Yemen’s Right to Defend Gaza and the Obligation to Support Yemen

The ongoing genocide in Gaza, perpetrated by Israel, constitutes a grave
violation of international law and human dignity, demanding urgent
action to halt the systematic extermination of the Palestinian people.
Yemen, invoking its rights and obligations under the 1948 Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, has asserted its authority to
defend the people of Gaza through measures including military action.
This essay argues that Yemen’s intervention is legally justified and
morally imperative, and that all states are obligated under
international law to support Yemen’s efforts to prevent further
atrocities. Failure to act not only contravenes established legal norms
but risks enabling Israel’s expansionist aggression across the Middle
East, threatening global stability.

Yemen’s Legal Right to Defend Gaza

The Genocide Convention (1948) imposes a clear duty on states to prevent
and punish genocide, defined as acts intended to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Israel’s actions
in Gaza—indiscriminate airstrikes, deliberate starvation, and
destruction of civilian infrastructure—meet this definition, as
evidenced by the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) January 2024
provisional measures in South Africa v.
Israel, which found plausible evidence of genocidal acts. Article I of
the Genocide Convention mandates states, including Yemen, to take all
necessary measures to prevent such crimes, regardless of territorial
boundaries. Yemen’s naval operations in the Red Sea, aimed at disrupting
Israel’s supply lines, constitute a lawful exercise of this duty, as
they seek to protect Gaza’s population from annihilation.

Furthermore, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by
the UN General Assembly in 2005, obligates states to protect populations
from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity
when a state fails to do so. Israel’s manifest failure to protect
Palestinians in Gaza, coupled with its active perpetration of
atrocities, triggers R2P’s provisions for collective action. Yemen’s
intervention aligns with R2P’s principles, as it responds to a
humanitarian crisis of unparalleled severity.
The precedent of NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, undertaken to halt
ethnic cleansing despite lacking UN Security Council approval, supports
Yemen’s actions. Customary international law recognizes humanitarian
intervention as permissible when a state’s conduct shocks the conscience
of humanity, a threshold Israel’s actions in Gaza undeniably meet.

The Obligation of States to Support Yemen

Under the Genocide Convention and R2P, all states are legally bound to
prevent genocide, not merely through rhetoric but through concrete
action. This obligation extends to supporting Yemen’s efforts to defend
Gaza. Article VIII of the Genocide Convention encourages states to call
upon competent UN organs to take action, but when such bodies are
paralyzed by political vetoes—as seen in the UN Security Council’s
repeated failure to address Gaza—states must act independently or
collectively. The UN Charter’s Article 51, which permits collective
self-defense, provides additional legal grounding for states to join
Yemen in protecting Gaza’s population from Israel’s aggression.

Historical precedents underscore the consequences of inaction. The
international community’s failure to intervene during the Rwandan
Genocide of 1994, despite clear evidence of mass atrocities, resulted in
the deaths of approximately 800,000 people. Similarly, the appeasement
of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, exemplified by the Munich Agreement of
1938, emboldened aggression and led to the Holocaust. These failures
highlight the moral and legal imperative to act decisively against
genocide. States that fail to support Yemen risk complicity in Israel’s
crimes, violating the post-Holocaust commitment of “Never Again.”

Israel’s Broader Threat and the Need for Collective Action

Israel’s actions extend beyond Gaza, revealing an expansionist agenda
that threatens the entire Middle East. Its illegal annexation of the
West Bank, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), and its
military incursions into Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen demonstrate a pattern
of aggression. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres and the 2006 Lebanon
War illustrate Israel’s willingness to destabilize neighboring states.
Recent airstrikes on Syria and threats against Iran and Iraq further
confirm its imperialist ambitions.
Yemen’s resistance to Israel’s aggression is not only a defense of Gaza
but a stand against a regional threat that, if unchecked, could escalate
into a broader conflict with global ramifications.

States must support Yemen through diplomatic, economic, and, if
necessary, military means. Sanctions against Israel, arms embargoes, and
prosecution of Israeli officials under universal jurisdiction for war
crimes are critical steps. The principle of universal jurisdiction,
recognized in cases like the arrest warrant for Augusto Pinochet (1998),
allows states to hold perpetrators of international crimes accountable,
reinforcing Yemen’s efforts. Additionally, economic measures such as the
Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, inspired by the
anti-apartheid campaign against South Africa, can complement Yemen’s
actions, but military support may be required to achieve immediate
results given the urgency of the crisis.

Moral and Legal Imperative for Global Solidarity

Yemen’s intervention, despite its own humanitarian challenges,
exemplifies a commitment to humanity that shames wealthier and more
powerful states. The moral weight of this crisis demands that states
prioritize their obligations under international law over political
alliances. Western powers, which have historically enabled Israel
through military and financial support, bear particular responsibility
to reverse course and align with Yemen’s efforts.
Failure to do so undermines the very principles of justice and humanity
that underpin the international legal order.

Moreover, civil society has a role in pressuring governments to act.
Global protests, advocacy, and support for Yemen’s humanitarian efforts
can amplify its actions. The international community must recognize that
supporting Yemen is not merely a policy choice but a legal and moral
necessity to uphold the sanctity of human life and prevent the
recurrence of history’s darkest chapters.

Conclusion

Yemen’s right to defend the people of Gaza is firmly rooted in the
Genocide Convention, R2P, and customary international law. Its actions
to disrupt Israel’s genocidal campaign are a lawful and necessary
response to an ongoing atrocity. All states are obligated to support
Yemen through collective action, including diplomatic, economic, and
military measures, to halt the genocide and counter Israel’s
expansionist threat. History teaches that inaction in the face of
genocide breeds catastrophe; the international community must heed this
lesson and rally behind Yemen to fulfill its legal and moral duty. The
time for hesitation has passed—global solidarity with Yemen is the only
path to justice for Gaza and stability for the world.