They got a pass for taking pot shots at Israel, because that’s an internal regional conflict. Shooting at civilian trade ships in one of the most important shipping lanes on the planet is a completely different thing. We’re not watching gas prices skyrocket, a resurgent Russia, a global economic downturn, etc. just because some religious fanatics are throwing a temper tantrum.
The Houthis were warned repeatedly to cut that shit out, and they didn’t listen. These are the consequences.
All civilian trade ships are fired upon when they attempt to violate a blockade. Europe does it, Israel does it, the US does it. It’s how blockades work.
Will it effect international trade? Yes. So maybe the USA should have considered that before ruining relationships by attempting to maintain white dominance on the region. Oh right. They did consider it. And then realized they could just bomb everyone to get their way. And now, the West is experiencing the consequences of their violence - shipping delays.
Except the Houthis aren’t just attacking ships docking in Israel. They have been attacking any ship to the point that shipping companies have stopped using the canal.
And a blockade is an act of war. People subject to blockades have the international right to fight back.
There was news coming out today from Bloomberg that some oil tankers stopped using the Suez only following the US-UK airstrikes on Yemen.
Look at an AIS map like vesselfinder. The Sentosa 66 (Suez -> Pakistan) and the Scarlet Robin (Suez -> China) will both be passing the Bab-el-Mandeb heading towards Asia. The Buffalo (Singapore -> Suez) and the Fighter Two (India -> Suez) both passed the Bab-el-Mandeb heading towards the Suez.
People subject to blockades have the international right to fight back
let me guess… unless they’re Palestinians, right?
Ansar Allah have said explicitly that they are attempting to enforce a Naval blockade in the Red Sea against Israel. They have also stated that they believe under international law they are obligated to do whatever they can to prevent genocide.
I don’t see any reason why they can’t be negotiated with. Calling them “religious fanatics” that are “throwing a temper tantrum” is just a silly way to dismiss non violent solutions to the conflict.
Biden’s decision to threaten and subsequently bomb them is just plain arrogant belligerence. The US backed campaign to bomb and starve out the Houthis didn’t work previously so why does Biden think it’ll work now?
Firstly, the Houthi flag includes the words, “Death to America.” These are not rational actors. They are fanatic jihadis and all attempts to reason with them have failed. Acting like the Houthis are the same as a regular nation state is borderline intellectually dishonest.
If they have a problem with Israel, keep firing at Israel. If they want a problem with the rest of the world, keep firing at our CIVILIAN ships. Firing at those ships is an act of war, and it was going to provoke a response.
Biden waited a very long time to act, which emboldened Iran to take an oil tanker. That move virtually guaranteed a response, and it’s good that the response was limited to Yemen. Biden is playing the cards he’s been dealt, and he’s playing them reasonably.
Also, it should be mentioned that the Houthis themselves said the casualties were ~5 dead and 6 wounded. Warming was given far in advance so they could evacuate and minimize casualties. If Biden had wanted to play dirtier, he could have. A deliberate decision was made to minimize civilian casualties. If the positions were reversed, the Houthis would nuke Tel Aviv, DC, and every other major city in both the US and Israel.
You do realize that the US supported a campaign of bombing and a blockade against Yemen for the better part of the past decade? It’s not irrational of them to hate the US. They certainly aren’t more or less religious fanatics than Israel or the Christian Zionists in the US that support Israel.
20 years of bombing as the title of this thread implies is probably the cause they are angry with america. Ironically by taking position against israel genocide they are doing more than the west at preventing fanaticism as it has been said over and over that the indiscriminate bombing of gaza can only breed more terrorists. Whoever leads them is probably a scummy individual but just as much as Biden or the other 3 presidents that bombed them.
The Houthis are the ones attacking civilians and American warships alike. The international community tried to get them to stop for months before resorting to retaliation.
So how does bombing them change any of that? Their immediate demands are that Israel ends their genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza. If Israel complies and the Houthis continue their attacks the world is still better off so why not try that before resorting to violence?
Can someone explain to me how this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty”? It seems like these actions are supported by the internationally recognized government in Yemen. (I’m not asking about the validity of these actions, or the horrendous effects of them. Just the sovereignty question)
Also, is this the interviewee? It appears she is a language and literacy assistant professor who happens to be Yemeni American, not an expert on the Yemen war, international law, or anything else relevant to these events.
Ansar Allah movement controls the territory where 80% of Yemeni population lives and enjoys mass public support. The fact that burger empire and its vassals refuse to recognize sovereignty and right to self determination of other nations just further exposes the moral bankruptcy of the west.
It is in no way a breach of Yemeni authority. th government has no control over the territory in question, and it is being used to make repeated military strikes against US military and international civilian targets. This is entirely legal and justified under both US and international law. I’m just surprised it took this long.
