We'll do Your Job and take the Blame

In a beautiful example of “we'll do your job and take the blame”, yesterday the US, UK, and with support from a host of other countries, bombed Yemen; the “Houthi rebels” to be precise – or that's what we call them. They probably call themselves the legitimate government of a portion of Yemen. Why are we doing someone else's job? 

 

Shouldn't the Gulf states and China be involved in this beyond just words? In fact, it would be nice is China would at least join with words. 

 

Did the Houthis deserve to be thumped? Probably. Blocking an international waterway that is so vital to international trade is not a wise idea. There are too many vested interests in an open waterway, and the petulant behaviour of one group in trying to block it was never going to end in anything other than tears.  

 

There is a long history of ensuring freedom of transit of vital waterways. Even the Panama Canal, originally conceived and started by the French and completed by the Americans, is open by international treaties and founding documents. Even the US Navy paid the Panama Canal Commission for transit at the same rate paid by all other ships, regardless of nationality. That remains the case today, with the Panama Canal under the sovereignty of the Panamanian government as a nation.  

 

Anti-piracy campaigns also have a long history, going back even to a young Julius Ceasar. When captured by pirates he first to them that the ransom they demanded for his release was too low, and then told them that when released he would raise a fleet and eradicate them. He was good to his word. 

 

Today, something around 12% of global trade passes through the Red Sea (and 30% of world container traffic) on its way to and from the Suez Canal and Europe. Where does that come from? The vast majority of it comes from the Gulf states in the form of oil, or from China (and slightly less, Japan). These are the countries that need to Red Sea to be open. If it is closed to traffic, something like 8500 km is added to the trip to round the Horn of Africa. Oh, and three weeks is added to the journey. That adds significant transport costs and buggers up supply chains (where have we heard that before). 

 

Therefore, the economic pain of a closed Red Sea falls on both the consumers (Europe mostly) and the suppliers (China, Japan, and the Gulf states). But the US gets the honour, with the UK, of doing the bombing to keep the Red Sea open. 

 

Or as Tony called it yesterday; “Operation distract from Palestine". 

Not quite true, but that is one of the image problems that Washington is going to have with the latest set of bombings. While probably completely justified, Washington should also have gotten China to publicly endorse the actions, as they did with Japan. Without that, China gets the benefits of having all their "Yellow Rubber Duckies” delivered, almost on time, without any negative public response to how the “on time” is ensured.  

"Own-goal War Crime"?

We've all heard of an "own goal". What about an "own-goal war crime"?

Israel managed to, as a headline said, “While attempting to commit a war crime, instead committed a tragedy”. That might be a bit harsh, but only a bit. Three Israeli hostages managed, somehow, to approach the Israeli lines, shirtless and waving a makeshift white flag, should “help”. They were gunned down and killed.  

 

Yes, it is a tragedy. But this cannot be the only such case. The difference is that this suggests that there have been other events just like it, but happening to Palestinians, who seeking protection or surrender, were probably gunned down by Israeli soldiers bent on revenge against any and all Palestinians. Certainly, there were cases in Iraq and Afghanistan of “unarmed civilians” pretending to surrender while carrying explosives with the goal of reaching enemy lines and killing themselves and occupiers at the same time.

These killings do not happen in a void. This happens when the opponent has been dehumanised and when, through actions and/or words, leadership makes it perfectly clear that the committing of war crimes is acceptable.

 

But if we are to believe Israel’s own statements, these were shirtless individuals waving a white flag. If they were combatants, then it was a war crime to murder them in the act of surrendering. If they were civilians seeking protection, then murdering them was a war crime. If they were shirtless, then the “easy” thing to do would be to allow them to approach to a safe distance and have them lie down until it was safe enough to determine that they actually were unarmed and not carrying explosives or other weapons. That would also have given the three the chance to speak to their compatriots in Hebrew or in terms that would have been understood by the Israeli soldiers. 

 

What happened was a war crime, plain and simple. It will be “investigated” by the very criminals who have ordered or condoned such war crimes, and it will be found that a tragic mistake occurred, so sad.  

 

But none of the other cases will be investigated, not by the Israeli authorities or by any other authority that would be recognised. Israel doesn’t work that way, and it is not held to any international norms that other countries are held to. War crimes committed by instruments of the state of Israel are ignored, and the state suffers no consequences, such as the curtailment of visas, sanctions, or even the slightest reduction of “aid” money that will be used to bolster exactly those instruments of the state that are perpetrating the war crimes. 

 

The double standard is sickening. 

 

But again, to say so is to invite being labelled “antisemitic” and potentially to suffer other consequences. Authoritarian states, and in this I include the United States, are very good at not-so-subtle coercion and restriction of free thought or speech. The easiest way is to label someone and then ignore that you did. The label will stick with just enough people to become a stigma, a stain not easily washed off. 

 

Meanwhile, those in power, in fear of being labelled, continue to vote for money and protection to and for a state that flagrantly violates international norms, engaging in ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. And those in power need the stigma of “antisemitism” to be available to stick to any opponent as a way of negatively labelling those who would hold them to account for their support of war crimes and genocide. 

 

What happened in Gaza is made possible by proven absolute "immunity" and the ongoing demonstrations of active support for the instruments of the state of Israel by those who fund that state. 

The instruments of the state of Israel engage in war crimes because they know they can. This time they committed a war crime against themselves, and even that will go unpunished.