Why LATimes and Washington Post Presidential Non-Endorsements Are So Problematic

The previous post concerned how the billionaire owners of the LA Times and Washington Post blocked their editorial boards from endorsing Kamala Harris for president and why I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times. [I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post.] 

We know that Jeff Bezos has other business deals with the US government [sorry, there's a paywall] - with Amazon and with other ventures - that a Trump presidency would, in Bezos' mind - be quashed.  And he may be right.  Patrick Soon-Shiong also has other businesses that possibly could be jeopardized by a Trump presidency.  Plus Trump has said that he would punish media and others who oppose him.  

I focused on what appears to be their fear that if Trump were elected, they would be punished for such an endorsement.  I compared that behavior to the behavior of the Washington Post and NYTimes when they published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 - a daring display of courage and the power of press.  

I spent more time on the Pentagon Papers than I intended to, because I realized that while I was a young adult at the time, anyone under 53 today, hadn't even been born yet.  If 'Pentagon Papers' means anything to most of them, it probably is pretty superficial.  

Think what people born after next year will know and understand about the 2024 election in 2077!  The historic lessons get lost if we don't keep them alive.  

So I decided to postpone the second part of that post to another post.  

Here's the part I left for a future post - putting their actions into context using Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless."  You can see the whole essay at the link.  Or a much briefer overview at Wikipedia.

It's a long essay, written by then Czech playwright, and later, president, about how people in an authoritarian regime could still maintain their freedom.  He's specifically talking about the Soviet form of dictatorship that ruled Czechoslovakia at that time.  There are many people with greater expertise on Havel's work than I.  But this is my limited take on this situation.  

When I heard about the two billionaire owners of two major newspapers killing editorials that would have endorsed Kamala Harris for president, the part I thought of was the story of the greengrocer putting up signs in his shop window.   You can read it below.  I've highlighted some of it in red.  

"III 

"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

"I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

"Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

"Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

"Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe."

The situation of the greengrocer under Soviet authoritarianism and the Bezos and Soon-Shiong is not a perfect analogy, but it shows how the no-holds-barred style of Trump causes even billionaires to modify their behavior rather than draw unwanted attention to themselves.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message

In the case of both newspaper owners, not publishing an endorsement of Harris was a sign to Trump with a clear message that they didn't want him upset at them if he were elected.  They didn't want their companies punished for supporting Harris.

the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. 

Not endorsing Harris was the equivalent of putting the a sign in the window that says, 'we will not oppose you' to Trump.  The low foundation of their obedience. We do not want you to punish us in some way.  And the low foundation of Trump's power is that the endorsements were perfectly legal and normal, yet they were afraid to publish the endorsements.  

The 'ideology' they were hiding behind was the idea that newspapers should  maintain "political neutrality," should be objective observers that don't take sides, but impartially report the news.  Of course, impartiality is not possible.  A news outlet can try to report objective facts, but the employees and owners all have values that color what events are reported and how they are reported.  Or, in this case, not reported.  

And the idea that newspapers must be objective observers and non-partisan is one that many hold, but it is not historically the only norm.  

Early Colonial newspapers were often "a sideline for printers."  Benjamin Franklin was such a printer with a newspaper on the side.  And they were quite partisan.  During that era John Peter Zenger was found innocent when a governor tried to shut down his partisan attacks.  Do kids still learn about Zenger in school these days?

The fact that Trump has threatened to attack the media as president and more recently to talk about his political enemies being executed - as he let the January 6 mob erect a gallows for his then Vice President - is all the more reason that they should have endorsed his opponent.  

Another issue this raises is the phenomenon of billionaires buying existing newspapers.  On the one hand, this is a way for some newspapers to survive.  And it's probably better than newspapers being owned by corporations that own many newspapers and thus limit the number of different voices available to the public.  I say newspapers here, but this also applies to radio and television.  

And yet, at the same time, the internet has provided access to way more voices than ever.  Perhaps we're just waiting for the dust to settle.  Or the Musks of the world are going to buy up those voices.  It's a time of change and we have to just hold on until it becomes more settled.  

But the problem of billionaires owning papers is that they have large financial interests that can easily come into conflict with the objectivity of the paper they own.  In Bezos' case, Amazon has interest in large government contracts which some have suggested as a reason he vetoed the endorsement.  

The key point in all this for me, the reason I thought it important enough to cancel my LA Times subscription, is the issue Havel raises about having personal freedom, no matter how small, and to use it.  

Authoritarians have control because people voluntarily obey them.  Even when there is no law and no order, people anticipate what the regime wants them to do, and do it.  People cede their autonomy voluntarily.  As did the two owners of the newspapers.  And as the many Republican politicians who trashed Trump during the 2016 primaries - Cruz, Graham, Rubio, etc. - but then fell in line to support him.  Trump is ruthless, but Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll stood up to him and won.  

If Trump wins Tuesday, and we get conflicting reports on how close it is, we will all be facing life in an authoritarian state.  Understanding Havel will be important.  

Cancelling My LA Times Subscription [Updated]

[UPDATES:  Here's the link to the second post on this topic. The Nov 3 UPDATE is at the bottom of the original article]

Overview:  I'm giving context to why I cancelled my subscription.  I look back to heroic actions taken by the  New York Times and the Washington Post during the Vietnam war to compare to what appears to be the cowardly action of the Post and the LA Times owners today.  

I'd note that while other papers have discussed the LA Times' decision, the LA Times as so far not had any article about this issue. 

So we start with the Pentagon Papers story.  Then we go to the vetoing of editorials supporting Kamala Harris for president by the owners of the two newspapers this week.  

Then I mention an important article by Vaclav Havel that directly addresses what happens when owners of businesses voluntarily comply to pressure from authoritarian governments.  But I'll save that discussion for the next post.  

 In 1971, The New York Times and the Washington Post were given copies of "The Pentagon Papers."  This was a classified report on the Vietnam War.  .  

One of the researchers, Daniel Ellsberg, was disturbed that the research showed that the US government was lying to the people of the United States about major aspects of the Vietnam war.  

Student protests had been going on constantly.  In spring of 1970, four students at Kent State were shot dead by National Guardsman called to quell the protests on campus.  This led to huge protests all over US campuses.  

