
Award-winning investigative journalist and founder/editor of ConsortiumNews.com, Robert Parry has passed away. His ground-breaking work uncovering Reagan-era dirty wars in Central America and many other illegal and immoral policies conducted by successive administrations and U.S. intelligence agencies, stands as an inspiration to all in journalists working in the public interest.
Robert had been a regular guest on our Between The Lines and Counterpoint radio shows -- and many other progressive outlets across the U.S. over four decades.
His penetrating analysis of U.S. foreign policy and international conflicts will be sorely missed, and not easily replaced. His son Nat Parry writes a tribute to his father: Robert Parry’s Legacy and the Future of Consortiumnews.
If you've made a donation and wish to receive thank you gifts for your donation, be sure to send us your mailing address via our Contact form.
See our thank you gifts for your donation.
Between The Lines' coverage and resource compilation of the Resistance Movement
Selected speeches from the Women's March in Hartford, Connecticut 2018, recorded and produced by Scott Harris







Promoting Enduring Peace presented its Gandhi Peace Award jointly to renowned consumer advocate Ralph Nader and BDS founder Omar Barghouti on April 23, 2017.
Subscribe to our Weekly Summary & receive our FREE Resist Trump window cling
Email us with your mailing address at contact@btlonline.org to receive our "Resist Trump/Resist Hate" car window cling!
who helped make our 25th anniversary with Jeremy Scahill a success!
For those who missed the event, or were there and really wanted to fully absorb its import, here it is in video
Jeremy Scahill keynote speech, part 1 from PROUDEYEMEDIA on Vimeo.
Jeremy Scahill keynote speech, part 2 from PROUDEYEMEDIA on Vimeo.

"How Do We Build A Mass Movement to Reverse Runaway Inequality?" with Les Leopold, author of "Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice,"May 22, 2016, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, 860 11th Ave. (Between 58th and 59th), New York City. Between The Lines' Scott Harris and Richard Hill moderated this workshop. Listen to the audio/slideshows and more from this workshop.
Listen to audio of the plenary sessions from the weekend.
Listen to the full interview (30:33) with Jeremy Scahill, an award-winning investigative journalist with the Nation Magazine, correspondent for Democracy Now! and author of the bestselling book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army," about America's outsourcing of its military. In an exclusive interview with Counterpoint's Scott Harris on Sept. 16, 2013, Scahill talks about his latest book, "Dirty Wars, The World is a Battlefield," also made into a documentary film under the same title, and was nominated Dec. 5, 2013 for an Academy Award in the Best Documentary Feature category.
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 in its entirety is archived after midnight ET
Monday nights,
and is available for at least a year following broadcast in
WPKN Radio's Archives.
You can also listen to
full unedited interview segments from Counterpoint, which
are generally available some time the day following broadcast.
Subscribe to Counterpoint bulletins via our subscriptions page.
Progressive ResourcesA compilation of activist and news sites with a progressive point of view
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.
Learn how to support our efforts!
Posted Sept. 21, 2011
Interview with Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, conducted by Melinda Tuhus
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: