How is Yemen Protecting International Law as US, 'Israel' Violate It?

By Mohammad Al-Jaber

Yemen is receiving many condemnations for its actions in the Red Sea aimed at putting an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, while those upholding the genocide in blatant violation of international law are applauded.

The United States has grown to be greatly abhorred, and while there are a plethora of reasons to hate such a state, the hatred it has thus far garnered goes in part back to its self-interested military interventionism that dates as far back as the 19th century and protracts until this very day. Moreover, this could also go back to its sham of championing international law and the need to respect it all the while neglecting its stipulations to a T.

Looking back at US history, its path to the top as an empire is paved with the dead bodies of many foreigners whose governments dared move against Washington's interests, many of whom were killed through military interventionism, with many others killed by their sanctions and embargoes, among other means of starvation and oppression.

It is rather easy to see how waging wars and starving people thousands of miles away can make an enemy out of the United States, but this narrative is nothing new; the US has long been painted as a criminal for its abominable actions. However, when looking at the casus belli of the wars it has waged, it is more abominable and condemnable than ever before.

Although the United States likes to portray itself as this ideal nation protector of human rights that would not even go as far as tossing a stone at someone if unprovoked or in defense of their favorite select minorities or whatnot, granted this provocation can be completely manufactured by the White House, the reality is often disappointing, and its reasons to go to war have never not been self-interested.

Now, one cannot simply argue that a nation should abandon all reason, disregard its interests, pack its bags, and go to war for the benefit of another people or state, but at least if the US is going to pretend that it cares about human rights, let at the very least one intervention be humanitarian issues-driven and with actual, non-manufactured consent from the peoples of the country or region set to be invaded.

Violating international law for own interests

The intentions of the United States when it comes to foreign interventionism can be traced back to the 1800s Monroe doctrine that aimed to ban any European colonialist intervention in North and Latin America. Washington claimed that its actions were to protect itself and other regional states from the hegemons. But in reality, the entire document was just a bid for it to conceal its expansionist imperialistic ambitions in Latin America, with Cuba and Mexico being key states it sought to utilize as vassals.

One of the clearest manifestations of Washington's self-interest is how it dodged or struck down the invocation of the Monroe Doctrine several times by the countries of the region whose governments felt there was a threat to their independence and territorial integrity and sought help from what they thought was their ally, which later on confirmed that the Doctrine had been created solely to serve the United States and its interests.

This went on to become even clearer when US President Theodore Roosevelt made the Roosevelt Corollary, which permitted his country to intervene in the affairs of other nations if they violated the guidelines set by the United States. Although at the time this allowed for intervention solely in the  Americas, Washington made sure later on to allow itself to act in clear violation of the sovereignty of independent nations worldwide.

This could be traced to any conflict the United States entered or aggression it initiated, from the First and Second World Wars to the invasion of Libya, involvement in Syria, etc., and even today when it came to its aggression on Yemen earlier in January. 

In WW1, even though states close to the United States were being battered, the United States only entered the conflict when its own merchant and passenger ships were attacked by the Germans, not to mention when it realized that if the Allies were to lose the war, they would likely be unable to get the loans they had given them prior. 

When it came to WW2, despite the reports about the horrors being committed by the Axis Powers, most notably the several genocides being perpetrated by the Nazis, the US remained indifferent — perhaps because it was praying for the collapse of Europe so that it could reign as an uncontested hegemon — until the Japanese attacked US soil.

In every subsequent invasion, military intervention, and even serious diplomatic efforts in the wake of WW2, the United States had but itself in mind when it came to every single decision it made, in utter disregard of the stipulations of international documents and conventions.

Let's talk Yemen

When it came to Yemen, its leadership and Armed Forces were and are acting not in their own interest, but that of the people of Gaza, entry of aid to which is either prohibited or extremely limited depending on the Israeli regime's mood; the stipulations of Sanaa were incredibly clear and could not be misunderstood even if one were to try: allow the entry of aid to Palestine or no supplies will reach the Israeli occupation through the Red Sea.

The United States and the United Kingdom, alongside several countries that seemingly care for a steady stream of military supplies to the Israelis but not the Palestinians, took it upon themselves to defend the international trade route by bombing Yemen, code for defending the Israeli occupation, and as they sought to support their ally, so did Yemen as it concerned itself with the ongoing aggression on Gaza, going out of its way to do what the US and co have been describing as "piracy", "terrorism", and "holding international trade hostage". This is notably bold from a country known for imposing blockades on anyone it opposes, which could arguably be called a disruption of international trade.

Away from international law, the United States and Britain here are aiming to continue supplying a party committing genocide with foodstuff and other goods while punishing a party standing with the victims of genocide, and in the process, they doomed themselves. Their own actions of bombing a foreign country had consequences and they used that cause and effect to further criminalize Yemen.

