A new United Nations report on the war in Sudan provides evidence of international support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia through weapons and mercenaries. The report highlights how technological advancements, particularly expanded drone capabilities, have altered the nature of the conflict, extended its geographic reach, and prolonged combat without clear pauses. Between January and May of this year, over 1,000 civilians were victims of drone attacks. The UN investigators documented attacks on health facilities, schools, places of worship, markets, refugee camps, civilian gatherings such as weddings and funerals, and energy infrastructure. Both the RSF and Sudan’s army are accused of committing war crimes by attacking civilian facilities with drones. The report also indicates that both warring parties receive foreign support, including weapons, advanced military technology, foreign fighters, financing, and other forms of assistance. External actors supporting the RSF include the United Arab Emirates, Chad, Libya, and the Puntland region of Somalia. Up to 2,000 Colombian mercenaries were reportedly hired through recruitment firms registered in the UAE, trained to operate
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has reignited controversy by suggesting that resolving the Gaza conflict requires the forced relocation of Palestinians, a move he tied to potential U.S. presidential support under Donald Trump. Speaking at a conference co-hosted by Ynet and Yedioth Ahronoth, Katz stated that Israel is “organised and prepared” to remove Palestinians from Gaza via land, sea, or air, emphasizing the need for Trump’s endorsement to make such a plan viable. He attributed the main obstacle to the reluctance of neighboring nations to accept Palestinian migrants, framing Trump as a crucial ally in overcoming this hurdle. The proposal aligns with longstanding hard-right Israeli political demands for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza as part of broader territorial integration efforts. These calls intensified following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and subsequent Israeli military operations. Under the 2024 US-brokered ceasefire, Israel retained control of approximately half of Gaza, but it has since expanded its territorial grip to nearly 60 percent. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted at potentially controlling up to 70 percent of the territory, citing the perceived threat posed by Hamas’s continued presence. Israel maintains that maintaining a military presence in Gaza is necessary for national security, given the persistent threat from militant groups. However, the ceasefire agreement and Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza both envisioned reconstruction efforts and the eventual transfer of governance to a Palestinian authority. Israeli officials have consistently questioned the feasibility of these plans, casting doubt on their implementation. Additionally, Israel has constructed security outposts and restricted movement within what it refers to as a “buffer zone” near the border, complicating efforts to rebuild Palestinian communities. In February 2025, Trump reportedly proposed the complete relocation of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents to neighboring Arab nations, primarily Egypt and Jordan. This suggestion drew swift criticism and was seemingly abandoned in October when Trump shifted his stance, advocating for the “encouragement” of Palestinians to remain in Gaza and participate in rebuilding efforts. Katz, however, maintained that Trump had not abandoned the plan, claiming instead that it remained “frozen” due to resistance from Arab states. The White House has not responded to these claims, nor has Trump’s Board of Peace, tasked with overseeing the transition of power in Gaza away from Hamas. If Trump were to endorse Israel’s relocation plan, he could face accusations of supporting war crimes. Under the Geneva Conventions, the deportation of civilians in occupied territories is prohibited unless justified by security concerns or imperative military necessity. Some human rights groups argue that Israel has already violated international law by displacing the majority of Palestinians in Gaza. Katz’s remarks suggest that Trump’s backing could legitimize such actions, raising ethical and legal questions about the role of U.S. leadership in the conflict. Meanwhile, in Sudan, a coalition of rights activists has called on the UN Human Rights Council to identify and publicize the foreign backers of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). The coalition, formed by African human rights advocates, criticized the UN’s ongoing investigation into external support for the SAF, noting that the inquiry remains incomplete. The UN fact-finding mission has documented the use of foreign-supplied drones and loitering munitions by both the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), leading to increased civilian casualties. Reports indicate that these weapons were used in attacks on civilian sites, including markets and health facilities. The coalition expressed concern over the UN’s methodology and urged the council to address all states and entities providing external support to the conflict without exception. They emphasized the importance of holding perpetrators accountable and ensuring justice for victims. Despite repeated calls for a ceasefire, General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, leader of the SAF, has refused to halt hostilities, insisting on defeating the RSF. Both sides have been implicated in serious human rights violations, including the alleged use of chemical weapons by the SAF, as revealed by investigative reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post. The UN report highlights the escalating impact of foreign military aid on the conflict, noting that it has extended the war’s geographic scope and prolonged violence without clear pauses. Over 1,000 civilians were killed in drone strikes alone between January and May 2025, with attacks targeting healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and places of worship. The report also documents the involvement of external networks in supplying weapons, mercenaries, and logistical support to both the SAF and RSF, including contributions from the United Arab Emirates, Chad, Libya, and Somalia. These entities have facilitated the recruitment of up to 2,000 former Colombian military contractors, who trained and operated advanced weaponry alongside RSF units in Darfur and Kordofan. As the situation in both Gaza and Sudan continues to evolve, the implications of international support for these conflicts remain a focal point for global attention and scrutiny.