UK and US strikes against Houthis under way in Yemen, say US officials
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I was pretty young when I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
This is advocating that two wrongs can make a right, which I fully reject. The degree to which the human suffering happening in Gaza should be stopped is in NO WAY impacted by more malicious harm being caused to other groups. It only creates a situation in which multiple actors are causing harm to innocents - two situations that need to stop.
> They claim to be fighting against nations supporting the genocide.
Do countries in Africa support the genocide because they import grain shipments from America in order to have a food supply?
Taking military action to apply pressure the first group to stop is not considered an equal wrong by governments which represent approximately 96% of people on earth.
If you think the vast majority of humanity is engaged in passively or actively allowing a second wrong, is the 4% justified in using violence to stop the second wrong while providing critical military, economic, and political assistance for the first one?
I wonder if it's possible to describe this as a series of logical axioms or if there's some kind of special pleading going on here. It doesn't seem to be a logically consistent position to me, and since that's also the position of an overwhelming supermajority of people who have reviewed public statements made by Israeli decsionmakers, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
Easy - I don't think that, so it's not justified. The opinions of "the vast majority of humanity" are not part of the decision making process that has resulted in this situation.
> I wonder if it's possible to describe this as a series of logical axioms
I don't wonder, I believe it is! These are the (simplified) axioms along which I form my opinions about not only this, but all geopolitics in general:
- Actions that cause human suffering are bad.
- Actions that reduce human suffering are good.
- Innocent suffering in a conflict is inevitable.
- Force will be required; conflict is inevitable; the world is imperfect.
- The use of force is righteous or not depending on how the resultant innocent suffering is accounted for before, during, and after.
I believe that my opinion is completely consistent with these statements. You asked if using violence to stop other violence is wrong, and my answer is "it depends". If the Houthis were taking action against the those actually committing the atrocities, we'd probably not be having this conversation. Deliberately causing harm to innocents is never acceptable, never right. This is terrorism as a tactic.
If you think that second order violence IS an acceptable course of action, where do you draw the line? How much societal disruption in countries with less food security are we willing to induce?
If you want to make an argument that some groups of people are inherently evil and subhuman and must be destroyed, just go ahead and make it.
This is an absurdly bad faith interpretation of what I've said. You and I agree on the conflict in Gaza. The only opinion that I've offered is that terrorism isn't an acceptable response from a third party.
If you agree that there is too much collateral suffering in Gaza, but you're happy with a course of action that is deliberately inflicting more collateral suffering, then you're a moral hypocrite.
3 shortly after:
"On 12 December 2023, the Houthis launched an anti-ship cruise missile attack against the Norwegian commercial ship Strinda, an oil and chemical tanker operated by the J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi company, while it was close to the Bab-el-Mandeb. The Strinda was on its way from Malaysia to Italy (via the Suez Canal). The attack caused a fire aboard the ship; no crew members were injured.[72][73] The ship was carrying cargo of palm oil. "
On 13 December 2023, Houthi rebels attempted to board the Ardmore Encounter, a Marshall Islands-flagged commercial tanker coming from Mangaluru, India and en route to either Rotterdam, Netherlands or Gavle, Sweden, but failed, prompting a distress call from the ship. They then targeted the tanker with missiles, which missed. The USS Mason responded to the tanker's distress call and shot down a UAV launched from a Houthi-controlled area. The Ardmore Encounter was able to continue its voyage without further incident.[74]
On 14 December 2023, a Houthi-launched missile was fired at the Maersk Gibraltar, though it missed its target.[75] On 15 December 2023, Houthi spokesperson Yahya Sarea claimed responsibility for attacks on two Liberian-flagged vessels identified as MSC Alanya and MSC Palatium III. The Houthis fired naval missiles at the ships as they alleged they were traveling to Israel.[76]
On 15 December, it was reported that the Liberian-flagged Al-Jasrah, which is owned by Hapag Lloyd, caught fire after being hit by a Houthi-launched projectile while sailing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.[77] On 16 December 2023, Royal Navy destroyer HMS Diamond shot down a drone over the Red Sea while it was targeting a commercial ship.[4]
Israel is the only state that can get away with such behavior without a single sanction. Russia is under a severe package of sanctions for doing something that is not fundamentally different.
Israel is also a particular focus in the West (and especially in America) because it's done with US support (in the UN) and US weapons. So, yes, people are talking about it more than, say, the situation in Myanmar. Note that there are also sanctions against Myanmar, among other things a ban on military sales to them for what they are doing; so can we now similarly ban the sales of weapons to Israel?
