By John Q. Hosedrinker 
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was at Sanaa airport during an Israeli air strike, narrowly escaping injury while a crew member was hurt and at least two others were killed. The attack, part of a wider Israeli campaign targeting Houthi-linked infrastructure including power stations and ports, damaged the airport’s control tower, departure lounge, and runway. Israel claims the targets were used for military purposes by the Houthis, while the Houthis reported numerous casualties. The Israeli Prime Minister vowed to continue these operations to disrupt what he called Iran’s terror arm.
Read the original article here
The WHO chief’s recent experience highlights the complexities of operating in conflict zones. He found himself at Sana’a airport in Yemen when it was struck by airstrikes, resulting in the deaths of at least three people. This incident underscores the ever-present dangers faced by humanitarian workers in active war zones.
The airport attack occurred as the WHO chief and his team were preparing to depart after completing a mission. Their work focused on securing the release of detained UN personnel and assessing the humanitarian situation in the country. The timing of the airstrike, just moments before their scheduled departure, is particularly striking.
The WHO chief’s account details significant damage to the airport infrastructure, including the air traffic control tower and departure lounge. These areas were located in close proximity to the team’s position. While the team was unharmed, the experience must have been deeply unsettling. The damage to the airport also created delays to their departure, highlighting the disruption that conflict causes even for those seeking to bring aid.
The incident prompted reflection on the prevalence of airstrikes and their impact on civilian life and infrastructure. The direct involvement of the WHO chief in this event offers a stark, personal perspective on the situation.
The WHO chief’s statement expresses condolences to the families of those killed. It’s a poignant reminder of the human cost of conflict, especially the indirect casualties often overlooked in the midst of fighting.
It’s interesting to compare this experience to a previous incident he recounts: an earlier rocket attack on Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. He draws a parallel between these two events, albeit highlighting a difference in the level of media attention each received. The contrast illustrates the uneven distribution of global concern and the ways in which events are framed and reported. This could be due to the differing geopolitical contexts and the actors involved.
The WHO chief’s comments on the selective nature of international reporting are noteworthy. His observation prompts consideration of the influence of political narratives on media coverage of international conflict. The disparity in coverage between attacks on different airports, despite both posing significant threats, suggests a degree of bias in how these events are perceived and reported globally.
This incident raises broader questions about the safety of humanitarian workers in conflict zones. It is difficult to operate in such volatile settings, where the risk of becoming entangled in conflict is substantial. This experience underscores the need for enhanced safety measures and improved protocols for those working in regions actively engaged in armed conflict. The complexities of navigating such environments are considerable.
It also raises questions about the precise targeting of airstrikes and the broader strategy employed in the conflict. The fact that the airport was struck while the WHO team was present casts doubt on the precision of the strikes and raises concerns about potential civilian casualties. This is a crucial aspect of any analysis of the situation, requiring consideration of the conflict’s overall impact on the civilian population.
In conclusion, the WHO chief’s statement regarding the Yemen airport attack provides a first-hand account of the dangerous reality faced by aid workers in conflict zones. It also raises essential questions about international reporting, the precision of airstrikes, and the broader humanitarian implications of ongoing conflicts. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict and the challenges faced by those seeking to alleviate suffering in war-torn regions.