Insurance underwriters insert ‘no connection to Israel’ clause for shipping
MEMO | January 25, 2024
Insurance underwriters are requiring some clients to sign contracts guaranteeing that they have no connection to Israel or the US in order to obtain cover for cargo ships passing through the Suez Canal, the New York Times has reported. The demand comes as Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have pushed up insurance premiums for merchant vessels.
According to the NYT, the attacks at this critical choke point handling 12 per cent of global trade have more than doubled the average worldwide shipping costs. Some ships are opting to avoid the Suez Canal and instead take the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, adding weeks to delivery times.
Passing through the Red Sea still necessitates expensive speciality war risk insurance offered by London brokers to cover potential Houthi strikes. Rates have jumped as much as 50 times more than before the Yemen conflict, and now cost up to one per cent of a ship’s value despite relatively minimal damage to ships so far. For a ship carrying goods worth $100 million, that could mean an extra $1m to be insured.
Insurers blame the increased risk on Israel’s military offensive against the Palestinians in Gaza. By forcing clients to guarantee that they have no ties with Israel and its Western allies, underwriters aim to shield themselves from inadvertently covering any vessels associated with the current geopolitical tensions underlying the attacks.
Analysts say that the ripple effects on global trade and consumer prices are still unfolding. They warn that if Red Sea transit remains high-risk, inflation could return.
The demand by underwriters follows previous preventative measures taken by vessels to avoid Houthi attacks. Earlier this month, cargo ships passing into the Red Sea began to declare that they have no links to Israel, according to data from the navigation safety feature known as the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which transmits the identity, location and destination of larger vessels.
Israel’s Western allies appear to be running out of options in their attempt to contain the Houthis. Yesterday, the Financial Times revealed that the US has urged China to help curb Houthi attacks around the crucial Bab Al-Mandab Strait. Chinese ships are not being targeted by the Yemeni group and nor are vessels of countries that are not supporting Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza. Nevertheless, China is reported to have expressed “concern” about the attacks, and called for “restraint”.
Yemeni missiles force US navy to turn back from Bab al-Mandab Strait
The Cradle | January 25, 2024
The Yemeni armed forces announced late on 24 January that intense clashes took place with several US warships escorting two commercial vessels attempting to transit the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
“A clash occurred today between a number of US destroyers and warships in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab while they were protecting two US commercial ships,” the spokesman for the Yemeni armed forces, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, said in a video statement.
“Despite attempts by the warships to intercept them, our ballistic missiles reached their targets successfully,” Saree’s statement added, noting that a US warship was “directly hit” and the commercial vessels “were forced to retreat.”
According to the Yemeni official, the battle lasted for about two hours.
Abdullah bin Amer, Deputy Head of the Moral Guidance Department at the Yemeni Ministry of Defense in Sanaa, said that the US warships tried to counter the attack “in a confused and intense manner,” launching missiles that reportedly “fell into the sea [and] on the Yemeni mainland in empty areas.”
In the early hours of Thursday, Danish shipping giant Maersk confirmed that explosions nearby forced two ships operated by its US subsidiary – Maersk Line Limited (MLL) – were forced to turn around as they attempted to transit the Bab al-Mandab Strait with a US navy escort.
“While en route, both ships reported seeing explosions close by, and the US Navy accompaniment also intercepted multiple projectiles,” Maersk said in a statement, adding it was suspending Red Sea transits by vessels of its US subsidiary.
The two vessels were carrying “US military supplies.”
MLL carries cargo for the Department of Defense, Department of State, USAID, and other US government agencies.
Wednesday’s battle is the latest escalation between Yemen and the US, as the Ansarallah-led government in Sanaa has pledged to enforce a naval blockade against Israeli, US, and UK-linked vessels until the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza stops.
The crossfire came less than a day after US warplanes conducted their most recent air raid campaign over Yemen. US and UK warplanes, ships, and submarines have launched dozens of attacks across Yemen in retaliation for the country’s pro-Palestine actions.
Earlier on Wednesday, Yemeni authorities ordered US and British nationals to leave the country within a month.
