Brussels wants to launch a bespoke EU mission to protect commercial vessels in the Red Sea from attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

In a document dated January 10 and seen by Euronews, the EU’s diplomatic service proposes sending “at least three” warships with “multi mission capabilities” to the region as early as next month.

The document recommends the “fast-tracking implementation” of an operation mandated to act “from the Red Sea to the Gulf,” in order to protect maritime security in a region plagued by instability in recent weeks.

  • SomeAmateur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The houthis were launching missiles and drones at civilian ships in the red sea for weeks before these strikes took place.

    If the us/eu goal is to protect said traffic you can’t expect them to do nothing.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      More than weeks, it’s been going on since November. It’s amazing how some people find it acceptable for Yemen to blow up and hijack civilian ships and are then brazen enough to blame others when a coalition of governments put a stop to Yemen’s missile attacks and hijackings of civilian ships.

      • SomeAmateur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lol never! Why would I EVER think that the largest military power in the history of mankind would EVER be anything but good?

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Houthis have made it clear that they don’t want israel to be supplied for their genocide.

    • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well, for weeks before the Houthis said that the reason for the blockade is Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. And that once Israel ceases their attacks on Gaza they would end the blockade.

      Instead of using their political leverage to get Israel to stop their bombing, and thereby ensuring the end of the Houthi blockade, the US is instead attacking the Houthis and providing even more cover to Israel to continue it’s genocide.

      But yes, of course the US and allies would value the delays of shipments and providing genocide cover for Israel more than stopping an ongoing genocide against Palestinians

      And yes, it’s a major worldwide shipment route. So why does the US not use their political capital to stop Israel and thereby the blockade instead of attacking the Houthis on their own territory and greatly exacerbating tensions in the region.

      That is why i said that there is a disconnect in what the US says and what it does. It has a diplomatic route to take but instead starts warring. And no, saying that the Houthis should just stop the blockade without Israel stopping it’s genocide is not a valid diplomatic route.

      So that begs the question if the US is truly concerned with the blockade of a major shipping route or if they’re simply providing cover for Israel to continue bombing Gaza and terrorising the West Bank.

      Replying from my alt account

        • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And yet people will argue that the US is being charitable and concerned about a justified ( in my opinion) blockade of a major shipping route.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why does everyone support Hamas in this? If Hama hadn’t kidnapped civilians we would not be here. But no everyone only blames Isreal.

        sure Isreal should have done things differently, their response should have been better. However the options here are to support Isreal, or Support Hamas. There is no neutral as neural serves one side.

        • AdeptusPrimaris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          South Africa places Israel’s actions since October 7 in the context of a history of “apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination, and the ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” … “during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-year-long belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza.” Notably, South Africa points out that Israel has been carrying out extreme violence against Palestinians even before Hamas’s actions on October 7 (which it unequivocally condemns but notes cannot justify genocide).

          https://africasacountry.com/2024/01/understanding-south-africas-icj-case-against-israel

          • bluGill@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is clearly about Hamas andithe various reactions to it. Not invoking Hamas is thus trying to hide something.

    • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If goal was to protect traffic broadly they could simply avoid turning the area into a warzone. This has only ever been about supporting Israel.