video app or online at c-span.org. >> friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail. a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage. providing a one-stop-shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters. along with firsthand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcast. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we've been your

primary source for capitol hill. providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. take you to where the policy is debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. "washington j" continues. host: conversation on the war in gaza, our guest is annelle sheline. previously a foreign affairs officer at the state department. annelle sheline, when and why did you leave your state department job? guest: thank you for having me and thank you for drawing attention to this. i left at the end of march. as you mentioned i was working on promotion in the middle east. at the time, because i had been at the state department such a short time i wasn't initially planning to go public.

i had told superiors i would be resigning over gaza, i was going to leave it internal. colleagues asked if i would consider going public with the resignation. it did seem public pressure would be the only thing that had any effect. my own resignation and those that came after mine unfortunately don't seem to have had that much of an effect on the policy. i just felt it was important to try and speak up. host: you resigned over gaza, for folks who haven't read your statement, why? guest: in general, as someone who studied the middle east, i have a phd in political science.

i, and those who know the middle east well were extremely concerned about the humanitarian effect, the humans hold this was having, this was not a wise policy with american security or is really security. it is extremely destabilizing and will only lead to more violent. more specifically trying to advocate for human rights, something that people may give a smile, the american credibility on human rights already was pristine before october 7. there was important work the u.s. was doing across the region . it has only grown more repressive in the intervening years. the u.s. was playing an extremely important role in

advocating for human rights. it became sort of a laughing matter for the thought that the u.s. would be advocating on the human rights activists. host: why did you go to the state department and what does this do? guest: i had a government issued fellowship that allowed me to be hired. that contributed to my decision to stay for the entire year. i wanted to fulfill my service obligation. i let my superiors know that after those 365 days were over i would be resigning. people may be aware of the human rights report that the state

department produces every year and has done so since the 1970's. the original intention of those reports when congress mandated them after the vietnam war and concerns over the way the united states supported authoritarian government, the thought initially was that by producing human rights reports, the united states would condition countries. if a country had a really poor human rights report, unfortunately that initial report had fallen by the wayside. they cut off the sales to any country regardless of human rights record. however, the state department continues to produce these report every year. that was a big part of what i was involved in. host: what do you want to see

the biden administration do today? guest: they need to cut off weapons to israel. it is no longer legal for the united states to continue to send weapons to israel. this is also true of other governments across the world. these extreme human rights users. in israel it is particularly urgent given the level of violence they are conducting. host: what is the legal definition of genocide? guest: essentially it is an effort to wipe out people, it doesn't have to be the entire people. it is an effort to eliminate a particular people on the basis of their membership and a particular group.

israel is trying to wipe out the palestinian population of gaza, it is not allowing in aid, 500 trucks per day were regularly going into gaza. israel does not allow goods in and out of gaza. last month in august, it was an average of 69 trucks per day. in september, the latest i saw was 62 trucks per day. 500 was necessary, that was the bare minimum. the extent to which israel is making it impossible for people to survive in as well as daily arguments, dropping bombs all over their territory. interestingly around the same

era that congress mandated the human rights report, the aftermath of the vietnam war, a lot of concern about what the united states was doing. there were instances of people going public with concerns about the state department. the state department established the channel. you receive a response. it is something taken very seriously. you do not have access to previous cables. what level of dissent the policy might be generating. i signed two cables.

i co-authored a cable on the human rights aspect. the violations israel was involved in. i did not receive a response. in general, i found many people in states were horrified by this policy including senior people inside states. when it comes to u.s. policy towards israel, that is divided -- decided at the very top. the people in the middle east to work on the region, their insights are not being listened to. host: design cables are taken extremely seriously, do you think antony blinken knew about this? guest: my understanding is he is made aware of all of them. i don't know if he personally read it.

