When Assassination Becomes Strategy: What Rise and Kill First Reveals

While doing research on another project I came across a reference to Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations. (The English translation was published in 2018.) The book is purportedly a deeply researched and disturbing nonfiction history of Israel’s targeted assassinations programs carried out by its intelligence and security services (including Mossad, Shin Bet, and the IDF). Bergman draws on hundreds of interviews and thousands of previously classified documents to trace the evolution of targeted killing as a state policy from before Israel’s founding through the modern era.

The title comes from a Talmudic idea: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.” The book explores the ethical, political, and operational dimensions of targeted killings — from early Zionist underground groups to modern high-technology efforts against adversaries across the Middle East.

EdNote: This view stands in stark contrast to the Christian beliefs expressed by Tolstoy (most notably in The Forged Coupon) and the pacifism of George Fox and the Quakers.

The book was a New York Times bestseller and won awards for history writing, noted for its depth and narrative power.

Rise and Kill First argues that assassination became embedded in Israeli strategy because of the country’s sense of permanent existential threat. Bergman shows how targeted killings were used to disrupt militant networks, deter enemies, and compensate for Israel’s small size and lack of strategic depth. At the same time, he explores the moral, legal, and psychological costs of this approach, including blowback, cycles of retaliation, operational failures, and the toll on those ordered to carry out killings.

Rather than offering a simple defense or condemnation, Bergman presents assassination as a grim, recurring choice—sometimes tactically effective, sometimes disastrous, always ethically fraught. The result is a complex portrait of a state that has repeatedly chosen preemptive violence while struggling with the consequences of making killing routine policy.

One of the claims in Bergman's book is that “during the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States of America carried out 48 targeted killing operations, according to one estimate, and under President Barack Obama there were 353 such attacks.” These numbers were presented as an estimate, but when I sought a confirmation of these alleged facts I found that these numbers refer specifically to targeted killing operations (primarily drone strikes or other precision strikes against individuals), focused on covert/counterterrorism actions outside declared war zones like Afghanistan/Iraq battlefields (e.g., in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia). They are not totals for all U.S. airstrikes or combat deaths.

Sources have slight variations in exact numbers, but confirm the numbers in proximity to what Bergman has stated.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (a key open-source monitor) reported ~57 strikes under Bush (mostly in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) vs. ~563 under Obama in those same areas—showing a roughly 10x increase, consistent with the book's emphasis on escalation. A New York Times review of the book cited at least 47 under Bush and 542 under Obama for Pakistan/Yemen/Somalia campaigns, very near Bergman's 48/353 figures (possibly excluding some categories or using different cutoffs). Other sources (e.g., Council on Foreign Relations) report 542 Obama-era strikes, with estimates of thousands killed (including civilians).

As Bob Dylan states in his song "Union Sundown" (Infidels, 1983), "This world is ruled by violence; but I guess that's better left unsaid." Is it a cynical view or a realistic one, that true power lies in force, not ideals like democracy. Dylan frequently highlights  harsh truths behind political facades, contrasting democratic ideals with the brutal mechanics of control, especially in the context of labor and global economics. 

If you find all these things disturbing, you're not alone.

Related
Hegemony and the Tragedy of Great Power Politics