Israelis Praise Biden But Fear U.S. Constraints on Action [https://www.nytimes.net/news/views/article/603/2014/0606]
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. He even attended a war cabinet to be briefed on Israel’s plans, as Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken did before him.
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 cover for an extended war, but it may also affect how he conducts it.
Satellite images show that Israel has already positioned hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles north of Gaza, ready to send tens of thousands of soldiers into the enclave.
What Israel Should Do Now About Israel’s Impossibility of a Two-State Solution? A Commentary on the Letter of David A. Eyal
In the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, the analyst Nadav Eyal wrote of the late Sharon’s habit of saying he would defend himself by himself. “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. This comes with a price, symbolic as well as practical.”
NPR’s Michel Martin talks to Josh Paul, who was the director of congressional and public affairs at the bureau that oversees arms transfers to foreign nations, about why he resigned.
A veteran State Department official, Josh Paul, was drafting a letter of resignation because he did not think he could work in support of a set of major issues.
There was a person named Martin. You say that the – I mean, you make a point of, of course, decrying the atrocities that I think we all know occurred. You think Israel’s response has crossed the line into collective punishment. Now, you say that you’re pleased to see the efforts the administration is making to temper Israel’s response. What are you saying, that the US should be doing right now?
Paul: Sure. Thank you. Look, first of all, it’s an awful and tragic situation, right? And my heart really goes out to all the innocent civilians across the region who are suffering. First, we have had a policy in place for a long time about the two-state solution being viable and second, we have to ensure that Israel feels secure.
But I think the problem with that is that the way Israel has established its sense of security – which is a false sense, as it turns out – is by expanding checkpoints and barriers in the West Bank while propping up an undemocratic Palestinian Authority, and in Gaza by trading fire with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – you know, that horrible phrase, mowing the lawn – resulting in thousands of civilian deaths over the years and in the past week alone and making a two-state solution, frankly, an impossibility.
I think it would be better for us to look at the situation and say that Israel should use as few bombs as they want, knowing that their use will result in a direction opposite of our policy goals and that they will wreak damage on civilians.
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. I would recommend that this administration follow their own public commitments.
MARTIN: So in essence, I think what you’re saying is that these – that Israel is exceeding the boundaries of international law and that the U.S. is turning a blind eye to that.
MARTIN: You say in your letter that you knew you were going to have to make compromises in order to be successful in this job, but you would not state that with my words.
PAUL: It’s not the first time 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. In the last decade I’ve used my position to fight for what I believe to be the right and that includes debates about arms transfers to a number of regimes.
Source: A State Department official has resigned over U.S.-Israel arms transfers
What Happened In Israel’s Democracy When Congress Decided Not to Talk about the State of the State, But What About the Palestinian Right
In all of those cases, when those in the department were involved and the human rights concerns were involved, you knew the next step was for the sale to be taken to Congress, even if it was against the will of the people. But with Israel, it’s a blank check from Congress. There’s no desire to debate. There’s no real debate internal to the administration, and then there’s no one to hand the debate off to.
We have to ask – you know, we always ask, doesn’t Israel have the right to defend itself? But we never seem to ask, well, what about the Palestinian right, you know, not to face incursions in their villages, not to be bombed from the air? So I think looking at this on equal terms, we have to talk about both sides.
A rush deadline is when NPR transcripts are created. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Availability and accuracy might be different. NPR has an authoritative record of its programming.