Send this article to a friend:


"Might makes Right" and other ends to the Western "Rules Based Order"
Stop Shouting Blog

Israel has chosen the path of bullying, domination and blackmail as the way it chooses to interact with the rest of the world, and conducts its foreign policy. That is ending.

This is a quick update to a comment I made in a private discussion group on Gab, in response to what was then merely a “potential” crisis at the Gate of Tears.

Industry professionals, like John Konrad on X are lamenting the costs if access to the Suez Canal can not be restored in a timely and meaningful way, soon.

The US, Israeli and general NATO position seems to be that they are “entitled” to transit the Red Sea because “they say so”, and attempted to use might to back up their beliefs. “Because I say so” isn’t a very compelling argument, especially when you are violating the terms of your own “Rules Based Orders”, and you no longer have the “might” to back up the threats.

It should be noted that the land grab and ethnic cleansing Israel is currently conducting in Palestine is for the space needed for the Ben Gurion Canal, which is intended to circumvent the Suez Canal, to solely Israel’s, and Jewish billionaire shipping magnates, interests. What’s tens of thousands of innocent lives when there’s trillions at stake, right? The following linked article is from the Arab news, so a contrarian viewpoint to the one constantly put forth by Israel and its advocates.

Ben Gurion Canal and why Gaza matters

As the Gate of Tears standoff escalates, it becomes apparent that even the Ben Gurion canal won’t save Israel, or global shipping interests. The Ben Gurion canal is on the books to provide an alternative route from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba instead of the Suez Gulf, but still doesn’t give them an egress out of the Red Sea, controlled at Bab el-Mandeb, and out into international waters. Oops!

For those new to the geography, the Gate of Tears, or Bab el-Mandeb, is approximately 20 miles wide at its narrowest point, in an unevenly divided channel, with one side being approximately 16 miles wide, and the other 2 miles wide.

Accepted agreement is that many countries have extended what they consider their territorial waters under their sovereignty by up to 12 miles, which means that the entire passageway in and around the Gate of Tears is claimed by both Djibouti and Yemen, and there are no “international” waters. This is akin to the shipping lanes through the St Lawrence seaway and into the Great Lakes, where the territorial boundaries are essentially split between the US and Canada. Bab el-Mandeb facts

Although there has historically been a provision for “innocent passage”, as Britannica states, 

“This sovereignty is qualified only by a right of innocent passage—that is, peaceful transit not prejudicial to the good order or security of the coastal state—for merchant vessels of other nations. The right of innocent passage does not apply to submerged submarines or to aircraft, nor does it include a right to fish.”

In other words, the whole of Bab el-Mandeb is under the sovereignty of Yemen and Djibouti, and shipping is allowed by right of “innocent passage” alone, and not de jure, but by de facto historical agreements.

The US having an entire aircraft carrier group (CSG), along with aircraft it has used to sink AnsarAllah boats, negates this Gentleman’s Agreement of “innocent passage”.

The Arab nations in the Mideast can argue as well that allowing US, UK or other NATO warships in the region is “prejudicial to the good order or security” of their coastal states, and allowing materiel and munitions to transit Bab el-Mandeb is not “innocent passage”, since Israel has escalated their conflict to begin attacking other states, such as Lebanon and Syria, with US supplied munitions. The pro-Zionist bloc, under any reasonable measure, have forfeited ANY claim to transit Bab el-Mandeb, under the “rules” of their own “Rules Based Orders” of “innocent passage” rights.

I expect that the US, UK and any other pro-Zionist member will be advised shortly to withdraw their warships, including aircraft and submarines to avoid any further serious escalation, including the potential loss of their ships, aircraft and basing anywhere in the region. Putting Israel’s interests above one’s own is getting increasingly expensive and serving to isolate the Western world from the emerging bloc of nations holding a disproportionate share of commodities, resources, and working age population in their ranks. 

Iran stations warship in Red Sea

Additionally, just as the pro-Zionist bloc has attempted to engage in sanctions against any state it wishes to bring to heel - such as Iran and Russia - and by all reasonable measure of success failed - likewise, the pro-Palestinian bloc is engaging in multilevel sanctions of Israel, by impeding “innocent passage” to merchant marine vessels that have Jewish and/or Israeli connections, even tangential ones, and especially those that may be bringing military materiel. This will soon extend to all commercial interests which support Israel and its military campaign.

Israel, using the US and UK as its “big stick” has relied upon bullying, domination and threats under the fallaciously named “Rules Based Order”. The world chess board is being reset; the BRICS+ nations are de-dollarizing, working around the Zionist sanctions, and will eventually leave all “International Bodies” that are Zionist controlled, preferring to set up and be compliant within their own regulatory bodies.

What then, pro-Zionist bloc? It would seem the doctrine of “Might makes Right” under the figleaf of specious “Rules Based Order” (which the US, UK or Israel don’t adhere to) is running its course.

This was my comment back before all of this began to escalate:

Quick synopsis of some of the issues brought to you by the Economist in 2021 that I shared to counter those screeching at me on teh X about the status of the Gate of Tears (Bab el-Mandeb) and that Ansar Allah "couldn't" deny transit through the sea lanes.

Note: The Economist is entirely a Rothschild Propaganda House Organ, so use that as your filter as you digest their position.

Some take-aways:

    1. Oceans and territorial water rights have been informally governed by the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS) since 1982. The law is "broadly accepted as customary" even by nations that have not ratified it. Note that it is silent, by necessity, wrt to non-state actors.

    2. The treaty has been ratified by 168 nations; the most notable exception is the United States of America.

    3. Disputes have been channeled into (voluntary) "negotiation, arbitration or the International Court of Justice (ICJ)", however, "these mechanisms have not always worked.... there is no way to enforce the ruling".

    4. WRT China's expansion and build up of areas that tribunals have ruled against, and have been "invalidated by the international courts, it is now a "fait accompli""

In short summation (with my opinion added):

The Economist states, quite correctly, that "countries could claim sovereignty as far as they could defend from the shore." This has also historically been applied to non-state actors in a de facto if not de jure capacity. Marines, Tripoli, etc.

Conventions and treaties have no enforcement mechanisms of merit or teeth. In essence, they remain "Gentleman's Agreements", a last vestige carry over of the legacy of the Westphalia precepts between colonial and expeditionary powers who carved up the world and the seas into their agreed upon spheres of interest and influence.

The US and Israel can claim to the cows come home that the sea lanes that exist within the overlapping territorial water boundaries of Djibouti and Yemen at the narrow channel of the Gate of Tears must remain open and unimpeded "because reasons" rooted in colonialist agreements, but in reality, do not have to be recognized or respected by rising new powers, including non state actors.

Wait until Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz and Straits of Gibraltar once the adversarial pro-Zionist bloc is forced to reveal itself in no uncertain terms as an emasculated and toothless Tiger.

YMMV. Discuss amongst yourselves.







Everything you need to know they don't want you to know

Send this article to a friend: