By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The health center in Zamzam Camp, a displacement camp in Sudan, was already busy when the notorious Rapid Support Forces (RSF) began a ground assault on April 11, 2025. RSF units breached the camp’s defenses, setting neighborhoods ablaze and targeting women and children. Witnesses reported mass executions, including the killing of medical staff at a clinic and the slaughter of residents seeking shelter at a Quranic school. The attack on Zamzam is believed to be one of the worst war crimes of the conflict, with estimates of the death toll ranging from hundreds to over two thousand, targeting nurse Hanadi Dawood.
Read the original article here
‘They slaughtered us like animals’: the inside story of how one of the biggest atrocities of the Sudan war unfolded in Zamzam is a horrifying narrative, one that seems to be swallowed by the silence of a world too often distracted by other conflicts. The sheer scale of the displacement and the suffering in Sudan, described as the largest humanitarian crisis on the planet, is a stark reminder of the fragility of human life and the failure of global solidarity.
The complicity, direct or indirect, of various actors in fueling this conflict is undeniable. The United Arab Emirates, according to accounts, seems deeply involved in backing one side, while the West, through arms sales and economic ties, is also entangled in the web of violence. Russia’s presence, providing weapons in exchange for resources, adds another layer of complexity to an already dire situation. It paints a picture of a conflict driven by greed, geopolitical maneuvering, and a blatant disregard for human life.
The comments and observations highlight the troubling phenomenon of selective outrage. While the world rightly focuses on the suffering in places like Palestine, the atrocities in Sudan appear to receive significantly less attention. This imbalance raises uncomfortable questions about the factors that shape global empathy, including the influence of social media, political agendas, and underlying biases. The lack of widespread protests, media coverage, and general awareness surrounding the Zamzam atrocities, in stark contrast to the attention given to other conflicts, is a painful testament to this reality.
There’s a sense of frustration among those who are following the news of the war in Sudan. It’s clear that this conflict, characterized by ethnic cleansing, violence and the displacement of people, deserves far more attention than it receives. It’s difficult not to feel a profound sense of helplessness when the international community appears slow to act and the atrocities continue with impunity. The comments reveal a cynicism about the priorities of the West and a recognition that economic interests and geopolitical calculations often trump humanitarian concerns.
The narrative around the conflict is also complex. There is a tendency to oversimplify things, as the comments rightly point out, making the conflict a stepping stone for people’s own political reasons. It’s a situation where both sides are responsible for atrocities, creating a moral minefield where it’s difficult to discern clear heroes and villains. This complexity, coupled with the lack of independent reporting, contributes to the challenge of understanding and addressing the situation.
The observations suggest that the world is turning a blind eye to the situation in Sudan. It is a sad reality that the focus on one specific conflict overshadows the horrors unfolding elsewhere. There is a critical need for increased media coverage, independent investigations, and international pressure to hold the perpetrators accountable and bring an end to the violence. The silence surrounding the atrocities in Zamzam is a moral failure, a reminder that the global community needs to do more to protect vulnerable populations.