While I was a young adult during the times of the Pentagon papers and it is all still vivid in my mind, I'm writing all this because I realize that every US citizen under the age of 53, was not even born then.  Even though they may have heard about the Pentagon Papers, most are probably have a very fuzzy understanding of the significance.  I know that was my experience of current events that took place in recent history but before I was born. I'm just summarizing some highlights.  You can read more at Wikipedia.  Their article starts with the contents of the Papers.  You have to scroll down to learn about the politics of publishing them in the newspapers.  

Ellsberg copied the Pentagon Papers.  In those days you generally had to copy page by page.  He took them to Kissinger (who he knew) and to  key Members of Congress, but didn't get the support he needed.  Then he went to the New York Times and shared them.  The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13.

The Nixon Administration tried to stop the publication by the Times with an injunction.  The Washington Post then began to publish the documents.  Also, Alaska US Senator Mike Gravel placed the full Pentagon Papers into the public record.

The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

— Justice Black[56]"  [Wikipedia]

Unfortunately the court's decision doesn't appear to be a compelling value to the owners who quashed the endorsements in their papers.  

[Another interesting comparison to today: the Times published the first piece on June 13.  The US Supreme Court announced its decision on June 30!]

Ellsberg was personally charged but was not found guilty.  

I offer you this because this week the owners of both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post overruled their editorial boards' decisions to endorse Kamala Harris for president.  There have been resignations by editors of both papers over this.  

We can speculate why the owners took these actions.

The MSNBC headline was:

"The Billionaire Owners of the Washington Post and LA Times Just Capitulated to Trump"

NPR's headline didn't attribute a motive to the Washington Post's decision, 

"Washington Post' won't endorse in White House race for first time since 1980s"

but quoted former Washington Post former Executive Editor Martin Baron:  

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

This is, of course, why I have included the story of the Pentagon Papers.  This is a far different action this week by  the owner of the Washington Post than we saw from Katherine Graham, the owner of the Post in 1971.  

Jeff Bezos, of course, is the owner of Amazon and one of the richest men in the world.  

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a billionaire doctor who got rich based on medical technology he developed.  His parents fled China during the Japanese occupation in WW II and Soon-Shiong was born in South Africa in 1952.  I don't know exactly what his situation was, but here's a description of the status of Chinese in South Africa in Wikipedia:

"In 1966 the South African Institute of Race Relations described the negative effects of apartheid legislation on the Chinese community and the resulting brain drain:

No group is treated so inconsistently under South Africa's race legislation. Under the Immorality Act they are Non-White. The Group Areas Act says they are Coloured, subsection Chinese ... They are frequently mistaken for Japanese in public and have generally used White buses, hotels, cinemas and restaurants. But in Pretoria, only the consul-general's staff may use White buses .. Their future appears insecure and unstable. Because of past and present misery under South African laws, and what seems like more to come in the future, many Chinese are emigrating. Like many Coloured people who are leaving the country, they seem to favour Canada. Through humiliation and statutory discrimination South Africa is frustrating and alienating what should be a prized community.[5]: 389–390"

One would think that both Bezos and Soon-Shiong are rich and powerful enough to be able to stand up to Trump.  But I'm guessing they both have goals and ambitions about what they still want to do with their companies.  And they have put these ambitions above risking the possibility of retribution from Trump if he gets elected.  

And I'm guessing Soon-Shiong, while treated as a non-white in South Africa, also took some solace that he wasn't treated as Black.  It would be interesting to know how he felt when Nelson Mandela was freed from prison and eventually became the president of South Africa and won a Nobel Prize.  

His behavior in this matter suggests those events didn't really register with him positively.  He's certainly now showing Mandela's courage in fighting an authoritarian government.

This post is long enough.  I wanted to also talk about Vaclav Havel's essay, "The Power of the Powerless" which is highly relevant to the actions of actions of these two wealthy newspaper owners.  I'll do that in another post.  For those who want to get ahead, here's a link to the essay.  It's very good.

Here's the link to the follow up post on Havel's essay.

Cancelling the LA Times subscription was a clear choice, though not an easy one.  I grew up in LA and when my mother died, I inherited the house that I lived in from 6th grade through the beginning of college.  It's the house my mother lived in for 65 years, that we visited often, and that my children spent time when they visited their grandmother.  In addition to getting reasonably good news coverage, I also got local news that was relevant to owning a house there and visiting.  

But various social media folk have suggested other newspapers to switch to and I'll look into that.  Though I won't get  the local LA and California news.  I'd note that when you cancel, you get a list of one or two word reasons to let them know why you cancelled.  The best I could do was 'editorial policy' or something like that.  Leaving comments elsewhere limits you to very few words.  

[UPDATE Sunday November 3]

From an October 25, 2024  article in the LA Times, we learn what Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner, said about the decision not to endorse anyone for president, even though the editorial board was about to endorse Harris:

“'I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,' he said in an interview with The Times on Friday afternoon. 'The process was [to decide]: how do we actually best inform our readers? And there could be nobody better than us who try to sift the facts from fiction' while leaving it to readers to make their own final decision."

Today's LA Times editorial page seems to belie that policy.  Instead of "leaving it to readers to make their own decisions," the LA Times has a long list of ballot measures and candidates they endorse for other offices from local and state to federal.    

"Election 2024

The Times’ electoral endorsements for Nov. 5

STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES

Proposition 2: Yes

Proposition 3: Yes

Proposition 4: Yes

Proposition 5: Yes

Proposition 6: Yes

Proposition 32: Yes

Proposition 33: No

Proposition 34: No

Proposition 35: No

Proposition 36: No

LOS ANGELES CITY

City Council District 2: Adrin Nazarian

City Council District 10: Heather Hutt

City Council District 14: Ysabel Jurado

Charter Amendment DD: Yes

Charter Amendment LL: Yes

Charter Amendment HH: Yes

Charter Amendment II: Yes

Charter Amendment ER: Yes

Charter Amendment FF: No

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

District attorney: George Gascón

Measure A: Yes

Measure E: Yes

Measure G: Yes

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Seat 1: Andra Hoffman

Seat 3: David Vela

Seat 5: Nichelle Henderson

Seat 7: Kelsey Iino

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

District 1: Sherlett Hendy Newbill

District 3: Scott Schmerelson

District 5: Karla Griego

Measure US: Yes

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

Office No. 39: Steve Napolitano

Office No. 48: Ericka J. Wiley

Office No. 97: Sharon Ransom

Office No. 135: Steven Yee Mac

Office No. 137: Tracey M. Blount

STATE LEGISLATURE

Assembly District 52: Jessica Caloza

Assembly District 54: Mark Gonzalez

Assembly District 57: Sade Elhawary

Senate District 35: Michelle Chambers

U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE

U.S. Senate: Adam B. Schiff

27th Congressional District: George Whitesides

30th Congressional District: Laura Friedman

45th Congressional District: Derek Tran

47th Congressional District: Dave Min

Read the full endorsements online at latimes.com/opinion."

