I wonder if it'll affect politics. People hate it when their local streets are blocked for protests. The protests are overseas and potentially affecting us locally. Has something recently like this happened before?
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…
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?
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.
Why does being less powerful justify somebodies actions? When Marx said, for instance, that the Proletariat would establish a dictatorship, he didn't think they were less powerful than the Capitalists, just that they didn't realize how powerful they were: for Marx, it was always a question of power. And its the powerful who rule.
> Why does being less powerful justify somebodies actions?
No one said justify so this is irrelevant.
Some organization does bad things and one possible solution might be to do a good thing. The pragmatic thing is then to try to do that good thing. The ideological and nonsensical response is to not do it because that would be to do a good thing that someone bad told you to do.
> When Marx said, for instance, that the Proletariat would establish a dictatorship, he didn't think they were less powerful than the Capitalists, just that they didn't realize how powerful they were: for Marx, it was always a question of power. And its the powerful who rule.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
This has been a pattern for a while, including recent example like these:
If you keep posting like this, we're going to have to ban you. If you don't want to be banned, it would be good to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, stop posting flamewar-style comments, and stick to the rules from now on.
You are rate limiting me and not letting the other side post. When someone has multiple responses and comments that's not "low quality" quite the opposite. This is the same responses i gave you in my email and to you. Please stop this! You in particular @dang.
We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments and/or get involved in flamewars. As this is what your account has been doing, it's not surprising that it is rate limited.
Number of responses isn't a measure of quality. Flamewar comments routinely get the largest number of responses. On HN, we're trying for quality rather than quantity.
You're changing the criteria to suit you! You bring up my bitcoin posts and other stuff to justify yourself. This is not OK. you lnow it I know it and everyone else does too!
Not sure how you got the moderator status but it should be reevaluated, you know it I know it and everyone else does as well. Don't try to justify it woth selective combing through my post history.
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.
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.
No idea what you’re trying to say or who you’re responding to. I haven’t expressed any moral claims in my previous comments, and haven’t written an essay. I think the right thing to do would be to provide Gaza’s population with food and medicine. I also happen to believe Houthi's strategy makes it way harder to actually do so.
No idea what that has to do with twitter discourse or US issues with healthcare, something I know literally nothing about.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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)?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
The UN has never censured Palestine, Gaza, or Hamas. Not even once — not as a response to any of the terrorist attacks against Israel or any of the intifadas. In fact, in response to the first intifada (which resulted in hundreds of Israeli civilian deaths) they censured Israel yet again.
So I wouldn’t hold your breath for it to start happening now.
Can you name a single instance where Israel and the US went to the UNSC first before engaging in collective punishment? Just one example would be good.
Israel does not view its current military operation as collective punishment, so certainly it would not go to the UN and ask for its permission to do something it does not think it’s doing.
I think the disingenuity is with you. Here is a quote from the current Israeli President Isaac Herzog: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true"
I asked you for an example of Israel and the US going to the UNSC first and only after that launching an excursion into Gaza. You respond with a complaint about Lebanon moving troops within its own borders. What was the expectation from the UNSC there? How does that relate to my question?
In what sense does your quote confirm that Israel is engaging in collective punishment? Israel believes it is rooting out Hamas and that there is an embedded civilian component to its operation (which is unequivocally true). This is the problem with taking three sentences out of someone’s mouth and deciding they support an idea as broad as “collective punishment.” Perhaps you should understand the context of his words before you use them?
In any event, you asked for one time Israel brought a complaint to the UN and I provided it. Please don’t alter the goalposts you yourself set.
What was the UN’s response? Was there an intervention? A censure of Hezbollah or Lebanon? An investigation?
Anything! Israel has gone to the UN before and the response is radio silence. Oh, except for literally anything Israel itself does, which results in waves of censure and resolutions condemning Israel and its existence.
Given the UN’s history towards Israel, why would it ever take anything to the UNSC or believe that its arbitrations and judgments are anything but massively biased against it?
> Given the UN’s history towards Israel, why would it ever take anything to the UNSC or believe that its arbitrations and judgments are anything but massively biased against it?
I don't really understand that line of reasoning, doesn't Israel owe its existence to the UN security council resolution in 1948?
Quite the opposite. Israel owes its existence only to its willingness to fight tooth and claw for that existence. The UN has never shown even the slightest willingness to police or enforce any of its resolutions. (Also I think you’re referring to the partition resolution of 1947, which was a dead letter literally on its arrival as civil war had already broken out in Palestine.)
Lebanon has been firing into Israel for many years (including many civilian deaths and attack drones). UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) is ineffective in enforcing UN resolutions 425 and 426. Israel has made many, many complaints to the UN on the topic.
The problem is people seem to think UN has any meaning, it doesn't, it's just a hugh waste of money.
I can see EU and China being in this, but why does US have to care? Ships full of shit from China can get to New York via Panama in about the same distance sailing as going through Suez.
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,
- The West backs down and accepts a minor rebel group disrupting global shipping .
- The Houthis get their shit kicked in.
There is technically a fourth option where the West tries but fails to enact option 3 I guess, but I doubt it. Houthi air defenses are limited to whatever old soviet SAMs they can scrounge together.
To be honest, I don't see the second option happening either. So we have options 1 and 3 left. I hope it's option 1, as there is enough war already in the world.
I think Israel should do that, yes. But I also think that the Houthi wouldn't stop shooting at western ships even if Israel fed and housed every Gazan in an actual palace. Their flag has some hints as to the goals of the movement, after all.
