Not going to engage in a discussion about valuing human lives, but what are you suggesting? The attacks on ships should be allowed to continue because the conflict?
I was pretty young when I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
If the US strong armed Israel into a cease fire and to open the blockade on Gaza, two things the US could do if it had the political will, this would stop the Houthi's from attacking ships in the Red Sea. They claim to be fighting against nations supporting the genocide. Seems like they are rational actors even thought I disagree with their methods. Why not deescalate the situation in Gaza and kill two birds with one stone?
Maybe? I guess people just aren't giving the right signal? Generally the attacks are wildly disconnected, though on Dec. 12th a Houthi leader did claim they would only attack ships bound for Israel.
3 shortly after:
"On 12 December 2023, the Houthis launched an anti-ship cruise missile attack against the Norwegian commercial ship Strinda, an oil and chemical tanker operated by the J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi company, while it was close to the Bab-el-Mandeb. The Strinda was on its way from Malaysia to Italy (via the Suez Canal). The attack caused a fire aboard the ship; no crew members were injured.[72][73] The ship was carrying cargo of palm oil. "
On 13 December 2023, Houthi rebels attempted to board the Ardmore Encounter, a Marshall Islands-flagged commercial tanker coming from Mangaluru, India and en route to either Rotterdam, Netherlands or Gavle, Sweden, but failed, prompting a distress call from the ship. They then targeted the tanker with missiles, which missed. The USS Mason responded to the tanker's distress call and shot down a UAV launched from a Houthi-controlled area. The Ardmore Encounter was able to continue its voyage without further incident.[74]
On 14 December 2023, a Houthi-launched missile was fired at the Maersk Gibraltar, though it missed its target.[75] On 15 December 2023, Houthi spokesperson Yahya Sarea claimed responsibility for attacks on two Liberian-flagged vessels identified as MSC Alanya and MSC Palatium III. The Houthis fired naval missiles at the ships as they alleged they were traveling to Israel.[76]
On 15 December, it was reported that the Liberian-flagged Al-Jasrah, which is owned by Hapag Lloyd, caught fire after being hit by a Houthi-launched projectile while sailing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.[77] On 16 December 2023, Royal Navy destroyer HMS Diamond shot down a drone over the Red Sea while it was targeting a commercial ship.[4]
> If the US strong armed Israel into a cease fire and to open the blockade on Gaza, two things the US could do if it had the political will, this would stop the Houthi's from attacking ships in the Red Sea.
This is advocating that two wrongs can make a right, which I fully reject. The degree to which the human suffering happening in Gaza should be stopped is in NO WAY impacted by more malicious harm being caused to other groups. It only creates a situation in which multiple actors are causing harm to innocents - two situations that need to stop.
> They claim to be fighting against nations supporting the genocide.
Do countries in Africa support the genocide because they import grain shipments from America in order to have a food supply?
Saying that supporting a government which has made dozens of public statements that convey unambigious genocidal intent with the actions that seem in line with this intent is one wrong.
Taking military action to apply pressure the first group to stop is not considered an equal wrong by governments which represent approximately 96% of people on earth.
If you think the vast majority of humanity is engaged in passively or actively allowing a second wrong, is the 4% justified in using violence to stop the second wrong while providing critical military, economic, and political assistance for the first one?
I wonder if it's possible to describe this as a series of logical axioms or if there's some kind of special pleading going on here. It doesn't seem to be a logically consistent position to me, and since that's also the position of an overwhelming supermajority of people who have reviewed public statements made by Israeli decsionmakers, I'd say the burden of proof is on you.
> If you think the vast majority of humanity is engaged in passively or actively allowing a second wrong, is the 4% justified in using violence to stop the second wrong while providing critical military, economic, and political assistance for the first one?
Easy - I don't think that, so it's not justified. The opinions of "the vast majority of humanity" are not part of the decision making process that has resulted in this situation.
> I wonder if it's possible to describe this as a series of logical axioms
I don't wonder, I believe it is! These are the (simplified) axioms along which I form my opinions about not only this, but all geopolitics in general:
- Actions that cause human suffering are bad.
- Actions that reduce human suffering are good.
- Innocent suffering in a conflict is inevitable.
