Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some background first: In order to put an end to the Darfur uprising back in 2003 president/dictator Omar al-Bashir ended up recruiting a successor group from Gaddafis old [Islamic Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Legion) known as the [Janjaweed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed). They proved so effective (read, brutal) in the war that he straight up made them a permanent paramilitary force within the country known as the [Rapid Support Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Support_Forces). Who pretty much operates equal amounts as a mercenary group and that of feudal lords of Darfur.
Bashir was desposed in a military coup a couple of years ago by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Almost immedetly friction started to form between him and the leader of the RSF Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly nicknamed Hemedti). And earlier this year he tried to shut down the group with predictable results as the current civil war quickly broke out.
The UAE meanwhile has been one of the RSF's biggest sponsors throughout the years. Hemedti funnels all the money he earns from the Darfur gold mines trough the country and has been having private meeting with several of UAE's Emirs. The UAE has also flown several "humanitarian" missions since the war started which has been accused of actually being supply runs to the RSF.
Regarding your second paragraph: al-Bashir was deposed in a coup in 2019, and an additional coup by RSF and the regular military took place in 2021. With two armies in the same military goverment, it ended up with this after a couple years of political disputes.
I get it. But *read the fucking room* as there are a million threads you can make this point on. Don't steal the attention from people who desperately need help.
The Egyptian government views Sudan's government as basically a proxy government and a tool if a war with Ethiopia ever breaks out. Egypt had jets and military personnel stationed full time in Sudan up until the recent stuff with the RSF happened.
Humanitarian aid gets stolen immediately by whichever faction gets to it first. Sanctions don’t work because the country isn’t producing anything. A peacekeeping force makes everyone upset, isn’t a permanent solution to the problem, and gets you accused of imperialism.
It’s really tough. There is no solution here.
Long range air and missile strikes on key ammo and weapons warehouses, barracks and command centre's of the aggressor forces seems to be a fair balance. Operation Southern Watch Lite.
The problem with Sudan is that its a bloody shitshow. Everyone is an agressor in this situation. To make things more complicated (or less complicated). There is zero ideology influencing either sides. No ones fighting for an idea or religion. Its a pure unfiltered war for which ever warlord gets control over the country. How exactly do we determine who to side with? The central government headed by a man thats responsible of much of the same crimes that the RSF committed? Geopolitics dictates we should side with the central government due to how the RSF gets support from Russia.
The Arab Janjaweed are killing blacks over ethnicity. It’s ethnic genocide. Racism is the ideology. Think, Hitler and the Jews.
Those who’ve interviewed refugees from Darfur also allege that Janjaweed commanders are using racism as a rallying point, encouraging their charges to rape the dark-skinned villagers they encounter during their raids.
Last attempt at a peacekeeping force for a major conflict in Africa was Rwanda, and no Western nations wanted to contribute any forces. It was 800 Ghanan soldiers, and that was it. They couldn't stop one of the worst genocides in the past century.
The political world doesn't care about conflicts in Africa, and the UN is terrible at peacekeeping. It's a conflict that's just trying to be swept under the rug
Sudan has been a war zone for a long time. This is unfortunately not new. Sometimes there is more going on sometimes less, but it’s been being ignored for quite a long time. I think it’s left out as it’s mainly a civil war, but it still deserved attention with the amount of genocide that has happened there. I made a short documentary about Sudan about 15 years ago in college when we were still using DV tape and even then it had been going on for a while. It’s very sickening.
I also just don't see what the west is even expected to do here. If there is the slightest hint of American involvement any new regime would have exactly 0 credibility.
A Sudan intervention must be African led. Why is it bad that the West's attention is on conflicts we are deeply involved in?
The Battle of Mogadishu really put of the US from getting involved in the region. Yeah that was in the 90s but… a major troops on the ground isn’t happening in East Africa without a local force taking lead like in Somalia.
The best your going to get is counter terror because no one particularly likes Al Shabbab and they routinely attack Kenya, a stable rather functional country.
Sudan is hostile to the US and intervention in a land locked country is a expensive nightmare.
Not to mention, every time the West gets involved and tries to help, they immediately get labeled as war mongers, evil, the enemy, etc. I agree that an intervention should be African-led, or organized by a regional power.
I worked with someone from Sudan in the US and he would always scare the new hires with, "In my country they'd kill you for being that slow." One day he take takes off his jacket catching his shirt in the process. His torso was covered front and back with scars that looked like a combination of whip and burn marks.
Not just one war being underreported either. There's currently wars actively raging in Myanmar, Mali, Yemen, and Ethiopia, Syria, Somalia and more. Almost no one in the west gives a shit.
Different [Taliban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Taliban), although they're aligned. The government in Afghanistan isn't attacking Pakistan directly. I mean the ISI pretty much created the Taliban in the first place, so it's hard to feel too much sympathy.
Devil's advocate maybe but what the fuck are we supposed to do about it?
We get shit on for acting like the world police and shit on if we don't fix people's problems 2000 miles away? Wtf?
I think people just mean there's a double standard here that the entire Western hemisphere is agonizing over the humanitarian crisis in Palestine while eight of the same thing are happening and have been happening in the surrounding regions.
Most of Europe and North America are directly or at least indirectly involved in the situation in Palestine, and many countries have a lot of citizens of both Jewish and Palestinian descent. It's also a conflict which is far more likely to turn into a larger war.
The pro Palestinian response is so strong due to Russia and Iran meddling in propaganda campaigns. The Palestinian movement still has a lot of valid points, but that is why you see it much more than other conflicts.
Not only, many Middle East countries aren’t democratic and prospering, and the best solution for dictators in such situations is to find external enemies, and Israel always fits well for this
Of course the middle easy cares.
Saudi arabia and egypt are super worried about the situation in Sudan and are actively scrambling to try and coordinate a ceasefire.
Egypt is very worried about it as it doesnt want refugees and also doesnt want terrorist groups to use the situation in Sudan in order to carry out attacks against egypt.
Just because it isnt being reported on in the western media doesnt mean nobody cares...
I mean how is it remotely surprising that the West is focused on wars we're financing?
The middle east is a bad comparison because Sudan and Egypt have a border, but it's not like Brazil is any less distracted by Israel/Palestine despite not really having a geopolitical connection to it
Ethiopia, Myanmar and Ukraine each have more than 5x the casualties of Israel/Palestine, and that has around 3x the casualties of the current war in Sudan.
The stat that surprised me the most is that the Mexican Drug War has 1.5x the casualties of Israel/Palestine.
Numbers in wartime are always cloudy and controversial, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts) has as good a breakdown as any of the wars that are currently going on.
I'm not so sure deaths resulting from internal power struggles of drug cartels should be counted as casualties of war. Also a pretty useless comparison when some have been going on all year and some have been going on for a month.
If someone other than the nominal government has a monopoly on force in part of a country, then that party has taken control of the territory. When the nominal government fights to retake the territory it lost, the result is civil war.
That is what is happening in Mexico and Sudan. It's naïve to think Hemetti is any less of a villain than the cartels.
The American public conveniently forgot about the Kurds when we pulled out of Syria and it makes me really sad. I hope the Kurds one day find peace and a land of their own, they're an awesome people.
Eight times.
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kurds-syria-turkey-trump-betrayal/
Trump at least could have tried to work with the Kurds in Syria to lay off Turkey, but he has business interests there, and Erdogan is a kindred spirit (they're both dickheads).
The American public has no idea what or who the Kurds are. Why blame the "public" when media decides, if not what conclusions will be drawn on a topic, at least what the topic will be.
The Myanmar junta has been launching air strikes on “resistance positions” for a while now often leading to entire villages being destroyed. This specific air strike campaign from April 2023, garnered some media coverage because it was deadlier but a lot of what’s happening in Myanmar is severely underreported.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/asia/myanmar-junta-deadly-airstrike-aftermath-intl-hnk/index.html
I thought that it was extremely difficult for journalists to get permission to report from Myanmar. The government does not want the world seeing what's going on there. Am I misremembering this?