Brian Taylor Cohen Interviews Heather Cox Richardson - Watch This!

This is an important interview by Brian Taylor Cohen, one of the brightest and most articulate commentators (I want to say on the air, and he does appear on cable news, but he's also a powerful presence on the internet via Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms) and Heather Cox Richardson, an important US historian who uses history to inform current events.  

A couple of points they make that jumped out at me. 

1. Taking Over World Money Supply. She talks about how Trump is 78 years old and not in great health, and could leave Vance in charge.  Vance is Thiel's pawn.  Peter Thiel is a 'tech bro' interested in crypto currency and this could lead to taking control over the world money supply.  

2. Whenever there is a new technology, and she lists mining, cotton, diamonds, copper, oil as examples, there are no regulations at first and a few people get very rich and powerful to the detriment of everyone else.

(#1 and #2 are intertwined starting around 5:45 to about 7:40)

3.  Trump's succeeded because his actions are so outrageous that people can't conceive he's being real.   They want to take away abortion, get rid of medicare, etc. people don't believe it.  They're planning that.  We need to take it seriously. (about 8:30 min)

4.  The Big Lie. If your roommate steals $20 you can get mad at him.  But if he schemes to take over your family's bank account, retirement funds, your family's  house, it's beyond comprehension.  Don't have emotional groundwork to get mad because it's too outrageous to imagine.  That's what Trump has done.  Of course the Supreme Court wouldn't give the President to commit crimes in office, but they did.(about 10:50)

5. History- Turning on a Dime - History taught me that American society can turn on a dime.  I've been waiting and it didn't happen.  But since Biden pulled out of race, the US has turned on a dime.  (about 17 min)

There's a lot in between that links each of the points together worth listening to.  

This video has two very bright people dissecting what's happening and where we seem to be going.  

At the end they push two of their books probably worth reading:

Richardson:  Democracy Awakening coming out in paperback in October

Cohen:  Shameless  How Republicans used long term plans to change the US, which we can see most clearly with the Supreme Court.  

Trump's Ear

I have questions.  First reports said a teleprompter was hit and Trump's ear was cut by glass.  News reports now say he was hit by a bullet.  What doctors treated him and when do we get a report on his ear?  Did anyone locate the bullet that hit his ear?  

So I've been googling away with these sorts of questions.  

Here's a close up of the picture from Getty Images.  It's the best I can find that shows his ear immediately after he was shot.  

So here's some of the most relevant things I found: 

 “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place, so I realized then what was happening.” Variety July 13, 2024

“The bullet took a little bit off the top of his ear in an area that, just by nature, bleeds like crazy,” Mr. Jackson said in an interview. “The dressing’s bulked up a bit because you need a bit of absorbent. You don’t want to be walking around with bloody gauze on his ear.” New York Times July 16, 2024

"[Trump] spoke off-camera to the New York Post and the Washington Examiner, among others, in the days following the shooting, but he was mum about his medical condition, volunteering only that, 'the doctor at the hospital said he never saw anything like this, he called it a miracle.'" NBC News July 16, 2024

What hospital?  I understand that doctors can't talk about their patients' health.  But this is someone running for president.  The candidate should ask the doctor to tell the nation what the situation is. 

"His campaign said he was taken to a nearby hospital, but it’s not clear which medical center the GOP candidate was rushed to.

There are at least three hospitals in the area.

Butler Memorial Hospital, located in Butller, is part of the Butler Health System. It offers a comprehensive range of medical services, including emergency care and trauma services.

Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, is a Level I trauma center known for its advanced medical care and trauma services. It is approximately 35 miles south of Butler, providing a nearby option for specialized trauma care.

UPMC Presbyterian, also located in Pittsburgh, is another Level I trauma center. Like Allegheny General, it is about 35 miles south of Butler." NorthJersey.com July 13, 2024  (J. Staas Haught USA TODAY NETWORK)

BUTLER, Pa. (KDKA) — "Former President Donald Trump was taken to Butler Memorial Hospital after shots were fired at his rally on Saturday.

The hospital is about 11 miles from the Butler Farm Show grounds, where the rally was held. KDKA-TV learned the former president walked into the hospital on his own.

Video obtained by KDKA-TV also showed a motorcade escorting Trump from the hospital. At the end of the significant line of police cars, there was an ambulance. It was not clear if the former president was inside that ambulance. He was then taken to Pittsburgh International Airport." KDKA News July 13, 2024  

The Only Doctor We've Heard From

I'm concerned that the only medical person who saw the ear and is talking about it is Rep. Ronny Jackson, the White House physician who was called the Candyman for all the drugs he handed out freely at the White House, and who was demoted from a one star admiral to a captain after a scathing Inspector General's report about his service both in the military and the White House.

Aside from all that, after leaving the White House Jackson was elected to Congress from Texas and has been a loyal Trump supporter.  Not the most objective reporter.  

Now, bullet or shard of glass?

The New York Times has three photos from Doug Mills, purporting to show the bullet coming toward Trump, him grasping his ear, then we see the bloody hand.  I use the word 'purportedly' not because I doubt it, but only because it's not that clear, even when enlarged.  

Snopes used that same photo to debunk the story that went viral Saturday, that Trump was hit from a piece of glass from the shattered teleprompter.  They also say the teleprompter was fine.  And they point out parts of the ear they say show torn skin.  

In an article in STAT,   Usha Lee McFarling  and Rohan Rajeev talk to doctors about what they would be concerned about and testing for if they had a patient who'd had his ear shot.   They mostly want scans of the brain to make sure there was no damage.  Who is STAT?  The site says:

"STAT delivers trusted and authoritative journalism about health, medicine, and the life sciences."

Given all this, I'd also say this was not likely staged.  The bullet was less than an inch from his skull.  That's way too close for a fake assassination attempt.  

