[captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> the first thanksgiving story begins with the pequot massacre by members of the massachusetts bay colony, which really marks sort of, in my opinion, marks sort of the mythology of the united states as a

settler-colonial country founded on sort of genocide to create, ironically, peace. amy: as the nation marks thanksgiving, we speak to the indigenous scholar and activist nick estes on settler colonialism & continuing indigenous resistance. then the dissenters. two former top officials, craig mokhiber at the united nations and josh paul at the state department, they have both resigned from their jobs to protest the israeli bombardment of gaza. >> i decided to resign for three reasons, the first and most pressing of which is the very, i believe, uncontroversial fact that u.s.-provided arms should not be used to massacre civilians, should not be used to result in massive civilian casualties. and that is what we are seeing in gaza. >> the hardest part of proving genocide has been proven for us with these very open statements of genocidal intent by israeli officials, including the prime minister and the president and

senior cabinet ministers and military officials. amy: all that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. in this special broadcast, we begin the show with the indigenous scholar and activist nick estes, co-founder of the indigenous resistance group the red nation and a citizen of the lower brule sioux tribe. his books include "our history is the future," which tells the history of indigenous resistance over two centuries, offering a road map for collective liberation and a guide to fighting life-threatening climate change. estes centers this history in the historic fight against the dakota access pipeline at standing rock. i asked him to talk about the two thanksgiving stories he writes about at the beginning of his book.

nick: so, the first thanksgiving story is begins with the pequot massacre by members of the massachusetts bay colony, which really marks sort of, in my opinion, marks sort of the mythology of the united states as a settler-colonial country founded on sort of genocide to create, ironically, peace. and then i begin with another story of a prayer march that we led in the bismarck mall in bismarck, north dakota, to kind of bring attention to the standing rock struggle during a black friday shopping event, which was met by police armed with ar-15s, who then began punching and kicking water protectors who were holding a prayer in the bismarck mall.

and i thought it was a really kind of jarring sort of contrast between, you know, the past and the present, to say that while there are sort of differences between the massacre of pequots in massachusetts to the contemporary sort of fight against an oil pipeline, nonetheless, you know, bismarck, north dakota, is a 90% white community that originally the dakota access pipeline was supposed to go upriver from, but then was rerouted downriver to disproportionately affect the standing rock sioux tribe. and "disproportionate" is the language that the army corps of engineers used, as if there's ever a proportionate risk to environmental issues and water contamination. so, at this particular moment, there weren't any actions that were happening in the camps, and it was largely at a standstill. and i think that thanksgiving weekend, there was an un-thanksgiving feast that was

held in the camps, and it was actually the highest point of the camps themselves, in the sense that there were the most sort of water protectors had showed up. so, i thought it was a good kind of contrast to show that this history, you know, is a continuing history of genocide, of settler colonialism and, basically, the founding myths of this country. amy: your book's last words are, "we are challenged not just to imagine, but to demand the emancipation of earth from capital. for the earth to live, capitalism must die." explain. nick: so, that line is part of this longer section on liberation. and i think when we think about climate change, oftentimes the question of climate change really centers on market-driven solutions, such as, you know,

green capitalism, and how do we create markets that sort of incentivize transition to sustainable economies, right? and i think, really, what we're kind of like beating around the bush is, is that it's the system of capitalism that led us into this economic crisis to begin with. it's the sort of designation of certain populations in certain territories as disposable, that has led us into our current epoch of global climate change. and so, when we talk about who's going to bear the most burden when we transition, you know, out of the carbon economy, it most likely is going to be those populations that have historically been colonized, you know. and, you know, what's happening in southeast africa is a perfect example of why we need to transition away from not just the carbon economy, but capitalist economies in general, because if we look at the history of how africa has been a resource colony for europe and

for north america, we can look internally in the united states and understand that indigenous nations continue to serve as resource colonies for the united states, whether it's the navajo nation, where i'm living right now, that is producing oil and coal to generate electricity for the southwest region, or whether it's the fort berthold reservation up in north dakota, that is, you know, ground zero for oil and gas development in the bakken region. we have to understand that indigenous nations have largely been turned into resource colonies and sites of sacrifice for not just the united states, but for the oil and gas industry. and so we need to not just think beyond climate change and putting carbon into the atmosphere, but we actually need to think about the system, the social system - right? - that created those conditions in the first place.