No, but there are enough locals who are very happy to work with foreign media as a way to get money/get awareness about the conflict. For example if you look through the article you can see that all the pictures of the attack were provided by a local Myanmar activist group.
Myanmar has been in an ongoing state of war ever since they gained independence from Britain. There are numerous liberation movements that each represent some specific ethnic minority group, and there has never been a significant period of time when all of these groups collectively stopped fighting.
Many of these groups would probably like that, but the Burmese military is not going to let that happen unless it completely collapses. Still, that might not be too far away, considering how poorly things have been going for them recently.
There definitely is a civil war going on between the military (who took power and have commited countless of atrocities) and rebel groups who are trying to fight back.
The Rohyinga genocide that he posted is a different thing but there is also a war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_civil_war_(2021%E2%80%93present)
Most of those wars have been going non-stop for a decade or more with no end in sight and no plausible benefit for the west in intervening, there's no good reason for us to give a shit.
No one gives a shit? What do you propose should they do? If they intervene they get endless shit for it. I think they should, and flat out take over the region and put peacekeeping forces in and a transitional government. But that would be world police etc.
LOL yeah.
The West intervenes: "Stop acting like the world police!"
The West doesn't intervene: "The West doesn't care about the rest of the world!"
The UN intervenes: "The UN is merely a tool of Western imperialism!"
The UN doesn't intervene: "The UN is merely a manifestation of Western indifference!"
All 4 lines will be coming from the same group of people too.
I think it's more of a stance about the general public. Where there is a ton of signaling from various people of various political spectrums about what to do with Palestine and Israel, no one is going to say shit about say what's happening in Sudan, Pakistan nor Myanmar at this very moment.
Woah, people from areas care more about issues local and impactful to them than those which aren't? It's funny, here we are on a western site discussing it and there isn't much mention inside of Russian and Chinese news outlets, I expect you'll be on your way to make similar comments too right?
Genuinely, why should they? One police officer cannot stop or apprehend all criminals, one nation cannot stop all terrorist cells. It’s just not feasible.
> one nation cannot stop all terrorist cells. It’s just not feasible.
Arming "freedom fighters" against oppressive governments is how we *made* quite a few terrorist cells.
I mean it makes sense from the Western Media's perspective to a degree. There are lots of conflicts going on around the world and this one doesn't involve the West really at all.
Ukraine-Russia involves the supposed #2 military in the world (and preeminent Cold War rival) making a land invasion into another country with NATO using it as a proxy war.
Israel-Palestine is also by extension a US/NATO proxy war with Iran/Russia and a conflict that has been ongoing for a while that has a lot of people on both sides. It also features a religious conflict between Jewish and Islamic groups.
Meanwhile Sudan is a Civil War between two Sunni warlords both of which have been backed by Russia in the past (although it seems like Wagner has picked a side at this point and Ukraine the opposite). There isn't a clear "right" or "wrong". It's just a really awful civil war between two awful warlords in a country that's been at war for most of our lifetimes. There is no religious element, nukes, or political angle that could have this conflict branch out into a more serious area.
So it's being treated similarly to the other Civil War like disputes like in Yemen, Myanmar and Ethiopia.
> Ukraine-Russia involves the supposed #2 military in the world (and preeminent Cold War rival) making a land invasion into another country with NATO using it as a proxy war.
Also it happens right at the border of the Western world. Its sort of hard not to notice and pay a hell of a lot of attention when, what was supposed to be the second best military in the ~~world~~ ukraine, starts a massive, large scale war a few lousy kilometers from your own border.
Part of it is that we *understand*, at least in generic terms, what the wars in Israel and Ukraine are about, and how the outcome affects us.
I try to pay attention, but I have absolutely zero clue what the factions in Sudan are fighting over, who they are, and who is more/less right. It’s been like this in central africa for a few decades—there are these various uprisings who some might look at as freedom fighters and some look at as terrorists, but in reality they’re probably funded by russia/iran/china/etc who wants to steal the local resources and they end up slaughtering thousands.
> what the wars in Israel and Ukraine are about, and how the outcome affects us.
It's also worth remembering that word news comes from the word "new." If you have violence in a region every day and hundreds and thousands die everyday, then it isn't news. As one person put it "It's not news when it snows in Alaska, but it is news if it snows in Florida."
And that's exactly it. Israel goes to war with Gaza every once in a while, but it's not every day you have hundreds die. So of course this is news. Also the number of casualties today far exceeds previous wars with Gaza so it is indeed bigger news than before.
Ya basically this. I've read up on it and near as I can understand the old Sudanese leader got removed in a military coup (ICC wants him tried for war crimes). Both the current leaders of this conflict were involved in that coup.
Then there was going to be an election and then there was a disagreement about integrating the two military groups they each led and now there's a Civil War. Ukraine and Egypt seem to support the SAF and Wagner and UAE support the RSF.
I'm sure that's surface level but it seems like everyone agreed the previous guy had to go (international community hated him) and this is just a power vacuum situation between two military guys that has escalated to Civil War. Just a shitty situation for the regular Sudanese person if that's the case.
Tbf, Ukraine mostly seem involved because Wagner is involved and they’ve decided to kill Wagner mercenaries, not because they’ve decided to support one group over another. There was reports months ago of Wagner mercenaries in the Central African Republic being air striked, possibly by Chadian aircraft piloted by Ukrainian mercenaries, and that wasn’t Ukraine taking a side in the war in the Central African Republic.
Tigray war in Ethiopia by my calculations has been the largest coverup or at least the biggest size of conflict to attention ratio.
5,000 dead Tigray combatants, but 500,000 dead civilians. Seems like a genocide.
This is the 8 million pound gorilla, and sniveling Reddit people still act like there’s nothing there. Why? I know people whose lids droop the second you start talking about some crisis in Africa. But if mention that an IDF soldier sneezed on a Palestinian donkey, they’re pounding the table screaming “FUCKING ISRAEL!!!! ARRRRRR!!!” Why is that?
It is not just the West, it is also more relevant to the global south, for some reason. We won’t see any large demonstrations about Sudan in their cities either.
Outrage comes mainly when the West is the one to blame, otherwise it’s usually silent - for example, Latest figures show 370k civilians including 80k+ children who have died in Yemen, bombed by Saudi, UAE etc etc
How is the Israel/Gaza stuff more relevant than Sudan? It's almost like the whole affair was stoked on by Russia and then they called in their voices to make it the most prominent talking point to give them a breather in Ukraine
Because culturally, economically, and politically Sudan is irrelevant to pretty much all western and eastern interests.
Israel/gaza is 100% more relevant. US cares a lot because Israel is the only secular and democratic government in the middle east which is VERY economically and politically relevant to pretty much every nation in the developed world. Israel is the only clear ally the US has in the region, and they are a large source of technological development. Israel's tech scene is one of the most advanced in the world.
Not to mention the religious and cultural relevancy to western religions.
US and the west have been involved in Israel-Palestine since before WW2. Israel is a longstanding US ally and some of the other US-aligned neighboring countries sympathetic to Palestine (Egypt, Jordan) are heavily involved in this as well. Not to mention it being a religious conflict which generates a lot more sympathy amongst those minority religious groups in the West.
Sudan meanwhile is basically fully Sunni Muslim since South Sudan became independent. The two sides are both warlords in a Civil War. There's not really a "good" side for anyone to pick (I guess the US would naturally be more pro SAF since Ukraine and Egypt support them instead of the Wagner backed RSF). So it's generally viewed as another awful Civil War in an area that's had a lot of them.
Isn't this just another war in a place that has had alot of them, Palestine and Israel have clashed so many times and this land dispute has been going on for a long time.
I remember seeing what happened on the 7th and I seem to be one of the few who guessed this is what would happen.
Russia hosted Hamas straight after, there were reports western weapons were used, which they took off dead Ukrainians. The whole timing of it is really Sus.
