central issue between them that brings said treaties to the table in the first place, which is indeed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The full picture requires consideration of this because it is exactly why many believe both the Abraham Accords and this treaty are, in practice and outside of politicans' offices, mostly symbolic and largely meaningless.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
There's no way to talk about peace treaties between Arab states and Israel without touching on the central issue between them that brings said treaties to the table in the first place, which is indeed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Hah! That's hilarious. You really think that what brings these countries to the peace dealing table is the Palestinian issue? Nonsense.
These are the same states that have hardly raised a finger to help the Palestinian Arabs.

No, it's Iran. The oil-enriched states are aware that their oil will dry up eventually and then no Western country will be interested in defending them against the power-hungry Iranian regime. But Israel wants peace, so they're finally willing to set aside their differences in the face of a common enemy.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Hah! That's hilarious. You really think that what brings these countries to the peace dealing table is the Palestinian issue? Nonsense.
These are the same states that have hardly raised a finger to help the Palestinian Arabs.

That's exactly the point: these states don't represent popular sentiment toward Palestinians and have no interest in helping them, but why are they signing peace treaties in the first place if they think there's no tension with Israel? Countries don't typically sign peace treaties for no reason. Brazil and Saudi Arabia won't sign a peace treaty anytime soon, because they don't need one.

No, it's Iran. The oil-enriched states are aware that their oil will dry up eventually and then no Western country will be interested in defending them against the power-hungry Iranian regime. But Israel wants peace, so they're finally willing to set aside their differences in the face of a common enemy.

Whatever the perceived political ends, I'm sharing a considerably popular opinion on the Abraham Accords as well as other recent peace treaties with Israel. Did you want this to be a thread containing multiple viewpoints or agreement only? I'll start a new one if the latter.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
That's exactly the point: these states don't represent popular sentiment toward Palestinians and have no interest in helping them, but why are they signing peace treaties in the first place if they think there's no tension with Israel? Countries don't typically sign peace treaties for no reason. Brazil and Saudi Arabia won't sign a peace treaty anytime soon, because they don't need one.
The Palestinians don't represent the only tension surrounding this region. For example, there's general Islamic tension surrounding the loss of a region that was controlled mainly by various Muslims for over a millennium. No doubt most of thesr countries until recently never considered wrenching control of Israel and giving it to the Palestinians. They would have put some of their own people here.
But they're willing to overlook this particular Muslim sentiment in the face of Iran.
Whatever the perceived political ends, I'm sharing a considerably popular opinion on the Abraham Accords as well as other recent peace treaties with Israel. Did you want this to be a thread containing multiple viewpoints or agreement only? I'll start a new one if the latter
I made the thread to report the news. You took it in the direction you always take it. I could have made a thread remembering the assistance Israel gave to Haiti after the 2010 Haitian earthquake and you would have still directed that thread to the Arabs. I could have made a thread about some new Israeli start-up companies and...you would have found a way to redirect the thread.

This is what I find to be ridiculous. Israel and its enemies aren't joined at the hip, much as you might wish for that to be the case.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
The Palestinians don't represent the only tension surrounding this region. For example, there's general Islamic tension surrounding the loss of a region that was controlled mainly by various Muslims for over a millennium. No doubt most of thesr countries until recently never considered wrenching control of Israel and giving it to the Palestinians. They would have put some of their own people here.
But they're willing to overlook this particular Muslim sentiment in the face of Iran.

We actually agree on this, and it's a part of why I said the states don't represent popular sentiment.

Whether these treaties are primarily because of Iran is a different issue, though. I think they're much more complex than that.

I made the thread to report the news. You took it in the direction you always take it. I could have made a thread remembering the assistance Israel gave to Haiti after the 2010 Haitian earthquake and you would have still directed that thread to the Arabs. I could have made a thread about some new Israeli start-up companies and...you would have found a way to redirect the thread.

That's an incorrect assumption: a peace treaty between an Arab state and Israel is far more related to the conflict than the topic of Israeli startups or aid for Haiti. If you can't see why or how that is the case, I'm not sure what to tell you here.

This is what I find to be ridiculous. Israel and its enemies aren't joined at the hip, much as you might wish for that to be the case.

I'm not sure what this means, but I certainly don't wish for Israel and anyone else to be "joined at the hip" in its current situation. The same goes for other states with inhumane policies, including Arab ones.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not sure what this means, but I certainly don't wish for Israel and anyone else to be "joined at the hip" in its current situation. The same goes for other states with inhumane policies, including Arab ones.
This means that some people think that any mention of Israel on this site means that they have to mention the Palestinians as well, and that is what I find to be incredibly ridiculous.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
This means that some people think that any mention of Israel on this site means that they have to mention the Palestinians as well, and that is what I find to be incredibly ridiculous.

Well, I've already elaborated on this in my previous post. I'm not really going to link every thread about Israel to demonstrate why it's an incorrect statement about the posts in this thread.
 
Top