They've also attacked shipping from a number of countries, and by no means all of them heading for Israel.
But surely you can see @Telford that there's more to it than simple retaliation for a strike on British shipping. We are acting in coalition with the US which is playing down any connection with the Gaza conflict.
Whatever the ins and outs and whatever our views on the conflict do you seriously believe that anyone is going to believe that?
Own voices would help. Al-Jazeera reports on rising civilian casualties in the Yemeni city of Sana'a as well as the coastal port of Hodeidah. In a country just emerging from nine years of brutal civil war, this escalation of conflict with the US/UK is the last thing they need. Many Yemeni people, however, support the Houthi's attacks on commercial shipping in protest at Israel's war on Gaza. Media reports from Sana'a claim that Yemeni civilians see the Iran-backed Houthi operations as a legitimate means of exerting pressure on Israel and its allies.
I used to live in Yemen, the people of that country have been utterly fucked over by the power games of other countries - particularly Saudi. (And of course the British empire.)
Also, when did it become a thing that you attack people on someone else’s sovereign territory whilst simultaneously claiming not to be at war with that country ? It seems to be becoming almost routine.
@Doublethink I've never been to Yemen but an Arab friend from North Africa introduced me to the fiction of the Yemeni novelist Wajdi al-Ahdal who wrote A Land Without Jasmine about the disappearance of a young woman student from the University of Sana'a and Mountain Boats on the struggles during the civil war. Much of his work is set in the streets and markets or souks of Sana'a, featuring city-dwellers from different classes, backgrounds and political movements.
My father worked there for five years over the period of reunification, I used to go out in the school holidays. We travelled around much of the country. However, I don’t speak Arabic so my experiences were always at one remove. He had also been in Aden as the British were leaving. I think my parents are still members of the British Yemeni society - so I’ve been aware of events in Yemen growing up and all my adult life. It’s is just tragic.
It was one of the poorest countries on earth (and not sure how much the oil wealth was spread around once it was found) with acute water access problems. When we were there they still had a leper colony. But oil was brining in money to the country things were starting to change.
They had a democratic government for a time, and considering the conservative Islamic culture of North Yemen I thought it was positive that women were permitted to vote in the first election. Then it all seemed to slip away as people scrambled to hold onto power.
There was this almost time slip amalgam of old and new. So in the 70s they’d had an absolute ruler, an Imam, who kept enslaved black Africans - not sure if these were hereditary enslaved people or stolen from Djibouti. Then the Egyptian backed war ended that - but it was within living memory and there was still alot of colourist prejudice within the society. People tended to be darker skinned on the coast, because of contact with Africa, and it carried a social stigma.
One of our staff had a daughter he was putting through university, which in some sense was quite a modern outlook, on the other hand he said as he had no education, her brothers would choose what she should study. Multiple wives were still common, and child marriage in the teens - often to your cousin. Blood feuding was still common and effectively permitted, and everyone was armed. Boys in the rural areas could be seen with AK47s from about 12. Males from about twelve wore a dagger, and it indicated your social cast, tilted left for butchers, undertakers and others of low social status - straight centred for most people, and tilted right for descendants of the prophet.
But it was all in flux, in the cities people were starting to wear western dress. Access to education was widening, there was this general election, there was money coming into the country, the status of people with disabilities was starting to change - it looked as if quality of life was going to get better, to move beyond the vast majority subsistence farming and starving in a bad year. And then it all fell apart.
Also, when did it become a thing that you attack people on someone else’s sovereign territory whilst simultaneously claiming not to be at war with that country ? It seems to be becoming almost routine.
I think at least since the US realised that it required Congress to declare war but the President, as CinC, could order military action on their own. I suspect there is also a colonial hangover that "pacifying the natives" never required anything so polite or formal as a declaration of war so the pattern continued even once the "natives" were independent countries.
The 'Arab world' is no more monolithic than any other 'bloc' though and there are all manner of complex histories and relationships.
Be that as it may; there's overwhelming popular support for the Palestinians, and popular support within Yemen for the actions of Ansar Allah - no doubt bouyed by their own memories of being subject to a western backed blockade that caused one of the worst famines in the 21st Century.
I presume the 'strategic logic', such as it is, revolves around sending a warning to Iran by bombing targets associated with the rebels it supports in the Yemen
That depends on how closely one thinks Ansar Allah are ultimately aligned with Iran, there are plenty of interviews out there with their spokespeople, one of which I link here (interview with the BBC Arabic Service):
Surely bombing the (claimed) proxies of another country, rather than the country itself is a tacit admission that you are actually reluctant to engage that country directly, and is thus more likely to embolden than deter?
