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

Lack of Civility Is Nothing New

When Representative Wilson shouted “You lie!” during a speech by President Obama a few years back, his bad behavior was quickly denounced. What most people did not comment on, because we forget our history, is that Representative Wilson was not the first congressman from South Carolina to behave badly on the floor of Congress.

When the Wilson story first broke what got my attention was the implication that this rude behavior was something new. In the back of my mind there is a U.S. News and World Report article from the 1980’s about America’s “epidemic of rudeness.” If you do a Google search on the phrase “epidemic of rudeness” you’ll find 354,000 web pages on the topic.

One editorial on Wilson’s behavior seemed to justify it by saying the Democrats did it, too, when they booed remarks by President Bush during a speech in 2005. Since when is my bad behavior justified because someone else behaved badly?

As we look at the Trump and Biden years, this kind of thing shows no signs of letting up. During Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address, Democrats interrupted when he discussed legislation  regarding prescription drug pricing, reacting vocally to his call for bipartisan support. This was noted as a breach of decorum, though not explicitly labeled as heckling.

Democrats’ protests during Trump’s addresses were often framed as reactions to his provocative rhetoric, but sources note these actions contributed to perceptions of a divided and undisciplined party response.

In a bit of tit-for-tat, Republicans repeatedly interrupted Joe Biden’s 2023 SOTU address with jeering and booing, particularly when he accused them of wanting to sunset Social Security and Medicare. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) shouted “Liar!” during this segment, echoing Rep. Joe Wilson’s 2009 outburst. Other Republicans also heckled, creating a raucous atmosphere. These interruptions were seen as part of a growing trend of heckling, with Biden responding ad-lib, engaging in a back-and-forth that some viewed as a rhetorical victory for him.

In return, during Trump’s return to Congress in 2025, House Democrats again engaged in disruptive protests. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) heckled Trump early in the speech, questioning his claimed “mandate,” leading to his removal from the chamber by the House sergeant-at-arms after ignoring Speaker Mike Johnson’s warnings. Other Democrats, staged a walkout, displaying “Resist” on their shirts. These actions were described as an “extraordinary display of partisan scuffling,” with Democratic leaders appearing pained by the lack of decorum.

Both parties have contributed to the erosion of decorum in Congress, with heckling and protests becoming more common. The 2009 incident with Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouting at President Obama set a precedent, after which interruptions became less shocking. Democrats and Republicans alike have justified their behavior by pointing to the other side’s actions. However, historical incidents like the 1856 assault by Rep. Preston Brooks on Sen. Charles Sumner illustrate that extreme breaches of decorum are not new, though modern instances tend to involve verbal rather than physical confrontations.

In May 1856 South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks demonstrated less than model behavior by assaulting Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a cane while he sat in the Senate Chamber. The beating was so severe that Sumner was blinded by his own blood and passed out whereupon the South Carolina representative continued to beat him. It's clearly one of the more infamous moments in Congressional history. 

Brooks' brutal assault of Sumner after Sumner delivered a fiery antislavery speech, “The Crime Against Kansas.” In his address, Sumner mocked pro-slavery senators, including Andrew Butler, Brooks’ relative. Days later, Brooks entered the Senate chamber and struck Sumner repeatedly on the head and shoulders until the cane shattered, leaving Sumner bleeding and unconscious.

The attack shocked the nation, deepening the already fierce sectional divide. In the South, Brooks was celebrated as a defender of honor, receiving gifts of replacement canes. In the North, Sumner became a martyr for the antislavery cause, his lengthy recovery symbolizing the violence of slavery itself. The incident intensified hostilities between North and South, fueling the polarization that would soon ignite into the Civil War.

In short, civility in Congress has often been fragile, strained by deep divisions and personal animosities. While the tools of disruption have changed—from canes to shouted insults—these incidents reflect a recurring struggle to maintain decorum in the face of passionate disagreement.

We imagine that our nation has never been this polarized before, but guess what? It a bit of deja vu of sorts, isn't it? By remembering our history, we can better recognize that today’s challenges are not entirely new, but rather part of a long, complex narrative of conflict and confrontation in American governance. 

What do you think?

EdNote: The illustrations on this page are AI-altered versions of my original paintings.

Who Was the Worst President In U.S. History? I Nominate This One

Warren G. Harding was one of the worst they say.
His sex scandals weren't even a consideration
By that measure we'd see FDR, JFK, Bill C
and others listed as well.

When it comes to voting for the best and worst presidents in our history, one must first establish some criteria. Currently there's no doubt a large contingent who say there's no point asking the question. Trump is most obviously such an odious president that there's no point in going further with this discussion. C'est la vie.

