Hacker News Reader

Ansar Allah was targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea long before the Gaza crisis.

Well, assuming that’s true, it’s clearly happening at a different scale here. The global response is proof.

The white house has even explicitly said that these bombings won’t stop the houthis.

Ah yes so nice of them to worry about Gaza, I'm sure it's all due to how pure of heart they are /s

> Bombing Yemen will do nothing to stop attacks on commercial shipping

This is bully logic. It can escalate the conflict, yes, but destruction of artillery and missiles works

“Bully logic” is actually a great way to explain why the US is now bombing Yemen.

Care to explain how preventing an organization from attacking civilian ships is bullying?

I’ve replied with my thoughts elsewhere in this comment chain.

Because Israel is attacking civilian targets in Gaza. USA not doing anything about that. In fact no one is except the Houthis.

you’d might want to google the amount of civilian casualties in the yemen civil war, its proportion to deaths in the Gaza war and houthis involvement in said civilian deaths.

You might be surprised how preoccupied they are with ‘preventing’ civilian death

Following the same logic, we also have plenty of examples of how US is (not) worried about democracy, free trade and attacks against civil targets. And therefore, we can dismiss its statements about these issues. No problem, it's a tie. Therefore, what remains to discuss is just how legitimate is the stated purpose of Houthi's attacks that is claimed to uphold article 1 from Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from UN. According with that convention, which is signed by Yemen, their members must act to prevent genocide whenever it is happening, either during war or peace. A blockade is indeed a way to act against this crime.

Not legitimate at all, since the Houthis were doing this before the Gaza war, and they themselves are laying siege to Ta'izz.

They were for other reasons. Likewise, US were also bombing people and launching missiles before for other reasons and also make economical sieges against other targets in other contexts. I'm confused why this should mean that any future attack and reasoning made by US or Houthis should be dismissed because of this.

THESE particular bombings were because the blockade and sanctions that they did in the region and they justify with the genocide happening in Palestine.

They can justify what they're doing however they'd like, but I don't think anybody serious believes anything they say. There's a backstory with these people.

Well, I do not consider "serious" countries that are not opposing a genocide because they have neocolonialist interests in the region. Fortunately, we have several serious countries that are acting and also supporting the case in the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Houthis, and nobody supporting that case supports them.

Correct. But at this point I support all iniciatives toward protectong civilians and promote a ceasefire in the region.

If you support civilian lives then the very last people in the entire world you want to get behind are Ansar Allah. You have to be careful about campism. It's pernicious.

Different means to the same goal. The Houthis have no access to the ICJ, however they have access to disrupt the maritime trade through the Red Sea, so this is how they act. There is also reasons to believe that even if the ICJ rules in favor of South Africa on Friday, and orders Israel to stop any military activity and let in humanitarian aid, that they will simply not follow it, and there is reasons to believe that USA will excuse this behavior. Disrupting maritime traffic in the Red Sea may proof to be an invaluable action in addition to the ICJ case for stopping the horrors in Gaza.

It is categorically false that the Houthis have the same goal as the ICJ case. One way you know that is that if Ansar Allah succeeded in their chartered goal of liberating Jerusalem and Palestine, they would proceed to bomb all the Muslim Brotherhood's mosques; they seek to liberate Palestine not just from the Jewish people, but from the Sunnis as well. And how you know that is: that's exactly what they're doing, right now, in Yemen.

Of course, another way you know they're full of shit is that they were shooting rockets at cargo ships in the Red Sea years before the Gaza war.

I think a pretty mainstream and reasonable way to look at Ansar Allah is:

What they say: meaningless agitprop about Palestinian liberation.

What they intend: A Zaydi Shi'a imamate with racial and bloodline governance.

What they are: A chaos agent managed by Iran in order to keep Saudi Arabia, which operates a military with one of the world's worst ratios of capacity and funding to competence, perpetually on the wrong foot.

Sorry, stated was implied. These are different means to the same stated goals.

The Houthis are not the only one blocking Maritime trade, there are also activist groups in e.g. Oakland and Tacoma which have blocked freight traffic from respective ports with the aim of disrupting shipment to Israel and the stated goal of stopping the genocide.

What the Houthis and these activist groups in America do after they’ve succeeded in stopping the genocide, that is another question which we can tackle at the time. As of now there is an emergency situation in Gaza, and we must treat it as such. Stopping the genocide is at utmost importance.

That's a horrible thing to say about activists in the US. I may think activists in Oakland and Tacoma are ineffective, performative, and largely wrong in the particulars of their case, but I have never claimed they are morally comparable to Ansar Allah, a racial-supremacist monarchist movement that kills civilians in numbers the IDF has never come close to approaching.