This isn’t a fringe statement. Amnesty International agrees (at least the 2022 report—a fair time after 1966). Apartheid is the systematic domination of one racial group over another. How is that not in effect in Israel and the occupied territories? How is, say, the freedom of movement for Palestinians considering all the checkpoints that they have to go through? Can anyone argue that Palestinians are not second-class citizens in Israel and the occupied territories?
Okay, then I’m curious. What does that statement have to do with (something like) “the belief that the elites and the common people are in political opposition”?
Turns out, the first line of the Wikipedia article isn’t overly helpful. Populism refers to providing simple solutions for complex problems; throwing all nuance over board, in favour of just faulting „them“; using big, powerful words that pick out and vastly exaggerate a single aspect of a situation to sway readers into your own perspective; or put simply, populism means convincing simple minds by giving them an easy explanation that something is wrong because someone else did something bad.
Claiming Israel is an Apartheid state does a giant disservice to those that actually suffered during the Apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinians living in Israel, everyone in Israel that supports intercultural relations, and everyone else that might be interested in achieving piece. All you do is sow hate.
> Turns out, the first line of the Wikipedia article isn’t overly helpful.
Why did you have to resort to looking it up on Wikipedia? You seemed confident in your proclamation.
> Populism refers to providing simple solutions for complex problems; throwing all nuance over board, in favour of just faulting „them“; using big, powerful words that pick out and vastly exaggerate a single aspect of a situation to sway readers into your own perspective; or put simply, populism means convincing simple minds by giving them an easy explanation that something is wrong because someone else did something bad.
Thanks for proving my point. My God, none of this has anything to do with defining a political ideology:
- Throwing all nuance over board
- Big, powerful words; vastly exaggerate
- Sway readers
- Simple minds
- Easy explanation
Most of the people who write about populism are negative about it. But they at least write about populism!, i.e. a political ideology about the common people versus the elites. You so far haven’t even mentioned one single salient point about what it actually is. (Sorry, but pejoratives don’t count. I can’t say “Communism is when mean people convince dumb people with their evil ideas” and expect anyone to take me seriously.)
> Claiming Israel is an Apartheid state does a giant disservice to those that actually suffered during the Apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinians living in Israel, everyone in Israel that supports intercultural relations, and everyone else that might be interested in achieving piece. All you do is sow hate.
This is pure rhetoric. You think that the statement is wrong? Well just say that then instead of bawling all over the place about how it hurts puppies.
Plenty of people who support Palestinians call Israel an apartheid state because calling a spade for a spade (the truth) is good practice for justice and truth.
> Why did you have to resort to looking it up on Wikipedia? You seemed confident in your proclamation
No, I just phrased it poorly. What I meant was that you seemed to pull your definition of populism straight from Wikipedia, but that wasn’t really a good summary.
> You so far haven’t even mentioned one single salient point about what it actually is.
If it helps, here’s the definition from a dictionary:
> a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
It isn’t an ideology, it’s simply an abstract strategy. Which I described in several examples. I don’t understand what you’re missing here.
> This is pure rhetoric. You think that the statement is wrong? Well just say that then instead of bawling all over the place about how it hurts puppies.
Is calling it bullshit clear enough to you? Because that’s what I did in the first place.
Israel is home to a broad demographic. All citizens are allowed to vote. There is nothing similar to the Apartheid; repeatedly claiming so doesn’t make it true.
> If it helps, here’s the definition from a dictionary:
> > a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
Oh, how helpful. Here’s a definition of elitism:
> a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of elites (or those who think they are)
That sounds like bullshit, doesn’t it?
By the way, that’s a hilarious “definition” of populism. It’s so elitist it’s like a caricature. (“Populism is wrong because only dumb, brutish commoners would think that the elites are working against them.” Just beyond parody)
> Is calling it bullshit clear enough to you? Because that’s what I did in the first place.
> Israel is home to a broad demographic. All citizens are allowed to vote. There is nothing similar to the Apartheid; repeatedly claiming so doesn’t make it true.
I know that someone is full of it.
Here’s Amnesty International (2022). I’m sure you could find others. This isn’t some fringe theory.
The UN is a decoration, Israel has the historic chance of getting rid of hamas and setting precedent that if you fck around, you will find out, no way they are stopping.
There is zero chance of getting rid of Hamas in this fashion. It, or a worse successor, will come out of this just fine, no matter how many individual members wind up as meat paste.
> Prompting a big reaction was the goal, and they got it
Hamas lost control of Daef and Islamic Jihad. They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal, took hostages and then lost them, and are likely to lose physical control over Gaza for some time. There might have been an inkling of a strategy, but nobody on the ground was calling shots.
Precisely the way they like it. Control means governing, which means you're blamed when things go wrong. Hamas has zero interest in actually having to run a functional government with elections and water quality monitoring and street maintenance. See also: Republican promises to repeal Obamacare.
> They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal...
The response to that attack has killed ~15x as many so far, with plenty of civilians in that mix. Even the US is starting to message "hold up, that's a bit much" now.
> Hamas has zero interest in actually having to run a functional government
Hamas’ leadership wants its villa bills paid. Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza. No power in Gaza, no villas in Doha.
> Republican promises to repeal Obamacare
This is nonsense. (I’m ignoring that it’s also in bad taste.)
The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity. Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
The analogy is in America supporting the Mujahideen to pressure the Soviets and then watching that backfire as Al Qaeda.
> Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza.
Those payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side. They don't need to be managing Gaza's water authority to remain one. They're much more effective as an insurgency than a government.
> The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity.
The same is true for Hamas, quite clearly.
> Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
This is a weird assertion; all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas of this attack.
> payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side…they're much more effective as an insurgency
The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
> same is true for Hamas, quite clearly
How? There is no loyalty test. Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies. You’re conflating separate situations that are fundamentally different because on the surface you like the opportunity to call the GOP terrorists. Which, ironically, undermines your broader argument.
> all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas
Extensive planning. Not necessarily by Hamas. Again, this was a tremendously stupid move. There were smarter plays, and hints Hamas was trying for them, but they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters, local infrastructure and operational control in Gaza.
Hamas has been out of control in Gaza before, it's hardly the first time. Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force.
> The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
Their bureaucracy is largely focused on recruiting and funding the insurgent wing. Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers.
> Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies.
You keep asserting this without any evidence. What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Hamas is the proxy, for Iran, as are Hezbollah. Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response.
> they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters
They don't care. There's always more cannon fodder, especially after a war generates a new generation of refugees, orphans, and grieving relatives. We saw the same in Afghanistan; every civilian you kill means a family swearing vengeance.
> Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force
Fair enough, I should have said influence versus control. It looks like Hamas won't have influence in Gaza after this war.
That doesn't mean there won't be insurgents. As you point out, there absolutely will be. In part because of this war. But I doubt they'll show loyalty to Hamas--their surviving leadership will be too far away.
> Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers
Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)
> What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I don't think the last decade of Hamas' rule shows them incapable at achieving their ends. (Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, seem like nutters.) Add to that the operational incoherence of the October 7 attack, and that Hamas lost its hostages, its sole source of leverage, and it's not difficult to conclude things went off piste.
> Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response
Yes and no. They're happy because it shows their strength, brings them to the negotiating table and makes their oil more valuable. (It also curtails Arab-Israeli normalisation.)
The international response has shown that Israel can do what it wants. The Arab states softly condemned. Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority chose self preservation. America sent through arms. The one PR battle the Palestinians need to win, sympathy in America, has gone backwards.
> We saw the same in Afghanistan
The Taliban took back ground control. Their fighting forces were preserved. That does not look like it will be the case in Gaza; Jerusalem is being far more brutal than we were in Afghanistan. It might be that's the only way to win. (If you're correct, that Hamas intended to kill thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of its own, then this is a good thing.)
> Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)
Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?
(Hint: It rhymes with "schistlamic plate".)
> Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I agree! I just don't think the Israeli approach is going to do the trick, and is likely actively harmful to that goal.
> Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
PIJ is a rival to Hamas. They've fought from time to time, and coordinate attacks at other times. US intelligence describes it as a "tense relationship": https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pij_fto.html
> The Taliban took back ground control.
As will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza. Barring a Holocaust-scale elimination campaign against the population, there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future.
> Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?
Al Qaeda's leadership of the era died or went into hiding. The present offshoots have nothing to do with it; all that survived was the brand.
> PIJ is a rival to Hamas
So? They coordinated on this attack. PIJ launched munitions beyond their capacity to manufacture; they got them from Hamas.
> will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza
Very doubtful. Not Hamas. Something else, but not Hamas. (Maybe PIJ.) Point is, the leadership loses.
> there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future
What made Hamas formidable was its funding and access to Iranian weapons. The funds flew into Gaza with Israel's consent. And the munitions entered because Israel gave Hamas room. Whatever the endgame, it's unlikely to be one that just hands Gaza back to an Iranian proxy.
There is nothing historic about this. State powers have destroyed militarily inferior terrorist groups using overwhelming force before.
What would be historic is if this led to a long term reduction of terrorism in the region. However Israel has offered no explanation for why their attempt at brute force anti-terrorism will work better then every other attempt.
You must have missed past 70 years of history lessons. Everybody who cares knows Israel and Mossad don't fuck around, they will kill school full of small children in the middle of western Europe if it would be worth for their goals (that's an extreme example but murdering scientists or civilians was done repeatedly... not judging TBH, they are since beginning in brutal situation with all neighbors and they are capable when it comes to realizing threats... but they are not nice people if they see you as any form of potential threat).
Also, there is no way to get rid of Hamas unless overall conditions that made it what it is today remain. Its desperately naive position that has been proven impossible over and over. Ie terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters, depending on from where you look on Iraq post 2003 invasion.
Maybe with different name, different folks, but cca same goal and methods. Or do you feel that Taliban or Al-Qaeda disappeared just because mightiest military in the world decided to kick their ass for a decade+?
this isn't the US fighting tribes thousands of km away from home. This is israelis not willing to accept hamas' existence anymore, right across the border. You're learning the lessons of Taliban/Al-Quada the wrong way, because you see a bunch of people who look like the taliban doing attacks and stop thinking. This is not the same situation, nor will Israel accept the situation that existed on October 7th to ever happen again. The old status quo is gone and there won't be a return to it ever, and the current status quo between israel/hamas/iran is decided by who ignores the UN/international pressure the longest.
Absolutely nobody has any incentive to listen to calls for ceasefire unless they are in mortal threat, which is what Israel is working on and what hamas started with. The restraint is gone - there is no reason for anyone to hold back because holding back now creates a worse future position.
Sorry but have you read the news lately? Because the attacks have been rather indiscriminate, EVERY big shipping company is now refusing to sail their ships through the Red sea and by extension cannot use the Suez canal anymore. Rather, they have to take the long way around Africa now. This adds a lot of extra cost and shipping delay.
Actions over words. The Houthis are indiscriminately targeting trade. If they had the discipline to only hit Israeli ships, this would be a different situation.
The point remains that at some point that will impact China because that's where most of the containers come from. Then what? Again China is really the last country Iran should want to piss off.