my understanding is this issue has generated more dissent cables than any recent issue. leading up to the invasion of iraq. i know the level of dissent is extensive. each one personally we did receive a formal response from the state department. the united states is doing everything it can that we continue to hear over and over again. this broke down just before last thanksgiving. i think it is extremely frustrating the extent to which

this continues to be put forward as a solution when the u.s. is unable to use any sort of pressure to actually get there to the extent that this is why argue it is time for the united states to uphold american law and no longer send weapons to israel. that what they are doing is unacceptable under international law and the u.s. will no longer support it. host: annelle sheline is with us until the end of our program. phone numbers as usual, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you currently work at the quincy institute for responsible statecraft, what do you do there now? guest: it is a think tank that launched in late 2019 that tries

to advocate for a less militarized policy. i interviewed before i jayland -- joined the state department. there is too much money, not enough domestically on addressing the security concerns. continuing to spend so much on our military in pursuing our primary foreign parsi -- policy tool. the only people that benefit are the shareholders from the weapons manufacturers. host: would be able to get the arms somewhere else? would we be able to change what is happening right now in gaza? guest: absolutely. this is what changed israeli

policy in the past. use our ronald reagan do that with the violence israel was perpetrating in lebanon in the 1980's. we know that had a big impact when president biden called back in 2021 and said that is enough. the violence had gone on for a matter of weeks. host: is it the violence or the political protection that is provided by the u.s.? guest: those are completely integrated. the biden administration has sent more weapons than any previous administration. signaling the biden administration supports what israel is doing. if the history should wishes to signal it no longer supports this, that is the way to send that signal. saying we don't agree, you should stop and send extreme

amounts of weaponry. it would also help to prevent a broader regional war. we know from the perspective of benjamin netanyahu, who is trying to stay out of jail for corruption and other acts in many ways kind of similar to what we are seeing with former president trump. their best bet for staying out of jail is to come back into power. from his perspective, blocking the violence and shifting that attention away from himself to regain some of that he lost. that is his best bet for avoiding jail time. host: kamala harris said last week about the u.s. approach to israel, this is what she said. vp harris: what we know is this war must end.

it must end immediately and the way it will end his we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out. we will work around the clock on that. understanding that we must chart a course for a two state solution. in that solution, there must be security for the israeli people and an equal measure for the palestinian. i will always give israel the ability to defend itself particularly as it relates to iran and any threat that iran and its proxies close to israel. guest: it's not surprising she is running for president and thus far almost no one has faced any consequences for being too pro-israel. we are seeing a generation of young people who no longer

support this unconditional support for israel no matter what it does to the population under control. i had hopes that candidate and potential president harris might pursue a different policy. thus far i am not surprised that she is expressing this ongoing unconditional support for israel. host: mark on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: i will disagree with your guest, politely. i will give you the title on the report. it is called the traditional assessment, why is israel doing the swords of iron war? this was written by academics independently who are members of

biochemistry food and nutrition science. hospitals, medical standards, the conclusion was or is that a sufficient number of food has been sent into gaza. a sufficient amount of food has not gotten to the people who need it. the food has been hijacked by hamas is what i am saying. i am quoting the academics who evaluated the nutrition. given where this person is coming from, i think it is critical to note that israel does publicize the number of hamas that are killed.

i'm quoting data published by israel that 18,000-19,000 hamas fighters have been killed in this war. when you look at the total number killed in gaza, one should be aware of the number of hamas fighters composed in that total number of 40,000. host: annelle sheline, what do you want to respond to? guest: appreciate the caller for his time and questions.

i would direct them to the humanitarian operations on the ground in gaza. we had the state department make this assessment. this was part of why people were following when my state department colleague resigned over the msm20. as she said publicly at the time , the determination had been made that israel was blocking humanitarian aid. meaning they were no longer able to get security assistance in the foreign assistance act. she and her colleagues made that determination. when the report was released, that had been changed. unfortunately israel commits the same error.

