The U.S., Israel and others keep declaring their conditions for the formation of a Palestinian state. No matter what they do or say, without Palestinians deciding the aim of their state and its modalities and democratic process, nothing is going to be resolved. To succumb to the pressure of the U.S. to decide who can and cannot form a government of a Palestinian state would be a repeat of the Oslo Accords, with their fundamental premise that the Palestinian Authority could operate only on the basis of permitting the Israeli occupation. Ending the Israeli occupation is the sine qua non of the resistance -- an absolutely necessary essential condition.

The occupation has to be ended and the Palestinians will decide the next steps for themselves. The pressure on them is to permit their national interest to be defined by the U.S. and Israel. They are not permitted to question U.S. and Israeli authority in this matter because to do so is to be labelled a terrorist, unreasonable and undemocratic. The truth of the matter is that if the Palestinian people in their conditions of life were to accept this form of authority and say that it wields legitimate power, it would again impede their just struggle for self-determination. This is what the current impunity reveals -- the Palestinian people's lack of political power. The U.S., Canada and all the discourse they are generating on the future of the Palestinian people is intent on disinforming the resistance and world public opinion. In this regard, the peoples of the world are duty-bound to reject foreign interference in the internal affairs of the Palestinian people. They are duty-bound to respect the right of the Palestinians to decide.

In related news, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA) Mohammad Shtayyeh said on February 26 that he has officially submitted his government's resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas. "I submitted the government's resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas on February 20, 2024, and today I submit it in writing," Shtayyeh said in a statement. This development comes in the context of U.S. demands and threats to impose its own alternative on Palestine, by a government of U.S. choosing for the West Bank and Gaza, and to put an end to the popular resistance movements to Israeli occupation and genocide. Shtayyeh said: "I see that the next stage and its challenges require new governmental and political arrangements that take into account the emerging reality in the Gaza Strip, the national unity talks, and the urgent need for an inter-Palestinian consensus based on a national basis, broad participation, unity of ranks, and the extension of the Palestinian Authority's sovereignty over the entire land of Palestine."

Shtayyeh's statement reportedly came as U.S. pressure grows on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to submit to restructuring the PA and creating the conditions to govern a future Palestinian state following the war.

A new government in Palestine should take "full responsibility and action" both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki said on February 28, Anadolu Agency reports. Al-Maliki said the time now is "not for the government where Hamas would be part of it because, in this case, then it will be boycotted by a number of countries as it happened before." "We don't want to be in a situation like that. We want to be accepted and engaging fully with the international community. We want to get contributions that help in order for us to be able to provide, first of all, the necessary services to our people, emergency services, then to talk about how we can reconstruct Gaza after such devastating destruction." Later, he said, when the situation is right, we can contemplate that option. The Foreign Minister said he believes that the idea is to establish today "a technocratic government" that is based on experts, individuals who are completely permitted to take up the reins and responsibility for this period. Elections he said could be considered "after the war."

Regarding the resignation of the Shtayyeh government, Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan said, "I believe that this resignation may have come at an inappropriate time, because it came in light of the talks about a renewed authority, and I hope it does not come in response to U.S. demands. I stress that the Palestinian demand is to form a consensus government by the Palestinian factions whose duty is to deal with Gaza relief and reconstruction and to arrange general Palestinian national elections."

Is the position expressed by the Shtayyeh government which resigned and by the PA Foreign Minister which denies the nature of the beast supposed to be a "realistic," "pragmatic," "doable" position? When, one might ask, did Israel or the U.S. ever recognize the right to be of the Palestinian people or their right of return?

Israel puts forward the "extreme" of a military occupation of Gaza, the U.S. then appears "reasonable" by agreeing to governance by the PA over Gaza, and the resistance is deemed "unreasonable." The claim of being "realistic" appears to be what lies behind all kinds of proposals about what the Palestinian people and their resistance organizations should and should not do at this time. All sorts of manoeuvres to stall a ceasefire, not permit the free flow of humanitarian aid and demolish the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Palestinian territories and neighbouring countries go beyond causing the starvation of the people and permitting the crimes of genocide Israel is committing with U.S., Canadian and other backing. These manoeuvres are for purposes of establishing a Palestinian state premised on the acceptance of the Israeli occupation, negotiating away the rights of the Palestinian people and stopping the resistance and worldwide support for it.

It will not pass! The U.S., Israel and their appeasers such as Canada will have to reckon with the crimes they are committing in the name of democracy and human rights, and the imperialist conceptions of the "responsibility to protect" and a "rules-based international order," which are nothing if not impunity and authoritarianism.

All Out for the National March in Ottawa on March 9. We call for a Ceasefire Now! We call for the occupation to be ended and no foreign interference in internal Palestinian affairs.

Palestinians Discuss National Government and Address Ceasefire Negotiations

From February 29 to March 1, Palestinian political forces held meetings in Moscow aimed at reaching a "comprehensive national unity."

Following the meeting, deputy head of Hamas' political bureau Mousa Abu Marzouk told a Russian news agency that "there are no differences between it and other Palestinian factions that could not be bridged to form a unity government." Any differences, he said, "are surmountable and we hope that we can overcome all the difficulties. The main problem is the external interference of the United States and Israel in Palestinian affairs and all the unattainable goals in our negotiations are precisely because of this interference."

Palestinian political forces agreed to continue negotiations, adding that the next gathering would also likely take place in Moscow and focus on "the mechanism for establishing the government and its responsibilities." "We will have a continuation of these negotiations in order to establish a national government and already deal with the rest of the problems that need attention and discussion. So the creation of a government will be discussed at the next meeting," Marzouk said.

Present at the meeting were the Hamas movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) Fatah movement, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), PFLP General Command, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Al-Saiqa organization, as well as several others.

The Palestinian resistance organizations released a joint statement on March 1. "The Palestinian factions gathered in the city of Moscow express their thanks and appreciation to the Russian leadership for hosting their meetings and for its position in support of the Palestinian cause," the statement says.

"They affirm, in light of the criminal Zionist aggression against our people, the positive and constructive spirit that prevailed at the meeting, and agreed that their meetings will continue in rounds," the joint statement went on to say, adding that upcoming meetings are to be held soon.

The statement called for thwarting Israeli attempts to displace Palestinians, whether in the Gaza Strip, the occupied West Bank or the holy city of Jerusalem. It also called for an emphasis on the illegality of settlement expansion. The factions called for efforts to lift the siege on Gaza and end the occupation of the West Bank.

They also stood by the goal of forcing Israel "to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and preventing attempts to establish its occupation or control over any part of the Gaza Strip under the pretext of buffer zones," as called for in the Israeli prime minister's recently unveiled plan for a post-war Gaza.