The Houthis are clearly emboldened, and the big US papers have been running pieces about who the Houthis are because Americans by and large have no idea and couldn't find Yemen on a map and now it looks like we might all need to, but surely it was already clear that the Biden administration doesn't want to go to war with Iran.
Why they think they can contain this thing I have no idea, though. Hubris, I suppose. There are always too many people at the top who think they can lay out objectives and carry out plans to achieve them, and others will just follow the script.
It is comical in a way that the West is already spreading the conflict. I mean comical, because they keep saying they are not. Israel looks out of control really, and I guess that the Arab world is seething with anger, although the governments want to cuddle up to Israel. What a car-crash.
If this counts as 'own voice', I met a Yemeni writer some years ago. He was impressive. He had no time for the Saudis whom he regarded as imbibing the worst of both worlds, crass Western capitalist materialism on the one hand, a Puritanical form of Islamic fundamentalism on the other.
He clearly loved his country and hoped his people could weather the storms thrown against it both externally and internally.
If this counts as 'own voice', I met a Yemeni writer some years ago. He was impressive. He had no time for the Saudis whom he regarded as imbibing the worst of both worlds, crass Western capitalist materialism on the one hand, a Puritanical form of Islamic fundamentalism on the other.
He clearly loved his country and hoped his people could weather the storms thrown against it both externally and internally.
They've also attacked shipping from a number of countries, and by no means all of them heading for Israel.
But surely you can see @Telford that there's more to it than simple retaliation for a strike on British shipping. We are acting in coalition with the US which is playing down any connection with the Gaza conflict.
Whatever the ins and outs and whatever our views on the conflict do you seriously believe that anyone is going to believe that?
Also, when did it become a thing that you attack people on someone else’s sovereign territory whilst simultaneously claiming not to be at war with that country ? It seems to be becoming almost routine.
I think at least since the US realised that it required Congress to declare war but the President, as CinC, could order military action on their own. I suspect there is also a colonial hangover that "pacifying the natives" never required anything so polite or formal as a declaration of war so the pattern continued even once the "natives" were independent countries.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours the reason for committing military forces. After 60 days, he must withdraw the forces if Congress does not authorize further action. He has 30 days to complete the withdrawal.
However, we still have a War on Terror Resolution in force which the president can use without further action by congress. Congress still has the power of the purse, though. But it is very unlikely Congress would withhold any funding of the action in the Red Sea.
Also, when did it become a thing that you attack people on someone else’s sovereign territory whilst simultaneously claiming not to be at war with that country ? It seems to be becoming almost routine.
I think at least since the US realised that it required Congress to declare war but the President, as CinC, could order military action on their own. I suspect there is also a colonial hangover that "pacifying the natives" never required anything so polite or formal as a declaration of war so the pattern continued even once the "natives" were independent countries.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours the reason for committing military forces. After 60 days, he must withdraw the forces if Congress does not authorize further action. He has 30 days to complete the withdrawal.
However, we still have a War on Terror Resolution in force which the president can use without further action by congress. Congress still has the power of the purse, though. But it is very unlikely Congress would withhold any funding of the action in the Red Sea.
All of which presumably contributes towards a "fire and forget" approach to military action, consistent with the kind of "air strikes" that I recall being common in the 90s and of which the attacks on Yemen are eerily reminiscent.
I don't think we need to be Mr Suspicious not to take US pronouncements at face value.
If this isn't an escalation/extension of the Israel/Gaza conflict by opponents and allies alike I don't know what else it is.
The point is that they attacked one of His Majesty's ships and we needed to respond in self defence
So why have the Americans been bombing Houthi targets in Yemen?
Yes, some of their ships and installations have also been attacked by the Houthi rebels, which is hardly surprising given the slogans the Houthis operate under. Subtle hints like 'Death to America. Death to Israel. A Curse on the Jews.' We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here - although they have been bombarded by Western-supplied munitions for the last 8 years.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the US/UK response I don't see how you can isolate any of this from what's going on between Israel and Gaza.
There have been piratical attacks on Red Sea shipping for some considerable time although I'm not sure to what extent - if any - the Houthi rebels were involved until the current outbreak of full-scale war in Gaza. Obviously, a major driver of Islamist militancy for decades has been a sense of grievance and solidarity with the Palestinians. That isn't going to go away anytime soon.