But the Secret Service - remember all the guys that deleted their texts on January 6, 2021 - slipped up.  They keep blaming the local SWAT team for messing up, but it's their operation.  Why didn't they get Trump off the stage when people said there was someone on the roof?

One Spouter gave the best short explanation of Crooks' motive.  Maybe it's this simple.  

So at this point, I'm reasonably convinced that Trump was hit by a bullet.  And this was not a set up to glorify Trump right before the Republican convention.  But we will, over time learn more - unless Trump becomes president again.

But I couldn't find anything on whether the bullet was recovered.   You'd think the media and the US public would be demanding specific, reports on all this.  Before Trump, doctor statements (not Candyman type doctors) would have been made with lots of detail.  

Terrible News Reporting - Treating Trump Like A Reasonable Candidate; "Worst Day Since . . ."

I'm going to comment on how two articles in Saturday's LA Times distort the moment by how they word things.  

1. Comparing North Korea Policy - Ignores the Overwhelming Difference Between the Candidates

While US North Korean policy is important, this headline reminded me of other articles that skip over the part about Trump being the worst, most horrible person to every be nominated to be president.  The candidate who would discard the constitution, set up internment camps for immigrants and his 'enemies' and who knows who else.  The candidate who would turn the US Democracy into a dictatorship.  See Project 2025 to see what he and his Heritage Society Friends are planning.  That link is Wikipedia's entry.  You can look at Project 2024's own site as well.  Is Trump smart enough to do that?  Probably not, but he's got some nasty folks behind the scenes and Project 2025 outlines what they plan to do with his next presidency.  

So seriously asking questions like whether Trump or Biden would have a better North Korean policy is sort of like asking which candidate has biggest ears.  It's beside the point  [I looked this up to see if it should be beside or besides]  Electing Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for all. Even the multi-billionaires who hope to have their taxes and regulations cut will find that Trump, like Putin, would go after any of them is there is any sign their total obeisance is slipping.  The word defenestration has come back into use for a reason.

This sort of article makes it seem that this is a normal election and it simply isn't.  All these sorts of comparisons help legitimize Trump as a candidate.  

It also assumes that Trump has policy or is capable of carrying out policy that is more than his personal, at that moment whim.  That his policy is more than feeding his ego.  

2.  Worst day since April

[I'm leaving the ad in, because somehow I suspect monetizing online newspapers like this plays a role in why we get silly headlines like this.  Media these days seem to always add a negative to any positive that might reflect on Biden.  It used to be that newspapers and blogs had pictures that illustrate the story.  But now they have clickbait pictures like this.  They are either disgusting, irrelevant to the story, or misleading because readers think the picture is related to the story. ] 

My key point here is that much of the media seem to feel that "strong economic reports" has to always be balanced with a negative like 'S&P has worst day since April."   Is the S&P's one bad day equal in importance to the 'strong economy report'?  Or is it a minor blip, but they felt they had to 'both sides' the headline?  

And "since April"?  Really?  This is just May.  I'm waiting for the headline that says, "Worst day since yesterday."  

Let's look at the S&P 500 for the last year:

Source

S&P 500 has trended up over the year and it's higher now than any time in April.  What are they really trying to tell us with "worst day since April"?  What does one bad day mean when the trend is a steady long term climb?  And why is that mentioned in the headline?

3.  Why are the media taking shots at Biden when his administration has such a strong record on many things, while at the same time treating Trump like a viable presidential candidate when he's so demonstrably terrible and dangerous?

I don't know.  People have suggested a number of reasons, none of which I can show proof of.  The proof is their performance, but why?  Some possible explanation.

• The main media are owned by very rich people and their interests are aligned with the wealthy
• Media need sensational headlines to get eyeballs.  As a blogger, I can see how such headlines get more readers.  I don't do lurid headlines, but if I can post a funny or dramatic headline because it fits the story, I'll usually do it.
• Media want people to follow the presidential (and other) election because that sells news.  So keeping the presidential race close, they believe, will get them eyeballs and advertisers.
• Media make money through advertising.  Political ads are a great source of income. 
•  "Traditional ad spending will grow 7.9% (over 2020) to $8.86 billion. TV makes up nearly all of that, with $7.06 billion in spend, up 7.5% over 2020. Print, radio, and other traditional media make up the rest." (From eMarketer)

Those are four plausible reasons for media to forgo journalism ethics in the name of profit (and for many newspapers survival.)

All I can say is that people should read these kinds of headlines - and articles - critically.  Even better, write letters to the editors challenging the assumptions.  

Alaska Press Club Friday - Judy Woodruff, Climate, Saving Local News

The Alaska Press Club annual conference gives this lone blogger an opportunity to connect with other journalists and learn something.  This really should be several posts, but I'm going to cover today pretty fast, just to give you a sense of things, but not too much detail.  

First session I went to was  Covering Climate Change in Rural Alaska.  

The room was pretty full for this panel of journalists who have worked in rural Alaska.  Issues covered how to get stories, particularly as outsiders;  how to write them so the local folks feel they've been fairly represented.  

Jackie Qataliña Schaeffer

The panelist I got the most from wasn't a journalist  (well that's not completely clear, she may have once been) who is now the Director, Climate Initiatives, at the Alaska Native Tribal Consortium, Jackie Qataliña Schaeffer.  

I've spent a lot of time learning about cross-cultural translation by spending a year or more in several cultures outside of my own.  I've paid close attention to Alaska Native issues and people in the years I've lived in Alaska.  But Jackie said things that captured wisdoms I'd never heard articulated like that before.  (Yes, I know I owe you a couple of examples, but my notes aren't good enough to write them here in a way that would due justice to she said. But trust me, she's comfortable and culturally fluent in the world of Alaska Native cultures and the more recently arrived Euro-American culture.  

                          Two of the other panelists who had a lot to contribute:  Rachel Waldholz and Tom Kizzia.

Keynote:  Judy Woodruff, PBS Newshour

The room was packed when I got there and I ended up in a seat right in front of the podium and it was clear I was barely going to see more than the speaker's forehead, so I took this shot while she was being introduced.  

