Announcements Announcements

unac

United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) Conference, Stamford, CT March 25, 2012 Selected audio from plenary sessions and panel discussions

Welcome to our site.

Please note that this site is best viewed through Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.0, Safari 1.0, Google Chrome, Opera 6.0 or Netscape 6.0, or later. Please send any comments via our Contact form.

Broadcast-Quality MP3

Please select the "Current Broadcast MP3" item under the "For Stations" button in the Navigation Bar.

Listen to Scott Harris Live on WPKN Radio

Between The Lines' Executive Producer Scott Harris hosts a live, weekly talk show, "Counterpoint" from which some of Between The Lines' interviews are excerpted. Listen every Monday evening from 8 to 10 p.m. EDT at www.WPKN.org (Follows the 5-7 minute White Rose Calendar.)

Counterpoint is archived in its entirety on WPKN Radio's Archives after midnight ET Monday nights.

Subscribe to Counterpoint via email.

Between The Lines Blog  BTL Blog

"Lessons on Corporate Media's Role in Promoting U.S. War: Next Target Iran," by Scott Harris, April 30, 2012

"One Blue Sky Above Us": 40,000 Norwegians Respond to Breivik's Hate with Love for Children of the Rainbow," by Anna Manzo, April 27, 2012

UPDATED: "Part III: What the Trayvon Martin Case Reveals about Stand Your Ground and Concealed Weapons Laws," by Anna Manzo, April 13, 2012

"Part II: What the Trayvon Martin Case Reveals about Stand Your Ground and Concealed Weapons Laws," by Anna Manzo, April 5, 2012

"Part I: What the Trayvon Martin Case Reveals about Stand Your Ground and Concealed Weapons Laws," by Anna Manzo, March 30, 2012

"The Doonesbury Abortion Series That May Not Have Come to a Newspaper Near You," by Anna Manzo, March 24, 2012

"Update on States, Counties, Cities Opposing NDAA," by Anna Manzo, March 21, 2012

"Filmmaker Michael Moore and More at the Left Forum," by Anna Manzo, March 20, 2012

Special Programming Special Programming

MP3: Nathan Schneider (www.wagingnonviolence.org) has been reporting on the OWS movement from its first days in August, 2011. In this April 3, 2012 interview, Richard Hill asks him to assess the on-going debate in the movement between those espousing a strict adherence to non-violence principles and practices and those advocating a 'diversity of tactics', Interview conducted by Richard Hill, WPKN

Recent BTL Interview Topics

Economy War health care

Environment  Human/Civil Rights U S Politics International Politics

Progressive Resources

A compilation of activist and news sites with a progressive point of view

Share this content:

|

Podcasts Subscribe to BTL

Podcasts:  direct  or  via iTunes

Subscribe to Program Summaries, Interview Transcripts or Counterpoint via email or RSS feed

If you have other questions regarding subscriptions, feeds or podcasts/mp3s go to our Audio Help page.

Between The Lines Blog

Stay connected to BTL

RSS feed  twitter  facebook

donate  Learn how to support our efforts!

shop  Online Store

newswire Newswire

U.S. Politics

Economy

Bush Accountability

International Affairs

"Postwar" Occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan

Civil Liberties/ Human Rights

Environment and Sustainability

Media Issues

Activism

Palestinians Vow to Test Bid for Statehood at United Nations

Real Audio  RealAudio MP3  MP3

Posted Sept. 21, 2011

Interview with Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, conducted by Melinda Tuhus

palestinian

Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, and president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is traveling to the opening session of the United Nations in New York this week, where he says he intends to apply for membership as the world's 194th state in the UN Security Council. If he does, the U.S. has promised to use its veto to defeat the proposal. Further, the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubinstein, has stated that the U.S. would cut aid to the Palestinian Authority if the PLO moves ahead with its U.N. bid for statehood.

Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, has the additional option of making an application in the U.N. General Assembly to advance the PLO’s status from Observer Entity to Observer State, encompassing pre-1967 Palestine including Gaza, all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – territory that many previous U.N. resolutions recognize as illegally occupied territory that Israel must leave.

Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of books including, "Understanding the Palestinian/Israeli Confict: A Primer" and "Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's United Nations." She explains that any decision the Palestinians make can result in both positive and negative consequences. Bennis also points out that the situation is complicated by Israel's boots on the ground in occupied Palestine – with more than half a million Jewish settlers living in the Israeli-controlled West Bank and East Jerusalem – and a heavy military presence throughout the territories.

PHYLLIS BENNIS: The situation on the ground, obviously, is far more complex than that. It is militarily occupied; it is filled with more than 600,000 illegal settlers. These are Israeli Jewish settlers who live in Jews-only settlements who are violating international law every morning simply by waking up in their own beds, because they're living on illegally stolen land. This decision in the UN is not going to change that; nobody has the idea that it will. It's a political move, and it does two important things and raises two important dangers. The positive things it does, is No. One – and probably the most important – it challenges the idea that the only game in town is the Washington-backed, 21-year long failure of a so-called peace process. That hasn't worked for 21 years; there's no particular reason to think it's going to work any time in the future. So this says once and for all that the venue for Palestinian/Israeli diplomacy is the UN, not the U.S. State Department.

No. 2, even if what I believe the more likely decision is made not to go to the Security Council – where the U.S. certainly will veto a membership bid. But rather, I think, regardless of the fact that Abu Mazen says he will go first to the Security Council, I don't think he will. Possible, but I think he will go first to the General Assembly, where the request will be not for membership, but for membership as a non-member state. The significance of that is not so much within the U.N. – it means the Palestinians still wouldn't be able to vote in the General Assembly; they wouldn't be a member. But it means that the U.N. has recognized them as a state – member or non-member is not so important. If you're a "state," you can join other treaties. You can sign the treaty, for example, to join the International Criminal Court. That means in theory – and again, all of this has far more to do with political will of various parties than it does with the official move – but in theory, it means the Palestinians could join the International Criminal Court, giving the court jurisdiction over its territory. As a signatory to the International Criminal Court, the Palestinians could begin the process of bringing charges to hold Israeli military and political officials accountable for potential war crimes. That's something that has the Israelis, and the U.S. we should add, very, very worried. Now, there's no guarantee it would happen that way; all the political realities mitigate against it, but it changes the political dynamic. So those are the two important advantages: one is this question of moving the diplomacy out of the U.S. and into the U.N.; second is the possibility to join international bodies like the International Criminal Court.

But there are dangers. And there's a reason a number of Palestinians, some inside the occupied territories – but an even greater number in the diaspora, among exiles, are very much afraid of this process and very much opposed to this initiative – because they are afraid that the transition from being represented at the U.N. by the PLO, the liberation organization that represents all Palestinians – those living under occupation in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, those living in refugee camps, those living all around the world as exiles, who are unable to return home – that they would no longer be represented, that this "state" would represent only those living in the occupied territories, which is less than half of the Palestinian population around the world.

The other fear is that the right of return – the right of refugees to return to their homes and be compensated, the right guaranteed in UN Resolution 194 – would be abandoned. That's the fear. Now, there's nothing legally requiring this new state if it came into being – even as a member of the UN – to give up representing Palestinian rights around the world and give up their advocacy for the right of return. The reality is they haven't made any headway on the right of return anyway, but that's the basis for the fear on the part of many Palestinians, that they will lose their representation and they will lose their advocacy on the right of return. So there are tradeoffs here; this is not an easy call for the Palestinians.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Phyllis Bennis, I know some people hope this might shift the ground enough that there could be a new basis for negotiations. What do you think about that?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: No, I don't think this is going to change. The U.S. has made clear that it is not prepared to challenge Israeli settlements, to challenge its military aid to Israel, to challenge the siege of Gaza, to challenge the Israeli rejection of the right of return. The Palestinian move is based on international law and human rights – exactly the opposite of what the U.S.-led so-called peace process is based on, which is Israeli power. Until that changes, there's no hope for these so-called peace talks. It's simply not going to work.

For more information about the Institute for Policy Studies, www.ips-dc.org

Related Links: