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.”
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.
Yes, at the meeting where an agreement was eminent and Arafat walked away bc he didn’t want peace. History that’s conveniently forgotten in a lot of these posts.
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!
Bullshit. The only time both sides were forced to sit at the table and got ANYWHERE close to an agreement was when Arafat walked away bc he didn’t really want peace or an agreement. His power and money came from the ongoing conflict.
Obligatory disclaimer: I support neither side, I condemn all war crimes and terrorists, I am cheering for nobody in this horrific clusterfuck.
Are you familiar with a little thing called Congress?