Sudanese army accuses Libya's Haftar forces of border attack
CAIRO: The Sudanese army accused forces under eastern Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar of attacking border posts on Tuesday, the first time it has accused its northwestern neighbor of direct involvement in the country's two-year war.
The war between Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, whom the military also accused of involvement in the border attack, has drawn in multiple foreign countries, while international attempts at bringing about peace have so far failed.
Sudan had early in the war accused eastern Libya's Haftar of supporting the RSF via weapons deliveries.
Haftar forces denied involvement in the attack and accused a force affiliated with the Sudanese armed forces of attacking a military patrol while it was carrying out 'its legitimate duty to secure the Libyan side of the border.'
'These allegations are a blatant attempt to export Sudan's internal crisis and create a virtual external enemy,' the General Command of the National Libyan Army added in a statement.
Egypt, which has also backed Haftar, has long supported the Sudanese army.
In a statement, the Sudanese army said the attack took place in the Libya-Egypt-Sudan border triangle, an area to the north of one of the war's main front lines, Al-Fashir, the capital of North Darfur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
26 minutes ago
- Arab News
Egypt's foreign minister discusses Iran nuclear negotiations, Gaza with US envoy
LONDON: Badr Abdelatty, Egypt's minister of foreign affairs, emphasized the need to persist in negotiations between the US and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program during a phone call with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. Abdelatty said the negotiations are an important opportunity to achieve calm, avoid escalation, and prevent the region from sliding into greater instability, WAM, the Emirates News Agency, reported. Oman will host the sixth round of negotiations between Iran and the US on Sunday, Oman's foreign minister said on Thursday. Abdelatty and Witkoff, the US president's special envoy for the Middle East, on Thursday addressed Egyptian and US efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip. They discussed the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, as well as the flow of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian coastal enclave, according to WAM. The Egyptian foreign minister highlighted the need for a lasting resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that meets the region's aspirations for peace and stability.
Arab News
42 minutes ago
- Arab News
Cracks appear in myth of Israel's ‘brave' armed forces
One morning in early June 1967, when I was 14, I took the bus to school having read in the newspaper over breakfast that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were at war with Israel. The first class of the day was history. Our history teacher, Mr. Ferry (teachers in those days did not have first names), was a fervent supporter of the still nascent state of Israel, which had existed for less than 20 years. Enterprisingly, he decided to scrap the lesson he had planned and instead devote the time to his favorite subject. Jews, he told us, having endured discrimination and persecution in Europe for centuries, now had their own country, in which they could enjoy security and safety, thanks largely to their own indefatigable campaign for a Jewish state, but also due in part to the wisdom and munificence of the UN, based on an original proposal in 1917 by Britain's own Lord Balfour. Warming to his theme, Mr. Ferry waxed lyrical about fit, bronzed and athletic young kibbutznikim, toiling daily under a hot sun to turn the dry and unforgiving desert green. It was all terribly inspiring. Mr. Ferry omitted to mention that the territory then comprising the state of Israel had been obtained by means of driving, at gunpoint, about 750,000 Palestinians off the land they had inhabited for centuries, and sending into exile those who were not killed. Or that the 'indefatigable campaign for a Jewish state' had been conducted by homicidal thugs from Irgun and the Stern Gang, who nowadays would be referred to as 'terrorists' but who nevertheless went on to hold key ministerial roles in successive Israeli governments. Or that much of the 'dry and unforgiving desert' was already green, thanks to generations of farming by Palestinian families who were now homeless and stateless. It is easy to be brave when you are armed to the teeth and your 'dangerous enemy' is a 12-year-old boy throwing rocks Ross Anderson To be fair, he only had 35 minutes, and it is possible that Mr. Ferry intended all this for a future lesson that somehow slipped his mind: he was, in many ways, an excellent teacher and I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, the peroration of his discourse was that Israelis were inherently brave people who were not about to be deprived of their birthright by Arabs, who had a propensity for fighting among themselves, and the war would be over in a week. We boys were skeptical. After all, as young children we had played among the bombed-out ruins of a conflict that had lasted for six long years: the idea of a brief one seemed unlikely. But hey, we were 14, what did we know? Six days later, Mr. Ferry was proved right. It was about this time that a myth took hold, a fiction held as incontrovertible truth by many in Israel and by its cheerleaders in the West: that the Israeli armed forces are strong, determined and fearless, battle-hardened veterans who can never be defeated in a conflict — and are, above all, brave. But it is easy to be brave in the occupied West Bank when you are armed to the teeth and protected by body armor and your 'dangerous enemy' is a 12-year-old boy throwing rocks. It is easy to be brave when you are operating an armed Elbit Hermes 900 drone above southern Lebanon from the safety and comfort of a control room 50 km away. It is easy to be brave in an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter or an F-161 Sufa fighter jet in the skies above Gaza, aiming your weapons at a Hamas enemy without air defenses — or, more probably, innocent Palestinian women and children with no defenses of any kind. And it is easy to be brave inside your heavily armored Merkava Mk4 battle tank on the outskirts of Rafah, firing your 120mm cannon at those few innocent Palestinian civilians who have survived the attack helicopters and the fighter jets. For a fighting force, the Israeli forces do precious little fighting. And when they are required to do so, they turn out not to be very good at it. When Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, the troops on the unit whose job it was to protect civilians — the 77th Battalion, 7th Armored Brigade (Gaza Division) — appear to have been mostly asleep. Their Re'im base was quickly overrun and reinforcements delayed entering the combat zone even though civilians were under attack (limited enthusiasm there for a fight, evidently). A