Josh Paul, who said he has worked in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for more than 11 years, said in his LinkedIn post that he resigned “due to a policy disagreement concerning our continued lethal assistance to Israel.”
“Let me be clear,” Paul wrote. “Hamas’ attack on Israel was not just a monstrosity; it was a monstrosity of monstrosities. I also believe that potential escalations by Iran-linked groups such as Hezbollah, or by Iran itself, would be a further cynical exploitation of the existing tragedy. But I believe to the core of my soul that the response Israel is taking, and with it the American support both for that response, and for the status quo of the occupation, will only lead to more and deeper suffering for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people – and is not in the long term American interest.”
“This Administration’s response – and much of Congress’ as well – is an impulsive reaction built on confirmation bias, political convenience, intellectual bankruptcy, and bureaucratic inertia,” Paul adds. “That is to say, it is immensely disappointing, and entirely unsurprising. Decades of the same approach have shown that security for peace leads to neither security, nor to peace. The fact is, blind support for one side is destructive in the long term to the interests of the people on both sides.”
Thank you this needed to be said and fuck Biden administration for taking sides and not only that he NOW going use OUR tax dollars to help Israel commit genocide. Fuck him hate his fucking guts. We should of had Sanders for president he would find the right thing to do.
Plenty to dislike about Biden but this one existed LONG before him and is a lot more complex than “current admin bad”.
Even this person leaving their position admits it’s been this way for decades and is wholly unsurprising, albeit incredibly disappointing.
Too bad that doesn’t matter because he had choices and he made the wrong ones still.
Yeah? Please explain your understanding of this situation and then follow up with what options he had.
Please.
Not the commenter you asked, but my understanding of this situation is that in response to a Hamas attack on the 7th Israel has, for the past week and a half, been bombing a captive population that is currently without electricity, water, food and medical supplies, and our government is supporting that.
What Biden could do, now, is say “Hey, we understand your fear and pain, but Palestinian deaths won’t brings back those Israeli lives. Mass killing of civilians in the hopes of killing some of the people responsible won’t bring peace, trust me we’ve tried too.” From there he can engage in discussions about next steps, but this is the minimum fucking first step he refuses to take.
Biden did tell Israel not to make the same mistake the US did after 9/11. He also has been pressuring them to reinstate access to things like water, food, shelter, and telling Israel not to kill civilians.
There is no world where anything but the eradication of Hamas would satisfy Israelies. Hamas which is the acting governing body in Gaza and has vowed to anahilate every single isaerli and has definitely actively acted towards that goal for decades. Hamas who still had hostages and still refuses to release them while they keep slaughtering them. Hamas who keeps lying about literally every single objective and would sooner kill their own to blame it on Israel than work towards peace. Peace isn’t an option here. Thinking Biden would or could demand Israel not to retaliate sounds like it is coming from someone who has never suffered. As long as Hamas exist there will never be peace.
And seeing as Hamas’ charter is the eradication of Jews everywhere on earth, Israel should have this perspective.
Wish the American people and bush would have said that Sep 12th. But if you knew anything about countries and their responses to external terror attacks, you’d know why that first step is impossible.
He had the option of forcing Israel to sit down at the table with Palestine and hammer out a deal for peace.
I don’t personally like forcing anyone but the world is at a point now where, in this singular case, force is required.
When did he have that option? Neither side has any interest in speaking
The US funds israels way of life. Any removal of that funding would shut israel up and remind them that the only reason they can afford genocide is because we are funding them.
The US is in prime position to force israel to consider peace talks. We just dont have politicians with the moral standing to do so.
That’s only part of the situation.
Removing the funding comes with consequences. By the way the world is, we have evidence those consequences outweigh change.
I was talking to this commenter who apparently is White House level briefed on Bidens options he had.
But if you’d like to also participate that’s cool too but that wasn’t my question.
What were his all of his choices that he had since were feigning to know so much about all the choices he had as armchair forum political experts again.
You claim that Biden could just make Israel come to a meeting somehow? Please explain how that would’ve been accomplished and explain why that would’ve worked with minimal or negligible side effects. If your proposal does contain noticeable side effects, make sure to bring those up as well
Didn’t Clinton do this in the 90s with Arafat and whatever Israeli PM? We’ve been trying this shit for decades.
