State Department official resigns over Biden administration's handling of Israel-Hamas conflict | CNN Politics
State Department official resigns over Biden administration's handling of Israel-Hamas conflict | CNN Politics
A State Department official has resigned from the agency over the Biden administration’s approach to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, the official announced on LinkedIn Wednesday.
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.”
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
It's in the US's best interest for Israel to exert control over the middle east since it's the closest thing to a democracy there.
It's just self interest, which every single country acts in accordance to.
To be clear, I'm not justifying anything, just trying to make sense of it.
...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.
Permanently Deleted
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.