Public sentiment regarding the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan is overwhelmingly negative. Commenters express sorrow, frustration, and anger over the lack of international attention and action. There is a pervasive sense of helplessness and urgency to assist the suffering population, particularly children and families, with many critiques aimed at media indifference and geopolitical prioritizations. Users also highlight the stark inequality in global concern for various crises.

Sudanese government

International community

Media organizations

It’s sick how imperial powers fuel wars and profit from civilian suffering. The UAE is the world’s second-largest gold exporter—but has no gold mines. A lot of that gold is smuggled from Sudan, where militias fund their war through the trade. The UAE buys the gold and reportedly arms those same groups. 

Then there’s Turkey, supplying drones and weapons mainly to the Sudanese government, all while trying to boost its influence and secure economic deals in the region. It’s all blood money—and the people caught in the middle pay the price.

CheyenneDove

So awful! They deserve the world's attention; glad the UK will host peace talks next week.

AlwaysReadyGo

The consequences for Sudan’s 51 million people have been devastating. Tens of thousands are reportedly dead. Hundreds of thousands face famine. Almost 13 million people have been displaced, 4 million of those to neighbouring countries.

“Sudan is now worse off than ever before,” said Elise Nalbandian, Oxfam’s regional advocacy manager. “The largest humanitarian crisis, largest displacement crisis, largest hunger crisis … It’s breaking all sorts of wrong records.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80%93present)#:~:text=At%20least%2061%2C000%20people%20have,fled%20the%20country%20as%20refugees.

Casualties and losses
Likely significantly more than 150,000 total killed[38]
More than 522,000 children have died due to malnutrition[39]
8,856,313 internally displaced
3,506,383 refugees[40]

https://secure.unicef.ca/page/127641/donate/1?locale=en-US

The ongoing conflict in Sudan has put the lives of children and their families in danger. Millions have been forced to flee their homes making Sudan the biggest child displacement crisis in the world.    

Famine is present in at least five areas in Sudan, with a risk of spreading to 17 other areas. UNICEF estimates that approximately 3.2 million children under five will experience severe acute malnutrition in 2025.

jfrsn

The UN won’t do anything unless it’s to draft a resolution against Israel.

Life_Repeat310

[deleted]

I'm sorry I don't see any Jewish people being part of this situation so I'm not interested. Let me know if we can link this to Israel so I can start caring.

Relative_Formal8976

The US has fully supported Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE’s genocides in Palestine, Yemen, and Sudan respectively. Giving the UAE weapons to commit atrocities in Sudan is just part of the cost of business for Biden and Trump to get them to agree to the Abraham Accords.

McKoijion

It’s a shame that nobody cares about Sudan.

thatsthejokememe

But what's the story here? In israel, you got occupiers vs natives. In ukrain you got big dictator vs small democracy.


But here? Here it's just black people killing other black people, for control. 


No story.

Effective_Jury4363

There's too many problems in the world; hard to know which crisis to focus on!

Having said that, Sudan doesn't seem to be getting enough attention in terms of how dire the situation is.

&gt;As of 18 June, 25.6 million people were reportedly suffering from acute food shortages. Of these, 756,000 people faced "catastrophic levels of hunger." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine\_in\_Sudan\_(2024%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Sudan_(2024%E2%80%93present))

Sbeast

And we have old men in suits fighting over imaginary lines that belonged to one or the other thousands of years ago…

Left-Excitement-836

Surely college kids all over the West would express their disapproval of this and be outrageous about the crisis in Sudan. Any day now.

Wrld-Competitive

Why isn't the [African Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union) doing nothing?

5wmotor

Well with all the aid we sent to Africa over the years , doesn’t look it did any difference at all

gionatacar

According to Wesley Clark, a senior general showed him a memo that outlined a U.S. plan to “take out seven countries in five years.” The countries listed were:

1. Iraq

2. Syria

3. Lebanon

4. Libya

5. Somalia

6. Sudan

7. Iran

kra73ace

LectureLeft5183

Main-Entrepreneur841

SaneForCocoaPuffs

Samson_Betrayal

Yeah but… let’s start a war with Iran

vaynahtm

I've looked into Sudan and the thing is it's just not very intellectually stimulating. It's typical two powerful generals form two sides of a conflict. There's no ideological aspect I can see. this is why people aren't talking about it. Whats to be said? It just really sad.

timmytissue

Unrest contained within borders will never be as big a world news story is an invasion, unrest that spills over the border, or unrest that *threatens* to spill over the border.