The statement completely rejects "any attempts to separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, including Jerusalem, as part of efforts to rob the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination."

General Framework on Ceasefire Must Satisfy Demands of Palestinian Resistance

Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan recently spoke about the talks taking place to achieve a ceasefire and overcome Israel's obstructions. The Palestinian Information Centre reports that according to Hamas, Israel is obstructing talks for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange because its interest is only the exchange of prisoners – nothing more.

Hamdan said that Israel only wants to exchange prisoners, while the resistance demands an end to the aggression on Gaza once and for all and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in addition to allowing in aid, starting reconstruction, and returning the displaced to their homes. Hamdan stressed that any prisoner exchange deal should come within this context. He explained on March 1 that there will not be a detailed exchange of information on prisoner exchange until a general framework of an agreement that satisfies the demands of the resistance movement is reached. Until now, the Israelis are still obstructing the negotiation process and trying to gain more time, and their philosophy throughout this path is to ensure the continuation of the aggression on the Gaza Strip, Hamdan said. The Hamas leader also said that U.S. President Joe Biden is not a mediator, but rather a partner in the aggression. He may have bet on the Israelis to eliminate the resistance, but he failed, Hamdan said.

Call to Defend Palestinian Access to
Al-Aqsa Mosque During Ramadan

Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas' political bureau, spoke on February 28 from Beirut. Haniyeh stressed that "the occupation and its partner, the United States of America, will not be able to obtain through political machinations what they did not obtain in fighting." He added that "any flexibility we show in negotiations is out of concern for the blood of our people."

"After 146 days of war, the occupation continues to practice the most horrific crimes known to humanity, including murder, extermination, displacement, and field executions," he said. He called the Israeli army "one of the most vile armies that humanity has ever known in its history."

While also urging the Axis of Resistance to step up attacks in support of Gaza, Haniyeh then called on the world, and particularly Arab leaders, to "confront this enemy and curb its aggression to discourage it from invading Rafah." He also called on Palestinians and Arabs at large to "break the siege of Al-Aqsa from the first day of the blessed month of Ramadan." This year Ramadan takes place from March 10 to April 9.

"The occupation delusively believes that it can [curtail the Al-Aqsa Flood] via measures against Al-Aqsa Mosque. The minimum that we accept in Al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy sites is the status quo in accordance with international law."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office has already announced his government will "impose restrictions" on Muslim worshipers trying to access Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem. According to reports in Hebrew media, Netanyahu acquiesced to the demands of Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, "who wants to limit Palestinian Muslims from the occupied West Bank -- as well as those with Israeli citizenship in the 1948-occupied territories -- from entering the holy site during Ramadan." The reports say the restrictions are to be based on age criteria and will be determined later.

On February 27, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said: "Hamas's main goal is to use Ramadan, with an emphasis on [Al-Aqsa Mosque] and Jerusalem, and turn it into the second phase of its plan that began on 7 October."

War cabinet member Benny Gantz also warned that if Israeli captives held in Gaza are not released by the start of Ramadan, Israel will broaden its assault in the Gaza Strip. Limiting access to Al-Aqsa Mosque came as Netanyahu said he would go ahead with a ground operation in Rafah regardless of any ceasefire deal.

U.S. President Joe Biden, in a statement dismissed by Israeli, Qatari and Palestinian officials, said he "expects" a ceasefire deal to be reached before the start of Ramadan.

(Al-Mayadeen News)

Hezbollah Security Personnel Arrest
Suspicious Foreign Nationals in Lebanon

Demonstration in Lebanon in solidarity with the Palestinian people, December 31, 2023

Since October 8, 2023, when the Lebanese resistance organization Hezbollah expressed its support for the Palestinian resistance under attack by the Israeli army, the embassies of several countries which support Israel, including Britain and Canada, have brought special forces, ammunition and advanced equipment into Lebanon under the pretext of evacuating their diplomats and nationals if the situation deteriorates.

The newspaper Al-Akhbar reported in November that mysterious foreign military cargo flights, potentially carrying equipment for use against Hezbollah, were landing at the Beirut and Hamat airports. According to Intelsky, a website monitoring aircraft movement in the region, between November 14 and 20, nine planes from various NATO countries were recorded landing at Beirut and Hamat airports, including several flying from Tel Aviv.

News agencies now report that Hezbollah security personnel have recently arrested Dutch and Spanish nationals as part of a program of additional measures initiated by Hezbollah security officials in response to increased efforts by Israeli and other foreign intelligence agencies to collect information needed to assassinate Hezbollah and Hamas cadres. Israel assassinated prominent Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri in an airstrike in the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiya in December and prominent Hezbollah commander Ali Hussein Burji in January in south Lebanon.

On February 28 Hezbollah security personnel arrested six Dutch nationals in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Al-Akhbar reported. The men were found in possession of military-grade weapons, ammunition and equipment. The Dutch government claimed the six men were part of a special group sent to evacuate its nationals if the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel expanded.

Hezbollah handed the men over to the Lebanese Intelligence Directorate, where they were interrogated and kept in detention until the early morning on March 1. Sources speaking with Al-Akhbar said the six men claimed to be members of the Dutch military, simulating an evacuation attempt from inside the southern suburb, the newspaper reported. Contact with them was lost after they entered the southern suburb and were stopped by Hezbollah security personnel. Two employees of the Dutch embassy residing in the southern suburb allegedly participated in the failed simulation, the newspaper says.

However, journalist Hasan Illaik of the Lebanese news outlet Al-Mahatta reported that the embassy employees were not Dutch nationals and that the "Dutch ambassador to Lebanon quickly arrived at the ministry to pressure their release, under the pretext that they had not committed any crime. This is, of course, untrue given that this is a major violation of the law and that it was a significant security threat."

Illaik added that, "even more suspiciously, the armed group claimed to have carried out the operation without consulting their own embassy. It was also discovered that they launched their operation from Kaslik," a coastal town north of Beirut, "rather than from the embassy or a place affiliated with the embassy." Neither the Lebanese military nor the Dutch government provided an official statement or explanation for the incident.

Al-Akhbar reported on March 2 that Hezbollah's security service arrested a Spanish national in the Al-Kafaat area in the southern Beirut suburbs. The man was filming with his phone on the street, claiming he was lost and needed to send his location to friends to pick him up. However, during the interrogation, it was discovered that his phone contained an advanced program preventing access to the stored data. High-level officials from the Spanish embassy then intervened to win his release. It was later discovered that the man possessed a diplomatic passport.

International Court of Justice

Public Hearings on Legal Consequences Arising from Policies and Practices of Israel in
Occupied Palestinian Territory

Hearing of the International Court of Justice, February 23, 2024.