“The ministry … would like to stress that you must inform officials and workers with US and British citizenships to prepare to leave the country within 30 days,” reads a letter sent by the Yemeni foreign ministry to the UN’s acting humanitarian coordinator in Yemen, Peter Hawkins.
Senate Looks to Fund Middle East Military Activity as CENTCOM Is ‘Running Out of Funds’
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 24, 2024
The Senate is planning to add money to upcoming legislation to fund President Joe Biden’s military buildup in the Middle East and war in Yemen. Senator Susan Collins says the legation should be a priority as US Central Command is quickly depleting its funds. Senator Jack Reed believes Congress will need to pass multiple rounds of funding to allow Biden to wage war across the Middle East.
Following the Hamas attack on southern Israel, Biden ordered thousands of troops and multiple aircraft carrier strike groups into the region. Politico reports the Department of Defense informed Congress the deployment of additional troops and warships to the Middle East over the past four months has cost $1.6 billion. The Pentagon estimates the cost will be $2.2 billion over the course of the year.
The cost estimates do not include the price of the interceptors and munitions used in fighting the Houthis. Congress has not authorized Biden’s war in Yemen or the military surge in the Middle East. A growing number of American lawmakers, including within Biden’s party, have voiced opposition to the White House waging a war in Yemen without Congressional authorization.
A Pentagon official said at some point, the holes in the Department of Defense budget will have to be filled by Congress. An official told Politico, “It will be, I think, a hole that we would want to be filled. It is a bill that will be due and we will have to pay for it within a limited amount of resources.”
The Senate is now preparing to fund the conflicts in the Middle East, but there are no plans to authorize the war. Politico reports Congress is considering several options for authorizing the war spending. The outlet explains, “Lawmakers are aware of the unplanned cost and are weighing how to pay for it. Options include adding it to the annual spending bill, adding it to the $111 billion emergency supplemental for Ukraine and Israel, or funding it through a stand-alone supplemental for war costs.”
The White House has been pushing Congress to pass a $111 billion bill that provides funding for the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the military buildup in the Asia-Pacific, and border security. The legislation has been delayed for several months over debate on immigration policy.
Sen. Collins, a Republican member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is urging the body to take action. “[US Central Command] needs [the funding] sooner. They’re fast running out of funds,” she said.
Senator Jack Reed believes Congress will have to pass multiple rounds of funding to fight wars in the Middle East. He said, “I sense, given the unexpected cost, that there will have to be a separate supplemental. These aren’t routine costs. They’re because of our reaction to the Houthi disruption, to Iranian malign behavior, etc. And I think that’s probably where we would go for it.”
Senators Dan Sullivan, Mitch McConnell, and Mark Kelley have all called for adding money to the supplemental war legislation to replace the interceptors and munitions used to fight the Houthis in Yemen.
China-led multipolarity has accelerated the decline of the American era, the war in Gaza may end it altogether.
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | January 24, 2024
What is unfolding today in West Asia — the Gaza war and its regional expansion — cannot be viewed separately from the international transformations that have grown in momentum over the past few years. Today, the transition to multipolarity is the underlying factor shaping the decisions and policies of most countries, particularly those of the great powers.
The timing of Israel’s devastating military assault on Gaza coincides with heightened US attention on its great power competition for Washington, this conflict has much wider geopolitical significance beyond West Asia. In this context, the US has assumed, and will continue to play, a pivotal role in Gaza and its environs, unlike its powerful peers in China and Russia.
According to statistics published by the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the US initiated 201 of the 248 armed conflicts that took place since the end of World War II, often engaging in these wars via US-led alliances and/or proxies.
For decades, Washington has led these conflicts by very ably forming, then leading, and directing broad alliances to achieve its political and military objectives. But that ability notably shifted in December 2023, signaling a sharp decline in this capability.
In response to Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces’ Red Sea blockade of Israeli-linked vessels, the US Department of Defense announced the formation of “Operation Guardian of Prosperity … to uphold the foundational principle of freedom of navigation” in those waters, initially consisting of a coalition of ten countries, most of them insignificant partners.