Or, that'll benefit Chinese shipping companies as, again, I highly doubt that they'll be targeted.
The US are probably the least impacted, if at all.
COSCO hasn't released news they'll stop red sea shipping. TBH if Houthis only targetted western shipping it would be slight competitive advantage to PRC. The potential blowback is if US pressures Iran and threatens 1m barrels of of Iranian oil to PRC.
But overall Chinese exports can still be impacted if the major Western shipping companies stop going through those waters. So there might a balance to maintain if Iran wants to avoid a call from Beijing.
I think PRC influence over situation is limited. I suspect this is as much Iran flexing (Houthi missiles of Iranian origin) their new regional power projection capabilities, and due to current energy geopolitics, betting no one wants to stir the pot any further. They want everyone to know they can now credibly escalate in region, regardless of PRC ire.
Well that's obviously not true. The first one that made the news when it was commandeered is Israeli-owned and I believe that all the ships targeted since have some links with Israel.
The effect is that everyone is thinking twice before sailing through those waters, though.
Not on the kind of things that threaten the mighty us economy, you don’t mess with the US dollar unless you are the fed.
It’s cheaper and more effective long term to give them freedom than negotiating, next time they want something they just need to attack the strait again and that’s a bad long term policy to allow.
I feel like your second point should maybe address the Houthi's demands? Which to be precise were an end to the blockade of Gaza.
Regardless of which way you lean in this story, I still find it disingenuous to hide what the demands of parties of conflicts are - any conflict to be precise. Whether it is intentional or not does not matter in my opinion.
They also have demanded death to Israel and Jews though. They’re a cat’s paw for Iran, who don’t really care about Gazans except as they can be used to delegitimize and destroy Israel.
Don't make this about Iran. Iran is doing nothing to deligitimize Israel right now. The Knesset is doing that all on its own.
But death to the Jews? Where is the source of that? But even if they did, they are no threat to Israel. They're no threat to Jews around the world. Israel is vastly more powerful than any country in the region, except maybe Iran. There is really no threat to Israels existence at this point. It's also the only nuclear power in the region. Mearscheimer correctly called this "threat inflation"[1]
But calling for the destruction of a state isn't that uncommon. I fail to see what's so unique about such a statement.
Also worth remember that the west itself constantly engages in that rhetoric.
0. Various countries frequently call for the destruction of their neighbours
1. the Israeli's and the Americans constantly call for the destruction of Iran(hardly the only nation btw)
2. the US and Europeans have conferences about the break up of Russia(i.e. the destruction of Russia)
3.Yugoslavia, and several other nations having actually been destroyed in the last couple of decades
"The slogan of the Houthi movement (officially called 'Ansar Allah'), a Shia Islamist political and military organization in Yemen, reads 'God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam'".
I didn't know the slogan, but the slogan quite literally doesn't say what the parent claims it does, does it? Otherwise it would be "Death to Israel, death to the jews", no? I tried to google the Arabic and either google is really bad at arabic or that word is mostly used in the quran.
What Israel is doing domestically is entirely irrelevant to Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, who have all said numerous times that they want to kill all Jews. This stance has not altered or varied even when Israel had pro-peace governments.
The claim that there is no threat to Israel’s existence is totally absurd. It has fought multiple existential wars in many of its citizens’ living memories, and just suffered an enormous terrorist attack whose authors’ ultimate stated goal is, again, the destruction of Israel.
And then talking out both sides of your mouth that actually “the west” is fine with destroying nations so that rhetoric is okay is simply disingenuous. Is Israel under threat of annihilation and that’s okay, or is it not?
Anyway anyone who knows anything about the conflict can immediately see your framing is extremely disingenuous.
What are you talking about. Hamas is primarily funded by Turkey and Qatar. Both countries with massive US military bases. For four decades we've now been hearing how Iran almost has the nuclear bomb[1], how Iran funds Al-Qaeda, when it fact it's the other way round because Shia's are considered infidels to these people. Various Israeli government officials including Mossad guys have on various times admitted that they propped up Hamas to keep a legitimate government from forming.
Hamas is an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian army hates them, the Syrians fought them, Iran fought them. Israel, Turkey and the US all fought on the side of Alqaeda in Syria[2][3].
US shut down Turkey's banking integration with Russia with a simple threat of turning off the tap to their banking system. They could shut down Hamas funding in a heartbeat. But they don't it, why[4]?
That you don’t know this seems to indicate you might know less about this conflict than you believe you do. Your further contentions that the US could magically wave a wand and make Hamas disappear confirm it.
The problem with 3 is global radicalization. Attempts to suppress populations can only work with the ability to convince the population to take your side; in the case of large scale bombing campaigns, the result is more radicalization and an increase in attacks elsewhere.
That is not necessary the dilemma. The dilemma could also be whether to let "present time radicals" tease Washington war mongerers into doing something that is in the long term interest of the radicals.
In some situations the US has gone to war with countries who not long after are close allies. Germany comes to mind, but there are others. In other cases the situation you describe is more accurate. What are the primary factors that influence one outcome or another?
Exactly. This issue isn't that dissimilar from Somali pirates attacking ships in the same region: at first it was "mildly annoying" to the West at large, but ransoms were generally paid. Then it escalated to the point where the West basically said enough, and brought sufficient firepower to deter the pirates.
> West backs down and accepts a minor rebel group disrupting global shipping
There is zero chance capitulating works without someone reining the Houthis in.
The Houthis don’t have a unified power structure. There is nobody to accept that a deal has been signed. The only group that can credibly claim to control them is Tehran; a deal would need to be made with them. And they haven’t offered terms.
