@iwakurawired44 Let's put on our thinking caps!
"From what I understand, the 3 largest shipping companies have all decided to just avoid the place, so this isnt really targeted against Specifically Israel at all"
We're dealing with a classic case of a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy! In layman's terms, it's a fallacy of causation: Mistaking correlation or sequence for causation (assuming that because B followed A, A caused B). Your reasoning goes like this:
A. Yemen enforced the anti-Shitrael blockade.
B. Alleged 3 companies *decided* (active stance) to "avoid the place."
Since point A happened before point B, then point A must've caused point B! False, let's see why:
1) Point A and point B are both active stances instead of a simple cause and effect dynamic. The alleged companies weren't arrested or sent back, they chose to suspend their own shipping for reasons that may or may not be directly linked to the blockade.
2) Even if we entertain the fictional scenario of the companies having been threatened by the blockade and having no choice but to submit (passive stance), the statement remains erroneous because that capitulation still wouldn't mean the blockade isn't specifically targeted at Shitrael, since ships from all over the world are used to deliver all kinds of products to the colony and the blockade isn't based on "nationality" or territorial affiliation.
3) As a sovereign nation, Yemen retains its right to question, halt, arrest, or sanction any entity within its borders for whatever reason for as long as its sovereignty is threatened, regardless of the entity's ties, or lack thereof, to Shitrael.
Overall, your statement relies on the conviction that companies are geopolitically powerless, operating with goodwill and compliance, and that their decisions are a reflection of a country's national credibility. The combination of the 3 is colloquially referred to as "racism."