Violence engulfs besieged Zamzam camp in Sudan's Darfur region
Graphics
Mediterranean Sea
EGYPT
Nile
LIBYA
SAUDI ARABIA
Port Sudan
NORTH
DARFUR
Red Sea
SUDAN
Khartoum
CHAD
YEMEN
al-Fashir
Tawila
Sudanese Armed
Forces
Zamzam IDP camp
Rapid Support Forces
(RSF)
ETHIOPIA
SOUTH SUDAN
The conflict in Sudan that erupted two years ago has unleashed waves of ethnic violence, created the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and plunged several areas of the country into famine.
In April, the fighting between the Sudanese armed forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) spilled into one of the largest encampments for people displaced by years of warfare: the vast Zamzam camp in Sudan's western region of Darfur, home to around half a million people.
Witnesses described the moment RSF men poured into Zamzam displacement camp on April 11, looting and burning homes as shells rained down and drones flew overhead. The RSF seized the massive camp in April following days of shelling, drone attacks and ground assaults that the United Nations says left at least 300 people dead and forced around 400,000 to flee, one of the worst violations since the war began.
The capture of Zamzam comes as the RSF tries to consolidate its control over the Darfur region. The camp is near the city of al-Fashir, home to 1.8 million people and the last significant holdout from the RSF in Darfur.
The RSF did not respond to a request for comment. It has denied accusations of atrocities and said the camp was being used as a base by forces loyal to the army. Humanitarian groups have denounced the raid as a targeted attack on civilians already facing famine.
Caught between opposing forces
The Sudanese army and RSF had been in a fragile partnership since staging a coup in October 2021, which derailed a transition to democracy after the ouster of Islamist autocrat Omar al-Bashir two years previously.
The two sides clashed over an internationally backed plan that would have launched a new transition with civilian parties and required the army and the RSF to cede powers.
Specific points of dispute were the timetable for the RSF to be integrated into the regular armed forces, the chain of command between the army and RSF leaders, and the question of civilian oversight.
The warring parties had also been in competition over sprawling business interests, which they were seeking to protect.
Victory in the nearby city of al-Fashir would boost the RSF's efforts to establish a parallel government in the western regions of Sudan it controls. Elsewhere, the army has been on the upswing lately, retaking control of the capital Khartoum in March.
Satellite images showed widespread fire damage across the camp consistent with accounts from witnesses who said RSF fighters had set buildings in the camp on fire to sow terror.
Reuters could not independently verify those witness reports. RSF has denied them.
SUDAN
Zamzam
To al-Fashir
Camp residents
flee to Tawila
ZAMZAM
IDP camp
Smoke
Market
Fire damage
observed
To other
places
Before launching its attack, the RSF had been besieging the area and aid had been cut off for months from reaching the sprawling camp.
The camp has expanded during more than 20 years of sporadic conflict in Sudan to shelter nearly 500,000 predominantly non-Arab people, reflecting the enduring humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
Reuters has documented allegations of ethnically targeted violence by Arab paramilitary commanders in Darfur against the ethnic-African Masalit tribe during the current conflict.
SUDAN
Zamzam
2005
2013
2024
Housing
ZAMZAM
IDP camp
In an August 2024 report, the U.N.-backed Famine Review Committee found that famine - which is confirmed when acute malnutrition and mortality criteria are met - was ongoing in Zamzam camp.
The committee reported: 'Restrictions on humanitarian access, including intentional impediments imposed by the active parties to the conflict, have severely restricted the capability of aid organisations to scale up their response efforts effectively.'
'Basic human needs for health services, water, food, nutrition, shelter and protection are not being met.'
Aid workers say the army has obstructed humanitarian access during the war while the RSF has looted large quantities of aid that has got through. Both sides deny impeding relief efforts.
Flooding last year swamped water points in the camp, raising the risk of cholera and other diseases in an area already facing extreme levels of malnutrition.
Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian organization that provides care in conflict zones, estimated in February 2024 that an estimated one child was dying on average every two hours in Zamzam as a result of disease and malnutrition.
People displaced
150,300
al-Fashir
180,935
Zamzam
IDP Camp
Tawila
790
SUDAN
Other places
al-Fashir
10 km
Map showing number of people displaced from Zamzam IDP camp – 150,300 to al-Fashir, 180,935 to Tawila and 790 to other places.
According to a report from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the camp has been 'nearly emptied' since intense shelling and ground attacks began around April 10.
The International Organization for Migration reported that as of April 17 more than 300,000 people had been displaced to other areas within North Darfur and Central Darfur. The majority had fled to either Tawila or al-Fashir.
In recent weeks, the RSF has continued to besiege al-Fashir. On May 1, U.N. Human Rights Chief Volker Türk said the 'horror unfolding in Sudan knows no bounds' and said there was an 'ominous warning by the RSF of 'bloodshed' ahead of imminent battles with the Sudanese Armed Forces.'
