Aletho News

Assassination of Yemeni Ministers: How the Media Normalizes Israel’s Crimes

Israel carried out the unprecedented act of assassinating the head of the Sanaa government and 11 of his ministers to punish Yemen for its unwavering solidarity with Gaza, making it one of the few countries in the world to take seriously the obligation to prevent the crime of genocide. The media, complacent or even complicit, never deem it necessary to point out that targeting a civilian administration constitutes a blatant war crime. This silence only encourages Israel to push ever further the limits of its monstrosity.

By Alain Marshal | September 6, 2025

On August 28, a massive Israeli strike on Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, targeted a council of ministers of the de facto authority in Yemen, assassinating Prime Minister Ahmed Ghaleb Nasser al-Rahawi and 11 members of his government: Secretary of the Council of Ministers Zahid Mohammed Al-Amdi, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Mohammed Qasim Al-Kabsi, as well as the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Jamal Ahmed Ali Amer), Economy (Moeen Hashim Ahmed al-Mahaqri), Justice (Ahmed Abdullah Ali), Energy (Dr. Ali Saif Mohammed Hassan), Information (Hashim Ahmed Abdulrahman Sharaf Al-Din), Agriculture (Dr. Radwan Ali Ali Al-Rubai’i), Social Affairs and Labor (Samir Mohammed Ahmed Baja’ala), Tourism and Culture (Dr. Ali Qasim Hussein Al-Yafei), and Youth and Sports (Dr. Mohammed Ali Ahmed Al-Mawlid).

Yemen’s Martyrs

Israel, which has been perpetrating an openly acknowledged genocide in Gaza and the West Bank — broadcast live for nearly two years — and which has attacked no fewer than five other countries during this period (Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, not to mention all the countries whose airspace it has violated), has clearly claimed responsibility for this attack. War Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel had delivered “an unprecedented knockout blow against the senior-most figures of the Houthi security-political leadership in Yemen, in a daring and brilliant operation […]. The fate of Yemen is the fate of Tehran — and this is only the beginning.” There is therefore little doubt about Israel’s intentions.

Despite this deliberate and acknowledged attack, the word “assassination” was nowhere to be found in the Western media: the AFP dispatch, reprinted by Mediapart (allegedly the most prominent French media outlet supporting Palestine) and many other newspapers, refers only to the “death” of the head of government and members of his cabinet, “killed” in Israeli raids, as if the causal link between the bombings and the deaths were indirect. AFP adopts the terms “Houthis,” “rebels,” and “Iranian-backed,” noting that “the internationally recognized Yemeni government, driven out of Sanaa, has its headquarters in Aden, the major city in the south.” Without specifying that the Aden regime, supported by Saudi Arabia (which itself has been waging a genocidal war against Yemen since 2015, with Western backing), has no more legitimacy to represent Yemen and its people than the Taiwan-based Kuomintang had to occupy China’s seat at the UN (which it did from 1945 to 1971).

Moreover, Israel’s action was rationalized, even legitimized, with AFP categorically stating that the strikes against Yemen were “in response to missile and drone attacks by rebels against Israeli territory.” As for Yemen’s own position — that its attacks are nothing more than a response aimed at ending the genocide in Gaza and the blockade starving its two million inhabitants — the article distances itself and places full responsibility on the Houthis: “The houthis claim to be launching these attacks in ‘solidarity’ with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, who are caught up in the war triggered by Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.”

The pattern is recurring: whatever Israel says, however grotesque, is taken at face value (Israel is only defending itself, retaliating against Hamas, against Yemen, and against all of humanity if need be), while whatever its adversaries say — even when it is self-evident — is treated with suspicion and put in quotation marks to signal distance. The underlying suggestion is that Israelis are not being targeted as occupiers who dispossess Palestinians of their rights and subject them to systematic extermination, but as Jews, out of pure anti-Semitism or out of hatred for “freedom” and “Western values,” a recurring discourse from Reagan, Bush, Netanyahu, and others. In the media and civil society, so-called “reactionary” voices openly adopt this vocabulary, while so-called “progressive” voices generally do so implicitly — even though the French CGT union spelled it out in its magazine Ensemble, La Vie Ouvrière №19 (November 2023), which described Hamas’ action of October 7 as “ignoble,” denouncing, with regard to the Nova rave party held at the gates of the Gaza concentration camp, a targeting “by religious fanaticism [of] youth and [of] the expression of freedom […] At least 260 people were killed, by gunfire or explosives, because they were Jewish.”

