This recent Brother Ali video track is worth checking out.

Mourning in America is a powerful piece of work. Violence driven by America has produced a tidal wave of reaction and will continue to do so as long as America continues to regard the world as a battlefield in its so-called war on terror. Much of the reaction is in response to imperialism, to invasion and ongoing targeting. On the domestic front in the U.S. there is a different kind of battlefield with death rates as high as many war zones.

Brother Ali had this to say about the track and the album:

This is the title track to my new album, Mourning in America and Dreaming in Color. The first half of the album highlights and critiques the dire situation in which we live. The second half outlines the tremendous opportunity we have to re-imagine and reform our society. This song is an observation and a critique of our culture of death and murder. From actual war zones around the world to our own inner cities where this summer's death rates rival war zones. I also address our national hypocrisy regarding violence. We have a zero tolerance policy of violence committed against us, but we're a lot more lenient and patient when it comes to the violence we commit. "A life is a life and a killer is a killer" - Brother Ali.

A few years back Brother Ali took heat from some quarters for the song "Uncle Sam Goddamn." The lyrics include a play on words such as "Welcome to the united snakes... land of the thief, home of the slave...".

In the weeks following the Boston bombing, an icon of the black liberation struggle in the U.S., Assata Shakur, has turned up on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list. The timing is far from coincidental. It's the first time a woman has been placed on the bureau's terrorist list... in this case a black woman... for many a legendary figure in the fight against American racism and injustice. 

Assata Shakur's inclusion on the FBI list in part stems from the shooting death of a New Jersey state trooper in 1973, for which she was wrongly convicted. It's been 40 years since that event - but anniversary considerations aside - the decision to go after Shakur at this particular juncture is as much about politics as the State of New Jersey's wish to settle old scores.

Shakur was a prominent member of both the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army in the early 1970's. She is aunt and godmother of the late hip-hop artist Tupac Shakur. Now sixty-five years old, she has been living peacefully in Cuba since 1984.

The reasons the FBI gives for labeling her a "most wanted" terrorist have nothing to do with what most people understand as terrorism. Assata Shakur was a fighter for justice, a political activist, some might say a radical but she never employed violence against civilians in a "terroristic" fashion. To characterize the incident that led to her conviction as "terrorism" is totally misleading.

This is what happened. On May 2, 1973, Shakur, along with BLA members Sundiata Acoli and Zayd Malik Shakur were in a vehicle on the New Jersey Turnpike when they were stopped by state troopers - allegedly because of a faulty tail light. Shots were fired and a state trooper named Werner Foerster was killed, as was Zayd Malik Shakur.

Assata Shakur's lawyer, Lennox Hinds, describes what went down that fateful day during a Democracy Now interview:

... we need to look at what happened on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973. What they call Joanne Chesimard, what we know as Assata Shakur, she was targeted by the FBI, stopped. The allegation that she was a cold-blooded killer is not supported by any of the forensic evidence. If we look at the trial, we’ll find that she was victimized, she was shot. She was shot in the back. The bullet exited and broke the clavicle in her shoulder. She could not raise a gun. She could not raise her hand to shoot. And she was shot while her hands were in the air. Now, that is the forensic evidence. There is not one scintilla of evidence placing a gun in her hand. No arsenic residue was found on her clothing or on her hands. So, the allegation by the state police that she took an officer’s gun and shot him, executed him in cold blood, is not only false, but it is designed to inflame.

In 2001, during an appearance on the BET television network, Shakur said: "I was convicted by – I don't even want to call it a trial, it was lynching, by an all-white jury."

She spent two years in prison before making a dramatic escape with the help of some associates. After lying low in safe houses she eventually made it to Cuba, where she was welcomed as a freedom fighter.

The inclusion of Shakur - who is not a terrorist - on the terror list sends a number of messages, none of them good. For one thing after the passage of 40 years, labeling an activist who was part of a historical struggle against inequality and racism in America - a terrorist - shows a willingness to escalate. It raises questions about who else might be labeled a "terrorist" according to FBI criteria.

The targeting of Shakur is an effort to intimidate activists by demonstrating how far U.S. authorities are prepared to go to press their case. Possibly also to signal that not even sanctuary in a foreign jurisdiction is necessarily a guarantee of protection. The tactic itself has a lot in common with terrorism... attempting to instill fear through intimidation.

