> and it claims that it is targeting “all ships heading to Israeli ports” until food and medicine are delivered to Gaza.
Maybe we should try this obvious solution first, deliver "enough" food and medicine to people in gaza?
Maybe we should try this obvious solution first, deliver "enough" food and medicine to people in gaza?
> The militant group’s motto includes the exhortation “Death to Israel. A curse upon the Jews,” and it claims that it is targeting “all ships heading to Israeli ports” until food and medicine are delivered to Gaza. But most of the ships being attacked neither are headed to Israel nor have Israeli ownership.
While I sympathize with the notion that supplying aid might assuage the Houthis, it seems they’re ambitions are both greater and mistargeted.
They lack internal coherence. We’re talking about a group of warlords, after all. Nobody is in charge, which makes the notion of striking a deal ludicrous.
Correct. Conspicuously, Iran hasn’t offered terms. Which makes sense. The chaos boosts their bona fides. And they’re selling oil through a separate channel.
Houti aggression on merchant ships is a political act. By attacking Israel they are sending a political message to their opponents that reads "if you attack us right now it means you're on the side of Israel". That's why it doesn't matter whether their garage built cruise missiles actually make it to Eliat, or not, whether they really stop shipping, or not. The shots are fired north at Israel, but the message is targeted south and east. They are in the middle of a civil war, a very long and extremely brutal one, and this tactic works given what their opponents think about themselves and the world.
The EU/US response to this will be challenging, mostly because they cannot really threaten Houti power. North Yemen is already in a deeper ruin than most countries are after a war, their military industrial base is located in another country (Iran), and there are very small chances for an internal revolt. BTW, in this conflict China and the US and the EU are actually on the same side, though China will definitely try to sit this one out.
All they needed was to show a little restraint instead of giving in to their revenge instinct. China and Russia are both hostile to Islamic terrorism. Nobody would have vetoed that resolution if Israel hasn't started immediately flattening Gaza.
That is actually how Hamas would have lost its leg.
So I wouldn’t hold your breath for it to start happening now.
The problem is people seem to think UN has any meaning, it doesn't, it's just a hugh waste of money.
Leaving your disingenuous framing aside, yes, Israel has brought complaints to the UN before. See: https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-complains-un-over-hezbol...
I asked you for an example of Israel and the US going to the UNSC first and only after that launching an excursion into Gaza. You respond with a complaint about Lebanon moving troops within its own borders. What was the expectation from the UNSC there? How does that relate to my question?
In any event, you asked for one time Israel brought a complaint to the UN and I provided it. Please don’t alter the goalposts you yourself set.
What was the UN’s response? Was there an intervention? A censure of Hezbollah or Lebanon? An investigation?
Given the UN’s history towards Israel, why would it ever take anything to the UNSC or believe that its arbitrations and judgments are anything but massively biased against it?
I don't really understand that line of reasoning, doesn't Israel owe its existence to the UN security council resolution in 1948?
No, but it would have looked good. That matters in international relations. The Arab world sees America as Israel’s surrogate; that makes it tough for Washington to e.g. strike a deal with Riyadh or Tehran to solve this Bab al-Mandan crisis.
You assert that this case of piracy is driven by noble causes, as opposed to literally any use of force by any government in human history.
Assuming that the Houthi demands are complied with, what should prevent the Houthis from using their military force to promote other causes, perhaps less noble, like enriching their own leaders (a.k.a., privateering and collecting ransom)?
This point can be made about any of the groups with weapons in this context. Including Israel. So it becomes useless.
Piracy (more precisely: systematically and arbitrarily attacking vessels in the open seas) is not considered legitimate for any government - not the US, not China and certainly not Israel. The violation of this rule by itself is grounds for war by the injured governments (which, by the way include most of the EU and the US).
The extraordinary claim here is exempting the Houthi extreme actions from the rule of not practicing piracy just because they are hostile to Israel.
The above line of thought also begs the question of what other extreme actions are supposedly justifiable if the perpetrator happens to be hostile to Israel. Is it a get-out-of-jail card of some kind?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-enters-gaza-th...
That should be enough in theory. But see details in the article, there are many logistical challenges remaining to actually get it to those in need.
Trucks with all the aid come in every day. Here, for example, is a report from Nov 26: https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-wa...
You can find reports for every day.
Don't take what a terror group says a truth.
No idea what that has to do with twitter discourse or US issues with healthcare, something I know literally nothing about.