Her theme was the two or three year tour of the US she's making trying to learn more about the extreme political divide that now exists in the US.  She started with Pugh Research (where she visited) polling data that shows the divide far greater than ever in any of their polls over the years.  She talked about Republicans who thought Democrats were immoral and Democrats who thought the same of Republicans.  About families that don't celebrate Thanksgiving together any more.  There used to be married couples who managed to stay together even though they were of different political parties.  Today, she said, that was down to 2-3% of married couples.  

She talked about the causes of the divide and they were all the usual suspects.  When she got to the media she emphasized the importance of local news and how the loss of some 2500 local newspapers was a blow to democracy.  That those local papers were raw glue that kept communities together, where people saw themselves and their neighbors mentioned in print whether it was local sports pages or stories about community arts, non-profits, local businesses.  And that local reporters were crucial to informing local communities about the local officials and keeping them accountable.  

John Palfrey,MacArthur Foundation

This all led into the next sessions (not accidentally) which dealt with an initiative Press Forward co-founded by the MacArthur Foundation (which supports the PBS Newshour) and the Knight Foundation.  When I looked at their website just now, there are lots of other foundations listed, but from the discussion it seems the two speakers in the next sessions - John Palfrey, CEO of the MacArthur Foundation and Jim Brady, Vice President for Journalism at the Knight Foundation - went out and encouraged the others to join this initiative.  

John and then Jim talked about Press Forward as one effort to save democracy by helping make local journalism sustainable as technology and online media are eroding traditional revenue sources for local newspapers.

They've raised half a billion dollars (!) so far and now are working on the other half.  

Jim Brady and Lori Townsend

Above is Jim Brady of the Knight Foundation being interviewed by Alaska Public Media News Director Lori Townsend.  While Palfrey talked more about the creation and vision of Press Forward and raising money, Brady spoke more to the kinds of things they are funding.  Sustainability was a word that was used often.  

Press Forward Alaska came to be with the help of the Rasmuson and Atwood Foundations and the strong public broadcasting network here which has already been working on the kinds of alliances among different media outlets Press Forward is encouraging.  There were other local Press Forward projects, but Alaska is the first State Project.  

The last part of this Press Forward Initiative presentation was a panel of Alaskan journalists involved in cooperative projects.  And as I write this, I'm guessing that somehow they have been touched by Press Forward assistance, though I didn't catch that link at the time. 

Here are David Hulen (with the mic), editor of the Anchorage Daily News, Amy Bushatz, Mat-Su Sentinel, Joaqlin Estus, Indian Country Today, and moderator Wesley Early, Anchorage reporter at Alaska Public Media.

Finally, I wrapped the day up talking in the lobby with Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media and John McKay, an Anchorage First Amendment attorney who represents most local media.  (I realize the sentence says 'an', but John probably is 'the' key attorney in this field.)

I'd never met Ed (center) before and as a blogger, I often find myself having to convince people I'm not a flake.  John showed up at the right time.  John was an early supporter of my blogging work and when he worked out a deal for media covering the political corruption trials back in 2007 and 2008, to share the audio/vidoe evidence in the trials and to take cell phones and computers past the court security, he (unbeknownst to me) included my name on the list of journalists getting these privileges.  He later helped me out when I was threatened with a law suit for questioning the legitimacy of the Alaska International Film Festival whose only presence in Alaska was a post office box and which had no actual festival.  While we were talking Lori Townsend joined us briefly as she was leaving because she had a program to host at 5pm.  

That's it.  An incomplete view of the Alaska Press Club conference today.  But despite the fact that the conference is made up of journalists, not many of us actually cover what happens.  

Why Making Real Time Sense Of Israeli-Gaza War Is So Difficult -Part II

This is a truly touchy topic all around.  I'm listing here some of the aspects that I feel are critical to understand (no, be aware of is a more realistic goal).  Assume that I am torn in different directions and not pushing an answer one way or the other.  

Part I of these posts gives an intro to these posts and covers:

 1.  PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, OBLITERATION OF TRUTH

2.  THE PROBLEM OF NETANYAHU 

3A.  HISTORIC ANTI-SEMITISM

3B.  THE HOLOCAUST

PART II

4.  GENOCIDE

The word "genocide" was coined to give a name to what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust.   

"Seventy years ago this fall [2014], the word "genocide" made its debut into the English language, on page 79 of the 674-page Axis Rule in Occupied Europe [which you can find here in Reading 3], in a chapter called "Genocide—A New Term and New Conception for Destruction of Nations."

The writer was Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born lawyer who had fled the persecution of the Holocaust and moved to the United States in 1941. A few months after his arrival, he heard a radio address in which British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told listeners about the horrors of World War II. . .

[Lemkin] decided to create a name for the crime without a name. He came up with genocide, which he defined as the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. He said he created the word by combining the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing). In 1948, nearly three years after the concentration camps of World War II had been closed forever, the newly-formed United Nations (UN) used this new word in the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide," a treaty that was intended to prevent any future genocides."

The US Holocaust Museum defines the term in more detail 

"Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

There are a number of other serious, violent crimes that do not fall under the specific definition of genocide. They include crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and mass killing."

Netanyahu would argue that his intent is to secure Israel from terrorist attack, not to kill Palestinians.  

Whether what's happening in Gaza is genocide or one of the other crimes listed probably doesn't matter too much, but I'm sure those fighting against Israeli bombing in Gaza are relishing the irony of charging Israelis with genocide.   

Since I wrote these words on genocide, the South African complaints about Israeli genocide to the  International Court of Justice has become available.  In it, starting from page 60, they quote a number of Israeli officials, in different ways saying things that suggest Israeli intent to obliterate Gaza.  Here's just one example from Prime Minister Netanyahu:

"The Israeli Prime Minister also returned to the theme in his ‘Christmas message’, stating: “we’re facing monsters, monsters who murdered children in front of their parents . . . This is a battle not only of Israel against these barbarians, it’s a battle of civilization against barbarism”.445 On 28 October 2023, as Israeli forces prepared their land invasion of Gaza, the Prime Minister invoked the Biblical story of the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites, stating: “you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible.  And we do remember."

"The Prime Minister referred again to Amalek in the letter sent on 3 November 2023 to Israeli soldiers and officers.447 The relevant biblical passage reads as follows: “ The Prime Minister referred again to Amalek in the letter sent on 3 November 2023 to Israeli soldiers and officers.447 The relevant biblical passage reads as follows: “ Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses."