and so, capitalism is fundamentally a social relation. it's a profit-driven system, whereas indigenous sort of ways of relating is one about reciprocity and a mutual sort of respect, not just with the human, but also with the nonhuman world. and we're undergoing, you know, the sixth massive extinction event, which is caused by not just climate change, but is caused by capitalist sort of systems and the profit-driven sort of motive of our current economic and social system. amy: nick estes, you focus on seven historical moments of resistance in your new book, "our history is the future." you say they form a historical road map for collective liberation. how did you choose these histories? just quickly take us through them. nick: sure. so, i begin at the

camps. i begin in the present, you know, at standing rock. and then i go to the fur trade with the first u.s. invasion, which was lewis and clark, who came through, who trespassed through our territory and were stopped by our leadership. and then i go through the indian wars of the 19th century and the buffalo genocide. and then i go into talking about the damming of the missouri river in the mid-20th century, and then looking at red power in the 1960s and in the 1970s and how all of these indigenous people, who were relocated because their lands were flooded by these dams, eventually found themselves and created sort of the modern indigenous movement, known as red power, and then looking, going back and ending actually at standing rock in 1974, with the creation of the international indian treaty council, which really coalesced these generations of indigenous resistance and took the treaties, the 1868 fort laramie

treaty, to the world and to the united nations. and to do that, they looked to palestinians, they looked to the south african anti-apartheid movement, who provided the mechanisms for recognition of indigenous rights at the united nations. and that all resulted, over four decades, in the touchstone document, the united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which was passed by the u.n. in 2007. and so, in many ways, when we look at standing rock, and we look at, if we go down flag row and we see the hundreds of tribal nation flags that were represented in 2016 and 2017, we also saw the palestinian flag that was there, kind of hearkening back to that international solidarity with movements of the global south, and specifically our palestinian relatives, who, you know, today are still facing, much like us, are still facing the brunt and

the brutality of settler colonialism, whether it's, you know, the united states recognizing the annexation of the golan heights or whether it's, you know, here in north america and the continued dispossession of indigenous territory and rights. we can see that settler colonialism in israel, or, in palestine, is really an extension of settler colonialism in north america. and so, and then i end with back at the camps and looking at how these camps really provided, you know, i actually look at a physical map that was handed out to water protectors who came to the camp. and on that map there was where to find food, where to find the clinics - right? - and where to find the security, and all the camps that were represented at standing rock. and, to me, that provided, you know, a kind of interesting parallel to the world that

surrounded the camps, which was some 92 different law enforcement jurisdictions. you had the north dakota national guard, the world of cops, the world of the militarized sort of police state. and in the camps themselves you had sort of the primordial sort of beginnings of what a world premised on indigenous justice might look like. and in that world, you know, everyone got free food. there was a place for everyone. the housing was transient housing and teepees and things like that, but then also there was health clinics to provide healthcare, alternative forms of healthcare, to everyone. and so, if we look at that, it's housing, education - all for free, right? - a strong sense of community. and for a short time, there was free education at the camps, right? those are things that most poor communities in the united states don't have access to, and especially reservation communities. but given the opportunity to

create a new world in that camp, centered on indigenous justice and treaty rights, society organized itself according to need and not to profit. and so, where there was, you know, the world of settlers, settler colonialism, that surrounded us, there was the world of indigenous justice that existed for a brief moment in time. and in that world, instead of doing to settler society what they did to us, genociding, removing, excluding, there's a capaciousness to indigenous resistance movements that welcomes in non-indigenous peoples into our struggle, because that's our primary strength, is one of relationality, one of making kin, right? amy: nick estes, indigenous scholar and activist, speaking in 2019. his books include "our history is the future." he is co-founder of the indigenous resistance group the red nation and a citizen of the lower brule sioux when we come back, international human rights lawyer craig mokhiber, he recently resigned as director of the new york office of the united

nations high commissioner for human rights accusing the un of failing to address what he calls a "text-book case of genocide" unfolding in gaza. [music break]

amy: this is "democracy now!" i'm amy goodman. in this holiday special we spend the rest of the hour speaking with the dissenters, two top officials, craig mokhiber at the united nations and josh paul at the state department. they both recently resigned from their jobs to protest the israeli bombardment of gaza. we begin with craig mokhiber. long time international human rights lawyer who served as director of the new york office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights. he had worked at the united nations since 1992 and lived in gaza in the 1990s. he recently resigned his post and accused the united nations of

failing to address what he calls a "text-book case of genocide" unfolding in gaza. in a letter addressed to the u.n. high commissioner for human rights volker türk, craig mokhiber wrote, "in gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. in the west bank, including occupied jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by israeli military units. across the land, apartheid rules." craig mokhiber went on to write, "what's more, the governments of the united states, the united kingdom, and much of europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations 'to ensure respect' for the