In a recent article, Mediapart’s founder Edwy Plenel himself described Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza as “Israel’s war in retaliation for October 7,” a blatantly negationist statement that obscures more than a hundred years of Zionist history — a colonial movement explicitly aimed at the expulsion, even the annihilation, of the indigenous people, a sine qua non condition for its success. The total destruction of the Gaza Strip and the will to empty it of its population are clearly in continuity with the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba (1948) and the Naksa (1967), October 7 having been nothing more than a catalyst, a pretext seized Machiavellianly by Netanyahu’s fanatical government to liquidate the Palestinian cause once and for all and to work openly towards “Greater Israel.” Until then, the sham “peace process” had allowed colonization to progress slowly but surely, but now the time has come for the “final solution.” The media’s complicity in the liquidation of the Palestinian cause did not begin on October 7, and rather than acknowledging their errors, they persist in denial — even as the Israelis have dropped the mask and are stating more clearly than ever that they will never tolerate a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty, even symbolic.

Just as they flout history to pander to Zionist propaganda, our journalists have no regard for international law — otherwise they would point out that targeting a political leadership, even one not recognized by the international community, even in wartime, is an egregious crime. Israel Katz proudly underscores the “unprecedented” nature of these assassinations and fully assumes the targeting of civilians, but our “journalists” do not care. They have thoroughly internalized their duty of loyalty to Israeli talking points, even going so far as to condone the systematic targeting of hospitals (by taking seriously the alleged existence of Hamas command centers beneath them), medical personnel, and even journalists (by crediting their supposed links to the Palestinian Resistance). Corporatism no longer applies when it comes to covering the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the occupying army, the armed wing of Western imperialism. Let us recall that the attack on Hezbollah’s pagers was praised by our media — including Mediapart, which described it as “a stroke of tactical genius by the Israeli military and spies” (before discreetly retracting this statement, calling it a mere “strategic success”). Yet, with its implications — potentially turning any everyday object into a bomb — this terrorist attack is even more dangerous than 9/11, threatening to transform the entire world into a dystopia.

To grasp how utterly unacceptable the absence of political reaction (with the exception of the Axis of Resistance) and the complacent media coverage following the decapitation of the Yemeni government — whose role is purely administrative — really are, let us imagine for a moment that a Western head of government and his cabinet were targeted by a foreign power: François Bayrou in France, Friedrich Merz in Germany, Keir Starmer in the United Kingdom, for example. Let us even imagine that Zelensky, whose country is at war (NATO and the EU are regarded as co-belligerents), were killed in a Russian strike. Who would dare doubt the international outrage that this would provoke? Who could ignore the ensuing diplomatic, economic, or even military apocalypse? Who would not be moved to tears at the mere thought of the mournful hagiographies that would flood editorial columns?

A simple alleged GPS jamming of the plane carrying Ursula von der Leyen to Bulgaria (to visit a munitions factory — an act of the highest neutrality), without any evidence (Flight Radar denied any interference with the GPS signal from takeoff to landing), provoked indignation among our politicians and media, who set aside fact-checking and exhausted the vocabulary of outrage: “victim,” “blatant Russian interference,” “We are of course aware of, and in a sense accustomed to, the threats and intimidation that form an integral part of Russia’s hostile behavior,” “The head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, announced that she would summon the Russian ambassador in the wake of the incident.”

