Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexisread | Hacker News Reader

Given that the Houthis have said they are holding up ships they consider linked to Israel, and that everyone in the UN bar the US and Israel are calling for a ceasefire, and that South Africa have detailed a case for genocide against Israel, wouldn't it be more useful to get a ceasefire, so then the Houthis can stop?

Generally this article is called doubling down, and the only people that get hurt in these scenarios are the inhabitants of these countries, who then become refugees knocking on other countries' doorsteps.

View on HN

Given that the last time the Houthis hit a ship, it was a Danish-owned vessel flying the Singaporean flag en route from Singapore to Egypt, either the Houthis have terrible aim or they're not entirely honest about their motivations. Given how difficult it is to hit a ship out in the water in the first place, I think the second explanation is more likely.

Related question: why is Iran okay with the Houthis targeting random international shipping?

The majority of global shipping benefits people Iran don't like. Disrupting this therefore is to their benefit. It adds extra headache for 'the west'.

But Iran also likes the Houthis being a credible threat to Saudi Arabia and the UAE even more.

Continuing to poke international commercial shipping will obviously trigger a response. No one powerful, even China, wants non-military ships being attacked.

So they're risking substantial damage to Houthi power for... what?

Tying up naval capacity? Eh. Temporarily. And with minimal effect on Israel/Palestine.*

Boosting the price of oil? Maybe. But doesn't seem to be doing much yet.

At Russia's behest? Maybe. General chaos elsewhere and tying up ISR assets benefits Russia.

* Would become much more relevant if Hezbollah enters the war.

You make some good points. But the Houthis have been being bombed by Saudi Arabia for years and haven't been crippled by it. Getting them to poke and prod some shipping could be and easy way to cause an outsized impact.

It could also be an internal thing for the Houthis that we (certainly I) don't know about. Being able to say "We're standing up to Israel and the US" could be big for their credibility in Yemen. That is pure speculation however.

It's a way to hurt Biden in the elections.

(Trump was tougher against Iran but they feel they can survive it. What's important is that the Mullahs read all the press arguing that Trump is a danger to the American republic itself and take it into account. How often does one get a chance to seriously harm such a powerful country like the United States? For people whose call is 'death to America', this is a one time opportunity, which at worst won't work. These people are compulsive gamblers especially with assets they can afford to lose like the Houthis.)

Which was covertly going to Israel.

> Given that the Houthis have said they are holding up ships they consider linked to Israel

They're stopping ships that they can, and it is in their interest to stop. Iranian ships seem to be passing through no bother, but ships flagged as Liberian, coming from Europe to Asia with a Filipino and Indian crew are stopped. You can consider any ship linked to Israel if you don't care how tenuous the link is.

> and that everyone in the UN bar the US and Israel are calling for a ceasefire.

Notably Hama's isn't calling for a ceasefire, and it takes two to tango, so even if Israel wanted a ceasefire there won't be one.

> wouldn't it be more useful to get a ceasefire, so then the Houthis can stop?

Since when did "Don't give in to terrorists" stop being a thing? Just throw ourselves on the good graces of a violent terrorist group.

Hamas has called for a ceasefire numerous times, and in fact there was a temporary ceasefire. To forestall the next question, as to who broke the truce, I've not seen evidence either way, only claims. Regardless, this does kinda invalidate your claim.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In this case, nearly the whole of the UN has voted for a ceasefire, so interests align, which should be a better solution yes?

> Notably Hama's isn't calling for a ceasefire, and it takes two to tango, so even if Israel wanted a ceasefire there won't be one.

It takes two to tango, but two people holding a staring contest hoping the other will propose a tango doesn't work all that well.

> Since when did "Don't give in to terrorists" stop being a thing?

It was never a thing. America's very first treaty was with pirates. Countries negotiate with terrorist groups regularly; they use the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing when they don't want to.

No, you don’t negotiate with pirates.

To this day I am dismayed that Yemen is the only country imposing effective sanctions against Tel Aviv apartheid regime war crimes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com