Protecting Israel or maintaining maritime dominance?
The coalition proved shaky from the get-go, with only the US and Britain actively involved in military strikes on Yemen. The reluctance of key European countries France, Spain, and Italy to join the naval alliance indicated a growing skepticism among the US’s traditional partners — both western and West Asian — about Washington’s commitment and capability to defend its allies in any impactful way.
Interestingly, more than eight further countries reportedly joined the coalition, but demanded anonymity, given the potential political fallout from associating with Washington and Tel Aviv.
Crucially, the Pentagon’s stated purpose of securing navigation in the Red Sea does not align with the actual threat presented, revealing ulterior motives behind US actions. The Yemenis have repeatedly confirmed that they only intend to inhibit the passage of Israeli-owned or destined vessels — and that all other ships are free to pass.
In short, the US/UK-led coalition is acting as a naval arm for Israeli military forces, seeking specifically to ensure unimpeded access for ships heading to Israeli ports via the Bab al-Mandab Strait. That’s not a position many other states will get behind if they want to maintain freedom of transport for their own shipping vessels.
Ultimately, the American show of force in these waterways seeks to consolidate US naval dominance, which war-torn Yemen, West Asia’s poorest country, has contested.
As outlined in the National Security Strategy for 2022:
The US “will not allow foreign or regional powers to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East’s (West Asia) waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab, nor tolerate efforts by any country to dominate another — or the region — through military buildups, incursions, or threats.”
According to media reports following massive US airstrikes against Iraqi targets on 23 January, Iraqi resistance factions will now also follow Yemen’s suit by implementing a blockade of Israeli ports in the Mediterranean Sea.
Current events are spiraling out of Washington’s control as onlookers increasingly question the utility and competence of US naval leadership in the world’s important waterways. Equally, there is recognition that other formidable forces and states have emerged, challenging US control over key global straits. In the words of British politician and writer Walter Raleigh, “Who rules the seas rules the world.” Under Sanaa’s watch, the US no longer can claim rule over the Red Sea or even its adjacent waterways.
Great power competition amid the Gaza war
The current scenario in West Asia, particularly post-Al-Aqsa Flood and the Gaza war that followed, coincides with a shift in Washington’s focus toward competition with China and its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. As outlined in the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment last year, this transition has already affected strategic goals, leading to a sharp decline in western support, especially from the US, for Ukraine. The Biden administration faced challenges in securing Congressional approval for a new aid package for Kiev, which directly competed for dollars against Tel Aviv’s military campaign in Gaza.
Despite assurances from western leaders during visits to Ukraine in October, their statements came without tangible material support, leaving President Volodymyr Zelensky in the proverbial dust. Quite unexpectedly, China has emerged as a potential peacemaker in this European conflict, with Kiev openly requesting Beijing’s involvement in mediation talks, and the US itself open to Chinese mediation to mitigate the escalation in West Asia.
The Chinese are well aware that there are no simple, face-saving exits for the US from the Gaza war it has championed and that the conflict’s metamorphosis into a regional one mires the US deeper into West Asia — and away from the Asia-Pacific.
Although China seeks to increase its presence in West Asia, it is very careful not to bog itself down in the region’s many issues. But Washington’s request that Beijing use its influence to sway Iran from conflict escalation makes clear that the US is no longer “the biggest power” in the region.
Why Israel opposes multipolarity
Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, US financial and military support for Israel has reached a critical stage, presenting two options for Washington. The first involves imposing some control on Israeli actions, given that the war’s timing has been unfavorable to US strategic interests, particularly in a critical election year. The second option, favored by the Washington elite, is to continue its unwavering support to Tel Aviv, even at the risk of damage to its global image.
Sustained global outrage over the Gaza war, coupled with the landmark genocide case filed against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), shows that Washington’s ability to cover for Israel is diminishing rapidly. Again, this reflects the global shift in the balance of power toward multipolarity, which is marked by the widespread decline of American influence.
