Is escalating the conflict by bombing the Houthis the way to go?

Glorianny..the people of those countries voted for terrorists and still support what they do.

Bella23..quite! I wonder why it is always Britain that gets involved when other countries are affected too and should help. We have a good relationship with USA and I am grateful for that. I wonder whether the BBC will refer to the houthis as terrorists...if they don't, heads need to roll

We do like our "goodies" and "baddies" when in fact the lines are very blurred and the only innocents are those being slaughtered.

Glorianny seems to me on a dozy afternoon that the UN needs to headed up by countries not involved in the wars. There’s a lot of mistrust and it’s not helping to find solutions.
Have you forgotten that there are innocent Israelis too?

M0nica

No one has yet answered the question of how you sort out a conflict peacefully or diplomatically if one party refuses to take part in any such initiative, whatever the reason, or where the driving force behind the conflict is a country not directly involved and denying any involvement

So please would those saying that peaceful means are the only way, tell us what they would do in these circumstances and not keep chickening out.

Well the first step is a complete cessation of the bombing of Gaza and the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
They then need to at least agree in principle to the idea of restoring some of the land they took by force.
The concept that Hamas will not negotiate is historically inaccurate they have done so in the past.
It is Zionists in Israel who have rejected the two state solution.

ronib

Iran is chair?

Not when this happened rnib but good try.

This seems to be the philosophy on this thread.
Blame all wrongdoing on the people you disagree with. The whole point of this is no one's hands are clean. Not Israel's, not Iran's, not Hamas, not the Houthis,not the Saudi's, not the US and sadly not the UK. The only innocents are the people of Gaza and Yemen, bombed, slaughtered, starved, wracked by disease and homeless.
And blaming just one section simply continues the discord and adds to the death toll.

No one has yet answered the question of how you sort out a conflict peacefully or diplomatically if one party refuses to take part in any such initiative, whatever the reason, or where the driving force behind the conflict is a country not directly involved and denying any involvement

So please would those saying that peaceful means are the only way, tell us what they would do in these circumstances and not keep chickening out.

Iran is chair?

Glorianny this Human Rights Council is under the auspices of the United Nations?

ronib

Glorianny who is The Mission? Iran?

It's the International Fact finding Mission of the Human Rights Council

[Source : Human Rights Council, Fifteenth session, Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance, A/HRC/15/21, 27 September 2010; available at www.ohchr.org/FR/Pages/Home.aspx ; footnotes omitted]

www.ohchr.org/fr/ohchr_homepage

Why would you imagine it was Iranian? Is preventing the passage of peaceful shipping legal or illegal? It can't be right for one country and wrong for another. That's what International Law means

Very valid questions Whitewave.
Seems to me that what all this boils down to is that some of us think that the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping are terrorist acts against non-participants that can only be stopped by military means. Others of us think that meeting aggression with aggression rarely achieves anything lasting and can lead to broadening of the original conflict. We could almost have a straw poll.
IMO this war, like the war in Ukraine, will not stop until one side or the other is exhausted, either financially or in manpower.

winterwhite

I agree with Whitewave, Grammaretto, Glorianny and all who think that no good will come of this.

I also deplore this country’s involvement in the arms trade. How many of the regimes in the Near East have been armed by Britain?

My questions are

When will we stop bombing Yemen? What if they continue, what if Iran gets involved? What if other groups supportive of Gaza and Yemen get involved?

What will it do to the Saudi Arabian/Yemen peace agreement?

Glorianny who is The Mission? Iran?

They have no noble aims as they aren’t noble, just vile like their comrades hamas and hezbollah.

Sounds super simplistic put like that.

The houthis have been attacking every kind of vessel owned by many countries with varied destinations, it’s piracy, nothing more and nothing less.They have no noble aims.

Of course it isn’t what the US or the UK want, what a stupid idea.
Will not bombing resolve anything? Answer, NO.
The houthis using the present conflict as an excuse or reason to carry on piracy missions can’t go unanswered any longer.
When it was going unanswered it was getting worse!
Does appeasement ever work with aggressors?

Callistemon21

The dispute was between Israel and Turkey at the time, 14 years ago.

If we are going to bring that up then we need to go back thousands of years too.
I do think much of what has happened over millennia has caused mistrust and unease.

