518

State Department official resigns after Biden administration says Israel not blocking Gaza aid (www.middleeasteye.net)

submitted 5 months ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

239 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.

Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.

The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.

The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -3 points 5 months ago

Have you, or have you not, seen an ML call the Cambodian genocide “justified?”

Yes, after calling it "putting unfavorable elements\burgeoisie\vermin to the wall" or something like that.

Just like I have seen the same with Stalin's repressions in USSR.

Great, where’s the link?

I don't keep links for things I don't need.

Do you keep links of your conversations on the Web?

Oh, I get it. Now that you’ve been caught in a lie, you’re trying to pretend that I was asking for proof of the genocide itself, as opposed to what I actually asked for, which is proof of an ML calling it “justified.” Nice bit of weaseling.

Weaseling is what you are doing in this quote. I openly say that I don't respect you and thus don't bother following your turns.

are blatantly lying and making things up by claiming to have seen MLs call it justified.

Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case. Maybe you are bad with math and probabilities.

You could argue about this being commonplace or not, but since you are accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in, I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don’t keep links for things I don’t need.

This website has a search function. Searching "Khmer Rouge Justified" returns precisely 5 comments, none of which were claiming it was justified or responding to someone claiming it was justified. "Khmer Rouge Wall" likewise turned up nothing of note. Liar.

Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case.

Great! Anyone is welcome to chime in and provide evidence. Where is it? Liar.

accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in,

That... that's not at all contradictory lmao. Liar.

I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.

Given your comments about how drowning puppies is justified, which everyone's definitely seen but which I have precisely zero evidence of, I think you're the one everyone has a measure of.

How could you say that?

Puppies? Really? Wow.

Ofc, I won't provide evidence, because as you're a puppy murderer, I don't respect you and won't play by your terms. Liar.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -4 points 5 months ago

This website has a search function.

Now think further. You are so fucking close to the answer. This website.

Also why waste time looking for something? I'll still be right, it'll only affect what you think.

Ofc, I won’t provide evidence, because as you’re a puppy murderer, I don’t respect you and won’t play by your terms.

Well, because I don't respect you, I don't care. So dunno what was this supposed to tell me. That you are running around asking from people evidence of what they've seen a few months ago and they won't? That's expected.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

Liar.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -2 points 5 months ago

Something a liar always says first

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

Liar.

load more comments (1 replies)

this post was submitted on 29 May 2024

518 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19136 readers

3764 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News