geneva conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for israel's atrocities," unquote. i spoke to craig mokhiber on november 1st, a day after he stopped working at the united nations. i asked him to talk about why he resigned. craig: well, i originally registered my concerns in writing to the high commissioner in march, as you heard from that statement, in the wake of a wave of human rights violations on the west bank, including the pogrom in huwara at that time. and at that time, i complained, really, about what i saw as a trepidatious response by many in the united nations, and an effort to try to silence some of the human rights critique of u.n. officials, including myself. and i admit to feeling a great deal of frustration, and at that moment indicating that i would be resigning from the u.n.,

effective this month. so, of course, the situation got much worse since then, which is why i was, particularly the events in gaza, which is why i was compelled to write this latest letter to the high commissioner, to put on record my very serious concerns about how we were failing to address the unfolding events in the occupied territories. amy: what do you think the united nations, the united states, the west, u.k. should be doing right now? craig: well, i think there is an obligation on the part of all member states of the united nations, including those states in the west, to respond in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law. my central point in the most recent letter was that we had effectively left international law behind when the international community embraced the oslo process, which sort of raised up notions of political expediency above the

requirements of international law. and that was a real loss for human rights in palestine. i think there is an obligation on the part of all states not just to respect international humanitarian law and international human rights law, but, under the geneva conventions, to ensure respect. and it's clear that many states, including the united states itself are not only in breach of their obligation to ensure respect vis-à-vis those states over which they have influence in this case, israel but have been actively complicit, actively engaged in arming, in diplomatic cover, in political support, intelligence support and so on. that is a breach of international humanitarian law. we need the opposite of that. we need all states, members of the united nations, to use whatever influence they have to ensure an end to these attacks on civilians in gaza, to ensure as well accountability for the perpetrators, redress for the victims, protection for the vulnerable there.

it's interesting, amy. we have a formula at the united nations that is applied to virtually every other conflict situation. but when it comes to the situation in israel and palestine, there's a different set of rules, apparently. and that's, i think, a big source of my frustration. where is the transitional justice process? where is the u.n. protection force to protect all civilians? where is the tribunal for accountability? where is the action on the part of the security council, the only mechanism in the united nations that has enforcement to ensure protection in the occupied territories? obviously, every effort in the security council is vetoed by the united states itself, a further indication of the kind of complicity about which i am referring. and i think the other thing that needs to happen in the international community is that we have to abandon the failed paradigms of the past on a political level and get back to the roots, which is international law, international human rights. what has happened in the context of the so-called oslo process, the

two-state solution, the u.n. quartet, is that they have acted effectively as a smokescreen, behind which we have seen further and worsening dispossession of palestinians, massive atrocities, such as those as we are witnessing now, the loss of homes and land, further settlement activity. you know, it's an open secret inside the halls of the united nations that the so-called two-state solution is effectively impossible now, there's nothing left for a sustainable state for the palestinian people and takes no account of the fundamental human rights of the palestinian people. the new paradigm has to be one based upon equality of all people there, equal rights for christians, muslims and jews. and that needs to be the new approach. and i think, as well, you know, it's interesting that this year we are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, adopted in 1948. that same year, the nakba occurred in palestine, and apartheid was

adopted in south africa. we have seen, because of a consistent international law and international human rights approach in the u.n. and the international community, that apartheid in south africa fell. we did not take the same approach in palestine. we've deferred to these political processes. and as a result, not only have we not seen an end to the oppression of the palestinian people, we've seen a continuing worsening of the situation. amy: so, you're a longtime human rights lawyer. i want you to respond, i played this already for yousef hammash in gaza right now, in khan younis, to respond, but i'd like you to respond to it, as well. after israel's attack on jabaliya yesterday, the idf spokesperson, israeli defense forces spokesperson, lieutenant colonel richard hecht, appeared on cnn and was interviewed by wolf blitzer. >> but you know that there are a lot of refugees, a lot of innocent civilians, men, women and children, in that refugee camp, as well, right?

>> this is the tragedy of war, wolf. i mean, we, as you know, we've been saying for days, move south. civilians that are not involved with hamas, please move south. we - >> yeah, i'm just trying to get a little bit more information. you knew there were civilians there. you knew there were refugees, all sorts of refugees. but you decided to still drop a bomb on that refugee camp attempting to kill this hamas commander. by the way, was he killed? >> i can't confirm, yeah. there will be more updated. he, yes, we know that he was killed. about the civilians there, we're doing everything we can to minimize. amy: so, he's saying they're doing everything they can to minimize. he's talking about ibrahim biari, whom it identified - israel has identified as hamas's commander of the jabaliya center battalion, saying he was killed in those recent strikes. can you respond to every aspect of what he said? they were trying to get a high-value target, as they put it, and they

