logo
Israel bombs ports, power plant in Yemen as Houthis fire more missiles

Israel bombs ports, power plant in Yemen as Houthis fire more missiles

Al Jazeera12 hours ago
Israel's military has bombed three ports and a power plant in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, prompting the rebel group to fire more missiles towards Israeli territory.
The Israeli military said on Sunday that it struck the ports of Hodeidah, Ras-Isa and as-Salif on the Red Sea coast as well as the Ras Kanatib power plant.
It said it also struck a radar system on the Galaxy Leader ship, which was seized by the Houthis and remains docked in the port of Hodeidah.
There were no immediate reports of casualties.
The Israeli attacks late on Sunday were the first on Yemen in almost a month and came after the military claimed that it intercepted a missile fired by the Houthis in the early hours of the day.
The rebel group, which controls Yemen's most populous areas, responded to the latest Israeli attacks by launching more missiles at Israel in the early hours of Monday.
The Israeli military said two missiles were fired from Yemen, and that it attempted to intercept the projectiles. The attack set off sirens in the cities of Jerusalem, Hebron and near the Dead Sea.
Israel's emergency service said there have been no reports of injuries or impact from the projectiles.
The Houthis say their attacks on Israel are in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza who are under Israeli attack. The group has fired hundreds of missiles at Israel and launched more than 100 attacks on commercial vessels in the vital Red Sea corridor, since Israel's war on Gaza began in 2023.
The Houthis paused their attacks after a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in January, but resumed them after the United States launched attacks on Yemen on March 15, killing nearly 300 people in the weeks that followed.
The latest escalation comes at a sensitive moment in the Middle East as a possible ceasefire in Israel's war on Gaza hangs in the balance, and as Tehran weighs whether to restart negotiations over its nuclear programme following United States air strikes that damaged Iran's most sensitive atomic sites.
In Yemen on Sunday night, the Houthi-affiliated news outlet Al Masirah TV reported that strikes hit the port city of Hodeidah, while the Saba news agency confirmed the attacks on the three power plants as well as the power station.
A spokesman for the Houthis, Ameen Hayyan Yemeni, meanwhile, said the group's air defences forced 'a large portion' of Israel's warplanes to retreat.
Locally-manufactured surface-to-air missiles were used to respond, 'causing great confusion among enemy pilots and operations rooms', he wrote in a statement on X.
The attacks also took place after a grenade and drone attack on a Red Sea cargo ship set the vessel on fire and forced its crew to abandon it.
No group has claimed the attack, but the United Kingdom maritime agency said it matched the 'established Houthi target profile'.
Separately, Israeli forces also bombed Lebanon, claiming attacks on several Hezbollah targets in the country's south as well as the eastern Bekaa region.
In a statement, the military said the strikes were directed at infrastructure used for 'storing and producing strategic weapons' and a 'rocket launch site'.
Since a November 27 ceasefire formally ended more than a year of hostilities with Hezbollah, Israel has continued sporadic strikes on Lebanon. It says the group's activities run counter to the agreement, but does not provide evidence to back its claims.
In addition to its ongoing war on the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces have launched attacks on the occupied West Bank, Syria and Iran over the past year.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Iran will pursue all legal avenues to seek redress from its attackers
Iran will pursue all legal avenues to seek redress from its attackers

