A former State Dept. official explains why he resigned over U.S. arms sent to Israel

Transcript

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

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.

For more than a decade, Paul served in the State Department. He is - or was - director of congressional and public affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which handles weapons transfers to the U.S. government. And Josh Paul is with us now to tell us why he resigned. Mr. Paul, welcome. Thank you for joining us.

JOSH PAUL: Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: You know, the U.S. has been arming Israel for decades, so this is certainly not the first time Israel has undertaken military operations in Gaza. So why now? What's the rationale for leaving now? I mean, in diplomat speak, what was the red line that you - that got crossed for you?

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. I think for the past 20 years - and in some ways, for much longer - we've had a policy built on two premises - first, that the two-state solution is viable and, secondly, that the way to get there is to ensure 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.

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.

MARTIN: You say that the - I mean, you make a point of, of course, decrying the atrocities that I think we all know occurred. But you also say that you think that Israel's response has kind of 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 the - what is the United States not doing that you think it should be doing right now?

PAUL: Yeah, thank you. So first of all, just on the Hamas attack, just to be absolutely clear, that was a monstrosity, an outrage, period, full stop, exclamation mark - no ifs, ands or buts. In terms of what I think the U.S. could be doing right now, I think, first of all, it's a bigger discussion than Gaza. But let's start with something quite straightforward, right? Earlier this year, the Biden administration issued a new conventional arms transfer policy, which is the policy - public policy - it's on the White House website - that guides the framework under which we authorize arms transfers.

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: 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.

PAUL: Yes, I think that's right.

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: Yep.

MARTIN: But you said you would stay as long as you thought you were doing more good than harm. So again, my question becomes, what is the line that got crossed for you? Because this is not the first time that these allegations about Israel's conduct have been made.

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. But for over a decade, I've used the privilege of my position to fight for what I believe to be right, and that's included debates about arms transfers to a number of unsavory regimes.

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's no appetite for debate. There's no real debate internal to the administration, and then there's no one to hand the debate off to.

MARTIN: Do you believe - obviously, this is a matter of conscience for you, and you've made that sort of clear. But - and I don't know the degree to which you think your expertise qualifies you to make these decisions, but what exactly do you think Israel should be doing now as this - in the wake of these atrocities?

PAUL: Yeah, so I think Israel absolutely has a right to defend itself and, you know, not to suffer the sort of outrageous attack that it did. I think there are ways to do that that don't involve dislocating a million Palestinians, that don't involve the death of thousands of civilians. You know, we look at the approach America took, you know, in the post-9/11 context. We didn't go in and, you know, destroy Kabul. We can obviously talk about the various mistakes that were made following that, but there are ways to do this.

And I think at the same time, we have to ask - you know, we always ask, well, 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.

MARTIN: What - we only have about a minute left, but what do you hope your resignation will accomplish? Do you hope it will accomplish a change in policy, or is it merely a matter - not merely, but a matter of your own ethical compass, and that you can no longer do your job in the way that you are expected to?

PAUL: Yeah, I don't think it will make a immediate change in policy. I think the U.S. is going to go ahead with its military support to Israel in the short term. What I hope it will do is, you know, first of all, obviously, remove me from that debate, which I found very difficult, but also, I hope, you know, show other colleagues. 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.

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.

PAUL: Thank you for having me.

(SOUNDBITE OF DEEB'S "FLUID DYNAMICS") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.