The U.S. is conducting airstrikes in Yemen due to Yemen’s efforts, which comply with international law, aimed at preventing the genocide and unauthorized blockade occurring in Palestine.
This does not represent an editorial viewpoint; rather, it is a declaration based on legal principles and reality.
None of these details have been highlighted in the coverage or analysis provided by Western media companies, nor have they appeared in the pronouncements of instigator governments such as that of the U.S.
Perpetrating a genocide openly necessitates the silencing of truth and the obfuscation of legal clarity.
However, international law is explicit. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found , and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has affirmed , asserting that every state must cease all military and economic assistance to the Israeli government's control over Gaza and the West Bank, including Jerusalem, as well as halt their participation in the devastating attacks against the population in occupied Gaza.
These legal conclusions are based on the most fundamental principles of international law (commonly known as jus cogens and erga omnes obligations including the ban on genocide, aggression, territorial annexation through force, and actions that breach the right to self-determination.
And these obligations bind all states. Yemen has acted concretely to meet them, by imposing a blockade on ships destined to resupply the Israeli regime at the Red Sea port of Eilat, and explicitly in response to the Israeli-imposed siege and genocide in Palestine.
To conclude, Yemen is facing relentless attacks orchestrated by the United States to guarantee Israel’s freedom from consequences as it continues to commit violations of international law in Palestine.
By taking this action, the U.S. violates the legal rulings of the International Court of Justice and commits two international offenses: the ultimate offense of initiating an aggressive war, and being an accomplice in acts of genocide.
In contrast, the Yemenis have taken on the roles of advocates for human rights and providers of humanitarian aid in this scenario.
Obviously, the portrayal of the U.S. government as the heroes and their compliant media outlets as the champions of truth is actually a complete reversal of reality.
A global appeal for action
Global alarms about potential genocide in Palestine started ringing. ring In October 2023, it grew increasingly intense as the genocide continued.
The 193 countries around the globe reacted differently.
Several countries, such as the U.S., UK, Germany, and various Western nations, participated alongside Israel in these activities. genocide .
Other countries, predominantly Western states, opted for complicity in the genocide by supplying The genocide machine equipped with fuel, replacement parts, diplomatic camouflage, and other essentials.
Many states from various regions opted to stay silent and inactive, constituting a violation of their international legal obligations as well. obligations To take positive action to halt and put an end to genocide and ensure compliance with international humanitarian laws.
A fourth category of countries has publicly condemned the Israeli government through statements and actions at the UN Security Council and General Assembly, or by participating in lawsuits against offenders in institutions like the ICJ and ICC. However, these nations have not taken steps to halt their tangible backing for the problematic regime or to shield Palestinians from attacks carried out by Israeli forces and settlers.
However, there is one more group, the tiniest among them all, that has embraced this approach. concrete steps To fulfill its duties as outlined in international law.
First among these has been South Africa, which put Israel on trial for genocide. ICJ , and, very significantly, Yemen .
Sanaa (which represents the capital along with much of the population which are under) de facto The control of Ansar Allah extends over the north, whereas the south falls under the influence of another faction recognized by the UN. In reaction to Israel’s actions in Palestine, they declared that they would prevent ships from sailing through the Red Sea bound for supplies intended for the Israeli government, as long as this administration persists with its blockade and atrocities in Gaza.
It uses the choke point of the Bab al-Mandab (which means, appropriately, “Gate of Tears”), the narrow strait between Yemen and Djibouti at the opening of the Red Sea.
In November 2023, Yemen initiated this selective, partial blockade by intercepting an Israeli vessel. They maintained the blockade continuously until the declaration of the latest truce in Gaza was made. The embargo resumed solely when Israel violated the ceasefire and reinstated the illegal siege on Gaza.
indeed, the Yemeni people demonstrated their genuine humanitarian intentions despite the blockade. pausing It occurred completely during the January ceasefire in Gaza, with its resumption being announced solely when Israel reinstated the blockade and launched a comprehensive attack on Gaza in March.