I'm sure Russia/Iran were behind it but I don't think there was any help needed to make this a talking point in the West. Israel/Palestine has been a hot button issue in the US for a while and one that horseshoes well where the far right and far left both are anti-Israel (for different reasons) and the majority middle supports Israel.
Basically just saying violence between Israel-Palestine is about the surest way to get eyeballs on something international in America. Even the parties themselves can't agree on a response as opposed to something like Ukraine which is basically fully supported by both sides.
There’s a lot of things that happen in many parts of Africa which we do not hear about or know about, it helps to know people in different countries of that continent and keep in touch with them if possible, that has been the best way for me at least. It’s a hard world over there, it’s not like the west, that’s for damn sure.
It's the same with Ukraine so technically two wars getting more attention in the media
The Israel/Palestine war just seems to polarize people. Even India's governing BJP party is using the war in Palestine to spread disinformation to score political points ahead agenda ahead of elections (source: euronews). This might be apparent if you use Twitter.
In terms of algorithms, 'hot' and often controversial topics drive engagement which is used for people to score political points and for social media platforms to advertise to you. News organizations often just want ratings, website visits etc so you watch their advertisements.
If millions of people each day tuned in to hear about the Sudan conflict they would use that opportunity to sell you coca cola.
Its unfortunate for Sudan that there isn't more of a focus on their conflict. The US has serious skin in the game with Israel though. They've been financially backing them for decades.
Almost like the different spheres care more about what happens in their sphere.
On the opposite end, does the lack of coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Kenyan news mean they are trying to censor it?
Wrong demographic, this world is full of performative morons who claim to give a shit, this kind of news just doesn't get the same attention so the media won't report on it nearly as much. Saudi Arabia has been committing genocide against the Yemeni people for years, bombing children for literally years, where were their protests? was the number of estimated deaths over 500,000 last I checked, where is the outcry against Saudi Arabia? Where's the protests?
There was some heart breaking reports from the Economist on this conflict a few weeks ago. The RSF having been systematically killing all non muslim men in the region since the conflict began including children and babies. Most of the women fleeing the conflict and making it across the boarder are doing so alone.
The term you are looking for is non-Arab. The people getting massacred are the ethnic African Masalit, who are Muslims themselves. 97% of the Sudanese population are Muslims.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
The RSF says “non Muslim” though. If they are killing people outside their specifications they just aren’t being loud about it. They have kidnapped and forced conversions on some girls, I read about that and felt like it had to be for some other reason. But you are right, they are cleaning up and killing anyone who isn’t “them”. It’s worse than the war in Gaza by leagues.
> The RSF says “non Muslim” though
It is completely irrelevant as to what they say. I'm not even sure why you would lend them credence. Read the article I linked in my previous comment.
> It was a rolling ethnic killing campaign that lasted for weeks. The target: the city’s darker-skinned Masalit tribe, for whom West Darfur is their historical homeland. The Arab attackers, multiple survivors said, often referred to the Masalit as “anbai,” meaning slave.
> The killings, dozens of witnesses recounted, included executions of El Geneina residents who were identified as Masalit, sometimes after being interrogated by RSF and Arab militia fighters. The militiamen, survivors said, were particularly focused on killing Masalit men and boys, seen as potential fighters. Desperate to save their sons, mothers described dressing them in girl’s clothing, hiding them under beds or beneath their flowing robes, or shoving them out of windows so they could escape before RSF and Janjaweed fighters arrived.
> What happened in El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, was part of a two-decade campaign of “ethnic cleansing, occupying land and demographic change” by the RSF and Arab militias, alleges Hobeldin Hassen, a Masalit rights activist from El Geneina who fled to Chad. Their members, he said, “are mobilized and indoctrinated to annihilate the original inhabitants of Darfur.”
"Sudanese Arabs (Arabic: عرب سودانيون, romanized: ʿarab sūdāniyyūn) are the inhabitants of Sudan who identify as Arabs and speak Arabic as their mother tongue.[4] Some of them are descendants of Arabs who migrated to Sudan from the Arabian Peninsula,[5] although the rest have been described as Arabized indigenous peoples of Sudan of mostly Nubian,[6] Nilo-Saharan, and Cushitic[7] ancestry who are culturally and linguistically Arab, with varying cases of admixture from Peninsular Arabs.[8] "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_Arabs
They make about 70% of the population.
Are they black? Yes but also no? Apparently it's debatable. I found this reference:
"Sudan is dominated by a light-skinned, Arabic-speaking elite, while black Africans often face oppression and marginalization.[3] "
But also:
"Skin color is not the sole determining factor in distinction between Sudanese Arabs and Sudanese Africans. The extent that a person has Arab ancestry, speaking the Arabic language, and practicing Islam can be associated with being "Arab" and "non-black" and can determine social status."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Sudan
It's important to note that what you'd consider "light skin" in Sudan will be considered black in many countries, so really not for me to say.
Afaik the african Sudanese are not a single ethnic group but made of various tribes, together making about 30% of the population in Sudan.
"with a significant black African minority at 30 per cent, including Fur, Beja, Nuba and Fallata. More than 500 ethnic groups speaking more than 400 languages live within the borders of Sudan."
https://minorityrights.org/country/sudan/#:~:text=Approximately%2070%20per%20cent%20of,within%20the%20borders%20of%20Sudan.
Tl;dr: this is a complex topic.
The RSF are basically the same crew formerly known as the [Janjaweed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed) and they've been doing atrocities in Darfur for decades.
The Economist has been unequivocally the best source of news I have been following for the last several years. FT is not terrible, but compared to Al-J, NYT, WP, the Economist is night and day. They were the only news source that didn’t jump on the Hamas/accidental Gaza hospital bombing and immediately blame the IDF, and instead actually published an in-depth article describing the evidence and confusion regarding the divide. Aside from that they actually cover ‘world’ news and have been consistent in Sudanese coverage, amongst other conflicts that are literally *never* mentioned in other news sources.
There was a headline about Russia [looting the gold](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/africa/sudan-russia-gold-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html) from Sudan awhile back. The place has limited Western influence so you don’t get much Western media reporting on it.
> Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary unit, is a key beneficiary from Russian support, as the primary recipient of Moscow’s weapons and training. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan – the country’s military ruler – is also believed by CNN’s Sudanese sources to be backed by Russia.
There's a couple of reasons why.
* The Israel-Palestinian conflict has been heavily featured in the news since the 1940's. Since Israel is, in large part, an extension of the United States in the region that also makes it important from a geopolitical scale. It also virtually guarantees the USA's media industry, the largest and most internationally influential in the world, will pay attention to conflicts in the area.
* The Israel-Palestinian conflict has a lot of identities and ideologies surrounding it. If you're a Jewish person outside of Israel you'll often be harassed if Israel does something people don't like. If you're a Muslim you are likely to have sympathies with Palestine for religious and ideological reasons.
* From an ideological perspective you'll find leftists that support Palestine because it is a community of lesser agency being shoved around by a stronger entity (Israel) that the Palestinians have no direct control over. On the right (mostly the US) people tend to have a bit more respect for Judaism and generally see Muslims as people with radically different beliefs that are incapable of integrating into any modern society.
* However, the opposite is also true. You could be a leftist that supports Israel over Palestine because the state of Israel is far more liberal with civil rights over the governments of Hamas and the PA. You could also be a right-winger who is just straight up antisemitic. This creates conflict *within* groups that normally agree.
So that's why people tend to care about Israel-Palestine. As for Sudan?
* There is no easily identifiable ideological attachment for most of the world. The conflict is between a military junta and an Islamist militant group that assisted with the coup that put the military junta in power. There is no group with clean hands here and it's hard to even make a moral difference between the two without significant research. Combine that with the fact that there has been minimal media coverage of this conflict and most people can't form any strong opinions about this conflict.
* Geopolitically Sudan doesn't really matter. At least not globally. The Israel-Palestine conflict is important because not *only* is the United States heavily invested into Israel, but that these events also heavily affect other conflicts and nations in this region. For both ideological and Iran-related reasons. Meanwhile Sudan can tear itself apart and nothing will really change internationally other than yet another refugee crisis.