The International Court of Justice held public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The request came from the General Assembly which, on December 30, 2022, adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 in which, referring to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, it requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion. The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows:

"The General Assembly, ...

"18. Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to render an advisory opinion on the following questions, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004:

"(a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?

"(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?"

By a letter dated January 17, 2023, the Secretary-General of the United Nations transmitted the request for an advisory opinion to the Court. By letters dated January 19, 2023, the Registrar gave notice of that request to all States entitled to appear before the Court, pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 1, of the Statute.

By an Order dated February 3, 2023, the Court decided "that the United Nations and its Member States, as well as the observer State of Palestine, are considered likely to be able to furnish information on the questions submitted to the Court for an advisory opinion and may do so within the time-limits fixed in the Order". Pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 2, of its Statute, the Court fixed July 25, 2023 as the time-limit for the presentation of written statements on the questions.

Fifty-seven written statements were filed in the Registry within that time-limit. By the same Order, the Court fixed October 25, 2023 as the time-limit within which states and organizations having presented written statements may submit written comments on the written statements made by other states or organizations, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4, of its Statute.

The Court subsequently authorized, at their request, the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union to participate in the proceedings.

The hearings were held February 19-26, 2024 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court. Take note that the request for the court to provide an advisory opinion was made in December 2022 and is separate from the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel.

During the hearings, the State of Palestine, 49 Member States of the United Nations and three international organizations presented oral statements (in the following order): Palestine, South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Russian Federation, France, The Gambia, Guyana, Hungary, China, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Türkiye, Zambia, the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the African Union, Spain, Fiji and the Maldives.

Canada declined to participate, repeating a position which is intent on giving Israel more time to conduct its murderous operation against the Palestinian people. Global Affairs Canada issued a statement saying "an oral submission was unnecessary because the government's position, while still relevant, has not changed," Canadian Press reported on February 20. CP wrote: "In a written submission from last summer, Canada says it should be the UN Security Council, not the General Assembly, to help broker a negotiated peace. Canada is urging the court not to issue an advisory opinion for fear it would disrupt efforts to work towards a two-state solution."

The press release issued by the ICJ on the day the hearings concluded points out that the verbatim records of the hearings, including the lists of participating delegations, are available on the case page on the Court's website. High-resolution video clips and still photos produced by the Registry during the hearings are available free of charge and free of copyright for editorial, non-commercial use, on the Multimedia page on the Court's website.

The Court informed that its advisory opinion will be delivered at a public sitting, the date of which will be announced in due course.

For the court's website click here.

For the presentations of the countries and international organizations which took part in the hearings click here.

Presentation by Dr. Ralph Wilde on Behalf of League of Arab States

This TML Supplement on Palestine is posting for information of our readers the presentation by Dr. Ralph Wilde, Senior Counsel and Advocate on behalf of the League of Arab States on the legal questions before the International Court of Justice on March 1. Dr. Wilde is an associate professor at University College London, Faculty of Laws.

His presentation provides the legal basis to affirm the Palestinian right to self determination. Amongst other things it provides the proof that there is no basis in international law for the apartheid state of Israel to exist. And that international law requires Israel to end the occupation without conditions, including so called "guarantees of security" and other such claims. It also shows that the argument that the state of Israel has been granted an exceptional right to "defend itself" arising from the Holocaust is completely bogus, as the illegal creation of the apartheid state goes back to British violations of the right to self-determination recognized in the terms arising from the Treaty of Versailles.

A video of Dr. Wilde's presentation can also be viewed by clicking here.

***

Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour and privilege to appear before you, and to represent the League of Arab States.

More than Century-Long Denial of Self-Determination of, and War Against, the Palestinian People, on the Basis of Racism

The Palestinian people have been denied the exercise of their legal right to self-determination through the more than century-long violent, colonial, racist effort to establish a nation State exclusively for the Jewish people in the land of Mandatory Palestine.

When this began after the First World War, the Jewish population of that land was 11 per cent. Forcibly implementing Zionism in this demographic context has necessarily involved the extermination, or forced displacement of, some of the non-Jewish Palestinian population; the exercise of domination over, and subjugation, dispossession and immiseration of, remaining non-Jewish Palestinians; the emigration to that land of Jewish people, regardless of any direct personal link; and the denial of Palestinian refugees the right to return. All operating through a racist distinction privileging Jewish people over non-Jewish Palestinian people.

This has necessitated serious violations of all the fundamental, jus cogens and erga omnes norms of international law -- the right of self-determination, the prohibitions on aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, racial discrimination, apartheid and torture -- and the core protections of international humanitarian law.

Today I will address, first, violations of international law arising out of the regime of racial domination -- apartheid -- perpetrated against the Palestinian people across the entire land of historic Palestine, and then, second, the existential illegality of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967.

As a necessary prerequisite, I must begin with the special right granted to the Palestinian people in the League Covenant.

Palestinian Self-Determination Under Article 22 of
League of Nations Covenant

The legal right of self-determination of the Palestinian people originates in the "sacred trust" obligations of Article 22 of the League Covenant, part of the Versailles Treaty. Palestine -- an "A" class Mandate under British colonial rule -- was, after the First World War, supposed to have its existence as an independent State "provisionally recognized": a sui generis right of self-determination.

The United Kingdom and other members of the League Council attempted to bypass this, incorporating the 1917 Balfour Declaration commitment to establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine into the instrument stipulating how the Mandate would operate.

However, the Council had no legal power to bypass the Covenant in this way. It acted ultra vires, and the relevant provisions were, legally, void. There was and is no legal basis in that Mandate instrument for either a specifically Jewish State in Palestine, or the United Kingdom's failure to discharge the "sacred trust" obligation to implement Palestinian self-determination.

Self-Determination in International Law After the Second World War -- an Additional Right

After the Second World War, a self-determination right applicable to colonial peoples generally crystallized in international law.

For the Palestinian people, this essentially corresponded to, and supplemented, the pre-existing Covenant right, regarding the same, single territory. The 1947 proposal to partition Palestine was contrary to this; the Arab rejection an affirmation of the legal status quo.

In 1948, then, Palestine was, legally, a single territory with a single population enjoying a right of self-determination on a unitary basis.

Nakba in 1948 -- Violation of Self-Determination and Creation of a Regime Involving an Ongoing Violation of This Right, as Well as Racial Discrimination and Apartheid and a Denial of the Right to Return

Despite this, a State of Israel, specifically for Jewish people, was proclaimed in 1948 by those controlling 78 per cent -- more than three quarters -- of Palestine, accompanied by the forced displacement of a significant number of the non-Jewish Palestinian population -- the Nakba, catastrophe. This illegal secession was an egregious violation of Palestinian self-determination. Israel's statehood was recognized, and Israel [was] admitted as a United Nations Member, despite this illegality. Israel is not the legal continuation or successor of the Mandate.