EDIT: Executive’s director of Human Rights Watch on the international double standard https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047
What I’m rebutting—or rather making a poor attempt to rebut—is your hinting that the international double standard doesn’t exist, or at the very least is understandable. The interviewee in the al-Jazeera interview makes a much better argument for the existence, the importance of recognizing, and the inexcusableness of this international double standard, better than I ever could.
A short way to sum this up is: regardless of the distaste many in the west (myself included) have for the means by which Israel is pursuing it's goal, the west is unanimous in support of that actual goal: no western state believes Hamas should be left to govern Gaza, even as many probably do quietly hope to haul Netanyahu to the Hague (if the Israelis don't imprison him first).
Meanwhile: every western state actively, viscerally opposes Russia's goal.
You are nitpicking historical events. It's critical not to view events in isolation, they are deeply linked to the past, rather than being a series of unrelated incidents.
In 1948, following the UN Partition Plan of Palestine approved the creation of two states (this decision was made by the same United Nations to which you referred) Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq attacked Israel (yes, Israel because it was approved as a new country by the UN in the same way it happened to other nations).
US did a weapon embargo [1] that no benefited Israel (and the five other attackers). In this conflict, Israel was in a defensive position and Israel won that war without US support. The history is fluid.
Also, at that time Iran mas a monarchy and in 1979 after the Iranian revolution converted into a theocracy. Iran uses proxies for igniting more fire into the region. Not an opinion.
We can talk in the future again once Iran, probably, converts into a nuclear power.
[1] https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~slonims/publications/48_American_E...
In response to the straw man that people who criticize Israel never do so based on principles they apply to everything else as well, which warrants no response at all. It's not even worth taking note of at this point, it's just a square on a bingo card that got real old real quick.
People kill and die based on ideas, power, etc and not following logical rules. That is the main fallacy: applying [only] logic to the human world.
And when I "apply logic to the human world" there is not an instance in which I'm not fully "inside" the human world myself. Logic isn't some magical outside thing, and like conversation it doesn't have to be a means to an end.
So, are you denying it? Here's IDF dancing chanting genocidal stuff. And what they showed is nothing compared to what's out there. As the SA legal team said, the refrained from shock value. Let me know if you need more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G15NyemgYDM&t=4548s
(isn't it "funny" how like 1% of the Western Channels that reported on Israel's "defense" didn't say a peep about the day before that? That's a matter of record now, too, another thing that won't be forgotten nor forgiven. The casual treatment people in Palestine like vermin, if not just collateral, was heard around the world. The people who are already tired of hearing that are in for such a rough ride.)
There's taxis and busses with genocidal slogans driving around. This goes way deeper than the prime minister, countless other ministers and Knesset members, IDF generals and IDF soldiers.
https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/174508838519726080...
Jason Hickel put it well:
> The US and UK are bombing Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the world, so that Israel can continue its genocide and mass displacement of the Palestinian people in Gaza without disruption. That's the reality we're in.
While Jason Cameron can't answer the question if turning off water is a breach of international humanitarian law because "he's not a lawyer".
From the first day of hearings ( https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192... )
> 3. South Africa has come to this Court to prevent genocide and to do so in the discharge of the international obligation that rests on South Africa and all other States under the Convention. The consequences of not indicating clear and particularized, specific, provisional measures - and not taking steps to intervene while Israel disregards its international obligations before our eyes - would, we fear, be very grave indeed: for the Palestinians in Gaza, who remain at real risk of further genocidal acts; for the integrity of the Convention; for the rights of South Africa; and for the reputation of this Court, which is equipped with and must exercise its powers to afford an effective realization of the rights under the Convention.
> 4. That means, we respectfully submit, indicating the provisional measures being sought by South Africa, as well as any others in addition which the Court might deem appropriate. Justice, and equal respect for the rights of Palestinians, points overwhelmingly in favour of these critically required provisional measures.
----
(Oh, and also I'd like to add that I had no idea who Jason Hickel was, just had seen that tweet and agreed with it.. but I checked him out since and I wish I could edit that quote out, because that man is terrible)
I genuinely wish it were so that the US were powerful enough such that some junior staffer in the State Department could snap his or her fingers and end the conflict in Gaza.
Are you saying that Israel has received less military and economic aid since? Are you saying that President of the United States is unavailable for some reason? Or are you saying that the newspaper article from 42 years ago is false or misleading?