What triggered this blog post, though, was a book title that caught my eye on Amazon.com with the title: The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. 

Really?

According to the promotional info on this book the author compiles more than 200 "inconvenient truths" to support his assessment including "his shocking abuses of taxpayer dollars; his bitterly divisive style of governing; his shameless usurping of the Constitution; his many scandals and cover-ups; his policy failures at home and abroad; the unprecedented expansion of government power...and more."

Now to be honest, in my opinion many of these accusations could be made against many presidents. Divisive? Abuses of taxpayer dollars? Policy failures? And as regards the last, "the unprecedented expansion of government power" I would suggest that the past 120 years of this nation has seen a continued and ongoing expansion of government power. The past three presidents have made "executive orders" a modus operandi for expanding the power of the executive branch. It's an innovation that frees presidents from bipartisan wrangling altogether. "Let's Make a Law" is practically a new program on The Game Channel.

So, I decided to ask Google and was directed to a U.S. News & World Report page that claimed it was able to identify our worst presidents.

The first listed was Zachary Taylor. His crime? He was a war hero who was utterly forgettable. He died in office and failed to complete his term, so I'm not sure he got a fair shake when it comes to making his mark. There are plenty of presidents who did more damage than that

Herbert Hoover gets the second nod, assuming we're going from worst to first. A poor communicator is his crime, as well as ushering in the Great Depression. Big problems create big opportunities for those who succeed in tackling them. Some of his decisions exacerbated, rather than alleviated, the challenges we faced as a nation. 

USN&WR gives John Tyler and Millard Fillmore a tie for 7th worst. Tyler was a defender of slavery and abandoned the party platform he was elected on. "You voted for me on this, but guess what? I am going to do my own thing now. Sorry, you losers." Fillmore's sins were greater still, beginning with the Missouri Compromise that permitted the spread of slavery. 

Warren G. Harding is tagged as sixth worst in this list. Scandals permeated his presidency I'm not sure he knew what his primary responsibilities were. "When the cat's away, the mice will play." 

William Henry Harrison died 30 days after giving his unnecessarily long inaugural address in the rain. I have a hard time saying he was a bad president. He never really had a chance to get any traction. 

Franklin Pierce. 

Franklin Pierce  is another of those presidents a majority of our citizens would be unable to identify in a final exam. It was his view that pursuing abolitionist would be a threat to the Union. Therefore, he acquiesced to the pro-slavery Southern Dems. "Staus Quo is the way to go," must have been his motto. "Don't rock the boat."

Andrew Johnson takes the #3 slot in this list. He opposed Reconstruction, was an enabler of carpetbaggers and scalawags, among other things. Ultimately there was an attempt to impeach him, but he was acquitted. These were turbulent times and it didn't help that he had a somewhat obstinate personality. Those first years after the Civil War would have been a trial for anyone.

USN&WR lists Donald Trump as #2 in this list of "worst" presidents. Whereas it's true that he never had more than a 50% approval rating, there were numerous presidents with a lower approval rating at the end of their service in the White House. Gallup Polls (measuring only since FDR) show Truman, Nixon, Carter and both Bushes to have the lowest approval ratings at the end of their tenures. In light of the ongoing media hostility toward the 45th president it's quite surprising his ratings were as high as they were.

According the this list, James Buchanan (1857-1861) gets to wear the moniker of "Worst President." He did nothing to stand in the way of the spread of slavery and set the stage for the secession by the Confederacy.

* * * 

Personally, I believe Millard Fillmore can't be far behind as an instrument of stupidity with regards to these matters. The absence of Andrew Jackson and his treatment of the Native peoples that resulted in the "Trail of Tears" seems an error somehow. 

You can probably poke a few holes in the inflated importance of Woodrow Wilson as well, in my estimation, the Ivory Tower President who really couldn't grasp the significance of many of the events unfolding in the aftermath of the First World War. His unrestrained use of propaganda to generate a hatred of Germans (our largest immigrant population) and Germany had consequences that extended far beyond his visual horizon. 

* * * 

A Few Observations on Health Care

1. Obama is right. Our health care system is broken.

2. Everybody knows this.

3. The time to do something about it is now.

4. If Republicans and Democrats can't figure out how to work this out, we need a batch of leaders who can.

On my flight back from L.A. Friday the fellow next to me was a Canadian. I asked about health care in Canada. He said everybody has it and it's good. On one of my trips home last year I sat next to someone in the Detroit airport from Norway (or maybe it was Denmark, a Scandinavian anyways) who I also asked about health care where he was from. He said it was thirty dollars. I asked what that meant, and he said whatever you go to the doctors for, the whole visit, tests, everything, was thirty dollars.