are not trying to kill civilians. craig: well, i think what's important in that interview is that is another of many indications of intent on the part of israeli authorities, that will be very important in a court of law. he has said very openly that they knew of the concentrations of civilians there, and yet, in violation of the principle of distinction in international humanitarian law, and on the pretext of killing one combatant, wiped out the better part of an entire refugee camp, densely populated refugee camp. and i think what's been interesting in this war is the very open statement of intents. i referred in my letter to the case for genocide which is happening now. and, you know, "genocide" is a very politicized term, often abused. but in this case, the hardest part of proving genocide has been proven for us with these very open statements of genocidal intent by israeli officials, including the prime minister and the president and

senior cabinet ministers and military officials, who in their public statements have indicated very clearly their intention not to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and to carry out the kinds of wholesale slaughter that we are witnessing in gaza. that is not a justification in international law, saying that there was a combatant there, for that very disproportionate use of firepower against what was a civilian target. and that's what we've been seeing in all of gaza, from the north to the south. the other thing is this claim that, "well, we told them to move south, and therefore we can kill everybody who didn't move." this is an extremely dangerous and unlawful tactic that is being used, first because we know that evacuations in gaza in the best of times, in this densely populated small territory with 2.3 million civilians crowded in, with very

limited infrastructure, is a huge challenge. but most of gaza has been bombed into rubble. it is just not physically possible for civilians to move en masse in the ways that israel has required them to do so. and we know, already well documented, that when they do so, they're still subjected to bombings even in the south of the gaza strip. so, all of this, it seems to me, is evidence of intent and a prima facie case for violations of the laws of war. amy: israel has called for u.n. secretary-general antónio guterres to resign, after he said hamas's october 7th attack did not happen in a vacuum. this is israel's u.n. ambassador gilad erdan. >> mr. secretary-general, the u.n. was established to prevent atrocities, to prevent such atrocities like the barbaric atrocities that hamas committed. but the u.n. is failing. the u.n. is failing. and you, mr.

secretary-general, have lost all morality and impartiality, because when you say those terrible words that these heinous attacks did not happen in a vacuum, you are tolerating terrorism. and by tolerating terrorism, you are justifying terrorism. amy: that's israel's ambassador to the united nations. craig mokhiber, your response? craig: well, of course, you can imagine why the ambassador would want to start the clock only in october and to ignore the decades upon decades of persecution against the palestinian people in gaza, in the west bank, in jerusalem, inside israel proper. but that is not the kind of assessment that leads to peace or leads to an improved situation on the ground. the secretary-general was doing his job. he had condemned the loss of civilian life in the hamas attack, and he

also criticized not just what israel was doing in gaza, but all of the events that have led up to this situation. and that's what i mean by a need to break from the failed paradigm of the past. we really need to get into something that says that human beings are entitled to human rights under international law and that the duty of the international community is to ensure protection for all under the rule of law, but also accountability for perpetrators and redress for victims. so, i am not surprised at that statement. we've seen a lot of extreme statements from that particular ambassador, a lot of theater, as well. i don't think we should allow it to distract us to what's happening on the ground, which is the wholesale loss of life of innocent civilians in their thousands, including thousands of children in the gaza strip, and the need to get to an immediate ceasefire and then to shift into

a new approach that will prevent this from happening again and again and again. amy: i'm wondering about the role of karim khan, the lead prosecutor of the international criminal court. i think he was in rafah just a few days ago. we see the world's response, or the west's response, when it came to russia invading ukraine and occupying ukraine. karim khan, very soon after, opened a whole investigation into crimes against humanity that putin was committing in ukraine. can you respond to the difference in approach to russia and ukraine and israel and the occupied territories, officially, international law, the opt, the occupied palestinian territories? craig: well, there has been a stunning inconsistency with the

rapidity with which the court was able to move and the prosecutor was able to move with regard to ukraine and the years upon years in which it has dragged its feet with regard to palestine. this is just one of many critiques of the court, including the fact that it does not have a very strong record of holding northern countries - israel, the united states and others, to account for their crimes under international criminal law, and yet is very anxious to move forward on cases in the global south. now, that is not to condemn the court. the court is a young institution. it needs to be strengthened. it needs to insulate itself from the kinds of political pressure that have led to its inaction in the case of palestine. but our hope, ultimately, is the peaceful resolution of disputes through the use of international law. and if that's going to happen, we need a robust and fair international criminal court that doesn't provide for exceptionalism for powerful countries of the north,