When asked, regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “why we’re deciding to care so much about *this* particular invasion” as opposed to “what's happening in Yemen, what's happening in Syria, what's happening in Ethiopia” Yuval Noah Harari on #[276](https://youtu.be/vTqOk19itfM?si=e-4C47dKxZIqPxfO&amp;t=400) replies:

&gt; Part of it is because, again, it's a different kind of war. Part of the global order of the last few generations, for better or worse, was that civil wars are part of the game, but invading and conquering other countries and wiping them off the map is not. And this is now what is at stake. And there is a huge difference there.

&gt; It's not that civil wars are okay. It's not that [in] civil wars people don't die in them or suffer in them. It's [that] we had throughout history several kinds of wars. External invasions and conquests were always the most dangerous and the kind of backbone of military and diplomatic history. But there were always other kinds of wars, like civil wars. And what happened in the last few generations is that, first of all, the big wars between superpowers, and secondly, the external invasions and conquests, they kind of get out of the picture—you don't do that anymore. Whereas civil wars, they continue to be part of the system.

&gt; And now we are seeing the return of something that we thought, well, we already got over that. Yes, we still have a way to go. We also need eventually to reach a situation when there are no civil wars. But now we are feeling that we are falling back. We are falling back to the most dangerous and most destructive kinds of wars. We are basically going back to the jungle, to the situation when at any moment the neighbors might invade and conquer us, which was the situation for most of history, but not in the last few decades.

So it's not about the amount of suffering in a given conflict. It's about whether the conflict represents a threat to global order or not. A) Pain contained within borders is one thing. But B) invaders from across the border *bringing* the pain is another. They're both bad, but B) unsettles the global order in a way A) does not. B) represents a "falling back" toward "the jungle".

Sudan is A) and Israel-Palestine is B). The India-Pakistan skirmishes are also B), which *also* makes them concerning for the same reasons Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Palestine are concerning.

croutonhero

Who cares if he does? 

People in this group don't even listen to what he says anyway and just bleat on about whatever horse they wanna flog.

DanielDannyc12

The only significant coverage on the crisis in Sudan that I've ever seen from anyone in western media is from Democracy Now, who have been covering the region for literally decades.  Of course, pro-Israel voices would never commend Democracy Now for this, because they also are one of the leading voices against the Gaza genocide.

metashdw

Full-Motor6497

It's just whataboutery. That's all it is. The same simple points can be made when people ask "whatabout Sudan?"

1) Western governments aren't arming one side in Sudan.

2) People on the internet aren't downplaying massacres in Sudan etc or taking one side and actively supporting warcrimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing.

It's very simply whataboutery raised in order to argue against any concerns about the ongoing death and misery.

Any_Platypus_1182

Honestly don't think Sam gives a F about Sudan, Yemen, Syria Civil Wars. Just a deflection tactic

Ordinary_Bend_8612

So let's really think this through. Why don't people pay attention to Sudan? Or more specifically, why do we focus on Israel and Palestine (or the Middle East in general) rather than Sudan? Because there are a lot of reasons.

1. The IP conflict is a little more global than Sudan is in the sense that it's history became one of many proxies for the Cold War. In 1941 Stalin adopted a pro-zionist stance to support the war effort against Germany (many Jews fled to the Soviet Union) and his hopes that a Jewish nation would be socialist. They were the first to recognize Israel and the SU and its satellite states all voted for the UN partition. Relations worsened almost immediately after 48 when Israel was established, but until '54 they were mostly neutral when they worsened until '55 when they ultimately backed the Arab states in the conflict. '67 marked them cutting off diplomatic ties to Israel altogether,

This opened the door for the US to exert influence in the region by creating a security alliance with Israel in '61, strengthening the bond between the two countries and with the US protecting Israel from the UN General assembly through its veto power. Basically, one of the geopolitical areas where the Cold War was waged was in the Middle East with the US, Germany, the UK, and France solidly on the side of Israel and the Soviet block on the other.

Sudan is not part of that long history, and Africa in general was never a focus of such global scrutiny because the stakes were never that high there, at least as it related to the larger geopolitical battles going on in the world. The West and Israel have become intertwined.