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has reignited controversy by suggesting that resolving the Gaza conflict might require the forced displacement of Palestinians through various means, including by sea or air. This idea has drawn criticism as it aligns with hard-right Israeli political factions' longstanding calls for removing Palestinians from Gaza. The discussion comes amid ongoing Israeli military operations in the region and the expansion of Israeli control over parts of Gaza. While a US-brokered ceasefire envisioned reconstruction and a future Palestinian government, Israeli officials have expressed doubts about these plans. Former US President Donald Trump had initially proposed relocating Gaza's population to Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan, but later shifted his stance, suggesting instead that the US would encourage residents to remain and rebuild Gaza.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the Israeli government's proposal to forcibly relocate Palestinians as potentially violating international law and committing war crimes, highlighting concerns raised by human rights groups. It emphasizes the controversial nature of such actions while presenting the Israeli stance
Why factuality (85): The article presents claims made by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz regarding the potential forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza, citing sources such as Ynet and Yedioth Ahronoth. It references international legal concerns about displacement and mentions hard-right Israeli political fact
Why objectivity (65): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'international outcry' and 'breach of international law,' which may influence reader perception. It frames the issue through the lens of international criticism rather than presenting multiple perspectives. The mention of Trump's role suggests a
The NationalParty-alignedCenterFactual 75Objective 809/7/2026
A Sudanese coalition has urged the United Nations Human Rights Council to identify and publicly name the countries and external entities providing support to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in the ongoing civil war. The conflict began in April 2023 due to a power struggle between the SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by General Mohamed Dagalo. The coalition, formed by African human rights activists, seeks to end the conflict and restore civilian governance. A UN fact-finding mission recently reported that foreign arms, military technology, and logistical support are intensifying the conflict and enabling more complex attacks on civilians. The mission noted that foreign-supplied drones and loitering munitions have enhanced the SAF's ability to conduct long-range strikes, including attacks on civilian areas like Yabus Market in Blue Nile State. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, emphasized the need for the UN Security Council to act decisively to prevent further suffering in Sudan.
Bias read (Center): The article presents information from multiple stakeholders, including the Sudanese coalition, the UN fact-finding mission, and the U.S. ambassador, without overtly favoring any side. It provides balanced reporting on the conflict, the role of foreign support, and calls for action from various UN-mt
Why factuality (75): The article provides a reasonably accurate summary of the situation in Sudan, citing the Sudan Coalition's call for the UN to investigate foreign support for the SAF. It mentions the ongoing conflict since April 2023, the involvement of the UN Fact-Finding Mission, and quotes the U.S. ambassador. Ho
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting facts from multiple perspectives, including the Sudan Coalition and the U.S. ambassador. It avoids overtly biased language and frames the issue as a call for international accountability. However, it leans slightly toward emphasizing the ne
A new United Nations report on the war in Sudan provides evidence of international support for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia through weapons and mercenaries. The report highlights how technological advancements, particularly expanded drone capabilities, have altered the nature of the conflict, extended its geographic reach, and prolonged combat without clear pauses. Between January and May of this year, over 1,000 civilians were victims of drone attacks. The UN investigators documented attacks on health facilities, schools, places of worship, markets, refugee camps, civilian gatherings such as weddings and funerals, and energy infrastructure. Both the RSF and Sudan’s army are accused of committing war crimes by attacking civilian facilities with drones. The report also indicates that both warring parties receive foreign support, including weapons, advanced military technology, foreign fighters, financing, and other forms of assistance. External actors supporting the RSF include the United Arab Emirates, Chad, Libya, and the Puntland region of Somalia. Up to 2,000 Colombian mercenaries were reportedly hired through recruitment firms registered in the UAE, trained to operate
Bias read (Progressive): The article presents a critical perspective on the ongoing conflict in Sudan, emphasizing the humanitarian impact, war crimes committed by both sides, and the role of external actors in prolonging the violence. It uses strong terms like 'genocidal crimes' and highlights the suffering of civilians, a
Why factuality (60): This article contains several factual inaccuracies, such as referencing events in 2026 and 2025, which are not aligned with the timeline of the conflict starting in 2023. It also makes specific claims about drone attacks and the involvement of a commander named Musa Khamsin without providing clear s
Why objectivity (65): The article exhibits a strong bias, using emotionally charged terms like 'völkermordartige Verbrechen' (genocidal crimes) and focusing heavily on the actions of the RSF while mentioning the SAF only briefly. This framing suggests a clear stance against the RSF and may not present the full picture of
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