Removed by mod
Don’t you see it’s so SIMPLE! Just have the king of Hamas sit down with the Emperor of Israel and have some scotch and cigars and hammer out a quick deal for peace!
Grandpappy 'Murica would just grab those rascals by the ears and make them share! Simple!
Removed by mod
Are you familiar with a little thing called Congress?
deleted by creator
FWIW, this isn’t a “now” problem, it’s been the US position for a long time. Still shitty though.
I’m not sure what you would’ve expected Biden to do here. Break years of US foreign policy work to side with attackers?
Honestly the whole Israel and US thing feels like Israel is the angry friend that’s little brother just got bullied at school and the US is trying to be supportive while talking them down.
President Biden headed home on Wednesday after a wartime trip to Israel, where he forcefully vowed that the United States would stand fast with Israel in its war against Hamas and unveiled a newly brokered deal to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza from Egypt.
In a speech, Mr. Biden talked emotionally about the “all-consuming rage” Israelis must feel after seeing 1,400 people slaughtered by Hamas terrorists in cross-border raids on Oct. 7. But then he cautioned Israelis not to be so consumed by rage that they make mistakes. “After 9/11, we were enraged in the United States,” he said. “While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”
Sounds and awful lot like “I’ll help you kick the ass of the fools that hit your brother, but don’t make the mistake I did, you don’t need to kick everybody’s ass.”
I’m also not sure how anyone expects Israel to accept the losses and move on. If the US or any other country had been attacked like this they’d already have boots on the ground.
He said the quiet part out loud.
It’s people like this that should be in positions of power.
Try being more reactionary, that should help.
deleted by creator
Nice to see a civil servant stand up for their values. Much rather that compared to the Kim Davis of the world. Do you have strong disagreement with what the leadership is doing? Resign, don’t be complacent in what you consider to be morally wrong.
I get that, but on the other hand who’s gonna replace him, someone more complacent? I’d almost rather the good person stay in a role where they can still do their good work.
It’s the same issue where good police resign to make a statement, and now we’re left with all the bad ones
I never bought into that wheels within wheels thinking. If you are job requires you to go against your moral judgement it is virtuous to find another job when you can.
Moral victories are often pyrric in nature.
How do you handle this situation where everyone comes out happy? It seems so complicated on many fronts that I don’t even know how I would tackle it if I were in any position to make calls.
It’s not about everyone being “happy”. It’s okay to not get everything you want and be content. The Israeli leadership over the past few decades has been everything but content. For them it has always been all our nothing.
The problem in this context is that Israel gets EVERYTHING at the expense of poor American taxpayers and dead Palestinean families.
Palestinians don’t believe in any compromises. Examples are numerous situations where they were accepted refugees and then started civil war in those countries.
The world, and especially Middle East, is not black and white.
Someone said a while ago: you might start with sorting Isreal, because many western countries do, then you start learning more about the conflict and you start sympathizing with Palestinians who are being pressed, then you learn more and start understanding Israel.
Eventually you realize that this is a very fucked up situation with no clear good guys.
You leave it the fuck alone and stop throwing money at a situation that doesn’t involve you.
The US has a horrible track record of meddling in other countrys’ business.
I sometimes fantasize about what South America could have looked like if the US didn’t continually assassinate state leaders.
So we should just stand by and let them commit genocide against Palestinians?
We’re not stopping any of the other genocides currently happening. It’s not our job to be the international police.
Edit: People seem to be forgetting that the US committed genocide as recently as, like, 5 years ago. We can barely govern ourselves, much less another country.
deleted by creator
…Even granting the rest of the comment, and I really shouldn’t even do that, why in God’s name would it be in the US’s best interest to support a democracy? If it’s governed by self interest, it would be better served by propping up a pliable dictator or absolutist monarch. It’s what the British did in Africa, after all. Hell, half of the middle east is exactly like that right now.
deleted by creator
No, that does not follow. The assertion was that it’s about best interest. Being a democracy is irrelevant. Priding itself is not best interest, and the fact that even you can’t not mention the Saudis just proves democracy is entirely optional. In fact, the US is on a very friendly basis with most of the middle east, from Bahrein to Turkey. Hell, there’s an argument to be made democracy is actually detrimental to US relations.