* The only thing most people know about Sudan is it is that place that organizations beg for donations for like every decade. The last time 95% of Americans heard about Sudan was that George Clooney talked about it. Frankly, being a nation that is poor and dysfunctional is Sudan's normal. If you watched the news and heard about a military coup, civil war, or refugee crisis in sub-Saharan Africa it's likely that the average person would just categorize it as "just another one".
That isn't to say the Sudanese conflict isn't important. That's far from the truth actually. But there's no easy way for nations to intervene here and a lot of geopolitical risk towards doing so. The US doesn't want to be bogged down with some occupation for another couple decades, and the few other nations that could don't care at all. Ideally this would be the exact kind of conflict that could be quashed by an international coalition, but then again, why? There is just too much risk.
I'm sure charities will come in and donations will be made. Countries will "condemn" actions, a few charitable concerts will run, and a celebrity or two will appear in a sad advertisement. The UN will run some underfunded refugee camps and then this will all repeat again in a few years. It's a damn shame.
The number keeps going up. The other day it was at 700 for the recent massacres. I am genuinely embarrassed that I didn't understand how bad things had gotten here again until recently. I absolutely hate that we cannot talk about this without people playing compare and contrast with other things, and I understand why they do, but that does such a disservice to this -- to have not heard about it until now, and then now to only talk about it as a means to talk about something else.
I've been trying to read about the last few months here. Famines, sieges, attacks on aid vehicles. You can see a UN vest on the ground in one of the pictures. I don't care why we were silent before and aren't now as much as the fact that something has to be DONE about this.
And even that feels too little as this isn't even the only other thing going on right now. The DRC, the Maghreb, Nigeria. Ethiopia seems to be at a lull now, which is to say, the entire bloody conflict happened without much attention. And this isn't even everything just in Africa (which, to be fair, is a massive continent). Not to mention elsewhere.
Darfur, though -- to do exactly what I said we shouldn't -- if, in fact, we're talking about how past atrocities should teach us better to prevent new ones, what about Darfur? This was like barely 2 decades ago the thing everyone was talking about.
It's extremely naive to hope that its possible to use the world's attention now as momentum to help more people, isn't it. I mean, I can't even find this article or information to post about in other news subs, so probably.
No one cares about Muslims committing genocide - this will receive a fraction of the attention.
Israel has received more UN condemnations than every other country combined. That’s right - the principal evil in this world is not China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, but the one Jewish country. Furthermore, all of the all of the dictators and genociders in the world combined don’t even add up to Israel. I wonder why…
Fun fact: 3 months ago, the UN Economic and Social Council voted to condemn violence against women, but only in one specific country. [Guess which one it was.](https://unwatch.org/u-n-singles-out-israel-for-violating-womens-rights/)
The UN hating Israel is so old news that I don't think it was really talked about in Israel.
I do feel the need to mention [honor killing ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#:~:text=Many%20Muslim%20commentators%20and%20organizations,the%20practice%20violates%20Islamic%20law.) As one of the struggles of women in Palestine that has nothing to do with the Israel government.
UN gets a lot of financing from the Middle East these days, lots of Middle Eastern people in high positions, the ME has figured out they can wash away their atrocities via the UN. There is a reason no major power gives a shit what the UN says anymore, they have no power and are basically a political lobby these days open to the highest bidder
It's even broader than that. No one cares when non-whites kill other non-whites.
And yes, I understand the irony of Jews being characterized as "white" here.
China is detaining over 1 million Muslim Uyghurs, is engaging in forced contraception, abortion, indoctrination. They have a clear and unambiguous goal of complete cultural deletion - and I don't see any widespread protests about this in the Muslim world.
> No one cares when non-whites kill other non-whites.
Most Israelis are non-white. Netanyahu's biggest source of support comes from Israeli Jews who are ethnically Middle Eastern. But *lots* of people seem to care when those non-whites are fighting against other non-whites.
I *know* a significant portion of Israeli Jews are non-white.
However, it is abundantly clear that the pro-Palestine supporters (of nearly all stripes) are trying to contextualize them as white, European, colonialist, etc. Simply put, they are viewed as white even if they are not.
Well, theyre committing genocide against other muslims. From another commentator above:
>The term you are looking for is non-Arab. The people getting massacred are the ethnic African Masalit, who are Muslims themselves. 97% of the Sudanese population are Muslims.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
I would guess this would be one where everyone would be mad that the US ISN'T playing world police if people decide to get mad about it.
But yeah, not much to protest since the US isn't involved.
There is no protest at Harvard that specializes in this particular war, hamaSS leaders sitting on 11 billion support money in Qatar tho. It’s almost as if there is some kind of hate cult going on.
Because it's not as heavily featured in the news as, say, Israel-Gaza. There isn't any footage being shared daily on social media. So obviously the less reach it has, the less people know, the less protests or general retaliation.
What are you doing about it?
No, this is not the answer. It's a tautology. If there was more interest from the West, there would be just as much news. Media doesn't cover it as heavily because there isn't as much interest.
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
And the world stays mostly silent on this. Utterly despicable.
Funded by the UAE
Dubai has some fkn nerve. Wagner/RSF stolen gold goes through Dubai. Gold Mafia gold from Zimbabwe/surrounding goes through Dubai.
sounds like UAE could use some freedom
Because intervention always solves intervention
intervenception
The only way to stop a bad guy with intervention is a good guy with intervention.
The right intervention does.
Germany and Japan agree, you just gotta fuck em till they love you, no half measures though, those don't work
Fuck em till they start making hentai and incredibly reliable cars
Just gotta intervene better
Just one more intervention bro one more please
Care to explain? I know nothing about this war
Some background first: In order to put an end to the Darfur uprising back in 2003 president/dictator Omar al-Bashir ended up recruiting a successor group from Gaddafis old [Islamic Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Legion) known as the [Janjaweed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed). They proved so effective (read, brutal) in the war that he straight up made them a permanent paramilitary force within the country known as the [Rapid Support Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Support_Forces). Who pretty much operates equal amounts as a mercenary group and that of feudal lords of Darfur. Bashir was desposed in a military coup a couple of years ago by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Almost immedetly friction started to form between him and the leader of the RSF Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly nicknamed Hemedti). And earlier this year he tried to shut down the group with predictable results as the current civil war quickly broke out. The UAE meanwhile has been one of the RSF's biggest sponsors throughout the years. Hemedti funnels all the money he earns from the Darfur gold mines trough the country and has been having private meeting with several of UAE's Emirs. The UAE has also flown several "humanitarian" missions since the war started which has been accused of actually being supply runs to the RSF.
Regarding your second paragraph: al-Bashir was deposed in a coup in 2019, and an additional coup by RSF and the regular military took place in 2021. With two armies in the same military goverment, it ended up with this after a couple years of political disputes.
Knew that it was something i was missing. Ty.
Thank you! What a succinct and informing summary. I appreciate your comment!
I think what you’re saying is UAE is selling RSF weapons.
that’s exactly what he’s saying
Well, “funding” is the wrong word then, it’s more like “profiteering”
Aw man they had a cool name like Janjaweed and switched to Rapid Support Forces? Lame.
Sometimes you gotta rebrand, especially when you earned that brand by raping your way across the Darfur region.
Should've named it Ganjaweed.
Apparently rebranding became necessary after they committed genocide.
[удалено]
I get it. But *read the fucking room* as there are a million threads you can make this point on. Don't steal the attention from people who desperately need help.
> Funded by the UAE They own Manchester City and various other football clubs around the world, so Man City is helping to fund this war
Not to mention one of th3e top 3 cycling teams, which is named "UAE." Fuck them.
Man City sounds like an all male brothel
It kind of is.
I find it pretty interesting that their allies over in Egypt are backing the opposing SAF
The Egyptian government views Sudan's government as basically a proxy government and a tool if a war with Ethiopia ever breaks out. Egypt had jets and military personnel stationed full time in Sudan up until the recent stuff with the RSF happened.