This violation of Palestinian self-determination is ongoing, and unresolved. Two key elements are:

First, Palestinian people not displaced from the land proclaimed to be of Israel in 1948, and their descendants, have been forced to live as citizens -- presently they constitute 17.2 per cent -- of a State conceived to be of and for another racial group, under the domination of that group, necessarily treated as second class, because of their race.

Second, Palestinian people displaced from that land, and their descendants, cannot return.

These are serious breaches of the right of self-determination, the prohibitions of racial discrimination and apartheid, and the right of return. They must end, immediately.

1967 Israeli Capture of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank
(Including East Jerusalem)

As if this ongoing Nakba was not catastrophic enough, in 1967 Israel captured the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine -- the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem -- the Naksa. It has maintained that use of force to remain in control for the 57-year period since.

Illegal Racial Domination -- Apartheid -- from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

For more than half a century, then, a State defined to be of and for Jewish people exclusively has governed the entire land of historic Palestine and the Palestinian people there. And the regime of racial domination -- apartheid -- and denying return, has been extended throughout. In the case of Palestinians living in the occupied territory, this has involved the same serious violations of international law, supplemented by serious violations of norms applicable in occupied territory.

Indeed, these people are subject to an even more extreme form of racist domination, as they are not even citizens of the State exercising authority over them. Even in East Jerusalem, which Israel has purported to annex, the majority non-Jewish Palestinian residents do not have citizenship, whereas Jewish residents, including illegal settlers, are citizens.

Just as in territorial Israel, in occupied territory, these serious violations concerning how Israel exercises authority over the Palestinian people must end immediately.

However, here, a more fundamental matter must also be addressed. The illegality of the exercise of authority itself.

The Gaza Strip and West Bank as Palestinian Territory, with the Consequence That Israel's Purported Annexation, and Attempted Colonization, Are Illegal

The enduring Palestinian right of self-determination means that the Palestinian people, and the State of Palestine, not Israel, are sovereign over the territory Israel captured in 1967. For Israel, the land is extraterritorial, and, given what I said about the Mandate, territory over which it has no legal sovereign entitlement.

Despite this, Israel has purported to annex East Jerusalem and taken various actions there and in the rest of the West Bank constituting de jure and de facto purported annexation, including implanting settlements. It is Israeli policy that Israel should be not only the exclusive authority over the entire land between the river and the sea, but also the exclusive sovereign authority there.

This constitutes a complete repudiation of Palestinian self-determination as a legal right, since it empties the right entirely of any territorial content.

Actualizing this through de facto and de jure purported annexation is, first, a serious violation of Palestinian self-determination and, second, because it is enabled through the use of force, a violation of the prohibition on the purported acquisition of territory through the use of force in the law on the use of force, and so an aggression. Serious violations of further areas of law regulating the conduct of the occupation are also being perpetrated, notably the prohibitions on implanting settlements and altering, unless absolutely prevented, the legal, political, social and religious status quo.

The occupation is, therefore, existentially illegal because of its use to actualize purported annexation. To end this serious illegality, it must be terminated: Israel must renounce all sovereignty claims and all settlements must be removed. Immediately.

However, this is not the only basis on which the occupation's existential legality must be addressed.

We need to delve deeper into both the law of self-determination and the law on the use of force.

Self-Determination as a Right to Be Self-Governing, Requiring the
Occupation to End Immediately

Beginning with self-determination: this right, when applied to the Palestinian people in the territory Israel captured in 1967, is a right to be entirely self-governing, free from Israeli domination.

Consequently, the Palestinian people have a legal right to the immediate end of the occupation. And Israel has a co-relative legal duty to immediately terminate the occupation.

This right exists and operates simply and exclusively because the Palestinian people are entitled to it. It does not depend on others agreeing to its realization. It is a right.

It is a repudiation of "trusteeship," whereby colonial peoples were ostensibly to be granted freedom only if and when they were deemed "ready" because of their stage of "development" determined by the racist standard of civilization. The anti-colonial self-determination rule replaced this with a right based on the automatic, immediate entitlement of all people to freedom, without preconditions. In the words of General Assembly resolution 1514, "inadequacy of . . . preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence."

Some suggest that the Palestinian people were offered, and rejected, deals that could have ended the occupation. And, therefore, Israel can maintain it pending a settlement. Even assuming, arguendo, the veracity of this account, the "deals" involved a further loss of the sovereign territory of the Palestinian people.

Israel cannot lawfully demand concessions on Palestinian rights as the price for ending its impediment to Palestinian freedom. This would mean Israel using force to coerce the Palestinian people to give up some of their peremptory legal rights: illegal in the law on the use of force and, necessarily, voiding the relevant terms of any agreement reached. The Palestinian people are legally entitled to reject a further loss of land over which they have an exclusive, legal, peremptory right. Any such rejection makes no difference to Israel's immediate legal obligation to end the occupation.

The Occupation as an Illegal Use of Force in the Jus Ad Bellum as a General Matter (Beyond the Link to Purported Annexation)

Turning to the law on the use of force: Israel's control over the Palestinian territory since 1967, as a military occupation, is an ongoing use of force. As such, its existential legality is determined by the law on the use of force, as a general matter, beyond the specific issue of annexation.

Israel captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank from Egypt and Jordan in the war it launched against them and Syria. It claimed to be acting in self-defence, anticipating a non-immediately imminent attack. The war was over after six days. Peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan were subsequently adopted

Despite this, Israel maintained control of the territory -- continuing the use of force enabling its capture.

Israel's 1967 war was illegal in the jus ad bellum -- even assuming, arguendo, its claim of a feared attack, States cannot lawfully use force in non-immediately imminent anticipatory self-defense.

Alternatively, assuming -- again arguendo -- that the war was lawful, the justification ended after six days. However, the jus ad bellum requirements continued to apply to the occupation as itself a continuing use of force. In 1967, with self-determination well established in international law, States could not lawfully use force to retain control over a self-determination unit captured in war, unless the legal test justifying the initial use of force also justified, on the same basis, the use of force in retaining control. Moreover, this justification would need to continue, not only in the immediate aftermath, but for more than half a century. Manifestly, this legal test has not been met.

Israel's exercise of control over the Gaza Strip and West Bank through the use of force has been illegal in the jus ad bellum since the capture of the territory, or, at least, very soon afterwards.

The occupation is, therefore, again existentially illegal in the law on the use of force -- an aggression -- this time, as a general matter, beyond illegality specific to annexation. To terminate this serious violation, the occupation must, likewise, end immediately.

