If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this.
As for why they would want to destabilize the region? You basically answered that on your own, no? They cynically want to increase their influence and power, but they can only do so at the expense of others. That is, yes, they have taken the irrational view of causing chaos to further their power-hungry desires.
> If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting.
These attacks coincided with the bombing and are the stated reason.
> As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this.
I know this might get me downvoted, but I don't think that the designation of terrorist is super helpful here. It's usually just used to delegitimize a group by saying they can't be negotiated with. It's hubris to think that anyone you decide to designate as a terrorist no longer has to be negotiated with like any other political entity.
In my pov, the bombing of Gaza is a terroristic act. Yet the US finances it and sanctions it. If the Houthis have done worse, then I would agree with the terrorist designation. But it should be clear that the distinction is arbitrary.
> As for why they would want to destabilize the region?
What do you consider destabilization? I think most of the time I see "destabilization" it is used as a code word for weakening US influence. The US destabilized Iraq by taking out Saddam and disbanding the army. It destabilized Afghanistan by removing the Taliban and sanctioning warlords. It can be argued whether these places were better or worse under US occupation, but just like the word "terrorist" used earlier, my point is that the word "destabilized" is a moral signifier that is used when people don't want to engage in a realistic conversation about the situation.
The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions?
They are largely viewed as a terrorist organization, because they have largely engaged in terrorism. It doesn't help to see stories of them trying to restore slavery.
So, what do I consider destabilization? I think this is a fair question and can be targeted. If you view this as some dog whistle for US influence... I confess that makes me question your motives rather heavily. That is, citing only US interests is, itself, a fairly obvious dog whistle.
I am unable to reply to your comment in the other chain (ok for some reason it let me comment now)
> Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior.
I am not deflecting, my point has been consistent across the whole thread. All of the power players in the region are bad people. However, you have to come to the table with them as they are. It's hubris to just think because the Houthis are bad guys then we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously the best way to stop these attacks is to force Israel to ceasefire (it's also the moral option), but many people wouldn't want to capitulate to pressure from "terrorists".
> The attacks coincide in time, yes. But many opportunistic things coincide. That is part of the very definition of opportunistic attacks, no? You can believe their stated reasons, but then how can you not also believe their stated global intentions?
I don't buy their PR hook line and sinker. But the reasonable thing to do here is open a line of communication and negotiate with them. Call for a ceasefire, get ships passing back through the Red Sea, and figure out how to solve this all somewhat peacefully.
> I get that you don't like Israel. I don't know why I would necessarily want to change your mind there, all told. I can say you should not let that drive you to such allies as terrorists that attack trade ships.
My point throughout this whole thread has not been to say Israel is uniquely evil or the Houthis are good, but that people in the west have been conditioned to look at this conflict without any nuance, which is antithetical to good policy, or even just understanding the situation.
I mean for christ sake we still have sanctions on Cuba 60 years later. So many US foreign policy moves are motivated by ideology or some moral judgement, rather than actual strategy or humanitarian ideals.
I really have tried to use fairly neutral language for all of my posts in this thread, I don't know why people have interpreted this as me defending the Houthis. I take it as an example of the fact that actually being truly neutral in an analysis is viewed as having non-neutral stance, because the default assumption in western nations is that the US hegemony is good and everyone loves it 24/7.
You literally brought Israel into this discussion with the sole purpose to undermine a criticism of a group that is calling for the death of others. That is a deflection.
Charity to it, if you are solely trying to point out that all participants are evil over there, what is your proposed frame of action? Is the claim that they are all equally villainous and evil?
I confess having cognitive dissonance in how you can both think they are all bad people, and that we should take a "reasonable" path to discussing with them. Their actions have shown that they are willing to attack ships outside of their own parameters in the region. Combined with their other, again visually stated, intentions, I don't see what you think to accomplish with discussions.
And again, bringing up other questionable choices by the US is a dog whistle to get support against "Western" powers. It is a deflection because it does not build up any support for the groups there, it is only a way to undermine other discourse.
> You literally brought Israel into this discussion with the sole purpose to undermine a criticism of a group that is calling for the death of others. That is a deflection.
I brought it up to show that your argument is one-sided and doesn't take into account the nuance of the situation. One of my main points has been that US news media's whitewashing of Israel is the main reasons that the OP I replied to was unable to understand why the Houthis had broad support in the Islamic world. However, if you look at the situation objectively (not through US-centric lens) it becomes really obvious what's happening.
The problem is that we hyper focus on the evil of our enemies, and don't focus on the evil of our allies and our own country. So it's not possible to look at the situation with a pro-Israel/pro-US pov and understand it.
> Charity to it, if you are solely trying to point out that all participants are evil over there, what is your proposed frame of action? Is the claim that they are all equally villainous and evil?
