一名美国国务院官员解释了他辞职的决定，原因是拜登政府承诺在哈马斯近两周前对以色列发动致命袭击后向以色列提供军事援助。
直到昨天，乔希·保罗还是国务院军事事务局的国会和公共事务主任，他在那里帮助制定向其他国家运送军事武器的政策。
保罗在接受美国广播公司新闻频道“START HERE”的布拉德·米尔克采访时说，他认为以色列对哈马斯的严厉军事回应导致数千平民死亡，对其自身安全产生了“反作用”。他还说，与对沙特阿拉伯等其他国家军售的决策过程不同，对以色列的军售“没有允许辩论的空间”。
在国务院新闻发布会上，发言人马修·米勒说，国务院鼓励反对意见和辩论，但最终政府内部的决策者不同意保罗在这一问题上的立场。
“关于这一点，这一具体的批评已经播出，我们已经非常清楚，我们强烈支持以色列的自卫权。我们将继续为他们提供保卫自己所需的安全援助，”米勒说。“总统先生，国务卿说得很清楚，我们希望以色列在自卫时遵守所有国际法。我们将继续与他们合作，确保他们达到最高标准。”
布拉德·米尔克:让我们从你为什么辞职开始?
乔希·保罗:谢谢你的问题，也谢谢你邀请我。我辞职是因为我认为，在过去的20年里，我们对以色列和巴勒斯坦的政策是建立在两个前提之上的。首先，两国解决方案是可行的，其次，实现这一目标的途径是确保以色列感到安全。
但我们实际上看到的是，以色列建立安全感的方式是通过扩大西岸的检查站和路障，同时支持不民主的巴勒斯坦权力机构，并与哈马斯和巴勒斯坦伊斯兰圣战组织交火，导致数千平民在过去几年中死亡，仅在过去一周，这就使两国解决方案几乎不可能实现。
对于我们来说，看看这种情况，然后说，让我们扔更多的弹药进去，让我们看看，你知道，如果更多的炸弹解决了问题，你知道，这似乎不是正确的前进道路。
米克:那你是真的想把信交给某人，还是怎么做的?
保罗:是的，我走进了我老板的办公室，我不会说出他们的名字，我递了一封信，实际上我们进行了一次非常坦诚的谈话，他们非常接受和认可我的观点。
米克:嗯，你能帮助我理解这一点吗，因为这个国家的很多人现在都在思考这个问题;你已经想了很多年了?
从以色列的角度来看，我们听说这是9/11时刻，是其历史上最严重的恐怖袭击。如果我住在离几周前越过边境，用大头棒打死我的邻居，劫持一名家庭成员为人质的人1000码远的地方，我认为仅仅喜欢，遏制这些人并达成一些停火协议是不够的。就像，我会想，你得拆除它们。你真的认为有一种方法可以做到这一点，而不需要像我们看到的那样进行猛烈的空中攻击和地面入侵吗?美国还有其他选择可以支持吗?
保罗:是的，我的意思是，在我回答这个问题之前，我想说这是我们经常被问到的问题，对吗?以色列还应该如何应对?
我们从来没有真正问过自己，巴勒斯坦人应该如何处理对加沙的轰炸或对他们村庄的军事入侵、家园被毁、定居点以及他们面临的所有侵权行为。所以我只想指出，首先，我们，你知道，从某种程度上来说，天生是从一个角度来看待这个问题的，我认为承认每个故事都有另一个角度和两个方面是很重要的。
我们现在的处境是因为使用军事力量并没有给以色列带来安全，对吗?所以本质上你问的问题是，为什么我们不应该做，或者为什么以色列不应该做更多同样的事情?答案是，这不会带来最终符合以色列自身利益的结果。所以，你知道，我不是从站在哪一边的角度来看这个问题的。但最终，如果我们想要该地区的和平，如果我们想要双方的平民和平和安全，我们已经尝试了20年，不仅没有成功，而且是灾难性的，那么也许是时候尝试一些不同的东西了。
undefined
米克:是的，但那又有什么区别呢?那会是什么样子?
保罗:嗯，所以我认为，听着，让我澄清一下，我认为以色列确实有军事回应的权利，而且，你知道，关于以色列可以使用什么样的战术和技术来应对哈马斯的威胁，那里有一个对话。但除此之外，我认为我们需要谈谈，你知道，以色列在政治方面能做些什么?你知道，如果你想摧毁哈马斯，你不会用军事手段。再多的炸弹也炸不出巴勒斯坦人的抵抗。如果你想削弱哈马斯，你必须通过提供一条通往和平、正义和繁荣的巴勒斯坦社会的道路来实现。
米克:你能帮我理解为什么这场冲突对你来说如此独特吗?就像，我在想国务院的某人-美国和沙特阿拉伯做军火交易，对吗?好像我们和很多国家都有复杂的关系。为什么这个时刻会让你走进老板的办公室说:“我不干了?”