2. The Middle East is just a more important geopolitical area than Sudan or Africa in general. 

3. Sudan is *contained* to Sudan. IP has affected various countries around the world. 9/11, the Munich Olympics. The exporting of the conflict around the world to countries and nations that have supported Israel has kept both the conflict in the news through one of its belligerent groups. 9/11 doesn't happen without American foreign policy. The attempted bombing of the WTC doesn't happen, etc.

In other words, the IP conflict and what happens in the Middle East has direct consequences for people in the West. As such, we know a lot more about it from the media, and people will take sides and positions. 

It's also an issue ripe for ideological divisions, with one side viewing the formation of Israel as colonial and imperialistic, and the other viewing it as morally necessary for Jewish people to have a homeland, and that homeland being justified through their ancestral ties to the land.

The conflict in Sudan is tragic, but at its root its not a geopolitical problem, it's a civil one, and its so far removed from threatening geopolitical interests of us in the West that it doesn't get much attention.

schnuffs

Plus-Recording-8370

I would say they aren’t particularly comparable. there’s plenty of international condemnation of Sudan. 

here’s a big difference. There are significant financial and trade sanctions against Sudan. There are arms embargoes in place. If we’re saying “what about Sudan” i guess people are in favour of sanctions against Israel?

humungojerry

flatmeditation

That was a pretty stupid argument for him to make. I'd be impressed if he could even spot Sudan on a map. It works both ways too. There was much more media coverage over the tragedy of October 7th vs. the Darfur Genocide.

fuggitdude22

I've been wondering the same thing. It's time to make sense of other parts of the world.

thechurchkey

No, because Sam is not focusing on Israel because there is an ongoing genocide there. It’s hypocritical for people to focus on the “genocide” in Gaza while not caring at all about other actual genocides that are happening in other places. It is not hypocritical for Sam to focus on dispelling the idea of there being a genocide in Gaza.

Big swing and a miss with this one, chief.

Easylikeyoursister

OP’s logic is like someone who commits a criminal act uses the act of another criminal act as a defence .. this just goes to show that some folks are desperately trying to change the narrative .. no longer is it that Hamas is hiding in the hospitals fb using human shields or TV at Hamas is blocking aid, but hey what about Sudan.

Wizard-100

This is not equivalent. Sam is consistent on looking at social phenomenons, and the reaction to the Israel/Palestine conflict stands out as such.

Whereas the conflict itself, if people supposedly care about 'genocide', does not particularly stand out compared to other world conflicts.

The argument that people care more about it 'because the west is supportive of Israel' is not convincing at all. As if the West no longer being close to Israel would mean all the 'Free Palestine' activists would suddenly just not care much.

The Palestinian cause has been tied with socialist movements for decades, which is a driving force behind focusing attention on the conflict whether or not western nations support Israel or not.

ikinone

Ohh I know very well what it means, including genocide, but your response shows where u stand on both issues.  And it is amazing that you play victim while committing these acts.

As he's speaking about it, he is bringing it up.  Does he have to explain it in detail to the audience to show concern?  no.  To me he's bringing it up as you said, to emphasize that there is ALOT more focus on Israel-gaza, somewhat due to antisemitism, but also many other dynamics of the conflict.

Here is a little bit on Sudan from May.  NYT:

*The Rapid Support Forces grew in part out of the notorious* [*Janjaweed militias*](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/world/africa/sudan-darfur-janjaweed.html)*, which in the 2000s helped Sudan brutally suppress a rebellion in Darfur. That conflict prompted a different world tribunal, the International Criminal Court, to indict the longtime dictator, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2009. The military overthrew him a decade later, but he has not been turned over for prosecution.*

*The current* [*war in Sudan*](https://www.nytimes.com/article/sudan-khartoum-military.html) *began in April 2023, when the R.S.F. began clashing with Sudan’s military. Since then, the conflict has led to* [*widespread hunger*](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/19/world/africa/sudan-usaid-famine.html) *and* [*famine*](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/world/africa/famine-declared-darfur-sudan-war.html)*, displaced nearly 13 million people and caused tens of thousands of deaths.*

*Both sides have been accused of committing war crimes and gross violations of human rights. The paramilitary group, led by Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan, and its allies, have been accused of* [*committing ethnic cleansing and acts of genocide*](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/world/africa/sudan-rsf-genocide-us-sanctions.html) *against the non-Arab Masalit ethnic group. The army, led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, has been accused of* [*using chemical weapons*](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/world/africa/sudan-chemical-weapons-sanctions.html) *and* [*indiscriminately targeting civilians*](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/25/world/africa/sudan-military-bombing-darfur.html)*.*

chenzen

I’m noticing a distinct lack of discussion under this post

RaiJolt2

Well, I suppose if a nation can put it's thumb on the scale by providing mercenaries to it's chosen side, it will see a significant return on investment if that side wins, given the natural resources in the area. It's kinda sad, but in the end it's still about oil and gold.

humbleObserver

Interesting. The UAE did the same thing in their war in Yemen.