USA open a line of communication with Houthis (directly or via China). USA and UN declare the bombing of Gaza as a genocide. USA/UN Force Israel to stop genocide either through threat of sanctions, or enforce a no-fly zone and shoot down a plane if necessary. Get Netanyahu out and back his more liberal opposition. Make peace with the Houthis and try to legitimize their power, while imposing conditions of liberalization on them. Deconstruct the apartheid/surveillance state Israel has set up through reforms. People argue about 2-state vs 1-state, I personally believe a 1-state could work but I am not informed enough to say. Lastly, try Netanyahu + his cabinet and Hamas as war criminals so that there is accountability and justice.
All the players that I just mentioned, I truly believe them to be forces for evil. Why? Because the plan I proposed won't happen. It would be the most reasonable and morally just course of action, but because all of these people are operating ideologically, they won't do it. If they all sat down and brokered out a peace deal then I would consider that to be a "good" act, even if their overwhelming actions are still mostly evil.
> I confess having cognitive dissonance in how you can both think they are all bad people, and that we should take a "reasonable" path to discussing with them.
Because I think all countries are evil. I think the state monopoly on violence is wrong. However in the real world you have to play the hand you are dealt. I think the US (evil) using its power to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel (evil) to get the Houthis (evil) to stop, is the most moral action that can be taken right now.
> And again, bringing up other questionable choices by the US is a dog whistle to get support against "Western" powers. It is a deflection because it does not build up any support for the groups there, it is only a way to undermine other discourse.
I am not sure you fully understand my pov. I don't think Iran is better than the US or vice versa. I think they are all evil. However in this circumstance the US is the one with the power to stop a genocide. The US could literally force Netanyahu out TODAY, if the political will was there. There would still be other problems in the region of course.
The main point I want to make is that it is hypocritical and not productive to just come out and say "the Houthis are doing this because they are bad and evil". It completely obscures the courses of action the US should take to resolve this crisis.
I just can't see a coherent line of discussion here. What I see is a set line of conclusions that you want to support. Few of which really directly apply to the claims of this thread.
Worse, even if your stance is predicated on all actors in the area being evil, there is a certain level you have to ignore to not see the cartoonish quality of "Death to America" and to equivocate them with others in the area is borderline insulting.
And again, if you can't bring positive reasons to support one group, decrying "look at how evil everyone else is" is a deflection. You are refusing to actually engage with the declared evil intentions of one, by forcing a discussion on implied evil intentions of others.
> I just can't see a coherent line of discussion here. What I see is a set line of conclusions that you want to support. Few of which really directly apply to the claims of this thread.
I spelled out for you what I would consider to be the best course of action for all parties. I'm not really sure what else I can do.
> Worse, even if your stance is predicated on all actors in the area being evil, there is a certain level you have to ignore to not see the cartoonish quality of "Death to America"
I don't have any issue with someone chanting "Death to America". In some parts of the world I can understand that level of hatred for the USA. I totally think their antisemitism is abhorrent however. To quote Col. Kurtz:
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "f**" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"
We aid Saudi Arabia dropping bombs on them from the sky, I can't be too offended when their slogan is "death to the USA".
> to equivocate them with others in the area is borderline insulting.
Qatar has a population made up of 80% slaves. Israel was founded on ethnic displacement and is an apartheid state with no human rights, and is actively doing a genocide right now. The extremist elements in Israel are actively in power. I consider them to be the Jewish equivalent of US white nationalists. I don't think I need to list out the human rights violations of every country in order to make the point that all states are immoral.
> And again, if you can't bring positive reasons to support one group, decrying "look at how evil everyone else is" is a deflection.
I don't support groups, I support moral actions (Not that my opinion matters in the great scheme of things), but the course of action should not be about supporting the team that you think is less bad, but exploiting the relationships between the immoral states to achieve the least violent and most just outcome.
> You are refusing to actually engage with the declared evil intentions of one, by forcing a discussion on implied evil intentions of others.
The evil intentions of USA and Israel are not implied, they are stated and then acted on. You can listen to Netanyahu directly state his plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza under the protection of the US. You can also hear Joe Biden verbatim say "if there was no Israel in the middle east we would have to invent one. Why? Because it is in our own naked self interest."
I think genocide and the funding of a genocide are evil. I also think Islamic terrorism is evil. However there is a path forward that involves all of the players communicating with each other to minimize bloodshed and maximize justice.
My intention has not been to apply whataboutisms to the Houthis, but to make the point that you have to be realistic and approach situations as they are, not as you wish they were. In my opinion, under this framework, the US will need to negotiate with the Houthis and stop Israel's genocide if they want to solve this problem in the best way possible.
The only actor in the Red Sea conflict who has killed anyone is the US. The Houthis have successfully attacked multiple ships and not killed a single person.
And that’s besides the fact that they have been extremely clear that they are only targeting Israeli-linked ships. Plenty of ships have gone through unmolested by broadcasting No Contact Israel as they do so.
The big companies know this they’re only not going through because of insurance issues.
The cartoon villain is them literally taking up the nazi salute. On purpose. And their flag. If you have evidence that those are misrepresented, that is one thing. So far, I have not seen evidence that that is the case.