Unlike Angela Davis, Twymon Myers, H. Rap Brown and others who made it onto the bureau's crime list, Shakur is being placed on a terror list alongside Al Qaeda and Taliban members. The FBI is offering $1 million for Shakur. The New Jersey State Police has also raised a million, bringing the total to $2 million. It's like putting a bounty on her head. Cuban authorities are unlikely to comply with any American extradition request, but that won't necessarily deter others who might try to get to Shakur - it  could well place her life at risk.

Shakur's longtime lawyer, Lennox Hinds, appeared in a Democracy Now interview along with Angela Davis. I'm including it since it gives important insights into the Shakur case and what is behind the current targeting:

The faces in this powerful video represent the millions around the world who are united against Israeli apartheid. The faces represent all of us...  the eyes, the ears, the collective memory. These performers speak for us even as the US and other powers and agencies seek to give greater legitimacy to a state that hasn't begun to repay what it owes and that continues its policies of brutal oppression.  But the people of the world won't play their game or look away... until reparations are made... until justice is fully served. 

Published on Feb 18, 2013

This video was made on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, whose sovereignty never ceded.

The video was made with the assistance of the following supporters:

Camera: Fabio Cavadini
Lighting and Sound: Amanda King
Music (oud and daf): Mohamed Youssef
Music recordist: Ritchie Belkner
Music composer: Osloob of Katibeh 5
Video editor: Adrian Warburton

Produced by:

Rihab Charida and Aamer Rahman

Thanks to Salwa El-Shaikh, Jason De Santolo, Stephen Dobson, Frank Deveson, Sally Hanna Osborne and Theo Fatseas.

In order of appearance:

Mutulu “M1″ Olugbala
Peter Manning
Milan Ring
Lowkey (Kareem Denis)
Tuva El-Shaikh
Kerrie McGrath
Fatima Mawas
Awate Suleiman
Antony Loewenstein
Anika Moeen
Aamer Rahman

Reknowned British physicist, Stephen Hawking, has withdrawn from a conference scheduled to be held in Jerusalem in June. The conference - Facing Tomorrow - is to be hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres.

Last week Hawking wrote a brief letter to Peres announcing that he wouldn't be participating. The British Committee for the Universities of Palestine described the decision by Hawking as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there."

Hawking's principled decision is a welcome boost to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in its stand against Israeli policies of occupation and oppression. The move comes as other academic advances in the BDS drive against Israel have been making the news.

A Guardian article notes that: "In April the Teachers' Union of Ireland became the first lecturers' association in Europe to call for an academic boycott of Israel, and in the United States members of the Association for Asian American Studies voted to support a boycott, the first national academic group to do so."

In the past Hawking has been critical of Israeli policies. He described Israel's 2009 assault on Gaza as "plain out of proportion..." comparing the situation to South Africa before 1900. He has also said that "the policy of the current Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster."

The Guardian put up a poll to ask readers if they are for or against Hawking's decision. On last check 69% agreed with Hawking's decision... 31% disagreed.

Hawking has made the right decision on this. As a few commentators have noted Albert Einstein would likely have joined him in the boycott, since Einstein was a harsh critic of Israel on occasion. One can only imagine what Einstein would have thought about the present state with its apartheid policies and hardline oppression, let alone its brutal military assaults on the people of Gaza. 

Google has changed the tagline on its homepage in the occupied territories from "Palestinian Territories" to "Palestine." A Google spokesperson informed BBC that the company had consulted sources and authorities and was "...following the lead of the UN, Icann [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], ISO [International Organisation for Standardisation] and other international organisations."

It's hard to get overly enthused about a word above a Google search bar so long as actual Palestinians are under occupation, apartheid and treated like pariahs in their own land. Given the recent UN vote in favor of Palestine non-member observer state status, probably something of a symbolic gesture on Google's part to balance out all the Israel love it has been dishing.

You only have to watch Eric Schmidt all but service Benjamin Netanyahu in a video posted on Mondoweiss to get that luvvin' vibe. In the course of the touchy feely chat, Schmidt gives kudos to the IDF and displays a Google logo with an Israeli flag while Bibi flashes a broad grin of satisfaction. A fragment of stolen dead sea scroll (framed) also gets passed around.

Schmidt seems unable to contain his enthusiasm, virtually tripping over his words as he gushes about Israel... "It's like the perfect positive storm..." he raves, " the sum of the education system... the way the military works... it's notably different from any other country... you really feel it!" Yes, well... Palestinians certainly do.

