ostensibly in support of the Palestinians. Their campaign is an affront to the principle of freedom of navigation,
Does the author really believes their own lies? both of their claims here are false. Is the author ignorant of how important Palestine is to Arabs? Would they say that Western support for Ukraine is ostensible?
This is a blockade in response for a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and it is limited to Israeli ships and ships heading to Israeli ports.
“stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so”
I have zero doubt that Yemenis support Palestine as passionately as I do if not more. If I could seize Israeli ships I would too. Heck, I’d gladly have myself strapped to a missile and fired at Tel Aviv. Death to Israel.
I have always understood that to mean, and be used to mean, that in the absence of explicit statements confirming the conjecture, we have to rely on appearances. So in this context it would mean that while the Yemeni’s have not stated that the reason for their actions is to support Palestine, the evidence and obvious appearances lead us to this conclusion.
My issue with the use of the term is that I believe the Houthis have stated as much, so the author sounds like he’s ignoring official statements, but it’s possible that no official statements have been made, and in that case “ostensible” would be appropriate here.
I guess the author doesn’t know that both Hamas and Ansar Allah have grown more popular either. There is strong popular support across the Arab World and not just in Yemen or Palestine.
Decision makers in the West are handicapping themselves if they are willfully ignoring Arabic media. “What are the Arabs thinking? A complete mystery but let me as a western speculate”.
Does the author really believes their own lies? both of their claims here are false. Is the author ignorant of how important Palestine is to Arabs? Would they say that Western support for Ukraine is ostensible?
This is a blockade in response for a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and it is limited to Israeli ships and ships heading to Israeli ports.
Wait… what do you think ostensible means?
“stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so”
I have zero doubt that Yemenis support Palestine as passionately as I do if not more. If I could seize Israeli ships I would too. Heck, I’d gladly have myself strapped to a missile and fired at Tel Aviv. Death to Israel.
I have always understood that to mean, and be used to mean, that in the absence of explicit statements confirming the conjecture, we have to rely on appearances. So in this context it would mean that while the Yemeni’s have not stated that the reason for their actions is to support Palestine, the evidence and obvious appearances lead us to this conclusion.
My issue with the use of the term is that I believe the Houthis have stated as much, so the author sounds like he’s ignoring official statements, but it’s possible that no official statements have been made, and in that case “ostensible” would be appropriate here.
I guess no one in The Economist knows Arabic. Not only there were multiple official statements from the Yemeni government, there has also been massive protests supporting Palestine and the Yemeni government blockade.
I guess the author doesn’t know that both Hamas and Ansar Allah have grown more popular either. There is strong popular support across the Arab World and not just in Yemen or Palestine.
Decision makers in the West are handicapping themselves if they are willfully ignoring Arabic media. “What are the Arabs thinking? A complete mystery but let me as a western speculate”.
I guess the other interpretation is that despite what the Yemeni government says, maybe they have some other ulterior motives?
“Them nefarious savages” basically.