Airstrike kills at least 70 seeking care at last functioning hospital in North Darfur capital as Sudan’s civil war rages | CNN

CNN - Jan 26th, 2025

A devastating drone strike targeted the last operational hospital in El Fasher, North Darfur, Sudan, killing at least 70 people, with the majority being women and children. This attack, which occurred late Friday, was reported by local officials and the World Health Organization (WHO). The hospital was filled with patients at the time of the strike. WHO's director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, highlighted the severity of the situation as Sudan's foreign ministry condemned the attack, accusing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of the atrocity. The RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by generals Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan respectively, have been embroiled in a brutal civil war for 20 months, leading to one of the worst humanitarian crises globally, with over 20,000 deaths and 11 million displaced.

The recent attack underscores the ongoing violence and humanitarian disaster in Sudan, where civilian areas and healthcare facilities have frequently been targeted. The Saudi Teaching Maternal Hospital, the only remaining public hospital capable of performing surgeries in El Fasher, had previously suffered attacks, highlighting the region's vulnerability. WHO's Ghebreyesus called for an end to hostilities and emphasized the need for peace to ensure the safety and health of Sudanese civilians. The international community's attention is crucial as this conflict continues to escalate, further destabilizing the region and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

World Health Organization Humanitarian Crisis Sudan Rapid Support Forces Civil War Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Drone Strike Sudanese Armed Forces Abdel Fattah Al Burhan Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the recent drone strike on the Saudi Teaching Maternal Hospital in El Fasher, placing it within the broader context of Sudan's ongoing civil war. It effectively uses credible sources like the World Health Organization to support its claims, although the lack of direct commentary from the RSF limits the balance and transparency of the report. The article is timely and addresses issues of significant public interest, such as the humanitarian crisis and the targeting of healthcare facilities. While the language and structure are clear and engaging, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the conflict dynamics and responses from all parties involved to enhance clarity and balance. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the discourse on the Sudanese conflict, highlighting critical issues and encouraging further discussion and investigation.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed account of the drone strike on the Saudi Teaching Maternal Hospital in El Fasher, citing local officials and the World Health Organization (WHO) as sources. The claim that at least 70 people were killed, primarily women and children, aligns with the information provided by WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. The article accurately describes the ongoing civil war in Sudan, including the parties involved and the humanitarian crisis it has caused. However, the article does not specify who was responsible for the attack, a key detail that remains unverified. The allegations against the RSF by Sudan’s foreign ministry and Darfur Governor Mini Minnawi are reported, but the RSF has not commented, leaving this aspect open to further verification. The previous attack on the hospital in August is mentioned, but details are sparse, requiring additional corroboration.

Balance

The article presents multiple perspectives by including statements from WHO, Sudan’s foreign ministry, and Darfur Governor Mini Minnawi. However, it predominantly highlights the allegations against the RSF without providing a response from them, as they have not commented. This could lead to a perception of bias against the RSF. The article does acknowledge accusations between the RSF and SAF, indicating an ongoing blame game, but more balanced coverage would include statements or denials from the RSF to provide a fuller picture of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with information presented logically. It provides a comprehensive overview of the situation, including the attack's details, the broader conflict, and its humanitarian impact. The language is straightforward, making the complex situation accessible to a general audience. However, the lack of clarity regarding the responsibility for the attack could lead to confusion. Including more direct quotes or statements from all parties involved would enhance clarity and understanding.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources like the World Health Organization and Sudanese officials. The WHO is a reputable international body, lending authority to the claims about the attack's impact on healthcare access. Local officials provide on-the-ground perspectives, adding to the credibility. However, the lack of direct RSF commentary limits the diversity of viewpoints and could affect the perceived impartiality. The article would benefit from including more diverse sources to corroborate the claims made by Sudan’s foreign ministry and the Darfur Governor.

Transparency

The article is transparent in its sourcing, clearly attributing information to the WHO and Sudanese officials. It explains the context of the civil war and its impact on the region, providing readers with background information necessary to understand the situation. However, the lack of direct quotes or responses from the RSF limits transparency regarding their side of the story. The article could improve transparency by outlining the methodology used to verify the claims made by various parties involved.