A fellow I work with has a brother in France. There were things he has not liked there, and the taxes are high, but as he battled cancer a couple years ago he was grateful that his medical expense would result in him losing his house.

We have been the richest country in the world, yet we say we cannot afford universal health care? Why are we the only country then that can't afford this when most lesser companies can?

A normal, healthy approach to the problem would be to have those who oppose explain why.

Opponent: "It can't work because _______ " (fill in the blank)

Reply: "O.K., if we fix ______ can we do it?"

Then both sides should address and fix each of the barriers. etc.

I do agree with those who say that government run programs are usually inefficient and expensive as compared to the efficiencies normal businesses are required to operate at in order to be competitive. But that's a red herring, isn't it? The net net is we can't claim to be a compassionate nation and just let people suffer because they can't afford health care.

As for the bill that is on the table now, from what I hear there are lots of problems with it. It may be because the bill is over 2,000 pages and our representatives haven't figured out how to find time to read it, let alone debate it line by line.

Consider this: the Social Security Act of 1935 was 82 pages. The Civil Rights Act weighed in at 74 pages. The National Labor Relations Act a slim 25 pages. And the Homestead Act 9 pages. These were major legislative events. Why is the current Health Care Bill so hefty then?

What if Democrat and Republican leaders put their best and brightest in a room and say, "O.K., you can't come out till you have hammered out a health care bill. It must be under 100 pages." Fifty pages would be better. And maybe one more thing. They take off their party hats and pins and put cotton in their ears so they can't hear the shrill voices of lobbyists... and they focus on using all the knowledge and experience they each have to think for themselves, no strings attached. Evidently I am living in a fairy tale at this point. Bummer.

Today's Top Stories

"I am not the editor of a newspaper and shall always try to do right and be good so that God will not make me one." ~ Mark Twain

It is one of my rituals to walk out to the road and bring in the morning paper at the start of each day. I like the walk, about three hundred feet, to our rural mailbox. I also enjoy reading the headlines on the way back toward the house.

It has to be tough being a newspaper editor. With so much happening in the world, how does one decide what will be the big stories of the day, and especially the big story that blares out above the fold. Here's what you see above the fold in today's Duluth News Tribune. And as a profession, newspaperfolk sure have to put up with a lot of guff.

Top banner above the masthead: Northland Golf Guide in fairly large letters with a close up photo of a golf ball on a tee and the head of a driver. More than 70 area courses and a look at how the economy is affecting the game is the subhead. For a lot of folks that might be enough to get a person to fork over a buck and a half.

The major feature has its headline split in two with a photo of grave markers filling a good section of the page in letterbox style aspect ratio. Above the photo: As bones of loved ones erode into the Nemadji River, the Fond du Lac tribe wonders... And below the photo, in largest font on the page: What will be done to respect their dead?

The right hand column has a box with a dotted line that contains two marketing messages. $88 IN COUPONS INSIDE and then "Where to find your TV today" with a blurb pointing out that the TV grid was inadvertently printed in the wrong place. Ooops.

The last news item above the fold is also in the right hand column. Sent in '67, letter finally gets an answer. LBJ was president, Penny Lane was at the top of the charts and Dragnet had just premiered. A form letter was sent from the Duluth city attorney's office to comparably sized cities seeking salary information for legal stenographers. Utica, New York answered this week.

The last front page story in today's paper declares, 100 days, trillions spent, Obama's success unclear. A closeup photo of President Obama has this caption: Has signed executive orders in 100 days than any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

The article, which came in through a syndicated feed from the McClatchy Newspapers, is essentially about how the economic crisis has given the president the opportunity to strengthen executive power. The headline, though, is curious to me. Obama's success unclear? Some of the laws being written into the books won't take effect for years, and the impact of all this legislation being rolled out at a dizzying pace may not be fully recognized for decades. In short, the phrase "Obama's success unclear" is a tautology.

One thing I do like about the Sunday paper, besides the comics, is the Opinion section. I especially like when they take an issue and present pro and con perspectives on an issue. Today's debate deals with the Aad Shrine Circus which is coming to town next weekend. Just plain fun or Just plain cruel is the headline.

A picture of smiling kids mounted atop a brightly decorated elephant fills much of the page. The kids sure are cute. It might be interesting to explore the ethics of circuses some time. Right now, I think I'll finish getting dressed so I can start my day.

What are today's headlines on your local paper? If you don't want to post just send an email. I'd be interested in hearing what's hot in your neck of the woods.