5 ms·

> 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 solut

> 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?

ericfrazier 3y ago
It all goes right to Hamas so, no?
8b16380d 3y ago
[flagged]
cyanydeez 3y ago
We can't let one small genocide hold us hostage over one small far right ethnostate holding us hostage over...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dgellow 3y ago
That would confirm viability of the attackers strategy. They already are risking their life for this, they have no incentives to stop once their demands are fulfilled. In some ways that makes it now impossible to deliver food and medicine because that may be seen as a Houthi victory…
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  “Oh no, someone forced us to feed a million starving refugees. This establishes bad precedent!”
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    Unfortunately, yes. War is very ugly.
    - jakupovic 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - DiscourseFan 3y ago
        Justice? I don't think anyone here cares about justice more than the Houthis, and there version of it is the total destruction of the US and Israel. They believe, literally, it is their divine mission to destroy those two states. How are the US and Israel supposed to respond to a group whose stated goal is their complete and utter destruction? Would it be just to give them any leeway, to give them any sort of victory they can boast about to gain more followers, more strength, in order to execute terrorist attacks against the US and its allies? Would it be just to endanger their own citizens just for a short peace that ends the moment the Houthis decide they have the power to advance further?
        keybored 3y ago
        This sounds like Sam Harris logic. The most dangerous groups aren’t the most hateful or those who the most ambitious goals, like “destroy America”. It is those who are both powerful and have some stated or non-stated plan to do something. The US and Israel are much more powerful than these groups.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        You're arguing that America and Israel are more dangerous than Hamas? I mean yes, of course. That's the point of having a military.
        keybored 3y ago
        If you agree then I don’t understand why you are responding to this out of nowhere.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    The point is the refugees are orthogonal to the issue of the crisis. Giving them supplies is irrelevant; the Houthis will still control Bab al-Mandab.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Yes, which makes “don’t feed refugees, the Houthis will like that” doubly gross.
      - Veraticus 3y ago
        Is anyone saying this? It seems like the vast majority of comments are in agreement the refugees should be fed. If anything most people here seem to basically agree with the Houthis.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Scroll up to where the poster I originally replied to said "In some ways that makes it now impossible to deliver food and medicine because that may be seen as a Houthi victory…" for an example of people saying exactly that.
        dgellow 3y ago
        I would like to see food and medicine being given to Gaza’s population. I also think Houthis’ approach makes it now basically impossible to happen.
        aaomidi 3y ago
        “Bernie fans were mean to me on Twitter so in this essay I will explain why you don’t deserve healthcare”
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jakupovic 3y ago
  That doesn't make any sense snd the hungry people think so too
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
fny 3y ago
Here’s the full quote: > 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.
- DennisP 3y ago
  Or maybe food and medicine to Gaza is their goal, but they lack the means or incentive to specifically target Israel-related ships.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > they lack the means or incentive to specifically target Israel-related ships 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.
    - perihelions 3y ago
      You'd negotiate with (or threaten) Iran, not the Houthi warlords. These are, after all, Iranian cruise missiles (etc.) that Iran is giving to the Houthis for proxy fighting. Yemen's own capabilities are a non-factor.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > You'd negotiate with (or threaten) Iran, not the Houthi warlords 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.
YouWhy 3y ago
> deliver "enough" food and medicine to people in gaza? 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)?
- jakupovic 3y ago
  Well isn't that what people with big guns do now?
- keybored 3y ago
  > 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. This point can be made about any of the groups with weapons in this context. Including Israel. So it becomes useless.
  - YouWhy 3y ago
    Quite the opposite. 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?
    - keybored 3y ago
      Oh, I read your comment as if you were equating nation states and pirates. But it seems that you were saying that, well if you can’t even expect X of nation states, then why should you expect it of pirates (which are worse)? Now I think I get it.
H8crilA 3y ago
While I agree that what's happening in Gaza is unacceptable and it needs more deliveries of aid, I doubt that it would fix the problem with North Yemen (Houti). 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.
- rjzzleep 3y ago
  The EU/US, and Israel could have easily avoided this entire thing if their first act had been to immediately condemn Hammas at the UN Security Council, and call for the immediate unconditional release of all hostages. 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.
  - CubsFan1060 3y ago
    I’m slightly confused. Are you saying that after October 7th a un resolution would have gotten hostages released and Hamas wouldn’t have attacked again?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Are you saying that after October 7th a un resolution would have gotten hostages released and Hamas wouldn’t have attacked again? 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.
brighteyes 3y ago
That is already being worked on, of course, regardless of the Houthis. The Keren Shalom crossing from Israel to Gaza just opened, which should allow double the aid to reach Gazans, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-enters-gaza-through-israels-kerem-shalom-crossing-first-time-war-2023-12-17/ 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.
snird 3y ago
There is enough food. 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-war-gaza-news-11-26-23/h_8323155d2f8ac70c9cbe7eb2059c663d 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.

ericfrazier 3y ago

It all goes right to Hamas so, no?