But the US support for the Gaza genocide has had dramatic domestic repercussions, too. Polls show a major shift in the attitudes of young Americans, especially university youth, who will make up the ranks of America’s future leaders.
A Harvard-Harris poll published on 17 January reveals that 46 percent of respondents aged 18-24 believe that Hamas’ actions on 7 October can be justified because of the injustice to which the Palestinians are subjected. The same poll shows that 43 percent of the same group support Hamas in this war, and that 57 percent believe that Israel is carrying out massacres in Gaza. The most staggering poll result of all, though, has to be the one in December (conducted by the same pollsters) in which 51 percent of young Americans believe a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to end and be given to Hamas and the Palestinians.
While Israel remains a direct US interest in West Asia, Washington’s commitment to Tel Aviv’s security has already become a growing burden and increasingly difficult to justify. As the region’s Axis of Resistance expands its battle with Israel on new, multiple frontlines, the US will need to reallocate ever-expanding resources and focus on matching its international rivals in further-flung geographies.
Ukraine was a test run compared to this Gaza war and the immense, direct toll it is taking on US alliances, domestic politics, and the American image globally. For Israel, this presents an existential crisis beyond measure, as Washington is forced to compete with other great powers, none of whom are ideologically driven to support Zionism as part of their foreign policies.
Lawmakers Push Funding to Replace Weapons Used in Yemen
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 21, 2024
As the White House has started an open-ended and unauthorized war in Yemen, some members of Congress are pushing for legislation that would provide funding to replace the munitions dropped on the Middle East’s poorest nation.
Politico reports, “As American warships burn through expensive missiles against Houthi targets in the Red Sea and Yemen, lawmakers, lobbyists, and the Navy are angling to use a multibillion-dollar national security supplemental to replenish the military’s inventory of munitions.”
In November, the Houthis announced that Yemeni forces would target Israeli-linked shipping in the Red Sea until Tel Aviv ends its military campaign in Gaza. Two weeks ago, President Joe Biden, without consulting Congress, authorized strikes on the Houthis.
In response, the Houthis began targeting American-linked shipping transiting the region. The White House is ordering attacks on Yemen nearly every day. However, the White House claims it is not at war with Yemen, and it does not need Congressional authorization for the operations.
Biden’s war in Yemen could drag on for some time. US officials told the Washington Post the administration has “no end date” and “little exit strategy” for its military operations in Yemen. President Biden has admitted that the strikes are not deterring the Houthi attacks.
Additionally, the US operations against Yemen are expensive. Washington has combated drone and missile attacks from Yemen on ships in the Red Sea by using expensive interceptors to down the inexpensive Houthi munitions. The White House has largely relied on ship-fired Tomahawks to hit targets in Yemen. Some lawmakers worry the operations against the Houthis will impact Wasington’s ability to dominate the globe.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said fighting in Yemen means Congress needs to add further spending for munitions to a supplemental military funding package. “As I’ve warned for weeks, using million-dollar missiles to defend against thousand-dollar drones strains an already insufficient inventory of long-range capabilities,” he added. “The supplemental is our chance to expand our capacity to meet the national security challenges we face.”
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) argued that additional missiles are needed to confront China. “We’re looking — one of the parts of the supplemental is to make sure we have the rounds we need, whether it’s [the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile] or possibly things like [the] Tomahawk that we have for the Western Pacific.” He continues, “And that is a capability we would need if we ever got in a conflict with China.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) said “a big plus up” in munitions funding is imperative for Tomahawks, Naval Strike Missiles, and Harpoons. He also explained that the weapons are needed for global dominance. “And those kinds of weapons systems are critical everywhere, Taiwan in particular,” the Senator said.
Politico notes that Pentagon officials and lobbyists for arms makers are also pushing for increased funding for munitions production in a supplemental defense spending bill.
US attacks on Yemen aimed at guarding Israel, not world: Ansarullah
Press TV – January 19, 2024
Yemen’s Ansarullah movement has condemned in the strongest terms the “unjustified” US airstrikes on the Yemeni territory, saying they’re aimed at “guarding Israel, not the world.”
