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.

    • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      Dang it’s crazy that you live in a place with only two options. Here in America there’s third parties and even if they’re not enumerated on the ballot you can just write in whoever you want.

      • archonet@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s a viable third party running in America? One that gets more than a token share of votes?

        Wowie! I live here and I didn’t even know that! Thanks, sport, I’ll definitely vote for them if they have a chance to win!

        • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          People have been voting third party and writing in candidates in America for centuries. It’s nothing new.

          The two major parties have the candidates they have because those people represent the interests of their constituency, petit bourgeois and regional bourgeois on the republican side and national bourgeois and upwardly mobile members of the management class on the democrat side.

          If all you will accept is a win, I can’t help you. We are going to lose no matter if we get Biden or trump. The easiest way to register our desire for something else and the only one that can’t be manipulated, deepfaked, diverted or twisted is to have our votes counted for a party and candidate that represents our values and politics.

          Even though that candidate and party might not win, our support gives them real material gains through debate and media appearances, ballot line presence, funding and of course grassroots public awareness.

          If we only want one of the two major parties to change their tune, a third party vote tells them what they need to do to get yours, what parties platform they need to move towards.

          For me, that party is the party for socialism and liberation. They’re running Claudia de la Cruz for president.

          If this feels theoretical to you, consider Perot ‘92. He was considered a spoiler for bush at the time but studies have since shown that he siphoned slightly more votes from Clinton. NAFTA wouldn’t have been zombie legislation ready to be replaced from the day it took effect if it werent for Perot.

          There are other examples of third parties having serious effects on the platforms of the two major parties but Perot ‘92 is one of my favorites because of how recent it was.

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I just suggested Claudia de la Cruz, the candidate running under the party for socialism and liberation.

              I also said that if all you will accept is a win that I can’t help you. De la Cruz is electable if you vote for her, but she falls far outside what you outlined.

              Is a win all you will accept?