‘The Last Days': Hungarians Haunted by the Holocaust
Opinion
Hungarian survivors tell their stories in this compelling documentary.
As late as 1944, even when it was certain Hitler would lose World War II, he feverishly pursued the extermination of the largest remaining European Jewish population, the Jews of Hungary. This commentary spotlights a disturbing but necessary Oscar-winning documentary about Hungarian Jews who survived Nazi camps during what was meant to be the culmination of Hitler's Final Solution.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Readers should know that journalists in Gaza are not free to report the truth
The killing of the well-known Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif by the Israeli military has become a flashpoint in the global discourse around Gaza. Israel claims that al-Sharif was not only a reporter but a Hamas operative, citing documents that suggested he once received a salary from the group. Al Jazeera (where I am sometimes interviewed on Middle East developments) rejected the charge, and many observers cast doubt on the evidence Israel produced. Some noted that, even if there was an affiliation, it may have been in the past. Having served as the Associated Press bureau chief in Jerusalem and later as the agency's Middle East editor, I have been asked repeatedly what I make of the allegations. The truth is, like many, I don't know what to believe. Israel has not covered itself in glory with any sort of transparency about its conduct of the war — and that itself is the point. Israel's claims about al-Sharif might have some basis. But it is deeply problematic to suggest that past affiliation alone justifies attacking someone who was functioning, at the time, as a journalist. By that logic, most Israeli civilians would be considered legitimate targets by many Palestinians, given the country's near-universal conscription. Of course, there is no comparing the army of a democratic state with the terrorist mafia that rules Gaza. But one must acknowledge how such reasoning will be read outside Israel. For years at AP, we relied mostly on Palestinian staff in Gaza to report stories, take photographs and document events under conditions of exceptional danger. Since the war began almost two years ago, that reliance has become total, because Israel has blocked all foreign journalists from entering the territory, except on heavily stage-managed embeds with the military. Many of our staffers in Gaza were, in my view, indisputably heroic in their willingness to risk not only the fire raining from the sky but also the ire of Hamas. I rarely had evidence that they were sympathizers of the group; if anything, they tended to be pro-Western and inclined toward the opposite outlook. For one thing, they were loyal colleagues to bosses who, in many cases, were Jews and Israelis in their employer's Jerusalem bureau. That said, I will not pretend that Hamas's rule was not an ever-present reality that had to be calibrated in coverage. During my time, we managed to report on rocket fire from civilian areas, on militants killed in action, on the use of human shields. Contrary to later critics, such as the famously disgruntled former AP staffer Matti Friedman, we did not suppress these facts as a matter of principle. But was coverage sometimes shaped by the risks our local staff faced? It would be dishonest to deny the possibility — indeed the likelihood. Here is the larger point: Gaza is in its way singular, but it is also a case study in a global problem. The enclave is a warzone, a prison and a propaganda lab. Foreign journalists on their embeds see what Israeli military escorts allow and are forbidden from speaking to Palestinians. That this has gone on for almost two years is an extraordinary and somewhat unprecedented situation in modern journalism. The Foreign Press Association, which I once chaired, has repeatedly petitioned Israeli courts to reverse the ban only to be stonewalled. The military claims it is for safety, and that is not entirely unreasonable. But the consequence is that the world's understanding of Gaza is mediated either by Palestinian freelancers, working under Hamas's shadow, or by official Israeli military briefings, often presented by officials granted anonymity for no reason that is justifiable on journalistic or ethical grounds. Israel has not taken serious steps to find creative ways to allow access, or even to indicate that they have anything but indifference to the fact that this is no way to cover a war. The press has been in a similar position before. In North Korea, Iran, Cuba, China and Russia (before the Ukraine war and the resulting sanctions regime drove away foreign reporters), journalists operate under government surveillance, restrictions that are sometimes unspoken yet clear, and implied physical threats. Yet this reality almost is never explained to the reader. The conditions of reporting — the intimidation, the constraints, the lack of access — are treated as footnotes or left unsaid altogether. How to fix this, what the boilerplate language describing the situation would be, how to handle possible blowback to staff — these are questions that I cannot definitively answer. But this is a discussion that major news organizations must have, preferably banding together, perhaps under the aegis of international journalism organizations. Absent such steps, the result is a distortion: Audiences think they