Josh Paul, a State Department official who helped send weapons to foreign nations for eleven years, resigned on October 18 when the death toll in Gaza surpassed 2,000 in response to the Hamas attacks on October 7. In a LinkedIn post, Mr. Paul stated his concern that U.S. arms were being used against Palestinian civilians. He also said “rushing more arms to one side of the conflict” and other policies were “unjust and contradictory to the very values that we publicly espouse.”
An article about Josh Paul in the Washington Post on March 24 says:
With those words, Paul had broken the ultimate taboo for a government official: publicly criticizing Israel, the top U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Overnight, he became “radioactive in pro-Israel foreign policy circles.”
Prominent think tanks kept their distance. Some Senate staffers iced him out. Paul figured he’d have to look abroad for new work, maybe with defense firms in the Middle East or Europe.
Paul says: “It is a third rail when you’re criticizing Israel and is, historically, career suicide…. I thought I would get some expressions of support from friends and colleagues, and maybe a day or two of some sort of media coverage, and then I’d be looking for another job.”
However, Paul’s resignation post was “boosted over several days by activist networks and social media.” Then came interviews on CNN, Democracy Now, and PBS.
Strangers contacted him on LinkedIn — hundreds, then thousands, of messages that Paul categorizes by sender: government workers, veterans, Palestinians, Israelis, and people with no connection to the region who still felt compelled to write.
Their messages contained unfiltered anger at Hamas and Israel, outrage and shame over the Biden administration’s response, and respect for Paul’s decision to take a stand when, as one person wrote, “the dialogue is uncomfortable and the stakes are immense.”
Paul thought that with his grass-roots support he could lobby to “rebalance” Middle East policy, even though only one other government official — Tariq Habbash, a Palestinian American in the Education Department — had quit in a public way. The Post article explains why others have not resigned:
Some officials who have considered resigning say privately that they’re staying because they can better influence policy from inside, or because they’re worried about being replaced by people who will quash dissent and maintain the status quo. Others simply can’t afford it, saying they have family obligations and little savings.
The Post points out that in contrast to those who could not resign, Paul, 45, is divorced, financially sound, with no children at home — all factors he weighed in his decision. It also notes that he’s White, which Paul says is the reason he has been “spared the online vitriol” received by Tariq Habash.
However, the Post notes that as the war in Gaza has continued,
“State Department personnel have filed multiple cables through an internal dissent channel that was originally set up for diplomats who opposed Vietnam War-era policies.”
Also, throughout government, employees opposing the Biden administration’s support for Israel have participated in “listening sessions” at the White House.
Secret chat groups have sprung up connecting government staffers who support a cease-fire and want to hash out the most effective — and professionally safe — ways to register their dissent. The Post confirmed one channel on an encrypted messaging app with about 200 members identifying as current employees from across the federal government.
The article adds: “some government staffers have signed open letters, including 1,000 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development who demanded an immediate cease-fire.” In addition, last month “more than 800 civil servants in the United States and Europe issued a joint public letter of dissent, saying they had tried to voice concerns internally but were ignored.”
In November about 100 masked aides from Congressional Staff for a Ceasefire Now, an underground group of Capitol Hill personnel, piled flowers outside the U.S. Capitol to draw attention to civilian casualties.
Roll Call quoted an organizer as saying the aides would protest until U.S. policy changes, “and if that means putting our jobs on the line to do so, so be it.”
The Post article comments that despite the criticisms, U.S. policy has not changed significantly. The Biden administration, for example, has not restricted military aid to Israel.
“The administration has not used the leverage it has to date,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters. “I don’t know how many more kids have to starve before we use all the levers of our influence here, but they really need to do more.”
Paul, a registered Independent voter in Maryland, endorses the “uncommitted” vote in the primaries to send a message to Biden and the Democratic Party before present policy costs them the November election. Paul says:
Palestinian suffering probably would be even worse under Donald Trump; as president, Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and cut off aid to the U.N. agency that supports Palestinian refugees.
The article gives details of recent U.S. military aid to Israel:
Paul’s old workplace of 11 years, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, continues greenlighting arms transfers even as top U.S. officials and lawmakers express deep reservations about Israel’s military tactics.
Since Oct. 7, the United States has approved and delivered more than 100 separate military sales to Israel — thousands of precision-guided munitions, bunker busters and other lethal aid.
In his speeches and interviews, Josh Paul says weapons transfers are supposed to include “a process of robust debate and extensive human rights vetting.” But exceptions are made for Israel.
Most aid recipients are vetted before they can access funding, Paul says, but for Israel, “the process is reversed.” The aid is released and then a vetting forum looks into any reported infractions. In addition, if a potential violation has occurred, Israel must be consulted and given time to respond.
Paul says now he is focused on creating a new political force of Americans who want a change in policy. “That’s how policy change happens. It doesn’t happen because of one person. It happens because you have a critical mass of people.” Paul says he has seen an evolution in the willingness of institutions to hear his views, and he has received speaking requests from Georgetown, Yale, Amherst, Rutgers, Ohio State and other schools.
The Post article quotes one observer of the current dissent:
“I have never seen people so upset, people that have no dog in this fight. They’re not Palestinian, Arab-American, Jewish. And these people are just like, ‘Why? Why are we a part of this?’”
Paul is working with national organizers “to build a central hub for the dozens of pro-Palestinian political action committees that have sprung up in recent months.”
The idea is to create a counterweight to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a key enforcer of the taboo around questioning the special relationship with Israel.
Politico reports AIPAC officials expect to spend $100 million in 2024 in an effort to defeat “candidates they deem insufficiently supportive of Israel.”
Paul says he keeps his criticisms rooted in facts. “He bristles against descriptions of his next project as “anti-AIPAC,” preferring to call it “pro a more balanced American policy movement.”
The winning argument, Paul says is about interests, not identities — the idea that “what Israel is doing right now is deeply harmful to America, it is undermining our relationships in the Middle East, and it is undermining our ability to lead on the global scale.”
------------------------------------
If this link to the Washington Post doesn’t work, try this one.
Paul’s LinkedIn post begins:
(Former) Director at U.S. Department of State.
Today I informed my colleagues that I have resigned from the State Department, due to a policy disagreement concerning our continued lethal assistance to Israel. To further explain my rationale for doing so, I have written the attached note.
He also writes:
Just a quick note to say how overwhelmed I've been by the kind words of support from so many friends (old and new), and how particularly moving are some of the messages I've received from (former) colleagues and, especially, from people with roots or family in Gaza and in Israel. I will make every effort to reply to everyone who has messaged me, but please bear with me as there are so many of you.