like israel, for example, but that holds all perpetrators of international crimes to account. the court has a long way to go before it's going to have the reputation that will bring confidence globally that it's meeting its mandate under the rome statute. amy: on monday, white house press secretary karine jean-pierre compared pro-palestinian protesters to the white supremacists who took part in the deadly unite the right rally in charlottesville, virginia, in 2017. she made the comment in response to a question from fox news's peter doocy. >> does president biden think the anti-israel protesters in this country are extremists? >> what i can say is what we've been very clear about this: when it comes to antisemitism, there is no place. we have to make sure that we speak against it very loud and be and be very clear about that. remember, what the president decided to when the president decided to run for president is what he saw in

charlottesville in 2017, when we he saw neo-nazis marching down the streets of charlottesville with vile, antisemitic just hatred. and he was very clear then, and he's very clear now. he's taken actions against this over the past two years. and he's continued to be clear: there is no place, no place, for this type of vile and despite this kind of rhetoric. amy: so, that's president biden's spokesperson, karine jean-pierre. craig mokhiber, your response? craig: well, i think one of the most disturbing aspects of this current situation in the north, in countries like the u.s. and in europe, has been this rather unprecedented crackdown on human rights defenders speaking up to defend the human rights of people in gaza during this situation. and that has come from official statements that try to critique in that way people who are defending human rights, and to compare them with far-right neofascist protesters,

for example. i mean, it's an outrageous comparison to make. and it doesn't stop there. we have also seen very strong efforts on the part of government institutions, including local governments and state governments and the federal government, and universities and employers and others to punish people for daring to speak up, criticizing the human rights violations that are happening, or criticizing the u.s. role in these violations. but i think what is most hopeful, amy, and where there is a glimmer of hope, which has, i have to say, moved me very much, it's that people are not allowing themselves to be intimidated by these tactics. we have seen massive demonstrations, in all parts of the country and in europe, from people many times risking arrest, risking police beatings,

risking other consequences, because they refuse to allow this to go forward and to have the human rights claim be silenced. and i think most encouraging, we have seen, you know, just a few blocks from here a few days ago, we saw a large group, organized by jewish voices for peace, ifnotnow, of jewish protesters standing up and saying, "not in our name," and taking over grand central station, and in one move stripping away the israeli propaganda point that they are somehow acting in the defense of jews. jewish people are not represented by israel. these protesters have made that perfectly clear. israel pushes an old antisemitic trope that it somehow represents jewish people around the world. not only is that not factual, but it's very dangerous. and everyone needs to know that israel is a state that's responsible for its own crimes, and that responsibility does not extend to our jewish brothers and sisters, many of whom are standing up alongside muslim and christian and others in demonstrations across this country and across europe, saying that this must end.

amy: i wanted to get your response to a comment in the guardian by anne bayefsky, who directs touro college's institute on human rights and the holocaust in new york, who accused you of overt antisemitism, saying you used u.n. letterhead to call for wiping israel off the map. craig mokhiber, if you could respond? craig: well, anne bayefsky is a well-known entity amongst human rights defenders. she has made a career of attacking anyone who dares to criticize israeli human rights violations, in particular. i have responded to this idea of wiping israel off the map by saying i'm not looking for an end to israel, i'm looking for an end to apartheid. and it's very telling, what anne bayefsky tweeted in her attack on me. she accused me of antisemitism, and the quote that she took from my letter to prove that was my call for equal rights for christians, muslims and jews. i had to reply to her

tweet by saying that she had become a parody of herself, because if calling for equal rights for christians, muslims and jews is a new form of antisemitism, then there's no conversation to be had. but i don't think people are falling for these smears anymore. they are almost automatic. but the point needs to be made again and again that criticism of israeli human rights violations is not antisemitic, just as criticism of saudi violations is not islamophobic, criticism of myanmar violations is not anti-buddhist, criticism of indian violations is not anti-hindu. if any of those are true, then there is no international human rights framework. and if only the case of israel is true, well, that's a racist proposition that only palestinians can't have their human rights defended in this globe. so, i don't think anyone listens too much to those kinds of smears anymore. and luckily, people are speaking up louder, not lowering their voices, to demand human rights in the occupied territories.

