Hala Rharrit on Quitting State Dept. & Ending U.S. Complicity in Gaza
www.democracynow.org
As human rights groups continue to call out war crimes committed by the Israeli military, we speak to the only U.S. diplomat to publicly resign from the Biden administration over its policy on Israel. We first spoke to Hala Rharrit when she resigned from the State Department in April, citing the illegal and deceptive nature of U.S. policy in the Middle East. “We continue to willfully violate laws so that we surge U.S. military assistance to Israel,” she says after more than a year of Israel’s war on Gaza. Rharrit says she found the Biden administration unmovable in its “counterproductive policy,” which she believes has gravely harmed U.S. interests in the Middle East. “We are going to feel the repercussions of that for years, decades, generations.”

As human rights groups continue to call out war crimes committed by the Israeli military, we speak to the only U.S. diplomat to publicly resign from the Biden administration over its policy on Israel.

We first spoke to Hala Rharrit when she resigned from the State Department in April, citing the illegal and deceptive nature of U.S. policy in the Middle East. “We continue to willfully violate laws so that we surge U.S. military assistance to Israel,” she says after more than a year of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Rharrit says she found the Biden administration unmovable in its “counterproductive policy,” which she believes has gravely harmed U.S. interests in the Middle East. “We are going to feel the repercussions of that for years, decades, generations.”

  • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 hours ago

    Yes, I’ve heard that rhetoric before. I apply the same skepticism to hamas as I do Israel, though, given both are engaged in outright warfare. Political maneuverings are to be expected during times of war. I am not surprised they would offer a prisoner swap, the only surprise is that they would think any chance exists that Netanyahu might actually agree, after given such a clear casus belli and opportunity to enact his long-term goals.

    Ultimately, language like this is legitimate cause for suspicion, though: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/

    Additionally, you can point to the indiscriminate attacks on Oct 7th against nonmilitary targets to give evidence to their lack of distinguishment between Israeli people and the Israeli military. It’s not just language about the destruction of a country of people, they exhibit actions to back it up.

    Ultimately, it does not matter why they want to destroy Israelis, that is not a pre-requisite to fighting against occupation. Do Ukrainians seek to destroy Russia? Or merely battle its military to liberate their land? This is a key distinction, the following of the laws of war.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      2 hours ago

      Hamas certainly did commit war crimes on Oct 7, and many of the attacks were indiscriminate.

      This kind of violence does not come out of nowhere, Israel has committed this level of violence on the population of Gaza multiple times, on top of the daily violence of the blockade and occupation. The occupier does set the level of violence in Colonialist conflicts. It’s still unjustifiable for both sides, but the material conditions the occupier subjects the occupied to are critical to understand.

      When people are subjected to the daily violence of Apartheid for generations, they will inevitably use violence to fight back. The underlying cause of all this violence stems from Zionism (Ethnic Cleansing, Settler Colonialism, Apartheid), and the only way to end the violence to to end the underlying cause.

      Quotes

      Historian and professor of genocide studies Uğur Ümit Üngör noted that “many commentators rightly pointed out that Hamas committed a genocidal massacre”, while also highlighting the killing of Arab Israelis and Bedouins during Hamas’ attack as evidence that it may not have been “group selective”. He suggested that the attack might fall under the category of “subaltern genocide”, drawing comparisons to the mass killing of pied-noirs in Algeria. Political scientist Abdelwahab El-Affendi refuted the “subaltern genocide” thesis, pointing to a “near-consensus” in the field of genocide studies that “genocides are almost invariably perpetrated by states”, which does not apply to the Gazan enclave. He stated that the attacks were consistent with terrorism and mass violence, but that the taking of hostages for prisoner exchanges indicated that the intent of the attacks was not genocidal.

      By contrast, British academic Omar McDoom wrote in the Journal of Genocide Research that comparisons between the Holocaust and 7 October are indicative of a pro-Israel bias in sections of the Holocaust studies community. McDoom argues that the comparison is “problematic” because “the Germans were not an occupied and oppressed people. And Gaza is not a powerful, expansionary state. To the contrary.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel

      Infographics

      • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 hours ago

        Your underlying causes do not go very far back in time. The first Zionist settlers purchased their land from Palestinians and lived peacefully alongside them. While I understand your desire to focus solely on material causes, one must also take ideology and religion into account as factors. Humans experience emotions, and emotions do not always have material causes.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
          0·
          2 hours ago

          Early Zionist settlers who did live side by side with the native Palestinian people did report that they were received peacefully, that is true. But the land purchases were not, that began the forced displacement.

          The Transfer Committee, and the JNF Ethnic Cleansing, which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate before the Nakba