Illegal Force Does Not Become Lawful in Response to Resistance to it

What of Israel's current military action in Gaza? This is not a war that began in October 2023. It is a drastic scaling-up of the force exercised there, and in the West Bank, on a continual basis, since 1967. A justification for a new phase in an ongoing illegal use of force cannot be constructed solely out of the consequences of violent resistance to that illegal use of force. Otherwise, an illegal use of force would be rendered lawful because those subject to it violently resisted -- circular logic, with a perverse outcome.

Israel Cannot Lawfully Use Force to Control the Palestinian Territory for Security Purposes/Pending a Peace Agreement

More generally, Israel cannot lawfully use force to control the Palestinian territory for security purposes pending an agreement providing security guarantees. States can only lawfully use force outside their borders in extremely narrow circumstances. Beyond that, they must address security concerns non-forcibly.

The United States of America, the United Kingdom and Zambia suggested here that there is a sui generis applicable legal framework, an Israeli-Palestinian lex specialis. This somehow supersedes the rules of international law determining whether the occupation is existentially lawful. Instead, we have a new rule, justifying the occupation until there is a peace agreement meeting Israeli security needs. This is the law as these States would like it to be, not the law as it is. It has no basis in resolution 242, Oslo or any other resolutions or agreements. Actually, you are being invited to do away with the very operation of some of the fundamental, peremptory rules of international law itself. As a result, the matters these rules conceive as rights vested in the Palestinian people would be realized only if agreement is reached, and only on the basis of such agreement. At best, if there is an agreement, this means one that need not be compatible with Palestinian peremptory legal rights, determined only by the acute power imbalance in Israel's favour. At worst, if there is no agreement, this means that the indefinite continuation of Israeli rule over the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories, on the basis of racist supremacy and a claim to sovereignty, would be lawful. This is an affront to the international rule of law, to the United Nations Charter imperative to settle disputes in conformity with international law, and to your judicial function as guardians of the international legal system.

A final potential basis sometimes invoked to justify continuing the occupation should be addressed. Occupation and human rights law -- applicable to illegal and lawful occupations alike -- oblige Israel to address security threats in occupied territory. However, they only regulate the conduct of an occupation when it exists. They do not also provide a legal basis for that existence itself. Existential legality is determined by the law of self-determination and the jus ad bellum only. There is no "back door" legal basis for Israel to maintain the occupation through the imperatives of occupation and human rights law.

Existential Illegality of Israel's Occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, Including East Jerusalem

In sum: the occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is existentially illegal on two mutually reinforcing bases.

First, the law on the use of force. Here, the occupation is illegal both as a use of force without valid justification, and because it is enabling an illegal purported annexation. As such, it is an aggression.

Second, the law of self-determination. Here, it is illegal again because of the association with illegal purported annexation, and also, more generally, because it is, quite simply, an exercise of authority over the Palestinian people that, by its very nature, violates their right to freedom.

This multifaceted existential illegality -- involving serious violations of peremptory norms -- has two key consequences.

First: the occupation must end: Israel must renounce its claim to sovereignty over the Palestinian territory; all settlers must be removed. Immediately. This is required to end the illegality, to discharge the positive obligation to enable immediate Palestinian self-administration, and because Israel lacks any legal entitlement to exercise authority.

Second, in the absence of the occupation ending, necessarily, everything Israel does in the Palestinian territory lacks a valid international legal basis and is, therefore (subject to the Namibia exception), invalid, not only those things violating the law regulating the conduct of the occupation. Those norms entitle and require Israel to do certain things. But this does not alter the more fundamental position, from the law on the use of force and self-determination, that Israel lacks any valid authority to do anything, and whatever it does is illegal, even if compliant with or pursuant to the conduct-regulatory rules.

The Words of Refaat Alareer

I will close by quoting Palestinian academic and poet Refaat Alareer, from his final poem posted 36 days before he was killed by Israel in Gaza on 6 December 2023: If I must die, you must live to tell my story.... If I must die let it bring hope, let it be a story.

Thank you for your attention.

20th Anniversary of Coup Against Legitimately Elected Haitian President

Stand with Haiti! Justice! Dignity! Reparations!

– Pierre Soublière –

Gathering in Ottawa on 20th anniversary of coup in Haiti, February 29, 2024.

February 29 marks the 20th anniversary of the infamous coup carried out against Haiti by the U.S., France and Canada, ousting elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and forcing him into exile. The conspiracy was elaborated 13 months before, in total secrecy, in the Gatineau Hills of Quebec by the "Ottawa Initiative for Haiti," where not one single Haitian was present. To commemorate this crime against humanity and to discuss how to make the solidarity work with the Haitian people more effective, several events were organized for the occasion.

At noon, people gathered at the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill, where 20 years ago the Haitian community came out to denounce the Canadian government's complicity in the coup d’état carried out against Haiti. In the evening, a meeting was held at the Bronson Centre which close to 40 people attended. The discussion was led by Jean Saint-Vil, with the human rights lawyer Mario Joseph speaking from Port-au-Prince. Other speakers included Jennie-Laure Sully and Frantz André of Solidarité Québec-Haïti, Kevin Skeritt, who at the time of the coup was a union researcher, and author and activist Yves Engler. As well, an important video was produced by Jean Saint-Vil for the occasion.

Meeting in Ottawa, February 29, 2024

One of the things highlighted by these events is that the criminal, colonial intent of the coup against Haiti is not a matter of interpretation. It is there for everyone to see in the very statements of those who were among its main organizers or instigators. Clearly expressing the colonial perspective of "the white man's burden" -- that Black people cannot govern themselves -- Denis Paradis, then Liberal Secretary of State for Latin America, Africa and la Francophonie, and one of the main actors of the Ottawa Initiative on Haiti, stated in the House of Commons: "Time is running out, because it is estimated that Haiti's population could reach 20 million in 2019. A time bomb must be stopped immediately." Later, following the premeditated crime in Haiti, when asked by a reporter if he considered that he had committed a coup d’état in Haiti, Paradis said "Not at all" and when asked what he thought of the suspension of Haiti's sovereignty, he in turn asked: "Is the principle of the sovereignty of states immutable?"

On December 31, 2003, less than two months before U.S. marines entered the residence of Haiti's president while Canadian soldiers secured the airport to facilitate the coup and occupation of Haiti, the Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luigi Einaudi, declared: "The real problem with Haiti is that the 'International Community' is so screwed up and divided that they are actually letting Haitians run Haiti." Other such statements include one in 2006 by Major Michael T. Ward in an article posted on an official Canadian government website titled "The Case for International Trusteeship in Haiti:" "The long history and unique culture of this country have given the Haitian people a strong sense of independence and nationhood. This poses a considerable challenge to the international community -- to develop and implement an approach that will be perceived as legitimate by the Haitian nation, not simply imposed by the outside powers."