Campism is a hell of a drug.

You previously gave me a lecture about my rhetoric and I listened. Can you please not make assumptions about my believes beyond what I said. They only thing I said about activists in Oakland and Tacoma is that they employ a (superficially) similar tactics. The rest was your spin.

"What the Houthis and these activist groups in America do after they’ve succeeded in stopping the genocide" is assertion that these groups are acting in concert. They are not, nor do they share the same goal. If you wanted to say they were tactically superficially similar, I'd shoot that down too (activists in Tacoma aren't blowing things up and trying to kill crew) but I wouldn't find the argument offensive, just deeply wrong.

Sorry, that’s not what I meant. There was an implied respectively there. But they do have a common stated goal of an immediate ceasefire. As is the stated goal of South Africa and supportive nations the very same at the ICJ. So same goal via different means.

As for effectiveness, we do know that protests do work if they are disruptive enough. But we also know that rulings by the ICJ have a tendency to be ignored if a powerful enough nation disagrees with them. Both the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Seattle are among the nations largest cities who are calling for ceasefire. Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal are among very few members of congress calling for ceasefire.

We will see in the days after Friday whether the actions at the ICJ were enough, and that actions against international shipping were indeed unnecessary. However, I’m gonna remain pessimistic about that.

The "actions against international shipping" (objectively: indiscriminate and murderous piracy) have done nothing to deter the IDF, but have harmed people throughout the region that depend on the navigability of the Red Sea and supply chains. I object to the claim that the ICJ effort is somehow connected to what Iran and Ansar Allah are doing.

There's a further irony to appealing jointly to the ICJ, an instrument of international law, and piracy, opposition to which is the literal original basis for all international law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Liberum

I wasn’t aware of the irony, but yeah, its there, but it is nothing more than a curiosity. But these are indeed separate groups aiming for the same thing, a ceasefire, via different means. That is the only link I’ve claimed.

You seem to take issue with the methods the Houthis are employing, but I would like to point out that blockading international shipping is also a method which the Israelis use against Gaza. This blockade by Israel has manifested it self in direct assaults on cargo vessels and murders of their crew members (see e.g. Gaza Flotilla Raid[1]).

I think the targets of the Houthis is not the IDF directly, but rather the international community, particularly nations which are aiding and enabling Israel in the genocide, such as the USA. That the tactic here is to be disruptive enough that it won’t be worth it for these nations to support Israel in its crimes any longer. However, I’m not a member of the Houthies, so I can be wrong about that.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid

A naval blockade is an act of war. A naval blockade in international shipping lanes is an act of war against every country that uses those seas! There is no rhetoric that rescues the Houthis from the irony of your argument.

I recommend that you do some additional reading about the Houthis. Rasha Al Aqueedi and Nadwa Dawsari are good starting points. I think you're unlikely to find a credible reported account of Ansar Allah that is sympathetic to them.

> A naval blockade is an act of war. A naval blockade in international shipping lanes is an act of war against every country that uses those seas!

I don’t dispute this. However by that logic, Israel has been at war with Gaza (and everyone that trades with Gaza, including Turkey) since 2008. And if we follow that logic further—which we shouldn’t—we can explain Oct. 7 as a particularly horrendous war-crime in a war full of war crimes committed by both sides, but again, we shouldn’t do that.

I also don’t dispute the irony. It most definitely is there, I just find it unimportant. On a global issue, you will always find very different groups with vastly different goals, and it just so happens that one of their goals intersect. They don’t need to be united behind that goal (and they seldomly are) but what you will see is every group has most likely very different means towards that goal.

These actions may even be counterproductive. You may believe that this is the case for the Houthi actions, I don’t, and for that we’re just going to have to disagree.

Finally I would like to note, I’m not sympathetic to the Houthies as a group, merely their stated goal of a ceasefire. I’m also of the believe that we are going to have to be way more disruptive if we are to achieve ceasefire. I believe—and I may be proven wrong about this—that the ICJ case is not gonna be enough, as any enforcement may—and I believe it will—simply be blocked by the USA.

Expect to see much more disruptive actions from all groups if (when?) the international community fails to enforce the orders from the ICJ.

Israel occupies Gaza. If you're looking for me to defend Israel with respect to Gaza and the West Bank, you're barking up the wrong tree. But international law doesn't have much to say about the situation, because Israel won both territories about as "fairly and squarely" as you can say exists under international law, way back in 1967 --- they even offered Gaza back to Egypt, which refused, for cynical reasons.

