[hackerlight]

In conflict between states, like/dislike does play a role, but it's largely the inability to trust. In the absence of a regional/world power, you have to attack the other guy before he attacks you, because there's an impenetrable information asymmetry meaning you can't truly know their intentions. The problem is, both sides are running the same calculus, and both sides knows that the other side is thinking the same thing. So even if you think the other side doesn't want to attack you, you think they may do so out of precaution because they are concerned that you are thinking like this, which gives you an incentive to attack them first before they come to the logical conclusion that you've just arrived at.

It's one reason why violence can be so high in tribal societies. There is no higher power to resolve disputes so you need to front-run the hypothetical violence of the opponent, which creates a game theory situation where the only solution is to attack.

The way to break this dynamic is to have a hegemon, like the US, who can dictate outcomes (e.g. a border) to both sides and enforce it. This can then de-escalate. France no longer side-eyes Germany and vice versa because the US guarantees that neither will do anything. Some attribute this to democratic institutions, prosperity, a common enemy (Russia), etc, which largely does explain things, but it's not the entire picture. If the rest of the world disappeared, tensions between Germany and France would probably go up again due to there being no external power to enforce the status quo.

That said, the Houthis are a non-state actor, so the same logic may not apply.