The consequence in action? Upon being bombed, Sanaa declared that no US- or UK-flagged ships were allowed to cross through the Red Sea after the ban was in effect only on Israeli-flagged, operated, and bound ships; the US simply turned itself once again into an enemy of the Yemeni people, and the latter would not let that fly - or sail in this case.

This led to various attacks on US cargo ships and joint Western strikes on Yemen in "retaliation" in a bid to "debilitate" its Armed Forces and make it more difficult for them to attack any US interests or those of its staunchest ally.

No need for Congress 

When it comes to humanitarian issues, such as calling on the Israeli occupation to commit to a ceasefire or allow aid to enter the Gaza Strip, the Biden administration cannot bypass Congress and must adhere to procedure. However, suddenly, when the President wanted to bomb Yemen, he brazenly and completely bypassed Congress to attack a sovereign, independent nation in complete violation of international law.

The UN clearly defines it as illegal for a UN member state to "threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state," which Joe Biden acted undeniably against - again, this points to his and many other administrations' complicity in undermining and breaking international law to benefit itself. While many other states may commit acts that are considered to be a violation of international law, no one does it quite like the US in the sense that it wants to police the international arena about abiding by international law while itself violates it whenever it gets the chance to. 

This also highlights that the President can bypass Congress whenever needed, a clear indication that Biden is not calling for a ceasefire in Gaza just because he does not want to, putting it up to a lengthy bureaucratic process that could take years before it results in any action, making him complicit in the ongoing genocide perpetrated by the Israeli occupation.

Who really is safeguarding international law?

Article I of the 1948 Paris Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime Convention, more commonly known as the Genocide Convention, clearly states that the contracting parties, among whom is Yemen, are obligated to undertake to prevent or punish the act of genocide whether it is committing in time of peace or war, which is exactly what Yemen is doing at a time when both the Israeli occupation and the United States are violating international law through committing genocide and the use of violence against a sovereign state, respectively.

But is what the Israeli occupation committing truly an act of genocide? That can be decided by simply reading the stipulations of Article II of the Genocide Convention, to which the Israeli occupation is a signatory, which clearly lays out what classifies an act of aggression as genocide. But let's go through them just in case.

- Killing members of the [targeted] group: check. The Israeli occupation has thus far killed more than 25,000 people in Gaza.

- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: check. More than 63,000 people have thus far been wounded in the ongoing aggression, with thousands of children suffering from severe trauma as they can be seen shaking and experiencing panic attacks among other clear signs of trauma.

- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: check. There has been a stifling blockade in place on Gaza since 2007, with the Israeli occupation even putting limits on the amounts of food and other dietary substances that can enter Gaza. Human Rights Watch even published an extensive report on the Israeli occupation's usage of starvation as a weapon of war.

- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: check. While the Israeli occupation is killing a mother in Gaza every two hours and 29% of those killed in Gaza are women, that was not enough, for when it invaded the al-Shifa Hospital following its ground invasion of Gaza, numerous reports and images showed babies dying outside of their incubators after the occupation imposed a blackout that deprived them of what was literally keeping them alive.

- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: check. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has reported that the Israeli military has kidnapped Palestinian children from the Gaza Strip. According to the report, Israeli officer Harel Itach, a Givati Brigade commander, kidnapped a Palestinian infant from her family home in Gaza following the killing of her family members. The specific date of the incident was not disclosed, but the organization underscored the significance of taking this information seriously.

With that, it can be concluded that what is being committed is genocide; one does not need the International Court of Justice to point out the obvious as the ruling on the Israeli occupation's crimes is pending, as it probably will be for years.

Moreover, going through the aforementioned, it is clear that the Israeli occupation is not only violating the Genocide Convention; but also international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and that is just on the issue of not allowing the entry of aid and foodstuffs to Gaza as people starve and resort to eating grass and animal feed.

Taking all of that into account - the fact that "Israel" is truly committing genocide - Yemen has been clear in its approach to the aggression, stating that it is acting solely with the intent to stop the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, which is unequivocally valid under the first article of the Genocide Convention and is actually an obligation under international law. We don't really see the Soviets condemned for liberating concentration camps upon entering Germany, now. Do we?

Today, in this Western-imposed atmosphere of unilateralism and censuring of any attempt to subvert any act of violence perpetrated by a Western-backed party, Yemen proves to be an exemplary icon of Resistance with its unwavering support for Palestine and upholding of international law at a time when those who proclaim to be its chaperones are breaking it just so that their Amazon packages are not delayed as they turn a blind eye to the blatant crime being carried out by one of their closest allies that they will seemingly keep defending to the grave.