Further: your logic doesn't cohere. Were Israel to blockade international shipping lanes, countries would declare war against them, as Israel did when Egypt blockaded the Tiran Straits. The discussion wouldn't be "can Israel do this"; it would be "has Israel provoked a war with another seafaring country", the way Ansar Allah has.

What you can't do is supply an analysis like "since Israel blockaded Gaza, Ansar Allah can blockade the Red Sea". Well, they can do that, but then the UK and the US will be applauded by the Security Council when they aerosolize Ansar Allah with cruise missiles.

You have repeatedly defended the actions of Ansar Allah in this discussion, most importantly by accepting their explanations at face value despite a (recent!) historic context that gives the lie to all of them, pretty bluntly and objectively. I understand you'd rather just focus on making a case against Israel, and I get why, but the reason you're conversing with me on this thread and not a supporter of Israel is that I'm not prepared to let sail by the idea that the Houthis are a legitimate actor. They are precisely the opposite of that.

The thing is, in this playing field of Israel consistently breaking international law, and committing war crimes, and as of now genocide, and the USA consistently blocking any attempts to stop and punish Israel’s crimes. That in this playing field I don’t consider Israel any more legitimate then the Houthies. Personally I wouldn’t mind if both pay for their crimes against humanity, but as of current US international policy it looks like Houthies are the only ones that will pay for their crimes. And what is worse, the Palestinian people will keep dying and nothing can stop it.

This is why I think the only thing that will work are disruptions, these disruptions may include boycotts, blocking of highways, shipping, etc. divestments, etc.

I keep in perspective the urgency of stopping the genocide. And the scale of the disruptions I find justified are proportional to that urgency.

EDIT: Just to prevent this from being read wrong. I still support South Africa’s case for the ICJ. Including because the off chance their rulings will be enforced, but also because I think it will persuade more actors to pursue more disruptions, e.g. for the EU to ignore the USA and issue sanctions against Israel, for broadcasters across Europe to kick Israel out of Eurovision, etc.

We're talking past each other. You can accuse Israel of violating any number of international laws, but none of that can possibly immunize Ansar Allah, which is what we're talking about here. You cannot engage in piracy as a protest action for violations elsewhere in the world. Or --- again --- you can, but you're going to end up reduced to your combustion products by the world's largest navies.

If you follow the subthread back to the point where I joined it, you'll see that's been my consistent point throughout.

They cannot uphold article 1 on their own account, without international support and they're not a signatory.

You need to show that the intent of Israel is to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, even partially. What I see is the attempt of Israel to prevent more October 7 attacks, which Hamas declared it is going to repeat. The actual goal here is to protect Israel's own citizens from genocide, which Hamas has shown willingness to commit and ability (albeit in a smaller scale currently).

I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place.

As this is war, it's also causing immense suffering in the Palestinian side. Which is why a war to remove Hamas from power was constantly deferred in the past, knowing they are highly entrenched in the civilian population. However, I don't think they left Israel any other way this time.

Wrong. First Yemen IS signatory since 1987 (or 1989 if you consider North Yemen). Second, the convention gives responsibilities beyond borders for members, and explicitly puts responsibility to act upon signatory States. And third, there are plenty previous cases that opened precedence that a country can act even before any approval from UN (US bombed Yugoslavia arguing this), and there is also precedence of blockades enforced by a single country despite the lack of approval (and despite disavowal) from UN (US blocking Cuba and Venezuela).

> I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place.

Also wrong. The genocide convention was created to prevent genocide. There is nothing in the convention mentioning that you should not act if the victims are from other countries. On the contrary, the convention says that you must act to prevent and has an extraterritorial scope (as was established in a previous judgement in UN).

How exactly killing children, reporters, women and people holding white flags, attacking UN shelters, as well as destroying hospitals and universities prevent more October 7 attacks!? In fact, it will create more attacks because of the anger from an oppressed people. Which was the cause of October 7 attacks, by the way. Sorry, declaring war is not a free pass to commit war crimes. If the war crimes are frequent, and they are not opposed (or if they are encouraged), this is a serious evidence of genocide.

A rebel organization is not the yemen government, that’s exactly the reason they are successful at being a proxy. all the benefits of being a state without any responsibility for your actions.

About the common western trope of “you should never fight terror because it will only bring more terror” that’s false. There is no way the palestinian population would be more radicalized, they are at the end of the spectrum. It wasn’t like there was any type of atrocity known to man on October 7 that was stopped short due to being too extreme.

Also, israel had shown that when fighting palestinians organizations in the second intifada 2001-2004, it succeeded in greatly reducing the amount of terror and achieve deradicalization