Is it not cartoon villainy when Israel has killed 23,000 people indiscriminately? Or Israeli real estate companies post pictures of planned beachside condos photoshopped onto rubble in Gaza? Or when Israel murdered 3 of the hostages because they assumed they were unarmed Palestinian civilians?
All of the groups in this region (and the world at large), government or not, are extremely evil and capable of unimaginable violence. You cannot pick and choose to ignore the evils of one group because it is politically beneficial. Well, you can, but that's hypocritical.
The point is that if your goal is to keep the region stable, maximize your influence, and minimize deaths, you have to treat everyone according to the leverage they have. Not the leverage you wish they had based on your moral judgements.
The US media overwhelmingly portrays this as Israel being picked on "for no reason" by all of the savages in the region, and this hampers people in the west's ability to look at the situation objectively.
Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior.
I get that you don't like Israel. I don't know why I would necessarily want to change your mind there, all told. I can say you should not let that drive you to such allies as terrorists that attack trade ships.
> Deflect, much? I can call out a group of cartoonishly villainous terrorists without having to condone any other behavior.
I am not deflecting, my point has been consistent across the whole thread. All of the power players in the region are bad people. However, you have to come to the table with them as they are. It's hubris to just think because the Houthis are bad guys then we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously the best way to stop these attacks is to force Israel to ceasefire (it's also the moral option), but many people wouldn't want to capitulate to pressure from "terrorists".
I think they would. You would need to have them sign an agreement (as well as Israel). If they violated this agreement, then sure, the USA could be justified in taking military action.
However, painting them as savages and approaching it with a "bomb them back to the stone age" mindset isn't helpful. You'd think after 20+ years we would have learned this lesson.
All I’ve can find is one video, not the same thing as them pledging allegiance to the Nazi cause.
The flag uses a common rhetorical pattern in the region. “Death to” is often compared to something more similar to “down with”.
The “curse against the Jews” part is concerning but it seems pretty clear in context that this is still just a reference to Israel. To the extent that the houthis are actually looks to kill Jews for being Jews, yes that is obviously horrible. But I think a more reasonable interpretation is that they generally aim to fight against the US and Israel, and which is the core part of their goals.
To be clear, their treatment of Jews is clearly an issue, but they are not literally Hitler.
>The Houthis have been accused of expelling or restricting members of the rural Yemeni Jewish community, which had about 50 remaining members. Reports of abuse include Houthi supporters bullying or attacking the country's Jews. Houthi officials, however, have denied any involvement in the harassment, asserting that under Houthi control, Jews in Yemen would be able to live and operate freely as any other Yemeni citizen. "Our problems are with Zionism and the occupation of Palestine, but Jews here have nothing to fear", said Fadl Abu Taleb, a spokesman for the Houthis. But despite insistence by Houthi leaders that the movement is not sectarian, a Yemeni Jewish rabbi has reportedly said that many Jews remain terrified by the movement's slogan. As a result, Yemeni Jews reportedly retain a negative sentiment towards the Houthis, who they allege have committed persecutions against them. According to Israeli Druze politician Ayoob Kara, Houthi militants had given an ultimatum telling Jews to "convert to Islam or leave Yemen".
I'm not sure what you are aiming for here? I did not claim they are literally Hitler. I said they literally took up the nazi salute. My understanding is they did so on purpose.
I would believe you regarding an odd downplay of "death to" with "down with," were it not for how willing to kill a lot of the actors in the area are? Again, I do not understand why folks give this group so much charity in "they say this, but they mean the much more reasonable that" way. It is mind numbing how much runway is being laid out here.
Seriously, why do you think they deserve to be believed for holding reasonable positions that they have not made credible claims to? Heck, they haven't made many claims to them, period.
>I would believe you regarding an odd downplay of "death to" with "down with," were it not for how willing to kill a lot of the actors in the area are?
It’s important to understand what terms of phrase are.
It’s very common in American English to say “I killed it” or “I murdered it” to mean someone did a task well. It doesn’t mean the literal thing that is said.
The houthis are obviously violent and have murderous intent. That is what armed conflict entails (this is true of the Houthis, the saudis, the Iranians, the israelis and the Americans, etc etc). But that doesn’t mean you have free to strip words and phrases of their cultural context.
You’re lacking a significant amount of historical and cultural context to understand what that even means though.
For one thing, translating the words alone leads to a significant stripping of context. Additionally, movements around political Islam have only gained sway since secular/nationalist movements failed to achieve their goals in a meaningful way.
Almost all evil has "context" - doesn't make it any less evil.
Yemen has more or less zero reason to be in direct conflict with Israel, it's as cartoonish as papa new guinea suddenly changing their slogan to "death to Cyprus!".
Israeli occupation and war crimes that started even before the creation of the state are the single biggest de-stabilizing factor in the region along with the unexplained unconditional American support for Israeli atrocities.