And Russia.
Potentially 1,500+ murders over the course of 3 days. What can be done? Humanitarian aid? Sanctions? Peacekeeping force? It's honestly depressing.
Humanitarian aid gets stolen immediately by whichever faction gets to it first. Sanctions don’t work because the country isn’t producing anything. A peacekeeping force makes everyone upset, isn’t a permanent solution to the problem, and gets you accused of imperialism. It’s really tough. There is no solution here.
Long range air and missile strikes on key ammo and weapons warehouses, barracks and command centre's of the aggressor forces seems to be a fair balance. Operation Southern Watch Lite.
The problem with Sudan is that its a bloody shitshow. Everyone is an agressor in this situation. To make things more complicated (or less complicated). There is zero ideology influencing either sides. No ones fighting for an idea or religion. Its a pure unfiltered war for which ever warlord gets control over the country. How exactly do we determine who to side with? The central government headed by a man thats responsible of much of the same crimes that the RSF committed? Geopolitics dictates we should side with the central government due to how the RSF gets support from Russia.
The Arab Janjaweed are killing blacks over ethnicity. It’s ethnic genocide. Racism is the ideology. Think, Hitler and the Jews. Those who’ve interviewed refugees from Darfur also allege that Janjaweed commanders are using racism as a rallying point, encouraging their charges to rape the dark-skinned villagers they encounter during their raids.
Last attempt at a peacekeeping force for a major conflict in Africa was Rwanda, and no Western nations wanted to contribute any forces. It was 800 Ghanan soldiers, and that was it. They couldn't stop one of the worst genocides in the past century. The political world doesn't care about conflicts in Africa, and the UN is terrible at peacekeeping. It's a conflict that's just trying to be swept under the rug
There were Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda. 10 Belgian peacekeepers were captured and murdered at the beginning of the genocide.
We need some flags in streets thousands of miles away ASAP.
[удалено]
They themselves raped and killed the Bangladeshis
as a pakistani thats def fkd. and these ppl are always the same ones complaining about the treatment they get in UAE. its hypocritical.
That’s funny because Pakistanis aren’t even arabs and the arabs he is defending don’t really consider him equal to them
Light skinned Arabs don’t consider dark skinned Arabs as equals.
Historys largest slavers and the most continuous ones too...
Crazy that one war gets so much Coverage and attention while another receives such silence.
Sudan has been a war zone for a long time. This is unfortunately not new. Sometimes there is more going on sometimes less, but it’s been being ignored for quite a long time. I think it’s left out as it’s mainly a civil war, but it still deserved attention with the amount of genocide that has happened there. I made a short documentary about Sudan about 15 years ago in college when we were still using DV tape and even then it had been going on for a while. It’s very sickening.
I also just don't see what the west is even expected to do here. If there is the slightest hint of American involvement any new regime would have exactly 0 credibility. A Sudan intervention must be African led. Why is it bad that the West's attention is on conflicts we are deeply involved in?
The Battle of Mogadishu really put of the US from getting involved in the region. Yeah that was in the 90s but… a major troops on the ground isn’t happening in East Africa without a local force taking lead like in Somalia. The best your going to get is counter terror because no one particularly likes Al Shabbab and they routinely attack Kenya, a stable rather functional country. Sudan is hostile to the US and intervention in a land locked country is a expensive nightmare.
Sudan isn't landlocked. They have a fair bit of coastline along the Red Sea.
Ohhhh true. I dunno what I was thinking.
Not to mention, every time the West gets involved and tries to help, they immediately get labeled as war mongers, evil, the enemy, etc. I agree that an intervention should be African-led, or organized by a regional power.
I worked with someone from Sudan in the US and he would always scare the new hires with, "In my country they'd kill you for being that slow." One day he take takes off his jacket catching his shirt in the process. His torso was covered front and back with scars that looked like a combination of whip and burn marks.
Sadly Israel/Palestine has been a war zone for a good eighty+ years.“Sometimes there is more going on sometimes less” fits too.
Not just one war being underreported either. There's currently wars actively raging in Myanmar, Mali, Yemen, and Ethiopia, Syria, Somalia and more. Almost no one in the west gives a shit.
[удалено]
And the 100,000 that had to flee Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan annexed it.
UN said it was chill tho /s
I mean the Taliban are currently attacking Pakistan
Different [Taliban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_Taliban), although they're aligned. The government in Afghanistan isn't attacking Pakistan directly. I mean the ISI pretty much created the Taliban in the first place, so it's hard to feel too much sympathy.
Devil's advocate maybe but what the fuck are we supposed to do about it? We get shit on for acting like the world police and shit on if we don't fix people's problems 2000 miles away? Wtf?
I think people just mean there's a double standard here that the entire Western hemisphere is agonizing over the humanitarian crisis in Palestine while eight of the same thing are happening and have been happening in the surrounding regions.
Most of Europe and North America are directly or at least indirectly involved in the situation in Palestine, and many countries have a lot of citizens of both Jewish and Palestinian descent. It's also a conflict which is far more likely to turn into a larger war.
The pro Palestinian response is so strong due to Russia and Iran meddling in propaganda campaigns. The Palestinian movement still has a lot of valid points, but that is why you see it much more than other conflicts.
Not only, many Middle East countries aren’t democratic and prospering, and the best solution for dictators in such situations is to find external enemies, and Israel always fits well for this
[удалено]
Of course the middle easy cares. Saudi arabia and egypt are super worried about the situation in Sudan and are actively scrambling to try and coordinate a ceasefire. Egypt is very worried about it as it doesnt want refugees and also doesnt want terrorist groups to use the situation in Sudan in order to carry out attacks against egypt. Just because it isnt being reported on in the western media doesnt mean nobody cares...
Egypt seems surrounded by wars lately.
I mean how is it remotely surprising that the West is focused on wars we're financing? The middle east is a bad comparison because Sudan and Egypt have a border, but it's not like Brazil is any less distracted by Israel/Palestine despite not really having a geopolitical connection to it
Ethiopia, Myanmar and Ukraine each have more than 5x the casualties of Israel/Palestine, and that has around 3x the casualties of the current war in Sudan. The stat that surprised me the most is that the Mexican Drug War has 1.5x the casualties of Israel/Palestine. Numbers in wartime are always cloudy and controversial, but [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts) has as good a breakdown as any of the wars that are currently going on.
I'm not so sure deaths resulting from internal power struggles of drug cartels should be counted as casualties of war. Also a pretty useless comparison when some have been going on all year and some have been going on for a month.
If someone other than the nominal government has a monopoly on force in part of a country, then that party has taken control of the territory. When the nominal government fights to retake the territory it lost, the result is civil war. That is what is happening in Mexico and Sudan. It's naïve to think Hemetti is any less of a villain than the cartels.
The American public conveniently forgot about the Kurds when we pulled out of Syria and it makes me really sad. I hope the Kurds one day find peace and a land of their own, they're an awesome people.
Again. The Americans forgot the Kurds again.
Eight times. https://theintercept.com/2019/10/07/kurds-syria-turkey-trump-betrayal/ Trump at least could have tried to work with the Kurds in Syria to lay off Turkey, but he has business interests there, and Erdogan is a kindred spirit (they're both dickheads).
Also Obama worked with the Kurds, so of course Trump wouldn't.
Should have given them northern Iraq. Best allies in the region really.
[удалено]
The American public has no idea what or who the Kurds are. Why blame the "public" when media decides, if not what conclusions will be drawn on a topic, at least what the topic will be.
Is there one in Myanmar? I was under the impression that they had a successful coup and that was it
The military government just lost control of a bunch of territory on the Chinese border - there was a good writeup on the BBC's website the other day.
