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

merlotgran

^It's a theoretical concept merlogran but I appreciate answering it would be difficult for you since it opens a whole can of worms about territory acquired by force^

I haven’t the time or the inclination to seek out then posts links to various articles to back up any comments which is your usual practice, Gloryanny and discussing annexation would detract from the OP

Ironic, merlogran because Glorianny told me You apparently have no ideas of your own yet posts reams of copy and paste articles and links herself.
🤔

merlotgran

^But Palestine was occupied by force merlotgran if you approve of countries taking over other countries and occupying them then once Russia has overcome Ukraine any insurrection must become terrorism surely. Just as Hamas is terrorism in the territories Israel has occupied^

Where have I even so much as hinted at approval?

It's a deliberate misinterpretation of what you said , merlotgran
It's a habit to make other posters look like warmongerers who do not wish for peace and have no sympathy with the innocents in this.

It's Gaslighting.

Thanks Frenchgalinspain
I think there are about 20 countries altogether which signed up to this but some do not wish to be named.

This type of bombardment of neutral shipping passing through the Red Sea is tantamount to piracy. Should countries sit back and watch?

Callistemon21

merlotgran

But Palestine was occupied by force merlotgran if you approve of countries taking over other countries and occupying them then once Russia has overcome Ukraine any insurrection must become terrorism surely. Just as Hamas is terrorism in the territories Israel has occupied

Where have I even so much as hinted at approval?

It's a deliberate misinterpretation of what you said , merlotgran
It's a habit to make other posters look like warmongerers who do not wish for peace and have no sympathy with the innocents in this.

It's Gaslighting.

It's no such thing it's a logical interpretation of what has been posted many times on these threads, but when applied to a different country creates something of a dilemma
It goes like this.
If a country invades and occupies another country then are the people who resist that occupation terrorists or freedom fighters?
Can that definition depend on which two countries are involved or not?
You are quite entitled to make your own judgement. So how can it be gaslighting? It is ridiculous how when faced with difficult questions some posters resort to personal attacks.

Well Hamas are definitely terrorists as no one other than terrorists would have committed the atrocities they did on 7/10/23.

Houthi’s are definitely committing acts of piracy which are against maritime law.

No doubt you will post in their defence Glorianny

So why keep attacking posters, twisting what they say and making personal attacks on them? A case in point is your attack on merlotgran.

It's useless trying to explain any viewpoint to you, as has been found by many posters on many threads, because you deliberately misconstrue what others say for some reason of your own.

Goodbye.

Unfortunately systematically abusing women, taking away their rights, beating them along with rape used as a weapon of war? seems to be a standard tactic used by most terrorist groups and some governments.

GrannyGravy13

Well Hamas are definitely terrorists as no one other than terrorists would have committed the atrocities they did on 7/10/23.

Houthi’s are definitely committing acts of piracy which are against maritime law.

No doubt you will post in their defence Glorianny

I asked that question about Israel blockading Gaza and boarding peaceful ships killing some of the people on board. Are all acts of piracy wrong or only some of them?

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Well Hamas are definitely terrorists as no one other than terrorists would have committed the atrocities they did on 7/10/23.

Houthi’s are definitely committing acts of piracy which are against maritime law.

No doubt you will post in their defence Glorianny

I asked that question about Israel blockading Gaza and boarding peaceful ships killing some of the people on board. Are all acts of piracy wrong or only some of them?

It was wrong, it was condemned and it was 14 years ago.

A UN report was commissioned. The Palmer report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal, and that there were "serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH". The report also found that the degree of force used against the Mavi Marmara was "excessive and unreasonable", and that the way Israel treated detained crew members violated international human rights law.

Israel has offered Turkey $20 million in compensation for the raid. On 22 March 2013, in a half-hour telephone exchange between Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the former apologized on behalf of his nation; Erdoğan accepted the apology and both agreed to enter into further discussions. On 29 June 2016, the agreement was finalized and approved by the Israeli government.

Israel is defending its right to exist.

Hamas has repeatedly avowed to kill every Jew on the planet.

Israel blocking ships which may or may not be delivering arms to Hamas terrorists is a different scenario from Houthi pirates boarding and firing missiles at commercial ships in the Red Sea.

It was sorted years ago, GrannyGravy

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Sounds super simplistic put like that.

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

Glorianny who is The Mission? Iran?