But when it comes to Yemeni leaders, the structural racism of our societies — especially entrenched among our journalists and editorialists — combined with the abject submission of our capitals and their media echo chambers to Israeli and American interests, suffices to relegate this flagrant war crime to a mere footnote, a veritable carte blanche granted to Israel, encouraging it to continually push back the red line of its crimes and atrocities. Israel’s impunity is guaranteed unconditionally.

Bound only by the demands of our conscience, and not by the fear of losing our job for failing to comply with a tacit or assumed pro-Israeli editorial line, we take the liberty of forcefully reminding everyone that international humanitarian law prohibits the targeting of civilian leaders, by virtue of the fundamental principle of distinction between civilians and combatants:

1949 Geneva Conventions (1977 for the Additional Protocols):

• “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities […] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely […]. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds […].” (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3)
• “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” (Additional Protocol I, Article 48)
• “A civilian is any person who does not belong to [the Armed forces]. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.” (Additional Protocol I, Article 50)
• “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. […] Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” (Additional Protocol I, Article 51)

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1993:

• “If essentially the total leadership of a group is targeted, it could also amount to genocide. Such leadership includes political and administrative leaders, religious leaders, academics and intellectuals, business leaders and others — the totality per se may be a strong indication of genocide regardless of the actual numbers killed. […] Thus, the intent to destroy the fabric of a society through the extermination of its leadership, when accompanied by other acts of elimination of a segment of society, can also be deemed genocide.” (Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Annex to the Letter dated 24 May 1994 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, S/1994/674)

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998:

• “The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means: […] Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.” (Rome Statute, Article 8, “War Crimes”)

It therefore appears that, even in times of war, a Minister of Defense or a President of the Republic, as head of the armed forces, only loses civilian status if they take a direct part in hostilities — something that remains extremely rare, since operational command lies with military officers. What then can be said of a Prime Minister, a Minister of Justice, or a Minister of Culture? These are purely and simply extrajudicial killings, which by definition have no legal basis.

Furthermore, a “combatant” is only recognized as such on the battlefield or in barracks, and regains civilian status as soon as he is at home. If, as Israel does, we consider that members of Lebanese Hezbollah, Ansar Allah in Yemen, the Palestinian resistance, or Iranian commanders remain combatants even while asleep in their family homes, it would logically follow that targeting soldiers and reservists of regular armies would also be legitimate wherever they are found — even when on leave with their families — even if it means killing, injuring, or maiming their wives and children along with them.

Similarly, Israel’s declared intention to “eliminate” — a term used by certain “journalists,” such as in this article in Le Figaro — the entire Ansar Allah command structure, because of its unwavering support for Gaza, combined with its repeated strikes against the country’s civilian infrastructure (ports, airports, power grids, fuel depots, the presidential palace, industry, residential neighborhoods, etc.), clearly amounts to a war crime or even an intent to commit genocide, as defined by the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for Time (1976–1988) and later for The Independent (1989–2020), held, like Amira Hass (Haaretz), that the role of journalists is to challenge established authority and centers of power, particularly in the context of war. Yet the overwhelming majority of the media does precisely the opposite, working to rationalize, legitimize, and even normalize the unacceptable — from the assassination of political leaders (see this Mediapart article entitled In Iran, the Twilight of the Supreme Leader, a textbook case of incitement to murder), to the mass murder of starving women and children as they try to find food, to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

In conclusion, let us recall that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) establishes in its first article that: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”

Faced with the inaction of the international community, is it not Yemen, through its naval blockade of Israel and its active support for the Palestinian cause, that takes the obligation to prevent the crime of genocide most seriously? By contrast, the “civilized West” not only fails to impose sanctions on Israel, but refuses to stop providing it with military, economic, and diplomatic support, thereby becoming complicit in the extermination of the Palestinians.

As Israel’s frenzy of bloodshed and destruction continues daily, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and of course Yemen, it is difficult not to recall the lessons of history: any regime founded on barbarism and hubris is doomed to an ignominious end — and its sycophants and apologists to an equally humiliating fate.

Contact: alainmarshal2@gmail.com

September 8, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Israel, Palestine, Yemen, Zionism | Leave a comment