A new Suez crisis threatens the world economy
economist.com
economist.com
Maybe we should try this obvious solution first, deliver "enough" food and medicine to people in gaza?
No idea what that has to do with twitter discourse or US issues with healthcare, something I know literally nothing about.
> The militant group’s motto includes the exhortation “Death to Israel. A curse upon the Jews,” and it claims that it is targeting “all ships heading to Israeli ports” until food and medicine are delivered to Gaza. But most of the ships being attacked neither are headed to Israel nor have Israeli ownership.
While I sympathize with the notion that supplying aid might assuage the Houthis, it seems they’re ambitions are both greater and mistargeted.
They lack internal coherence. We’re talking about a group of warlords, after all. Nobody is in charge, which makes the notion of striking a deal ludicrous.
Correct. Conspicuously, Iran hasn’t offered terms. Which makes sense. The chaos boosts their bona fides. And they’re selling oil through a separate channel.
You assert that this case of piracy is driven by noble causes, as opposed to literally any use of force by any government in human history.
Assuming that the Houthi demands are complied with, what should prevent the Houthis from using their military force to promote other causes, perhaps less noble, like enriching their own leaders (a.k.a., privateering and collecting ransom)?
This point can be made about any of the groups with weapons in this context. Including Israel. So it becomes useless.
Piracy (more precisely: systematically and arbitrarily attacking vessels in the open seas) is not considered legitimate for any government - not the US, not China and certainly not Israel. The violation of this rule by itself is grounds for war by the injured governments (which, by the way include most of the EU and the US).
The extraordinary claim here is exempting the Houthi extreme actions from the rule of not practicing piracy just because they are hostile to Israel.
The above line of thought also begs the question of what other extreme actions are supposedly justifiable if the perpetrator happens to be hostile to Israel. Is it a get-out-of-jail card of some kind?
Houti aggression on merchant ships is a political act. By attacking Israel they are sending a political message to their opponents that reads "if you attack us right now it means you're on the side of Israel". That's why it doesn't matter whether their garage built cruise missiles actually make it to Eliat, or not, whether they really stop shipping, or not. The shots are fired north at Israel, but the message is targeted south and east. They are in the middle of a civil war, a very long and extremely brutal one, and this tactic works given what their opponents think about themselves and the world.
The EU/US response to this will be challenging, mostly because they cannot really threaten Houti power. North Yemen is already in a deeper ruin than most countries are after a war, their military industrial base is located in another country (Iran), and there are very small chances for an internal revolt. BTW, in this conflict China and the US and the EU are actually on the same side, though China will definitely try to sit this one out.
All they needed was to show a little restraint instead of giving in to their revenge instinct. China and Russia are both hostile to Islamic terrorism. Nobody would have vetoed that resolution if Israel hasn't started immediately flattening Gaza.
That is actually how Hamas would have lost its leg.
No, but it would have looked good. That matters in international relations. The Arab world sees America as Israel’s surrogate; that makes it tough for Washington to e.g. strike a deal with Riyadh or Tehran to solve this Bab al-Mandan crisis.
So I wouldn’t hold your breath for it to start happening now.
Leaving your disingenuous framing aside, yes, Israel has brought complaints to the UN before. See: https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-complains-un-over-hezbol...
I asked you for an example of Israel and the US going to the UNSC first and only after that launching an excursion into Gaza. You respond with a complaint about Lebanon moving troops within its own borders. What was the expectation from the UNSC there? How does that relate to my question?
In any event, you asked for one time Israel brought a complaint to the UN and I provided it. Please don’t alter the goalposts you yourself set.
What was the UN’s response? Was there an intervention? A censure of Hezbollah or Lebanon? An investigation?
Given the UN’s history towards Israel, why would it ever take anything to the UNSC or believe that its arbitrations and judgments are anything but massively biased against it?
I don't really understand that line of reasoning, doesn't Israel owe its existence to the UN security council resolution in 1948?
The problem is people seem to think UN has any meaning, it doesn't, it's just a hugh waste of money.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/aid-enters-gaza-th...
That should be enough in theory. But see details in the article, there are many logistical challenges remaining to actually get it to those in need.
Trucks with all the aid come in every day. Here, for example, is a report from Nov 26: https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-wa...
