[rrook]

> If you think the vast majority of humanity is engaged in passively or actively allowing a second wrong, is the 4% justified in using violence to stop the second wrong while providing critical military, economic, and political assistance for the first one?

Easy - I don't think that, so it's not justified. The opinions of "the vast majority of humanity" are not part of the decision making process that has resulted in this situation.

> I wonder if it's possible to describe this as a series of logical axioms

I don't wonder, I believe it is! These are the (simplified) axioms along which I form my opinions about not only this, but all geopolitics in general:

- Actions that cause human suffering are bad.

- Actions that reduce human suffering are good.

- Innocent suffering in a conflict is inevitable.

- Force will be required; conflict is inevitable; the world is imperfect.

- The use of force is righteous or not depending on how the resultant innocent suffering is accounted for before, during, and after.

I believe that my opinion is completely consistent with these statements. You asked if using violence to stop other violence is wrong, and my answer is "it depends". If the Houthis were taking action against the those actually committing the atrocities, we'd probably not be having this conversation. Deliberately causing harm to innocents is never acceptable, never right. This is terrorism as a tactic.

If you think that second order violence IS an acceptable course of action, where do you draw the line? How much societal disruption in countries with less food security are we willing to induce?

[racketcon2089]

As you said, innocent suffering in a conflict is inevitable. Is the logical axiom that international shipping which is connected to the US and Israeli economies is more innocent than Palestinian children? Is any cargo ship crew more innocent and less culpable than say, an infant?

If you want to make an argument that some groups of people are inherently evil and subhuman and must be destroyed, just go ahead and make it.

[rrook]

> If you want to make an argument that some groups of people are inherently evil and subhuman and must be destroyed, just go ahead and make it.

This is an absurdly bad faith interpretation of what I've said. You and I agree on the conflict in Gaza. The only opinion that I've offered is that terrorism isn't an acceptable response from a third party.

If you agree that there is too much collateral suffering in Gaza, but you're happy with a course of action that is deliberately inflicting more collateral suffering, then you're a moral hypocrite.