Sunday, May 30, 2021

Biden in space: NASA budget includes largest boost ever for science programs

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. -- Vice President Joe Biden salutes Airmen from Langley here Feb. 6. The vice president stopped by Langley on his way to a conference in Williamsburg, Va. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Vernon Young)

Mark Sumner and Daily Kos May 30, 2021


This week, President Joe Biden released a proposed budget for fiscal year 2022. Parts of that budget include proposals already working their way through Congress—or smashed up against Republican opposition in the Senate—such as the infrastructure portion of the American Jobs Plan, or the energy proposals that recently emerged from committee as the Clean Energy for America Act. The $6B proposal includes programs to address homelessness, historic investments in education at all levels, along with a whole slew of programs to support children and families.

The $6 trillion proposal also includes $24.8 billion for NASA which, historically, is a long way from the amount of the budget dedicated to space back in the 1960s and '70s. However, it does represent a $1.5 billion boost over 2021. It also features a record $7.93 billion for science programs, including boosting the planetary science program from $500 million to $3.2 billion. Which means, of course, that there are cuts in other areas.

For more than two decades, NASA has been subject to wild swings in programs. Return to the moon. Mars. No, the moon. In the process, a whole generation of heavy lift vehicles disappeared in the midst of wild swings in funding and changes of direction. At present, the agency is aimed at heading back to the moon this decade, with both a space station that will orbit the moon rather than Earth, and a recently rewarded contract for a giant lunar lander. The Space Launch System, years behind schedule, just finished a successful test, and the first rocket is on its way to Kennedy for a launch in coming months. Plans are on the table for both future manned missions, some truly challenging voyages around the solar system, and still more instruments that could study planets around distant stars.

With a new administration coming to town, NASA is looking—again—at the potential of shifting goals that could potentially invalidate years of work, and redirect the agency at new targets which could last only until the next team arrives. So what does Biden's $24.8 billion budget really buy?

One thing that's been restored to the NASA budget that was cut under Donald Trump: Earth science. It may seem contradictory, but the best system for studying what's going on down here (including the climate) often requires getting new instruments into orbit. Under Trump, every instrument that might even potentially provide a clue about melting polar ice, or rising CO2, went on the chopping block. But the first Biden budget for NASA restores $250 million aimed at continuing a program known as the Earth System Observatory. The expansion of the program was announced a week ago, and should lead up to an additional four launches between now and 2030.

That large expansion of the planetary sciences program includes another program that's really more about what could (potentially, but hopefully not) be going on back on Earth. That's where the Near Earth Object Surveyor mission comes in. This would launch a telescope designed not to look at the most distant objects in the universe, but to seek out the asteroids and comets that skim closest to Earth. This is part of NASA's aptly named "Earth Defense" program which, presumably, will also direct any real space lasers if all those recent UFO videos signal a hostile invasion.

When it comes to the space just above Earth, the budget for 2022 includes a large boost in funding for commercial development of low Earth orbit (LEO). The $101.1 million allocated here is an increase of almost 500% from the 2021 actual numbers. It includes continued support for both cargo and crew missions to the International Space Station, and additional funding that should help expand the presence of commercial launches to orbit. That could include more funds for the development of SpaceX's Starship and expanding the use of Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser space plane. And, while NASA will continue to support ISS beyond it's original projected last-use data of 2025, it will also provide funds that could help private companies building their own next-generation space stations (something that has picked up more interest in the face of China's expansive plans for their own station). Actual funds to the ISS are essentially flat.

There is one Earth-related cancellation. That's the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) program. This isn't a rocket, but an instrument mounted in a Boeing 747 that scans the atmosphere for water vapor data that's used in climate modeling. NASA has felt for some time that they get better information from other sources and has been trying to cancel SOFIA for the last seven years … only Congress keeps putting the money back.

Planetary Science


Right now, the Perseverance rover is not just taking pictures as it drives across the surface of the red planet, it's also collecting rock samples in a way that protects them from potential contamination and readies them for a possible return to Earth. Only the Perseverance mission included no way to get those Mars rocks back to Earth. The 2022 budget includes over $650 million for the follow-on Mars Sample Return Mission that would drop a unique vehicle onto the Martian surface. This system would be designed to collect those samples already drilled out and packaged by Perseverance and blast them back to Earth with something that looks very much like space-bound artillery.


The Mars Ascent Vehicle is just one part of the Mars Sample Return mission.


Human exploration


Maybe the biggest sigh of relief for NASA watchers may be that when it comes to NASA's current plans for the moon and beyond, the biggest message sent by Biden's proposed budget is simply … carry on. The overall exploration budget goes up from $6.5 billion in 2021, to $6.8 billion in 2022, but the biggest news is that nothing major appears to have been shifted around. SLS is still on. The plan to fly an Orion capsule around the moon in the next year is still there. And the whole Artemis program to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 remains in place … even though everyone knows that date is going to slip. Then slip again.

One thing that NASA-watchers wanted to see was whether NASA's recent selection of SpaceX's enormous lunar version of Starship survived into the coming budget. It did. The biggest reason for this is the same reason that NASA made the selection in the first place: SpaceX radically undercut the proposed price of every competing lunar lander proposal, while promising much more capacity.

Proposed next generation lunar lander created by SpaceX. There are people in this picture. Look closely.


Right now the SpaceX contract to build the lander has been suspended because a team involving Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin (and a long list of traditional NASA subcontractors) has launched a suit contesting the decision to award the contract to SpaceX. If they win their suit, Congress will have to lay out more funds, because each of the competing proposals was far more costly.

Skeptics of NASA's whole SLS investment—now at least $2 billion and four years behind in development—have argued that the whole system should be cancelled. Just as the Commercial Crew program has seen astronauts return to the ISS at a fraction of the cost of developing a new NASA vehicle for that purpose, there has been considerable pressure to scrap SLS in favor of getting astronauts back to the moon on heavy lift vehicles, such as SpaceX's upcoming SuperHeavy/Starship, or Blue Origin's New Glenn. Plans have even been put forward for vehicles that might be launched using the existing Falcon Heavy or upcoming ULA Vulcan. But NASA has remained committed to SLS as America's ride to deep space, despite arguments that the fully-disposable rocket represents little advance over systems used 50 years ago.

That said, even those who oppose SLS are likely happy with Biden's proposed budget for what it doesn't do. It doesn't signal another enormous shift in priorities. That welcome signal of relative stability is something that everyone at Kennedy has to welcome … assuming any of this survives Congress.

Officially, NASA still hopes for a late 2021 launch of the first SLS system. Unofficially, don't be surprised if, after being delayed in Mississippi for extended testing, that launch slips into 2022.

 Founded in 2004 by Jeffrey Lewis, Arms Control Wonk was the first blog on arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. It has since been a home to everything that is "too wonky or obscene" for publication about nuclear weapons. The site now features thirty-plus contributors with an archive of over three thousand articles.

Netanyahu wanted a social media blackout during IDF operation - report

Specifically, Netanyahu wanted to block TikTok, where videos of Arabs attacking Jews went viral on numerous occasions, arguing that the platform could lead to more violence.

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
MAY 30, 2021 

Portrait of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu at his residence in Jerusalem, on March 18, 2021.
(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH 90)


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supported the proposal to shut down social media platforms during the first days of Operation Guardian of the Walls in an effort to simmer down riots in the mixed cities, Walla and Haaretz reported on Sunday.

Specifically, Netanyahu wanted to block TikTok, where videos of Arabs attacking Jews went viral on numerous occasions. He argued that the platform fanned the flames that could lead to more violence.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the prime minister raised the idea up on two occasions but the idea was shot down each time by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit, as well as other officials, Haaretz noted.