That's only because the ships sailed under a Turkish flag. Their purpose was to bring aid by sea into Gaza. The ships were boarded by Israeli troops.
The blockade itself was judged illegal
…) The evidence of Prime Minister Netanyahu (…) indicates that the decision to stop the flotilla was not taken because the vessels in themselves posed any immediate security threat. In any event, no such right of belligerent interdiction or wider claim of self-defence against the Flotilla has been asserted by Israel.

57. Therefore the Mission is satisfied not only that the flotilla presented no imminent threat but that the interception was motivated by concerns about the possible propaganda victory that might be claimed by the organizers of the flotilla.

58. (…) [I]t is clear that there was no reasonable suspicion that the Flotilla posed any military risk of itself. As a result, no case could be made for intercepting the vessels in the exercise of belligerent rights or Article 51 self-defence. Thus, no case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.

59. The Mission finds that the policy of blockade or closure regime, including the naval blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza was inflicting disproportionate civilian damage. The Mission considers that the naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate.

60. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the Mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

61. The Mission considers that the enforcement of an illegal blockade does not only constitute a violation of the laws of war, but also a violation of the laws of neutrality giving rise to State responsibility

This is relevant now because the Houthis are being accused of illegal activity. Appreciating that in this area International law has been regularly flouted gives a different perspective on the issue.

Glorianny the point is unless you understand and appreciate others views on past actions you cannot possibly move forward to a peace……...Examining why their views may differ and the sources of their discontent is essential.
I completely agree.
It’s not enough to stay in our own preconceived bubble, we need to access as much information as possible from multiple angles, which does include past history.

Just dismissing out of hand the lessons of Ireland and other conflicts where peace negotiations have taken place shows little understanding of the conflict resolution process.

Will bombing resolve anything other than escalation to a point of no return? Attacking the Houthis may be just what they want, they are garnering increasing support in Yemen and further. I hope it’s not what the U.K. and USA want too.

What M0nica says.
I can only assume Glorianny that you’re on the far left politics wise, as the far left always seem to romanticise terrorists and try and further their causes, so glad we managed to get rid of Corbyn McDonnell and Abbott, the three stooges.
Hooray that someone like Starmer is now in charge.

M0nica

Glorianny There is an immense gulf between two protagonists who have had a conflict going on for decades (Israel/Palestine) and the random wanton attack on the high seas, of ships of all nations in international waters, most having nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict and none having any involvement with any of the conflicts that ravage the middle east as a whole.

Is that really true?
How can it be if Iran is accused of being behind much of the activity that alone gives it some connection, add the conflict between sunni and shiite muslims and you have another link, add opposition to Israel, another, add opposition to the US, and western intervention, and all of the conflict is linked.
The Houthis are seeking to make that section of sea theirs, to bring international pressure to bear on the US to moderate their support for Israel,
How anyone can separate what is happening now in Yemen from the long years of continuing conflict I don't know

Glorianny There is an immense gulf between two protagonists who have had a conflict going on for decades (Israel/Palestine) and the random wanton attack on the high seas, of ships of all nations in international waters, most having nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict and none having any involvement with any of the conflicts that ravage the middle east as a whole.

The dispute was between Israel and Turkey at the time, 14 years ago.

If we are going to bring that up then we need to go back thousands of years too.
I do think much of what has happened over millennia has caused mistrust and unease.

GrannyGravy13

Callistemon21

It was sorted years ago, GrannyGravy

Past grievances being dragged up do not help with sorting out present conflicts.

Totally agree

Unfortunately Glorianny has only got past grievances to support her views.

The point is that unless you understand and appreciate others views on past actions you cannot possibly move forward to a peace. It is absolutely no use to say the matter was sorted unless all the parties involved and affected agree. I doubt very much if many Palestinians agree and it is absolutely certain that Hamas won't.
My view is that condemning out of hand one participant, calling them names, deprecating them and blaming them alone is not helpful. Examining why their views may differ and the sources of their discontent is essential.
Then it must be ensured that an unbiased judgement is given and one side is not given preferential treatment because they have powerful friends

I agree with Whitewave, Grammaretto, Glorianny and all who think that no good will come of this.

I also deplore this country’s involvement in the arms trade. How many of the regimes in the Near East have been armed by Britain?