amy: so, what do you go off to do, craig mokhiber? i mean, you have been at the united nations for decades. talk about your plans now. today is your first day that you're not working at the u.n. craig: well, i intend to remain involved in the cause of international human rights, in which i've been involved since 1980, in fact. there's no question about that. i will do it under my own name, unconstrained by diplomatic protocol and the constraints of the u.n. i will continue to support my colleagues. i don't want to leave the impression that i'm criticizing the whole u.n. you know, u.n. humanitarian workers, u.n. human rights workers, the unrwa colleagues in gaza, dozens of whom have lost their life just in the last couple of weeks under israeli bombs, are doing absolutely heroic work all around the world. but i want to try to influence the political side of the house to take up a more realistic and principled approach to this particular conflict, one based in international human rights, one based in international

humanitarian law, and one based in achievable goals, if not in the immediate term, of a paradigm based upon equality, an end to apartheid, and, as i said, equal rights for christians, muslims and jews. amy: i wanted to get your final response to the protesters just yesterday in washington, d.c., in the senate, repeatedly disrupting secretary of state antony blinken while he was testifying before the senate on president biden's request for $106 billion for ukraine, israel and militarizing the u.s.-mexico border. a group of protesters with members of muslims for just futures and detention watch network, sitting behind blinken, held up their hands covered in fake blood. he was also interrupted by members of codepink, including the former state department official ann wright, who resigned over the iraq war. this is what she said.

>> no more money for war. 3,500 kids dead. come on. i'm an army colonel. i'm a former diplomat. i resigned on that war in iraq that you talked about. that was a terrible thing. and what you're doing right now in supporting israel's genocide of gaza is a terrible thing too. amy: she was holding a sign as she was taken out by security, "ceasefire in gaza." craig mokhiber, your final comments? craig: this is where i find the most hope, amy. i have lost confidence in official institutions of government after all these years in the international human rights movement. i am losing hope in international, important parts of international institutions. where there is hope, it is in civil society. it is in those ordinary people, here in the united states and elsewhere, who are willing to stand up and demand respect for human life and for human rights.

amy: international human rights lawyer craig mokhiber who recently resigned from his post as director of the new york office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights. when we come back, we will speak to another dissenter - josh paul who resigned from the state department to protest the biden administration's push to increase arms sales to israel amidst its siege on gaza. [music break]

amy: this is democracy now. democracynow.org. i am amy goodman. we end this holiday special with josh paul. in october he resigned from the state department to protest the biden administration's push to increase arms sales to israel amid its siege on gaza, calling it "shortsighted," "destructive" and "contradictory." paul had served as director of

congressional and public affairs for the bureau of political-military affairs in the state department, which oversees arms transfers to israel and other nations. in his resignation letter he wrote quote, "we cannot be both against occupation, and for it. we cannot be both for freedom, and against it. and we cannot be for a better world, while contributing to one that is materially worse. i believe to the core of my soul that the response israel is taking, and with it the american support both for that response, and for the status quo of the occupation, will only lead to more and deeper suffering for both the israeli and the palestinian people-and is not in the long term american interest." i asked josh paul to talk about why he resigned from the state department. josh: yes, thank you. i decided to resign for three reasons, the first and most pressing of which is the very, i believe, uncontroversial fact that u.s.-provided arms should not be

used to massacre civilians, should not be used to result in massive civilian casualties. and that is what we are seeing in gaza and what we were seeing, you know, very soon after the october 7th horrific attack by hamas. i do not believe arms should be, u.s.-provided arms should be used to kill civilians. it is that simple. secondly, i also believe that, you know, as your previous guest identified, there is no military solution here. and we are providing arms to israel on a path that has not led to peace, has not led to security, neither for palestinians nor for israelis. it is a moribund process and a dead-end policy. and yet, when i tried to raise both of these concerns with state department leadership, there was no appetite for discussion, no opportunity to look at any of the potential arms sales and raise concerns about them, simply a directive to move forward as quickly as possible. and so i felt i had to resign. amy: so, talk more about that. talk more about what kind of dialogue goes on at the state department and if you, for example, have met with tony

blinken, the secretary of state, not to mention president biden, to voice your concerns. and what about other veteran state department officials? josh: so, typically, there is a very robust policy process in the state department for arms transfers. and there are a lot of those, right? so, we're talking about about 20,000 arms sale cases a year that the state department processes, which could be anything from bullets to radios to fighter jets. and for each of those, there is a lengthy process, sometimes, that looks at, you know, what are the pros and cons of the sale, what are its human rights implications. that has not happened in this context for israel. and as i say, when i raised those concerns against the existing laws, against the existing policies, there was no appetite for that discussion. i have not personally spoken to secretary blinken about this, nor, certainly, to president biden. but i know that in the time since i left, there has been increasing discussion within the state department, but has not led to any change of

policies. in fact, as you heard earlier on your show, vice president harris was just saying yesterday that we will not place any conditions whatsoever on our arms to israel. and that is unlike any arms transfer decision i've ever been a part of. there's always discussion about should we condition this to address human rights issues. amy: so, who is leading this, josh paul? who is preventing this? who is suppressing all of this discussion within the state department? josh: i honestly think, in some ways, that it's coming from the very top of the u.s. government and from the biden white house. you know, there are many in the state department, and across government, who have reached out to me in recent weeks, since i left, to express their support, but also to say how difficult and how horrific they are finding u.s. policy, and yet are being told, when they try to raise these concerns, "look, you can get emotional support if you're finding this difficult. we'll find you something else to work on. but don't question the policy, because it's coming from the top." amy: the huffpost has this new piece that reports, "a task force on preventing atrocities did not meet until two weeks