The 20th anniversary events also pointed out that the coup did not simply involve the removal of Aristide, but the overthrow of a popular regime and the systematic dismantling of the Haitian nation state, with the removal of no less than 7,000 duly elected officials at all levels. This is what lies behind Canada's claims that it is "restoring democracy" or ensuring "free fair and elections."

It was confirmed that some of the gang leaders in Haiti are on a list of sanctions of the Canadian government, but that nothing has come of this and no information is shared with Haiti. The gangs are armed, according to UN reports, by the U.S. In fact, the base of one of the most infamous gangs is situated right in front of the U.S. embassy, which is the fourth largest in the hemisphere. Some of the armed gangs are giving themselves "revolutionary" credentials, but speakers pointed out that they will not bite the hand that feeds them, which is that of the U.S. and the 15 oligarchs who control Haiti.

Canada continues to support foreign interference and occupation of Haiti and the repression of the Haitian people. On February 22, confirming the old adage "With friends like that, who needs enemies?," the minister of Foreign Affairs Joly, stating that Canada and Haiti are "long-standing partners and friends," committed to allocate $123 million in funding, including $80.5 million to support the deployment of the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission that is being led by Kenya. The MSS, pushed by the U.S. and Canada, aims to block Haitian resistance and strengthen the Haitian National Police (HNP) in the name of improving “security conditions in Haiti for the civilian population." The announcement was made by Joly while at an international pledging event to control Haiti, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting. Another $4.5 million will be allocated to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to "strengthen Haiti's border management capacities to improve security." Mario Joseph pointed out that in this particular case, this money will probably go to the U.S. itself in its repression of Haitian migrants fleeing the country because of the dire conditions imposed by foreign occupation. He also said that the measures taken in Kenya to challenge the decision to send troops to Haiti as being unconstitutional was a result of solidarity work between members of the Haitian and Kenyan communities.

Both events were carried out in the spirit of the overall struggle of the peoples of the world in defence of their human rights and of peoples' right to be. In his video for the occasion, Jean explains that the Haitian national anthem includes the following lines: "Our nation Haiti is no gift from the White man, it is the blood of our Ancestors" and calls upon Canadians and Quebeckers to "stand with the beautiful, combative, unapologetically Black people of Haiti, who never cease to affirm a simple truth: We are all human."

The video "Why must a Canadian care about bloodshed in Haiti today?" can be found here.

Meeting in Toronto February 26, 2024, marks 20th anniversary of the coup.

Statement of National Movement for Liberty and Equality of Haitians for Fraternity

MOLEGHAF, the National Movement for Liberty and Equality of Haitians for Fraternity (Mouvement National pour la Liberté et L'égalité des Haïtiens pour la Fraternité), in it's recent analysis of the situation in Haiti urges the Haitian people to mobilise for popular sovereignty, and rejects the incessant calls for military intervention and occupation of Haiti.

Since the group of assassins known as the "PHTK" [Editor's Note: The Haitian Tèt Kale Party (French: Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale, Haitian Creole: Pati Ayisyen Tèt Kale, PHTK)] took control of political power, about 13 years ago, the Haitian people have been facing a dire situation, a suffocating situation, where social and economic conditions deteriorate more each day. Clearly, Ariel Henry, the de facto president, who was appointed as prime minister before Jovenel Moïse's assassination on July 7, 2021, is a criminal continuing the imperialist American death project in the country. His bloodthirsty government has established gangs to control all spaces where the people usually organize their lives.

In the political context of recent times, there has been an alliance of armed groups, politicians, and the bourgeoisie, all collaborating to crush any form of popular resistance in the country. Meanwhile, the cost of living is skyrocketing, insecurity is spreading, and life is losing all meaning; there is no refuge, schools are destroyed. The country is descending into chaos with violence and crime, preventing the majority of the population, especially women and peasants, from moving to other departments for supplies. Trade is paralyzed, and bandits seize or violate people, killing the poor and vulnerable. Almost the entire population lacks access to basic necessities. This situation helps us understand, at a higher level, how the imperialist system uses gang warfare to systematically attack collective well-being projects.

Protest against foreign intervention in Haiti, October 18, 2022.

At a time when the popular masses are seeking ways to organize themselves, the criminal political agenda is simultaneously seeking ways to renew its power, with de facto President Ariel Henry receiving various types of support for holding fraudulent elections in the country.

These considerations are not only directed towards politicians, we can also extend them to labor organizations and workers' centers that continue to dig their own graves under the leadership of foreign powers. When we witness the dismissal of workers at "Apparel Premium S.A" without salary, social benefits, or compensation, and these workers return home to take loans to meet the needs of their families, we cannot remain indifferent. Furthermore, in the 21st century, we witness multinational investors colluding with the government to confiscate land from peasants in PLENN MARIBAWOU, stealing their land to build the CODEVI factory. Peasants who were once agricultural workers have now become textile workers.

Moreover, in 2023, during the workers' mobilization to demand better living and working conditions, factory owners sent armed groups to shoot at them, resulting in deaths and machete attacks. Others disappear. It's a tragedy.

The American imperialists and their allies use war to continue their exploitation of the oppressed masses. Every day, individuals from these masses fall victim to gang violence, gangs who are under the control of the American embassy. This prevents the masses from finding alternative paths to break the current system. Armed groups under the leadership of Guy Phillipe and others on the international level, such as the CORE GROUP, and on the national level, the government and the bourgeoisie, openly claim they are supporting the same masses who they massacred in 2018, 2019, and 2021 for their own interests. The American imperialists clearly know that the objective is to organize elections to renew their political satellites in power, to better protect their economic interests by plunging even deeper into the neoliberal politics that oppress the masses.

The American imperialists and their allies weakened all political strategies available to the oppressed. Initially, they collaborated with the social democratic movement, aligning with a significant portion of the Haitian "socialists" to continue holding the masses under bourgeois dictatorship. Then they denigrated all symbols of sovereignty, undermining all means for national life. This is one reason why, until today, there is no political party capable of challenging Ariel Henry at the head of the country. It is a form of totalitarian power, where the poor masses are subjugated under the grip of the PHTK. Even democratic words have lost their value.

The masses rose up to give a definitive response and overthrow the Duvalier dictatorship on February 7, 1986, and sought to establish a constitution that explained the true historical significance of democracy. However, on the same date, the American imperialists and puppet politicians trampled on it, causing the date to fall directly into banality. It is important for the masses to consolidate their democratic victories. This is why the masses must not let any enemy groups kill the political and symbolic dimension of February 7.

February 7 is for the masses; the masses must reclaim it. POINT BLANK.

