The United Nations stands with the coalition of aggression

The recent slanders of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding attacks on civilians represented new evidence of the aggressive coalition, and its sponsors, of their intransigent position regarding the demands and entitlements of the Yemeni people. Also, a clear indication that they are continuing to push towards perpetuating a state of “no war and no peace.”

The recent statements of the Commission for Human Rights expressed a shameless alignment with the coalition of aggression and its mercenaries by adopting their rumors and accounts accusing Sana’a of carrying out attacks on civilians since the end of the armistice, which is something that the coalition and its sponsors are trying to use to pressure Sana’a to push it to retreat from its negotiating position and give up humanitarian entitlements and legal rights that benefit the Yemeni people as a whole.

This alignment was also confirmed by the Commission’s neglection of the continuous violations practiced by the coalition of aggression against the Yemeni people, which even the truce did not succeed in stopping them. This includes the detention of fuel ships and preventing them from reaching the port of Hodeidah, despite their inspection and obtaining the necessary permits.

The United Nations Commission has adopted the narrative of the coalition of aggression about the warning operation on the port of Dhaba in a scandalous manner. They portrayed it as an attack on the port itself, ignoring the mercenaries’ recognition of the accuracy of the operation and its goal, which was preventing the looting of crude oil and shipping abroad from this port to steal the revenues of the looted oil.

This prejudice confirm that the United Nations is still playing its role in implementing the wishes of the coalition of aggression and its sponsors. The UN is adopting their positions and trying to impose them as the only options for a solution, which in turn means that the international administration of aggression is still clinging to the path of “no war and no peace” that it tried to impose through the latest fragile armistice.

This is an indication that real progress in the path of peace is still far away, as it was at the end of the previous armistice.