Schmidt: "It [Israel] has aspects of Silicon Valley that are quite distinct from any other countries."

Netanyahu: (laughing): "Same people!"

Schmidt: (laughing and patting Bibi's arm): "That's true!"




Google bias is in evidence elsewhere. The Mondoweiss article notes that GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth have anointed Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Jerusalem isn't Israel's capital, Tel Aviv is. The international community has long recognized it as such.

Mondoweiss:

The capital of Israel is and always has been Tel Aviv. Why, then, do GoogleEarth and GoogleMaps insist on marking Jerusalem as the capital? Israel occupies East Jerusalem in a brutal military occupation illegal under international law and condemned by UN Resolutions that not even the United States challenged. But Israel claims that an “undivided” Jerusalem is its capital, and that is what Google tells the world.

Is Google waging war-by-map on behalf of Israel? If not, what is its standard for accuracy?[1] As regard physical geography, that’s relatively straight-forward. But standard for accuracy in political geography? What else could be a guide but the rule of law?

Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian - born in Haifa, son of German-Jewish parents who fled Nazi persecution. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom - director of the university's European Centre for Palestine Studies and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies.

Professor Pappé is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), The Modern Middle East (2005), A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (2003), and Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988).

In the above Press Club address Pappé exposes some of the Zionist mythologies surrounding the foundation of Israel that pass for truth in some circles. He dismisses the idea that Palestine was in some sense an "empty" land for the settling and takes the view that the flight of some 700,000 Palestinians amounted to ethnic cleansing in accordance with the Israeli Plan Dalet.

This is a 2012 video that I had difficulty sourcing at the time. It is one of the better videos I've come across due in part to the format, but also because both the address and follow-up interactions with the audience provide a comprehensive overview of key elements of Pappé's position.

Ilan Pappé supports the one-state solution... a binational state for both Palestinians and Israelis.

Over the summer I'll be working on getting a new site up and running. This has been in the works for a while. It represents a new direction that I don't think can be supported on Drive-by Planet. A new back-up OS is a large incentive.

Intend to continue posting here, although maybe not as regularly as I'd like.

Definitions of terrorism:

"The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
 - Merriam Webster

"Systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal."
 - Free Dictionary

"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
 - Dictionary.com

Noam Chomsky clarifies the definition with recourse to law:

I took the official definitions of terrorism, which were very good, I took the definition that is given in US and British law, which is a fine definition but has a flaw; If you apply it, it turns out the United States is one of the leading terrorist states in the world.

Terrorism is generally viewed as the weapon of the weak. The weapon of the outsider. But by any scale, terror in our world is overwhelmingly a weapon of the powerful.

Of course nations offer innumerable doctrinal justifications to cast their brand of terror as a defense on the grounds of national security, defense of democracy, a war-against-terrorism and so on...  but the civilian body count and destruction they are responsible for... the intimidation and fear they sow... the hatred they engender... paints a much different picture.

The terror spread by American drones in Waziristan, in Yemen and other killing fields has led to psychological and emotional trauma in local populations who live in dread wondering when and where the next strike will come. Nobody knows who might be next. Perhaps a young nephew and his friends will be targeted for the "crime" of being military age.

The invasion of Iraq was a crime... an act of unparalleled terrorism, despite the thin veneer of legality claimed by the U.S. It was an unprovoked attack on a country that had no WMD as claimed and that had nothing to do with 9/11. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of the invasion and subsequent violence, many thousands more wounded and displaced... the fabric of society ripped apart. The legacy of this crime is a country torn with internecine strife, that teeters on the brink of civil war.

The campaign of terror waged by America can't begin to be compared with Al Qaeda operations or operations by other resistance groups. In terms of the capacity to "intimidate" and "coerce" the greatest terrorist network on the face of planet earth is U.S. run and operated, even though it should be pointed out and amplified that a great many American citizens oppose the foreign policy of their own government.

The Irish-Americans of Boston were once a source of support and inspiration for nationalists in the north of Ireland during the dark days of The Troubles. During the hunger strikes by republican prisoners, the people of Boston protested the vile policies of Margaret Thatcher and raised funds. Cash was collected in pubs, clubs, churches, rallies... you name it.  They also stepped up in the wake of Sunday Bloody Sunday to show solidarity - opening their hearts and their wallets. We're not just talking the people of Boston, we're talking about civic leaders and prominent politicians too.

