A new investigation by Africa Intelligence has reported that senior figures linked to Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces travelled to Tel Aviv during the war and met Israeli officials, including representatives of the Foreign Ministry’s Africa Division and Israeli intelligence personnel. The reported visits took place in May 2025 and February 2026.

The significance of this report goes beyond the meetings themselves.

It raises a broader question about how the international community engages with the actors sustaining Sudan’s war.

The reported contacts are said to form part of a relationship that predates the current conflict. That history matters. But so does the timing: these contacts reportedly continued while Sudan was experiencing some of the worst violence and displacement in its modern history.

Sudan Futures is not suggesting that a meeting constitutes endorsement, nor that every contact between a government and a conflict actor amounts to complicity.

Diplomacy requires communication.

But diplomacy also requires clarity.

When governments maintain relationships with armed actors during an active conflict, the international community should be entitled to ask what those relationships are intended to achieve, what leverage they provide, and where the boundaries lie.

If governments have access to the parties to Sudan’s war, what are they doing with that access?

This is particularly important when the organisation involved is the RSF, a paramilitary force facing extensive allegations of atrocities against civilians and which has been the subject of international sanctions.

The question is therefore not simply:

Who is talking to whom?

It is:

What is being discussed, what influence does that relationship create, and is that influence being used to reduce the capacity for war?

That distinction matters.

Sudan’s conflict has repeatedly demonstrated that the war cannot be understood solely through events inside Sudan.

Weapons move across borders. Money moves across financial systems. Fighters move across countries. Political relationships operate far beyond the battlefield.

And now, once again, we are reminded that the diplomatic relationships surrounding Sudan’s war are equally international.

This is precisely why Sudan Futures has argued for greater scrutiny of the external architecture of the conflict.

Engagement with Sudanese actors is necessary.

But engagement should not become a substitute for accountability.

Nor should diplomatic relationships become so politically sensitive that difficult questions are left unasked.

There is also a wider lesson here.

The international community has repeatedly called for Sudanese parties to negotiate and end the war. But if influential external governments maintain channels to those same parties, they possess something potentially valuable: leverage.

The question is whether that leverage is being used.

If it is, what results are being demanded?

If it is not, why not?

And if external relationships can provide access to the people capable of prolonging the conflict, can they not also be used to press them to stop?

Sudan does not need the world to stop talking to those who hold power.

It needs the world to use those conversations more effectively.

The war has no borders. Accountability should not have them either.

Or is there something far more sinister behind his recent comments?

Benjamin Netanyahu insisting a Palestinian leader persuaded Hitler and the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible allegation.

Particularly as every historical document, journal and historian confirms Hitler’s feelings towards the Jews were apparent from his early days in the army. What’s more, his plans for Europe’s Jewish population began in 1939 a whole two years before his meeting with the Palestinian leader.

Adolf Hitler did not meet the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini until 1941, so how can he be the instigator of the most horrific event in that century?

Why then did Netanyahu blatantly lie?

Is it because he hates Palestinians so much he is willing to absolve Hitler from exterminating millions of innocent Jews? Or is there another reason for this calculated declaration?

Angela Merkel immediately responded to his comment by saying “Germany abides by its responsibility for the Holocaust. We are very clear in our minds about the Nazis’ responsibility for the break with civilisation that was the Shoah.”

Besides that, the timing of his remark is very peculiar. Some would say it is even reckless. With all the turmoil in the region not to mention the trouble in his own backyard…., his remark could not have come at a worst time. Historically the relationship between the two nations has always been volatile. However, recently they are the poorest they have been.

So I ask you again, what was the reason behind the comment?

For years Zionists have been trying to rewrite history. Change how Israel came about, redraw legal boundaries and renege on agreed promises. While failing to address how Palestinians are oppressed and terrorised in their own home and how Israel is an unkind neighbour.

The alarming thing is Zionists will stop at nothing to push every Arab out their own home. I say Zionists because most Jews inside and outside Israel accept and even welcome the two state solutions. Historically the two people happily lived side by side long before Hitler, World War II and Netanyahu came about.

So what can the reasons for this comment be? Please, someone, explain to me the one positive thing that can come out of this deliberate story.