are receiving unvarnished facts when they are actually consuming stories shaped by fear, access and proximity to power. So this is not just about Gaza. It is about the very definition of journalism. The analogy I find most apt is to organized crime. When reporters in the U.S. cover the mafia, they know certain doors are closed, certain questions unwise to ask. The threat is rarely stated for attribution. Hamas operates by similar rules, only on a larger scale. Gaza is run by a militia that jails or kills opponents. Gaza's civilians are victims of that rule. Gaza's journalists — which, as said, the media currently depends on exclusively for voices from the ground — are civilians, even if some of Israel's claims are true. That does not invalidate the work, but it does mean the media has a responsibility to be transparent about the conditions under which such journalism is produced. Readers deserve to be told that this is not a free press environment. When access is denied, when intimidation is implicit, when the story comes from a place without freedom, that fact is not incidental — it is central. The coverage of the Gaza war is compromised on both sides. The media cannot be expected to continue putting up with it without taking countermeasures. At a minimum, every significant story should state that foreign journalists have not been allowed into Gaza for almost two years except on tightly controlled embeds. Moreover, editors should reconsider the use of Israeli military briefings without attribution. The only way to make Israel take notice is for a combined commitment by all accredited journalists — especially all Foreign Press Association members, who are the majority of foreign reporters — to refuse to attend these briefings. This will exact a certain journalistic price, so the media organizations they work for will have to back this and forego a few dubious 'scoops,' and the leaders of these outlets need to take the lead and not dump the decision on local reporters. Gaza is unique in scale, but not in principle. From Moscow to Tehran, journalists are often working in compromised environments. News organizations have tiptoed around this fact for far too long. Trust in journalism is already cratering — for many reasons. The public needs honesty — not only about what is happening, but about how we know it, and under what conditions we are reporting it. It is a cliche that truth is the first casualty of war. But it doesn't have to be. If journalists want to preserve truth, they must start by telling it — not only about the wars they cover, but about the conditions in which they themselves are forced to work. Dan Perry led Associated Press coverage in Europe, Africa and the Middle East (including Iran, Gaza, Syria and Afghanistan), and chaired the Foreign Press Association for Israel and the Palestinian areas. He publishes on Substack.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Why America still needs public school education
The Trump administration is diverting billions of taxpayer funds into K-12 private schools. Photo by Natã Romualdo/ Pexels While the White House's fight with elite universities such as Columbia and Harvard has recently dominated the headlines, the feud overshadows the broader and more far-reaching assault on K-12 public education by the Trump administration and many states. The Trump administration has gutted the Department of Education, imperiling efforts to protect students' civil rights, and proposed billions in public education cuts for fiscal year 2026. Meanwhile, the administration is diverting billions of taxpayer funds into K-12 private schools. These moves build upon similar efforts by conservative states to rein in public education going back decades. But the consequences of withdrawing from public education could be dire for the United States In our 2024 book, How Government Built America, we explore the history of public education, from Horace Mann's "common school movement" in the early 19th century to the GI Bill in the 20th that helped millions of veterans go to college and become homeowners after World War II. We found that public education has been essential for not only creating an educated workforce but for inculcating the United States' fundamental values of liberty, equality, fairness and the common good. In the public good Opponents of public education often refer to public schools as "government schools," a pejorative that seems intended to associate public education with "big government" -- seemingly at odds with the small government preference of many Americans. But, as we have previously explored, government has always been a significant partner with the private market system in achieving the country's fundamental political values. Public education has been an important part of that partnership. Education is what economists call a public good, which means it not only benefits students, but the country, as well. Mann, an education reformer often dubbed the father of the American public school system, argued that universal, publicly funded, nonsectarian public schools would help sustain American political institutions, expand the economy and fend off social disorder. In researching Mann's common schools and other educational history for our book, two lessons stood out to us. One is that the U.S. investment in public education over the past 150 years has created a well-educated workforce that has fueled innovation and