Mohammed Abdulsalam, the Ansarullah spokesman, made the comment in an interview with Reuters.
The United States and Britain launched airstrikes on Yemen on January 12 in what they called an intervention to protect international shipping in the Red Sea.
“What the Yemeni people did, in the beginning, was to target Israeli ships heading to Israel without causing any human or even significant material losses, just preventing ships from passing as a natural right,” Abdulsalam said.
“We imposed rules of engagement in which not a single drop of blood was shed or major material losses.”
“It represented pressure on Israel only, it did not represent pressure on any country in the world.”
The Yemeni official said the US intervention has further escalated the situation and that the movement will continue to respond to the US attacks.
“Now, when America joined in and escalated the situation further, there is no doubt that Yemen will respond.”
“The strikes on Yemen, from our perspective, are a blatant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and a serious aggression against the Yemeni people,” Abdulsalam said.
Yemen, he added, does not intend to expand the attacks on shipping in and around the Red Sea beyond their stated aim of blockading Israel and retaliating against the United States and Britain for airstrikes.
“We do not want the conflict to expand in the region, and we are still working on non-escalation, but the decision is up to the Americans, as long as they continue to attack.”
The Yemeni official said the decision to target Israeli-linked ships was a response to popular demands. “It came after great popular pressure not only in Yemen but in the region, demanding that the governments of the region and their leaders take a position towards the Palestinians facing a genocidal campaign.”
Referring to the Persian Gulf’s Arab countries, the Yemeni official said Ansarullah calls on them “to reject the militarization of the Red Sea or the presence of military forces inside the region.”
Abdulsalam said the Yemenis have made their own decisions in the conflict and do not take orders from Tehran, though they maintain a close relationship.
BBC HardTalk: Professor Marandi on the Gaza Genocide and its regional implications
January 16, 2024
Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi discusses the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Yemen and the conflict in the Red Sea, Hezbollah’s border war, and Iraq. He explains the regional implications as well as the possibility of escalation and regional war.
Qatari LNG tankers resume Red Sea passage
The Cradle | January 17, 2024
Four vessels carrying Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG) have resumed passage through the Red Sea following a pause caused by Yemeni attacks on Israeli-linked ships and the US and UK bombing of Yemen last week, Reuters reported on 16 January.
LSEG ship tracking data revealed that the Qatari Al-Rekayyat tanker had resumed its return to Qatar via the Red Sea after initially halting its journey on 13 January. Furthermore, the Al-Ghariya, Al-Huwaila, and Al-Nuaman LNG tankers have also resumed their journeys through the Red Sea toward Europe.
The three tankers had been stopped near Oman’s shoreline since 14 January.
Some commercial shipping vessels and oil and LNG tankers have been either pausing their voyages or changing course away from the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.
Many vessels have instead taken the lengthier route around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope, adding two weeks to the journey.
Ansarallah has previously affirmed that vessels that lack any association with Israel will be allowed to navigate through the Red Sea. The resistance group, which is now Yemen’s de facto government, is seeking to punish Israel for its ongoing war on Gaza, which many view as constituting genocide.
But even many non-Israeli linked ships have diverted course since US and UK forces began bombing Yemen on 12 January in response and warned against travel through the Red Sea. However, according to a Bloomberg report, several ships have ignored Washington’s warnings and continue to navigate the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Bypassing the UK parliament; the royal prerogative; and bombing Yemen
By Binoy Kampmark | MEMO | January 16, 2024
There is something distinctly revolting and authoritarian about the royal prerogative. It reeks of clandestine assumption, unwarranted self-confidence and, most of all, a blithe indifference to accountability before elected representatives. That prerogative, in other words, is the last reminder of divine right, the fiction that a ruler can have powers vested by an unsubstantiated deity, the invisible God, and a punishing force beyond the reach of human control. And that such powers can in turn be vested in the government of the day. It is anathema to democracy, a stain on republican models of government, a joke on any political system that has some claim on representing what might be called the broader citizenry.