You can find reports for every day.
Don't take what a terror group says a truth.
- The Houthi rebels back down.
- The West backs down and accepts a minor rebel group disrupting global shipping .
- The Houthis get their shit kicked in.
There is technically a fourth option where the West tries but fails to enact option 3 I guess, but I doubt it. Houthi air defenses are limited to whatever old soviet SAMs they can scrounge together.
To be honest, I don't see the second option happening either. So we have options 1 and 3 left. I hope it's option 1, as there is enough war already in the world.
One hopes it will learn that Hamas’ tactics don’t work. They backfire. And they lose one global sympathy.
Hamas lost control of Daef and Islamic Jihad. They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal, took hostages and then lost them, and are likely to lose physical control over Gaza for some time. There might have been an inkling of a strategy, but nobody on the ground was calling shots.
> They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal...
The response to that attack has killed ~15x as many so far, with plenty of civilians in that mix. Even the US is starting to message "hold up, that's a bit much" now.
Hamas’ leadership wants its villa bills paid. Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza. No power in Gaza, no villas in Doha.
> Republican promises to repeal Obamacare
This is nonsense. (I’m ignoring that it’s also in bad taste.)
The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity. Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
The analogy is in America supporting the Mujahideen to pressure the Soviets and then watching that backfire as Al Qaeda.
Which will continue.
> Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza.
Those payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side. They don't need to be managing Gaza's water authority to remain one. They're much more effective as an insurgency than a government.
> The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity.
The same is true for Hamas, quite clearly.
> Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.
This is a weird assertion; all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas of this attack.
If they lose control over Gaza? No.
> payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side…they're much more effective as an insurgency
The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
> same is true for Hamas, quite clearly
How? There is no loyalty test. Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies. You’re conflating separate situations that are fundamentally different because on the surface you like the opportunity to call the GOP terrorists. Which, ironically, undermines your broader argument.
> all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas
Extensive planning. Not necessarily by Hamas. Again, this was a tremendously stupid move. There were smarter plays, and hints Hamas was trying for them, but they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters, local infrastructure and operational control in Gaza.
Hamas has been out of control in Gaza before, it's hardly the first time. Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force.
> The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.
Their bureaucracy is largely focused on recruiting and funding the insurgent wing. Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers.
> Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies.
You keep asserting this without any evidence. What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Hamas is the proxy, for Iran, as are Hezbollah. Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response.
> they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters
They don't care. There's always more cannon fodder, especially after a war generates a new generation of refugees, orphans, and grieving relatives. We saw the same in Afghanistan; every civilian you kill means a family swearing vengeance.
Fair enough, I should have said influence versus control. It looks like Hamas won't have influence in Gaza after this war.
That doesn't mean there won't be insurgents. As you point out, there absolutely will be. In part because of this war. But I doubt they'll show loyalty to Hamas--their surviving leadership will be too far away.
> Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers
Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)
> What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?
Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I don't think the last decade of Hamas' rule shows them incapable at achieving their ends. (Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, seem like nutters.) Add to that the operational incoherence of the October 7 attack, and that Hamas lost its hostages, its sole source of leverage, and it's not difficult to conclude things went off piste.
> Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response
Yes and no. They're happy because it shows their strength, brings them to the negotiating table and makes their oil more valuable. (It also curtails Arab-Israeli normalisation.)
The international response has shown that Israel can do what it wants. The Arab states softly condemned. Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority chose self preservation. America sent through arms. The one PR battle the Palestinians need to win, sympathy in America, has gone backwards.
> We saw the same in Afghanistan
The Taliban took back ground control. Their fighting forces were preserved. That does not look like it will be the case in Gaza; Jerusalem is being far more brutal than we were in Afghanistan. It might be that's the only way to win. (If you're correct, that Hamas intended to kill thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of its own, then this is a good thing.)
Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?
(Hint: It rhymes with "schistlamic plate".)
> Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.
I agree! I just don't think the Israeli approach is going to do the trick, and is likely actively harmful to that goal.
> Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.
PIJ is a rival to Hamas. They've fought from time to time, and coordinate attacks at other times. US intelligence describes it as a "tense relationship": https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pij_fto.html
> The Taliban took back ground control.