into the war, and officials say department leaders are telling them their expertise won't affect policy." explain what goes on. josh: so, whenever there is a crisis, as there is right now in israel and gaza, the department sets up a task force or multiple task forces that are uniquely shaped to address that crisis. so, for example, in the context of an earthquake, they might bring in experts on refugee issues, on weather issues, on disease issues, you know, that sort of broad swath of people. in the context of gaza, they have set up a task force to look at this problem, but, according to the report you cite, it does not include the bureau of population, refugees, and migration, who are responsible for u.s. support to refugee issues. so, it is either a stunning oversight, or it is an intentional disregard for the humanity of palestinian civilians in gaza. amy: at a meeting on october 26th, a state department source

told you they recalled a top official advising staff to shift their focus away from israel-palestine and seek to make a difference in other parts of the world? josh: so, i don't believe that that was a conversation that i had with someone, but that is in the same report in the huffington post that you cite, yes. amy: so, they're directing them not even to make comments on this, just stop talking about israel-palestine. josh: yes, that's right. and i think, look, i mean, that reflects a tension or a censorship, right?, that we are seeing not only in the u.s. government. i think what's interesting here is this censorship that has existed and expanded to colleges and universities, where you talked about the doxing. i've also heard from many people across the american private sector, both from the arab american community but also more broadly, from all sorts of diverse communities, who have said, "we are afraid to speak up on this, because we are in fear of our jobs." it's the same climate in government. and that is just not american.

amy: so, i wanted to ask you about this "in these times" report that the white house has requested an unprecedented loophole in arms spending to allow it to be able to conduct arms deals with israel in complete secrecy, without oversight from congress or the public. josh: yeah. so, we provide israel with $3.3 billion a year in foreign military financing, which is the state department and u.s. government's primary functional, primary mechanism for funding the sale of arms to other countries. of note, you know, we typically provide, setting aside ukraine, about $6 billion a year in foreign military financing around the world. so israel already gets more than half of that. the language in the supplemental request that the biden administration sent up would remove the requirement to notify congress of any arms sales conducted under that funding. typically, there is a process where, for any major defense sale, congress is notified of it. and there's actually a process prior to the formal notification where

congress gets to ask questions, poke, prod, delay, and then, if it wishes to oppose the sale, can raise a joint resolution of disapproval on the floor. what this proposal would do is, essentially, destroy all of that, remove all of that, remove that congressional ability to object. it is unprecedented. i have never seen anything like it. and i cannot imagine that the committees of jurisdiction are viewing it very favorably, because it is just such a damaging approach that also sets horrible precedent for other countries with whom future administrations may decide they don't want congress to be involved. amy: since you were in charge of arms sales, what does this $14 billion that, well, it looks like both houses want to send it to israel. josh: yes. amy: it's just that the house one is controversial because they want to take that $14 billion from the irs, and also they want to sever the funding for israel from the funding for ukraine. and chuck schumer, the senate majority leader, says he won't consider this bill. but it sounds like there is enough

support in both houses for that extra, not the $3.8 billion or $3.3 billion yearly aid to israel, but an extra $14 billion. you're the expert on arms sales. what would it be used for? josh: yeah, and let me just say, i think there is, you know, almost or near-unanimous congressional support for this further military assistance to israel. and i think what's fascinating about that is also there's a massive disconnect between where congress is on these issues and where, i think, if you look at the polling, the american public are. and i think the current crisis is really crystallizing that difference. i don't think it will make any difference in terms of the passage of this package, but it may do down the line. with regards to this package specifically, it includes $3.5 billion in foreign military financing. israel can draw on that to purchase essentially what it wants. and what's unusual about this, as well, in addition to the removal of the notification, is that israel would be entitled, under the proposal sent to congress, to spend all of this money within its own defense industry. israel is, of course, a top 10 exporter of arms around the world, often competing with the

united states. and the idea that we will be providing funding to subsidize that competition is really unimaginable. but on top of that, the package also provides further funding from the defense department side for air and missile defense for israel, for iron dome. and let me be clear: my concern here is on lethal assistance to israel. when it comes to protecting civilians from rocket attacks, i believe that they should be. i don't believe anyone should have to live in fear of their homes, in their homes from rockets raining down on them, although i believe that's the case whether they are in israel under the iron dome or whether they are in gaza, for example. and, of course, we never ask that question. the funding, finally, would also include research and development funding for equipment, such as there is an experimental laser project called iron beam, which the u.s. and israel are working together on, an air and missile defense system. if this is an emergency request, why are we looking at research and