'Everything must be done to protect civilians trapped amid dire conditions in and around [al- Fashir],' he said.
In March, Sudan accused the United Arab Emirates of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention by allegedly arming the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to impose emergency measures ordering the Emirates to prevent genocidal acts in Darfur.
The UAE has repeatedly dismissed the filing of the case as a political game and has argued that the ICJ, also known as the World Court, has no legal power to hear Sudan's claim. It has asked the judges to throw out the case.
Major events during the conflict in Sudan
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
What Iran will do now
The fact is, no one knows where this war ends. Overnight, the United States entered the conflict, bombing a series of targets across Iran. What happens next is difficult to predict. All we can really say for certain about this situation is where it began. And that was on 1 February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran – by courtesy of Air France – from Neauphle-le-Château, where he had been resident since his expulsion from Najaf in Iraq a few months earlier. Left alone, it is almost certain that Iran would seek to reconstruct its nuclear programme Khomeini had inveighed against Israel and Zionism (not always distinguishing either from Jews in general) for decades. Once he seized power in Iran, he made it a defining characteristic of what became the Islamic Republic to call for the destruction of both. As one distinguished commentator on Iran has said, the three pillars of the state he created have been 'Death to America', 'Death to Israel' and the Hijab. The hijab may be slipping. America is far away. But Israel is always there. For four decades, this was the guiding principle of Iran's foreign policy. To establish Iran as the true protector of the oppressed of the earth – the mustaza'fin – and therefore to assume its proper role as the guardian not just of true Islam but of all peoples who want to see an end to imperialism and western hegemony, Israel must be destroyed. Khomeini used to proclaim it. His successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, has done so with monotonous regularity, followed by his senior military and security commanders (and lots of useful idiots in the West). And that is why Iran has devoted so much effort to building up an array of helpers, partners, allies and proxies who share the same aim. The IRGC, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Iraqi Shia militias aligned with Iran – with monotonous regularity, they all repeat the same phrase: Marg bar Isra'il in Persian and Mawt li-Isra'il in Arabic. Some people think this is all for show. They say the real purpose of Iranian policy – the construction of a network of aggressive, corrupt and bellicose partners throughout the region and ultimately the nuclear programme with all its studied ambiguities but clear intent – is regime survival. But regime survival, as Khomeini construed it and Khamenei developed it, is predicated on positioning Iran as anti-Zionist. If they had really wished to guarantee its survival, they would have devoted much more effort to building a proper national economy, rather than the gangsterism we see. Iran is weak because it is corrupt. It is corrupt because it is revolutionary. It is revolutionary because it is Islamist. And to be Islamist is to hate Israel. So this conflict has been coming for years, as papers I wrote for Policy Exchange predicted. I've seen people I normally respect – and rather more I don't – say it was unprovoked. Have they been paying attention? The Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, followed by those of Hezbollah and the Houthis and indeed Iran's two waves of missile launches in 2024 were simply the culmination of an often covert and sometimes semi-deniable decades-long war being waged between the two sides. You can argue about causality and sequencing. But it is obtuse to imagine that contemporary conflicts follow a pattern of formal declaration, mobilisation, execution and settlement. This is not 1756, the beginning of the Seven Years' War. The condition of modern geopolitics is not some Platonic idea of international law but conflict in the interests of power pursued in different spaces and dimensions, overt, covert, grey, cyber, intelligence, informational, political, economic and so forth – and not always simply between states. It happens that Israel is very good at all these things. Iran is quite good at some of them. But it is no match – it turns out – for its opponent. I myself overestimated Iran's ability, with its proxies and partners, both to deter Israel and to inflict serious damage in return. That was partly because Israel – particularly in its covert operations but also in its ability to execute complex battle plans – has not simply learnt the lessons of the last two decades much better than I thought but also (and unusually for Israel) kept quiet about it. Its ability to deliver spectacular intelligence – and special-forces-led operational success in particular – is an object lesson to Britain, which has seemed more inclined in recent years to run down its core hard power assets in favour of a flabby welfare state which makes politicians feel good but does nothing for the nation's security. Iran may still prove to have some cards to play. Its stocks of missiles and launchers have clearly been heavily degraded. It has no land forces it can realistically deploy. Israeli intelligence has thoroughly penetrated the Iranian state and its allies. And Hezbollah and Hamas have taken such a beating they no longer count. The Houthis are just a nuisance. But Tehran still has ballistic and cruise missiles which can do serious damage in a country as small and tightly packed as Israel. If Palestinians or Israeli Arabs also suffer, well that's just too bad. It can also seek to attack shipping in the Gulf or even try to close the