The proposal was “based on the understanding that social media platforms inflamed what was already going on in Israel,” an official told Walla, “with many of the riots and violence coming together through Facebook and TikTok videos that served as inspiration.”

One of the more viral videos showed a 17-year-old east Jerusalem Arab attacking a haredi Jew on the Jerusalem light rail. He was later arrested by Israel Police.

“Blocking access to social media is an anti-democratic act that we’ve seen in Egypt, Turkey and Russia,” Dr. Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler of the Israel Democratic Institute told Walla.
The Prime Minister did not approve blocking Instagram and Facebook in Israel,” said the Prime Minister’s Office.

However, the official who spoke to Walla insisted that the proposal included Facebook and Instagram, in an effort to block all access to the inciting content.

“He did investigate the different possibilities for dealing with the phenomenon of inciting videos on TikTok, which police and security forces concluded did contribute to the increase in violence,” Haaretz reported.
Palestinian protests and Canada’s efforts to achieve ‘quiet’

Police suppression of Palestinian protests across Canada has ignited a long overdue assessment of the role that Canadian police play in the oppression of the Palestinian people.
MAY 30, 2021
MONDOWEISS
PALESTINE SOLIDARITY PROTEST IN WINDSOR, ONTARIO, MAY 18, 2021

On Wednesday May 18th, Windsor, Ontario’s Palestinian community came together with hundreds of supporters to protest the recent escalations of Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing. The latest atrocities included the violent desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the expulsions of families in East Jerusalem, the campaign of state and mob violence against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and yet another horrific massacre against the besieged Gaza Strip.

While Palestinian activists in Windsor have experienced suppression from the Windsor police in the past, what we saw in response to this critical protest was something new. The scale of police presence and intimidation tactics that we witnessed have disturbed the entire community. We are now hearing about how Palestinian protests across Canada are being subjected to similar police suppression, and it’s bringing to light a long overdue assessment of the role that Canadian police play in the oppression of the Palestinian people.

Police approached us right at the beginning to try to prevent the protest with threats of charges and fines. After failing to deny our right to protest, it was clear to us that they were finding subversive ways to ‘neutralize’ the protest. They quickly conceded our right to hold the protest, but then focused on the unusual demand to not use any speakers due to new noise rules being implemented. They wanted no chanting, no speeches, and essentially minimal disruptions for the public. This type of intimidation and rules were not there for the relatively untouched anti-lockdown protests and labour dispute rallies that had been happening around the same time around Windsor.

Throughout the entire event, police aggressively approached individuals suspected of being organizers and took photos of their faces in what we assumed were attempts to find targets for charges. They waited until the end before finally throwing charges and large fines on someone they arbitrarily decided was a main organizer (he wasn’t). They then proceeded to hand out dozens of massive fines to people as they dispersed in their cars. We later learned of complaints over people honking their horns or playing Palestinian anthems loudly, so the police introduced a “new police initiative targeted at noise,” as their spokesperson explained in a CBC report. They blocked off streets to trap groups of cars and then passed out tickets for anything they could—not just any ‘unreasonable noise’—but also dangerously waving Palestinian flags or not wearing a seatbelt.

Ask anyone in Windsor, and they’ll likely recall many similar noisy scenes in the streets following victories by Italy’s national football team or for a socially-distanced birthday celebration. In a tweet, police announced proudly that they handed out over twenty-five tickets, with some families being given thousands of dollars worth of fines. Many witnesses reported blatant discrimination against cars with Arab drivers or Palestinian flags.




Similar scenes unfolded at protests across Canada: at least 12 people were charged for a protest in Hamilton; in Halifax, police first signaled approval for a socially-distanced car rally, but then suddenly handed out 17 tickets for both crowd and traffic rules; another socially-distanced car rally in Calgary led to an astonishing 100 traffic and noise tickets. In Mississauga, a Palestinian youth was reportedly assaulted by police and needed community intervention to avoid being detained.


So we can summarize what happened in Windsor and other cities in the last couple of weeks like this: Palestinians attempted to raise our voices about genocidal policies that are expelling and killing hundreds of people, and the response we got was a discussion about noise and traffic by-laws.

The problem is not the Palestinian community’s inability to follow city by-laws: the problem is Canada’s total complicity in Israeli oppression, to the point that we aren’t given any effective way to even raise the issue. And the reason for that is that we’re not just dealing with Israeli oppression: Palestinians need to begin recognizing the full extent of the oppression we face here in Canada.

How many Palestinians in Windsor know that the Windsor Police Department is one of many Ontario police departments that have built strong ties with the Israeli apartheid regime? Police in Ontario have repeatedly received training and resources from Israeli security forces on their suppression tactics. A 2005 Israel National News article reported: “Police chiefs from across Ontario, Canada are on a five-day visit to Israel, studying Israeli police procedures… Ontario police hoped to use the visit to improve their capacity to effectively deal with policing and security issues impacting Ontario communities.”

Not only have Canadian police departments been receiving training by Israel’s oppressive apartheid system, but they’ve repeatedly stated their intentions to emulate Israeli policies and tactics here in Canada. Palestinians here generally have no idea.

The 2008 “Canada-Israel Public Security Cooperation” is an agreement in effect right now that Canada and Israel set up to integrate the concerns, tactics, and values of Canadian police with Israeli police. According to the agreement, for at least the last 13 years, Israeli security forces have been involved in how Canadian police identify and assess “threats” and “public safety concerns.” They’ve been facilitating ongoing “technical exchange cooperation, including education, training, and exercises.” Palestinians everywhere know very well what Israeli security forces consider to be threats and what their public safety concerns revolve around: the existence of any Palestinian anywhere, especially those who refuse to give up their rights.

PALESTINE SOLIDARITY PROTEST IN WINDSOR, ONTARIO, MAY 18, 2021

After the protest, many people argued over the allegations of racism from the police. Kole Kilibarda’s important report on Canada’s close security ties with Israel highlights important questions about how trying to copy Israel’s policing methods “conditions the Canadian state’s attitudes towards Arab and Muslim communities,” given how Israeli security forces view and treat Arabs and Muslims.

The discussions about us being too noisy reminded me of how “maintaining quiet” is a very common theme in the way Israelis speak about their suppression of Palestinians. For example, at the beginning of this latest massacre in Gaza, Israel summarized the goal of its operation as simply “achieving complete quiet.” At the same time that he was busy trying to silence Palestinians there, police in Canada were focused on silencing Palestinians protesting against Netanyahu’s actions. Many groups and experts have been sounding the alarm on this relationship, such as Independent Jewish Voices Canada, which states that “Canada has imported the Israeli occupation and repression of Palestinians. Through its wars and its repression of Palestinian dissent, Israel promotes its weapons as ‘battleproven’… Israel is integrated in Canada’s public security.”

So now that we have more context: is it really a surprise to see Windsor police aggressively attempt to shut down Palestinian protests? The Palestinian community in Windsor and across Canada must come to terms with the fact that the police in our communities enthusiastically endorse and work closely with Israel’s apartheid regime. For all future protests and activism, we must be aware that the police are openly allied with our oppressors: so how can we expect them to be neutral in how they deal with us? A very productive move that Palestinian communities in Canada should consider is a public meeting with their police departments demanding answers on whether they can be trusted by Palestinian-Canadians.

Whether Palestinians are living in Canada or directly under Israeli rule, the key factor that maintains their suppression is keeping them unheard and unseen by the Western public. Basic realities about our situation have been purged from all mainstream media and social institutions a long time ago; without this erasure, it would be difficult for Israel to continue its crimes or for Canada to support them. We’re of course used to this in Western media’s coverage of the Israel’s apartheid regime, but we should note how the same dynamics apply on local news coverage of Palestinian communities.