I interpreted "backs down" as "stops using the suez canal" not "gives in to their demands"... for precisely the reason that giving in to demands seems unlikely to stop them (even if it might create a brief pause).
You shouldn't be downvoted for this. The dollar reserve status is only guaranteed as far as 'the commerce' is protected. Your understanding and comment show the true power dynamics.
No offense but this is one of those "programmer thinks they can find an edge case in a complex social scenario" cases.
First of all your suggestion is directly against the Treaty of Constantinople, at least so long as Egypt and Israel are not at war with each other. Secondly, most cargo ships will be going to Haifa and there is nothing blocking ships from taking a quick detour via (say) Malta so that they technically don't have an Israeli port as their destination when they pass through the Suez canal. Thirdly, the Houthis have been attacking many ships and not just Israeli ships. There is not reason to believe that they would stop doing that.
Technically if we would globalize the economy even more and develop more maritime routes the system would be more robust. It’s not obvious to me a system of localized economies would work better in the modern world.
I didn't read the article because of a paywall, while I tend to agree with your point, it misses some nuance. Globalism can be both fragile and resilient to breakage. So, for example, closing the Suez canal might result short-term increase in energy costs, along with all of the follow-on effects, but the global supply chain itself will "reroute around the damage" and take a less geographically optimal, slightly more expensive but still functional route.
Also, a "threat [to] the world economy" need not be existential. The threat of recession is also possible, and likely with a situation like this.
That said, I believe there ARE existential threats posed by globalism, particularly where inter-dependency is present for generations, such that either side of the relationship institutionally forgets how to maintain, repair or upgrade significant infrastructure. Arguably that is already the case for America with energy transmission equipment, semiconductor and PCB manufacturing, such that a war with China that began with a strike to those resources could not be recovered from.
Question I've had about this, because there's a map in the article.
The Houthis have been shooting missiles and launching drones at commercial shipping, but also at Israeli cities. [0]
I like to think I understand how to read a map.
The route from Houthi controlled territory to Israeli territory either (a) flies over Saudi Arabia or (b) flies over water immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia. E.g. specifically Jeddah and Mecca.
Why aren't the Saudis doing anything? They're fine with ordinance flying right next to their major population centers, launched by a group they've literally been bombing?
The House of Saud was normalising its relationship with Jerusalem [1]. Its Wahahabi population is significantly more conservative than it; protecting Israel by intercepting the Houthis’ missiles could cause a domestic issue.
Also, Riyadh was happily bombing the Houthis in the Yemeni civil war. We asked them to stop [2]. There is likely an element of schadenfreude “we told you so” geopolitics going down.
Trajectory from Yemen misses Jeddah and Riyadh by 100s of km. My guess is Saudi doesn't want to start shit with Yemen again, especially in defense of Israel. Even more so when Houthi's have demonstrated capability of hitting Saudi energy infra a few years ago and now ships in transit.
Regional force balance has changed. Iran/Yemen has developed reasonably competent missile tech that they destroy regional energy infra and potentially to revert rich petro states into desert tribes while globe is warming. While robbing world of 1/3 oil/lng. No one wants to risk that over Israel, least of all arabs.
There's a large depopulated corridor between Yemen, Saudi, Jordan and Israel. 200km is a lot, enough that risk to major urban centres low which increase costs of intervening. US rushed anti missile platforms in region months ago, I think Saudi shot some a few down initially but have since stopped. Or at least there's no reporting of it.
That was the other point, that the more direct route that avoids US and allied naval assets is across the interior of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
But it starts being politically sensitive when Israeli radars see cruise missiles and drones coming across national borders.
Which means there are probably some murky bargains to the effect of "Israeli doesn't care about a few Houthi drones, compared to Hamas and Hezbollah, and so looks the other way so that Jordan and Saudi Arabia can avoid inflaming their populaces by taking an active stance."
* would pause a major source of income for Egypt, which is already in the midst of a financial crisis;
* would raise the costs of trade as shipping is rerouted around Africa, taking more time, and insurance premiums soar, possibly triggering another global supply-chain crunch and another global inflation wave; and
* could escalate into regional security crisis and military conflict.
EDIT: The quality of this article has declined significantly since I last read it, but it may also be complete nonsense. Thought it was interesting regardless.
Their demand is simple and clear and it should not be even discussed or reach to this point in the first place, let aid and food into Gaza, it’s really not that complicated to achieve.
161 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] threadMaybe we should try this obvious solution first, deliver "enough" food and medicine to people in gaza?
The US and Israel are much more powerful than these groups.
I'm calling it irrelevant. Almost tautological–being powerful means being dangerous.
No one said justify so this is irrelevant.
Some organization does bad things and one possible solution might be to do a good thing. The pragmatic thing is then to try to do that good thing. The ideological and nonsensical response is to not do it because that would be to do a good thing that someone bad told you to do.
> When Marx said, for instance, that the Proletariat would establish a dictatorship, he didn't think they were less powerful than the Capitalists, just that they didn't realize how powerful they were: for Marx, it was always a question of power. And its the powerful who rule.
Irrelevant comparison.
This has been a pattern for a while, including recent example like these:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38506362
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38229052
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38208427
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38203300
If you keep posting like this, we're going to have to ban you. If you don't want to be banned, it would be good to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, stop posting flamewar-style comments, and stick to the rules from now on.
Number of responses isn't a measure of quality. Flamewar comments routinely get the largest number of responses. On HN, we're trying for quality rather than quantity.
Not sure how you got the moderator status but it should be reevaluated, you know it I know it and everyone else does as well. Don't try to justify it woth selective combing through my post history.
No idea what that has to do with twitter discourse or US issues with healthcare, something I know literally nothing about.
> 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.
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.
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.
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)?
This point can be made about any of the groups with weapons in this context. Including Israel. So it becomes useless.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So I wouldn’t hold your breath for it to start happening now.
Leaving your disingenuous framing aside, yes, Israel has brought complaints to the UN before. See: https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-complains-un-over-hezbol...
I asked you for an example of Israel and the US going to the UNSC first and only after that launching an excursion into Gaza. You respond with a complaint about Lebanon moving troops within its own borders. What was the expectation from the UNSC there? How does that relate to my question?
In any event, you asked for one time Israel brought a complaint to the UN and I provided it. Please don’t alter the goalposts you yourself set.
What was the UN’s response? Was there an intervention? A censure of Hezbollah or Lebanon? An investigation?
Given the UN’s history towards Israel, why would it ever take anything to the UNSC or believe that its arbitrations and judgments are anything but massively biased against it?
I don't really understand that line of reasoning, doesn't Israel owe its existence to the UN security council resolution in 1948?
The problem is people seem to think UN has any meaning, it doesn't, it's just a hugh waste of money.
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.
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-wa...
You can find reports for every day.
Don't take what a terror group says a truth.
- The Houthi rebels back down.
- The West backs down and accepts a minor rebel group disrupting global shipping .
- The Houthis get their shit kicked in.
There is technically a fourth option where the West tries but fails to enact option 3 I guess, but I doubt it. Houthi air defenses are limited to whatever old soviet SAMs they can scrounge together.
To be honest, I don't see the second option happening either. So we have options 1 and 3 left. I hope it's option 1, as there is enough war already in the world.
Claiming Israel is an Apartheid state does a giant disservice to those that actually suffered during the Apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinians living in Israel, everyone in Israel that supports intercultural relations, and everyone else that might be interested in achieving piece. All you do is sow hate.
Why did you have to resort to looking it up on Wikipedia? You seemed confident in your proclamation.
> Populism refers to providing simple solutions for complex problems; throwing all nuance over board, in favour of just faulting „them“; using big, powerful words that pick out and vastly exaggerate a single aspect of a situation to sway readers into your own perspective; or put simply, populism means convincing simple minds by giving them an easy explanation that something is wrong because someone else did something bad.
Thanks for proving my point. My God, none of this has anything to do with defining a political ideology:
- Throwing all nuance over board
- Big, powerful words; vastly exaggerate
- Sway readers
- Simple minds
- Easy explanation
Most of the people who write about populism are negative about it. But they at least write about populism!, i.e. a political ideology about the common people versus the elites. You so far haven’t even mentioned one single salient point about what it actually is. (Sorry, but pejoratives don’t count. I can’t say “Communism is when mean people convince dumb people with their evil ideas” and expect anyone to take me seriously.)
> Claiming Israel is an Apartheid state does a giant disservice to those that actually suffered during the Apartheid in South Africa, the Palestinians living in Israel, everyone in Israel that supports intercultural relations, and everyone else that might be interested in achieving piece. All you do is sow hate.
This is pure rhetoric. You think that the statement is wrong? Well just say that then instead of bawling all over the place about how it hurts puppies.
Plenty of people who support Palestinians call Israel an apartheid state because calling a spade for a spade (the truth) is good practice for justice and truth.
No, I just phrased it poorly. What I meant was that you seemed to pull your definition of populism straight from Wikipedia, but that wasn’t really a good summary.
> You so far haven’t even mentioned one single salient point about what it actually is.
If it helps, here’s the definition from a dictionary:
> a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
It isn’t an ideology, it’s simply an abstract strategy. Which I described in several examples. I don’t understand what you’re missing here.
> This is pure rhetoric. You think that the statement is wrong? Well just say that then instead of bawling all over the place about how it hurts puppies.
Is calling it bullshit clear enough to you? Because that’s what I did in the first place.
Israel is home to a broad demographic. All citizens are allowed to vote. There is nothing similar to the Apartheid; repeatedly claiming so doesn’t make it true.
> > a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
Oh, how helpful. Here’s a definition of elitism:
> a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of elites (or those who think they are)
That sounds like bullshit, doesn’t it?
By the way, that’s a hilarious “definition” of populism. It’s so elitist it’s like a caricature. (“Populism is wrong because only dumb, brutish commoners would think that the elites are working against them.” Just beyond parody)
> Is calling it bullshit clear enough to you? Because that’s what I did in the first place.
> Israel is home to a broad demographic. All citizens are allowed to vote. There is nothing similar to the Apartheid; repeatedly claiming so doesn’t make it true.
I know that someone is full of it.
Here’s Amnesty International (2022). I’m sure you could find others. This isn’t some fringe theory.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
One hopes it will learn that Hamas’ tactics don’t work. They backfire. And they lose one global sympathy.
Hamas lost control of Daef and Islamic Jihad. They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal, took hostages and then lost them, and are likely to lose physical control over Gaza for some time. There might have been an inkling of a strategy, but nobody on the ground was calling shots.
> They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal...
The response to that attack has killed ~15x as many so far, with plenty of civilians in that mix. Even the US is starting to message "hold up, that's a bit much" now.
Hamas’ leadership wants its villa bills paid. Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza. No power in Gaza, no villas in Doha.
> Republican promises to repeal Obamacare
This is nonsense. (I’m ignoring that it’s also in bad taste.)
The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity. Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
The analogy is in America supporting the Mujahideen to pressure the Soviets and then watching that backfire as Al Qaeda.
Which will continue.
> Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza.
