6 ms·

Because Israel is attacking civilian targets in Gaza. USA not doing anything about that. In fact no one is except the Houthis.

tety 3y ago
you’d might want to google the amount of civilian casualties in the yemen civil war, its proportion to deaths in the Gaza war and houthis involvement in said civilian deaths. You might be surprised how preoccupied they are with ‘preventing’ civilian death
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  Following the same logic, we also have plenty of examples of how US is (not) worried about democracy, free trade and attacks against civil targets. And therefore, we can dismiss its statements about these issues. No problem, it's a tie. Therefore, what remains to discuss is just how legitimate is the stated purpose of Houthi's attacks that is claimed to uphold article 1 from Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from UN. According with that convention, which is signed by Yemen, their members must act to prevent genocide whenever it is happening, either during war or peace. A blockade is indeed a way to act against this crime.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Not legitimate at all, since the Houthis were doing this before the Gaza war, and they themselves are laying siege to Ta'izz.
    - thiagoharry 3y ago
      They were for other reasons. Likewise, US were also bombing people and launching missiles before for other reasons and also make economical sieges against other targets in other contexts. I'm confused why this should mean that any future attack and reasoning made by US or Houthis should be dismissed because of this. THESE particular bombings were because the blockade and sanctions that they did in the region and they justify with the genocide happening in Palestine.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        They can justify what they're doing however they'd like, but I don't think anybody serious believes anything they say. There's a backstory with these people.
        thiagoharry 3y ago
        Well, I do not consider "serious" countries that are not opposing a genocide because they have neocolonialist interests in the region. Fortunately, we have several serious countries that are acting and also supporting the case in the International Court of Justice.
        tptacek 3y ago
        The ICJ case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Houthis, and nobody supporting that case supports them.
        thiagoharry 3y ago
        Correct. But at this point I support all iniciatives toward protectong civilians and promote a ceasefire in the region.
        tptacek 3y ago
        If you support civilian lives then the very last people in the entire world you want to get behind are Ansar Allah. You have to be careful about campism. It's pernicious.
        runarberg 3y ago
        Different means to the same goal. The Houthis have no access to the ICJ, however they have access to disrupt the maritime trade through the Red Sea, so this is how they act. There is also reasons to believe that even if the ICJ rules in favor of South Africa on Friday, and orders Israel to stop any military activity and let in humanitarian aid, that they will simply not follow it, and there is reasons to believe that USA will excuse this behavior. Disrupting maritime traffic in the Red Sea may proof to be an invaluable action in addition to the ICJ case for stopping the horrors in Gaza.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tety 3y ago
    They cannot uphold article 1 on their own account, without international support and they're not a signatory. You need to show that the intent of Israel is to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, even partially. What I see is the attempt of Israel to prevent more October 7 attacks, which Hamas declared it is going to repeat. The actual goal here is to protect Israel's own citizens from genocide, which Hamas has shown willingness to commit and ability (albeit in a smaller scale currently). I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place. As this is war, it's also causing immense suffering in the Palestinian side. Which is why a war to remove Hamas from power was constantly deferred in the past, knowing they are highly entrenched in the civilian population. However, I don't think they left Israel any other way this time.
    - thiagoharry 3y ago
      Wrong. First Yemen IS signatory since 1987 (or 1989 if you consider North Yemen). Second, the convention gives responsibilities beyond borders for members, and explicitly puts responsibility to act upon signatory States. And third, there are plenty previous cases that opened precedence that a country can act even before any approval from UN (US bombed Yugoslavia arguing this), and there is also precedence of blockades enforced by a single country despite the lack of approval (and despite disavowal) from UN (US blocking Cuba and Venezuela). > I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place. Also wrong. The genocide convention was created to prevent genocide. There is nothing in the convention mentioning that you should not act if the victims are from other countries. On the contrary, the convention says that you must act to prevent and has an extraterritorial scope (as was established in a previous judgement in UN). How exactly killing children, reporters, women and people holding white flags, attacking UN shelters, as well as destroying hospitals and universities prevent more October 7 attacks!? In fact, it will create more attacks because of the anger from an oppressed people. Which was the cause of October 7 attacks, by the way. Sorry, declaring war is not a free pass to commit war crimes. If the war crimes are frequent, and they are not opposed (or if they are encouraged), this is a serious evidence of genocide.

