On March 17, 2024, I received an email regarding the Gaza conflict from six of my former colleagues from when I served in the White House and State Department during the Clinton administration. The people who sent the letter are among the people I respect most in the world, and so their invitation to sign on to the open letter to President Biden they had drafted was something I took with the utmost seriousness. Upon reading the letter, however, I realized I could not sign and responded with a letter outlining my reasoning. Their letter was later released and featured in the Washington Post and Reuters. To counter the impression any people may have that former US foreign policy and national security officials, including progressive Democrats like me, are unified in the specific criticisms described in the letter, I have decided to share below the text of the previously private email I sent to the open letter organizers on March 18.
March 18, 2024
Dear Steven, Harold, Rick, Eric, John, and Stephen,
Thank you so much for your efforts and for reaching out regarding your draft letter to President Biden on the Gaza situation. The crisis in Israel and Gaza is incredibly heartbreaking and it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to work toward the end of hostilities, human rights for all, and a just and durable peace.
Because I have such deep respect for all of you and such trust in your judgment, I take your suggestions with tremendous seriousness. Unfortunately, I do not agree with enough of your arguments to justify my signing the letter.
While the letter focuses on the actions of Israel, it is largely silent on the responsibilities of Hamas in deliberately fomenting this crisis. It was clear when watching the October 7 compilation film that the Hamas terrorists wanted to make it impossible for the Israelis to not respond militarily and aggressively. Hamas leaders extolled the October 7 terrorists to commit the worst possible abuses and desecrate the dead bodies to highlight Israeli outrage and undermine Israel’s deterrence. They then retreated to their tunnels and prevented Gazan civilians from sheltering in them as part of their strategic goal of fostering publicized Palestinian suffering.
I am not at all a fan of Prime Minister Netanyahu and believe his continued coalition with right wing Israeli extremists and fanning the flames of violence in the West Bank are outrages demanding serious condemnation. I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to influence how the funds, military assistance, and political capital we expend on behalf of Israel are and can be used.
But a letter focusing almost exclusively on Israel without placing the current conflict in sufficient context is one I cannot join.
First, I believe the letter should start with a clear declaration against Hamas. Instead of its current language, the first paragraph might read, for example: “As former U.S. foreign policy and national security officials who served several presidential administrations, we write to express our deep concerns about the situation in Gaza. We call on Hamas to release all the hostages immediately and to surrender unconditionally and for Israel to wage its justified war to defeat Hamas with the greatest care possible. We also write to encourage your administration to continue and substantially strengthen efforts to protect civilians and promote a just and durable peace.”
Second, while there can be no doubt civilians in Gaza are suffering tremendously, the letter does not distinguish between Hamas militant casualties and Gazan civilian casualties, nor does it assess the reliability of the figures released by the Hamas ministry of health.
Third, it would be hard for any of us to declare with certainty, as the letter does, that “military tactics employed in that response have been indiscriminate, created a humanitarian catastrophe, jeopardized the potential for further progress toward regional stability, and undermined U.S. credibility and influence in the region and around the world.” I am not a military tactician, but we should at least consider the assessment of John Spencer, who heads urban warfare planning at West Point, that Israel’s efforts have been relatively judicious in historical context. I recognize that Homs, Mosul, Dresden, Tokyo, and Stalingrad are not examples of ideal situations and that Israel can and must do more to protect civilians in Gaza, but we must also recognize that war is inherently awful. Hamas should and could have recognized this when they attacked on October 7 with the express strategic goal of starting this war.
It would be one thing for our community of former US officials to declare that as pacifists we reject all wars in all contexts. If we are not pacifists and that is not our argument, the question then becomes what tactics are the minimal essential ones which can be used to achieve strategic objectives. Although some have argued that the idea of Hamas cannot be defeated, the examples of ISIS, Nazism, and Japanese imperialism largely prove otherwise. If we accept that Israel has a sovereign obligation to defeat Hamas and fight for the return of the hostages, it would be incumbent upon us to outline how we believe these objectives can better be achieved if we are to disparage the country’s current course of action.
Fourth, the letter calls for “an immediate ceasefire” but does not indicate whether this should be a unilateral ceasefire by Israel or a negotiated one between Israel and Hamas. If the first, it would be unacceptable to demand that Israel unilaterally declare a ceasefire when the hostages are still being held and Hamas has not been defeated. Doing so would hand Hamas an historic victory and, in my view, give Hamas a controlling veto on any future political arrangement. If the second, Israel has already offered a negotiated temporary cease fire in exchange for the release of some hostages. Hamas has so far rejected this offer and refused to provide a list of living hostages. Hamas would have even less pressure to release hostages if the US government sought to force Israel to declare a unilateral ceasefire.
As former US government officials, we took an oath to serve the United States of America. Obviously, our recommendations must support what is best for America, not Israel. It is in America’s interest for all of us to work toward a just and durable peace, with an Israeli and Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security. It is in America’s interest for human rights to be protected to the fullest extent possible in every part of the world, including Israel and the Palestinian territories. But it is not in America’s interest to help Hamas and Iran achieve strategic victories that could fatally undermine progress toward these goals.
I agree with assertions that the United States should oppose Israeli policies and practices that subjugate Palestinians to second-class political status or otherwise deny them their civil rights, expand settlement activity in occupied territory or seek to deny Palestinian civilians food, water, and other basic necessities. I wholeheartedly agree with President Biden’s assertion that “after this war is over, the voices of the Palestinian people and their aspirations must be at the center of post-crisis governance in Gaza.”
Making unilateral demands to curtail US security assistance to Israel outside of the full context of this crisis and in a manner that could likely sustain Hamas and increase its odds of victory seems, at least to me, misguided. I applaud your efforts to bring sanity and greater humanism to this terrible crisis. I hope this war can be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible, feel my heart breaking for the suffering on all sides of this conflict, and agree that the United States has an essential interest in determining how our financial, military and political capital is used, even by close friends like Israel. I believe that humanitarian assistance delivery mechanisms must be established immediately and that Gaza must be flooded with food and other aid, even if we know that Hamas terrorists will steal much of the assistance. I also agree that the Biden administration should “continue [to] substantially strengthen efforts to protect civilians and promote a just and durable peace.”
But because of the failure of the draft letter to contextualize the conflict or suggest ways that Israel can defeat Hamas and ensure the release of the hostages while doing much more to protect civilian life in Gaza, I am unable to sign the letter.
With greatest respect and deepest appreciation,
Jamie
Jamie Metzl
US National Security Council, 1997-1999
US State Department, 1999 – 2001
US Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, 2001-2003