Immediate-Analyst974

2 Army generals who previously worked together to overthrow a government, turned on each other and began fighting for power.

Ok_Lavishness2638

In 2019, there was a popular uprising against the 30-year dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir, who had presided over severe human rights violations and rampant corruption. This led to a transitional government at first, but in 2021, the two leaders (Hemedti and al-Burhan) conspired to overthrow the transitional government in another coup so that they and their allies could avoid accountability for past offenses, as the transitional government was trying to strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms, increase civic space, and eventually transition to democracy, which Bashir-era elites saw as a direct threat to their interests. However, in 2023, these two leaders and their respective factions turned against each other and started fighting, leading to one of the most devastating civil wars currently active in the world.

googologies

Instead of asking this sub, you should ask a Sudanese sub.

LostInLondon689908

A coup, war, and a lack of desire for peace all led to two consecutive years of war.

Sad-Top-7121

Proxy war between powerful nations to keep Sudan destabilised. 
But they’re funding different groups within Sudan to keep the war going

Ok-Raspberry-9328

The UAE is waging a proxy war for gold and farmland, counting on everyone being too distracted by Ukraine or indifferent to African suffering to do anything about it.

Parrotparser7

It’s because the Palestinians have land in Jeruzalem, which is wanted by both Muslims and Jews. The Arab world sent imams to mosques all over the world to spread the hate against Israel because they want Jeruzalem!! And nowadays with social media it’s even easier to spread their word. People all over the world are doing exactly what the Arab world wants.. protesting and boycotting of Israel. They couldn’t care less about the people of Palestine. 

It’s really messed up what Israel is doing to the Palestinians but they’re not the only ones suffering. People need to wake up and realize that they are doing exactly what the Arabs want! 

We need peace all over the world and not just for one certain population, but for every population AND race!

Maukyyyyy

They are black. Nobody cares when black kids starve

Revolutionnews

Because usa and nato already decread sudan a genocide but have not attempted to classify the situation in Gaza.

Putrid-Success-7918

Dense_Candle9573

Because people don’t truly care for human life and suffering, if that was the case of course they would be more outraged about the news from Sudan than they are about Gaza. It’s not about human suffering, it’s about Israel

EstateEnough8623

I hate the no jews no news thing so much lol, that's clearly not the case.

ViolinistOk5311

Ah, yes. Why *aren't* we talking about Sudan in an Israel-Palestine sub reddit?

ExtremeAcceptable289

FUNNY POST FOR AN ISRAEL PALESTINE SUB LMAO 

You are deflecting. The US is not actively assisting in the Sudan genocide but they are in the Gazan genocide.

How difficult is this to understand?

a_russian_lullaby

So the point of this post is to accuse pro-Palestine protests of hypocrisy and that they should be protesting about Sudan. Here's why this is wrong.

The West, especially the United States, supports Israel militarily, economically, and politically, although this is becoming less true over time for European countries. The same is not true for either faction in the Sudanese Civil War. 

Sudan's civil war is being fought by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Neither side is anywhere close to being 'good', they're both in the process of destroying Sudan in the attempt to seize power for themselves, they both undermined the Sudanese revolution and will for democracy and they're both guilty of war crimes and atrocities against civilians, although the RSF are probably worse than the SAF. The SAF are supported by Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, while the RSF are supported by the UAE and Russia. The USA, Canada, and the UK have imposed sanctions on both factions and companies supplying weapons to the factions. 

That is to say that apart from sending humanitarian aid, pressuring both sides to engage in peace talks,, the West can't really do much about the Sudanese Civil War (short of intervening military) and their involvement is minimal in the first place. 

In Gaza, however, the West is deeply involved by supplying Israel with weapons, continuing to trade with Israel, and by shielding Israel at the UN, especially the USA, but also countries like the UK and Germany. 