保罗:是的，不，谢谢你。所以这是一个非常重要的问题。我认为这里的区别是过程的区别，而不是实质的区别。我的意思是，是的，我们与其他合作伙伴处理过很多类似的问题，你知道，在中东和世界各地，各种各样的政权都有可疑的人权记录。
这里不同的是，伴随这些决定的始终是一个审议过程，在国务院内有一个审议武器转让的伟大过程，政治军事事务局在其中发挥作用，负责世界这一地区的区域局与其保持一致，人权局提出其观点。这是一场争论，尤其是在复杂的情况下，可能会持续数月甚至数年。
在这种情况下，没有争论。没有辩论的余地。任何提出的担忧都被放在一边，不，这就是我们正在做的，搬出去。另一个区别是，当案件离开国务院时，也没有辩论的空间。
因此，当有一个重大的武器销售时，需要通知国会。在国会通知过程中，国会经常提出人权问题，这些问题通常与国务院官员提出的问题相同。国会可以举行销售，他们可以辩论销售，他们甚至可以投票阻止销售。
当然，在这种情况下，当涉及到以色列时，绝对没有兴趣这样做。因此，在国会没有辩论的空间，在行政部门也没有辩论的空间，这就是为什么我把我的辩论空间带到了公共领域。
米克:那么，最后一个问题。你觉得现在在国务院或联邦政府的其他部门有更多的人和你有同样的感受吗?
保罗:是的，我今天要说的是，比我昨天想象的还要多。跨部门和立法部门的人们向我伸出援手，对我说“嘿，我们知道你来自哪里，”你知道，“谢谢你这么做，”你知道，“我们也有同感，这让我感到惊讶和感动。这对我们来说也很困难。”我想有很多人都有这种感觉。
米克:我应该说，国务院发言人马修·米勒昨天确实被问及你辞职的事。
记者:他似乎觉得在向以色列国防军出售武器和检查个别单位的人权记录时，以色列受到了尊重。他是对的吗?
Former State Department official explains why he resigned over US military aid to Israel
A U.S. State Department official explained his decision to resign over the Biden administration’s commitment to provide military aid to Israel following Hamas' deadly attack on the country nearly two weeks ago.
Until yesterday, Josh Paul was the director of congressional and public affairs at the State Department’s Bureau of Military Affairs, where he helped craft policy around sending military arms to other countries.
Speaking to ABC News’ Brad Mielke on START HERE, Paul said he believes that Israel’s heavy military response to Hamas, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths, has been “counterproductive” to its own security. He also said that, unlike the decision-making process for arms sales in other instances, such as to Saudi Arabia, there has been “no space allowed for debate” regarding Israel.
During a State Department press briefing, spokesperson Matthew Miller said the department encouraged opposing views and debate, but that ultimately the decision makers within the administration didn’t agree with Paul’s stance in this instance.
“With respect to this, this specific criticism that has been aired, we have made very clear that we strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself. We're going to continue providing the security assistance that they need to defend themselves,” Miller said. “The president, the secretary has spoken very clearly that we expect Israel to abide by all international law as they defend themselves. And we will continue to work with them to ensure that they meet the highest standards.”
BRAD MIELKE: Let’s start with, why did you resign?
JOSH PAUL: So thank you for that question and thanks for having me. I resigned because I think, for the last 20 years, we've had a policy when it comes to Israel and Palestinians that is built on two premises. First of all, that a two-state solution is viable, and secondly, that the way to get there is to ensure Israel feels secure.
But what we've actually seen is that the way Israel has established its sense of security, which, as it turns out, is a false sense, is by expanding checkpoints and barriers in the West Bank, while at the same time, propping up an undemocratic Palestinian Authority and by trading fire with Hamas and with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, resulting in thousands of civilians’ deaths over the years, and in the past week alone, which has made a two-state solution virtually impossible.
And for us to look at that situation and say, let's throw more munitions into this, let's see, you know, if more bombs solve the problem, you know, it just doesn’t seem like the right path forward.
MIELKE: And so did you literally like hand a letter to someone or how does that work?