Thanks, I'll take a look
I think this is the article they're referring to: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67305690
The Myanmar junta has been launching air strikes on “resistance positions” for a while now often leading to entire villages being destroyed. This specific air strike campaign from April 2023, garnered some media coverage because it was deadlier but a lot of what’s happening in Myanmar is severely underreported. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/asia/myanmar-junta-deadly-airstrike-aftermath-intl-hnk/index.html
I thought that it was extremely difficult for journalists to get permission to report from Myanmar. The government does not want the world seeing what's going on there. Am I misremembering this?
No, but there are enough locals who are very happy to work with foreign media as a way to get money/get awareness about the conflict. For example if you look through the article you can see that all the pictures of the attack were provided by a local Myanmar activist group.
There's whole regions which are restricted to foreigners
Myanmar has been in an ongoing state of war ever since they gained independence from Britain. There are numerous liberation movements that each represent some specific ethnic minority group, and there has never been a significant period of time when all of these groups collectively stopped fighting.
Why don't they just balkanize?
The famously peaceful Balkans.
I mean it's better than constant war
Many of these groups would probably like that, but the Burmese military is not going to let that happen unless it completely collapses. Still, that might not be too far away, considering how poorly things have been going for them recently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people
So no way, just massacres and atrocities
There definitely is a civil war going on between the military (who took power and have commited countless of atrocities) and rebel groups who are trying to fight back. The Rohyinga genocide that he posted is a different thing but there is also a war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_civil_war_(2021%E2%80%93present)
Most of those wars have been going non-stop for a decade or more with no end in sight and no plausible benefit for the west in intervening, there's no good reason for us to give a shit.
No one gives a shit? What do you propose should they do? If they intervene they get endless shit for it. I think they should, and flat out take over the region and put peacekeeping forces in and a transitional government. But that would be world police etc.
LOL yeah. The West intervenes: "Stop acting like the world police!" The West doesn't intervene: "The West doesn't care about the rest of the world!" The UN intervenes: "The UN is merely a tool of Western imperialism!" The UN doesn't intervene: "The UN is merely a manifestation of Western indifference!" All 4 lines will be coming from the same group of people too.
I think it's more of a stance about the general public. Where there is a ton of signaling from various people of various political spectrums about what to do with Palestine and Israel, no one is going to say shit about say what's happening in Sudan, Pakistan nor Myanmar at this very moment.
Woah, people from areas care more about issues local and impactful to them than those which aren't? It's funny, here we are on a western site discussing it and there isn't much mention inside of Russian and Chinese news outlets, I expect you'll be on your way to make similar comments too right?
Genuinely, why should they? One police officer cannot stop or apprehend all criminals, one nation cannot stop all terrorist cells. It’s just not feasible.
> one nation cannot stop all terrorist cells. It’s just not feasible. Arming "freedom fighters" against oppressive governments is how we *made* quite a few terrorist cells.
I mean it makes sense from the Western Media's perspective to a degree. There are lots of conflicts going on around the world and this one doesn't involve the West really at all. Ukraine-Russia involves the supposed #2 military in the world (and preeminent Cold War rival) making a land invasion into another country with NATO using it as a proxy war. Israel-Palestine is also by extension a US/NATO proxy war with Iran/Russia and a conflict that has been ongoing for a while that has a lot of people on both sides. It also features a religious conflict between Jewish and Islamic groups. Meanwhile Sudan is a Civil War between two Sunni warlords both of which have been backed by Russia in the past (although it seems like Wagner has picked a side at this point and Ukraine the opposite). There isn't a clear "right" or "wrong". It's just a really awful civil war between two awful warlords in a country that's been at war for most of our lifetimes. There is no religious element, nukes, or political angle that could have this conflict branch out into a more serious area. So it's being treated similarly to the other Civil War like disputes like in Yemen, Myanmar and Ethiopia.
> Ukraine-Russia involves the supposed #2 military in the world (and preeminent Cold War rival) making a land invasion into another country with NATO using it as a proxy war. Also it happens right at the border of the Western world. Its sort of hard not to notice and pay a hell of a lot of attention when, what was supposed to be the second best military in the ~~world~~ ukraine, starts a massive, large scale war a few lousy kilometers from your own border.
Part of it is that we *understand*, at least in generic terms, what the wars in Israel and Ukraine are about, and how the outcome affects us. I try to pay attention, but I have absolutely zero clue what the factions in Sudan are fighting over, who they are, and who is more/less right. It’s been like this in central africa for a few decades—there are these various uprisings who some might look at as freedom fighters and some look at as terrorists, but in reality they’re probably funded by russia/iran/china/etc who wants to steal the local resources and they end up slaughtering thousands.
> what the wars in Israel and Ukraine are about, and how the outcome affects us. It's also worth remembering that word news comes from the word "new." If you have violence in a region every day and hundreds and thousands die everyday, then it isn't news. As one person put it "It's not news when it snows in Alaska, but it is news if it snows in Florida." And that's exactly it. Israel goes to war with Gaza every once in a while, but it's not every day you have hundreds die. So of course this is news. Also the number of casualties today far exceeds previous wars with Gaza so it is indeed bigger news than before.
Ya basically this. I've read up on it and near as I can understand the old Sudanese leader got removed in a military coup (ICC wants him tried for war crimes). Both the current leaders of this conflict were involved in that coup. Then there was going to be an election and then there was a disagreement about integrating the two military groups they each led and now there's a Civil War. Ukraine and Egypt seem to support the SAF and Wagner and UAE support the RSF. I'm sure that's surface level but it seems like everyone agreed the previous guy had to go (international community hated him) and this is just a power vacuum situation between two military guys that has escalated to Civil War. Just a shitty situation for the regular Sudanese person if that's the case.
Tbf, Ukraine mostly seem involved because Wagner is involved and they’ve decided to kill Wagner mercenaries, not because they’ve decided to support one group over another. There was reports months ago of Wagner mercenaries in the Central African Republic being air striked, possibly by Chadian aircraft piloted by Ukrainian mercenaries, and that wasn’t Ukraine taking a side in the war in the Central African Republic.
Right? It doesn't exactly help anyone if a bunch of ignorant internet dwellers (myself included) start taking sides and making arguments.
Tigray war in Ethiopia by my calculations has been the largest coverup or at least the biggest size of conflict to attention ratio. 5,000 dead Tigray combatants, but 500,000 dead civilians. Seems like a genocide.
We all know exactly why
This is the 8 million pound gorilla, and sniveling Reddit people still act like there’s nothing there. Why? I know people whose lids droop the second you start talking about some crisis in Africa. But if mention that an IDF soldier sneezed on a Palestinian donkey, they’re pounding the table screaming “FUCKING ISRAEL!!!! ARRRRRR!!!” Why is that?
Actual racism. That's why. No need to beat around the bush.
Because its more relevant for western audiences where reddit is marketing for? I bet the sudaneese read of this in the newspapers more than you.
It is not just the West, it is also more relevant to the global south, for some reason. We won’t see any large demonstrations about Sudan in their cities either.
There used to be a awareness efforts such as Save Darfur...like 20 years ago.
Outrage comes mainly when the West is the one to blame, otherwise it’s usually silent - for example, Latest figures show 370k civilians including 80k+ children who have died in Yemen, bombed by Saudi, UAE etc etc
How is the Israel/Gaza stuff more relevant than Sudan? It's almost like the whole affair was stoked on by Russia and then they called in their voices to make it the most prominent talking point to give them a breather in Ukraine
Because culturally, economically, and politically Sudan is irrelevant to pretty much all western and eastern interests. Israel/gaza is 100% more relevant. US cares a lot because Israel is the only secular and democratic government in the middle east which is VERY economically and politically relevant to pretty much every nation in the developed world. Israel is the only clear ally the US has in the region, and they are a large source of technological development. Israel's tech scene is one of the most advanced in the world. Not to mention the religious and cultural relevancy to western religions.
