Israel says it has attacked Houthi targets in Yemen's Hodeidah port
Minister of Defence Israel Katz on Monday said the military was 'forcefully countering any attempt to restore the terror infrastructure previously attacked'.
The Israeli military claimed that the 'port serves as a channel for weapons used by the Houthis to carry out terrorist operations against Israel and its allies'.
The Houthi movement, which controls large parts of northern Yemen, later claimed responsibility for drone and missile attacks on locations in Israel, including Ben Gurion airport, Ashdod and Jaffa.
In a statement, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said the strikes were a direct response to the attacks on Hodeidah and Israel's continued bombardment of Gaza.
'The drone attack successfully achieved its objectives,' he said, adding that operations would continue until Israel ends its offensive on Gaza and lifts the siege.
Since Israel launched its war on Gaza in October 2023, the Houthis have carried out several attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea, saying they were acting in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Israel has responded with repeated strikes on Houthi targets, particularly in Hodeidah, a key entry point for goods and aid into Yemen.
'The Houthis will pay a heavy price for launching missiles toward the State of Israel,' Katz said.
Earlier this month, the Houthis claimed responsibility for an attack on the Greek-owned vessel Eternity C, which maritime officials said had killed four people.
In May, the United States brokered a deal with the Houthis to halt their bombing campaign in exchange for reduced attacks on international shipping. However, the Houthis clarified that the agreement did not extend to operations involving Israel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel says it has attacked Houthi targets in Yemen's Hodeidah port
Israel's military has launched new air raids on Yemen's Hodeidah port, targeting what it described as Houthi-linked sites used to stage drone and missile attacks against Israel and its allies. Minister of Defence Israel Katz on Monday said the military was 'forcefully countering any attempt to restore the terror infrastructure previously attacked'. The Israeli military claimed that the 'port serves as a channel for weapons used by the Houthis to carry out terrorist operations against Israel and its allies'. The Houthi movement, which controls large parts of northern Yemen, later claimed responsibility for drone and missile attacks on locations in Israel, including Ben Gurion airport, Ashdod and Jaffa. In a statement, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said the strikes were a direct response to the attacks on Hodeidah and Israel's continued bombardment of Gaza. 'The drone attack successfully achieved its objectives,' he said, adding that operations would continue until Israel ends its offensive on Gaza and lifts the siege. Since Israel launched its war on Gaza in October 2023, the Houthis have carried out several attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea, saying they were acting in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Israel has responded with repeated strikes on Houthi targets, particularly in Hodeidah, a key entry point for goods and aid into Yemen. 'The Houthis will pay a heavy price for launching missiles toward the State of Israel,' Katz said. Earlier this month, the Houthis claimed responsibility for an attack on the Greek-owned vessel Eternity C, which maritime officials said had killed four people. In May, the United States brokered a deal with the Houthis to halt their bombing campaign in exchange for reduced attacks on international shipping. However, the Houthis clarified that the agreement did not extend to operations involving Israel.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Will Israel ever get blowback for bombing its neighbours?
In the last two years, as well as its war on Gaza and increasingly violent occupation of the West Bank, Israel has launched attacks on Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The most recent attacks on Syria were launched this week, going so far as to hit the country's Ministry of Defence. Of course, the Israelis point to their justifications for the attacks on Syria – principally, in Israel's telling, to defend the Syrian Druze minority. A US-brokered ceasefire has taken effect, but whether it holds remains to be seen. In Lebanon, Israel claimed it wanted to stop the threat posed by Hezbollah. The attacks on Iran, it said, were to end that country's attempt to build a nuclear bomb. And in Yemen, Israel's bombing was a response to attacks from the country's Houthi rebels. Explanations aside, the question becomes whether the Israelis can continue to act in a manner that has many around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, seeing them as the aggressor. Impunity over relationship-building The Israeli argument is that all these conflicts – and the more than 58,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza – are necessary because Israel faces an existential battle that it has no choice but to win. The Israeli government, in its current far-right makeup, at least, does not seem to care if its neighbours do not like it. Rather, it seems to care that they fear it. And as the most powerful military force in the region, with the backing of the most powerful military force in the world, the Israelis feel that they can largely do what they want. Israel is taking advantage of a weakening international order and a moment of flux in the way the world is run, particularly with the United States under President Donald Trump openly moving towards a more transactional foreign policy. Western countries had previously attempted to maintain the idea of a liberal international order, where institutions such as the United Nations ensure that international law is followed. But Israel's actions, over decades, have made it increasingly hard to maintain the pretence. The world has been unable to stop Israel from continuing its occupation of Palestinian land, even though it is illegal under international law. Settlements continue to be built and expanded in the West Bank, and settlers continue to kill unarmed Palestinians. Human rights organisations and international bodies have found that Israel has repeatedly violated the rules of war in its conduct in Gaza, and have accused the country of committing genocide, but can do little more. Taking advantage No other power wants, or feels strong enough, to take on the mantle the US is arguably vacating. And until the rules get rewritten, it increasingly feels like might equals right. Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is taking advantage. Supporters of Israel's actions in the past two years would also argue that those predicting negative consequences for its attacks have been proven wrong. The main perceived threat to Israel was the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance, and the argument was that these countries and groups would strike Israel severely if the latter went too far in its attacks. Israel did escalate, and the reaction from Iran and its allies was, in many cases, to choose to stand down rather than risk the total devastation of their countries or organisations. Iran did attack Israel in a way that the country had not experienced before, with Tel Aviv being directly hit on numerous occasions. But some of the worst-case scenario predictions did not take place, and ultimately, the direct conflict between Israel and Iran lasted 12 days, without the outbreak of a wider regional war. In Lebanon, Israel can be even happier with the result. After an intensified bombing campaign and invasion last year, Hezbollah lost its iconic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and much of its military capacity, as well as some of its power in Lebanon. It is now, at least in the short term, no longer much of a threat to Israel. Israeli hubris? Israel seems to believe weak neighbours are good for it. Much as in the case of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, the perception is that there is no real need to provide an endgame or next-day scenario. Instead, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demonstrated, Israel can maintain chaos as far away as possible from its borders, as long as it maintains security inside. But the current situation in Syria is an interesting example of what can go wrong, and when Israeli hubris may go too far. Netanyahu has maintained that Syria south of Damascus must remain demilitarised. His first argument was that this would ensure the safety of the Druze minority, thousands of whom also live in Israel and demanded that Israel protect their brethren following violence involving Bedouin fighters and government forces. The second argument was that the new authorities in Syria cannot be trusted because of the new leadership's past ties to groups such as al-Qaeda. After Israel's bombing and some US prodding, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa agreed to withdraw government security forces from the Druze-majority province of Suwayda on Thursday, warning that while Israel 'may be capable of starting a war', it would 'not be easy to control its consequences'. By Friday, it had become clear that thousands of Bedouin – and other tribal forces – were headed to support the Bedouins in Suwayda after reports of massacres against them. Al-Sharaa, presumably with the acquiescence of Israel, announced that Syrian government forces would deploy in Suwayda to end the ongoing clashes there, and a new ceasefire was declared on Saturday. As it happens, the presence of a strong state with control over its territory may be more effective than allowing anarchy to reign. Blowback If anything, Israel's actions in Syria will increase its regional isolation and raise eyebrows among countries that could have been seen as potential allies. Saudi Arabia has emphasised its support for the new Syrian government, and Israel's behaviour will add to Riyadh's feeling, post-Gaza, that any 'Abraham Accords' normalising ties cannot happen in the short term. For many countries in the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf, Israeli hegemony, especially with the rise of messianic far-right forces in its government, leads to war, expansionism, chaos, and security risks. And Israel's short-term military gains run the risk of blowback elsewhere. Iran's military capabilities may have been heavily damaged in its war with Israel, but Tehran will likely seek to shift tactics to undermine Israel in other ways in the years to come, while improving its defences and potentially focusing on achieving a nuclear weapon. As mentioned, the opinions of regional countries may not be the highest priority to the current crop of Israeli leaders, as long as they continue to have US support. But that does not mean that – in the long term – Israel will not increasingly face blowback for its actions, both diplomatically and in terms of its security. Domestically, constant wars, even if beyond Israel's borders, do not provide a sense of long-term security for any populace. The percentage of military reservists answering call-ups has already reportedly been decreasing. In a country where the majority of the military personnel are reservists who have jobs, businesses and families to take care of, it is difficult to maintain a permanent military footing indefinitely. That has contributed to an increasing divide in Israel between a dominant ultranationalist camp that wants to fight first and ask questions later, annex Palestinian land, and force regional acceptance through brute force, and a more centrist camp that – while perhaps not prioritising alleviating Palestinian suffering – is more sensitive to international isolation and sanctions, while attempting to hold on to a 'liberal Zionist' image of Israel. Should current trends continue, and the ultranationalist camp retain its dominance, Israel can continue to use its military power and US backing to yield short-term successes. But by sowing chaos around its borders and flouting international norms, it is breeding resentment among its neighbours and losing support among its traditional allies – even in the US, where public support is slipping. A more isolated Israel can do what it wants today, but without a long-term strategy for peace, stability and mutual respect with its neighbours – including the Palestinians – it may not be able to escape the consequences tomorrow.