For example in 1981 the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring the hunger striker Bobby Sands. Also in 1981 the House adopted a resolution calling for the withdrawal of British Consul General Philip McKearney from Boston unless his government agreed to the "five demands" of the IRA prisoners.

Americans are a generous people at heart. Like the Irish, they are a people born of revolution who threw off the yoke of the British. So it's been disheartening over the past decade and more to see the support by so many Americans for neo-imperialism under the guise of the misguided war-on-terror... the broad support for the oppressive colonial-settler state of Israel with its apartheid policies and the lack of outcry over a drone program that has been wreaking death and destruction around the globe.

These policies will increasingly alienate the U.S. from the world community, create profound rifts and deepen isolation in a manner that will place Americans, both at home and abroad, at increased risk. The Boston bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev told investigators that he and his brother were motivated by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. foreign policy and its one-sided Israel support is inflaming an international stand-off that can only go from bad to worse unless American policies change.

The same Irish nationalists that Bostonians stood by in the dark days of The Troubles, identified closely with the struggle of the Palestinian people. In nationalist neighborhoods such as the Falls Road and the Ardoyne in Belfast... the Bogside in Derry... it wasn't uncommon to see wall murals twinning the resistance in the north of Ireland with that of the PLO in its struggle with Israel. Marches and demos were held in solidarity with the Palestinians.





Unfortunately that was a side of the struggle not embraced so wholeheartedly by the Irish-Americans of Boston. Their support for compatriots in the north of Ireland had most to do with a common heritage and ethnicity... and the bonds of religion. If only their support for civil rights and liberty had become more inclusive, extending to the Palestinian people also.

In the wake of the Boston bombing, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, made a few commonsense observations in an April 21 post in Foreign Policy Journal. He wrote:

The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East. Some of us naively hoped that Obama’s Cairo speech of 2009 was to be the beginning of such a process of renewal, and although timid in many ways, it was yet possessed of a tonality candidly acknowledged that relations with the Islamic world needed fundamental moves by the US Government for the sake of reconciliation, including the adoption of a far more balanced approach to the Palestine/Israel impasse. But as the months passed, what became evident, especially given the strong pushback by Israel and its belligerent leader, Bibi Netanyahu, were a series of disappointing reactions by Obama, which could be described as an accelerating backpedaling in relation to opening political space in the Middle East.

Falk also noted accurately that President Obama hasn't adopted a "more balanced approach to the Palestine/Israel impasse." Instead, Obama has been more about "succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel first."

Falk is right about this.

The world needs more Americans to stand up against oppression... to see that the "special relationship" with Israel is causing and will cause America more grief than it will ever be worth. The world needs Americans to stand up against the counter-productive war-on-terror and a drone program that is adding to America's enemies by the day. It needs Americans - like those who stepped up to support the N.I. nationalist community under the heel of Unionism - to extend support to the Palestinian people. The world needs it to be about the many, not the priorities of the few - the surest way by far to keep America safe.

Executive chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt,  recently went public with his concerns about 'everyman' drones getting into the wrong hands. Thinks they should be banned... might be a privacy threat. Guess Schmidt should know being a top exec of a company that some regard as one of the biggest privacy threats on the planet.

Google has a cosy relationship with Barack Obama who knows all about drones, so we should probably pay attention. Schmidt thinks we need to be aware of the potential of drones to "democratize the ability to fight war"...  and warns of drones being used to spy and harass. In other words the little people might get hold of them as opposed to you know... the cops, American military.

Drones in the hands of law enforcement is not reassuring. Neither is the use of drones by the Obama administration for misguided counter-terrorism purposes. I have yet to read Schmidt's concern for the mounting toll of innocents in the drone campaign. But we do get this by way of justification for drone use...  "It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing."

Really? Not according to international law, the UN and those countries whose sovereignty is being overridden without their say-so, just so the U.S. can add a few more corpses to the "done" column of its ever growing snuff sheet. Glenn Greenwald has a column that discusses some of these issues.

With regard to an 'everyman war' breaking out, with drones being deployed in unconventional ways, Schmidt raises the alarm: "You're having a dispute with your neighbor... How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"

His concern is a bit weird to be honest. More than a little rich coming from a head of a company with fleets of prowling observation cars. Not everyone is a millionaire with the cash and leisure time to invest in drone tech in order to spy on Bob for letting his dog take a dump under the rose bush. Most normal humans have other ways of dealing with that and other neighborhood issues, like picking up the phone. Maybe 'everyman' drones are more of a concern for billionaires who see one way in which their security could be breached that can't easily be covered by the usual deterrents.

