Israel’s Plot in Sudan Capt Mohamed Hassan Al-Taher

Date: September 30, 2026

Wars are not always fought with tanks; rather, the most dangerous wars, as the record of history has shown, are those in which land is bought before it is occupied, and the wise is he who learns from the mistakes of others.

Bits and pieces of news circulating in Sudanese gatherings have suggested that church entities will pay very large sums to buy the largest possible number of houses and lands..

We here neither confirm nor deny the news. But in the science of strategy, false news is sometimes more important than true news, because it reveals a way of thinking.

And the question is not:

– Is this happening?

But the question is:

– Can it happen?

– And what are its historical precedents?

Are there any signs of a strategic demographic change in Sudan?

Here lies the plot we are talking about, where we find through a simple historical anecdote that Israel:

– Did not occupy Palestine first and then buy it,

– But bought it first and then occupied it.

Since 1901, the Zionist movement established the “Jewish National Fund – JNF”. It was not a charitable fund, but a land bank. It bought land and never sold it, and rented it only to Jews. This was the beginning that was followed by legalization

where purchase was done under Ottoman and British law. A valid sales contract, an owner selling willingly due to need or great financial enticement. No legal dust on it legally, but it is driven by an ulterior motive, hidden desires to bring about a demographic change

For the land that is bought, a settlement is built on it, the settlement brings immigrants, the immigrants demand protection, and protection turns into a state.

The equation was simple: _The citizen versus settlement_

– A Palestinian citizen selling under the pressure of poverty,

– Met by an incoming settler who has international funding.

Can this be repeated in Sudan?

Sudan today is in a state of complete liquidity:

– War, displacement, desperate need for liquidity, collapse of the pound, and absence of the central state that protects the land registry.

And it is the same environment that makes the idea of “strategic purchase” executable hypothetically, which necessitates questioning the mechanisms and objectives of such a plan or project..

If we assume for the sake of argument that this project exists, its mechanisms do not go beyond three levels:

_1. Religions and ethnicities:_ The goal is not to spread a religion, but to manufacture a protected geography.

To buy adjacent houses in one neighborhood, then a village, then you have a connected demographic pocket.

This pocket later asks for a church, then a school, then self-administration, then international protection.

_2. Citizen versus settlement:_

The Sudanese citizen exhausted by war wants to sell his house at the highest price to get his family out. And the buyer has unlimited funding. Here meet:

– The _personal ambitions_ of the forced seller,

– With the _cosmopolitan visions_ of the buyer who does not look at the land as a house, but as a map of influence.

And here two concepts clash:

– _Metropolitan_ – i.e., the authority of the traditional center “Khartoum, the elite that used to own the land as a symbol,

– And _cosmopolitan_ – i.e., transnational forces that own land as a long-term strategic investment.

_3. Changing the real estate doctrine:_ If you succeed in turning land from a national value into a commodity sold to whoever pays more, you have won the battle.

Here emerges the question about the consequences – between the supra-compulsion of the elites and the grassroots harm to the peoples:

– What is the ruling on this act if it happens?

Here we need two lenses:

First: Jurists differentiate between a valid sale and a harmful sale.

– A sale may be valid jurisprudentially “offer and acceptance” but it is forbidden if it leads to public harm.

The rule says: “No harm and no reciprocating harm”. And selling land that leads to changing the identity of a Muslim society, or to empowering a belligerent enemy, falls under the chapter of “blocking pretexts”.

– That is, the state or society is compelled to prevent it from above, even if the individual seller is compelled to sell from below.

That is why Palestinian scholars in the past issued a fatwa prohibiting the sale of land to Jews, not because the sale is invalid, but because its grassroots harm is greater than its individual benefit.

Second: Marx will name this act as “primitive accumulation through dispossession”.

Foreign capital exploits the moment of crisis – war – to buy the means of production “land” at the cheapest price from the exhausted proletariat.

The result is the creation of two new classes:

– New owners who are strangers to society,

– And new homeless with no land.

And this creates a double alienation:

– Religious alienation

– And class alienation,

Which is the ideal fuel for any coming civil war.

_Conclusion:_

Israel’s historical astuteness was not in the strength of its army, but in its real estate patience, where it bought quietly for 50 years before firing a single bullet.

And Sudan today, with its vast lands, its legal vacuum, and the need of its people, is an ideal environment for such a plot, whether the actor is Israel or any other power.

And in conclusion, the question is not who buys, but do we know the value of what we sell, or have we become as the English proverb says

We know the price of everything and the value of nothing