Certainly, vessels resupplying the regime might circumvent the blockade by navigating around Africa; however, this would significantly raise transportation expenses. Ships intended for Israel attempted to breach the blockade only to be cautioned, inspected, seized, or confronted with military force by the Houthi-led Yemeni armed forces, just as some Western naval units did when they attacked the Yemenis or opposed the blockade.
Moreover, the blockade was effective, cutting off more than 80% of maritime traffic to the Israeli administration, eventually bankrupting The Israeli port of Eilat, along with decreasing supplies via Ashdod (through the Suez Canal), would substantially impede the replenishment efforts of the regime.
Consequently, the U.S. launched an extensive bombing campaign. campaign To assault Yemen, the area’s least affluent nation—a country that has faced relentless attacks for more than 20 years now—thus breaching international laws, causing civilian casualties, worsening food shortages, health crises, and forced displacements, endangering American troops, heightening the threat of an extended regional conflict, squandering billions of taxpayers' dollars from the U.S., and deceiving its populace regarding these events—all with the single aim of aiding Israel’s genocidal actions against Palestinians.
The law supports Yemen's position.
Clearly, international law is on Yemen's side in this situation.
Initially, the U.S. assaults on Yemen qualify as an act of aggression according to international law.
They do not meet the strict criteria for self-defense as defined by the United Nations. Charter , they have not been authorized According to the Charter, these actions aren't even purported to be in self-defense. jus cogens to serve as guidelines but rather to are meant to “ protect commerce .”
Secondly, both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN General Assembly have determined that every country is legally required to stop supporting the Israeli occupation regime. This includes prohibiting imports from the settlements, as well as terminating all military, diplomatic, economic, commercial, financial, investment, and trade connections with Israel. occupation .
They also emphasized that every state should adhere to the provisional measures. orders regarding the ICJ's involvement in the Israel genocide case, and to honor their responsibilities as a third state under the Genocide Convention To take action to prevent and punish genocide.
This encompasses the duty of every third state to utilize whatever resources they have available to pressure a state that might be engaging in genocide and to ensure that their individual actions do not support or facilitate such atrocities.
As mentioned earlier, these guidelines are jus cogens (the supreme standards, from which no deviation is allowed) erga omnes (which means they apply to all states, encompassing both Yemen and the United States).
Furthermore, both Yemen and the U.S. have obligations under the Geneva Conventions Of 1949 to use every means at their disposal "to ensure respect" for these provisions by other parties, including Israel.
Although Yemen has taken steps to fulfill these responsibilities, the U.S. has assaulted it for doing so.
Bypassing US interference with global legal standards
Therefore, acknowledging that states must take action individually and jointly to halt Israel’s genocide, and understanding that serious breaches of international law—such as aiding a regime committing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and extensive human rights abuses—are happening within or around regions under its control, Yemen has taken steps to prevent these offenses.
Certainly, those who support U.S. strikes in Yemen will contest Yemen’s right to interfere by asserting two points: first, that Ansar Allah is not acknowledged as a legitimate governing body within Yemen; and second, that the Security Council has not granted permission for Yemen to employ military force.
Certainly, Yemen is a fragmented nation, where different factions control separate areas. Although the country has largely been split throughout much of its post-colonial existence, the present emergency in Yemen began during the Arab Spring demonstrations back in 2011. Similar to what happened in Syria, those protests were suppressed and then escalated into an ongoing civil conflict that has persisted from around 2015 onward.
The horrific impact of the war has been greatly worsened by harsh actions from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, including assaults and restrictions. This led to Yemen being labeled as the world’s most severe humanitarian crisis prior to the surge in violence towards Palestinians in 2023.
Consequently, the southern part of the nation is under the control of the UN-acknowledged Presidential Leadership Council, receiving support from both the Western powers and the Gulf monarchies.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Political Council of Ansar Allah governs the capital and major city, Sanaa, as well as all of Yemen’s northern territories, 80% of the nation’s populace, and the strategically significant Bab al-Mandab strait.