This is the tenor of the evidence of intent that the South African complaint offers to International Court of Justice.  And as I write this, I always keep in mind the possibility that this whole document is a fake, that the quotes are fabricated.  But I don't think so.  Some of the Prime Minister's remarks are almost identical to the "Civilization versus Savages" theme  I posted above in Section 2 on Netanyahu that appeared in his 1995 book.  

But remember, these are like the prosecutor's opening argument.  It's their side of the story.  The defense hasn't yet had a chance to put things in context or to refute the arguments.  

Because I'm taking forever to write this, I can add the Israeli response.  Ha'aretz, the oldest Israeli newspaper, has this report on the Israeli response to the South African allegations.

[Being mindful of Issue #1 - Propaganda, Misinformation - the first link in the previous sentence is to the Encyclopedia Brittanica  article on Ha'aretz.  The second links to their report.]

5.  ZIONISM

This is another term that gets bandied about.  I'm not going to try to define it here, but you can see a couple of differing definitions/commentaries at the links below.

Wikipedia's treatment

The Foreign Policy Institute's take

The Promise and Failure of Zionism

Many people seem to have trouble distinguishing between Zionists, Jews, and Israelis and use two or all of those terms interchangeably to mean the same thing.  As though all Christians believe the same thing or act the same way.  People who identify (or are labeled) Jews come in many flavors, beliefs, ideologies, lifestyles.  The same is true of Israelis.  

6.  ISRAELI MISTREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS 

After World War II much of the world was shocked to learn of the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazis.  (If you don't believe the Holocaust happened, don't comment here.  I'll delete it as soon as I see it.  Rather educate yourself and get past your ignorance.)  Among Jews, the campaign to create a Jewish state in historic Israel was not universally supported.  But after the war, with many displaced Jewish refugees, many of them survivors of the Holocaust, sentiment supported establishing the state of Israel.  The newly formed United Nations approved. 

For the first years, the world heard heartwarming stories of the "Land of Milk and Honey," of the miracle in Israel making the desert bloom  When Israel was attacked in 1967 by surrounding Arab countries, Israel fought back and quickly defeated their enemies and kept the territory they took.  Moshe Dayan was an international hero, easily recognized with his black eye patch.  

But from the beginning the story wasn't so rosy.  Jews forced Arabs to abandon their homes and land.  Many fled to other Arab countries.  Over the years attempts to establish peace were thwarted by Palestinian rejection of the idea of Israel even existing.  Israeli supporters in the West used this rejection to show the Arabs were intransigent.  But it's clear that from the Arab perspective, the creation of Israel was similar to other colonial conquests where the indigenous people were simply removed for the colonists.  Even if the colonists were themselves a displaced people.

In the last 20 years or more, Israel has increasingly been a very oppressive ruler over the occupied territories.  Israel's annexation of West Bank Arab lands to build settlements for Israelis has exacerbated things.  People began talking about an Israeli apartheid. One can easily see similarities between the occupation and the way Black Americans are frequently treated by the police in the US.  

It's clear that many Israeli soldiers treat Palestinians with disdain. There are many places you can read about this, but I would offer Colum McCann's Apeirogon as a good place to start. [I highly recommend  reading Apeirogon]  It's the story of one Palestinian and one Jewish father who have both lost teenage daughters to the violence in Israel.  They are brought together and work with a group that advocates for peace and understanding.  There are very detailed descriptions of the indignities that Palestinians suffer daily.  

I believe that this treatment comes from 

• Israelis always feeling threatened (and Hamas does its best to stir up those fears) and 
• the ethnocentrism evidenced in Netanyahu's belief they are fighting a noble war between civilization and savagery.  [See Part I on Netanyahu]

As I mentioned in the post on The Battle of Algiers, people with little or no power, dominated by another people with lots of power, have few options other than guerrilla warfare.  

I'd also mention that other Arab countries tended to not take Palestinians as refugees into their countries.  One explanation was that by making Israel the collective enemy of Arabs, they could distract the Arab world from intra-Arab conflicts, and they could distract their own citizens from protesting their own authoritarianism.  Another explanation has been they simply didn't think they could handle the influx of so many Arabs with a somewhat different history in their own countries. 

7.  TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL - PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI EDUCATION

There are lots of articles about how Palestinian schools teach hate, such as this 2022 Times of Israel headline:

"UNRWA textbooks still include hate, antisemitism despite pledge to remove — watchdog

Israeli organization says that rather than taking the material out of the 2022 curriculum, the UN Palestinian refugee agency has merely taken it off its public education portal"

It takes a little more digging to find counter arguments such as this one from The Palestine Chronicle by Rima Najjar:

Zionism is an insidious ideology. Its ideologues often gain traction by well-placed and oft repeated constructs – in films and TV series, in posts and comments on social media, and even in academia. So, it is no wonder that people end up having ideas about certain things, like the nature of Israel, the Zionist Jewish state, or the nature of Palestinian Arab culture and identity, or the nature of Jewish culture and identity, as if by osmosis.

One of these “memes” in the air, if you will, is the oft repeated comment by hasbara agents on social media that says Palestinians teach their children to hate Jews. This notion can also be found in numerous attacks on the Palestinian Authority curriculum with the same accusation of “teaching children to hate Jews”, when in fact, the opposite is true, as is often the case with Zionist propaganda (see Nurit Peled-Elhanan’s Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education – Library of Modern Middle East Studies).

My understanding is that 

"'teaching children to hate Jews', when in fact, the opposite is true, as is often the case with Zionist propaganda"  

doesn't mean the Palestinians teach their kids to love Jews, but rather means that Israelis teach their kids to hate Palestinians.  

Michael Kaplan gave this example, in 2014, of Jews teaching their kids to hate Palestinians.  When Israelis Teach Their Kids To Hate. 

Two, more thorough, academic studies of Israeli text books suggest it's more subtle, but just as invidious.  

Here's the abstract of 2012 book by Nurit Elhanan-Peled

"The present book presents a critical multimodal study of one aspect of the Israeli-Zionist narrative as it is reproduced in school books of three disciplines: history, geography and civic studies. It consists of an analysis of the visual and verbal texts that represent the 'others' of Zionist Jews, namely Palestinians – both the citizens of Israel and the non-citizens who have been living under a military regime in the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967.The book shows that Israeli textbooks use racist discourse, both visually and verbally to represent Palestinians."