PAUL: Yes, I walked into my boss' office, and I'm not going to name them, and handed a letter and actually had a very good honest talk in which they were very accepting and acknowledging of my perspective.
President Joe Biden speaks to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House, Oct. 19, 2023, about the war in Israel and Ukraine.
Andrew Harnik/AP
MIELKE: Well, and can you help me understand this, because a lot of the country is getting its head wrapped around this now; you've been thinking about this for years?
From Israel's perspective, we've heard this described as its 9/11 moment, the worst terror attack in its history. And if I lived a thousand yards from people who came across the border a couple weeks ago and bludgeoned my neighbors to death, took a family member hostage, I would not think it's simply enough to like, contain these guys and reach some ceasefire agreement. Like, I would think, you got to dismantle them. Do you really think there's a way to do that without a heavy air assault and ground incursion like the one we’re seeing? Are there other options for the U.S. to support?
PAUL: Yeah, I mean, I would say, before I even answer that, I would say that that's the question that we are always asked, right? Is, how else should Israel deal with it?
We never really ask ourselves, how should the Palestinians deal with the bombing of Gaza or with military incursions into their villages, with home destructions, with settlements and with all the violations that they face. So I just want to point out, first of all, that we, you know, sort of inherently come at this from one perspective, and I think it's important to acknowledge that there is another perspective and two sides to every story.
We’re in this situation, because the use of military force has not resulted in security for Israel, right? So essentially the question you're asking is, why shouldn't we do, or why shouldn't Israel do more of the same? And the answer is that it doesn't result in what is ultimately in Israel's own interests. And so, you know, I'm coming at this not from a, you know, taking sides perspective. But ultimately, if we want peace for the region, if we want peace for the civilians on both sides and security, and we've tried something for 20 years and not only has it not worked, but it's been, you know, catastrophic, then maybe it’s time to try something different.
MIELKE: Yeah, but what would the difference be though? What would that look like?
PAUL: Well, so I think, look, let me be clear, I think Israel does have a military right to respond and, you know, there’s a conversation to be had there about what the tactics and techniques are that Israel could use to deal with the threat of Hamas. But beyond that, I think we need to talk about, you know, what can Israel do on the political side? You know, if you want to destroy Hamas, you're not going to do it militarily. There's no amount of bombs -- you can't bomb resistance out of the Palestinians. If you want to undermine Hamas, you have to do it through providing a path to peace, to justice, to a Palestinian society that can flourish.
MIELKE: Can you help me understand why this conflict was so singular for you? Like, I'm thinking of somebody at State -- the U. S. makes arms deals with the Saudis, right? Like we've had complicated relationships with so many countries. Why was this the moment that makes you go into your boss' office and say, “I'm done?”
PAUL: Yeah, no, thank you. So that's a really important question. I think the difference here is one of process, not of substance. And what I mean by that is that, yes, we've dealt with a lot of these very similar issues with other partners with, you know, all sorts of regimes with dubious human rights records both in the Middle East and around the world.
What is different here is that there has always been a deliberative process that has accompanied those decisions, whereby -- and there is a great process within the State Department for considering arms transfers, where the Political Military Affairs Bureau has a role, the regional bureau responsible for that area of the world chimes in with its equities, the Human Rights Bureau puts forward its equities. And this is a debate that particularly, on complex cases, can last for months or even years.
In this instance, there has been no debate. There has been no space allowed for debate. Any concerns raised have been sort of set aside with the sort of direction -- no, this is what we are doing, move out. The other difference is that there's also no space for debate when cases leave the State Department.
So when there's a major arms sale, what happens is it needs to be notified to Congress. And in the congressional notification process, Congress often raises human rights concerns, often the same concerns that have been raised by officials in the State Department. And Congress can hold sales, they can debate sales, they can even vote to block sales.
Of course, in this instance, when it comes to Israel, there's absolutely no appetite of any significance for doing so. So there is no space for debate on the Hill, there's no space for debate within the executive branch, and that is why I brought my space for debate to the public sphere.
MIELKE: Well then, last question for you. Do you feel like there are more people who feel the way you do at the State Department or elsewhere in the federal government right now?
PAUL: Yes, and I would say today that there are more than I even thought there were yesterday. I have been amazed and really touched by the amount of outreach that I've had from folks across the interagency and in the legislative branch to sort of say “Hey, we understand where you're coming from,” you know, “Thank you for doing this,” and, you know, “We feel the same way. This is really difficult for us as well.” I think that there are a lot of people who feel that way.
MIELKE: And I should say State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller was actually asked about your resignation, specifically, yesterday.