Those payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side. They don't need to be managing Gaza's water authority to remain one. They're much more effective as an insurgency than a government.
> The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity.
The same is true for Hamas, quite clearly.
> Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
This is a weird assertion; all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas of this attack.
If they lose control over Gaza? No.
> payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side…they're much more effective as an insurgency
The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
> same is true for Hamas, quite clearly
How? There is no loyalty test. Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies. You’re conflating separate situations that are fundamentally different because on the surface you like the opportunity to call the GOP terrorists. Which, ironically, undermines your broader argument.
> all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas
Extensive planning. Not necessarily by Hamas. Again, this was a tremendously stupid move. There were smarter plays, and hints Hamas was trying for them, but they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters, local infrastructure and operational control in Gaza.
Hamas has been out of control in Gaza before, it's hardly the first time. Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force.
> The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
Their bureaucracy is largely focused on recruiting and funding the insurgent wing. Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers.
> Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies.
You keep asserting this without any evidence. What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Hamas is the proxy, for Iran, as are Hezbollah. Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response.
> they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters
They don't care. There's always more cannon fodder, especially after a war generates a new generation of refugees, orphans, and grieving relatives. We saw the same in Afghanistan; every civilian you kill means a family swearing vengeance.
Fair enough, I should have said influence versus control. It looks like Hamas won't have influence in Gaza after this war.
That doesn't mean there won't be insurgents. As you point out, there absolutely will be. In part because of this war. But I doubt they'll show loyalty to Hamas--their surviving leadership will be too far away.
> Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers
Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)
> What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I don't think the last decade of Hamas' rule shows them incapable at achieving their ends. (Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, seem like nutters.) Add to that the operational incoherence of the October 7 attack, and that Hamas lost its hostages, its sole source of leverage, and it's not difficult to conclude things went off piste.
> Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response
Yes and no. They're happy because it shows their strength, brings them to the negotiating table and makes their oil more valuable. (It also curtails Arab-Israeli normalisation.)
The international response has shown that Israel can do what it wants. The Arab states softly condemned. Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority chose self preservation. America sent through arms. The one PR battle the Palestinians need to win, sympathy in America, has gone backwards.
> We saw the same in Afghanistan
The Taliban took back ground control. Their fighting forces were preserved. That does not look like it will be the case in Gaza; Jerusalem is being far more brutal than we were in Afghanistan. It might be that's the only way to win. (If you're correct, that Hamas intended to kill thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of its own, then this is a good thing.)
Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?
(Hint: It rhymes with "schistlamic plate".)
> Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I agree! I just don't think the Israeli approach is going to do the trick, and is likely actively harmful to that goal.
> Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
PIJ is a rival to Hamas. They've fought from time to time, and coordinate attacks at other times. US intelligence describes it as a "tense relationship": https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pij_fto.html
> The Taliban took back ground control.
As will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza. Barring a Holocaust-scale elimination campaign against the population, there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future.
Al Qaeda's leadership of the era died or went into hiding. The present offshoots have nothing to do with it; all that survived was the brand.
> PIJ is a rival to Hamas
So? They coordinated on this attack. PIJ launched munitions beyond their capacity to manufacture; they got them from Hamas.
> will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza
Very doubtful. Not Hamas. Something else, but not Hamas. (Maybe PIJ.) Point is, the leadership loses.
> there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future
What made Hamas formidable was its funding and access to Iranian weapons. The funds flew into Gaza with Israel's consent. And the munitions entered because Israel gave Hamas room. Whatever the endgame, it's unlikely to be one that just hands Gaza back to an Iranian proxy.
What would be historic is if this led to a long term reduction of terrorism in the region. However Israel has offered no explanation for why their attempt at brute force anti-terrorism will work better then every other attempt.
Also, there is no way to get rid of Hamas unless overall conditions that made it what it is today remain. Its desperately naive position that has been proven impossible over and over. Ie terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters, depending on from where you look on Iraq post 2003 invasion.
Maybe with different name, different folks, but cca same goal and methods. Or do you feel that Taliban or Al-Qaeda disappeared just because mightiest military in the world decided to kick their ass for a decade+?
Absolutely nobody has any incentive to listen to calls for ceasefire unless they are in mortal threat, which is what Israel is working on and what hamas started with. The restraint is gone - there is no reason for anyone to hold back because holding back now creates a worse future position.
Indiscriminate targeting/disruption would raise eyebrows in Beijing and I am sure Iran does not want that.
Or, that'll benefit Chinese shipping companies as, again, I highly doubt that they'll be targeted.
The US are probably the least impacted, if at all.
But overall Chinese exports can still be impacted if the major Western shipping companies stop going through those waters. So there might a balance to maintain if Iran wants to avoid a call from Beijing.
Well that's obviously not true. The first one that made the news when it was commandeered is Israeli-owned and I believe that all the ships targeted since have some links with Israel.
The effect is that everyone is thinking twice before sailing through those waters, though.
So that leaves us with option 3, a big delivery of freedom.
It’s cheaper and more effective long term to give them freedom than negotiating, next time they want something they just need to attack the strait again and that’s a bad long term policy to allow.
Regardless of which way you lean in this story, I still find it disingenuous to hide what the demands of parties of conflicts are - any conflict to be precise. Whether it is intentional or not does not matter in my opinion.
But death to the Jews? Where is the source of that? But even if they did, they are no threat to Israel. They're no threat to Jews around the world. Israel is vastly more powerful than any country in the region, except maybe Iran. There is really no threat to Israels existence at this point. It's also the only nuclear power in the region. Mearscheimer correctly called this "threat inflation"[1]
But calling for the destruction of a state isn't that uncommon. I fail to see what's so unique about such a statement. Also worth remember that the west itself constantly engages in that rhetoric.