The Windsor Star’s sole article on our protest was entitled “Pro-Palestinian rally in downtown Windsor leads to charge, tickets,” because they decided to make the story about the noise violations and how disruptive the Palestinian community is. No organizer was spoken to, no message from the protest was reported, and there was not a word about what was happening to Palestinians in the entire article. The bulk of the article simply quotes Windsor Police’s statement against the protestors, coupled with clips that seem to specifically highlight the protest’s brief Arabic speeches and chants.

The erasure of our humanity has simply become the norm in this country, and all this is deeply internalized by any Palestinian living here. We are conditioned to remain silent and to accept that our society will never truly hear or see our situation. And this is the reason why we see such a huge impulse among Palestinians to be especially loud and disruptive at some of our protests: the extreme degree of helplessness and erasure leads to an extreme compulsion to finally be seen. It’s not just trying to capitalize on the rare opportunity Palestinians get to bring our plight into public consciousness: for many Palestinians, it’s also a sudden, euphoric, and very personal opportunity to assert our humanity in this country. Hence the celebratory nature of lots of the rallies. There is finally a release of the built up emotional repression that comes from being in a country where expressing basic realities about our situation is a taboo; one that we’re often taught to only whisper about in private.

This also creates the problem of many members of our community being so unfamiliar with being able to express themselves openly, and so inexperienced with having any type of dialogue with the Canadian public. There is a serious lack of strongly established, resourceful Palestinian political organizing in Canada; we don’t have a public relations machine or effective standard tactics yet—especially in Windsor. Organizing protests in Windsor has always been a struggle because of this. The Palestinian community has simply not been allowed to develop an organized infrastructure, so when the community scrambles to come together in response to the latest Israeli atrocities making headlines, people are generally very free to express themselves however they want. The honking, the loud music, the dangerous flag-waving, the Arabic chants, and basically everything that irritates the wider community so much, is simply the forceful, public self-expression of people excited to just be seen by their society.

Moreover, there is still so much effort put into informative speeches, press releases, and public relations, but we’re still always ignored. The only time we receive significant attention from the media or the wider community is when we’re too disruptive. So my view at this point is that the police and the Canadian public are completely incapable of empathizing or listening to Palestinians no matter what we do or say. That attitude towards us didn’t come from nowhere.

The Windsor Police’s spokesperson specifically said they ticketed excessive honking because it “isn’t necessary during a peaceful protest”—subtly implying that Palestinians simply honking their horns to bring attention to ethnic cleansing is bordering on violence. Both their statements and their treatment of Palestinian protestors seem to indicate that Windsor Police can’t help but see aggression embedded in Palestinian protests and that their role is to contain it.

While the bombing of Gaza has ended for now, Israel has accelerated its ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem and arrested thousands of its Palestinian citizens in a massive crackdown. The overwhelming sentiment among us in Windsor is that we must continue organizing more protests, starting with a car rally planned for next week. This will present a key test for our community in response to the police crackdown and noise complaints at the last protest: will the honking, flag-waving, and noisiness disappear in fear of more fines and charges? In this dialogue between local authorities and Palestinians, it’s my hope that we can set an example for other Canadian cities on how to finally push our struggle in this country forward.
OPINION
Message to Palestinian leadership: Biden is not our ally, only the people will liberate Palestine

Antony Blinken's visit to Ramallah was not welcome by the average Palestinian in Gaza. We needed a rejection of U.S. imperialism, but instead got handshakes that amounted to little more than talks between the landlords and the thieves.
PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS MEETS WITH US SECRETARY OF STATE ANTHONY BLINKEN IN THE WEST BANK CITY OF RAMALLAH ON MAY 25, 2021. (PHOTO: THAER GANAIM/APA IMAGES)

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah was not welcome by the average Palestinian citizen in Gaza. What we needed from our leadership was a wholehearted demand to immediately end U.S. imperialism, but instead we got handshakes that amounted to little more than talks between the landlords and the thieves.

What is happening now in Palestine is a continuation of 1948, when Palestinians were dispossessed from our homeland which we have remained attached to since. Since then, despite violence and hardship that only gets worse on a daily basis, it has taken all means possible to express our rejection and resistance, and to achieve our mere basic human rights within the fragmented parts of our historic Palestine. And yet I can affirm, never before have the Palestinians been prouder than we are now, as we have stood as humans against the Israeli deprivation of our rights in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the unrecognized genocide in the Gaza Strip.

I am a Gaza-based Palestinian in my early 20s who is young enough to still anticipate a bright future worthy of the challenges and the sacrifice ahead, but old enough to have witnessed the different ways the occupation has dispossessed my family, and the ongoing massacres and destruction of my birthplace by Israeli F-16’s.

Over the last seven decades, the United States has itself stood, not only as an unequivocal ally of Israel, but also a significant complicit role player in the continued Israeli oppression of Palestinian land, identity, and people. The criminality of Israeli police in Jerusalem, and the Army’s attacks on Gaza, have never been clearer, and they should be held accountable by the world’s legal bodies. Because life in Palestine now is what it is because of U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. should be the first to act decisively in seeking justice and equality. Sadly, I know my hopes for American support for Palestine’s just cause against Israeli military occupation will not be met.

The recent $3.8 billion in annual military aid from the United States to Israel to keep on brutalizing Palestinians’ bodies, imprisoning them, and colonizing their lands non-stop, shows that the US government has Palestinian blood is on its hands. In addition, the US has also provided unwavering diplomatic impunity at an international level for Israel for its breaches and violations. This started from the early hours of the start of apartheid in Palestine 73 years ago and continues until today.

For these reasons, along with my fellow Palestinian activists, I see Blinken’s visit as a masquerade of politics and bad-faith diplomacy, attempting to break apart the long-standing Palestinian struggle and further entrench a settler-colonial and capitalist agenda that strikes at the trenches of the liberation movement wherever it is found in Palestine. Proof of this is in nothing more than the fact that even while this meeting was supposed to be in support of the ceasefire, Israel’s racially-discriminatory actions were still taking place simultaneously throughout Palestine with U.S. support for Israeli forces and settlers.
The US and Palestinian leadership: Anti-revolutionary pacifying forces

Palestinians reject the imposition of the United States as a broker for false “talks” between the colonizer and the defunct and corrupt leadership of Ramallah. We also reject any of the so-called well-intentioned efforts to allocate reconstruction money aid to Gaza which is only used to cover over the genocidal impact caused by the inhumane latest attacks on Gaza, which were supported by the U.S. in the first place.

What our leaders have to absorb is that our human suffering under continuous unprecedented fears and attacks every few years is not simply a statistic. The consequences last long, even longer than a leader might govern or dictate.

The events of recent weeks should have only strengthened the view of every lawful decision-maker in Palestine that we are not a country defined by political division or disorder or desperate actions, but rather a unified base of national resistance against the race-based discrimination and systematic policies of aggression, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid practiced by the occupier.

In reality, this country is ruled by military subjugation against protesters armed only with stones. These stones are just a small response to the brutality that has been passed down to the people from one generation to the next, made worse by the “defensive” military aid of our occupier’s allies.

Following the ceasefire, Netanyahu, commenting to the press, presented an aggressive promise with U.S. support and threatened a “very powerful response” if Gaza showed any resistance to the brutality of the Israeli government.

Blinken is in Ramallah to whitewash the recent result of this promise — the Israeli killing 254 innocent civilians, including 66 children, 39 women, 17 elderly, and 1,948 wounded. This is on top of totally devastating 576 residential units, and partially destroying 6,424 other homes. This is a vivid example of how Israel defends itself. They use Biden’s support when Palestinians are only responding back to the crimes committed against them in Gaza or the West Bank, not to mention those in exile and the diaspora.