Al Jazeera

timean hour ago

  • Al Jazeera

Iran will pursue all legal avenues to seek redress from its attackers

The international legal order loses its effectiveness when faced with the unilateralism of hegemonic powers as well as acts that flout universally accepted norms. If such practices remain unaddressed, there is a risk that the order will lose its foundational purpose: the protection of justice, peace, and the sovereignty of nations. The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, including the targeted killings of scientists and intellectuals, bombing of IAEA-approved nuclear facilities, and strikes against residential, medical, media, and public infrastructure, is a prime example of illegal, unilateral action that must not remain unaddressed. It is a wrongful act and a clear violation of fundamental norms of international law. In this context, the principle of state responsibility, which dictates that states are held accountable for wrongful acts, must be applied. This principle was codified by the International Law Commission ILC in its 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which have since been widely recognised and cited by international courts and tribunals. Per their provisions, the commission of a wrongful act – such as the unlawful use of force – constitutes a violation of an international obligation and imposes a binding duty on the responsible state to provide full and effective reparation for the harm caused. In the case of the illegal acts committed by the United States and Israel, the scope of legal responsibility goes far beyond ordinary violations. These acts not only contravened customary international law, but also breached peremptory norms, the highest-ranking norms within the international legal hierarchy. Among these, the principle of the prohibition of aggression is a core and universally binding rule. No state is permitted to derogate from this norm, and violations trigger obligations, requiring all members of the international community to respond collectively to uphold the law. There are at least two relevant legal precedents that can guide the application of the principle of state responsibility and the obligation for reparations in the case of Iran. In 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 487 in response to Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. It unequivocally characterised this act of aggression as a 'serious threat to the entire safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]', which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution also fully recognised the inalienable sovereign right of all states to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes. Article 6 stipulates that 'Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel'. By mandating that the aggressor compensate the victim for the resulting damages, the resolution provides a clear legal precedent for pursuing redress in similar cases. Thus, given the fact that the attacks by the US and Israel were carried out with public declarations confirming the operations and are well-documented, the application of the principles and provisions of Resolution 487 to the Iranian case is not only appropriate and necessary but also firmly grounded in international law. Another relevant document is UN Security Council Resolution 692, which was adopted in 1991 and established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The commission was tasked with processing claims for compensation of losses and damages incurred as a result of the invasion. The creation of UNCC demonstrated the capacity of international mechanisms to identify victims, evaluate damage, and implement practical compensation – setting a clear model for state responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression. This precedent provides a strong legal and institutional basis for asserting the rights of the Iranian people. It is therefore both appropriate and necessary for the UN to establish a rule-based mechanism, such as an international commission on compensation, to redress Iran. Such a commission, initiated and endorsed by the UN General Assembly or other competent UN bodies, should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the damages inflicted by the unlawful and aggressive acts of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran. The establishment of reparative mechanisms – whether through independent commissions, fact-finding bodies, or compensation funds operating under international oversight – would contribute meaningfully to restoring trust in the global legal system and provide a principled response to the ongoing normalisation of impunity. Iran also has another avenue for pursuing justice for the illegal attacks it was subjected to. In the lead-up to them, the IAEA published biased and politically motivated reports about the Iranian nuclear programme, which facilitated the commission of aggression by the US and Israel and breached the principle of neutrality. This places Iran in a position to seek redress and claim damages from the agency under Article 17 of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a state harmed by the agency's manifest negligence, Iran is entitled to full reparation for all material and moral damages inflicted upon its peaceful nuclear facilities and scientific personnel. In this context, pursuing accountability for the IAEA, alongside the aggressor states, is a vital element of Iran's broader strategy to uphold accountability within the international legal order. By relying on recognised, legitimate, and binding international mechanisms, Iran will steadfastly defend the rights of its people at every forum. Ultimately, responsibility for the recent crimes of this war of aggression does not lie solely with the direct perpetrators, the US and Israel, and those who aided them, the IAEA. All states and international organisations bear an undeniable obligation to implement effective legal measures to prevent such crimes. The international community as a whole must respond decisively. Silence, delay, or any form of complicity in the face of aggression and atrocities would reduce the principle of state accountability under international law to an empty slogan. In its pursuit of accountability, Iran will exhaust all available resources and will not relent until the rights of its people are fully recognised and they receive adequate redress. It will continue to seek the prosecution and accountability of those responsible for these crimes, both domestically and internationally, until justice is fully achieved. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

What are the main sticking points in Gaza ceasefire talks?
What are the main sticking points in Gaza ceasefire talks?

Al Jazeera

timean hour ago

  • Al Jazeera

What are the main sticking points in Gaza ceasefire talks?

What are the main sticking points in Gaza ceasefire talks? NewsFeed US President Donald Trump says a ceasefire deal on Gaza could be reached within days, but major hurdles include the status of the US- and Israeli-backed food distribution system that has been described as a 'death trap'. Video Duration 02 minutes 50 seconds 02:50 Video Duration 01 minutes 01 seconds 01:01 Video Duration 01 minutes 12 seconds 01:12 Video Duration 00 minutes 25 seconds 00:25 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 02 minutes 47 seconds 02:47 Video Duration 02 minutes 36 seconds 02:36

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store