The whole context of these attacks is a geopolitical one and I can't understand how you can apparently argue otherwise.
It's not as if US or UK naval vessels just happened to be pootling up towards the Suez Canal under 'normal' circumstances when someone decided to take pot shots at them for the fun of it.
That doesn't justify the Houthi action but there is a wider context here.
I don't think we need to be Mr Suspicious not to take US pronouncements at face value.
If this isn't an escalation/extension of the Israel/Gaza conflict by opponents and allies alike I don't know what else it is.
The point is that they attacked one of His Majesty's ships and we needed to respond in self defence
So why have the Americans been bombing Houthi targets in Yemen?
Yes, some of their ships and installations have also been attacked by the Houthi rebels, which is hardly surprising given the slogans the Houthis operate under. Subtle hints like 'Death to America. Death to Israel. A Curse on the Jews.' We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here
Certainly the US foreign policy establishment has been able to differentiate between rhetoric and statements of interest, as they clearly feel it's possible to negotiate with them (or if you prefer; to push their proxies to negotiate with them):
And again, they didn't start off by attacking US ships. Again, this idea that every group that opposes the US are unhinged radicals acting randomly and bent on taking over the world is a highly suspect frame.
although they have been bombarded by Western-supplied munitions for the last 8 years.
They have been bombed by an airforce which would be unable to function but for western help in terms of weapons, logistics, maintenance, targeting and command support.
Sure. I wasn't disagreeing necessarily, @chrisstiles. You've simply added more detail.
I am trying to be even-handed, for all the difficulties that entails. Anti-Western sentiment isn't in and of itself an indication of crazed swivel-eyed fundamentalism anymore than anti-Zionism is necessarily an indication of anti-Semitism - although there can certainly be a slippery slope in either case.
In 'own voice' terms the Yemeni writer I met told me that rural Islam is often more nuanced than it's portrayed and that even 'poorly educated' Yemenis can distinguish between Islamist propaganda and a more balanced view of Western societies.
I'm treading carefully but there's a wide range of gradations between 'they attacked one of His Majesty's ships and deserve a kicking' and 'Israel and the US are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world.'
A good friend on the left of the Labour spectrum told me she'd picked up vibes and stories from that end of things that Israel may have 'sponsored' or at least encouraged the Hamas attacks in October in order to create an excuse to invade Gaza.
She didn't necessarily agree with that but to my mind it's equally as paranoid a conspiracy theory as George Bush creating 9/11.
Heck, I've come across Orthodox Christians who believe that the West is supporting the Ukraine in order to 'destroy' Russia and take it over as it did in Africa, South America and elsewhere in colonial times.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Late capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty, particularly in India and China. Yet it's also caused all sorts of societal, cultural and environmental problems.
I really don't know how or where to start unpacking or dealing with any of this. It's all way too big.
'They tried to hit one of our ships. We had to strike back,' doesn't even scratch the surface.
Nor does, 'Biden's a bastard' or 'Sunak's only trying to look tough to salvage his government's tarnished reputation.' There might be elements of truth in both but they aren't the whole story.
No invader has ever taken the whole of Yemen, not even the Ottomans - the terrain is extremely challenging. Which means that, whilst the US others could do a lot of damage and potentially kill a lot of people - they are even less likely to be able to take and hold the country than they were in Afghanistan. Which means that at some level the strikes are an empty threat - with all the consequences outlined in that article.
Nor does, 'Biden's a bastard' or 'Sunak's only trying to look tough to salvage his government's tarnished reputation.' There might be elements of truth in both but they aren't the whole story.
"We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here"
A good friend on the left of the Labour spectrum told me she'd picked up vibes and stories from that end of things that Israel may have 'sponsored' or at least encouraged the Hamas attacks in October in order to create an excuse to invade Gaza.
She didn't necessarily agree with that but to my mind it's equally as paranoid a conspiracy theory as George Bush creating 9/11.
I doubt Israel would deliberately create the horror of 7th October, but it at least seems plausible that elements of the Israeli security apparatus, with or without the sanction of those at the top of government were aware of the possibility of an attack and didn't move to nip it in the bud, expecting that a small incursion would be a propaganda advantage (but were surprised and horrified by the scale of the slaughter and the abuses that accompanied). It's also a fact that the Israeli right, including Netanyahu, have long promoted Hamas because they're a more convincing bogeyman than the PLO since the Oslo Accords and hence provided cover for settlement expansion and continued occupation.
