A State Department official resigned over the arms transfers
Israelis Praise Biden but Fear U.S. Constraints on Action [Newton/Landau/Israel/Hawking/Israel]
In the wake of a visit by President Biden, Israelis on Thursday praised his courage in coming at a time of war and for his full-throated support, as he pledged “we will not let you ever be alone” after attacks from Hamas killed at least 1,400 Israelis.
Mr. Biden embraced Israel, but also cautioned it not to overreach to its detriment in the region — and implicitly, to the detriment of the United States. Antony J. Blinken briefed him on the plans of Israel at the war cabinet he attended.
This degree of consultation is rare, if not unprecedented, even in a relationship this close, Israeli analysts said. It carries risks if it has benefits for Mr. Netanyahu. It may give him political cover for an extended war, but it may also constrain how he conducts it.
Satellite images showed that Israel had already deployed hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles north of Gaza as it prepared to send tens of thousands of soldiers into the enclave.
Israel Will Defend Itself: Josh Paul, the United States’ 51st State, in the Light of the Tel Aviv Atrocities
“The late Ariel Sharon was in the habit of saying, ‘We will defend ourselves, by ourselves,’” wrote Nadav Eyal, an Israeli analyst, in the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. “These are not the values that Netanyahu has been projecting in the last few days. He seems to yearn to be the United States’ 51st state. The price, symbolic and practical make up this.
MARTIN: Josh Paul has just resigned from his position as the State Department’s director of congressional and public affairs in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. Mr. Paul, thank you so much for speaking with us.
Even as President Biden was in Tel Aviv reaffirming the U.S.’ unwavering support for Israel and the country’s right to defend itself, a veteran State Department official, Josh Paul, was drafting his resignation letter, saying he cannot, quote, “work in support of a set of major policy decisions, including rushing arms to one side of the conflict, that I believe to be shortsighted, destructive, unjust and contradictory to the very values we publicly espouse,” unquote.
MARTIN: Do you believe – obviously, this is a matter of conscience for you, and you’ve made that sort of clear. Even though I don’t know the degree to which you think your expertise qualifies you to make these decisions, what should Israel do now in the wake of these atrocities?
The person is Paul. I don’t believe it will change policy immediately. I think the US will support Israel in the short term. I hope that it removes me from that debate, which I found very difficult, but also, I hope, you know, show other colleagues that I am not going to be in that debate again. And I know that there are a lot of colleagues out there across the interagency and in Congress who feel similarly to me. And I hope it shows them that it’s OK and possible to stand up and that there is a – there’s been a huge outpouring of support, and I hope they see that and that it speaks to them to do the right thing as well, which I know so many of them will.
I think that there is a problem with that because the way Israel has set its sense of security is by expanding checkpoints and barriers in the West Bank and Gaza, and trading fire with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic.
So I think for us to look at the current situation and say the answer is as many bombs as Israel asks for, knowing that their use will lead in a direction exactly opposite to our stated policy goals, knowing the harm they will wreak on civilians, seeing Israel’s use of collective punishment, including the cutting off of basic necessities and encouraging the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of civilians, is, you know – well, it’s disappointing, to say the least.
And that policy explicitly states no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit, facilitate the recipient’s commission of, or to aggravate risks that the recipient will commit genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions – including attacks intentionally directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such – or other serious violations of international, humanitarian or human rights law. It goes on. So I think my first recommendation would be that this administration simply follow their own public commitments.
MARTIN: Not true. I think you’re saying that Israel is violating international law and that the U.S. is ignoring that.
MARTIN: But I have to say, in your letter, you say you knew you were going to have to make moral compromises in this job, but you would say that – your words, not mine.
PAUL: No, nor is it the first time that allegations about American partners have been made. And, you know, we can have a long discussion about the appropriate roles of civil servants in policymaking. Over the past decade, I’ve used the privilege of my position to fight for what I think is right, and that has included debates about arms transfers to a number of unsavory regimes.
Source: A State Department official has resigned over U.S.-Israel arms transfers
The Palestinian Right to Protect Their Country: NPR’s Approach to the Dialogue Between Israel and the Palestinians of the Rights in the Middle East
The difference here is that, in all of those cases, when those within the department and the interagency with human rights concerns had done all the shaping they could, you knew the next step was for the sale to go to Congress, where it would be held, debated, even voted against. But with Israel, it’s a blank check from Congress. There is no appetite for a debate. There’s no real debate internal to the administration, and then there’s no one to hand the debate off to.
We always ask, does Israel have the right to defend itself? We don’t seem to ask about the Palestinian right not to face incursions in their villages, not to be bombed from the air. I believe we need to discuss both sides of the story.
A rush deadline is when the NPR transcripts are created. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. The accuracy and availability may be different. The audio record is the most authoritative of NPR’s programming.