If a government has no control over the populated regions of a country how can anyone reasonably consider it a legitimate government?
There are plenty of legitimate governments - and to be clear, by “legitimate” we usually mean the government recognized by the international community, whether or not any given people think they’re good guys or whatever - who do not control all of the territory they claim.
The point is that if a territory is under control of a foreign or rebel group and is attacking international civilian or military assets, then the international community can respond if the country that has claims to the territory cannot. I’m not even sure that the Yemeni government is in a position to coordinate strikes at this point, but that would be the standard approach otherwise.
If the Proud Boys took over south Texas and started launching military attacks against Mexican military facilities, and the US government was unable to stop them, Mexico and the international community would be within their legal rights to stop them.
Yemen doesn’t control the Houthi territory.
Houthi territory is in green. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present)#/media/File%3AYemeni_Civil_War.svg
these actions are supported by the internationally recognized government in Yemen.
Do you mean the US attacks are supported by tye Yemen government? Do you have a source for that handy?
And great investigation into the interviewee, that kind of critical thinking is extremely important.
The internationally recognized government does not have control over the populated regions of the country. It’s a farce to pretend they represent the Yemeni people.
That’s not really an answer to my question. “Control” does not get you sovereignty, and neither does “representing the people”. It comes down to governance and international recognition. Mexican cartels control large areas of the country, but no one is arguing they have sovereignty. Similarly, there are many repressive regimes in the world that do not represent their people, but they maintain their sovereignty.
Your analogy falls flat because, while powerful, cartels are rarely looking to supplant state control. Instead they seek state complicity which is a different thing altogether.
Ansar Allah on the other hand has set up its own governance structures. As I said, most of the populated regions of Yemen are governed under these structures. That’s despite a US backed campaign to bomb and starve them out over most of the last decade.
If the US doesn’t want to recognize the sovereignty of the Ansar Allah led Yemeni government then the US concept of sovereignty is effectively meaningless.
The issue is that the sovereignty of nation states is a somewhat nonsensical idea that has little to no solid philosophical backing. Nations aren’t living things and shouldn’t have rights in the same way people have. They are imaginary constructs, and the consequences of this are inevitable debates over what is or is not a nation. But there is no clear dividing line or definition—and in this ambiguity, powerful nations are free to recognize or ignore nations as they choose.
If you support the US action, you can claim that the Houthis are not a sovereign nation, the action was at the invitation of the legitimate government of this region against an terrorist organization, and was entirely legal and justified.
If you oppose the action, you claim that Houthis are a group of freedom fighters who have established a new separate nation that should be recognized, and this action was an illegal violation of that newfound sovereignty.
Neither can be said to be completely correct or incorrect because there is no solid basis for this idea of sovereignty.
This is the same “international recognition” that doesn’t consider Taiwan to be a legitimate government?
International recognition isn’t worth shit. Ansarallah has de facto control over the vast majority of Yemen’s territory. Just as the ROC is the government of Taiwan, Ansarallah is the government of Yemen.
Israel: bombs and invades Palestine
Palestine fighting back is wrong.
Yemen: bombs ships serving Israel
America fighting back is... right?
I feel bad for American voters. The last time military action was taken without congressional approval it led to a 20 year war resulting in a million dead Iraqis and the Taliban government back in power in Afghanistan (among other completely preventable atrocities, like this).
The hypnotism of American exceptionalism is requiring an almost lethal dose of ignorance to continue to work.
Edit: Wrong. Congress approved military action against Afghanistan and Iraq. They were lied to by the Bush administration but they did in fact approve both.
Wrong. Congress approved military action against Afghanistan and Iraq. They were lied to by the Bush administration but they did in fact approve both.
Who is arguing that Israel fighting back is wrong? Almost everyone recognizes that Israel has the right to self defense, but most people who think that also believes their response is at least disproportionate.
Who is arguing that Israel fighting back is wrong?
Most of the world thinks that. They would also take issue with you characterizing what Israel is doing as “fighting back” and “self defense”. Self-defense is when you steal land, ethnically cleanse the inhabitants, force them into a small area, then besiege them there for decades, and then blow the whole place up. Because some of them dared take up arms and broke out. You know, self defense!
Sovereignty carries with it responsibilities, these include exerting conrol over territory claimed, and maintaining territorial integrity. If some external or internal force operates with impunity in your territory, you lose sovereignty over that territory. It doesnt nessecarily mean they gain sovereignty though, although that can be one posdible outcome.
Let me guess what the other 3 were: W Bush, Obama, Trump. This is hardly surprising.
#/media/File%3AYemeni_Civil_War.svg){kind=link}