Nor does, 'Biden's a bastard' or 'Sunak's only trying to look tough to salvage his government's tarnished reputation.' There might be elements of truth in both but they aren't the whole story.
"We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here"
Meaning?
The Houthi aren't particularly nuanced. It's not just a case of their political slogans. Their treatment of women, girls and minorities isn't particularly encouraging.
A good friend on the left of the Labour spectrum told me she'd picked up vibes and stories from that end of things that Israel may have 'sponsored' or at least encouraged the Hamas attacks in October in order to create an excuse to invade Gaza.
She didn't necessarily agree with that but to my mind it's equally as paranoid a conspiracy theory as George Bush creating 9/11.
I doubt Israel would deliberately create the horror of 7th October, but it at least seems plausible that elements of the Israeli security apparatus, with or without the sanction of those at the top of government were aware of the possibility of an attack and didn't move to nip it in the bud, expecting that a small incursion would be a propaganda advantage (but were surprised and horrified by the scale of the slaughter and the abuses that accompanied). It's also a fact that the Israeli right, including Netanyahu, have long promoted Hamas because they're a more convincing bogeyman than the PLO since the Oslo Accords and hence provided cover for settlement expansion and continued occupation.
That's sheer speculation about the Israeli military. It'd be rather like arguing that UK security forces welcomed attacks by the IRA in order to legitimise retaliation.
Netanyahu certainly promoted Hamas in the past but my impression is that was a divide-and-rule measure to create daylight between Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
I might be wrong, but I'm not aware of any direct or tacit promotion of Hamas by Netanyahu more recently.
@quetzalcoatl I suspect the continuation of the Israeli offensive in Gaza is more to do with a belief that the IDF can eradicate Hamas - even at the expense of thousands of civilian deaths - in a 'we've started so we'll finish' kind of way.
Militarily, they will be concerned that any ceasefire for humanitarian reasons will give Hamas breathing space and time to regroup. They may even be looking at the example of the First Gulf War when the US and her allies stopped short of advancing on Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein.
Whatever we think of that as a tactic it seems axiomatic to me that Israel's response to the horrific events of October 7th far from ending the matter is only likely to stoke up yet more grievance, future retaliation and even greater anti-Iarael and anti-Western feeling across the region for decades to come.
I'm not saying that Israel should not have responded but it's hard to see how their actions could result in anything other than a major humanitarian catastrophe, the prospect of wider escalation and the further destabilisation of the region.
But what should they have done?
Negotiations to release the hostages sounds good but runs the risk of condoning or encouraging terrorism and hostage-taking.
Nobody can turn back the clock but there has to be someway out of this that doesn't involve the mounting butcher's bill.
Nor does, 'Biden's a bastard' or 'Sunak's only trying to look tough to salvage his government's tarnished reputation.' There might be elements of truth in both but they aren't the whole story.
"We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here"
Meaning?
The Houthi aren't particularly nuanced. It's not just a case of their political slogans. Their treatment of women, girls and minorities isn't particularly encouraging.
Is this nuanced "“Israel could get into a fistfight with this country and we’d still defend” ? Are these statements here the product of a nuanced understanding of the conflict? https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1738250718577111452
One finds nuance where one tends to look for it; the treatment of women, girls and minorities wasn't noticeably different under the Hadi government[*], and is of a piece with the treatment of women, girls and minorities in a bunch of western allies in the region. So again, this isn't why they are being bombed is it?
[*] The western choice, democratically elected in an election in which he was the only candidate and received 100% of the vote.
The Houthi were originally a tribe, a kinship grouping, that has now become a movement incorporating others. I think you should be wary of making generalisations about the attitudes or practices of the Houthi, as it will not be clear if you are talking about the political entity or the ethnocultural group.
Here's a piece which is talking about the thinking that is likely behind the US actions. It's from a blog by an ancient military historian that has been linked to on this site before.
Interesting link. The writer doesn't appear to regard the Houthi action as some kind of legitimate 'blockade' which is how @chrisstiles appeared to regard it - or at least as on a par with other blockades by other agencies and groups.
@Doublethink - I don't think I've 'generalised' any more than other posters on this thread. Your posts obviously have the advantage of first hand experience of Yemen. Mine don't but I have tried to include 'own voice' testimony from a Yemeni writer - who was clearly no fan of the government there.
I'm not sure 'whataboutery' gets us very far. Saying that the Houthi don't appear to have particularly laudable attitudes towards women, girls and minorities or Dead Horse issues isn't obviated by saying that the Hadi government or other Western-backed regimes don't either.