I only could find a few passages at the link to the publisher, but here's one to give you a sense of the book:

"... Texts present Palestine before 1948 as barren land and empty territory, abandoned since biblical times, waiting for Jews to redeem it while expunging Palestinian history and culture transforming 'Palestinian Arab students into "present absentees" as they learn about "the land of Israel"' (Abu-Saad, 2008: 24) without them. These texts are 'designed to "de-educate", or dispossess, Indigenous Palestinian pupils of the knowledge of their own people and history' (Abu-Saad, 2008: 17;Al-Haj, 2015;Mazawi, 2011;Peled-Elhanen, 2012;Raz-Karkotzkin, 2001). Textbooks construct Palestinians as 'backward, unproductive and untrustworthy; or even more negatively as murderers or rioters' while Jews engage 'in a justified, even humanitarian, war against an Arab enemy that refused to accept or acknowledge the existence and rights of Jews in Israel' (Abu-Saad, 2019: 101; Bar-Tal, 2001;Meehan, 1999). ..."

A 2020 Ha'aretz article - eight years later than the Elhanen book -  describes a Tel Aviv University study:

"Ben-Amos set out to explore how Israeli textbooks and pre-college matriculation exams address the occupation. He calls the situation 'interpretive denial.'”

Ben-Amos set out to explore how Israeli textbooks and pre-college matriculation exams address the occupation. He calls the situation “interpretive denial.” . . .

In most textbooks, “the Jewish control and the Palestinians’ inferior status appear as a natural, self-evident situation that one doesn’t have to think about,” he writes in an article to be published in a book on teaching history edited by Eyal Naveh and Nimrod Tal. . . .

Ben-Amos says the textbooks’ ignoring of the occupation or attempts to normalize it stem from self-censorship. In the absence of clear guidelines, nobody wants to be blacklisted and denounced, which was the fate of teachers and publishers who tried to convey a more nuanced message than the one permitted by the Education Ministry. . . .

Elhanen has continued writing articles on the subject of how 'the other' is treated in Israeli schools and textbooks.  You can see a list of books and articles here, some with links to full text.

I did find one more book- Palestinians in Israeli Textbooks (2016) - which seems to  say that it was bad in the past, but things are much better now.  

It's hard to find ways to peace when Palestinian children are regularly taught in schools and in the streets  to hate Jews and when Jewish children are given texts that either omit Palestinians or reinforce the idea that Jewish superiority over Palestinians is the natural order of things. 

Though as one Palestinian responded (paraphrasing), "Palestinian kids don't need to be taught in schools to hate Jews.  They pick that up by living under Israeli occupation."

Part III is still being written.  Here's the link.  

Why Making Real Time Sense Of Israeli-Gaza War Is So Difficult -Part I [Updated]

I've avoided posting about the Israeli-Gaza war for a number of reasons. (The one exception is this post recommending folks watch the Battle of Algiers.) 

The LA Times screenshot below articulates the thoughts behind my hesitation. 

Not that I'm either, but it does feel like people are being forced to pick a side and then attacked for it.  For many nuance is a copout.  

I've been thinking about this post since Hamas attacked Israel.  I've been writing it for about six weeks. Writing, at least the way I write, forces me to learn, to confront those statements I'm not certain about (most) with internet searches and trying my thoughts out on friends.  

The post has been growing organically.  As I write some things, later news events cause me to look up other assertions relevant to all of this.  

This post isn't supposed to be answers, but rather an annotated list of things (yes, I'd like a better word than that, suggestions?) people should know about before taking a firm position on the situation.  Each item is worthy of its own book length discussion. Most of these issues are intertwined.  Separating them into discrete items makes it easier to talk about them, but can be misleading, so read with caution.  Here's the list as it stands today (January 18, 2024)

1.  PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, OBLITERATION OF TRUTH

2.  THE PROBLEM OF NETANYAHU 

3A.  HISTORIC ANTI-SEMITISM

3B.  THE HOLOCAUST

4.  GENOCIDE

5.  ZIONISM

6.  ISRAELI MISTREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS 

7.  TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL - PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI EDUCATION

8.  RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS AND ISRAEL'S RIGHT WING TILT 

9.  IGNORANCE 

10.  HAMAS

11.  GUERRILLA WARFARE

12.  WHY GETTING JEWS OUT OF ISRAEL SEEMS EASIER THAN NATIVE AMERICANS GETTING EUROPEANS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES

I've 'finished' 1-8.  I've decided that this is too long for most readers, so I'm going to break it down into several posts, starting with 1 through 3B.  A version of 11 - Guerrilla Warfare - is already up offering you the movie Battle of Algiers.  

1.  PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, OBLITERATION OF TRUTH

Democracy requires citizens have access to information - how organizations work, who has power and how they use it - that enables us to make intelligent choices in how we lead our lives and who we vote for to represent us in government. 

Politicians and citizens have always bent the truth in their favor, but today the truth is almost unrecognizable. Trump's Republican Party realizes their ideas are outmoded and they can only win major elections by lying and subterfuge.  Right wing billionaires scheme to protect their wealth and ability to do as they please without regard to others.  Foreign authoritarian governments (ie Russia, Iran, China) have an interest in 'proving' to their citizens that democracy cannot work and destroying democracy in the US would be their greatest victory.  

Here's an Anchorage Daily News headline Dec. 19 2023 on a Washington Post story:

"The rise of AI fake news is creating a ‘misinformation superspreader’"

The story it makes my argument:

"Historically, propaganda operations have relied on armies of lowpaid workers or highly coordinated intelligence organizations to build sites that appear to be legitimate. But AI is making it easy for nearly anyone — whether they are part of a spy agency or just a teenager in their basement — to create these outlets, producing content that is at times hard to differentiate from real news."

So, starting off this discussion, I'd note that from even before the Hamas attack on Israel, false information was being spread to support and attack anyone who ventured to comment on this topic.  Russia sees it as a way to peel off voters from Biden to improve Trump's election to a second term knowing Trump would much more vigorously support Russia's plans in Ukraine and the world.  

It's also a way to divert world attention away from Ukraine and onto Israel.  (This may be just a brief sentence, but I suspect it's an important factor.)

While I think today (in January) the outline of the war is clearer than it was when I started, there is constant misinformation spread in mainstream media as well as social media.