The UK government, in league with the US and with support from a number of other countries, attacked Houthi positions in Yemen on 11 January. The decision was made without recourse to parliament and was justified by reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter as “limited, necessary and proportionate in self-defence”.
In his statement on the attacks, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pointed to the Houthi’s role in staging “a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea, threatening UK and other international ships, causing major disruption to a vital trade route and driving up commodity prices.” He made no mention of the Houthis’ own justification for the attacks as necessary measures to disrupt Israeli shipping and interests in response to their systematic, bloodcurdling razing of the Gaza Strip.
Lip service has been paid by the executive within Westminster to parliament’s importance in deciding whether the country commits to military action or not.
The stark problem is that the action is always decided upon in advance, and no dissent among parliamentarians will necessarily sway the issue. Motions can be proposed and rejected but remain non-binding on the executive emboldened by the royal prerogative.
The British decision to commit to the egregious invasion of Iraq in 2003 was already a foregone conclusion, despite preliminary debates in the House of Commons and huge public protests against the measure. On 18 March, 2011, the then British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the Commons of his intention to attack Libya, leading to a government motion on 21 March that the chamber “supports Her Majesty’s Government… in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-protected measures.”
That same year, the then Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK acknowledged that a convention had crystallised in parliament that the House of Commons should be availed of “an opportunity to debate the matter [of committing troops] and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”
The broadly worded nature of the caveats – in cases of emergency or when it would not be appropriate – have made something of a nonsense of the convention. In April 2016, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon made much of the “exception”, arguing that it was “important to ensure that this and future Governments can use their judgment about how best to protect the security and interests of the UK.”
Parliament, in short, should be put in its place when necessary. Governments, it is reasoned, know best when it comes to matters of national security; parliamentarians less so. “In observing the Convention,” Fallon goes on to explain, “we must ensure that the ability of our Armed Forces is to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.” In such cases, matters could be dealt with retrospectively, with the government of the day subsequently informing parliament after the fact.
An example of this absurd policy was played out in the decision by the UK government in April 2018 to target the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Hiding behind the weasel claim of humanitarianism, the explanation for avoiding parliament was shoddy and leaden. “It was necessary,” came the explanation from the PM’s office, “to strike with speed so we could allow our Armed Forces to act decisively, maintain the vital security of their operations, and protect the security and interests of the UK.”
The Yemen strikes eschew humanitarianism (the humanitarian justifications advanced by the Houthis in protecting Palestinian civilians has been rejected), but, in any case, shipping interests take priority. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, apparently, was satisfied that an exception to the convention to consult parliament had presented itself. “The prime minister,” the minister parroted, “needs to make decisions such as these based on the military, strategic and operational requirements. That led to the timing.”
With the horse having bolted merrily out of the stable, Heappey remarked with all due condescension that parliament would, in time, be able to respond to the decision to strike Yemen. An “opportunity” would be made available “when parliament returns for these things to be fully discussed and debated.” The sheer redundancy of parliament’s role in matters of state, and that of MPs, could thereby be affirmed.
Much agitated by this state of affairs, former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell opined that no military action should take place without parliament’s approval. “If we have learnt anything in recent years it’s that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous and often unforeseen consequences,” said McDonnell. “There is a risk of setting the region alight.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran was of the view that parliament should not be bypassed in matters of war, yet opted for the rather fatuous formula arising out of the 2011 convention. “Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on these strikes, and recall parliament this weekend,” she said.
The use of the royal prerogative in authorising military action remains one of those British perversions that makes for good common room conversation but offends the sensibilities of the democratically minded elector. A far better practice would be to make the PM of the day accountable to that most essential body of all: parliament. That same principle would be extended to other constitutional monarchies, which are similarly weighed down by the all too liberal use of the prerogative when shedding blood. If a country’s citizens are to go to war to kill and be killed, surely their elected representatives should have a say in that most vital of decisions?
China Slams US, Issues Statement With Arab League Calling for Gaza Ceasefire
Sputnik – 16.01.2024
“The US, which is pouring fuel on the fire in the Israel-Palestine conflict, also wants to play the role of fireman,” read an article in Chinese media criticizing America’s “unconditional support for Israel.”