Let's worry about the neighbors later if any of these somewhat paranoid scenarios pan out. Primarily we should be concerned about the abuse of drones by law enforcement, the military and concerned security-wise also about, well... GOOGLE.

Google is spy-central, a massive data collection magnet, even though it tries hard to present as the friendly giant. Google is on "our" side - right? Google can get down - right? Hell, here's proof. G founder Sergey Brin riding NY transit wearing an all-black outfit and sporting Google glasses. There he is, right alongside regular commuters - both of whom look slightly frightened. A regular man of the people.




There are legitimate privacy concerns in using Google services. Add a neighborhood fence sitter scanning with Google glass and a Google observation vehicle casing the house for Street View and it could prove more privacy compromising than having an irate neighbor launch a commercially purchased mini-drone that looks like a flying spider. Might even be fun... a chance to sharpen your rusty shooting skills.

Google is a company that is cosy with Obama... the agent of change and bringer of light who is okay with weaponized drones roaming the planet engaging in extrajudicial assassinations. That would  include the killing of American citizens - if deemed by the U.S. government to be worthy of incineration. Let's not even count the number of civilians, children included, who have been killed in American drone strikes.

As to Schmidt's warning of the approaching Day of the Drone. It would take some serious escalation of a local issue for a neighbor to resort to drones and even then, as mentioned, there are more than a few ways to discourage it. If we're talking more extensive disputes involving factions, gangs, turf, paramilitary use... that's something else again... but why should the US government and Google get access to all the cool toys and not the rest of us?  Is that because we should trust them?

Google is in the business of photographing everything that can be photographed. It is intrusive in ways a lot of the targeted find compromising, even invasive. We are supposed to trust it... the company with a "do no evil" motto that Steve Jobs dismissed out of hand as "bullshit." Frankly I'd rather trust my ornery neighbor, even if he does have a fleet of mini-drones poised to go.

Top: NDP leader Mulcair / Bottom: Atefa Akbary and Farshad Azadian
The vote at the NDP Montreal convention to remove the word "socialism" from the party's constitution is symbolic in all the wrong ways. It's ironic that at a time when neoliberal policies are on the ropes and capitalism never so vulnerable... they go seeking some nebulous approbation by deleting references to "socialism." It sends completely the wrong message and not unlike Labour in the UK, stinks of catering to the conservative critique.

Sure some have said reassuring things... that removing a constitutional preamble won't change the character of the party. If the party truly believed in its character it would care less about deleting "socialist" and be focused on taking down Harper - but there are a lot of other signs that the NDP is softening its position, not recent developments either.

A lot of people lost respect for the NDP in 2006 when it chose to side with the Conservatives in order to take down the Liberal minority. The move helped pave the way for the Tory curse we seem unable to exorcise. What Canada needs in a third party is a clear choice in the face of the crisis in capitalism. Voters are less persuaded by concessions on language than a show of real character and conviction.

The decision to place cosmetic distance between the party and an honorable word happens at a time when socialism is experiencing a revival of interest. In an article published in Rabble, Rick Salutin cites some interesting data. He notes that the Merriam-Webster online dictionary announced that its most searched words in the last two years were "socialism" and "capitalism" with socialism in the lead. 

Salutin also references left-wing scholar Gar Alperovitz:

Gar Alperovitz, from whom I gleaned this info, also cites a Rasmussen poll finding Americans under 30 "almost equally divided" on preferring one or the other; and a Pew poll showing those between 18 and 29 prefer socialism 49-43 per cent. They finally managed to seriously downgrade socialism in the preamble to their constitution just when it might start working for them. It's a pity they didn't keep featuring it; at best it's now a boutique item.   

At the Montreal convention, two speakers who talked truth to power with respect to the values and the grassroots energy the NDP should be channeling were Atefa Akbary and Farshad Azadian. Akbary made the great points that the more moderate direction risks cutting the NDP off from mass movements such as the Quebec student movement and youth seeking far reaching change. Azadian said that to oppose the Harper conservatives' corporate agenda effectively the NDP must look to its socialist ideas.  

The NDP's apparent belief that tilting in a rightward direction will improve the party's image and electability is tantamount to chasing a deceptive lure. They're softening the image in a quest for electability at a time when people in many western democracies are seeking real alternatives on the left to neoliberal politics of greed and division.