US Officials Who Have Resigned in Protest over Biden’s Gaza Policy

Destroyed buildings seen as the Israeli army issues an evacuation order, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, 02 July 2024.  (EPA)
Destroyed buildings seen as the Israeli army issues an evacuation order, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, 02 July 2024. (EPA)
TT

US Officials Who Have Resigned in Protest over Biden’s Gaza Policy

Destroyed buildings seen as the Israeli army issues an evacuation order, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, 02 July 2024.  (EPA)
Destroyed buildings seen as the Israeli army issues an evacuation order, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, 02 July 2024. (EPA)

President Joe Biden's support for Israel during its nearly nine-month war in Gaza has spurred a dozen US administration officials to quit, with some accusing him of turning a blind eye to Israeli atrocities in the Palestinian enclave.

The Biden administration denies this, pointing to its criticism of civilian casualties in Gaza and its efforts to boost humanitarian aid to the enclave, where health officials say nearly 38,000 have been killed in Israel's assault which has also led to widespread hunger.

Israel launched its offensive in Gaza after Hamas-led fighters stormed into Israel on Oct. 7, killing around 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages, according to Israeli figures.

Here are the US officials who have resigned:

Maryam Hassanein, who was a special assistant at the Department of Interior, quit her job on Tuesday. She slammed Biden's foreign policy, describing it as "genocide-enabling" and dehumanizing toward Arabs and Muslims. Israel denies genocide allegations.

Mohammed Abu Hashem, a Palestinian American, said last month he ended a 22-year career in the US Air Force. He said he lost relatives in Gaza in the ongoing war, including an aunt killed in an Israeli air strike in October.

Riley Livermore, who was a US Air Force engineer, said in mid-June that he was leaving his role. "I don't want to be working on something that can turn around and be used to slaughter innocent people," he told the Intercept news website.

Stacy Gilbert, who served in the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, left in late May. She said she resigned over an administration report to Congress that she said falsely stated Israel was not blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Alexander Smith, a contractor for USAID, quit in late May, alleging censorship after the US foreign aid agency canceled publication of his presentation on maternal and child mortality among Palestinians. The agency said it had not gone through proper review and approval.

Lily Greenberg Call, a Jewish political appointee, resigned in May, having served as a special assistant to the chief of staff in the Interior Department. "As a Jew, I cannot endorse the Gaza catastrophe," she wrote in the Guardian.

Anna Del Castillo, a deputy director at the White House's Office of Management and Budget, departed in April and became the first known White House official to leave the administration over policy toward Gaza.

Hala Rharrit, an Arabic language spokesperson for the State Department, departed her post in April in opposition to the United States' Gaza policy, she wrote on her LinkedIn page.

Annelle Sheline resigned from the State Department's human rights bureau in late March, writing in a CNN article that she was unable to serve a government that "enables such atrocities."

Tariq Habash, a Palestinian American, quit as special assistant in the Education Department's office of planning in January. He said the Biden administration was turning a "blind eye" to atrocities in Gaza.

Harrison Mann, a US Army major and Defense Intelligence Agency official, resigned in November over Gaza policy and went public with his reasons in May.

Josh Paul, director of the State Department's bureau of political military affairs, left in October in the first publicly known resignation, citing what he described as Washington's "blind support" for Israel.



Three Scenarios for Russia’s Military Presence in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
TT

Three Scenarios for Russia’s Military Presence in Syria

Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspecting his troops at Hmeimim Airbase in Latakia on December 12, 2017 (Sputnik/AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday he would meet former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who fled to Russia after his regime fell in Damascus. But what will Putin say to his former ally? And how might their first exchange unfold, given Russia’s role in helping Assad escape on a chaotic night?

The Kremlin, known for staging Putin’s meetings with precision, might opt to limit media coverage this time. Putin could be seen sitting at a small table with Assad, now on asylum

in Moscow, in a soundless scene—one that leaves little room for formal pleasantries.

Why has Putin announced plans to meet Assad? Is it to reprimand him? Many in Russia believe Assad’s stubbornness has hurt Moscow’s efforts, threatened its gains in Syria, and could eventually risk its key military presence there.

As details remain unclear, Russian experts are racing to analyze developments in Syria and outline scenarios for the next phase.

Some Russian experts have painted grim scenarios. A member of the prestigious Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy warned of potential risks, including a prolonged conflict with civil war elements, a humanitarian catastrophe with millions of refugees, escalating migration in Europe, and rising tensions among nations like Israel, the US, and Iran.

He also predicted a new wave of international terrorism that could reach far beyond the region.

Other experts echoed this pessimism. One posted an image of a Syrian dissident stepping on a statue of Assad’s father, warning that “this is just the beginning.” Another blamed the crisis on the “Obama curse,” citing the West’s interference, while a third shared a bleak analysis titled, “We Must Pray for Syria.”

So far, Russian media and think tanks have avoided any optimistic outlooks for Syria’s future.

Experts, who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat, believe Moscow may be preparing to handle one of three possible scenarios in Syria.

The first, most favorable for Russia’s interests, involves Moscow reaching an agreement with the new Syrian authorities to maintain its military presence for a limited period.

This could mean replacing the current 49-year agreements with a five-year deal to facilitate a gradual Russian withdrawal. Such an arrangement could help the new leadership in Syria manage Western pressure to cut ties with Moscow.

The second scenario envisions Russia giving up its airbase in Hmeimim while retaining a significant presence in Tartus. This would mirror agreements from 1972, which allowed Russian naval vessels to use the Tartus logistics center in the Mediterranean. This compromise would preserve Russia’s interests while reducing Western pressure on Damascus.

The third scenario involves a full Russian withdrawal from both bases, with Moscow later seeking agreements for shared use of air and sea ports. Such agreements, similar to those Russia has signed with other countries, are less likely to provoke Western opposition.

Regardless of the outcome, the Kremlin has yet to develop a clear strategy for dealing with the emerging situation in Syria.

Key questions remain, including how to curb Iran’s regional influence, manage Türkiye and Israel’s growing roles in Syria, and establish a new regional balance that secures Moscow’s minimum interests.