0. Various countries frequently call for the destruction of their neighbours
1. the Israeli's and the Americans constantly call for the destruction of Iran(hardly the only nation btw)
2. the US and Europeans have conferences about the break up of Russia(i.e. the destruction of Russia)
3.Yugoslavia, and several other nations having actually been destroyed in the last couple of decades
[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1736160553322553404
This is hardly controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
"The slogan of the Houthi movement (officially called 'Ansar Allah'), a Shia Islamist political and military organization in Yemen, reads 'God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam'".
What Israel is doing domestically is entirely irrelevant to Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, who have all said numerous times that they want to kill all Jews. This stance has not altered or varied even when Israel had pro-peace governments.
The claim that there is no threat to Israel’s existence is totally absurd. It has fought multiple existential wars in many of its citizens’ living memories, and just suffered an enormous terrorist attack whose authors’ ultimate stated goal is, again, the destruction of Israel.
And then talking out both sides of your mouth that actually “the west” is fine with destroying nations so that rhetoric is okay is simply disingenuous. Is Israel under threat of annihilation and that’s okay, or is it not?
Anyway anyone who knows anything about the conflict can immediately see your framing is extremely disingenuous.
Hamas is an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian army hates them, the Syrians fought them, Iran fought them. Israel, Turkey and the US all fought on the side of Alqaeda in Syria[2][3].
US shut down Turkey's banking integration with Russia with a simple threat of turning off the tap to their banking system. They could shut down Hamas funding in a heartbeat. But they don't it, why[4]?
[1] https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/04/24/Ayatollah-bomb-in-pr...
[2] https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81N1EX/
[4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-chief-top-general-visit...
That you don’t know this seems to indicate you might know less about this conflict than you believe you do. Your further contentions that the US could magically wave a wand and make Hamas disappear confirm it.
I don’t claim that humans are perfectly rational in all activities, but appeasement hasn’t generally worked in the past.
There is zero chance capitulating works without someone reining the Houthis in.
The Houthis don’t have a unified power structure. There is nobody to accept that a deal has been signed. The only group that can credibly claim to control them is Tehran; a deal would need to be made with them. And they haven’t offered terms.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1736349872427585588
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/11/06/the-panama-canal-droug...
Shipping companies offering millions to jump long lines for drought-stricken Panama Canal: https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/drought-panama-canal...
Egypt blocks ships to Eilat around Scharm El-Scheich. And everyone except the Israelis are happy.
First of all your suggestion is directly against the Treaty of Constantinople, at least so long as Egypt and Israel are not at war with each other. Secondly, most cargo ships will be going to Haifa and there is nothing blocking ships from taking a quick detour via (say) Malta so that they technically don't have an Israeli port as their destination when they pass through the Suez canal. Thirdly, the Houthis have been attacking many ships and not just Israeli ships. There is not reason to believe that they would stop doing that.
I should have kept that stupid joke to myself.
This is either an unserious article or the entire notion of global economics needs revisiting.
But real threat is energy shipping.
Also, a "threat [to] the world economy" need not be existential. The threat of recession is also possible, and likely with a situation like this.
That said, I believe there ARE existential threats posed by globalism, particularly where inter-dependency is present for generations, such that either side of the relationship institutionally forgets how to maintain, repair or upgrade significant infrastructure. Arguably that is already the case for America with energy transmission equipment, semiconductor and PCB manufacturing, such that a war with China that began with a strike to those resources could not be recovered from.
The Houthis have been shooting missiles and launching drones at commercial shipping, but also at Israeli cities. [0]
I like to think I understand how to read a map.
The route from Houthi controlled territory to Israeli territory either (a) flies over Saudi Arabia or (b) flies over water immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia. E.g. specifically Jeddah and Mecca.
Why aren't the Saudis doing anything? They're fine with ordinance flying right next to their major population centers, launched by a group they've literally been bombing?
[0] https://news.usni.org/2023/12/16/u-k-american-warships-shoot...
The House of Saud was normalising its relationship with Jerusalem [1]. Its Wahahabi population is significantly more conservative than it; protecting Israel by intercepting the Houthis’ missiles could cause a domestic issue.
Also, Riyadh was happily bombing the Houthis in the Yemeni civil war. We asked them to stop [2]. There is likely an element of schadenfreude “we told you so” geopolitics going down.
[1] https://globalriskinsights.com/2019/01/the-solidifying-of-th...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1422M5/
Regional force balance has changed. Iran/Yemen has developed reasonably competent missile tech that they destroy regional energy infra and potentially to revert rich petro states into desert tribes while globe is warming. While robbing world of 1/3 oil/lng. No one wants to risk that over Israel, least of all arabs.
The Red Sea is only 200 km across, off Jeddah.
But it starts being politically sensitive when Israeli radars see cruise missiles and drones coming across national borders.
Which means there are probably some murky bargains to the effect of "Israeli doesn't care about a few Houthi drones, compared to Hamas and Hezbollah, and so looks the other way so that Jordan and Saudi Arabia can avoid inflaming their populaces by taking an active stance."
* would pause a major source of income for Egypt, which is already in the midst of a financial crisis;
* would raise the costs of trade as shipping is rerouted around Africa, taking more time, and insurance premiums soar, possibly triggering another global supply-chain crunch and another global inflation wave; and
* could escalate into regional security crisis and military conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Canal_Project
EDIT: The quality of this article has declined significantly since I last read it, but it may also be complete nonsense. Thought it was interesting regardless.