[Balero]

> Given that the Houthis have said they are holding up ships they consider linked to Israel

They're stopping ships that they can, and it is in their interest to stop. Iranian ships seem to be passing through no bother, but ships flagged as Liberian, coming from Europe to Asia with a Filipino and Indian crew are stopped. You can consider any ship linked to Israel if you don't care how tenuous the link is.

> and that everyone in the UN bar the US and Israel are calling for a ceasefire.

Notably Hama's isn't calling for a ceasefire, and it takes two to tango, so even if Israel wanted a ceasefire there won't be one.

> wouldn't it be more useful to get a ceasefire, so then the Houthis can stop?

Since when did "Don't give in to terrorists" stop being a thing? Just throw ourselves on the good graces of a violent terrorist group.

[alexisread]

Hamas has called for a ceasefire numerous times, and in fact there was a temporary ceasefire. To forestall the next question, as to who broke the truce, I've not seen evidence either way, only claims. Regardless, this does kinda invalidate your claim.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In this case, nearly the whole of the UN has voted for a ceasefire, so interests align, which should be a better solution yes?

[ceejayoz]

> Notably Hama's isn't calling for a ceasefire, and it takes two to tango, so even if Israel wanted a ceasefire there won't be one.

It takes two to tango, but two people holding a staring contest hoping the other will propose a tango doesn't work all that well.

> Since when did "Don't give in to terrorists" stop being a thing?

It was never a thing. America's very first treaty was with pirates. Countries negotiate with terrorist groups regularly; they use the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" thing when they don't want to.