Sudan's stated willingness to sign a peace treaty with Israel, which was later retracted, is no less historic than the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is a significant symbolic development in the Arab world's approach to Israel. Two and a half months after the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, when Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were licking their wounds from their resounding defeat at the hands of the IDF and the loss of swathes of territory, the Arab world responded by radicalizing its positions toward the Jewish state. Arab leaders gathered in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and adopted the "Three No's" strategy against Israel: no to peace, no to recognition, no to negotiations.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
In doing so, Arab leaders sentenced their peoples to unnecessary conflict over the decades that followed, with devastating consequences for most Arab countries. Instead of finding ways to develop the Middle East together with Israel for the betterment of all the region's inhabitants, Arab states clung to radical rejectionism that prevented economic, social, and political progress. The proponents of the Khartoum strategy were certain that rejecting peace would allow them to realize the dream of eradicating Israel. In retrospect, all they did was dig a deep hole for themselves and their peoples.
Sudan is a very good example of how extreme Arab nationalism, then replaced by radical Islamism, condemned an entire nation to economic, social, and political calamity that only worsened over the years. At some point, officials in Khartoum realized Israel was not the problem of the Sudanese people, but could definitely be part of the solution.
I had the privilege of being the first Israeli journalist to report from Sudan three years ago, when Sudanese officials first started coming out in favor of normalization. These were not voices from the social or political fringe, rather the upper echelon of government. I was astonished at the time to witness an exceedingly open debate on the issue in the local media. The capital of rejectionism had altered course. After my article from Sudan was published, I was contacted by many Sudanese, regular civilians, who expressed their enthusiastic support for their country to quickly establish full diplomatic ties with Israel. "We can benefit a great deal from such relations," was the common theme, "mainly in terms of agricultural development, commerce, and technology." I was invited to visit again.
Since then, Sudan has seen internal trials and tribulations that have only expedited the processes. The military regime withstood a popular rebellion; while the bloodthirsty tyrant, Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court at The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, was deposed in a military coup in 2019. The country's current leadership – strongly aligned with Egypt and Saudi Arabia – accelerated the process of rapprochement with Israel, the apex of which was the public (albeit not photographed) meeting between Sudanese leader Abdel Fattah Burhan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in April. This meeting would never have taken place if officials in Khartoum hadn't already decided to forge official ties with Israel.
Apparently, the peace treaty between Israel and the United Arab Emirates has provided the final seal of approval for such a move. The destructive "Three No's" strategy is being replaced by a strategy of recognition, negotiation and peace with Israel, in the understanding that it serves the interests of Arab states no longer willing to be a pawn in the hands of the Palestinians, who want to perpetuate the conflict with Israel.
We are witnessing these historic days because of Israel's strength and clout. We would be wise to keep this in mind as groups on the fringe of Israeli society endeavor to weaken the country.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