After all these considerations, we in MOLEGHAF will never stop seeking voices and means to unite the masses for a true LEVE KANPE (UPRISING) against Ariel Henry and for the American imperialist death project to end us in our country. We will never stop denouncing the intrigues of the CORE GROUP, BINUH, OAS, EU, within the politics of the country. The current situation demands a true class alliance to uproot the PHTK gang's third version.

Popular masses, WHERE ARE YOU?

Farmers, workers, poets, singers, drivers, mechanics, professors, small merchants in general WHERE ARE WE?

People of Fort National, People of Solino, People of Belair, People of Carrefour, People of Martissant, People of Cité Soleil, People of Pernier, People of Martissant, People of Canaran, People of Artibonite, WHERE ARE YOU?

The time has come for us to gather, to overturn this cauldron that has been hanging over us for too long, and has descended on us in the name of the bourgeoisie's bloodsucking.

Our country is for us; we must be able to live peacefully in it. Long live Haiti! Long live the resistance of the popular masses!

David Oxygène, General Secretary of MOLEGHAF
Domini Resain, Mobilization Coordinator
Jelin Esaü Jules, Communication Coordinator

(Caribbean Organisation for Peoples Empowerment)

CARICOM Betrayal on Behalf of U.S.

– Jemima Pierre PhD –

If your knowledge of Haiti is derived entirely from the stories produced by western media outlets, you could be forgiven for believing that the following statements are true:

Haiti, a "failed state" over-run by "gang violence," can only be returned to stability via the invasion of a foreign military force. Haiti has a sovereign government with the legal authority to request a military invasion of the country to '"fight gangs." The United States, in pushing for Kenya and CARICOM [Caribbean Community] nations to lead a foreign armed invasion of Haiti, is acting with the best intentions in Haiti and is committed to securing peace and stability in Haiti and the Caribbean region. CARICOM is acting in solidarity with Haitian people and supporting Haitian sovereignty.

None of these statements is true. And, in fact, such statements help obscure not only the motivations behind the recent calls for foreign intervention in Haiti, but both the nature of Haiti's current political-economic reality, and the history of how Haiti got to this moment. Yet the repetition and over-saturation of such claims in the media, even in the Caribbean region, has duped much of the world into cheering for a foreign military intervention in Haiti. The truth is, under the guise of helping Haiti, Haiti's sovereignty and independence are actually being snuffed out.

So, what is going on in Haiti? Why is the U.S. pushing for yet another foreign military invasion of Haiti? Why are CARICOM countries helping? More importantly, why does Haiti receive so much attention from the United States?

To understand what is going on in Haiti is to understand how consistent the western imperial assault on Haitian people and Haitian sovereignty has been and remains. This assault is reflected in the reality that Haiti is currently under foreign occupation and has been for twenty years. This is no exaggeration.

The only solution to the current crisis in Haiti is the end of the current foreign occupation.

In 2004, Haiti celebrated the two-hundredth anniversary of its independence. In the same year, Haiti's independence was thwarted by foreign powers. A year earlier, France, Canada, and the U.S. hatched a plot during the meetings of the "Ottawa Initiative on Haiti" to overthrow Haiti's elected government. In the early morning hours of February 29, 2004, the plot unfolded. That morning, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. marines and sent to a military base in the Central African Republic. That day, George W. Bush announced he was sending U.S. forces to Haiti to "help stabilize the country," and by the evening two thousand U.S., French, and Canadian soldiers were already on the ground in Haiti. CARICOM, under the leadership of Jamaican Prime Minister P. J. Patterson vigorously protested the coup d'état.

The Franco-American-Canadian invasion force targeted and killed Aristide supporters, oversaw the installation of a puppet prime minister, and enabled the formation of a paramilitary force that set up anti-Aristide death squads. The coup was then cleaned up by the United Nations which, under the leadership of the UN Security Council permanent members U.S. and France, voted to dispatch a "peacekeeping" mission to Haiti. The mission was deployed under a "chapter 7" mandate allowing foreign soldiers to use full force against the population. The UN took over from U.S. forces and established the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (or MINUSTAH) for the tasks of military occupation under the guise of establishing peace and security.

A multi-billion-dollar operation, MINUSTAH had, at any given time, between 6,000 and 12,000 military troops and police stationed in Haiti, alongside thousands of civilian personnel. The military wing of the MINUSTAH mission was led by Brazil, which provided the lion's share of soldiers. However, this multinational military occupation force also contained soldiers from a number of Caribbean, South American, and African countries, including Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Jamaica, Grenada, Benin, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Guinea, Cameroon, Niger, and Mali.

The UN occupation under MINUSTAH was marked by its brutality towards Haitian people. Civilians were attacked and assassinated. "Peacekeepers" committed sexual crimes. UN soldiers dumped human waste into rivers used for drinking water, unleashing a cholera epidemic that killed between 10,000 and 40,000 people. The UN has never been held accountable for these crimes against Haitian people.

The occupation was solidified through the creation and operationalization of the Core Group. The Core Group is an unelected group of foreigners from Brazil, Canada, France, Spain, the U.S., Germany that appointed itself as arbiters of Haitian politics. Neither neutral nor passive, the Core Group plays an active, interventionist role in Haiti's everyday political affairs. It has worked to extend and protect foreign economic interests in Haiti. And it has consistently intervened in Haiti's sovereign political affairs, often without the collaboration or consent of the Haitian government.

It is claimed that this occupation officially ended in 2017 with the formal draw-down of the MINUSTAH mission. Yet the UN has remained in Haiti through a new office with a new acronym: BINUH, the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti. Haiti is currently run by a group of non-Haitian foreigners, the Core Group and the BINUH office, the very same people responsible for the destruction of its democracy.

The Core Group occupation is the source of the country's current predicament. The occupation forces have overseen the complete collapse of the Haitian state while enabling a group of rogue foreigners -- countries and corporations, and both non-governmental and multinational organizations -- to take over the broken fragments of Haiti's political economy, largely to serve foreign interests. In fact, it is under this occupation that the U.S. and its allies, France and Canada, installed the neo-Duvalierist Michel Martelly in 2011 in the difficult aftermath of the 2010 earthquake; Martelly's successor, Jovenel Moïse in 2016; and the current unelected de facto Prime Minister, Ariel Henry, following Moïse's assassination in 2021.

Under the Core Group occupation, life for the average Haitian has deteriorated. Yet we must also be clear: Haitian people have not taken occupation lightly. One of the most underreported aspects of the current "crisis" in Haiti is the continuous protest of the Haitian people against occupation and for self-determination. The people protested in the hundreds of thousands in 2004 following the removal of Aristide by the U.S., France, and Canada. They protested the imposition of another illegitimate president, Jovenel Moïse, in 2015 and 2016. They protested the corruption of the U.S.-imposed political party of Martelly and Moïse, PHTK, in 2018 and 2019. And they've been protesting the current unelected and de facto U.S.-installed Prime Minister, Ariel Henry.

