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
    12·
    7 days ago

    You’re shifting your goalpost. The discussion was about the eradication of Palestinians, it was about genocide. Apartheid and genocide are not the same. Genocide is happening now, apartheid was happening previously. That’s an escalation.

    The Oslo Accords were not agreements to return to the 1967 borders. Thus Rabin saying there would be no return to the 1967 borders and building infrastructure within the West Bank was in compliance with the agreement between the Israelis and the PLO, that allowed certain settlements to remain and made others illegal.

    Following that killing of 29 Palestinians, hamas took responsibility for two suicide bombings. They themselves claimed those bombings were intended to disrupt the peace process.

    Source: Abufarha, Nasser (2009). The making of a human bomb: an ethnography of Palestinian resistance. The cultures and practice of violence series. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. p. 68.

    While I understand that you have strong political leanings, in a discussion on history, cite reputable history sources, not political organizations. History is a tool often misused by political movements, anything written about it from a Political Science background is very problematic.

    This paragraph does not even support your thesis, it supports mine:

    Even decolonization that’s allegedly “bloodless” really isn’t. India’s independence in 1947 from Great Britain is held up as an example of the power of nonviolent protest, but there were years of violent struggles leading up to Gandhi’s campaign. Revolutionaries planned assassinations and bombings. In 1919, British troops killed at least 379 unarmed pro-independence protesters (which included children) in Amritsar. One way or another, violence is always part of decolonization.

    This indicates that Britain was setting the level of violence very high, but the actual result involved very little. Why? The Indians.

    Your incremental genocide still ignores the growing population in Gaza.

    You have a very clear political agenda. I support and agree with it. But I’m a history guy, I won’t simply let you twist history to your own ends as been done so often in the past. Argue in an academically honest way, acknowledging what the Oslo Accords actually were along with counterexamples for your historical assertions.

    I do acknowledge that the Nakba was not perpetuated solely by the right, but we’re discussing modern Zionism, not historical Zionism.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      7 days ago

      You’re shifting your goalpost. The discussion was about the eradication of Palestinians, it was about genocide. Apartheid and genocide are not the same. Genocide is happening now, apartheid was happening previously. That’s an escalation.

      I’m not, you’re just not understanding my point. Unlike Apartheid in South Africa, where exploitation of Labor was a major factor, the Apartheid of Palestine is to make uninhabitable conditions for Palestinians to live in. Conditions such as access to basic necessities like food, water, and shelter, has been intentionally diminished by Israel. Populations have a higher birth rate in more impoverished conditions. More preventable deaths happen. This shifts the population to a younger demographic. You are focusing on the birth rate instead of the violent conditions of the Apartheid.

      The Oslo Accords were not agreements to return to the 1967 borders. Thus Rabin saying there would be no return to the 1967 borders and building infrastructure within the West Bank was in compliance with the agreement between the Israelis and the PLO, that allowed certain settlements to remain and made others illegal

      Because the Oslo Accords were meant to justify further settlements, that were already underway, in the West Bank, de juro annex more Palestinian territory, and quell resistance through the means of Counter Insurgency with the PA. It was never about peace and reconciliation. That’s precisely why Right of Return was a non-starter even for Rabin. Rabin was assassinated because he dared to entertain even minimal concessions. This is all thoroughly discussed in the sources I linked, which you still have not read.

      This indicates that Britain was setting the level of violence very high, but the actual result involved very little. Why? The Indians.

      There are many factors that differentiate the two. Majorly, British Occupation of India was not Settler Colonialism. It was focused on economic and geopolitical supremacy. Britain was not interested in ethnically cleansing the native population in order to make new settlements, they wanted political control which became unsustainable. Native Americans had no choice but to fight back, because their eradication was inherent to the settlers Colonialism of Manifest Destiny.

      Argue in an academically honest way, acknowledging what the Oslo Accords actually were along with counterexamples for your historical assertions.