As will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza. Barring a Holocaust-scale elimination campaign against the population, there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future.
Al Qaeda's leadership of the era died or went into hiding. The present offshoots have nothing to do with it; all that survived was the brand.
> PIJ is a rival to Hamas
So? They coordinated on this attack. PIJ launched munitions beyond their capacity to manufacture; they got them from Hamas.
> will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza
Very doubtful. Not Hamas. Something else, but not Hamas. (Maybe PIJ.) Point is, the leadership loses.
> there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future
What made Hamas formidable was its funding and access to Iranian weapons. The funds flew into Gaza with Israel's consent. And the munitions entered because Israel gave Hamas room. Whatever the endgame, it's unlikely to be one that just hands Gaza back to an Iranian proxy.
What would be historic is if this led to a long term reduction of terrorism in the region. However Israel has offered no explanation for why their attempt at brute force anti-terrorism will work better then every other attempt.
Also, there is no way to get rid of Hamas unless overall conditions that made it what it is today remain. Its desperately naive position that has been proven impossible over and over. Ie terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters, depending on from where you look on Iraq post 2003 invasion.
Maybe with different name, different folks, but cca same goal and methods. Or do you feel that Taliban or Al-Qaeda disappeared just because mightiest military in the world decided to kick their ass for a decade+?
Absolutely nobody has any incentive to listen to calls for ceasefire unless they are in mortal threat, which is what Israel is working on and what hamas started with. The restraint is gone - there is no reason for anyone to hold back because holding back now creates a worse future position.
Indiscriminate targeting/disruption would raise eyebrows in Beijing and I am sure Iran does not want that.
Or, that'll benefit Chinese shipping companies as, again, I highly doubt that they'll be targeted.
The US are probably the least impacted, if at all.
But overall Chinese exports can still be impacted if the major Western shipping companies stop going through those waters. So there might a balance to maintain if Iran wants to avoid a call from Beijing.
Well that's obviously not true. The first one that made the news when it was commandeered is Israeli-owned and I believe that all the ships targeted since have some links with Israel.
The effect is that everyone is thinking twice before sailing through those waters, though.
So that leaves us with option 3, a big delivery of freedom.
It’s cheaper and more effective long term to give them freedom than negotiating, next time they want something they just need to attack the strait again and that’s a bad long term policy to allow.
Regardless of which way you lean in this story, I still find it disingenuous to hide what the demands of parties of conflicts are - any conflict to be precise. Whether it is intentional or not does not matter in my opinion.
But death to the Jews? Where is the source of that? But even if they did, they are no threat to Israel. They're no threat to Jews around the world. Israel is vastly more powerful than any country in the region, except maybe Iran. There is really no threat to Israels existence at this point. It's also the only nuclear power in the region. Mearscheimer correctly called this "threat inflation"[1]
But calling for the destruction of a state isn't that uncommon. I fail to see what's so unique about such a statement. Also worth remember that the west itself constantly engages in that rhetoric.
0. Various countries frequently call for the destruction of their neighbours
1. the Israeli's and the Americans constantly call for the destruction of Iran(hardly the only nation btw)
2. the US and Europeans have conferences about the break up of Russia(i.e. the destruction of Russia)
3.Yugoslavia, and several other nations having actually been destroyed in the last couple of decades
[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1736160553322553404
This is hardly controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
"The slogan of the Houthi movement (officially called 'Ansar Allah'), a Shia Islamist political and military organization in Yemen, reads 'God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam'".
What Israel is doing domestically is entirely irrelevant to Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, who have all said numerous times that they want to kill all Jews. This stance has not altered or varied even when Israel had pro-peace governments.
The claim that there is no threat to Israel’s existence is totally absurd. It has fought multiple existential wars in many of its citizens’ living memories, and just suffered an enormous terrorist attack whose authors’ ultimate stated goal is, again, the destruction of Israel.
And then talking out both sides of your mouth that actually “the west” is fine with destroying nations so that rhetoric is okay is simply disingenuous. Is Israel under threat of annihilation and that’s okay, or is it not?
Anyway anyone who knows anything about the conflict can immediately see your framing is extremely disingenuous.
