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.”
First and foremost, you get rid of the current state of Palestine, which is the worst of all possible worlds: it’s two distinct areas with their own unique dictatorships, which Israel declares simultaneously sovereign and occupied. This is pointless and makes everything worse.
Either of these would be better; I will focus on Gaza here, but mirror everything I say for the West Bank.
Very much this. Adding onto 1, the blockade needs to go. Like, seriously, without the blockade the whole mess between Gaza and Israel can be solved basically overnight. That said,
It’s not. It keeps Palestine divided and unable to push for peace, because “there’s no representative of the Palestinian people”. The Israeli government made it this way, on purpose.
In regards to your first proposal, that was the strategy in 2005. Before then, Israel occupied Gaza in the same way in occupies the West Bank. The Prime Minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, was intending to unilaterally withdraw from all the occupied territories in hopes of pursuing a true peace. The IDF forcibly evicted all Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip, withdrew, and elections were held in Gaza. The winner was Hamas, whose stated aim is the violent destruction of Israel, and they began lobbing rockets at Israel. The conflict escalated, Israel imposed a tight blockade in an effort to prevent the import of weapons (and quite probably motivated by some amount of revenge as well), domestic Israeli support for unilateral withdrawal plummeted, and in 2006, a war between Hezbollah in Lebanon kicked off, whose aim is also explicitly the violent destruction of Israel. Given that this was launched from parts of southern Lebanon that had been occupied by Israel until 2000, when the IDF unilaterally withdrew, Israelis increasingly became of the opinion that any area where they gave up control would simply become a base to launch attacks against Israel.
At this point, the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza is seen as a massive mistake, and Israel is not going to make it again. Moving forward, Israel is not going to be willing to sacrifice its safety in order to offer an olive branch.