Exclusive: ‘Culture Of Silence’ In Biden Admin Stifling Debate About Israel’s Actions In Gaza, Sources Say (www.huffpost.com)

submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A career civil servant described tension between their commitment to challenging rights abuses and their job.

“I’m trying to educate people about Palestine through social media, but I’m worried I’ll lose my security clearance for criticizing the president or blaming the U.S. for civilian massacre,” they told HuffPost. “I feel like there’s no place for me in America anymore, and I’m on thin ice with my clearance because of my heritage and because I care about my people dying.”

The seemingly stifled internal debate undercuts Biden’s narrative that his administration is historically diverse and open to perspectives from traditionally marginalized groups, including on questions of global affairs.

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 28 points 1 year ago

White House officials say the Biden administration is making a concerted effort to elicit a range of views from officials on Israel-Palestine. In the coming days, White House chief of staff Jeff Zients plans to hold a “listening session with Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian staff to hear from them directly,” as well as ask Cabinet secretaries to do so at their own agencies, a White House official told HuffPost via email. The plans have not been previously reported.

But the headline seems to have a different take...

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 points 1 year ago

The headline is the more accurate depiction of reality. Holding "listening sessions" to mollify staff while continuing to sponsor the genocide of their people is just insulting.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So it's one of those stay silent but go ahead and talk type situations. I see.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 year ago

More like one of those "we're gonna pretend to listen and then we're gonna keep providing financing and political cover for the atrocities no matter what they say" things.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -5 points 1 year ago

If you as an employee feel thus abused, then the door is right over there. You are not employed to set policy.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

Not everyone can afford to just change jobs because their current employer is committing and/or supporting human rights abuses. You're sounding very "free" market libertarian right now.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -5 points 1 year ago

You are an employee of the government. If you don't like the rules you work under or those policies you object to then quit. You're not an indentured servant.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

Stop moving the goalposts and stop using pro-corporate talking points to defend abusers against the abused having a voice.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -4 points 1 year ago

So now I'm defending something?

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

Well you're sure as shit not conceding that it's a bad thing to support genocide and then freeze out anyone who disagrees and you ARE deflecting blame onto the abused government employees so yeah, I'd say that amounts to a defence.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -2 points 1 year ago

Nothing of the sort. They can disagree as much as they want, but they are not paid to do so. If they are dissatisfied with what is going on in their job they should resign.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 year ago

Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment:

Imagine it was YOUR people, even FAMILY members of yours being systematically slaughtered and displaced in what amounts to ethnic cleansing. Imagine that your employer is actively siding with the government trying to eradicate your people and you're not even allowed to criticise that stance.

Would YOU be fine with just meekly resigning from what might otherwise be your dream job, not certain where your next rent check would come from? Or would you speak up and, failing that, want others to speak up for you?

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

So now you try to play heart strings. The US has supported Isreal since there was one. If you think that will somehow change because you got a job with the government...if you think you, as a regular government employee will change that policy....then you may not be smart enough for your position to begin with.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

So now you try to play heart strings.

No, I thought I might get you to see it more clearly if you imagined it happening to you. Less abstract that wa. Guess I didn't account for you having zero empathy AND no imagination/understanding.

The US has supported Isreal since there was one

Holy sunk cost fallacy, Batman! Just because the US government has had a long history of defending Netanyahu and other far right warn criminals doesn't mean that continuing to do so is a good idea or even not reprehensible. You know that they're denying the millions of Palestinians in Gaza food, water and medicine too, now? Does that sound like a good thing to support to you? Something we need to make sure someone gets away with?

if you think you, as a regular government employee will change that policy

That's not what anyone except you is saying, though. They're not asking to dictate policy. They're just not overly thrilled by being censored and met with hostility for not seeing eye to eye with it.

If you don't get that by now

then you may not be smart enough

for this conversation to be worth any more time and effort. Have the day you deserve.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago

No, I thought I might get you to see it more clearly if you imagined it happening to you.

Well, I could try to get you to imagine your family getting murdered in front of you by Hamas. But, I realize it would not affect you and it is not salient to the discussion.

Just because the US government has had a long history of defending Netanyahu and other far right ..

Much longer than that. Since 1948.

They're not asking to dictate policy. They're just not overly thrilled by being censored

Since they are not wanting to dictate policy, they have to live with it. They are not being censored. Read the article.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 year ago

...... Yes, thats what the words you typed out mean in english.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -2 points 1 year ago

Maybe in your head.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago

In my head, your head, the heads of everyone who reads it, yeah.

Thats how language works.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago

Children are being slaughtered. Is that a situation you happily shrug and find a new job over?

Do you have a police file filled with reports of torturing animals, by chance?

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are you trying to say one persons perspective may possibly come with bias? I suppose next you’ll try to say that it’s not a good idea to send this message out to as many people as possible in an attempt to push one sides narrative or enrage people as a way of increasing engagement to sell ads? I’m sorry but you’re wrong and I don’t have to stay here and listen to your crazy point of view.

[-] specimen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Despite of who’s to blame for this conflict, does rounding up the bodies for the camera and running audio cables over them turn anyone else’s stomach?

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023

98 points (82.7% liked)

politics

19248 readers

2178 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News