unparalleled prosperity. As our book documents, for example, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the states expanded public education to include high school to meet the increasing demand for a more educated citizenry as a result of the Industrial Revolution. And the GI Bill made it possible for returning veterans to earn college degrees or train for vocations, support young families and buy homes, farms or businesses, and it encouraged them to become more engaged citizens, making "U.S. democracy more vibrant in the middle of the 20th century." The other, equally significant lesson is that the democratic and republican principals that propelled Mann's vision of the common school have colored many Americans' assumptions about public schooling ever since. Mann's goal was a "virtuous republican citizenry" - that is, a citizenry educated in "good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being." Mann believed there was nothing more important than "the proper training of the rising generation," calling it the country's "highest earthly duty." Attacking public education Today, Mann's vision and all that's been accomplished by public education is under threat. Trump's second term has supercharged efforts by conservatives over the past 75 years to control what is taught in the public schools and to replace public education with private schools. Most notably, Trump has begun dismantling the Department of Education to devolve more policymaking to the state level. The department is responsible for, among other things, distributing federal funds to public schools, protecting students' civil rights and supporting high-quality educational research. It has also been responsible for managing more than $1 trillion dollars in student loans -- a function that the administration is moving to the Small Business Administration, which has no experience in loan management. The president's March 2025 executive order has slashed the department's staff in half, with especially deep cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, which, as noted, protects student from illegal discrimination. Trump's efforts to slash education funding has so far hit roadblocks with Congress and the public. The administration is aiming to cut education funding by $12 billion for fiscal year 2026, which Congress is currently negotiating. And contradicting its stance on ceding more control to states and local communities, the administration has also been mandating what can't and must be taught in public schools. For example, it's threatened funding for school districts that recognize transgender identities or teach about structural racism, white privilege and similar concepts. On the other hand, the White House is pushing the use of "patriotic" education that depicts the founding of the U.S. as "unifying, inspiring and ennobling." Promoting private education As Trump and states have cut funding and resources to public education, they've been shifting more money to K-12 private schools. Most recently, the budget bill passed by Congress in July 2025 gives taxpayers a tax credit for donations to organizations that fund private school scholarships. The credit, which unlike a deduction counts directly against how much tax someone owes, is $1,700 for individuals and double for married couples. The total cost could run into the billions, since it's unclear how many taxpayers will take advantage. Meanwhile, 33 states direct public money toward private schools by providing vouchers, tax credits or another form of financial assistance to parents. All together, states allocated $8.2 billion to support private school education in 2024. Government funding of private schools diverts money away from public education and makes it more difficult for public schools to provide the quality of education that would most benefit students and the public at large. In Arizona, for example, many public schools are closing their doors permanently as a result of the state's support for charter schools, homeschooling and private school vouchers. That's because public schools are funded based on how many students they have. As more students switch to private schools, there's less money to cover teacher salaries and fixed costs such as building maintenance. Ultimately, that means fewer resources to educate the students who remain in the public school system. Living up to aspirations We believe the harm to the country of promoting private schools while rolling back support for public education is about more than dollars and cents. It would mean abandoning the principle of universal, nonsectarian education for America's children. And in so doing, Mann's "virtuous citizenry" will be much harder to build and maintain. America's private market system, in which individuals are free to contract with each other with minimal government interference, has been important to building prosperity and opportunity in the United States., as our book documents. But, as we also establish, relying on private markets to educate America's youth makes it harder to create equal opportunity for children to learn and be economically successful, leaving the country less prosperous and more divided. Sidney Shapiro is a professor of law at Wake Forest University and Joseph P. Tomain is a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the authors.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
The ‘death knell' of America's top public university?
