Thread by @sfrantzman

Can one person explain to me what it means when "US State Department says Sudan's normalization efforts with Israel will have to be reevaluated following the coup"....what does it mean? What is being re-evaluated? How can the US decide for Sudan about Israel. I don't get it.

The only thing I understand was involved in the "deal" with Israel normalization was the US removed Sudan from state sponsor of terror list; voanews.com/a/africa_sudan…

The fact Sudan had a coup has nothing to do with sponsoring terror...that list shouldn't be a "we don't like you list"...but a list based on countries that actually sponsor terror. Since Sudan doesn't sponsor terror, what's the US going to re-evaluate.

Is the REAL story that the deal with Israel in 2020 also had other corollaries, like US aid and support etc? Well, if so then let's hear about that? And anyway, what's the point of withdrawing aid for average people, to punish the leadership?

When it comes to Afghanistan...we hear how the US must "engage" the Taliban...and how it's not fair if aid is withdrawn, plunging the country into more poverty...see so how can it be that Taliban=engagement....but Sudan coup means cut off everything?

By all standards one would think the Taliban was also doing a coup...right...unless the REAL story is that the US basically agreed in Doha to the Taliban takeover, just assumed it will happen in 2022 so as not to embarrass.

And here was have two examples of the US also caught off guard...Washington sent Feltman to Sudan and two days later there is a coup, that's embarrassing. Kabul's fall was embarrassing.

But be that as it may, of course the US should oppose the coup and prefer civilian leadership in Sudan...and of course the US should oppose vicious Taliban control and support civilian leadership in Kabul...but the US probably has difficult time achieving either

So given that fact...how come there is "engagement" with Kabul and more anger at Khartoum...and what does the Sudan-Israel relationship have to do with the US being angry over the coup?

Anyway, I tend to think the term "engagement" is always ridiculous, it's usually used as a quiet way of saying "we should work with them"...so when I hear "engage the Taliban"...I hear "we need to work with them" and I don't hear that with Sudan...

And is that because Doha always helps spread this "US should engage _____(fill in the extremist group/country)..." but of course Doha and Ankara oppose the Sudan leadership...so no engagement there. Engage the Houthis...HTS...whoever...though...but Haftar no...Hamas yes....

That's a stream of thoughts...about Sudan-Afghanistan-Israel-Qatar-etc...

Also; And here:

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1452721185259728904