Turabi has apparently been released, but the fact that he was arrested reveals shifting alliances in the Sudan conflict. The US was pressuring the JEM to accept the (bogus) peace deal offered by Khartoum last year, as other rebel factions in Darfur did. Has JEM, betrayed by Washington and its proxy Chad, now entered an alliance with the hardline Islamist opposition around Turabi? Or is the regime just using the JEM attack as an excuse to scapegoat Turabi? An editorial from Saudi Arabia's Arab News, May 13:

Chad-Sudan Standoff
The arrest — and then release — in Khartoum of opposition Islamist leader Hassan Turabi is a bizarre twist to what has been a bizarre course of events. Saturday’s raid on the Sudanese capital by a Darfur rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), was a bolt out the blue. Visibly shocked, the government of President Omar Bashir has taken the view that this could not have happened without help. In accusing both the government of neighboring Chad and Turabi of involvement, it suggests a remarkable conspiracy. The JEM — the most Islamist of all the myriad of Darfur rebel groups —certainly has had links with Turabi in the past and a faction, now split from it, is led by a former member of the republican guard of Chadian President Idriss Deby. Chad denies any involvement although the two countries have a history of interfering in each other.

This week’s attack, moreover, is a mirror image of a rebel assault on Chad’s capital three months ago, which the Chadians accused Khartoum of sponsoring. One of the great ironies in the present rivalry is that Deby would not be Chadian president but for Bashir. Having been forced to flee Chad, it was with Bashir’s support that he returned in 1990 at the head of an invasion force and captured the capital. The notion that Deby would link up with Islamists to attack the Sudanese is difficult to accept. He banned Islamist movements in Chad in 1996 and he has spent much time of late accusing Bashir of trying to export Islamism to sub-Saharan Africa. Following mediation by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Presidents Deby and Bashir were all smiles at the OIC summit in Dakar after signing a pledge not to support rebel attacks against each other. It seems strange that the Chadian president would renege so soon.

There are too many instances in Africa, particularly eastern Africa, of governments using rebel groups to destabilize neighbors and fight proxy wars. Whether or not Chadian and Sudanese accusations are true is irrelevant. What is needed is a change of relationship. Sudan’s response will not help that. Breaking off diplomatic relations and threats of retaliation will only worsen the situation. Sudan and Chad need to talk to each other. Sudan is not going to resolve the crisis in Darfur without involving Chad; nor is Chad going to deal with its own rebels without involving Sudan.

It would be unfortunate if the Darfur rebellion were to be taken over by extremist Islamists. The conflict is not about Islam. Both sides in the dispute are Muslim. It is an issue about ethnic cleansing and human rights. The JEM is already the most ambitious of the many Darfur rebel groups. It has already taken the fight to neighboring Kordofan province, attacked oil fields and threatened to drive foreign oil workers out of the country. If, with its extremist credentials, it were to become the leading Darfur rebel movement, many in the international community would lose interest. The people who would suffer in that situation would be the Darfuris themselves.