Stacy Gilbert resigned in protest against State Department report that says Israel isn't blocking aid to Gaza

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.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    01·
    6 months ago

    Nice rage quit kiddo.

    Like I said, you are more than welcome to come up with alternatives. You can come back when you’ve reconsidered your position. Enjoy the ride home.

    • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
      0·
      6 months ago

      Rage quit? Dude… you’re the one refusing to answer a simple question. And then trying to pretend you’re on some more high ground?

      You’re not.

      If you don’t have an answer, then you have no reason to be telling people who to vote for, or not to vote at all. Simple as that. Well, you do have that right-

      But no one in their right mind should take you seriously.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        01·
        6 months ago

        Since I guess you missed your bus, here is a little light reading for you:

        https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=64978

        My argument: President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.

        In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.

        By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.

        You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.

        The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.

        Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.