Hamas is an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian army hates them, the Syrians fought them, Iran fought them. Israel, Turkey and the US all fought on the side of Alqaeda in Syria[2][3].
US shut down Turkey's banking integration with Russia with a simple threat of turning off the tap to their banking system. They could shut down Hamas funding in a heartbeat. But they don't it, why[4]?
[1] https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/04/24/Ayatollah-bomb-in-pr...
[2] https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225
[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81N1EX/
[4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-chief-top-general-visit...
That you don’t know this seems to indicate you might know less about this conflict than you believe you do. Your further contentions that the US could magically wave a wand and make Hamas disappear confirm it.
I don’t claim that humans are perfectly rational in all activities, but appeasement hasn’t generally worked in the past.
There is zero chance capitulating works without someone reining the Houthis in.
The Houthis don’t have a unified power structure. There is nobody to accept that a deal has been signed. The only group that can credibly claim to control them is Tehran; a deal would need to be made with them. And they haven’t offered terms.
The Houthis have been shooting missiles and launching drones at commercial shipping, but also at Israeli cities. [0]
I like to think I understand how to read a map.
The route from Houthi controlled territory to Israeli territory either (a) flies over Saudi Arabia or (b) flies over water immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia. E.g. specifically Jeddah and Mecca.
Why aren't the Saudis doing anything? They're fine with ordinance flying right next to their major population centers, launched by a group they've literally been bombing?
[0] https://news.usni.org/2023/12/16/u-k-american-warships-shoot...
The House of Saud was normalising its relationship with Jerusalem [1]. Its Wahahabi population is significantly more conservative than it; protecting Israel by intercepting the Houthis’ missiles could cause a domestic issue.
Also, Riyadh was happily bombing the Houthis in the Yemeni civil war. We asked them to stop [2]. There is likely an element of schadenfreude “we told you so” geopolitics going down.
[1] https://globalriskinsights.com/2019/01/the-solidifying-of-th...
Regional force balance has changed. Iran/Yemen has developed reasonably competent missile tech that they destroy regional energy infra and potentially to revert rich petro states into desert tribes while globe is warming. While robbing world of 1/3 oil/lng. No one wants to risk that over Israel, least of all arabs.
The Red Sea is only 200 km across, off Jeddah.
But it starts being politically sensitive when Israeli radars see cruise missiles and drones coming across national borders.
Which means there are probably some murky bargains to the effect of "Israeli doesn't care about a few Houthi drones, compared to Hamas and Hezbollah, and so looks the other way so that Jordan and Saudi Arabia can avoid inflaming their populaces by taking an active stance."
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/11/06/the-panama-canal-droug...
Shipping companies offering millions to jump long lines for drought-stricken Panama Canal: https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/drought-panama-canal...
This is either an unserious article or the entire notion of global economics needs revisiting.
But real threat is energy shipping.
Also, a "threat [to] the world economy" need not be existential. The threat of recession is also possible, and likely with a situation like this.
That said, I believe there ARE existential threats posed by globalism, particularly where inter-dependency is present for generations, such that either side of the relationship institutionally forgets how to maintain, repair or upgrade significant infrastructure. Arguably that is already the case for America with energy transmission equipment, semiconductor and PCB manufacturing, such that a war with China that began with a strike to those resources could not be recovered from.
Egypt blocks ships to Eilat around Scharm El-Scheich. And everyone except the Israelis are happy.
First of all your suggestion is directly against the Treaty of Constantinople, at least so long as Egypt and Israel are not at war with each other. Secondly, most cargo ships will be going to Haifa and there is nothing blocking ships from taking a quick detour via (say) Malta so that they technically don't have an Israeli port as their destination when they pass through the Suez canal. Thirdly, the Houthis have been attacking many ships and not just Israeli ships. There is not reason to believe that they would stop doing that.
I should have kept that stupid joke to myself.
* would pause a major source of income for Egypt, which is already in the midst of a financial crisis;
* would raise the costs of trade as shipping is rerouted around Africa, taking more time, and insurance premiums soar, possibly triggering another global supply-chain crunch and another global inflation wave; and
* could escalate into regional security crisis and military conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Canal_Project
EDIT: The quality of this article has declined significantly since I last read it, but it may also be complete nonsense. Thought it was interesting regardless.