And again, those statistics are not just numbers. Every one carries countless stories of belonging, hope, and steadfastness. All were killed due to their rejection of the occupation on their land. They were full of stories of hope, lifetimes of struggle, and were slowly driven into an exile. It was only their legitimate and moral persistence that led Israeli missiles to their soft bodies, which fell in shreds to the arms of their loved ones and families.

The United States government must end its decades-long policy as Israel’s benefactor and protector. The United States should foremost heed the Palestinians’ call, the call of its own citizens, and the millions of people of the world who have protested in support of Palestinian liberation, many of whom have been of course victims of oppression themselves.

Biden’s secretary of state’s statements were no more than lip services to us. We do not need the broken international community to restore our humanity and rights, and homeland. However, it is time for the U.S. to follow its supposed values of equality, justice, human rights, and freedom. For the U.S. to do so would mean an end to the prosecution of Palestinians that is sustained by American tax payer dollars, and instead support for the Palestinian plight to simply exist in the land of our ancestors.
Decolonizing Palestine is our people’s only duty

Years of incompetent Palestinian political dynamics has propelled the national resistance and struggle as Palestinians in all of occupied Palestine and the diaspora see that we share the same interests as one unified people: breaking the chains of the oppressor to not be suffocated under the occupation any longer.

As Palestinians only we are in control of our destiny; we have shown the world unparalleled unity and uprising while the occupation displays stupidity and aggressiveness.

I believe, stemming from my humble experience carrying out my mission of exposing the daily aggressions on my people, that liberating Palestine is the duty of its survivors, its people only.

Our officials flying around the world with our money and reputation, aiming to make the world pity and sympathize with us, is not what we consider persistent resistance. And as Palestinian citizens, threatened with tonnes of American-made, Israeli-piloted warplanes’ missiles, we don’t want anyone to pity us; — we want to be treated with humanity, justice, and liberty without being besieged by land, air, and sea.

It is so difficult to maintain this kind of perseverance across an entire population, but what pushes us along in the face of international complicity are hopeful dreams; the yearning to be laughing and bickering at the sea along every coastal city just for the sake of laughing and bickering. Like all humans elsewhere.

We are burdened by heartbreak, disappointment, and nostalgia, but this does not weaken our goal. As Palestinians, young and old alike, we are clutching our the keys to our homes and dreaming of our lands in occupied Palestine. This is the only Palestinian message that the world must learn.
Israel-Palestine: One-state solution is the path forward

Ahmed Yousef

30 May 2021 

In the wake of the latest Gaza massacre, it is time to shift the conversation towards a single binational state where all are treated equally


Palestinians wave flags amid an Israeli raid of Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque complex on 21 May 2021 (AFP)


The Gaza ceasefire had barely come into effect before Israeli forces had again stormed al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, a familiar cycle that has gone on for decades. The only thing that may end these incessant infractions would be a decision by Israeli leaders to genuinely protect those under their care, rather than to work towards an impossible Zionist dream. They need to understand that enough is enough.

With each onslaught, the false narrative of righteous self-defence is laid ever barer. If Israel's right-wing extremists don't come to realise that Palestinians are not a subservient people, nor will they disappear amid colonisation, then the country will continue to exist in a cycle of instability, apprehension and social discord.

While maintaining this level of resistance is exhausting, the alternative - simply accepting Israeli hegemony - is not an option

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip have demonstrated for more than seven decades that they will not capitulate, and those evicted or expelled from the country will not give up on their right of return.

They do not need foreign armies to bolster their resolve. While maintaining this level of resistance is exhausting, the alternative - simply accepting Israeli hegemony - is not an option. Palestinians have predominantly chosen a path of death or liberty.

Lest we forget what caused the latest escalation, it was a dual-pronged assault on Palestinian existence: Israeli forces raided al-Aqsa Mosque after denying worshippers their religious rites for weeks, and protected settlers who have been forcibly evicting Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. The Hamas rockets fired towards Tel Aviv came only after the Israelis were given ample opportunity to withdraw from the mosque.

Disproportionate suffering


Israel's latest assault on Gaza, branded as "Operation Guardian of the Walls," reflects the state's attempt to once again paint itself as an innocent. Since 2002, Israel has branded its military campaigns with a slew of schizophrenic names: Defensive Shield, Summer Rains, Hot Winter, Cast Lead, Pillar of Defence and Protective Edge.

Notwithstanding the bizarre nomenclature, the casualty count has consistently been lopsided. And even before these onslaughts, Israel has a decades-long history of colonialism, military aggression and financial strangulation.
Palestinian volunteers and municipal workers clear rubble from Israeli air strikes in Gaza City on 25 May 2021 (AFP)

In the latest onslaught, more than 200 Palestinians were killed and hundreds more injured. But Palestinians know that such numbers matter little to Israeli officials, except as tools for the likes of "Justice" Minister Benny Gantz, who wears them with pride. In 2019, Gantz ran a campaign ad that boasted of killing 1,364 "terrorists" in the 2014 Gaza war.

As Palestinians this month commemorate the 73rd anniversary of the Nakba, we can draw parallels to Deir Yassin and other massacres remembered now only by those willing to dirty their fingers by flipping through the pages of history. Journalists did not write accounts revealing Zionist complicity back then, and most are not risking their careers by doing so now.

Western media channels meekly profess objective journalism by quoting or interviewing both sides in the "conflict," seemingly oblivious to the fact that Palestinians are disproportionately suffering amid severe Israeli repression.
Potential solutions

In the latest indiscriminate assault on Gaza, which is among the most densely populated places on earth, Israeli bombs destroyed residential apartment buildings, media offices, healthcare facilities, roads and other key infrastructure. Among the dead were more than 60 children, and thousands more people have been displaced.


Gaza: Ceasefire offers no respite from Israel's colonial siege
Read More »

Now that the drones and sirens have been silenced, there will be more discussion around potential solutions. The two-state option is frankly no longer viable. As Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy once aptly noted, no Israeli government, regardless of political party, has ever had the slightest intention of implementing a two-state solution or ending the occupation, with the Oslo Accords functioning as yet another delaying tactic.

A single binational state where everyone is treated as an equal, however, is entirely feasible, and such a shift would surely be welcomed by the people of Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. Moving in this direction will be difficult, requiring leaders with vision and determination, but if the oppressive Soviet Union could be dissolved, and if apartheid South Africa could be unified, then Israel-Palestine can certainly be set on a new path.

Is this proposition outlandish, with little real hope of materialising? Perhaps, but then again, in the age of citizen journalism, with social media revealing events as they unfold; and with an ever-increasing number of young Israelis realising they have been lied to, Israeli society may yet force the country's leaders to work for peace, rather than to instigate war.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.


Ahmed Yousef was a political adviser to the former Palestinian Prime Mister Ismael Hanniya and is the head of the Gaza-based House of Wisdom institute.
Naftali Bennett: The right-wing millionaire who may end Netanyahu era
Maayan Lubell
Sun, 30 May 2021,

FILE PHOTO: Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett speaks during a reception hosted by the Orthodox Union in Jerusalem ahead of the opening of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem

By Maayan Lubell

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Naftali Bennett, Israel's likely next prime minister, is a self-made tech millionaire who dreams of annexing most of the occupied West Bank.

Bennett has said that creation of a Palestinian state would be suicide for Israel, citing security reasons.

But the standard-bearer of Israel's religious right and staunch supporter of Jewish settlements said on Sunday he was joining forces with his political opponents to save the country from political disaster.