University of California scientists helped create the Internet, wet suits, artificial intelligence and a lung therapy that has saved an untold number of premature newborns. UC scientists also helped save humanity from the hole in the ozone layer and harnessed the human genome to speed the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and other diseases. America's best public university system also has enriched the world for millions of young people. The cost of my 1981 bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley was roughly $20,000. That's for four years. Including room and board. And countless slices of Blondie's pizza. But now the 10-campus university system (where annual undergraduate costs now come to about $45,000, before financial aid) is under unprecedented attack, accused by the Trump administration of condoning antisemitism in failing to head off assaults on Jewish students and allowing diversity, equity and inclusion imperatives to hold back white and Asian students. UC President James B. Milliken has said Trump administration grant suspensions at UCLA totaling $584 million would amount to a 'death knell' for medical, science and energy research. Trump's team has said it would restore the grant money, but only if the university pays a $1-billion fine. Calling that 'extortion,' Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to sue. Jaweed Kaleem of The Times has been leading the coverage of this furor, which continues as the fall quarter gets underway next month at many UC campuses. Jaweed talked to me about the crisis. Q: Did UC's troubles all begin when Trump took office in January? A: UC was already facing challenges to begin with. They were cutting back before Trump came to office. They have had tight budgets and campus-level deficits for years — from deferred state funding promises to costs associated with multiple union strikes and labor agreements, as well as inflation. Trump's actions have further hit UC's pockets. Q: How did the crisis begin? A: The origin goes back to the encampment on the UCLA campus, which lasted from April 25 to May 2 of last year. Protesters in the camp called for UCLA to divest from investments, such as in weapons companies, tied to Israel's war in Gaza. Pro-Israel demonstrators called for the release of hostages taken in the Hamas attack on Israel. While there were Jews who supported the encampment, other Jewish community members said its actions were antisemitic — complaints noticed by the White House. Q: Won't most of the public, at least Californians, rally around UC and its research? A: UCLA and other universities have acknowledged they didn't do a very good job of explaining that a big part of their mission is research. They're now undertaking a big campaign to fix that. Not surprisingly, a lot of the public has an interest in where their money goes and understanding why so much money is needed for university research. Some research can be esoteric. It can be hard to understand the long and methodical process that's involved in obtaining and using these federal grants. Q: I am guessing all those taxpayers whose kids didn't get admitted to their favorite UC aren't shedding tears for UCLA and UC Berkeley? A: There's frustration about the limited seats, and not only among conservatives. It used to be much cheaper and less cutthroat to gain admission — though it's still cheaper than other major state schools. Now, with many campuses, it can feel like a crap shoot and people are unhappy about that. Perhaps some conservatives don't mind seeing [the Trump administration] stick it to UC. Q: The war in Gaza continues and no doubt campus activists aren't satisfied, right? A: UC prides itself as the birth of the Free Speech movement and the protests of the 1960s. UCLA already cracked down on protests after the encampments and now there is a funding freeze and this $1-billion demand. I'm curious how — and if — protests will continue this upcoming school year and how they will be handled. Trump has made it clear he doesn't like protesters, on Palestinian-Israeli issues and more. What happens when students come back to campus and want to protest? And what will the response from the UC system be? Dan Saborio writes, 'I've been a big fan of Cavaretta's Italian Deli in Canoga Park for decades. Their 'Famous Italian' is my favorite, but their meatball sub, sausage and pepper sub, and peppersteak sub are also great. They also have wonderful lasagna, a very good antipasto salad, and you can't skip their cannoli.' Email us at essentialcalifornia@ and your response might appear in the newsletter this week. On Aug. 21, 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'Mona Lisa' painting was stolen from the Louvre by an Italian house painter named Vincenzo Peruggia, who had briefly worked on a project at the museum. It wasn't recovered until 1913. A hundred years later, the Times wrote about a century of fascination with the theft that has produced books, articles, a documentary and a number of puzzling facts. Jim Rainey, staff reporterHugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break deskKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, weekend writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
