Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute, so they’re in a very different circumstance than Peru.

It’s been a decade.

Since the Invasion of Crimea, NATO has been placing troops near its boarders with Russia, especially in the Baltics.

It’s literally in the article:

…the U.S. announced on May 28 that it had suspended operations so repairs could be made.

The United Nations said on Friday it had still not resumed transportation of aid from the pier to U.N. World Food Programme warehouses.

I’m not too familiar with historic international law, but most of the ones in modern use are only decades old. So, while the invasion of Hawaii may be immoral and may have broken international norms, I’m not sure if it’s consider to have broken “International Law”.

…still not a “double standard”

It’s immensely unfair, but I’m not sure I’d call that a “double standard.”

I’m no expert, Israel was accepted as a UN when they pledged to implement the partition plan. They’ve never followed through, so you could argue they lied to get in, but once they’re in, it’s difficult to expel/suspend a member.

It looks like it wasn’t until decades later that Palestine sought UN membership. So it kind of makes sense to say the applicant needs to appease the existing members. You could also argue the partition plan was/is unfair, and many wars have been fought over it. I’m just not sure the situations are similar enough to be a “double standard.”

I don’t understand your question. Can you please explain it?

Maybe the answer is colonialism?

Just because there’s a UN Resolution passed, doesn’t mean everything that’s proposed magically happens. Governments of all levels accept long-term plans, but then they need to do further actions to follow through on those plans (or in many cases, they don’t do anything and those plans just stay as dreams and what-ifs).

Israel is a state because they’ve declared it and the UN has accepted Israel as a member, it’s really that simple. If you want to know why Israel’s statehood was accepted, that’s very, very complicated and involves millennia of history. I certainly can’t condense it here, maybe others could, but I doubt it. I honestly think Wikipedia’s a pretty good source for the history of Israel, and I’d suggest starting the British Mandate and looking back if you need more context.

Israel has been accepted as a UN member. Palestine has not.

Note the word “Plan”. You’ve provided a proposal, which has not been implemented.

It matters because if the Houthis are a non-sovereign entity, then POTUS can order an attack under prior congressional approvals. However, if they are a Sovereign State, then attacking them would be an act of war, requiring congressional approval.

Thank you for providing a good example! I’m really not sure what the status of Taiwan’s Sovereignty would be, but it’s definitely something to think about.

That doesn’t answer my question either. I wasn’t the one who brought up sovereignty, it was the article. It seems to ridiculous to say, this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty” but no one seems to able to assert the Houthis have sovereignty to start with.

Your analogy falls flat because while powerful cartels are rarely looking to supplant state control. Instead they seek state complicity which is a different thing altogether.

Okay, what about IS? Did they have Sovereignty?

If the US doesn’t want to recognize the sovereignty of the Ansar Allah led Yemeni government then the US concept of sovereignty is effectively meaningless.

If you/anyone else thinks sovereignty is meaningless, that’s fine but it’s not what I asked about. My original question was how is this “A breach of sovereignty”? You don’t seem to be arguing why it is a breach of sovereignty.

That’s not really an answer to my question. “Control” does not get you sovereignty, and neither does “representing the people”. It comes down to governance and international recognition. Mexican cartels control large areas of the country, but no one is arguing they have sovereignty. Similarly, there are many repressive regimes in the world that do not represent their people, but they maintain their sovereignty.

Can someone explain to me how this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty”? It seems like these actions are supported by the internationally recognized government in Yemen. (I’m not asking about the validity of these actions, or the horrendous effects of them. Just the sovereignty question)

Also, is this the interviewee? It appears she is a language and literacy assistant professor who happens to be Yemeni American, not an expert on the Yemen war, international law, or anything else relevant to these events.

And the next paragraph:

The jet had been prevented from making long-haul flights over water so that the plane “could return very quickly to an airport” in the event the warnings happened again, NTSB chief Jennifer Homendy said.

Which makes it sound like they couldn’t find the source of that warning but weren’t willing to completely write it off.

Nevermind:

“An additional maintenance look” was requested but “not completed” before the incident, Ms Homendy said.