The son of American immigrants, Bennett, 49, is a generation younger than 71-year-old Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving leader.

A former commando, Bennett named his eldest son after Netanyahu's brother, Yoni, who was killed in an Israeli raid to free hijacked passengers at Uganda's Entebbe airport in 1976.

Bennett has had a long and often rocky relationship with Netanyahu, working between 2006 and 2008 as a senior aide to the then-opposition leader before leaving on reported bad terms.

Bennett stormed into national politics in 2013, revamping a pro-settler party and serving as minister of defence as well as of education and the economy in various Netanyahu governments.

A former leader of Yesha, the main settler movement in the West Bank, Bennett made annexation of parts of the territory that Israel captured in a 1967 war a major feature of his political platform.

But as head of a so-called government of "change" that will include left-wing and centrist parties, while relying on support in parliament from Arab legislators, following through on annexation would be politically unfeasible.

Bennett said on Sunday both the right and left would have to compromise on such ideological matters.

Born in the Israeli city of Haifa to immigrants from San Francisco, Bennett is a modern-Orthodox religious Jew. He lives with his wife, Gilat, a dessert chef, and their four children in the affluent Tel Aviv suburb of Raanana.

Like Netanyahu, Bennett speaks fluent American-accented English and spent some of his childhood in north America, where his parents were on sabbatical.

While working in the high-tech sector, Bennett studied law at Jerusalem's Hebrew University. In 1999, he formed a start-up and then moved to New York, eventually selling his anti-fraud software company, Cyota, to U.S. security firm RSA for $145 million in 2005.

POLICY

Last year, as Netanyahu’s government sought to press ahead with West Bank annexation and settlement building in the final months of the Trump administration, Bennett, then defence chief, said: "The building momentum in the country must not be stopped, even for a second."

The annexation plan was eventually scrapped when Israel formalised ties with the United Arab Emirates. Analysts see little chance of it being resurrected under Donald Trump's Democratic successor, President Joe Biden, if ever.

Nonetheless, Palestinians are likely to regard Bennett's elevation as a blow to hopes of a negotiated peace and an independent state, the long-standing diplomatic formula that Biden favours.

After Israel in March held its fourth election in two years Bennett, who leads the far-right Yamina party, said a fifth vote would be a national calamity and entered talks with the centre-left block that forms the main opposition to Netanyahu.

An advocate of liberalising the economy, Bennett has voiced support for cutting government red tape and taxes.

Unlike some of his former allies on the religious right, Bennett is comparatively liberal on issues such as gay rights and the relationship between religion and state in a country where Orthodox rabbis wield strong influence.

(Reporting by Maayan Lubell; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Giles Elgood)

Israel's ex-defence minister Bennett shows Pakistani hospital in video as 'Hamas headquarters'

MENA2 min read
The New Arab Staff
30 May, 2021
Naftali Bennett, the right-wing politician who is in the running to become Israel's next prime minister, showed an image of a Pakistani hospital while describing the building as the headquarters of the Palestinian militant group.


The hospital shown in the video is located in Islamabad, Pakistan [YouTube]

Israel's former defence minister was caught out this week by Pakistani social media users who highlighted the right-wing politician's false use of a photo of a Pakistani hospital to describe the "headquarters" of Hamas in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Naftali Bennett, who is currently in talks with other Israeli opposition leaders to form a new government, used a photo of the Shifa International Hospital in the Pakistani capital Islamabad in a video posted on May 20.

The Yamina leader unwittingly used the photo to represent the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, which he falsely alleged was used as the headquarters of the Hamas militant group.

Al-Shifa is the largest hospital in the Palestinian enclave and treated hundreds of civilians injured during 11 days of intensive Israeli air strikes and shelling this month.

In the video, addressed to celebrities who have criticised Israel over the brutal bombardment and occupation of Palestinian lands, Bennett also claimed a school was being used as a weapons store by Hamas.

He also repeated the official Israeli allegation that the Al-Jalaa Tower in Gaza, which contained homes and international media offices before being completely destroyed in an air strike, was a Hamas military intelligence office. Israel has not provided any evidence for those claims.

Bennett is not the only high-profile Israeli to have shared images from another country falsely purporting to be from Palestine.


RELATED

Netanyahu spokesman uses Syria war footage in anti-Hamas post
MENA
The New Arab Staff
12 May, 2021

Yair Netanyahu, son of the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, shared a video clip of a "funeral" where bodies are lying on the ground covered in white shrouds. As the camera moves, one of the bodies can be seen moving.

Netanyahu, who is known for his controversial statements on social media, claimed that the video showed "Paliwood" actors faking deaths in the Gaza Strip. The video was in fact from a 2013 protest in Egypt.

Similarly, Ofir Gendelman, the spokesperson of Prime Minister Netanyahu, shared a video which he claimed showed Palestinian militants launching rockets in a densely populated area. The video was taken in Syria in 2018.

Gendelman also shared a video, which he said showed Palestinians staging bodies for a fake photo. The video actually showed people preparing for a bomb drill.

Another viral video claimed to show Palestinians faking injuries. The video was actually from 2017 and showed the application of film and special effects make-up as part of a medical training exercise organised by Doctors of the World.

The Age of Reason and the Restless Masses:

Censoring Class Consciousness in the

 Nineteenth Century

Historians/History
tags: censorshipThomas PaineFree PressblasphemyPublicationRichard Carlile

Eric Berkowitz is a writer, lawyer, and journalist. For more than 20 years, he practiced intellectual property and business litigation law in Los Angeles. Berkowitz has published widely throughout his career, and his writing has appeared in periodicals such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, the Los Angeles Times, and LA Weekly. His previous books include Sex and Punishment and The Boundaries of Desire. He lives in San Francisco. His new book, Dangerous Ideas: A Brief History of Censorship in the West, From the Ancients to Fake News, was released this month by Beacon Press.

 

 

Adapted from Dangerous Ideas: A Brief History of Censorship in the West, from the Ancients to Fake News

 

“The barbarians that threaten society,” declared a French legislative deputy in the early 1830s, are the “[working classes] of our manufacturing towns.” In France, and throughout nineteenth-century Europe, elites were intent on choking off information that might stir the working and lower classes to demand political and social rights, which the upper orders equated with rebellion. Censorship of the press--the theatre, caricature, and soon after the century’s end, cinema—was consistently driven by the governing classes’ morbid conviction that an informed populace would become an inflamed populace and lead to their own demise.

“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets,” observed Napoleon Bonaparte. “If I allowed a free press, I would not be in power for another three months.”  England’s Lord Grenville warned in 1817 that the press’s “wicked and blasphemous productions” did not merely risk changes in government; they questioned “whether government should exist at all.” Two years later, Austria’s foreign minister Klemens von Metternich called the press a “scourge” and the era’s “greatest and … most urgent evil.”

Government survived, of course, and much of the censorship during this period was paranoid and ludicrous. Austria banned the word “liberté” on the sides of imported boxes of china, while Russian cookbooks could not refer to “free air” in ovens. But however overwrought were the fears of the elites, the faith among workers and their allies that a free press would solve society’s ills was equally intense. In 1842, Karl Marx extolled an unregulated press as “the ideal world, which constantly gushes from the real one and streams back to it ever richer and animated anew”—a numinous sentiment later hardened into a battle cry by the liberal German parliamentarian Georg von Bunsen: “The fight for the freedom of the press is a holy war, the holy war of the nineteenth century.” By 1849, as revolutions roiled Europe and Marx stood trial for publishing derogatory remarks about German officials, he viewed the press as a force to “undermine all the foundations of the existing political system.”