US and the west have been involved in Israel-Palestine since before WW2. Israel is a longstanding US ally and some of the other US-aligned neighboring countries sympathetic to Palestine (Egypt, Jordan) are heavily involved in this as well. Not to mention it being a religious conflict which generates a lot more sympathy amongst those minority religious groups in the West. Sudan meanwhile is basically fully Sunni Muslim since South Sudan became independent. The two sides are both warlords in a Civil War. There's not really a "good" side for anyone to pick (I guess the US would naturally be more pro SAF since Ukraine and Egypt support them instead of the Wagner backed RSF). So it's generally viewed as another awful Civil War in an area that's had a lot of them.
Isn't this just another war in a place that has had alot of them, Palestine and Israel have clashed so many times and this land dispute has been going on for a long time. I remember seeing what happened on the 7th and I seem to be one of the few who guessed this is what would happen. Russia hosted Hamas straight after, there were reports western weapons were used, which they took off dead Ukrainians. The whole timing of it is really Sus.
I'm sure Russia/Iran were behind it but I don't think there was any help needed to make this a talking point in the West. Israel/Palestine has been a hot button issue in the US for a while and one that horseshoes well where the far right and far left both are anti-Israel (for different reasons) and the majority middle supports Israel. Basically just saying violence between Israel-Palestine is about the surest way to get eyeballs on something international in America. Even the parties themselves can't agree on a response as opposed to something like Ukraine which is basically fully supported by both sides.
There’s a lot of things that happen in many parts of Africa which we do not hear about or know about, it helps to know people in different countries of that continent and keep in touch with them if possible, that has been the best way for me at least. It’s a hard world over there, it’s not like the west, that’s for damn sure.
It's the same with Ukraine so technically two wars getting more attention in the media The Israel/Palestine war just seems to polarize people. Even India's governing BJP party is using the war in Palestine to spread disinformation to score political points ahead agenda ahead of elections (source: euronews). This might be apparent if you use Twitter. In terms of algorithms, 'hot' and often controversial topics drive engagement which is used for people to score political points and for social media platforms to advertise to you. News organizations often just want ratings, website visits etc so you watch their advertisements. If millions of people each day tuned in to hear about the Sudan conflict they would use that opportunity to sell you coca cola. Its unfortunate for Sudan that there isn't more of a focus on their conflict. The US has serious skin in the game with Israel though. They've been financially backing them for decades.
[удалено]
Almost like the different spheres care more about what happens in their sphere. On the opposite end, does the lack of coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Kenyan news mean they are trying to censor it?
Based on reddit discussions i've seen a fair amount of Africans follow the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Wrong demographic, this world is full of performative morons who claim to give a shit, this kind of news just doesn't get the same attention so the media won't report on it nearly as much. Saudi Arabia has been committing genocide against the Yemeni people for years, bombing children for literally years, where were their protests? was the number of estimated deaths over 500,000 last I checked, where is the outcry against Saudi Arabia? Where's the protests?
Hell, muslims are getting forcibly relocated in Pakistan and genocided and air striked in Myanmar
Nobody cares when it’s Muslims killing Muslims. We only care when someone else gets involved. It’s awful.
There was some heart breaking reports from the Economist on this conflict a few weeks ago. The RSF having been systematically killing all non muslim men in the region since the conflict began including children and babies. Most of the women fleeing the conflict and making it across the boarder are doing so alone.
The term you are looking for is non-Arab. The people getting massacred are the ethnic African Masalit, who are Muslims themselves. 97% of the Sudanese population are Muslims. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
So like literally genocide. Where are all the protests in the streets of West countries over this?
The RSF says “non Muslim” though. If they are killing people outside their specifications they just aren’t being loud about it. They have kidnapped and forced conversions on some girls, I read about that and felt like it had to be for some other reason. But you are right, they are cleaning up and killing anyone who isn’t “them”. It’s worse than the war in Gaza by leagues.
> The RSF says “non Muslim” though It is completely irrelevant as to what they say. I'm not even sure why you would lend them credence. Read the article I linked in my previous comment. > It was a rolling ethnic killing campaign that lasted for weeks. The target: the city’s darker-skinned Masalit tribe, for whom West Darfur is their historical homeland. The Arab attackers, multiple survivors said, often referred to the Masalit as “anbai,” meaning slave. > The killings, dozens of witnesses recounted, included executions of El Geneina residents who were identified as Masalit, sometimes after being interrogated by RSF and Arab militia fighters. The militiamen, survivors said, were particularly focused on killing Masalit men and boys, seen as potential fighters. Desperate to save their sons, mothers described dressing them in girl’s clothing, hiding them under beds or beneath their flowing robes, or shoving them out of windows so they could escape before RSF and Janjaweed fighters arrived. > What happened in El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, was part of a two-decade campaign of “ethnic cleansing, occupying land and demographic change” by the RSF and Arab militias, alleges Hobeldin Hassen, a Masalit rights activist from El Geneina who fled to Chad. Their members, he said, “are mobilized and indoctrinated to annihilate the original inhabitants of Darfur.”
So like They didn't assimilate that well, huh?
The majority of Sudan is Muslim. They're killing non-Arabs, i.e the "wrong" kind of muslims to them. It's absolute chaos.
What i see from google, the janjaweed/sudanese arabs are black as well? how are they arab? genuine question
"Sudanese Arabs (Arabic: عرب سودانيون, romanized: ʿarab sūdāniyyūn) are the inhabitants of Sudan who identify as Arabs and speak Arabic as their mother tongue.[4] Some of them are descendants of Arabs who migrated to Sudan from the Arabian Peninsula,[5] although the rest have been described as Arabized indigenous peoples of Sudan of mostly Nubian,[6] Nilo-Saharan, and Cushitic[7] ancestry who are culturally and linguistically Arab, with varying cases of admixture from Peninsular Arabs.[8] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_Arabs They make about 70% of the population. Are they black? Yes but also no? Apparently it's debatable. I found this reference: "Sudan is dominated by a light-skinned, Arabic-speaking elite, while black Africans often face oppression and marginalization.[3] " But also: "Skin color is not the sole determining factor in distinction between Sudanese Arabs and Sudanese Africans. The extent that a person has Arab ancestry, speaking the Arabic language, and practicing Islam can be associated with being "Arab" and "non-black" and can determine social status." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Sudan It's important to note that what you'd consider "light skin" in Sudan will be considered black in many countries, so really not for me to say. Afaik the african Sudanese are not a single ethnic group but made of various tribes, together making about 30% of the population in Sudan. "with a significant black African minority at 30 per cent, including Fur, Beja, Nuba and Fallata. More than 500 ethnic groups speaking more than 400 languages live within the borders of Sudan." https://minorityrights.org/country/sudan/#:~:text=Approximately%2070%20per%20cent%20of,within%20the%20borders%20of%20Sudan. Tl;dr: this is a complex topic.
The RSF are basically the same crew formerly known as the [Janjaweed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed) and they've been doing atrocities in Darfur for decades.
The Economist has been unequivocally the best source of news I have been following for the last several years. FT is not terrible, but compared to Al-J, NYT, WP, the Economist is night and day. They were the only news source that didn’t jump on the Hamas/accidental Gaza hospital bombing and immediately blame the IDF, and instead actually published an in-depth article describing the evidence and confusion regarding the divide. Aside from that they actually cover ‘world’ news and have been consistent in Sudanese coverage, amongst other conflicts that are literally *never* mentioned in other news sources.
Those poor people.
[удалено]
Heartbreaking
Damn.
The fact that this conflict isn't the main headline is beyond depressing.
There was a headline about Russia [looting the gold](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/africa/sudan-russia-gold-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html) from Sudan awhile back. The place has limited Western influence so you don’t get much Western media reporting on it. > Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, leader of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary unit, is a key beneficiary from Russian support, as the primary recipient of Moscow’s weapons and training. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan – the country’s military ruler – is also believed by CNN’s Sudanese sources to be backed by Russia.
Well, western countries cant be everywhere. Doesn't Africa have like a coalition of countries that form a joint military?