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel presses ahead with Gaza ‘concentration camp' plans despite criticism
Israel is ploughing ahead with a plan to build what critics have described as a 'concentration camp' for Palestinians on the ruins of Rafah in southern Gaza, in the face of a growing backlash at home and abroad. The suggestion, first mooted by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz earlier this month, anticipates an area that could accommodate an initial group of some 600,000 already displaced Palestinians in Gaza, which would then be expanded to accommodate all of the enclave's pre-war population of some 2.2 million people. It would be run by international forces and have no Hamas presence. Once inside Katz's self-styled 'humanitarian city', Palestinians would not be allowed to leave to other areas in Gaza, but would instead be encouraged to 'voluntarily emigrate' to other unspecified countries, the minister said. Katz's plan has already received significant criticism. Labelled a 'concentration camp' by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and illegal by Israeli lawyers, it has even been criticised by the military that will be responsible for implementing it, with the military's chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, reportedly calling it 'unworkable' with 'more holes in it than cheese'. Internationally, a British minister said he was 'appalled' by the plan, while Austria and Germany's foreign ministers expressed their 'concern'. The United Nations said it was 'firmly against' the idea. But members of the Israeli government have defended the idea, and leaks continue to emerge in the Israeli media over the debate surrounding it within the government – with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly asking only for a plan that was speedier and less costly than a plan presented by the Israeli army. An Al Jazeera investigation has found that Israel has recently increased the number of demolitions it is conducting in Rafah, possibly paving the way for the 'humanitarian city'. Long planned Depopulating Gaza has long been an ambition of some of Israel's more hardline settler groups, who believe themselves to have a divine mandate to occupy the Palestinian territory. The Israeli far-right was encouraged to press ahead with the idea when United States President Donald Trump suggested in February that Palestinians in Gaza could be displaced and moved elsewhere. Since then, both Netanyahu and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have backed calls for displacement. When Netanyahu announced in May the creation of the controversial US-backed GHF, a body intended to deliver limited aid into the enclave his forces had been besieging since early March, Netanyahu referred to a future 'sterile zone' that Gaza's population would be moved into, where they would be allowed aid and food. Later the same month, Smotrich, who has criticised the current plan as too costly but is not opposed to the idea in principle, also suggested that plans were under way to push Gaza's population into a camp. Addressing a 'settlement conference' in the occupied West Bank, Smotrich told his audience that what remained of Gaza would be 'totally destroyed' and its population pressed into a 'humanitarian zone' close to the Egyptian border, foreshadowing the language used by Katz. Part of the Israeli plan Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flashenberg told Al Jazeera that – for the Israeli government – there was merit to the plan, both from a security perspective, and 'from the perspective of ethnically cleansing' Gaza, and providing an end goal that Israel's leaders could define as a success. 'As I understand it, parts of the military regard removing civilians from the [non-Israeli controlled parts] of Gaza and concentrating them in a single space as an ideal first step in locating and eliminating Hamas,' Flashenberg said of the Palestinian group that Israel has failed to eliminate in 21 months of conflict, despite the killing of more than 58,000 people. Flashenberg added that the plan would effectively create an 'ethnic cleansing terminal', from which, once people were separated from their original homes, 'it makes it easier to move them elsewhere'. 'Of course it complicates ceasefire negotiations, but so what?' Flashenberg said, referring to the ongoing talks aimed at bringing about an initial 60-day ceasefire. 'Nothing has really changed. It's possible, of course, that with work on the concentration camp under way, Hamas might still accept the ceasefire and hope that things might change.' 'It's part of their entire mentality,' Aida Touma-Suleiman, a member of the Israeli parliament representing the Hadash-Ta'al party, said. 'They really do believe that they can do anything: that they can move all of these people around as if they're not even humans. Even if imprisoning just the first 600,000 people suggested by Katz is inconceivable. How can you do that without it leading to some kind of massacre?' 'That they're even talking about criminal acts without every state in the world condemning them is dangerous,' she added. But lawyers in Israel have questioned the legality of the move. Military lawyers are reported to have 'raised concerns' that Israel might face accusations of forced displacement, and an open letter from a number of Israeli legal scholars is more explicit, slamming the proposal as 'manifestly illegal'. 'Nothing humanitarian' According to the United Nations, at least 1.9 million people, about 90 percent of Gaza's pre-war population, have been displaced as a result of Israeli attacks. Many have been displaced multiple times. Earlier this month, Amnesty concluded that, despite the militarised delivery of limited aid into the strip, Israel is continuing to use starvation as a weapon of war. According to the rights agency, the malnutrition and starvation of children and families across Gaza remain widespread, with the healthcare system that might typically care for them pushed to breaking point by Israel. 'Humanitarian city? I despise all these euphemisms. There's nothing humanitarian about this. It's utterly inhumane,' Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, said. 'There would be nothing humanitarian about the conditions that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be pushed into or about the idea you can only leave by going to another country.' 'This has to be condemned and there has to be consequences,' he continued. 'It's not true when people say there's no international community any more. If you trade with Israel, cooperate militarily or diplomatically with it, you have leverage. The US has leverage, the EU [European Union] has leverage. All these actors do.' 'By shrugging your shoulders and saying it's just anarchy,' he concluded, 'you're handing the keys to Smotrich, Katz and Netanyahu and saying there's nothing you can do.'
