[tovej]

I mean, the RSF is very clearly the bad guys in this conflict. The reason there is no coverage is that there is widespread agreement on this point, and western govts aren't directly funding the bad guys as is the case with Israel.

[harvey9]

Another reason there's no coverage is nobody in Sudan has the social media expertise and budget that Iran has.

[notabotiswear]

Both side are the “bad side.” The RSF just wins the award of being the “worst.”

[anovikov]

I don't get it, why? RSF fights on Ukrainian side, SAF on Russian since 2024. It's the SAF that's the bad guy now. They flipped.

[throwaway27448]

How did you manage to make a civil war in sudan about a european conflict? Neither plays much role at all compared to the gulf states and eritrea/ethiopia.

[Mainan_Tagonist]

western governments funding Israel?

What western governments exactly? Isn't Israel capable of funding itself through its own economy?

[testdelacc1]

America hands out military aid to Israel. Coupons that can be redeemed for weapons with American manufacturers. It’s a subsidy to Israel and to American military primes. This comes to billions each year.

That’s one government though. I can’t think of any other western government funding Israel in a similar way.

[Mainan_Tagonist]

"That’s one government though. I can’t think of any other western government funding Israel in a similar way."

My point, exactly!

[tovej]

Germany, Great Britain, Finland, many other European partners.

They are purchasing military equipment from Israel, funding their development. Many European institutions also have investments in Israel. And arms used in the Palestinian genocide are being produced in European countries.

[testdelacc1]

I don’t think that would be the common meaning of funding. Funding doesn’t mean “have a commercial relationship with”.

[tovej]

It's not just a commercial relationship, Israel is dependent on US subsidies and European trade to fund its war effort, and Europe has shown itself to be very slow at reacting to the genocide.

Effectively Europes stance is funding the genocide. Whether a lawyer would consider this funding is besides the point. I think there are very concrete ways to argue that what Europe does would constitute funding, but I don't particularly care about that semantic argument. The main point is that Europes actions support the genocide.