Authorities viewed church and state as codependent; an attack on one was regarded as an assault on the other. Since the French Revolution, radical politics in England and on the Continent had involved distrust of religious institutions and questioning the tenets of Christianity. In the view of a London judge in 1819, the Revolution had been a dark time when “the worship of Christ was neglected,” which resulted in “the bands of society torn asunder, and a dreadful scene of anarchy, blood, and confusion.” France had been defeated, but the specter of religion’s “neglect” in England remained wherever challenges to authority were raised. “Everything . . . in the nineteenth century,” observes the historian E. P. Thompson, “was turned into a battleground of class.”

That battleground was frequently located in courthouses. English dissenters were often accused of seditious libel—a doctrine criminalizing most criticism of government or church, whether true or not—but authorities also brought hundreds of blasphemy cases, which they viewed as an easier sell to middle-class juries. Apparently, verbal attacks on church or scripture were not considered less problematic when consumed in sumptuous surroundings than when they were aimed at the lower classes. A worker hoping for comfort in the next world, as opposed to material gains in this one, was seen as a more docile worker, and that could not change.

“The gospel is preached particularly for the poor,” the prosecutor said in an 1819 blasphemy trial, which he framed as being “for the purpose of protecting the lower and illiterate classes from having their faith sapped” and their “deference to the laws of God, and of their country” diminished. In that case, the defendant was the radical pressman Richard Carlile, and the blasphemous material was an inexpensive version of The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine’s broadside against Christianity and the BiblePaine’s attacks on the Bible’s “lies,” “absurdities,” “atrocities,” and “contradictions” gave prosecutors much to work with. The book labeled Christians as infidels, framed Christianity as a heathen mythology, and characterized the Immaculate Conception as an “obscene” tale of a young woman “debauched by a ghost.” Religion itself was cast as a political weapon to crush the common people.

Carlile tried to demonstrate that Paine’s critiques of religion were in fact correct, but the judge stopped him: “I cannot let men be acquitted of . . . violating the law because they are unbelievers.” When Carlile tried to show inconsistencies in the Bible, the judge again refused: “You cannot go into the truth of the Christian religion. . . . You are not at liberty to do anything to question the divine origin of Christianity.”

Carlile lost the case and was sent to jail, but his goal was achieved, at least for the moment. Court rules permitted him to read the entirety of The Age of Reason while on the stand, and the law allowed the publication of court proceedings. Carlile’s wife, Jane, went into action, selling ten thousand copies of Paine’s work in the form of a trial report in a matter of weeks. More importantly, Carlile’s travails sparked widespread discussion on the meaning of freedom of the press. The question was not whether Paine’s opinions were correct, but whether Carlile should be jailed for publishing them.

A small army of supporters took up his cause, and Jane took over his Fleet Street printing shop and was jailed herself at least four times. Other supporters continued publishing the writings of Paine and Carlile; they were almost all summarily tried and convicted. So many of Carlile’s shopmen and supporters ended up in Newgate Prison with him that they launched a magazine, Newgate Monthly, which managed to remain in publication out of Carlile’s shop for two years.

“My whole and sole object, from first to last,” Carlile wrote in characteristically grandiose terms, “has been a Free Press and Free Discussion.” In the end, Carlile paid a big price for this, spending a total of about nine years in jail, impoverishing himself and his family, and sparking dozens of blasphemy prosecutions against himself and his supporters. But he obtained a good measure of satisfaction through attrition. After nearly a decade of blasphemy prosecutions against Carlile and his followers, The Age of Reason would remain in circulation.*

Further issues arose when states tried to accommodate the demands of the middle and commercial classes for materials that were off-limits to the poor. At various times, France, Germany, and Russia all exempted expensive works from prepublication censorship while imposing it on cheaper books, newspapers, and pamphlets. In Austria and Russia, a book could be banned when published individually at a low price, and permitted when sold as part of an expensive set, which happened with Tolstoy’s The Kreutzer Sonata. The author’s wife, Sonya, pleaded with the tsar to allow it to be published as part of Tolstoy’s collected works, since, as the tsar himself noted, “not everyone could afford to buy the whole set.”

At the same time, books with troublesome subject matter could be allowed if the lower classes were deemed too ignorant to grasp them. This occurred, with delicious irony, in 1867, with the book that became the seminal text of communism: Karl Marx’s Das Kapital. Russian authorities allowed it in both the original German and in translation, because it was “difficult” and “inaccessible,” its socialist message deemed buried in a “colossal mass of abstruse, somewhat obscure” arguments.

Authorities were especially alarmed by media that did not require reading—particularly theatre, drawings, and caricature—which communicated to a broader, poorer audience than printed text did and carried a more powerful, visceral impact. In several countries, advance censorship of theatre and graphic art continued long after such controls had been dropped for press publications. Printed text came to be regarded as a less threatening communications medium, because so many poor people remained illiterate or semiliterate.

Whether in theatre, opera, film, or even songs, the perceived threat of instant, unmediated communication was compounded by the fact that these media were consumed collectively. They were thus, according to the scholar Robert Goldstein, considered “far more likely to provoke immediate action than printed matter typically read in the privacy of (often middle-class) homes.” As elaborated by an Austrian censor in 1795:

Censorship of the theatre must be much stricter than the normal censorship of printed reading matter. . . . The impression made [by a dramatic work] is infinitely more powerful . . . because [it] engages the eyes and ears and is intended to penetrate the will of the spectator in order to attain the emotional effects intended; this is something that reading alone does not achieve. Censorship of books can . . . make them accessible only to a certain kind of reader, whereas the playhouse by contrast is open to the entire public, which consists of every class, every walk of life, and every age.

And when this impressive experience is shared in darkened rooms by simple people, according to a French theatre censor in 1862, the risk of chaos results:

An electric current runs through the playhouse, passing from actor to spectator, inflaming them both with a sudden ardor and giving them an unexpected audacity. The public is like a group of children. Each of them by themselves is sweet, innocuous, sometimes fearful, but bring them together and you are faced with a group that is bold and noisy, often wicked. The courage or rather the cowardice of anonymity is such a powerful force!

Preventing such electric currents kept theatre censors busy throughout the century. While special scrutiny was paid to inexpensive venues, plays performed before all strata of society were examined. Regardless of where they were performed, any play that impugned ruling authority would likely be censored. Austrian censors demanded that even fictional kings be depicted with delicacy. The producers of Shakespeare’s tragedy King Lear were told in 1826 to rewrite the play so that Lear did not die at the end, even though the story was rendered incomprehensible as a result. The censor believed it was wrong to show a king dying in a state of abject insanity.

Class-based censorship continued into the twentieth century, particularly of the new and first truly mass medium of cinema. The degree of concern over how impecunious audiences might respond to political, sexual, or criminal messaging in movies would be laughable, had it not been so harmful. But restrictions on cinema were soon folded into a more complex global matrix of censorship, lies, and selective truth telling that took shape amid the propaganda-soaked cataclysms of two world wars and the rise of broadcast communications. As political censorship became associated with the regimes of industrialized murder and dissent came to be viewed as a positive attribute of a free society rather than the seed of its downfall, and as the West remade itself after World War II, the commitment to a truly free press and unconstrained self-expression—with significant hiccups, backtracking, and interruptions—expanded as never before.


Review: Lesley Blume's “Fallout: The Hiroshima

 Cover-up and the Reporter Who Revealed It to the

 World”

Books
tags: nuclear weaponsHiroshimacensorshipjournalismatomic bombNagasakiWorld War 2John Hersey


Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

In this crisply written, well-researched book, Lesley Blume, a journalist and biographer, tells the fascinating story of the background to John Hersey’s pathbreaking article “Hiroshima,” and of its extraordinary impact upon the world.