development for projects that have not even materialized yet? that doesn't sound like an emergency to me. so, as with the arms transfers i saw when i was departing from the department, i think there is just a rush to push everything they can while they feel there is a window of political opportunity here where there will be no significant opposition. amy: what kind of response was there to your resignation? josh: so, to my resignation, i would say there has been an overwhelming response that i have heard from folks or from colleagues inside not only in the state department, but across the u.s. government, actually, on the hill, in the defense department, in the uniformed military services, including in combatant commands around the world. people have reached out to me to say, you know, "we fully agree with you." you know, obviously, everyone has their own personal circumstances. you know, i think if we had universal healthcare, it would make it a bit easier for people to stand up on principle. i myself am, you know, trying to figure out what i do next on healthcare. but the point is that so many people have reached out to say, "we hear you. we agree with you."

and i think, you know, one of the things i found is that a lot of people can be in individual offices and say, "there is no, i can't speak up, because i will lose my job. i will put my career in jeopardy. and there's no one else here i can talk to." and yet i'm hearing from someone else just a few desks over who is saying the same thing. so i think there really is a communications crisis, a transparency crisis within the u.s. government, and a policy crisis, because when you can't talk about foreign policy, when you can't debate, when you can't criticize, you don't end up with good policy. amy: josh paul, why was this the last straw for you? i mean, for example, if you were in charge of weapons sales, presumably you were dealing with saudi arabia, notoriously authoritarian. u.s. agencies concluded, even in just one case, the murder of jamal khashoggi, that the crown prince mohammed bin salman was responsible for this. you oversaw arms sales to them, presumably. why israel? josh: so, let me just be clear: i was one of multiple people involved in the arms sales process. arms sales themselves are a presidential authority that is delegated to the

secretary of state, and then, through the secretary of state, to the undersecretary, who is actually responsible for approving them, for the most part. but you're right. and as i said in my resignation letter, in my time in the department, i dealt with many morally challenging, controversial arms sales. i think what made the difference for me here is that for all of those previous instances, even under the trump administration, mind you, there was always room for discussion and debate and the ability to mitigate some of the worst possible outcomes, to delay sales until crises had passed, so that they weren't contributing immediately into a humanitarian crisis, to work with congress and be confident that once the policy debate had ended in the state department, there would be a congressional piece to it, too. and congress generally has stood up in the past repeatedly on matters of human rights and arms sales. what was different here was that there was none of that. there was no debate. there was no space for debate. and there was also no congressional appetite or willingness to have debate. amy: there's going to be a major march in washington tomorrow.

350 people were arrested in philly. we're going to play some clips of a major protest in boston that happened last night. how much does grassroots protest like this, the thousands of people who are protesting around the country, the shutdown of grand central by jewish groups just last friday night, have on the state department, on the white house? josh: so, i don't think it has much impact on the state department. and that's ok, because i think policy processes are meant to happen within a policy framework, [inaudible] and the problem is they're not happening. i think it does have an impact on the white house. i think we've seen a significant change in tone in the last few weeks, not because there is a sudden deep care, frankly, for palestinian civilian casualties on their own merits, but because there is a sense that there is a political crisis here developing for the biden administration, that many people are saying, you know, "we're just going to sit out the next election. we have lost faith in this white house,

in this administration." so, i think that does have an impact. and let me also say i have found it incredibly moving, as well, to watch these protests. you know, i was up on the hill for meetings this week and last week and came across, in one office, a sit-in that was happening, where there was a group of jewish students singing peace songs and holding up signs that said, "save gaza." i found that incredibly moving. and i think it also tells congress and it tells this administration that they are not in line with much of american public opinion. i think it's a much-needed message. amy: josh paul, veteran state department official who worked on arms deals and resigned in october in protest of a push to increase arms sales to israel amidst the attack on gaza. visit democracynow.org to see all of our coverage on gaza and israel. democracy now! is produced with renee feltz, mike burke, deena guzder, messiah rhodes, nermeen shaikh, maria taracena, tami woronoff, charina nadura, sam alcoff, tey marie astudillo,

john hamilton, robby karran, hany massoud and sonyi lopez. our executive director is julie crosby. special thanks to becca staley, jon randolph, paul powell, mike di fillippo, miguel nogueira, hugh gran, denis moynihan, david prude, dennis mccormick, matt ealy and emily andersen.