any mail individual killed is considered a fighter between the ages of something like 14 and 60. those numbers we are seeing of a legend hamas fighters killed, that simply reflects men that were killed. in general it is important the extent to which women and children are regarded as victims . the also the acknowledgment that women are victims. some are civilian men that have nothing to do with hamas and when they are killed they are designated as hamas fighters. in many cases they had no involvement. host: how do you figure out what is reliable information, whether it is these numbers on casualties or anything else

going on in the active war zone? guest: it would be easier if israel allowed foreign journalists to get into gaza. when you see u.n. trucks driving around, it is complete devastation. there are still 2 million people trying to survive. it is a desert, there is no water. it is absolutely shocking that all of us have access to sufficient information from people inside gaza. people were posting on social media and you could see their geo-tag location. knowing they were not aware of what was happening. host: nina in maryland, independent, good morning.

are you with us? caller: yes i am. thanks to your guest for pointing out the varying obvious facts that we could all see. the misinformation that israel is putting out about deaths of hamas fighters. i won't belabor that. do you have any thoughts about a change coming with regards to all of the presidential candidates that are available? i know jill stein is the only antiwar candidate. i don't know.

i would love it if you could reflect on that. guest: thanks so much. i appreciate what jill stein has said and her willingness to take more of an antiwar stance. i think voting for jill stein could bring donald trump back into the white house. personally, i will be voting for kamala harris and trying to work with those working to push her. i no longer think we will continue to see this unconditional support that it currently has in congress. we saw the efforts to eliminate members of congress who were

going into their primaries spending millions of dollars to make sure people were not able to make -- keep their seats because of the ways they were criticizing what israel was doing. i think the naked expression is something that has turned off a lot of american. they are operating so blatantly on behalf of government. if you are concerned about the israeli civilians, how is this making them anymore secure? israel has behaved provocatively in terms of killing the hamas leader and the fact that they

have not engaged in a massive retaliation. it speaks to the power of restraint to prevent a broader war. it is not u.s. interest to get dragged into another war in the middle east. it is a signal to netanyahu that the united states continues to support him and will support him up to perhaps sending u.s. troops to fight on his behalf. american troops are so tired of these unnecessary wars in the middle east. i think harris is someone who could be moved on this. the hiring she has done giving some optimism to shift here. also calling ones number in congress is important to signal

not only you want a cease fire but it's time to end the sale and u.s. weapons and information to israel. host: what are you referring to? guest: united states has mobilized more resources into the area. think about -- we hear a lot about the missiles that get sent back and forth from hezbollah and lebanon. i think the way that is often construed in u.s. media is they are hezbollah missiles. i believe it is 80% of the missiles across the board have been from israel at lebanon. israel killing as i mentioned the hamas leader in tehran or attacking the iranian consulate in damascus.

as they continue to behaved provocatively, these other countries might get to a point where they are no longer willing to exhibit the restraint. if we get into an actual war launching massive military action, the united states is going to be involved in that. host: when you say provocatively, how would you describe the events of october 7 and the caller earlier when we mentioned you were coming on said i want to know whether she thinks israel has the rights to defend itself? guest: the events of october 7 were absolutely horrific. hamas is a terrorist organization and obviously israel was going to respond to the trauma and violence that it suffered.

what israel is doing at this point in no way constitutes self-defense and makes itself significantly less secure not only as a result of this traumatized population but around the world. we have seen instances of u.s. official specializing in this with the extent to which the level of terrorist recruitment, the extent to which it is making israel and the united states less secure is immense. the question is i would say what it is doing could not be described in any way as self-defense, furthermore under international law, because

israel occupies gaza, israel does not have a right to defend itself from a territory it occupies. this gets into legal questions. according to the u.n. determination, it is a generally acknowledged fact, it cannot legally defend itself under the u.n. charter from a territory that it occupies. host: this is joe, republican, good morning. caller: the history of post-world war ii where millions of germans occupied by russia moved to the west. this was once part of the ottoman empire, why can't palestinians who want to leave the gaza strip or west bank [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. vi