China released a joint statement with Arab League nations Sunday urging a ceasefire in Gaza and advocating a two-state solution to resolve the long running Palestine-Israel conflict.
The resolution emerged after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul-Gheit in Cairo, Egypt.
The statement called for dialogue with Palestinian groups and a global peace conference to move towards implementing a two-state solution, advocating a “government of Palestine for the Palestinians.” The leaders urged the full implementation of resolutions passed by the United Nations which have long criticized the Israeli occupation of internationally-recognized Palestinian territory. The United States typically uses its influence and position on the UN Security Council to block and undermine resolutions criticizing Israel’s conduct.
The leaders also promoted the resumption of direct peace talks between the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
The statement then touched on recent US and UK-backed airstrikes against the Houthi movement in Yemen, which Chinese media criticized as an “escalation” of the situation and an attempt to distract from the broader conflict. Chinese media called for the respect of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yemen,” a critique of the airstrikes that it noted lacked authorization by the UN.
Finally, China called for the sending of humanitarian aid to Palestinians, which it labeled an “imperative moral responsibility.” China insisted that the only way to ultimately safeguard commercial interests in the Red Sea is to achieve “a just settlement of the Palestinian issue.”
“We have a common responsibility to ensure the security of the Red Sea, and we will not be deceived by the US to fuel such tensions,” said Li Weijian, a researcher at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies.
China and Arab League countries also vowed to move forward on economic cooperation via China’s Belt and Road initiative during the meeting.
Asymmetric Warfare: Why the Houthis Can Beat the Collective West
By Russell Bentley – Sputnik – 14.01.2024
Dr. Michael Parenti once said, “Economic violence is physical violence in slow motion.” The economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990’s led directly to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. Economic sanctions can be a weapon as deadly as any artillery shell or cruise missile.
The Houthis might at first appear to be vastly outmatched by the US/UK armada that has struck Yemen, but militarily and economically, the US and Europe are actually much more vulnerable than the Houthis. To put it simply, in both economic and military terms, the US, UK and Europe, and Israel, have a lot more to lose.
The Houthis are not alone – Hezbollah, considered to be one of the most effective fighting forces in the world today, has an estimated 100,000 highly trained and motivated and very well armed soldiers in Lebanon, and is already at (undeclared, but de facto) war with Israel, and will probably escalate in the next few days. In October, 1983, Hezbollah was able to kill 305 US and French occupation soldiers at a cost of only 2 KIA on the Hezbollah side.
Of the US and French soldiers, 220 were US Marines, the greatest single loss in one day of US Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945. In the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War, in which Israel invaded southern Lebanon, Hezbollah was able to inflict “unacceptable casualties” on Israeli forces, which resulted in the withdrawal of IDF forces and the signing of UNSC1701. While the Lebanese casualties were significantly higher than Israeli, the conflict is generally seen as a tactical and strategic defeat for Israel. Israel and their US/EU allies would do well to remember both of these battles before continuing to escalate an already extremely volatile situation beyond the point of no return.
Escalation between Hezbollah and the IDF on Lebanon’s southern border will not only expand the current area of conflict into the eastern Mediterranean, it can quickly become a serious threat to the Israeli city of Haifa, only 20 miles from the Lebanese border. Haifa is Israel’s 3rd largest city, with a population of around 300,000. The Port of Haifa is Israel’s second largest by cargo tonnage, and the Haifa oil refinery (the largest, and one of only two in Israel) processes more than 66 million barrels of crude oil per year, more than a million barrels per week. The port, and especially the refinery would be prime targets, and significant damage to either, especially the refinery, would have serious repercussions for the Israeli economy.
The “massive attack” by US/UK naval forces against the Houthis involved airstrikes, as well as approximately 100 cruise missiles, at a cost of more than $1 million each. According to reports published by the Houthi military command and Western media, the attack killed five Houthis. Now, do the math. The US and UK just spent a collective $100 million to kill 5 Houthis and escalate and exacerbate an already volatile situation. Based on assurances from the Houthi government that only Israeli-connected shipping was under threat, the majority of Red Sea shipping traffic had actually continued the Red Sea unhindered.
