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 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.