      I am. You can’t take a genuine look at the conditions of the Oslo Accords for the Palestinians and consider it a genuine peace treaty. Acting like it was a genuine attempt at peace is dishonest. The Israeli States use of ‘illegal’ settlements is a deliberate tactic of Settler Violence

      https://m.btselem.org/settler_violence

      All these colonies are regarded, even by most liberal Zionists – many of whom live in these colonies – as Israeli Jewish urban neighbourhoods that are completely excluded from any future negotiations. In terms of the law, the international community does not distinguish between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ settlements, but it seems that quite a few Western governments, and most certainly the various American administrations, accepted such a division and included in the former category these new ‘neighbourhoods’.

      So these ‘neighbourhoods’ became part of ‘Small Israel’, which for many liberals in Israel and in the West represented the moral and ethical state, prior to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Such areas, even in the eyes of the Israeli peace camp, were non-negotiable, as would transpire with the Oslo Accord when their fate was discussed for the first time. So while, in the eyes of more enlightened observers, 78 per cent of Palestine was non-negotiable prior to 1967, after the occupation this exclusion spread over 85 per cent of the land. By this I mean that while the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were 78 per cent of Palestine, the parts of the West Bank that all the Israeli governments declared as non-negotiable had left only 10 per cent of Palestine as a possible territory for Palestinian rule; this 10 per cent was spread all over the West Bank, divided by settlement blocs and military bases.

      The peace process of the 1990s was no such thing. The insistence on partition and the exclusion of the refugee issue from the peace agenda rendered the Oslo process at best a military redeployment and rearrangement of Israeli control in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At worst, it became a new arrangement of control that made life for the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip far worse than it was before.

      Already in 1994, Rabin’s government had forced Arafat to accept its interpretation of how the Oslo Accord would be implemented on the ground. The West Bank was divided into the infamous areas A, B and C. The Palestinian Authority controlled area A and jointly with Israel, Area B. Area C was the one directly controlled by Israel and constituted half of the West Bank. Movement between, and inside, the areas became nearly impossible and the West Bank was cut off from the Gaza Strip. Israel also divided the Gaza Strip. The settlers were a given small part of it and took over most of the water resources and lived in gated communities. The Palestinians were cordoned within barbed wire. Thus, here too, the end result meant that the peace process deteriorated the quality of Palestinian life.

      The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe

      • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        6 days ago

        I am not focusing on birth rate, I did not mention the birth rate. I speak of total population figures, which takes both births and deaths into account. Gaza was growing in total population, not diminishing, until very recently. You mischaracterize yet again.

        Regardless of the goals of the Oslo Accords, they were a peace agreement agreed upon by the representatives of both sides. No, they did not concede every Palestinian demand, right of return is a very notable one. It illustrates your extremist views though, that you see this compromise proposal agreed to by Arafat, as intended to destroy the Palestinian people. Perhaps you lean more Hamas than Fatah? Are you only willing to see a two-state solution if it is at the 1967 borders, also known as the Green Line?

        If the peace wasn’t real, then why were some settlements being dismantled? Why was land being given back to the Palestinians? What is this footage of Israeli settlers being dragged away by Israeli soldiers?

        https://youtu.be/x3oS2aIG_nw

        You know, I never claimed your sources were propaganda. The propaganda is coming from you, and how you cherry pick and otherwise deny all perspectives asides those coming from a small selection of sources.

        I’ve already discussed Ilan Pappe’s Post-Modernism, and how even in his own defense that you shared he acknowledged some of the claims against him. Yet you just go right back to him. This is your faith at work.

        edit: Your goal as a propagandist is clearly indicated by your automatic downvoting of everything I say that disagrees with you, incidentally. You act as a holy arbiter of truth, but really you’re just another political activist willing to do “whatever it takes”, aren’t you? Uninterested in any form of perspective that does not glorify hamas and demonize Israel, as you conveniently duck every criticism I level at them while trying to redirect all attention to Israeli atrocities.

        The self-righteousness of people like you will be the doom of what you are trying to save. The truth, even the harder parts of it, can save them though. Acknowledging even the ugliest parts of the truth allows us to grow out of the grievances in our hearts, for the sake of future generations.