This is no longer the case. As of January 13th, after the US/UK attacks and their possible continuation, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), which represents almost 70 per cent of all internationally traded oil, gas and chemical tankers, said in an advisory to members to “stay well away” from the Bab al Mendab strait, and for vessels travelling south via the Suez Canal to pause north of Yemen. This major disruption of tanker traffic may well have an upward influence on oil prices, coming as it does right on the heels of Saudi Aramco’s announcement of a $2 per barrel discount beginning in February.
The Huthis don’t even have to shoot at any more ships – just the threat of the possibility of Houthi or coalition missiles being fired has been enough to disrupt Red Sea shipping traffic, which carries 12% of all global trade goods, and a staggering 30% of all container goods. It is actually the US/UK “coalition” that has escalated the situation to dangerous levels that now interfere with much more shipping, including tanker traffic.
Venezuelan FM Condemns the US Attacks on Yemen
teleSUR – January 13, 2024
The Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil, strongly condemned the USA, United Kingdom and other countries’ attacks on Yemen, through a formal statement on his X account.
Gil emphasized that those are an illegal action that violates International Law and that only contributes to generating greater destabilization in the region.
“Venezuela insists that the only way to guarantee peace and stability in the Middle East is through the cessation of the genocide in the Gaza Strip, carried out by Israel,” reads the communique.
As well, Venezuela asks the immediate compliance with all United Nations resolutions for the establishment of a free and sovereign Palestinian State.
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela join to the countries that urges the international community to exert all necessary pressure measures to reestablish international legality and justice in the area, avoiding an escalation of the conflict caused by Israeli barbarity in Palestine.
Other FMs, like the Russian and the Cuban, also condemned the military attacks by the US & NATO allies in Yemen. They considered that such acts encourage genocide in Gaza and reiterated their call for an immediate cease-fire in the Palestinian enclave.
Featured Video
The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was No Surprise (Part V)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Old Testament and the Genocide in Gaza
“You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.” – Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations… then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” – Deuteronomy 7:1-2,
“…do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them… as the Lord your God has commanded you…” – Deuteronomy 20:16
Gilad Atzmon | January 8, 2009
There is not much doubt amongst Biblical scholars that the Hebrew Bible contains some highly charged non-ethical suggestions, some of which are no less than a call for a genocide. Biblical scholar Raymund Schwager has found in the Old Testament 600 passages of explicit violence, 1000 descriptive verses of God’s own violent actions of punishment, 100 passages where God expressly commands others to kill people. Apparently, violence is the most often mentioned activity in the Hebrew Bible.
As devastating as it may be, the Hebrew Bible saturation with violence and extermination of others may throw some light over the horrifying genocide conducted momentarily in Gaza by the Jewish state. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Trump’s war posturing against… Coronistan on This is How We Should Have Res… Coronistan on NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODER… Lutz Barz on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Hamas never agreed to lay down… eddieb on Conspiracy Denial eddieb on WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolu… loongtip on Trump wanted to play peacemake… Coronistan on EU member to sue bloc over ‘su… loongtip on Vicious loongtip on EU turns to India for defense…
Aletho News- The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was No Surprise (Part V)
- How Human Rights Watch Shattered Yugoslavia
- Hamas rejects Israeli accusations as “lies meant to justify its massacres in Gaza”
- Interior ministry: Israeli strike on police building in Gaza shows disregard for mediators
- West’s hypocrisy over Iran and Gaza proves a regime-change operation in Tehran
- Trump’s war posturing against Iran traces back to Bush’s infamous 2002 ‘axis of evil’ speech
- The Streetlight Effect
- NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODERNA CEO TELLS THE TRUTH
- UK Health Officials Covered Up Reports of Heart Damage Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine
- This is How We Should Have Responded to COVID-19
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
Aletho News 