"Phyllis Bennis, experta en Medio Oriente y la relación de EE.UU. con esa región del Instituto de Estudios Políticos en Washington (IPS, por sus siglas en inglés), explicó a BBC Mundo que, en un ambiente de guerra civil, es muy difícil saber con certidumbre qué pasó y quién es responsable.

"'Ha habido acusaciones mutuas tanto del régimen como de los rebeldes sobre el uso de químicos. También hay que tener en cuenta la lógica de las fuentes que se utilizan para obtener la evidencia,' declaró la experta.

"'Reino Unido y Francia están exhortando a una mayor intervención y esto podría apoyar su causa. Lo mismo podría decirse de Qatar, Arabia Saudita y Turquía. Todos tienen sus razones para que Estados Unidos se involucre militarmente.'

"Para Bennis una intervención militar sería ilegal pues la autorización de una guerra sólo puede estar sustentada en una amenaza contra la seguridad nacional."

The original article was written in Spanish. Here, Bennis's comments are translated back into English.

"Phyllis Bennis, an expert on U.S.-Middle East relations at IPS, explained to BBC Mundo that amid a civil war, it's very hard to know with any certainty what happened and who is to blame.

"'There have been mutual accusations from the regime and the rebels regarding the use of chemical weapons. You also have to consider the sources that are bing used to obtain this evidence,' the expert said.

"'The UK and France are demanding more intervention and this strengthen their case. The same could be said of Qatar, Saudi Arabia,and Turkey. They all have their reasons for wanting the U.S. to get militarily involved.'

"For Bennis, military intervention would be illegal since teh authorization of a war can only be supported in the case of a threat against national security."

"'The government, the military and the police are very much on edge,' said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. 'They're anticipating violence and there's the possiblity that they could go looking for it.'"

So there is talk once again of a “new” US initiative in Israel-Palestine diplomacy. We have got a new secretary of state. John Kerry is shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah. Hopes are supposed to be rising again. 

Really? We are supposed to cheer the possibility that 21 years of failed US diplomacy might - just might - become 22? 

. . . But - if anyone inside is now peering outside the official Washington bubble to acknowledge the need for a different approach to Israel-Palestine diplomacy, that is all good. If anyone in the White House or State Department . . . begins to realise that doing the same thing over and over again, making the same failed claims that “the two sides have to sit together, both sides have to make compromises, only direct talks between the two parties can bring about peace” as if this were a negotiation between equals . . . rather than between a powerful, wealthy, nuclear-armed Occupying Power and an disempowered occupied people, that could mean the beginning of a new approach. 

"[I]t proves once again that [Obama's] got a Cracker Jack speech writing team. His speech in Jerusalem and even some of the stuff he said to the Palestinians was pretty great. You know, the man can talk. And the speech talked about justice . . . But the problem was he said all that wonderful stuff but made very clear, quite explicit, that if Israel simply said no, there would be no consequences. 

. . . But it was also important . . . that when the U.S. wants to pressure Israel for something they want, which in this case was a reconciliation between its two crucial allies in the region, Israel and Turkey, the U.S. gets what it wants . . . And that's one of the important lessons. The U.S. has the capacity to pressure Israel.

It doesn't use that capacity on behalf of the Palestinians. It will use it when necessary to gain something vis-a-vis Turkey. But so far we have not seen a commitment to the lovely words that President Obama spoke to justice, to an end of occupation, to equality. We're not seeing that."

Obama on Palestine: Talk is Cheap, Interview with Phyllis Bennis  

PHYLLIS BENNIS: One of the things that is so key, is what's missing from that assessment [the US' 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment]. They acknowledge that the US is not looked at favorably - it's done politely - but what they don't acknowledge is, why is the US not look at favorably? Because the US was backing up these dictators that this Arab Spring mobilization overthrew in all these countries and until there's some recognition of that, the idea that they're going to change the policies in ways that will enable closer relationships w/the governments is simply not going to be on the table.

The United Nations has come under heavy political fire for its decision to deny compensation for thousands of victims of cholera in Haiti - a deadly disease spread by U.N. peacekeepers in the troubled Caribbean nation.

. . . Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of several books on the United Nations, told IPS, "The apparently unprecedented effort to hold the U.N. institutionally accountable for the consequences of its negligence should focus on holding accountable the powerful countries - in Haiti."

. . . "The failures of the U.N.'s peacekeeping system are rooted in the dominance of major powers over UN operations, in which rich countries make the decisions while poor countries provide the troops - usually without adequate preparation, training, or, as we saw in Haiti, even decent facilities," said Bennis, author of 'Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN'.

But Obama didn’t seem to include in the list of “things he could do alone” the solo, individual decisions that are fundamental to the role of commander in chief. And that role could include, without Congress having to have any role in it, bringing home all the troops from the failed war in Afghanistan. Ending it. Totally. Quickly.

. . . And crucially, when we look at areas in which the President can make executive decisions, independent of the whims of a paralyzed, partisan congress, is there any clearer example than the Obama administration’s strategy of targeting and killing “terror suspects,” along with unknown numbers of civilian “collateral damage” in Obama’s Global War on Terror 2.0? 

. . . Focusing on the executive actions you can take without Congress is a great idea, Mr. President. But not unless that focus includes reversing the individually taken military actions that brought such disgrace on your administration’s first term.

A fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, Bennis told IBTimes UK that the [Israeli] elections were waged on issues around social questions such as social equality and recruitment of ultra-Orthodox Jews in the army.

"There seems not to be a significant divide between rich and poor on whether to maintain the occupation. It is a given that it should be continued," she said. 

. . .

Bennis also explained why the recent UN report on Israeli settlements was "a huge step forward".

"The finding about settlements and the fact that they deemed it as an ongoing violation is key because it . . . calls on Israel to stop settlement activity but goes further and says that the settlers must be removed - no one has ever said that before."

. . . "How a right is implemented is thoroughly negotiable," she said. "But rights are not negotiable. Recognition of the right has to come first and then you can negotiate how it can be implemented."