No, I don’t think you have - but I wanted to flag it up on thread because the news media are talking as if the Houthis, Hamas & Hezbollah are all fairly directly equivalent and I don’t think that is the case. That said, my knowledge of Yemen is fairly limited - I haven’t lived there since I was a child in the last century. (Now I feel very old.)
Anyhow, FWIW I don't think attacking Houthi installations is likely to achieve much beyond legitimising them further among those who support their anti-Israeli and anti-Western agenda.
Neither do I believe that IDF action in Gaza will stabilise the region. It will simply prolong the agony and lead to spirals of violence well into the future.
Interesting link. The writer doesn't appear to regard the Houthi action as some kind of legitimate 'blockade'
Well, I refer you to Louise's earlier link:
"The few statements made against the Houthis since the beginning of their operation in support of Palestine have been severely criticized by the Yemeni public. The sentiment is captured in a common phrase: “My brother and I are against our cousin, and my cousin and I are against the stranger.” Citizens of all stripes have demanded that spokespeople of anti-Houthi groups “shut their mouths.”"
or
"In the case of Yemen, these strikes will not deter Ansar Allah. Rather, they could increase the group’s popularity even in areas outside its control, including among opponents who are already impressed with the willingness to fight this fight on behalf of Palestine."
which is how @chrisstiles appeared to regard it - or at least as on a par with other blockades by other agencies and groups.
They've been in charge of that part of Yemen for about 10 years now, they haven't blockaded ships in that time, they started off blockading ships destined for Israel with an explicit demand for relief aid to Gaza. So yes it seems to driven by clearly articulated interests rather than a spillover of random violence.
I don't think the question of legitimacy or otherwise comes in it.
I was having a reasonably polite discussion with an acquaintance on Facebook, who was surprised she couldn’t find any not anti-Zionist peace groups or that one might aspire to a geographically rather than ethnically or religiously defined state. We eventually agreed to differ.
People have been driven to anti-Zionism. I remember as a student, we were full of romantic notions about a socialist Israel, the kibbutz. All shattered. We didn't realise that Israel is an American proxy.
People have been driven to anti-Zionism. I remember as a student, we were full of romantic notions about a socialist Israel, the kibbutz. All shattered. We didn't realise that Israel is an American proxy.
If Israel is an American proxy, how do they assist with American aims in the middle east ? What conflicts have they started on behalf of America ?
People have been driven to anti-Zionism. I remember as a student, we were full of romantic notions about a socialist Israel, the kibbutz. All shattered. We didn't realise that Israel is an American proxy.
Yeah, I don't think Jewish Zionists realise just how much goodwill there was towards the kibbutz movement and the secular Israeli left that has been squandered in oppressing Palestinians and pandering to religious and nationalist extremists.
People have been driven to anti-Zionism. I remember as a student, we were full of romantic notions about a socialist Israel, the kibbutz. All shattered. We didn't realise that Israel is an American proxy.
Yeah, I don't think Jewish Zionists realise just how much goodwill there was towards the kibbutz movement and the secular Israeli left.
Although there was an element of smoke and mirrors to this; many of the kibbutzes expanded their land holdings significantly post every territorial expansion and Labour governments were often surprisingly (in retrospect) repressive.
I think it's important to take a moment to remember what utter shitheels the Iranian government are. Murdering Kurdish kids and claiming you're after Mossad agents? That bullshit doesn't fly. Being on a particular "side" in a given conflict doesn't make you the good guys.
I think it's important to take a moment to remember what utter shitheels the Iranian government are.
That's absolutely true, but I don't see many people insisting on the unlimited right of Iran to defend itself, up to and including bombing neighboring countries.
I think it's important to take a moment to remember what utter shitheels the Iranian government are.
That's absolutely true, but I don't see many people insisting on the unlimited right of Iran to defend itself, up to and including bombing neighboring countries.
Not so much in the west, but lift rocks in certain corners of the internet and you'll find rhetoric that would make a Zionist blush.
In today's Sunday Telegraph Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi , says that claims of genocide in Gaza are' demonising Israel and designed to tear open the still-gaping wound of the Holocaust'.
Does he have a point?
In today's Sunday Telegraph Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi , says that claims of genocide in Gaza are' demonising Israel and designed to tear open the still-gaping wound of the Holocaust'.
Does he have a point?
Mirvis' son is currently serving in the IDF and he has described the action in Gaza as Israel doing "the most outstanding possible thing".
