Phyllis BENNIS

The assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin marks a serious escalation in Israeli occupation tactics. While Israel had (in earlier assassination attempts) already crossed the "red line" that once defined some limits in aggressive acts, its message in the Yassin murder was that there are no limits, that Israel’s military attacks face no restrictions.

The "Geneva Accord" drafted and signed by Palestinian and Israeli negotiators acting in their private capacity has received extensive international attention. The Accord is apparently based on earlier discussions begun during the Taba talks of January 2000 that followed the failed Camp David summit; Taba broke down without an agreement when Bill Clinton was replaced by George Bush and when Labor’s Ehud Barak by Likud’s Ariel Sharon. Official Palestinian-Israeli talks have been largely non-existent during the years since.

The U.S.-driven UN resolution passed by the Security Council provides only an internationalist fig-leaf for Washington’s occupation; the occupation remains illegal and in violation of the UN Charter. The new resolution will do nothing to change the fundamental problems of the U.S. occupation of Iraq — the occupation’s illegitimacy, its unilateralism, and its responsibility for so much destruction in Iraq and for the on-going crisis of violence in the country. The new resolution, designed as much for Bush’s domestic political gain as for international purposes, does nothing to make the occupation acceptable, and we remain adamantly opposed to it.

Still committed to its war drive in Iraq, Washington stands more isolated than ever. Its trade aims were defeated at the World Trade Organization in Cancun. It faces international outrage following its veto of the mildly-worded Security Council resolution challenging Israel’s threat to expel or assassinate Yasir Arafat. In response, the General Assembly overwhelming passed a resolution virtually identical to that Washington vetoed in the Council.

Those who advocate “staying the course” or “internationalizing the war” are too busy digging deeper. A real solution to the Iraq War must start with ending the U.S. occupation. Then, and only then, we can talk about internationalizing the peace.

The "roadmap" is a negotiating plan created by a diplomatic four-some — the U.S., Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations — known as the Quartet. The group came together in August 2002 at the height of the international crisis that resulted from Israel’s re-occupation of Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The roadmap was designed, ostensibly, to be presented to the two sides in a more or less take-it-or-leave-it fashion, to impose on the recalcitrant parties an internationally-sanctioned resolution of the conflict.

The recent Bush administration trial balloons regarding a new role for the United Nations in Iraq reflect a growing concern regarding what the New York called the "high cost of occupation" for the U.S. in Iraq — costs both in U.S.soldiers’ lives and in dollars. The emerging reassessment is not a reflection of any concern regarding the illegality of the occupation, the lack of legitimacy of the U.S. presence in Iraq, or the impact on Iraqis of Washington’s abject failure to provide for even the minimal humanitarian needs of the population.

The individual Iraqis who came out to vote clearly were very brave and eager to reclaim control of their country. They were voting for their hopes, for secure streets so children can go to school, for electricity and clean water, for jobs, and mostly for an end to the U.S. occupation.

The war on Iraq has been waged without UN authority in violation of the organisation s charter. Because the war is illegal, any post-war US occupation will be illegal too. That means the US should not be allowed to claim any power to rule or determine economic, political or social arrangements in post-war Iraq. Only the UN has the legitimate authority to provide governance and help rebuild civil society in Iraq now Saddam Hussein’s regime has been overthrown.

De toute évidence, la rhétorique anti-Iran s’accentue à la Maison-Blanche. Le Président Bush, le vice-président Cheney et l’ambassadeur américain à l’ONU John Bolton ne cessent de marteler le point que l’Iran est le danger principal. Dernièrement, l’administration accuse l’Iran d’être responsable de l’augmentation des attaques à la bombe en Irak, par exemple.

The UN Security Council is likely to vote tomorrow (28 March) on a resolution outlining how emergency humanitarian aid will be provided to Iraqis. The U.S.-UK are pushing for a new Security Council resolution that would (1) identify the U.S. as one of the "relevant authorities" in Iraq; (2) call for use of Iraq’s oil-for-food funds to pay for emergency relief and rehabilitation; (3) call on the UN to re-start the oil-for-food program and "endorse" the U.S. aid effort in order to facilitate other countries’ participation in (read: payment for) the aid campaign.

The recent escalation in Bush administration attacks on anti-war critics reflects the escalation of anti-war sentiment across the country. The deepening and consolidation of the anti-war movement has led to much wider public demands for bringing home the troops now. Those demands are increasingly being answered, albeit cautiously and nervously, by congressional and other official voices calling for timetables, scaling down, and "redeployment" of U.S. troops.

We start from a position of principle. We support elections as one component of democratization. But not every election is a legitimate instrument of democracy.

Israël qui occupe la bande de Gaza depuis 1967 est la puissance occupante qui reste totalement responsable selon la loi internationale de mettre fin à l’occupation de Gaza, de la Cisjordanie, y compris Jérusalem-Est. Or malgré les apparences, le retrait de Gaza annoncé par Ariel Sharon n’est pas un avant vers la fin de cette occupation.

Bush’s embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s unilateral plan to annex six major West Bank settlement blocs and reject the internationally-recognized Palestinian right of return as a quid pro quo for Sharon’s pull-out from most Gaza settlements represents a major defeat for Palestinian human rights and international law, and a huge consolidation of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN Security Council this Wednesday, February 5, is likely to be strong on quantity and weak on quality - with little or no new information, and little or no actual proof of the presence of WMDs in Iraq, or links between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda. There will be lots of photographs, charts, and barely-audible sound-bites ostensibly demonstrating links between Iraq and al Qaeda or other terrorists.

The signing of the interim Iraqi "constitution" by the Governing Council represents a significant step in U.S. efforts to legitimize its invasion and occupation of Iraq. By achieving the codification in a U.S.-supervised process of an ostensibly "Iraqi" legal document, the U.S. as occupying power is hoping that its planned June 30th "transfer of power" will be accepted globally as the "restoration of sovereignty to Iraq."

As the Bush administration strengthens its military victory and consolidates its occupation of Iraq, it continues its trajectory towards international expansion of power and global reach. The arrogance of its triumphalism, ignoring civilian carnage and dismissing the destruction of the ancient cities because, in Rumsfeld’s words, "free people have the right to do bad things and commit crimes," reflects the hubris of ancient empires. Shakespeare’s "insolence of office" could well describe the contempt with which the Pentagon warriors look down on the peoples of the world.

100,000 Iraqis Dead, 380 tons of deadly explosives looted on the U.S. watch, Israel escalates new attacks against Gaza refugee camps, $70 billion in Congressional pipeline for next phase of war

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5 wasn’t likely to win over anyone not already on his side. He ignored the crucial fact that in the past several days (in Sunday’s New York Times and in his February 4th briefing of UN journalists) Hans Blix denied key components of Powell’s claims.

It is not surprising, and like everyone else we anticipated that some Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and cheer their arrival. Many have already tempered their welcome with urging the U.S. not to stay in Iraq for long. Most Iraqis are almost certainly relieved and thrilled at the imminent end of a terribly repressive regime and an end to crippling sanctions. But if yesterday was the party — today the hangover begins. There are already reports of Iraqis saying the Ba’athist regime was bad, but that the current lack of authority and its resulting looting and chaos are worse — "at least before we had security," one said.