Therefore, between the two, the one controlled by the Houthis is in Yemen. de facto , the strongest authority. It is also the organization next to Bab al-Mandab capable of enforcing the humanitarian blockade.
This “ capacity to influence implies an increased duty to take action, particularly in cases like genocide, which has been acknowledged by the international community. ICJ Therefore, since there is an increased obligation to take action and the ability to do so exists, it would not be reasonable to consider the nation’s division as decisive when the consequences involve genocide.
Even if the statehood of Yemen underAnsar Allah’s control is not acknowledged, non-state entities such as armed groups are still considered to have obligations Under international law, particularly the principles of international humanitarian law.
Regarding the absence of Security Council authorization, the UNSC has been completely incapacitated. U.S. As a participant in the conflict, it has become completely ineffective for addressing the circumstances in Palestine. (Another illustration of how the U.S. is dismantling the global legal framework to support this single suppressive foreign government).
However, since the UNSC derives its authority from the UN Charter—a document that is integral to international law—it must adhere to international law rather than operate beyond it. Both the ban on genocide and the principle of self-determination are also part of this legal framework. jus cogens and erga omnes These are the foremost global legal standards, imperative norms, universally binding and not subject to exceptions. Even the Security Council has no authority to override these principles of international law.
And if actions by the Security Council cannot take precedence over jus cogens standards, subsequently, the inactivity or failures of the UNSC cannot override (or eliminate). jus cogens norms whose influence persists under all conditions.
Simply put, jus cogens and erga omnes The principles of international law do not originate from, take precedence over, or rely on the authority of the Security Council.
Moreover, in this instance, the global assembly of nations has conveyed its stance through the adoption of the resolution by the United Nations General Assembly. resolution On applying the ICJ’s rulings in Palestine.
This wasn't just any typical decision; rather, it was approved (1) by an enormous margin and (2) utilizing the heightened authority granted during an urgent special assembly called pursuant to what’s known as the Uniting for Peace resolution. This mechanism aims to bypass a veto when faced with exceptional situations like those at hand.
It goes without saying that Yemen, like all nations, has the right to defend itself against armed assaults perpetrated by the U.S. Article 51 The U.S. assaults on Yemen have persisted for several decades as per the UN Charter.
Moreover, Yemen might contend that certain operations are part of enforcing maritime laws within its own waters, an activity that typically doesn’t necessitate UN Security Council approval. For instance, the U.S. Coast Guard frequently intercepts, inspects, and confiscates vessels based merely on suspicions of minor infractions such as alleged drug trafficking—even beyond national boundaries. Considering this, isn't one of the most crucial roles of maritime law enforcement to prevent something as catastrophic as genocide?
Moreover, should this be contested within the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—an agreement that Yemen has endorsed whereas the U.S. remains non-committal about signing or endorsing—it would still hold that the Yemeni actions align with international law as defined by the International Court of Justice. This stance is further bolstered by the implementation resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly and enshrined in various conventions such as those covering genocide prevention and humanitarian laws like the Geneva Conventions, all of which Yemen has ratified.
Order versus chaos: The choice between anarchy and legality
Certainly, should the U.S. object, they have the option to pursue a resolution of the disagreement through a contentious case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Alternatively, they could try persuading the UN General Assembly to ask for an ICJ advisory opinion on the matter. However, they do not possess any legitimate authority to engage in warfare with Yemen.
What is evident from the legal perspective is that every state, be it Yemen, the U.S., or others, must adhere to the decisions made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as its definitive explanations of international law. The ICJ has previously delivered numerous unambiguous verdicts concerning laws applicable to all third-party states, initially in the advisory opinion In regard to Israel’s apartheid wall, followed by a sequence of events provisional measures issued in the lawsuit regarding the genocide allegations against Israel, and ultimately in its advisory opinion identifying Israeli apartheid and unlawful occupation in Palestine.
Providing, aiding in providing, or neglecting to prevent the provision of resources to support Israel's occupation of Palestine or its genocidal actions against Palestinians constitutes severe breaches of international law.
Yemen is fulfilling these responsibilities. The U.S., however, is not adhering to them.