And how exactly does proving support for allies promote democracy? If anything, the real proof would be support regardless of what the ally does. Conditioning support on democracy would just be a loophole.
First and foremost, you get rid of the current state of Palestine, which is the worst of all possible worlds: it’s two distinct areas with their own unique dictatorships, which Israel declares simultaneously sovereign and occupied. This is pointless and makes everything worse.
Either of these would be better; I will focus on Gaza here, but mirror everything I say for the West Bank.
- Pull out entirely. Declare Gaza genuinely its own sovereign country responsible for solving its own problems, with none of them Israel’s lookout.
- Push in entirely. Declare Gaza just more Israel, with every person in Gaza declared an Israeli citizen living in Israel, etc. All of their problems become Israel’s lookout, and every Gazan can vote.
Very much this. Adding onto 1, the blockade needs to go. Like, seriously, without the blockade the whole mess between Gaza and Israel can be solved basically overnight. That said,
This is pointless and makes everything worse.
It’s not. It keeps Palestine divided and unable to push for peace, because “there’s no representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli government made it this way, on purpose.
The Israeli government made it this way, on purpose.
Not just them unfortunately, Palestine was split in two since the beginning
The beginning of what? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.)
In regards to your first proposal, that was the strategy in 2005. Before then, Israel occupied Gaza in the same way in occupies the West Bank. The Prime Minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, was intending to unilaterally withdraw from all the occupied territories in hopes of pursuing a true peace. The IDF forcibly evicted all Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip, withdrew, and elections were held in Gaza. The winner was Hamas, whose stated aim is the violent destruction of Israel, and they began lobbing rockets at Israel. The conflict escalated, Israel imposed a tight blockade in an effort to prevent the import of weapons (and quite probably motivated by some amount of revenge as well), domestic Israeli support for unilateral withdrawal plummeted, and in 2006, a war between Hezbollah in Lebanon kicked off, whose aim is also explicitly the violent destruction of Israel. Given that this was launched from parts of southern Lebanon that had been occupied by Israel until 2000, when the IDF unilaterally withdrew, Israelis increasingly became of the opinion that any area where they gave up control would simply become a base to launch attacks against Israel.
At this point, the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza is seen as a massive mistake, and Israel is not going to make it again. Moving forward, Israel is not going to be willing to sacrifice its safety in order to offer an olive branch.
Well, someone with more middle east knowledge than me can tell me if I’m retarded, but here’s my take:
There needs to be compromise instead of this all or nothing approach that both sides want. A lot of land needs to be given back to the Palestinians, probably close to half the country so it feels fair. Holy sites that both sides claim need to go to neither. Something like, a monument is erected on the holy site and it is seen as a DMZ that is cared for by volunteers from both sides, but is not open to civilians and can be admired from afar. Then both people can have a mosque or synagogue off to the side on their respective land.
There needs to be som kind of de-armament program where Israel gives up much of its military and both countries agree not to arm. We need something like a NATO where other countries are willing to back Israel and Palestine should the other break the terms of the agreement and become an agressor.
In short, Israel would have to give up a hell of a lot that it has absolutely no intention of ever doing. And then, only then, do you have a chance that in a few generations the Palestinians don’t hate them anymore for what the put their parents through. I don’t see it ever happening, not because it’s impossible, but because large changes like this usually only ever happen after a devastating war, and right now the world supports Israel.
Your core premise is wrong since there is nothing to “give back” to Palestinians. There were no Palestinians back then. The so-called disputed territories in the West Bank were, if anything, Jordanian. The Gaza strip was Egypt, and even they don’t want it. In the Egypt-Israel peace agreement, Egypt wanted Sinai back but did not want the Gaza Strip.
Do you honestly believe that if Israel gives up its military, there will be peace?! Every time Israel says peace-for-peace or even land-for-peace, it quite literally blows up in our face. There is no compromising with an organization whose main goal is to kill you. It’s in their charter, and they have more than proved their intentions over the years, and most recently, just now to start this war.
We Jews have learned our lesson after hundreds of years of being persecuted to not trust other people to protect us. We all know how that turned out in the holocaust. Hamad are the Nazis. Hamas is ISIS. Never again means never again.
You’ve become what you hate, IMO.
In my country we have a saying:
“Those who speak like this, do not have a stutter”. Brilliantly put.