8b16380d 3y ago

[flagged]

cyanydeez 3y ago

We can't let one small genocide hold us hostage over one small far right ethnostate holding us hostage over...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dgellow 3y ago

That would confirm viability of the attackers strategy. They already are risking their life for this, they have no incentives to stop once their demands are fulfilled. In some ways that makes it now impossible to deliver food and medicine because that may be seen as a Houthi victory…

ceejayoz 3y ago
“Oh no, someone forced us to feed a million starving refugees. This establishes bad precedent!”
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  Unfortunately, yes. War is very ugly.
  - jakupovic 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      Justice? I don't think anyone here cares about justice more than the Houthis, and there version of it is the total destruction of the US and Israel. They believe, literally, it is their divine mission to destroy those two states. How are the US and Israel supposed to respond to a group whose stated goal is their complete and utter destruction? Would it be just to give them any leeway, to give them any sort of victory they can boast about to gain more followers, more strength, in order to execute terrorist attacks against the US and its allies? Would it be just to endanger their own citizens just for a short peace that ends the moment the Houthis decide they have the power to advance further?
      - keybored 3y ago
        This sounds like Sam Harris logic. The most dangerous groups aren’t the most hateful or those who the most ambitious goals, like “destroy America”. It is those who are both powerful and have some stated or non-stated plan to do something. The US and Israel are much more powerful than these groups.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        You're arguing that America and Israel are more dangerous than Hamas? I mean yes, of course. That's the point of having a military.
        keybored 3y ago
        If you agree then I don’t understand why you are responding to this out of nowhere.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  The point is the refugees are orthogonal to the issue of the crisis. Giving them supplies is irrelevant; the Houthis will still control Bab al-Mandab.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Yes, which makes “don’t feed refugees, the Houthis will like that” doubly gross.
    - Veraticus 3y ago
      Is anyone saying this? It seems like the vast majority of comments are in agreement the refugees should be fed. If anything most people here seem to basically agree with the Houthis.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Scroll up to where the poster I originally replied to said "In some ways that makes it now impossible to deliver food and medicine because that may be seen as a Houthi victory…" for an example of people saying exactly that.
        dgellow 3y ago
        I would like to see food and medicine being given to Gaza’s population. I also think Houthis’ approach makes it now basically impossible to happen.
        aaomidi 3y ago
        “Bernie fans were mean to me on Twitter so in this essay I will explain why you don’t deserve healthcare”
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jakupovic 3y ago
That doesn't make any sense snd the hungry people think so too
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

fny 3y ago

Here’s the full quote: > 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.

DennisP 3y ago
Or maybe food and medicine to Gaza is their goal, but they lack the means or incentive to specifically target Israel-related ships.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they lack the means or incentive to specifically target Israel-related ships 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.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    You'd negotiate with (or threaten) Iran, not the Houthi warlords. These are, after all, Iranian cruise missiles (etc.) that Iran is giving to the Houthis for proxy fighting. Yemen's own capabilities are a non-factor.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > You'd negotiate with (or threaten) Iran, not the Houthi warlords 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.

YouWhy 3y ago

> deliver "enough" food and medicine to people in gaza? 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)?

jakupovic 3y ago
Well isn't that what people with big guns do now?
keybored 3y ago
> 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. This point can be made about any of the groups with weapons in this context. Including Israel. So it becomes useless.
- YouWhy 3y ago
  Quite the opposite. 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?
  - keybored 3y ago
    Oh, I read your comment as if you were equating nation states and pirates. But it seems that you were saying that, well if you can’t even expect X of nation states, then why should you expect it of pirates (which are worse)? Now I think I get it.

H8crilA 3y ago

While I agree that what's happening in Gaza is unacceptable and it needs more deliveries of aid, I doubt that it would fix the problem with North Yemen (Houti). 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.

rjzzleep 3y ago
The EU/US, and Israel could have easily avoided this entire thing if their first act had been to immediately condemn Hammas at the UN Security Council, and call for the immediate unconditional release of all hostages. 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.
- CubsFan1060 3y ago
  I’m slightly confused. Are you saying that after October 7th a un resolution would have gotten hostages released and Hamas wouldn’t have attacked again?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Are you saying that after October 7th a un resolution would have gotten hostages released and Hamas wouldn’t have attacked again? 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.

brighteyes 3y ago

That is already being worked on, of course, regardless of the Houthis. The Keren Shalom crossing from Israel to Gaza just opened, which should allow double the aid to reach Gazans, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-enters-gaza-through-israels-kerem-shalom-crossing-first-time-war-2023-12-17/ 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.

snird 3y ago

There is enough food. 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-war-gaza-news-11-26-23/h_8323155d2f8ac70c9cbe7eb2059c663d 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.