- Force will be required; conflict is inevitable; the world is imperfect.
- The use of force is righteous or not depending on how the resultant innocent suffering is accounted for before, during, and after.
I believe that my opinion is completely consistent with these statements. You asked if using violence to stop other violence is wrong, and my answer is "it depends". If the Houthis were taking action against the those actually committing the atrocities, we'd probably not be having this conversation. Deliberately causing harm to innocents is never acceptable, never right. This is terrorism as a tactic.
If you think that second order violence IS an acceptable course of action, where do you draw the line? How much societal disruption in countries with less food security are we willing to induce?
As you said, innocent suffering in a conflict is inevitable. Is the logical axiom that international shipping which is connected to the US and Israeli economies is more innocent than Palestinian children? Is any cargo ship crew more innocent and less culpable than say, an infant?
If you want to make an argument that some groups of people are inherently evil and subhuman and must be destroyed, just go ahead and make it.
Comments like these operate from a premise that the UK/US are some kind of global Empire that is picking and choosing where it gets involved. In some ways, that's actually true. But not true enough, unfortunately in my opinion, for your comment to accurately describe the decision making process going on within UK/US leadership circles.
I genuinely wish it were so that the US were powerful enough such that some junior staffer in the State Department could snap his or her fingers and end the conflict in Gaza.
Are you saying that Israel has received less military and economic aid since? Are you saying that President of the United States is unavailable for some reason? Or are you saying that the newspaper article from 42 years ago is false or misleading?
As someone that’s generally pro Israel on most things, they are literally massacring men, women and children. They’re culling them like sheep. The response to freedom fighters mounting a resistance shouldn’t be genocide.
It seems like people wake up when it is about Israel but nothing is commented about other athrocities. Double standards are more a mirror about the people. It is not about the issue itself but about the obsessive focus on one topic. If you look at HN most articles pro Israel are flagged while anti-israel does not.
There is a double standard but it's not the one you think.
Israel is the only state that can get away with such behavior without a single sanction. Russia is under a severe package of sanctions for doing something that is not fundamentally different.
Israel is also a particular focus in the West (and especially in America) because it's done with US support (in the UN) and US weapons. So, yes, people are talking about it more than, say, the situation in Myanmar. Note that there are also sanctions against Myanmar, among other things a ban on military sales to them for what they are doing; so can we now similarly ban the sales of weapons to Israel?
I think a lot of what Israel has done is hard to defend, but it is all very much unlike what Russia has done. An organized military organization didn't invade Russia from Ukraine and kill hundreds upon hundreds of civilians, face to face, and then return to Ukraine vowing to repeat the attack. That did in fact happen to Israel.
They don’t offer exemptions on human rights if you have the right motive. Human rights are supposed to be kept regardless of past wrongs. So what happened to Israel prior to their violations of international agreements is irrelevant. The double standard here is that both Russia and Israel are guilty of breaking human rights but instead of ordering sanctions against Israel, many nations offered them more weapons to double down on their atrocities. And in fact Israel’s crimes against humanity far exceed those of Russia. So the double standard is even amplified.
> Israel is also a particular focus in the West (and especially in America) because it's done with US support (in the UN) and US weapons.
You are nitpicking historical events. It's critical not to view events in isolation, they are deeply linked to the past, rather than being a series of unrelated incidents.
In 1948, following the UN Partition Plan of Palestine approved the creation of two states (this decision was made by the same United Nations to which you referred) Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq attacked Israel (yes, Israel because it was approved as a new country by the UN in the same way it happened to other nations).
US did a weapon embargo [1] that no benefited Israel (and the five other attackers). In this conflict, Israel was in a defensive position and Israel won that war without US support. The history is fluid.
Also, at that time Iran mas a monarchy and in 1979 after the Iranian revolution converted into a theocracy. Iran uses proxies for igniting more fire into the region. Not an opinion.
We can talk in the future again once Iran, probably, converts into a nuclear power.
In response to the straw man that people who criticize Israel never do so based on principles they apply to everything else as well, which warrants no response at all. It's not even worth taking note of at this point, it's just a square on a bingo card that got real old real quick.
I was pretty young when I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.