2.  THE PROBLEM OF NETANYAHU 

Before Netanyahu was ever prime minister I found a book he authored on the bargain table at Borders Books in Anchorage.  So this was before 1996 when he first became prime minister.  I read the book and was appalled.  What I remember most vividly was a sentence where he said something to the effect of "I never met an Arab I could trust."  I didn't keep the book, but I've looked on line to see what books he wrote before 1996.  Wikipedia lists Netanyahu's books.  Here are the ones published before 1996:

• International Terrorism: Challenge and Response. Transaction Publishers. 1981. 
• Terrorism: How the West Can Win. Avon. 1987.
• Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 1995.

All these are edited books, with Netanyahu providing the introduction.  What I recall was more of an autobiographical work.  But I can't find any reference to such a book by Netanyahu before the 2022 autobiography.  

But I did look at an online preview of Terrorism: How The West Can Win. [click on Preview at the link].  This is an edited volume and Netanyahu introduces other speakers at a conference, so these excerpt probably cannot be directly attributed to Netanyahu.  But he has organized this conference and invited the presenters.  Netanyahu edited the book and presumably decided what went in and what didn't. [And we'll see later that this sentiments reappear in the current crisis.]  

The book ignores the idea of terrorism being the last resort of an oppressed people who have no legal way to protest their condition or change it.  Rather it is Civilization versus the Savages.  He quotes Gibbons of the fall of the Roman Empire 

Then he goes on to say that the same dynamic is happening today - civilization vs. the savages.  

This is the language that Europeans used to justify conquering non-Christian lands in the 16 and 1700s.  It's how the US government justified removing Native Americans from their land and killing those who resisted.  And one might argue, how the current Israeli government seems to treat Palestinians in the West Bank as they confiscate their property to make room for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

I don't know what Netanyahu says about the Jewish terrorists who fought against the British occupiers of Palestine in the first half of the 20th Century.  The deadly bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 was organized by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.  The book preview does include the index which does list   "King David Hotel Incident on page 45", but the preview on line doesn't go to page 45. In fact it has no page numbers.  He specifically rejects the idea that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."  But what about the Colonists who threw tea into Boston Harbor, or Ho Chi Minh who fought the French and then the Americans to free Vietnam from colonial rule?  

Netanyahu has also  been the subject of criminal prosecutions and huge public demonstrations against his weakening of the judicial branch of government.  Some have argued that pursuing this war is a way for Netanyahu to distract the nation from his legal problems.

It would be interesting to know the relationship between Netanyahu and Henry Kissinger about whom Netanyahu Netanyahu said we "have known one another for 'many years,'”  They seem to be kindred spirits.  

"Kissinger believed in power and disdained abstract ideas about progress, fraternity, democracy and freedom, ideas that America disseminates around the world. In his 1994 book “Diplomacy,” he justified national interests as the desired basis of foreign policy, calling on American leaders not to abandon this even after winning the Cold War.

His approach was congruent with Israel’s foreign policy, which since the days of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion believes in force while harboring deep reservations about international institutions and norms such as human rights and weapons control. That is why the harsh criticism of Kissinger by the left as the person directly responsible for mass murder, atrocities in Cambodia, Laos and Chile, Bangladesh and Timor, and for the bloody and needless prolongation of the Vietnam War, is heard in Israel only among a small circle of anti-American leftists."  (from Haaretz)

My sense of Netanyahu is that he is an absolutist on Arabs and terrorists and sees the civilian deaths resulting from the bombing of Gaza are, in his mind, completely justifiable as he attempts to rid Israel of terrorists.  

3A.  HISTORIC ANTI-SEMITISM

I don't want to go through the history of anti-semitism here.  Go to the link if you need a briefing.  I mention it here only to say that the reactions to the Israeli-Gaza war are aggravated by the latent pool of historic anti-semitism that persists in the world today.  

Further we have the conflation of Israeli, Jew, and Zionist.  And the assumption many have of Israelis, of non-Israeli Jews, and Zionists being a unified organism that all support Netanyahu's policy of bombing Gaza.  Each of the groups has divisions and groups who support and oppose, to varying degrees, the bombing.  

It's easy for people who know little or nothing of other countries to group all the people as being united.  But just as the United States has many divisions, so do all other countries. 

I mention this because there are people with strong opinions about the war who really have little or no experience with or understanding of the many different types of Jews or Israelis, who know nothing about the history of the geography and politics of the Middle East, particularly the land where Israel is located.  

Many Jews feel - and the current tolerance on the right of Neo-Nazis verify those feelings - that anti-semitism is alive and well today in the world and that no matter what Israel does they will be vilified.  An Orthodox Jew told me once, he didn't care what the world thought, because it didn't matter what Israel did, they would always get blamed.  

3B.  THE HOLOCAUST

The details in this section are a little rough, but I think the general point is valid.

The loss of 6 million Jews during WW II, seems to have stirred the world to allow the establishment of a Jewish state in what had been the British held territory in Palestine.  There was a moral high ground that Jews had.  And they managed to tell a story of a people who escaped hell on earth to create the Land of Milk and Honey and the miracle of Making the Desert Bloom.  In 1967, these survivors repelled the attack from various Arab neighbors.  Moshe Dayan was an international hero. 

But things went downhill from there.  I suspect part of the problem was that Israelis wrapped themselves in the story of surviving the Holocaust and slogan "Never Again."  They used these to justify taking Arab property and forcing many Palestinians to flee as protecting themselves from another Holocaust.  And Arabs who refused to acknowledge the right of a State of Israel to exist, gave some legitimacy to this idea.  

But in refusing to become the victims ever again, they slipped into the role of the oppressors in the West Bank and Gaza.  There's enough fault on both sides, but using the Holocaust to justify their treatment of Arabs to the world and to themselves, meant that they began losing the PR war among the rest of the world.

[Update - January 19, 2024, I found this comment today in an article by Nurit Elhanan of Hebrew University:

"The only thing that unites the antagonistic Jewish ethnic groups in Israel is fear of the enemy and the quest for a Jewish national 'purity' along with the belief only a Jewish majority and a strong Jewish army can prevent another Holocaust, this time perpetrated by the Palestinians or other Muslim powers, such as Iran." [emphasis added]

So, this is the end of Part I.  Part II is now (1/21/24) up.   Part III is now done.  Still more parts will appear soon.