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.”

  • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah? Please explain your understanding of this situation and then follow up with what options he had.

        Please.

        • unwellsnail@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            When did he have that option? Neither side has any interest in speaking

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

          • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • jaybone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Didn’t Clinton do this in the 90s with Arafat and whatever Israeli PM? We’ve been trying this shit for decades.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              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!