Therefore, the citizens of these countries have a greater responsibility to be aware of Gaza and speak out against Israel's war crimes and atrocities because Western citizens are involved via their governments support for Israel. 

In the same way, Russians have an obligation to protest against their government's invasion of Ukraine and many war crimes, but not so much about Gaza. 

Protests in Western countries are unlikely to accomplish much about Sudan, but they could accomplish a great deal about Gaza. They could end Western arm sales to Israel, stop their governments from protecting Israel at the UN, or even get their governments to impose economic sanctions against Israel.

And they should, and its long past due. Netanyahu is every bit a criminal and a monster as Putin, and he clearly has no interest in seeing this war end, at least not until the people of Gaza are wiped out or ethnically cleansed.

Rare_Opportunity2419

1. Arabs were never considered a colonial power by white academia, although they are, demonstrably so in Sudan. 

2. Although Sudan is a big country, it never caught the attention of western aligned countries as much. (which are, or at least were the center of international media export) Not in internal politics and not in external relations. They are not a country that had much interest in gaining the public reccognizion of western countries. 

3. People are interested in highly documented events. Videos and pictures from rural populations getting massacred are a rarity, and so is the outrage following. There's not many sudanese tribal voices given platform to speak on it either.

shepion

I wondered the same question for a while. But I have a few guesses: 

1) it's an internal conflict. So unless there are powerful countries involved, it won't be well known. 

2) There are just so many wars and conflicts going on. I think at this point, everyone is fatigued and depressed with the state of the world that they tune these stuff out.

3) it's not trending in social media like how Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine is. There isnt really any "Slava Ukraine" or "Free Palestine" movements where everyone changes their social media profiles or companies change their logo. I am guessing that those wars were trendy because extremely powerful countries that these platforms are operating were involved. 

4) The most dominant or widespread media is Western media. So anything that concerns them that they chose to report, whether that be to push their own narratives about it (which is pretty much most of the time) is what the world is exposed to.

Responsible-Milk-515

I wonder if it’s because the conflict in Sudan doesn’t have potential to escalate beyond Sudan whereas the Israel vs Palestine one has a potential to escalate across the region and further. Therefore it gets more press attention and therefore the lefty student protestors get more upset.

Pristine_Routine_464

Tankies and far right didn't care about Sudan and my heart goes to sudan

DifferentMaize9794

Lumpy-Cost398

Revolutionary_Key767

It's not being ignored. At my mosque here in Toronto, we regularly pray for people in both Palestine and Sudan. 

But also, the RSF is the main perpetrator of atrocities in Sudan, and it's not a state party, not is it heavily supported by certain Western countries.

Minskdhaka

Mobile_Blackberry298

Generally speaking the Western audience simply doesn't care about Africa. Why do people care about Ukraine more than Israel? In the western mind there's a hierarchy of nations and African nations are near the bottom.

  
On the activist front: my country provides a metric fuckton of military aid and logistical support to Israel, it does not do the same for either side of Sudan. I live in a democracy I have the right to care about my nations foreign policy and voice my opposition. 

  
Also this argument is fundamentally flawed in the first place. The idea that activists have to equally spread all of their energy and time on every injustice in the world or it's somehow illegitimate. Having a focus for your activism increases the chance of something getting done for at least one issue. If we had to spread our focus to every issue nothing would be done about any issue. You are not arguing for fairness you are arguing for activism to give up what little leverage it has.

PerceivingUnkown

No one cares if you can't blame it on the US.

Broad_External7605

Correction on one point is that the ICJ has rejected Sudans' application for a trial of the UAE in Genocide of the Sudanese people. 

The issue is that international institution lacks any coercive power and direct territorial authority, so their jurisdiction is limited to the extent that countries allow them to:

&gt;28. The Court recalls that it has jurisdiction in respect of States only to the extent that they have consented thereto. When a compromissory clause in a treaty provides for the Court’s jurisdiction, that jurisdiction exists only in respect of the parties to the treaty who are bound by that clause and within the limits set out in the clause \[...\] 

When UAE signed the convention, they put reservations on Article IX:

