Only two months separate the Sudanese government’s announcement that it does not have a “mandate” to make a decision on normalization with Israel, and yesterday’s assertion that it agreed to normalize relations with Israel, promising the “great benefits” that await Sudan.

On 25 August, the head of the Sudanese transitional government, Abdullah Hamdok, announced - after talks with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Khartoum - that his government “does not have a mandate” to take a decision on normalization with Israel.

Hamdok told Pompeo that a decision in this regard needs to wait for a democratically elected government, within 3 years, and called on the US administration to "separate" the process of removing Sudan from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism and the issue of normalization with Israel.

The government spokesman, Minister of Information, Faisal Muhammad Salih, quoted Hamdok as saying - in response to the American request to normalize relations with Israel at the time - that the transitional phase in Sudan “is led by a broad coalition with a specific agenda to complete the transition process and achieve peace and stability in the country leading to free elections, and no The transitional government has a mandate that goes beyond these tasks to decide on normalization with Israel. "

The Sudanese government reiterated that it has no mandate for normalization with Israel during the visit of the President of the Sovereignty Council, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and a Sudanese delegation that includes the Minister of Justice to Abu Dhabi on September 21.

The Sudanese Minister of Information said, "The ministerial delegation accompanying the head of the Transitional Sovereignty Council does not carry a mandate to discuss normalization with Israel," indicating that the delegation is authorized to discuss removing Sudan from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism with the American administration team present in the Emirates.

Saleh asserted that his country's position "is consistent with regard to normalization with Israel, and we do not have a mandate to take decisions in such matters, which are among the tasks of an elected government, and we are still at the same position, and we have not retreated from it."

Al-Burhan during his meeting with Pompeo in Khartoum a month ago (European)

discard

Not much passed over this position and the Sudanese response, which was widely praised at the time, until the designate Foreign Minister Omar Qamar al-Din confirmed that the transitional government agreed to normalize relations with Israel.

In the first official comment from the government following the tripartite statement issued by the White House yesterday, Qamar al-Din said that what was announced "is an agreement by the executive and sovereign apparatus to normalize relations with Israel."

The Sudanese minister considered that normalization "is not an interrupted event, but rather a continuous process, and if the matter is approved, the benefits for Sudan will be great. This agreement ends the state of hostility with the State of Israel, and a lot of diplomatic, political, economic and investment work will follow."

But Qamar al-Din did not provide an enlightenment clarifying if his transitional government obtained a mandate for normalization?

How did you get that authorization that he confirmed and blessed?

This is despite his statement that the ratification of the agreement "comes from the Legislative Council and democratic institutions that include all parties and the political incubator for the transitional government."

Neither the Sudanese minister nor any of his colleagues in the transitional government mentioned the agreement's contradiction with the Sudanese law issued in 1958 known as the "Boycott of Israel Law" which considers normalization "a crime that deserves punishment."

Under this law, in addition to other articles in the criminal law, Sudanese lawyers filed a criminal case against the head of the Transitional Sovereignty Council last February, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Ugandan city of Entebbe, and the lawyers demanded that the Sudanese prosecution restrict the case and direct Investigation to take the necessary measures to lift the immunity from the "proof".

The group of lawyers that filed the lawsuit said, “The accused, Abd al-Fattah al-Burhan, exceeded his powers stipulated in the constitutional document, as well as violated the text of Article (2) of the boycott of Israel law, which prohibits anyone from concluding, personally or through mediation, an agreement of any kind with bodies. Or people residing in Israel, or with people he knows that they belong to or work for Israel, in addition to his violation of other articles of the criminal law related to dealing with hostile countries and breaching public safety. "

No one knows the fate of this case against al-Burhan, but it seems that it did not affect the past on the steps of normalization, as is the case with the popular activists and the Sudanese parties, which previously condemned the meeting that brought together al-Burhan and Netanyahu, and considered “a stab at the Palestinian cause, and a smear of the country's positions, support Supporting the Palestinian people and their cause against the Israeli occupation. "

On the other hand, the demonstrations of popular rejection were renewed in the Sudanese street after the tripartite declaration of normalization by the United States, Israel and Sudan, and Khartoum witnessed demonstrations confirming the Sudanese refusal to negotiate or reconcile with Israel, and confirms the Sudanese people's support for the Palestinian cause.