As Raz Segal says in the interview I posted up-thread, the most difficult part of the charge of genocide to prove is usually the section on intent, but in this case we have plenty of genocidal statements from all levels of the Israeli government and army, up to and including the President, the Prime Minister and senior generals.
Comments
That's perhaps a fair comment, but there are risks involved. Here's the Guardian's view:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/12/rishi-sunak-says-uk-acted-in-self-defence-with-yemen-airstrikes
Some tory MPs are in favour of immediate strikes, but some want more input from Parliament, as do the other major parties.
But surely you can see @Telford that there's more to it than simple retaliation for a strike on British shipping. We are acting in coalition with the US which is playing down any connection with the Gaza conflict.
Whatever the ins and outs and whatever our views on the conflict do you seriously believe that anyone is going to believe that?
Blocking shipping is an escalation. Boarding ships is an escalation. Launching strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen is an escalation.
Each step can be viewed as a response to some previous action, and each can also be viewed as an escalation.
The statement "if you hadn't done X, I wouldn't have done Y to you" is probably almost always true.
Also, when did it become a thing that you attack people on someone else’s sovereign territory whilst simultaneously claiming not to be at war with that country ? It seems to be becoming almost routine.
It was one of the poorest countries on earth (and not sure how much the oil wealth was spread around once it was found) with acute water access problems. When we were there they still had a leper colony. But oil was brining in money to the country things were starting to change.
They had a democratic government for a time, and considering the conservative Islamic culture of North Yemen I thought it was positive that women were permitted to vote in the first election. Then it all seemed to slip away as people scrambled to hold onto power.
There was this almost time slip amalgam of old and new. So in the 70s they’d had an absolute ruler, an Imam, who kept enslaved black Africans - not sure if these were hereditary enslaved people or stolen from Djibouti. Then the Egyptian backed war ended that - but it was within living memory and there was still alot of colourist prejudice within the society. People tended to be darker skinned on the coast, because of contact with Africa, and it carried a social stigma.
One of our staff had a daughter he was putting through university, which in some sense was quite a modern outlook, on the other hand he said as he had no education, her brothers would choose what she should study. Multiple wives were still common, and child marriage in the teens - often to your cousin. Blood feuding was still common and effectively permitted, and everyone was armed. Boys in the rural areas could be seen with AK47s from about 12. Males from about twelve wore a dagger, and it indicated your social cast, tilted left for butchers, undertakers and others of low social status - straight centred for most people, and tilted right for descendants of the prophet.
But it was all in flux, in the cities people were starting to wear western dress. Access to education was widening, there was this general election, there was money coming into the country, the status of people with disabilities was starting to change - it looked as if quality of life was going to get better, to move beyond the vast majority subsistence farming and starving in a bad year. And then it all fell apart.
I think at least since the US realised that it required Congress to declare war but the President, as CinC, could order military action on their own. I suspect there is also a colonial hangover that "pacifying the natives" never required anything so polite or formal as a declaration of war so the pattern continued even once the "natives" were independent countries.
Be that as it may; there's overwhelming popular support for the Palestinians, and popular support within Yemen for the actions of Ansar Allah - no doubt bouyed by their own memories of being subject to a western backed blockade that caused one of the worst famines in the 21st Century.
That depends on how closely one thinks Ansar Allah are ultimately aligned with Iran, there are plenty of interviews out there with their spokespeople, one of which I link here (interview with the BBC Arabic Service):
https://youtu.be/RuOH00weB24
Why they think they can contain this thing I have no idea, though. Hubris, I suppose. There are always too many people at the top who think they can lay out objectives and carry out plans to achieve them, and others will just follow the script.
He clearly loved his country and hoped his people could weather the storms thrown against it both externally and internally.
I wonder what he's thinking now.
Wishing he could drink heavily?
Yes I do. I do for starters
I don't think we need to be Mr Suspicious not to take US pronouncements at face value.
If this isn't an escalation/extension of the Israel/Gaza conflict by opponents and allies alike I don't know what else it is.
The point is that they attacked one of His Majesty's ships and we needed to respond in self defence
The US news media certainly doesn't - the updates about the strikes on the Houthis are grouped with those on the Israel-Hamas war.
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours the reason for committing military forces. After 60 days, he must withdraw the forces if Congress does not authorize further action. He has 30 days to complete the withdrawal.