&gt;21. Both Sudan and the UAE are parties to the Genocide Convention, Sudan, having acceded to the Convention on 13 October 2003 and the UAE on 11 November 2005. The UAE, when acceding to the Convention, formulated a reservation to Article IX which reads as follows: “The Government of the State of the United Arab Emirates, having considered the aforementioned Convention and approved the contents thereof, formally declares its accession to the Convention and makes a reservation with respect to article 9 thereof concerning the submission of disputes arising between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of this Convention, to the International Court of Justice, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”

They concluded that those reservation helds and as Sudan strongly based the raised issue on article IX, the court says that it can not hold jurisdiction on the case and dismissed it:

&gt;32. The Court thus considers that the UAE’s reservation has the effect of excluding Article IX from the provisions of the Genocide Convention in force between the Parties \[...\]  
  
33. The Court concludes from the foregoing that, having regard to the UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, this Article cannot constitute, prima facie, a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case. It follows that the Court, lacking prima facie jurisdiction to entertain Sudan’s Application, cannot indicate the provisional measures requested in order to protect the rights invoked in the Application submitted by Sudan.  
\[...\]  

35. The Court further considers that, in light of the reservation made by the UAE to the compromissory clause contained in Article IX of the Genocide Convention and in the absence of any other basis of jurisdiction, the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Sudan’s Application.

But it notes:

&gt;36. Having come to the conclusion that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction, the Court is precluded by its Statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by Sudan. However, as the Court has stated on numerous previous occasions, there is a fundamental distinction between the question of acceptance by the States of the Court’s jurisdiction and the conformity of their acts with international law. Whether or not States have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, they are required to comply with their obligations under that instrument, and they remain responsible for acts attributable to them which are contrary to their international obligations

Source: [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/197/197-20250505-ord-01-00-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/197/197-20250505-ord-01-00-en.pdf)

So we have an actual Genocide being ignored in Sudan, while a war to remove an internationally recognized terrorist organization is  legally entertained as a Genocide and publicly touted as such.

Sherwoodlg

Create a Sudan debate subreddit instead of coming to a Israel Palestine Subreddit. Also western governments are not actively supporting and then go on TV and talk about how it is justified. Sanctions are being put on sudan, Israel only has people considering sanctions and then it doesn't happen.

GalaxyDog2289

It’s the same people doing it. Freeing the Palestinians will also lead to freeing the Sudanese. If we can get Europe and the U.S. out of the southern hemisphere, that will be a huge blow to white supremacy.

mch27562

Many of the people on both sides (whether or not in the US) can't point out Sudan on a map.

Alex_13249

The disparity in attention isn’t a reflection of the *severity* of suffering. In the case of Israel/Palestine we have a US backed regional power recieving billions in military aid, engaged in decades of military occupation and ethnic displacement. US people feel deeply about this conflict and westerners often follow US news/events. 

  
And, the very question “Why aren’t people protesting Sudan?” often functions less as a call for solidarity with Sudanese victims, and more as a rhetorical weapon to *delegitimize* outrage over Palestine. Rarely does it come from those working to amplify Sudanese voices, push for intervention, or organize boycotts. Instead, it appears when Palestine is raised used not to elevate Sudan, but to silence Gaza. This seems evident in your case as you post about Sudan in an Israel/Palestine subreddit.

1. Israel is a supposed member of the West and a Western ally, so its news (or crimes) are more followed in the West than Sudan.

2. Israel is a full democracy (at least for the Jewish residents and *some* Arabs) so it’s held to a higher standard.

3. The Sudanese civil war is looked at as primarily an internal civil war (when it’s not) so that’s not as interesting.

4. Very few people outside Africa care that much about Africa, especially subsaharan Africa. They regard Sudan and Africa as areas with conflict since the beginning of time until the end of times. That’s not helpful or accurate.

5. Some of us care *very* much about Sudan. The suffering and murder and rape and genocide in Sudan is unbearable. I think Sudan should get a lot more international attention and I’m very sad it doesn’t. I would invite you to /r/Sudan if you’re interested in participating. You’d be most welcome.

6. I don’t see how this sad conflict in Sudan should be used to deflect away from any other place on earth where atrocities are being committed.

ThirstyTarantulas

And why are you asking this in IsraelPalestine sub, not in Sudan sub?

vovap_vovap

Because people see this as a West vs. East conflict. It's not about people suffering or dying. It's about being pro or anti western hegemony. Just look at the US. The more ideological the people are, the more probable they are to support one side. Think evangelicals being pro Israel and left students being pro palestine. When you would ask both groups about Sudan, they would just agree with each other. That's boring. Can't build your identity with that. 


