Josh Paul American weapons should not be used to kill

Josh Paul: “American weapons should not be used to kill civilians”

FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT
NEW YORK – Josh Paul, director of the State Department's Office of Political-Military Affairs, resigned on October 17. He was the first official to criticize Biden's policies in Israel, followed by others with open letters and internal “memos.” He wrote in the Washington Post: “When Hamas massacred Israeli civilians on October 7, I felt terrible, both because of the horror those innocents experienced and because I knew what would happen next.” Israel has that Right to defend himself, but the experience of the fighting of the last 15 years suggests that thousands of Palestinian civilians will die.” This is his first Italian interview.

Why did he resign?
“I was the first to take the stand, probably because of my job: responsible for American security assistance and weapons transfers.” I was part of the authorization chain for the supply of weapons that enables Israel's current actions in Gaza. I do not believe that American weapons should be used to kill civilians. Immediately after October 7, there were efforts to speed up delivery. I resigned after ten days, when two thousand Palestinians had already been killed. The reason we provide these weapons is based on the assumption that they will provide security to Israel, which is not the case. They have allowed settlement expansion in the West Bank and the siege of Gaza, making lasting peace more difficult to achieve. But when I tried to talk about it, there was no interest in dialogue.”

But you yourself admit that those who work in the State Department do not believe that they can follow the principle of “first do no harm.”
“Yes, for a decade I have been involved in complex, ethically difficult debates about what weapons should be sent where. But it never happened without debate. And if there is a lack of dialogue in government, there is a lack of a process that leads to good policy.”

Is Biden in danger of losing the election because of his policy towards Israel?
“I think he is in danger. I've spoken to many Arab American community leaders and progressives who can't imagine voting for him. They won't vote for Trump, but they might not vote. I also think it undermines our overall strategy. Biden became president with the perspective that America is in an era of strategic competition and the model we offer to the world is a free economy but also democracy. But unyielding support for Israel in recent months has damaged our relations in the Middle East, the United Nations and the ability to unite other countries in Ukraine.”

What are the results of Blinken's diplomacy?
“I think Blinken takes many of these concerns seriously. I heard he's feeling pretty bad these days. We fear an escalation, but in the last month we have sent tank and artillery ammunition to Israel twice, not because it was running low, but as a reserve for when it is needed in Lebanon. America has played a role in limiting some of Israel's military plans. But we’re currently talking about almost 30,000 deaths.”

Was Obama's approach to Israel different?
“Biden feels his position deeply. Preparing for a tough confrontation with Israel goes beyond partisan politics. When Israel invaded Lebanon and bombed Beirut for 14 hours, Reagan picked up the phone and said: Enough, damaging your relationship with us. It is inconceivable that Biden would do this. When Obama criticized the settlements and Netanyahu yelled at him in the Oval Office, it was Biden who smoothed things over. They are different people with different approaches.”