Straits of Hormuz. It tried this in the 1980s, of course, and failed. But in those days we and our Nato allies had proper navies – in particular minesweepers – which quickly resolved the issue. I doubt that the Straits could be closed fully or for long even now. But insurance rates would rise sharply. And so would oil prices. Iran could also attack US bases in the Gulf – Al Udeid Air Base for example or the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain – or the residual US presence in Iraq and Syria. It could sponsor terror attacks on Israeli or US targets more widely. It could even seek to attack energy installations in Saudi Arabia or the UAE, as it did in 2019: that is what the Arab Gulf states – which have economic development not millenarian fantasies on their minds – really fear. So how does this end? There has been much talk of the famous 'cup of poison' that Khomeini said he was forced to drink in 1988 to end a war with Iraq he had needlessly prolonged for five years. Is Khamenei inclined to take the same toxic cocktail? Tehran's public position remains inflexible and bellicose. But there have been reports that it has made private overtures to some of the Gulf states – presumably Oman and Qatar – about opening a line of communication with Washington. It's hard to see where that goes as long as Iran rejects the stated US position of zero enrichment. That may, of course, become moot if the US and Israel completely destroy Fordow, Natanz and the multiple other sites associated with the Iranian nuclear programme. That would remove the nuclear threat for a generation. But we would still be left with the issue of what happens within Iran immediately afterwards. The basis of the regime is that it would never allow the humiliations of the Qajar and Pahlavi periods to happen to Iran again. Left alone, it is therefore almost certain that it would seek to reconstruct a nuclear programme: after all, it has had the aim of weaponisation for at least 25 years and perhaps longer, whatever apologists might say. It would be hard to do so but not impossible. The regime might also dedicate itself once again to promoting global terrorism and subversion. None of that would help the Iranian people as a whole, a majority of whom almost certainly want to lead a more normal, peaceful and prosperous life. But if the Ayatollahs and the IRGC continue to believe in the righteousness of their cause, then it is hard to see them changing course. Unless, of course, there is a change of leadership or a change of regime. If there is to be either, it can only come from within Iran. This has happened multiple times in Iranian history. And the idea of Iran is so powerful and deep-seated that it cannot be destroyed – even by malign Islamists. The possibility that there is something better on the other side not just of this conflict but of the Islamic Republic itself, something that does more justice both to the talents and aspirations of the Iranian people and to the magnificence of their culture and history is perhaps the one thing that gives hope.
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Stephen Fry could do with a lesson in ‘radicalisation'
Stephen Fry has accused J.K. Rowling of being 'inflammatory and contemptuous', 'mocking' and adding to 'a terribly distressing time for trans people'. Fry, who narrated the Harry Potter audiobooks, has damned their author for saying 'cruel' and 'wrong' things and for failing to 'disavow some of the more revolting and truly horrible, destructive – violently destructive – things that people say'. He suspects that she's been 'radicalised by Terfs', charged her with kicking up 'a hornet's nest of transphobia which has been entirely destructive', and dismissed her as 'a lost cause'. Might I interrupt this lengthy damnatio memoriae to point out that Fry is supposed to be Rowling's friend and to venture that, if she deserves to be rebuked for anything, it's her godawful taste in friends. Fry, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson. The woman is like flypaper for airheads, dilettantes, and abject ingrates. If J.K. Rowling has been radicalised, it is not by Terfs Fry's comments, which came in a recording of the podcast The Show People, are in stark contrast to his answer when asked about these matters in 2021 ('She's a friend and will remain a friend') and again the following year, when he refused to 'abandon' her and said: 'I know that J.K. Rowling doesn't want to see trans people bullied, alienated, shut out of society, made to feel ashamed, guilty, laughed at, all those things.' Fry suggests Rowling has been 'radicalised', a word familiar to followers of the gender controversy for its customary application to women who insist on their rights. Although the terminology echoes that used to describe recruitment of Islamist terrorists, you need not be a feminist semantician to suspect that 'radical' is being used as a synonym for 'hysterical', as though women who believe in chromosomal sex are like the mad heroine of a Charlotte Perkins Gilman story and would benefit from a lie down. Radicalisation is a deceptive and manipulative framing because recognising the existence of physiological differences between men and women isn't radicalism, it's biology. Fry has repeatedly professed his distaste for the gender wars and refused to engage on the substance. For all his donnish affectations, he's a 'be kind' merchant whose contribution to the debate is every bit as vacuous as those Insta mums who pose with a Pride Progress flag in front of their 'Live, Laugh, Love' wall canvas every 1 June. Yet were Fry to take heed of what the gender ideology vanguard say, he might grasp that their use of 'radicalisation' is projection. For if you've convinced yourself that men become women by declaring themselves to be so, that women corseting themselves in chest binders or having healthy breasts amputated is sound therapeutic care, that children should be offered medical and even surgical interventions to mutilate their