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.
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…
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.
So it’s one of those stay silent but go ahead and talk type situations. I see.1
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.
If you as an employee feel thus abused, then the door is right over there. You are not employed to set policy.
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.
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.
Stop moving the goalposts and stop using pro-corporate talking points to defend abusers against the abused having a voice.
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?
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.
The person may be biased for sure, but even then, a media statement by a politician is more likely to be bullshit.
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?