For more than two years now, the U.S. has been pushing for a build-up of the military presence in Haiti to protect the puppet government of the unelected and unpopular Ariel Henry. It wants to protect this government in order to continue to control Haiti. In fact, Haiti's puppet governments have served the U.S. well. For example, it is Ariel Henry who enforced the IMF-backed removal of fuel subsidies for the people, which the U.S. has been pushing for years, and which has pushed the Haitian people into deeper poverty.

Now, the U.S. needs to maintain its control of Haiti as the country is strategically important for its geopolitical aims -- the further militarization of the Caribbean and Latin American region in preparation for its confrontation with China and to implement the Global Fragility Act. Yet the U.S. is not willing to put its own boots on the ground, turning instead, first to Canada, then Brazil, then the CELAC [Community of Latin American and Caribbean States] and CARICOM countries -- all of whom are reluctant to lead the mission, even if they supported the call for military intervention. The Kenyan government under William Ruto leapt at the opportunity to lead the intervention, bought off by a bag of silver and an approving pat on their neo-liberal heads. Haiti will now be invaded by the U.S., but with the Black face of Kenya and CARICOM countries as cover.

Have citizens of Kenya and CARICOM countries asked their governments why the U.S., Canada, or France won't send their own soldiers to invade and occupy Haiti this time? Have citizens of these countries considered that the unelected de facto "Prime Minister" Ariel Henry has no legal grounds to call for a foreign invasion of Haiti? Have citizens of these countries wondered why the U.S. or UN are not calling for foreign armed invasion of a place like Ecuador where brutal gangs have besieged the country, or Jamaica, with its near-constant state of emergency, or the U.S. itself with its daily mass-shootings? Have citizens of these countries wondered why the U.S. or UN are not calling for foreign armed invasion of Israel as it is committing genocide? Why Haiti?

We are told that the interest of the U.S. in Haiti is humanitarian, that the U.S wants to protect the Haitian people from "criminal gangs." Yet U.S. weapons have flooded Haiti, and the U.S. has consistently rejected calls to effectively enforce the UN Security Council resolution for an arms embargo against the Haitian and U.S. elite who import guns into the country. Moreover, when we speak of "gangs," we must recognize that the most powerful gangs in the country are subsidiaries of the U.S. itself: the United Nations Integrated Office (BINUH) and the Core Group, the two colonial entities that have effectively ruled the country since the coup d'état of 2004. It is this gang, the Core Group and its installed Prime Minister, Henry, who, along with the UN office in Haiti, is insisting on this violent solution to the crisis in the country -- a crisis they themselves helped to create.

As Haiti faces another invasion -- this time nominally led by Kenya and CARICOM countries -- I would like to ask the Caribbean community to think about the vast arsenal at the U.S. Empire's disposal to convince the rest of the world to gladly go along with another strike at Haitian sovereignty. I would also ask the Caribbean community to consider the fact that much of what we hear about Haiti today is a distortion -- or an outright fabrication -- of Haiti's social and political reality. Much of it lacks historical context, especially when it comes to the unrelenting meddling of the foreign agents and institutions, for understanding the Haitian situation. Much of it is based in a deep racism that presumes that Black people are ungovernable while resenting the implications of Haiti's historical commitment to Black freedom.

At the same time, the Haitian community's continued protests against foreign troops and Western meddling are a testament to their unwavering courage. Haiti is the site of one of the longest struggles in the world for both Black liberation and anti-colonial independence. This explains the U.S. Empire's constant reactionary onslaught against the people of Haiti, punishing their repeated attempts at sovereignty with decades of instability designed to secure and expand U.S. hegemony. For two centuries, imperial counterinsurgency against Haiti has aimed to terminate the most ambitious revolutionary experiment in the modern world. The tactics deployed to attack Haitian sovereignty have been consistent and persistent.

With Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Guyana this past weekend, reportedly partly to "continue to rally global support for the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission to Haiti," we must ask why CARICOM leaders want to participate in the destruction of Haitian sovereignty and people. And we must remember that the "crisis" in Haiti has been created and maintained by the U.S. and its allies. CARICOM countries must stand up against the foreign occupation of Haiti -- and not extend the crisis.

Jemima Pierre, Ph.D., is a Haitian-born Professor at the Social Justice Institute at the University of British Columbia and Research Associate at the Center for the Study of Race, Gender and Class at the University of Johannesburg.

(Caribbean Organisation for Peoples Empowerment)

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)

PDF

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca

(Al-Mayadeen News)

Demonstration in Lebanon in solidarity with the Palestinian people, December 31, 2023

Hearing of the International Court of Justice, February 23, 2024.

***

More than Century-Long Denial of Self-Determination of, and War Against, the Palestinian People, on the Basis of Racism

Palestinian Self-Determination Under Article 22 of League of Nations Covenant

Self-Determination in International Law After the Second World War -- an Additional Right

Nakba in 1948 -- Violation of Self-Determination and Creation of a Regime Involving an Ongoing Violation of This Right, as Well as Racial Discrimination and Apartheid and a Denial of the Right to Return

1967 Israeli Capture of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank (Including East Jerusalem)

Illegal Racial Domination -- Apartheid -- from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

The Gaza Strip and West Bank as Palestinian Territory, with the Consequence That Israel's Purported Annexation, and Attempted Colonization, Are Illegal

Self-Determination as a Right to Be Self-Governing, Requiring the Occupation to End Immediately

The Occupation as an Illegal Use of Force in the Jus Ad Bellum as a General Matter (Beyond the Link to Purported Annexation)

Illegal Force Does Not Become Lawful in Response to Resistance to it

Israel Cannot Lawfully Use Force to Control the Palestinian Territory for Security Purposes/Pending a Peace Agreement

Existential Illegality of Israel's Occupation of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, Including East Jerusalem

The Words of Refaat Alareer

Gathering in Ottawa on 20th anniversary of coup in Haiti, February 29, 2024.

Meeting in Ottawa, February 29, 2024

Meeting in Toronto February 26, 2024, marks 20th anniversary of the coup.

Protest against foreign intervention in Haiti, October 18, 2022.

(Caribbean Organisation for Peoples Empowerment)

(Caribbean Organisation for Peoples Empowerment)

Palestinian Self-Determination Under Article 22 of
League of Nations Covenant

1967 Israeli Capture of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank
(Including East Jerusalem)

Self-Determination as a Right to Be Self-Governing, Requiring the
Occupation to End Immediately