bodies – and, yes, this is what the vanguard believes – then you should stop and ask who exactly has been radicalised here. When I first wrote critically about gender identity ideology on Coffee House in 2019, it set in motion a parting of ways with several friends who could not tolerate my disagreement with the fundamental convictions they had recently picked up from Twitter. The end of a friendship is often mired in sadness and regret but when a mate breaks away because you reckon Judith Butler is a bit of a nutter, there is – eventually – relief at a bullet dodged. There is also a deeper appreciation of those friendships which span political and philosophical divides. Some of my dearest friends are people who maintain that trans women are women, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, Scotland should be an independent state, and Jeremy Corbyn would have made a good prime minister. Mateship across ideological lines is normal and healthy, I don't care what the bug-eyed scolds on BlueSky say. You stick by your mate, defend him even as you disagree with him, and you most certainly don't turn on him when a gang of under-medicated hall monitors corner you in the cafeteria. I'd like to think that Rowling doesn't pay much mind to turncoats who huff the fumes of her success then ditch her for status points. That she's too busy spending her days in a mountaintop hotel typing 'All work and no play makes Jo a dull girl' and her nights dive-bombing into a vault of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. But no doubt it stings her just as it would the rest of us. That's unfortunate but it is better than the alternative. A friendship you can only hold on to by believing, or pretending to believe, that womanhood is nothing more than a feeling, that sex-based rights are bigoted, that transing the gay away is progressive, is a friendship from which you should flee without delay. If J.K. Rowling has been radicalised, it is not by Terfs but by the spinelessness and intellectual vacuity of characters like Stephen Fry. Men who profess left-liberal affinities in every other regard but are content to align themselves with harmful, reactionary doctrines because to do otherwise would be low-brow. Why, he'd be no better than the ghastly Americans who voted for Trump and those hideous English provincials who read the Daily Express. People like this have nothing to add to the conversation beyond repeating vapid platitudes half-remembered from their last dinner party. If this is the quality of contribution Fry has to offer the gender debate, it might be wise all round if he resumed his vow of silence.
Scottish Sun
a day ago
- Scottish Sun
Iranian mastermind of October 7 attack obliterated in revenge strike as Israel pummels nuke reactor in overnight blitz
Scroll down to read the latest updates... KINGPIN KILLED Iranian mastermind of October 7 attack obliterated in revenge strike as Israel pummels nuke reactor in overnight blitz Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) ISRAEL killed the Iranian military commander who funded the October 7 attacks which detonated the Middle East crisis in a revenge air strike yesterday. Evil terror kingpin Saeed Izadi - head of the Palestinian Division of Iran's Quds Force - was blown to bits in a pinpoint attack in the Iranian city of Qom. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 3 Evil terror kingpin Saeed Izadi has been killed Credit: @IDF 3 Missiles fired from Iran in retaliation for Israeli attacks are seen in the sky over the Hebron, West Bank Credit: Getty 3 Israeli air defense system fires to intercept missiles during an Iranian attack over Tel Aviv Israel Defence Force said Izadi was 'one of the architects' of the horror in which 1,200 died and 250 were kidnapped 'and among the few who knew of it prior to its execution.' It added: 'Izadi was eliminated in a safe house in the heart of Iran, following a prolonged intelligence effort.' Izadi was said to be a top money man in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who sent state cash Palestinian terror organizations in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli military later said that it killed another commander of the Guards' overseas arm identified as Benham Shariyari, during a strike on his vehicle in western Tehran. Shariyary was said to be "was responsible for all weapons transfers from the Iranian regime to its proxies across the Middle East". The ongoing cull of top Iranian commanders - and their replacements - gathered pace along with another assassination of a top nuclear boffins. IDF officials refused to identify the scientist said to play a vital role in the rogue Islamist regime's plans to build an atom bomb. He was killed by a missile fired from a drone after being moved to a 'safe house' - which Israeli intelligence located overnight. His death is the 11th assassination of a nuclear scientist in the past nine days in a special Israeli manhunt dubbed Operation Narnia. Iran launched more missiles overnight which were intercepted amid reports of minimal damage - as Israel intensified its war on terror targets across Iran. Meanwhile, Israel hit "two centrifuge production sites" at Iran's Isfahan nuclear facility overnight. A military official revealed to reporters on the condition of anonymity: "Isfahan we targeted in the first 24 hours of our operation, but we carried out a second wave of strikes there overnight, deepening our achievements and advancing the damage to the facility." He added that the targeting of two centrifuge production sites in Isfahan was "in addition to a couple more centrifuge production sites that we have been able to strike successfully in recent days". The relentless raids by the Israeli air force have "dealt a severe blow to Iran's centrifuge production capabilities," the official said. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, both for civilian and military use. Stay up to date with the latest on Israel vs Iran with The Sun's live blog below...