tety 3y ago

you’d might want to google the amount of civilian casualties in the yemen civil war, its proportion to deaths in the Gaza war and houthis involvement in said civilian deaths. You might be surprised how preoccupied they are with ‘preventing’ civilian death

thiagoharry 3y ago
Following the same logic, we also have plenty of examples of how US is (not) worried about democracy, free trade and attacks against civil targets. And therefore, we can dismiss its statements about these issues. No problem, it's a tie. Therefore, what remains to discuss is just how legitimate is the stated purpose of Houthi's attacks that is claimed to uphold article 1 from Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from UN. According with that convention, which is signed by Yemen, their members must act to prevent genocide whenever it is happening, either during war or peace. A blockade is indeed a way to act against this crime.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Not legitimate at all, since the Houthis were doing this before the Gaza war, and they themselves are laying siege to Ta'izz.
  - thiagoharry 3y ago
    They were for other reasons. Likewise, US were also bombing people and launching missiles before for other reasons and also make economical sieges against other targets in other contexts. I'm confused why this should mean that any future attack and reasoning made by US or Houthis should be dismissed because of this. THESE particular bombings were because the blockade and sanctions that they did in the region and they justify with the genocide happening in Palestine.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      They can justify what they're doing however they'd like, but I don't think anybody serious believes anything they say. There's a backstory with these people.
      - thiagoharry 3y ago
        Well, I do not consider "serious" countries that are not opposing a genocide because they have neocolonialist interests in the region. Fortunately, we have several serious countries that are acting and also supporting the case in the International Court of Justice.
        tptacek 3y ago
        The ICJ case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Houthis, and nobody supporting that case supports them.
        thiagoharry 3y ago
        Correct. But at this point I support all iniciatives toward protectong civilians and promote a ceasefire in the region.
        tptacek 3y ago
        If you support civilian lives then the very last people in the entire world you want to get behind are Ansar Allah. You have to be careful about campism. It's pernicious.
        runarberg 3y ago
        Different means to the same goal. The Houthis have no access to the ICJ, however they have access to disrupt the maritime trade through the Red Sea, so this is how they act. There is also reasons to believe that even if the ICJ rules in favor of South Africa on Friday, and orders Israel to stop any military activity and let in humanitarian aid, that they will simply not follow it, and there is reasons to believe that USA will excuse this behavior. Disrupting maritime traffic in the Red Sea may proof to be an invaluable action in addition to the ICJ case for stopping the horrors in Gaza.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tety 3y ago
  They cannot uphold article 1 on their own account, without international support and they're not a signatory. You need to show that the intent of Israel is to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, even partially. What I see is the attempt of Israel to prevent more October 7 attacks, which Hamas declared it is going to repeat. The actual goal here is to protect Israel's own citizens from genocide, which Hamas has shown willingness to commit and ability (albeit in a smaller scale currently). I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place. As this is war, it's also causing immense suffering in the Palestinian side. Which is why a war to remove Hamas from power was constantly deferred in the past, knowing they are highly entrenched in the civilian population. However, I don't think they left Israel any other way this time.
  - thiagoharry 3y ago
    Wrong. First Yemen IS signatory since 1987 (or 1989 if you consider North Yemen). Second, the convention gives responsibilities beyond borders for members, and explicitly puts responsibility to act upon signatory States. And third, there are plenty previous cases that opened precedence that a country can act even before any approval from UN (US bombed Yugoslavia arguing this), and there is also precedence of blockades enforced by a single country despite the lack of approval (and despite disavowal) from UN (US blocking Cuba and Venezuela). > I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place. Also wrong. The genocide convention was created to prevent genocide. There is nothing in the convention mentioning that you should not act if the victims are from other countries. On the contrary, the convention says that you must act to prevent and has an extraterritorial scope (as was established in a previous judgement in UN). How exactly killing children, reporters, women and people holding white flags, attacking UN shelters, as well as destroying hospitals and universities prevent more October 7 attacks!? In fact, it will create more attacks because of the anger from an oppressed people. Which was the cause of October 7 attacks, by the way. Sorry, declaring war is not a free pass to commit war crimes. If the war crimes are frequent, and they are not opposed (or if they are encouraged), this is a serious evidence of genocide.