However, we still have a War on Terror Resolution in force which the president can use without further action by congress. Congress still has the power of the purse, though. But it is very unlikely Congress would withhold any funding of the action in the Red Sea.
All of which presumably contributes towards a "fire and forget" approach to military action, consistent with the kind of "air strikes" that I recall being common in the 90s and of which the attacks on Yemen are eerily reminiscent.
So why have the Americans been bombing Houthi targets in Yemen?
Yes, some of their ships and installations have also been attacked by the Houthi rebels, which is hardly surprising given the slogans the Houthis operate under. Subtle hints like 'Death to America. Death to Israel. A Curse on the Jews.' We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here - although they have been bombarded by Western-supplied munitions for the last 8 years.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the US/UK response I don't see how you can isolate any of this from what's going on between Israel and Gaza.
There have been piratical attacks on Red Sea shipping for some considerable time although I'm not sure to what extent - if any - the Houthi rebels were involved until the current outbreak of full-scale war in Gaza. Obviously, a major driver of Islamist militancy for decades has been a sense of grievance and solidarity with the Palestinians. That isn't going to go away anytime soon.
The whole context of these attacks is a geopolitical one and I can't understand how you can apparently argue otherwise.
It's not as if US or UK naval vessels just happened to be pootling up towards the Suez Canal under 'normal' circumstances when someone decided to take pot shots at them for the fun of it.
That doesn't justify the Houthi action but there is a wider context here.
Certainly the US foreign policy establishment has been able to differentiate between rhetoric and statements of interest, as they clearly feel it's possible to negotiate with them (or if you prefer; to push their proxies to negotiate with them):
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/houthi-negotiators-leave-riyadh-after-talks-with-saudi-officials-sources-2023-09-19/
And again, they didn't start off by attacking US ships. Again, this idea that every group that opposes the US are unhinged radicals acting randomly and bent on taking over the world is a highly suspect frame.
They have been bombed by an airforce which would be unable to function but for western help in terms of weapons, logistics, maintenance, targeting and command support.
I am trying to be even-handed, for all the difficulties that entails. Anti-Western sentiment isn't in and of itself an indication of crazed swivel-eyed fundamentalism anymore than anti-Zionism is necessarily an indication of anti-Semitism - although there can certainly be a slippery slope in either case.
In 'own voice' terms the Yemeni writer I met told me that rural Islam is often more nuanced than it's portrayed and that even 'poorly educated' Yemenis can distinguish between Islamist propaganda and a more balanced view of Western societies.
I'm treading carefully but there's a wide range of gradations between 'they attacked one of His Majesty's ships and deserve a kicking' and 'Israel and the US are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world.'
A good friend on the left of the Labour spectrum told me she'd picked up vibes and stories from that end of things that Israel may have 'sponsored' or at least encouraged the Hamas attacks in October in order to create an excuse to invade Gaza.
She didn't necessarily agree with that but to my mind it's equally as paranoid a conspiracy theory as George Bush creating 9/11.
Heck, I've come across Orthodox Christians who believe that the West is supporting the Ukraine in order to 'destroy' Russia and take it over as it did in Africa, South America and elsewhere in colonial times.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Late capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty, particularly in India and China. Yet it's also caused all sorts of societal, cultural and environmental problems.
I really don't know how or where to start unpacking or dealing with any of this. It's all way too big.
'They tried to hit one of our ships. We had to strike back,' doesn't even scratch the surface.
Nor does, 'Biden's a bastard' or 'Sunak's only trying to look tough to salvage his government's tarnished reputation.' There might be elements of truth in both but they aren't the whole story.
https://sanaacenter.org/publications/analysis/21726
"We're not talking about a particularly nuanced movement here"
I doubt Israel would deliberately create the horror of 7th October, but it at least seems plausible that elements of the Israeli security apparatus, with or without the sanction of those at the top of government were aware of the possibility of an attack and didn't move to nip it in the bud, expecting that a small incursion would be a propaganda advantage (but were surprised and horrified by the scale of the slaughter and the abuses that accompanied). It's also a fact that the Israeli right, including Netanyahu, have long promoted Hamas because they're a more convincing bogeyman than the PLO since the Oslo Accords and hence provided cover for settlement expansion and continued occupation.
Meaning?
The Houthi aren't particularly nuanced. It's not just a case of their political slogans. Their treatment of women, girls and minorities isn't particularly encouraging.
That's sheer speculation about the Israeli military. It'd be rather like arguing that UK security forces welcomed attacks by the IRA in order to legitimise retaliation.