military investigation described the attack as the 'biggest security failure in Israel's history,' the army admitted it had 'failed in its mission to protect Israeli civilians,' and Chief of the General Staff Herzi Halevi had the decency to resign. The Israeli forces do precious little fighting. And when they are required to do so, they turn out not to be very good at it Ross Anderson You will find no defense of Hamas' cowardly attack here, but there are other signs that cracks are appearing in the fragile carapace of Israel's military invincibility, including shameless mendacity in how it defends its actions. There is by now a clearly defined three-stage process: 1. It definitely wasn't us. 2. Well, it may have been us. 3. OK, it was us. This has always reminded me of the wild west days of the British tabloid press, before legislation on privacy and other restrictions reined in the worst excesses of Fleet Street. At that time, there was a mantra for newspapers dealing with any difficulties: never apologize, never explain and, when cornered, lie. There are countless examples of Israel putting this into practice. When an Israeli sniper assassinated the Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin in May 2022, the Israeli military lied through its teeth. When Israeli soldiers deliberately killed 15 paramedics and aid workers after opening fire on a clearly identified rescue convoy in Gaza in March this year, the military lied through its teeth. Most recently, Israeli gunfire has killed at least 160 Palestinians as they desperately scrambled for food at shambolic aid 'distribution sites' set up by the deeply suspect Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Since the first such incident, on May 27, when they killed 10 Palestinians, the Israeli military has been lying through their teeth. The armed forces of Ukraine, currently fighting in the trenches of Donbas to defend their country against an unprovoked invasion by a militarily more powerful and numerically superior aggressor — now that's brave. Israel's army, not so much.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
The Attack on the Army and the Threats Facing Sudan
A brutal civil war continues to wreak havoc in Sudan, and foreign actors are clearly fueling the conflict. Most recently, we saw the campaign to weaken the Sudanese army at the border triangle between Sudan, Libya, and Egypt. Some are now openly hoping for its defeat and others, behind the veil of calls for 'restructuring' it, are seeking to break the army apart. One broad theme of this campaign is that the Sudanese armed forces are the former regime's (the National Congress Party) army and that it is a partisan militia rather than a national institution. While the army does include figures affiliated with the NCP, men from across the political spectrum are also part of the army. Some have no political affiliations or ties to the former regime. Many of those fighting alongside the army today, including members of the joint forces and the newly mobilized battalions, fall into this category. Some of the youths had participated in the December Revolution and long opposed the previous regime. They cannot be labeled 'NCP'. Despite political divergences, many international and regional actors agree that there is a fundamental need to preserve Sudan's state institutions, chief among them the armed forces. Indeed, the collapse of the army would not simply mean one faction's defeat in an armed conflict. It would mean the collapse of the state itself and introduce chaos and fragmentation. This consensus was not reached out of sentiment but a sober assessment of recent history. There are many tragic cases of nations descending into violent turmoil following the disintegration of their national armies. The violence seen in Iraq after the 2003 invasion stands out: Paul Bremer's dissolution of the Iraqi army created a massive security vacuum that was quickly filled by non-state actors like al-Qaeda and ISIS. Iraqi cities became battlegrounds, state institutions crumbled, and the country drowned in sectarian bloodshed. In Libya, overthrowing Gaddafi's regime without a plan to build a unified army left rival factions fighting a devastating war fueled by foreign intervention. In Somalia, the state collapsed after Siad Barre's regime fell, turning the country into several spheres of influence controlled by warlords. This led to a devastating civil war that went on for nearly two decades and eventually led to the emergence of extremist organizations such as Al-Shabaab. In Africa, this catastrophe has taken a variety of forms. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), the collapse of Mobutu Sese Seko's army led to the First and Second Congo Wars. Nine African countries took part in the hostilities that claimed the lives of millions. In Liberia, the disintegration of the army led to a civil war that killed nearly a quarter of a million people. The lesson from these precedents is that the national army is the "pillar of the state:" If it collapses, the entire state collapses. If the Sudanese army collapses or is dismantled- whether due to internal conflicts, external pressures, or wrong political decisions- the country would find itself in one of the following catastrophic scenarios: - Security and police agencies would become non-existent, leading to chaos and mass criminality. - The security vacuum would unleash militias vying for power and wealth, and dangerous tribal and regional conflicts would open the door to new demands for secession, especially given the exploitation of marginalized regions. - Cross-border conflicts would be inflamed as militias or armed groups seek refuge or resources. - Terrorist groups would emerge, finding fertile ground for their activity in the chaos and insecurity. They are becoming increasingly active in the Sahel, not far from Sudan's borders. - Instability would pose a threat to neighboring countries in the region. - All of this unrest would lead to unprecedented humanitarian disasters, fueling famine and a refugee crisis. In conclusion, the Sudanese army is the "last line of defense" against the state's collapse. Precedents show that dismantling national armies does not lead to democracy, but rather to chaos, especially in a volatile climate of aggravating regional and global conflicts. Reforming the army is essential, and many other Sudanese state institutions must also be reformed. The military top brass has stressed the need for reform in light of the war, the integration of armed movements that signed the peace agreement, ending the era when there were multiple armed movements and armies in the county, and leaving weapons monopolized by the state. However, this reform should not, under any circumstances, entail dismantling the army or restructuring it in a manner that weakens it. Sudan needs a strong army more than ever, to protect against conspiracies and foreign ambitions. A strong national army that ignores politics and devotes itself to protecting the homeland is the only bulwark against the aggravating assaults on Sudan.