In 1945, although only 30 years of age, Hersey was a very prominent war correspondent for Time magazine—a key part of publisher Henry Luce’s magazine empire—and living in the fast lane.  That year, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his novel, A Bell for Adano, which had already been adapted into a movie and a Broadway play.  Born the son of missionaries in China, Hersey had been educated at upper class, elite institutions, including the Hotchkiss School, Yale, and Cambridge.  During the war, Hersey’s wife, Frances Ann, a former lover of young Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, arranged for the three of them to get together over dinner.  Kennedy impressed Hersey with the story of how he saved his surviving crew members after a Japanese destroyer rammed his boat, PT-109.  This led to a dramatic article by Hersey on the subject—one rejected by the Luce publications but published by the New Yorker.  The article launched Kennedy on his political career and, as it turned out, provided Hersey with the bridge to a new employer – the one that sent him on his historic mission to Japan.

Blume reveals that, at the time of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hersey felt a sense of despair—not for the bombing’s victims, but for the future of the world.  He was even more disturbed by the atomic bombing of Nagasaki only three days later, which he considered a “totally criminal” action that led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Most Americans at the time did not share Hersey’s misgivings about the atomic bombings.  A Gallup poll taken on August 8, 1945 found that 85 percent of American respondents expressed their support for “using the new atomic bomb on Japanese cities.”

Blume shows very well how this approval of the atomic bombing was enhanced by U.S. government officials and the very compliant mass communications media.  Working together, they celebrated the power of the new American weapon that, supposedly, had brought the war to an end, producing articles lauding the bombing mission and pictures of destroyed buildings.  What was omitted was the human devastation, the horror of what the atomic bombing had done physically and psychologically to an almost entirely civilian population—the flesh roasted off bodies, the eyeballs melting, the terrible desperation of mothers digging with their hands through the charred rubble for their dying children.

The strange new radiation sickness produced by the bombing was either denied or explained away as of no consequence.  “Japanese reports of death from radioactive effects of atomic bombing are pure propaganda,” General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, told the New York Times.  Later, when, it was no longer possible to deny the existence of radiation sickness, Groves told a Congressional committee that it was actually “a very pleasant way to die.”

When it came to handling the communications media, U.S. government officials had some powerful tools at their disposal.  In Japan, General Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander of the U.S. occupation regime, saw to it that strict U.S. military censorship was imposed on the Japanese press and other forms of publication, which were banned from discussing the atomic bombing.  As for foreign newspaper correspondents (including Americans), they needed permission from the occupation authorities to enter Japan, to travel within Japan, to remain in Japan, and even to obtain food in Japan.  American journalists were taken on carefully controlled junkets to Hiroshima, after which they were told to downplay any unpleasant details of what they had seen there.

In September 1945, U.S. newspaper and magazine editors received a letter from the U.S. War Department, on behalf of President Harry Truman, asking them to restrict information in their publications about the atomic bomb.  If they planned to do any publishing in this area of concern, they were to submit the articles to the War Department for review.

Among the recipients of this warning were Harold Ross, the founder and editor of the New Yorker, and William Shawn, the deputy editor of that publication.  The New Yorker, originally founded as a humor magazine, was designed by Ross to cater to urban sophisticates and covered the world of nightclubs and chorus girls.  But, with the advent of the Second World War, Ross decided to scrap the hijinks flavor of the magazine and begin to publish some serious journalism.

As a result, Hersey began to gravitate into the New Yorker’s orbit.  Hersey was frustrated with his job at Time magazine, which either rarely printed his articles or rewrote them atrociously.  At one point, he angrily told publisher Henry Luce that there was as much truthful reporting in Time magazine as in Pravda.  In July 1945, Hersey finally quit his job with Time.  Then, late that fall, he sat down with William Shawn of the New Yorker to discuss some ideas he had for articles, one of them about Hiroshima.

Hersey had concluded that the mass media had missed the real story of the Hiroshima bombing.  And the result was that the American people were becoming accustomed to the idea of a nuclear future, with the atomic bomb as an acceptable weapon of war.  Appalled by what he had seen in the Second World War—from the firebombing of cities to the Nazi concentration camps—Hersey was horrified by what he called “the depravity of man,” which, he felt, rested upon the dehumanization of others.  Against this backdrop, Hersey and Shawn concluded that he should try to enter Japan and report on what had really happened there.

Getting into Japan would not be easy.  The U.S. Occupation authorities exercised near-total control over who could enter the stricken nation, keeping close tabs on all journalists who applied to do so, including records on their whereabouts, their political views, and their attitudes toward the occupation.  Nearly every day, General MacArthur received briefings about the current press corps, with summaries of their articles.  Furthermore, once admitted, journalists needed permission to travel anywhere within the country, and were allotted only limited time for these forays.

Even so, Hersey had a number of things going for him.  During the war, he was a very patriotic reporter.  He had written glowing profiles about rank-and-file U.S. soldiers, as well as a book (Men on Bataan) that provided a flattering portrait of General MacArthur.  This fact certainly served Hersey well, for the general was a consummate egotist.  Apparently as a consequence, Hersey received authorization to visit Japan.

En route there in the spring of 1946, Hersey spent some time in China, where, on board a U.S. warship, he came down with the flu.  While convalescing, he read Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, which tracked the different lives of five people in Peru who were killed when a bridge upon which they stood collapsed.  Hersey and Shawn had already decided that he should tell the story of the Hiroshima bombing from the victims’ point of view.  But Hersey now realized that Wilder’s book had given him a particularly poignant, engrossing way of telling a complicated story.  Practically everyone could identify with a group of regular people going about their daily routines as catastrophe suddenly struck them.

Hersey arrived in Tokyo on May 24, 1946, and two days later, received permission to travel to Hiroshima, with his time in that city limited to 14 days.

Entering Hiroshima, Hersey was stunned by the damage he saw.  In Blume’s words, there were “miles of jagged misery and three-dimensional evidence that humans—after centuries of contriving increasingly efficient ways to exterminate masses of other humans—had finally invented the means with which to decimate their entire civilization.”  Now there existed what one reporter called “teeming jungles of dwelling places . . . in a welter of ashes and rubble.”  As residents attempted to clear the ground to build new homes, they uncovered masses of bodies and severed limbs.  A cleanup campaign in one district of the city alone at about that time unearthed a thousand corpses.  Meanwhile, the city’s surviving population was starving, with constant new deaths from burns, other dreadful wounds, and radiation poisoning.

Given the time limitations of his permit, Hersey had to work fast.  And he did, interviewing dozens of survivors, although he eventually narrowed down his cast of characters to six of them.

Departing from Hiroshima’s nightmare of destruction, Hersey returned to the United States to prepare the story that was to run in the New Yorker to commemorate the atomic bombing.  He decided that the article would have to read like a novel.  “Journalism allows its readers to witness history,” he later remarked.  “Fiction gives readers the opportunity to live it.”  His goal was “to have the reader enter into the characters, become the characters, and suffer with them.”

When Hersey produced a sprawling 30,000 word draft, the New Yorker’s editors at first planned to publish it in serialized form.  But Shawn decided that running it this way wouldn’t do, for the story would lose its pace and impact.  Rather than have Hersey reduce the article to a short report, Shawn had a daring idea.  Why not run the entire article in one issue of the magazine, with everything else—the “Talk of the Town” pieces, the fiction, the other articles and profiles, and the urbane cartoons—banished from the issue?