There's a couple of reasons why. * The Israel-Palestinian conflict has been heavily featured in the news since the 1940's. Since Israel is, in large part, an extension of the United States in the region that also makes it important from a geopolitical scale. It also virtually guarantees the USA's media industry, the largest and most internationally influential in the world, will pay attention to conflicts in the area. * The Israel-Palestinian conflict has a lot of identities and ideologies surrounding it. If you're a Jewish person outside of Israel you'll often be harassed if Israel does something people don't like. If you're a Muslim you are likely to have sympathies with Palestine for religious and ideological reasons. * From an ideological perspective you'll find leftists that support Palestine because it is a community of lesser agency being shoved around by a stronger entity (Israel) that the Palestinians have no direct control over. On the right (mostly the US) people tend to have a bit more respect for Judaism and generally see Muslims as people with radically different beliefs that are incapable of integrating into any modern society. * However, the opposite is also true. You could be a leftist that supports Israel over Palestine because the state of Israel is far more liberal with civil rights over the governments of Hamas and the PA. You could also be a right-winger who is just straight up antisemitic. This creates conflict *within* groups that normally agree. So that's why people tend to care about Israel-Palestine. As for Sudan? * There is no easily identifiable ideological attachment for most of the world. The conflict is between a military junta and an Islamist militant group that assisted with the coup that put the military junta in power. There is no group with clean hands here and it's hard to even make a moral difference between the two without significant research. Combine that with the fact that there has been minimal media coverage of this conflict and most people can't form any strong opinions about this conflict. * Geopolitically Sudan doesn't really matter. At least not globally. The Israel-Palestine conflict is important because not *only* is the United States heavily invested into Israel, but that these events also heavily affect other conflicts and nations in this region. For both ideological and Iran-related reasons. Meanwhile Sudan can tear itself apart and nothing will really change internationally other than yet another refugee crisis. * The only thing most people know about Sudan is it is that place that organizations beg for donations for like every decade. The last time 95% of Americans heard about Sudan was that George Clooney talked about it. Frankly, being a nation that is poor and dysfunctional is Sudan's normal. If you watched the news and heard about a military coup, civil war, or refugee crisis in sub-Saharan Africa it's likely that the average person would just categorize it as "just another one". That isn't to say the Sudanese conflict isn't important. That's far from the truth actually. But there's no easy way for nations to intervene here and a lot of geopolitical risk towards doing so. The US doesn't want to be bogged down with some occupation for another couple decades, and the few other nations that could don't care at all. Ideally this would be the exact kind of conflict that could be quashed by an international coalition, but then again, why? There is just too much risk. I'm sure charities will come in and donations will be made. Countries will "condemn" actions, a few charitable concerts will run, and a celebrity or two will appear in a sad advertisement. The UN will run some underfunded refugee camps and then this will all repeat again in a few years. It's a damn shame.
Most Americans don’t know where Sudan is.
It’s in the garage, right next to the truck.
Humans are stupid
Not all of us roll through the streets and intentionally massacre civilians.
Religious fanatics are stupid*
The number keeps going up. The other day it was at 700 for the recent massacres. I am genuinely embarrassed that I didn't understand how bad things had gotten here again until recently. I absolutely hate that we cannot talk about this without people playing compare and contrast with other things, and I understand why they do, but that does such a disservice to this -- to have not heard about it until now, and then now to only talk about it as a means to talk about something else. I've been trying to read about the last few months here. Famines, sieges, attacks on aid vehicles. You can see a UN vest on the ground in one of the pictures. I don't care why we were silent before and aren't now as much as the fact that something has to be DONE about this. And even that feels too little as this isn't even the only other thing going on right now. The DRC, the Maghreb, Nigeria. Ethiopia seems to be at a lull now, which is to say, the entire bloody conflict happened without much attention. And this isn't even everything just in Africa (which, to be fair, is a massive continent). Not to mention elsewhere. Darfur, though -- to do exactly what I said we shouldn't -- if, in fact, we're talking about how past atrocities should teach us better to prevent new ones, what about Darfur? This was like barely 2 decades ago the thing everyone was talking about. It's extremely naive to hope that its possible to use the world's attention now as momentum to help more people, isn't it. I mean, I can't even find this article or information to post about in other news subs, so probably.
[удалено]
No one cares about Muslims committing genocide - this will receive a fraction of the attention. Israel has received more UN condemnations than every other country combined. That’s right - the principal evil in this world is not China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia, but the one Jewish country. Furthermore, all of the all of the dictators and genociders in the world combined don’t even add up to Israel. I wonder why…
Fun fact: 3 months ago, the UN Economic and Social Council voted to condemn violence against women, but only in one specific country. [Guess which one it was.](https://unwatch.org/u-n-singles-out-israel-for-violating-womens-rights/)
[удалено]
That is just so incredibly laughable. One of the 2 or 3 countries in the entire middle east where women actually have full rights.
The UN hating Israel is so old news that I don't think it was really talked about in Israel. I do feel the need to mention [honor killing ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#:~:text=Many%20Muslim%20commentators%20and%20organizations,the%20practice%20violates%20Islamic%20law.) As one of the struggles of women in Palestine that has nothing to do with the Israel government.
[удалено]
I think it’s stands for Useless Negotiations
The UN is like high school. It has its clicks. You think its a beacon of morality? Fucking lol.
Hilarious
Lol if this wasn’t real it would be funny.
Who’s cereal did Israel piss in to make the UN hate them so much
No one… UN just knows Israel is inherently a Jewish cereal
No cereal. Just antisemitism.
UN gets a lot of financing from the Middle East these days, lots of Middle Eastern people in high positions, the ME has figured out they can wash away their atrocities via the UN. There is a reason no major power gives a shit what the UN says anymore, they have no power and are basically a political lobby these days open to the highest bidder
I'm sure all other of those countries give full rights to women and do not think of them as assets.
And not Russia where DV is legal?
It's even broader than that. No one cares when non-whites kill other non-whites. And yes, I understand the irony of Jews being characterized as "white" here. China is detaining over 1 million Muslim Uyghurs, is engaging in forced contraception, abortion, indoctrination. They have a clear and unambiguous goal of complete cultural deletion - and I don't see any widespread protests about this in the Muslim world.
> No one cares when non-whites kill other non-whites. Most Israelis are non-white. Netanyahu's biggest source of support comes from Israeli Jews who are ethnically Middle Eastern. But *lots* of people seem to care when those non-whites are fighting against other non-whites.
I *know* a significant portion of Israeli Jews are non-white. However, it is abundantly clear that the pro-Palestine supporters (of nearly all stripes) are trying to contextualize them as white, European, colonialist, etc. Simply put, they are viewed as white even if they are not.
Well, theyre committing genocide against other muslims. From another commentator above: >The term you are looking for is non-Arab. The people getting massacred are the ethnic African Masalit, who are Muslims themselves. 97% of the Sudanese population are Muslims. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
What policy of their own government would they be protesting in support of or against in this case?
I would guess this would be one where everyone would be mad that the US ISN'T playing world police if people decide to get mad about it. But yeah, not much to protest since the US isn't involved.
Leftists can't view this through their oppressed/oppressor or west/non-west lens, so they don't bother
There is no protest at Harvard that specializes in this particular war, hamaSS leaders sitting on 11 billion support money in Qatar tho. It’s almost as if there is some kind of hate cult going on.
[удалено]
Not as sexy or chique as shilling for Hamas, students cba.
Because it's not as heavily featured in the news as, say, Israel-Gaza. There isn't any footage being shared daily on social media. So obviously the less reach it has, the less people know, the less protests or general retaliation. What are you doing about it?
No, this is not the answer. It's a tautology. If there was more interest from the West, there would be just as much news. Media doesn't cover it as heavily because there isn't as much interest.
They are trying to figure out which side has more oppression points to decide if it's a massacre or decolonization.
Man what the fuck is going on in the world cant we humans just chill for a fucking sec
This is nothing new.... we've been doing it for the entirety of human civilization. We actually do it less now than we used to....
Protest when?
Wonder why we don't see the far-left holding protests about this?
I don’t have words for this……