Netanyahu certainly promoted Hamas in the past but my impression is that was a divide-and-rule measure to create daylight between Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
I might be wrong, but I'm not aware of any direct or tacit promotion of Hamas by Netanyahu more recently.
@quetzalcoatl I suspect the continuation of the Israeli offensive in Gaza is more to do with a belief that the IDF can eradicate Hamas - even at the expense of thousands of civilian deaths - in a 'we've started so we'll finish' kind of way.
Militarily, they will be concerned that any ceasefire for humanitarian reasons will give Hamas breathing space and time to regroup. They may even be looking at the example of the First Gulf War when the US and her allies stopped short of advancing on Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein.
Whatever we think of that as a tactic it seems axiomatic to me that Israel's response to the horrific events of October 7th far from ending the matter is only likely to stoke up yet more grievance, future retaliation and even greater anti-Iarael and anti-Western feeling across the region for decades to come.
I'm not saying that Israel should not have responded but it's hard to see how their actions could result in anything other than a major humanitarian catastrophe, the prospect of wider escalation and the further destabilisation of the region.
But what should they have done?
Negotiations to release the hostages sounds good but runs the risk of condoning or encouraging terrorism and hostage-taking.
Nobody can turn back the clock but there has to be someway out of this that doesn't involve the mounting butcher's bill.
Is this nuanced "“Israel could get into a fistfight with this country and we’d still defend” ? Are these statements here the product of a nuanced understanding of the conflict? https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1738250718577111452
One finds nuance where one tends to look for it; the treatment of women, girls and minorities wasn't noticeably different under the Hadi government[*], and is of a piece with the treatment of women, girls and minorities in a bunch of western allies in the region. So again, this isn't why they are being bombed is it?
[*] The western choice, democratically elected in an election in which he was the only candidate and received 100% of the vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnYlnn1js8
@Doublethink - I don't think I've 'generalised' any more than other posters on this thread. Your posts obviously have the advantage of first hand experience of Yemen. Mine don't but I have tried to include 'own voice' testimony from a Yemeni writer - who was clearly no fan of the government there.
I'm not sure 'whataboutery' gets us very far. Saying that the Houthi don't appear to have particularly laudable attitudes towards women, girls and minorities or Dead Horse issues isn't obviated by saying that the Hadi government or other Western-backed regimes don't either.
Neither do I believe that IDF action in Gaza will stabilise the region. It will simply prolong the agony and lead to spirals of violence well into the future.
Answers? I don't have them.
Well, I refer you to Louise's earlier link:
"The few statements made against the Houthis since the beginning of their operation in support of Palestine have been severely criticized by the Yemeni public. The sentiment is captured in a common phrase: “My brother and I are against our cousin, and my cousin and I are against the stranger.” Citizens of all stripes have demanded that spokespeople of anti-Houthi groups “shut their mouths.”"
or
"In the case of Yemen, these strikes will not deter Ansar Allah. Rather, they could increase the group’s popularity even in areas outside its control, including among opponents who are already impressed with the willingness to fight this fight on behalf of Palestine."
They've been in charge of that part of Yemen for about 10 years now, they haven't blockaded ships in that time, they started off blockading ships destined for Israel with an explicit demand for relief aid to Gaza. So yes it seems to driven by clearly articulated interests rather than a spillover of random violence.
I don't think the question of legitimacy or otherwise comes in it.
If Israel is an American proxy, how do they assist with American aims in the middle east ? What conflicts have they started on behalf of America ?
Yeah, I don't think Jewish Zionists realise just how much goodwill there was towards the kibbutz movement and the secular Israeli left that has been squandered in oppressing Palestinians and pandering to religious and nationalist extremists.
Although there was an element of smoke and mirrors to this; many of the kibbutzes expanded their land holdings significantly post every territorial expansion and Labour governments were often surprisingly (in retrospect) repressive.
That's absolutely true, but I don't see many people insisting on the unlimited right of Iran to defend itself, up to and including bombing neighboring countries.
Not so much in the west, but lift rocks in certain corners of the internet and you'll find rhetoric that would make a Zionist blush.
Does he have a point?
Mirvis' son is currently serving in the IDF and he has described the action in Gaza as Israel doing "the most outstanding possible thing".
As Raz Segal says in the interview I posted up-thread, the most difficult part of the charge of genocide to prove is usually the section on intent, but in this case we have plenty of genocidal statements from all levels of the Israeli government and army, up to and including the President, the Prime Minister and senior generals.