Sudan, Yemen, tigray... all much worse. Yet no one cares because you can't cheer for a team or be against the other team. It's just brown people killing each other. Not even in the holy land. Boring af.


Yemen is an excellent example. The Saudis had very strong western backing, 80k kids died of hunger, 360k dead altogether. This was rarely in the news. As soon as the houthis started attacking Israel, it was all over the news.

thefirstdetective

Why? People aren’t interested in any conflict that doesn’t involve Jews, Israel or the USA. Muslims could slaughter millions of fellow Muslims, and there wouldn’t be any outcry from Muslims or the Left.

212Alexander212

No jews, no news. What, you new here or something?

1entreprenewer

You're absolutely right that Sudan is being devastatingly overlooked and it’s another moral failure of the world. But the solution to selective outrage isn’t less outrage for Gaza it’s more for Sudan. 

The difference often isn’t about the scale of suffering, but politics, visibility, and the dynamics of Western complicity. Israel is a close U.S. ally, heavily funded and shielded diplomatically, so people feel both a sense of responsibility and possibility in protesting. Sudan’s crisis, though larger in scale, feels more distant and less actionable to many even as activists and Sudanese diaspora groups continue sounding the alarm as they should. The answer shouldn’t be to downplay Gaza but to amplify Sudan. The world is more than capable of holding more than one humanitarian catastrophe in its conscience.

No-Baker-2864

First I disagree with a lot of this premise: the crises in Sudan have led to a lot of scrutiny from NGOs, international institutions, and governments. Including severe sanctions and intervention beyond anything we've seen relating to Israel. 


Even if the premise was true, what's the solution? Holding Israel to a lesser standard or the parties in Sudan to a higher standard? 


Second if we want to understand why Israeli-palestinian conflict is more salient there's a lot of factors I can think of off the top of my head


1. Length. This has been a hotly disputed conflict for decades


2. Public diplomacy. Israel and the Palestinian Authority want to keep this conflict in the public consciousness outside of their own nations as a way to influence the public narrative. Around major operations, foreign press like CNN and the BBC regularly has IDF public relations officers on the air to share the Israeli narrative


3. Inter-governmental involvement. Most western nations and activists are in agreement about Sudan. This isnt the case with Israel. There is more to protest when there are more changes activists want to see. 


4. The before mentioned worry of impunity. Because of the involvement of western governments in supporting Israel, public pressure is going to be a more appealing strategy to not let atrocities and other moral failings go unpunished. Again, This isnt the case in Sudan where there is wide spread agreement about what would liked to be seen.

hellomondays

DiamondContent2011

Not just Sudan but the entire sahel region plus what's going on in east Congo with Rwanda

alcoholicplankton69

In the UK, it's because Jews have been successfully embedded in our society for years and Muslims are hot topic right now with the rise of the far right. A clash of religious ideology like this is sexy news when both ideologies are embedded in British culture. Nobody has any interest in Sudan here, it's poor Muslims killing other poor Muslims in a country nobody knows anything about. There's no real link to British society and very few Sudanese around. I can't think of one Sudanese public figure in the UK. Not saying it's right, but it's natural that there's more fuss over one conflict than the other. 

In the US the fanatical love of Israel has been a propaganda machine for years, because Israel is effectively a US overseas territory to keep an eye on Islam. America has been meddling in the Middle East for 40+ years and has a significant Jewish and Muslim population. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC are owned by or have Jewish leadership (not Sudanese) - so again it's natural there's focus on this conflict not the other.

In terms of the UN ignoring it, that's bad. But I'm guessing it's because rich powerful countries don't give a shit about Sudan as it has no strategic importance to them.

rollingbrianjones

Because people love to hate Jews. It’s the world’s longest running hate. Everything gets blamed on Jews even 911 apparently 😂

highfrequincy

Whether or not either one is ignored, both are allowed to happen with zero consequence. Sudan due to indifference, but Israel due to implicit western support.

The West loves to hail itself as morally superior and look ms down on Sudan. Meanwhile they treat Israel as a beacon of morals when it is also commiting heinous atrocities. It is that hypocrisy that has given it more attention in my view.

It_is_not_that_hard

The ongoing civil war in Sudan has led to severe humanitarian conditions, with widespread starvation and malnutrition reported among children.

Sudan Civil War and Humanitarian Crisis

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want