Ross, Shawn, and Hersey now sequestered themselves in a small room at the New Yorker’s headquarters, furiously editing Hersey’s massive article.  Ross and Shawn decided to keep the explosive forthcoming issue a top secret from the magazine’s staff.  Indeed, the staff were kept busy working on a “dummy” issue that they thought would be going to press.  Contributors to that issue were baffled when they didn’t receive proofs for their articles and accompanying artwork.  Nor were the New Yorker’s advertisers told what was about to happen.  As Blume remarks:  “The makers of Chesterfield cigarettes, Perma-Lift brassieres, Lux toilet soap, and Old Overholt rye whiskey would just have to find out along with everyone else in the world that their ads would be run alongside Hersey’s grisly story of nuclear apocalypse.”

However, things don’t always proceed as smoothly as planned.  On August 1, 1946, President Truman signed into law the Atomic Energy Act, which established a “restricted” standard for “all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons.”  Anyone who disseminated that data “with any reason to believe that such data” could be used to harm the United States could face substantial fines and imprisonment.  Furthermore, if it could be proved that the individual was attempting to “injure the United States,” he or she could “be punished by death or imprisonment for life.”

In these new circumstances, what should Ross, Shawn, and Hersey do?  They could kill the story, water it down, or run it and risk severe legal action against them.  After agonizing over their options, they decided to submit Hersey’s article to the War Department – and, specifically, to General Groves – for clearance.

Why did they take that approach?  Blume speculates that the New Yorker team thought that Groves might insist upon removing any technical information from the article while leaving the account of the sufferings of the Japanese intact.  After all, Groves believed that the Japanese deserved what had happened to them, and could not imagine that other Americans might disagree.  Furthermore, the article, by underscoring the effectiveness of the atomic bombing of Japan, bolstered his case that the war had come to an end because of his weapon.  Finally, Groves was keenly committed to maintaining U.S. nuclear supremacy in the world, and he believed that an article that led Americans to fear nuclear attacks by other nations would foster support for a U.S. nuclear buildup.

The gamble paid off.  Although Groves did demand changes, these were minor and did not affect the accounts by the survivors.

On August 29, 1946, copies of the “Hiroshima” edition of the New Yorker arrived on newsstands and in mailboxes across the United States, and it quickly created an enormous sensation, particularly in the mass media.  Editors from more than thirty states applied to excerpt portions of the article, and newspapers from across the nation ran front-page banner stories and urgent editorials about its revelations.  Correspondence from every region of the United States poured into the New Yorker’s office.  A large number of readers expressed pity for the victims of the bombing.  But an even greater number expressed deep fear about what the advent of nuclear war meant for the survival of the human race.

Of course, not all readers approved of Hersey’s report on the atomic bombing.  Some reacted by canceling their subscriptions to the New Yorker.  Others assailed the article as antipatriotic, Communist propaganda, designed to undermine the United States.  Still others dismissed it as pro-Japanese propaganda or, as one reader remarked, written “in very bad taste.”

Some newspapers denounced it.  The New York Daily News derided it as a stunt and “propaganda aimed at persuading us to stop making atom bombs . . . and to give our technical bomb secrets away . . . to Russia.”  Not surprisingly, Henry Luce was infuriated that his former star journalist had achieved such an enormous success writing for a rival publication, and had Hersey’s portrait removed from Time Inc.’s gallery of honor.

Despite the criticism, “Hiroshima” continued to attract enormous attention in the mass media.  The ABC Radio Network did a reading of the lengthy article over four nights, with no acting, no music, no special effects, and no commercials.  “This chronicle of suffering and destruction,” it announced, was being “broadcast as a warning that what happened to the people of Hiroshima could next happen anywhere.”  After the broadcasts, the network’s telephone switchboards were swamped by callers, and the program was judged to have received the highest rating of any public interest broadcast that had ever occurred.  The BBC also broadcast an adaptation of “Hiroshima,” while some 500 U.S. radio stations reported on the article in the days following its release.

In the United States, the Alfred Knopf publishing house came out with the article in book form, which was quickly promoted by the Book-of-the-Month Club as “destined to be the most widely read book of our generation.”  Ultimately, Hiroshima sold millions of copies in nations around the world.  By the late fall of 1946, the rather modest and retiring Hersey, who had gone into hiding after the article’s publication to avoid interviews, was rated as one of the “Ten Outstanding Celebrities of 1946,” along with General Dwight Eisenhower and singer Bing Crosby.

For U.S. government officials, reasonably content with past public support for the atomic bombing and a nuclear-armed future, Hersey’s success in reaching the public with his disturbing account of nuclear war confronted them with a genuine challenge.  For the most part, U.S. officials recognized that they had what Blume calls “a serious post-`Hiroshima’ image problem.”

Behind the scenes, James B. Conant, the top scientist in the Manhattan Project, joined President Truman in badgering Henry Stimson, the former U.S. Secretary of War, to produce a defense of the atomic bombing.  Provided with an advance copy of the article, to be published in Harper’s, Conant told Stimson that it was just what was needed, for they could not have allowed “the propaganda against the use of the atomic bomb . . . to go unchecked.”

Although the New Yorker’s editors sought to arrange for publication of the book version of “Hiroshima” in the Soviet Union, this proved impossible.  Instead, Soviet authorities banned the book in their nation.  Pravda fiercely assailed Hersey, claiming that “Hiroshima” was nothing more than an American scare tactic, a fiction that “relishes the torments of six people after the explosion of the atomic bomb.”  Another Soviet publication called Hersey an American spy who embodied his country’s militarism and had helped to inflict upon the world a “propaganda of aggression, strongly reminiscent of similar manifestations in Nazi Germany.”

Ironically, the Soviet attack upon Hersey didn’t make him any more acceptable to the U.S. government.  In 1950, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover assigned FBI field agents to research, monitor, and interview Hersey, on whom the Bureau had already opened a file.  During the FBI interview with Hersey, agents questioned him closely about his trip to Hiroshima.

Not surprisingly, U.S. occupation authorities did their best to ban the appearance of “Hiroshima” in Japan.  Hersey’s six protagonists had to wait months before they could finally read the article, which was smuggled to them.  In fact, some of Hersey’s characters were not aware that they had been included in the story or that the article had even been written until they received the contraband copies.  MacArthur managed to block publication of the book in Japan for years until, after intervention by the Authors’ League of America, he finally relented.  It appeared in April 1949, and immediately became a best-seller.

Hersey, still a young man at the time, lived on for decades thereafter, writing numerous books, mostly works of fiction, and teaching at Yale.  He continued to be deeply concerned about the fate of a nuclear-armed world—proud of his part in stirring up resistance to nuclear war and, thereby, helping to prevent it.

The conclusion drawn by Blume in this book is much like Hersey’s.  As she writes, “Graphically showing what nuclear warfare does to humans, `Hiroshima’ has played a major role in preventing nuclear war since the end of World War II.”

A secondary theme in the book is the role of a free press.  Blume observes that “Hersey and his New Yorker editors created `Hiroshima’ in the belief that journalists must hold accountable those in power.  They saw a free press as essential to the survival of democracy.”  She does, too.

Overall, Blume’s book would provide the basis for a very inspiring movie, for at its core is something many Americans admire:  action taken by a few people who triumph against all odds.

But the actual history is somewhat more complicated.  Even before the publication of “Hiroshima,” a significant number of people were deeply disturbed by the atomic bombing of Japan.  For some, especially pacifists, the bombing was a moral atrocity.  An even larger group feared that the advent of nuclear weapons portended the destruction of the world.  Traditional pacifist organizations, newly-formed atomic scientist groups, and a rapidly-growing world government movement launched a dramatic antinuclear campaign in the late 1940s around the slogan, “One World or None.”  Curiously, this uprising against nuclear weapons is almost entirely absent from Blume’s book.

Even so, Blume has written a very illuminating, interesting, and important work—one that reminds us that daring, committed individuals can help to create a better world.