‘Shocked and appalled’: Why this State Department staffer resigned in protest over Gaza

State Department staffer Anel Sheiline has resigned in protest, deciding to do it publicly after colleagues convinced her to speak out on their behalf. In an op-ed for CNN, she said her job to advocate for human rights was impossible, saying, quote, whatever credibility the United States had as an advocate for human rights has almost entirely vanished since the war began. And Annelle, Annelle Shiline is joining me now. It is her first television interview. Welcome to the programme. So let me just hear it in your words. It’s a pretty big step to take, especially as a a young State Department staffer, just in your first year to do this and to do it publicly. What was the if there was, you know, the straw that broke the camel’s back? Thanks so much for having me and for drawing attention to this issue. I think as it became clear what U.S. policy was going to be as far as enabling the the ongoing military operations in Gaza, as well as the intentional use of starvation as a weapon. I initially hoped to make a difference inside the State Department. The through the the descent cables, through internal forums, speaking with supervisors. And then eventually it became clear that from my position inside state, there was really very little that I could do. And so as you mentioned, I was initially just going to resign quietly. I just didn’t want to be part of this government anymore. But as I started to let colleagues know of my intention, they said please speak for us. Please use your voice. You know, many of these are individuals who feel they they cannot resign or who are still doing very important work inside the State Department. And so I I decided that I I would go ahead and and go public. Was it painful? You did you? What risks did you feel you were taking? What consequences for your life, for your child? You have a one year old child, I believe a mortgage. Yes. The those are all concerns. I do think I’m, I’m privileged. You know, I I’d only been at the State Department for a year. I have an academic background. I have a PhD in in political science. I had previously been in the think tank sector. Whereas I think for a lot of my colleagues who have spent their whole careers inside government or inside the State Department, it’s it is much more challenging to think about, you know, trying to leave. Although plenty of colleagues have said that it is something that they’re considering that they see what the US government is doing as just in such direct contravention to the mission that they believe they’re trying to uphold by working for the US Department of State and in contravention of of American values more broadly. Again, just to, you know, say it again, your job was to promote human rights in North African and Middle Eastern countries and you’ve decided that you don’t think under the circumstances that is a tenable position for you. You just talked about using starvation as a weapon of war. Yes, the EU has said that, yes, the UN, yes, other international organisations, but not the United States. Let me play this from the briefing on Monday by the State Department about whether whether the US believe that the, the department that you just left believes that that is happening. Take a listen. We have not made an assessment or drawn the conclusion that they are in violation of international humanitarian law when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. That said, we do believe there is very much more that they can do to let humanitarian assistance go in. So you can hear the US saying that over and over again now, I mean, really for a long time. So they’re trying to thread a needle and they are dropping aid. They are complaining and demanding that more aid goes in. Tell me what you’re noticing about maybe a shift in in the public posture of the administration. I I think it’s encouraging that we have started to see some degree of a shift but at present it has made almost no difference to the lives of people starving and being bombed inside Gaza. I think to to the extent that even things like the the US being willing to abstain at the UN Security Council is significant. But then the administration came out and immediately said that that was non binding. So in general, I just find that the way the administration is trying to do this, I think they made a political calculation that they thought that it made the most sense politically to maintain this extreme support for Israel regardless of the the illegal behaviors that Israel engages in. And I just want to be clear that Israel is, is in violation of US laws, whether it’s the Leahy laws or Section 620 I of the Foreign Assistance Act. The law is very clear here. And I I worry very much that not only at when the administration flouts those laws it’s not only having a devastating effect for the people of Gaza but for US moral standing abroad. And this administration came in pledging to to re establish America’s moral leadership to re engage in international institutions to and this was something that many of my colleagues inside state really believed in. And this is part of why so many people are feeling so betrayed by the decisions this administration keeps making when when you say violates US laws and you mentioned the Leahy law. Can you just lay that out in case for people who don’t know the Leahy laws require that if a a foreign military, if units of a foreign military are, if it has been determined that they have engaged in gross violations of human rights that they those units are no longer eligible to receive U.S. military assistance. In addition the the other law related to the to foreign assist to humanitarian aid is that if a foreign country is is blocking American humanitarian aid they also render themselves ineligible to receive U.S. military assistance. So under these laws, as as you mentioned, plenty of other international and you know, other international institutions and other countries have have made those designations have said that that Israel is indeed committing these actions and yet the US government is not yet willing to acknowledge that, do you think? I mean, you’ve just left, so you’ve obviously been Privy to to discussions over the last months. Do you think that the United States might move in that direction, this administration, because it’s not just Leahy and that was, you know, years ago, but it’s right now. Senators like Chris Van Holland, others are saying that we need to make conditional our military support on the respect for international humanitarian law. Do you think that the US is moving in that direction? As President Biden increasingly expresses discontent, distress and disagreement with the tactics, if not the strategy of Israel’s defending itself? I certainly hope so. But I would push back against the characterization of Israel’s behavior as self-defense. The Administration continues to use those words because self-defense is permissible under the UN Charter. But the actions that Israel is engaged in as far as its like, like we already discussed, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, continuing to hit buildings, institutions that are protected under international humanitarian law such as hospitals. The ways that Israel is conducting this war I would argue are fall far outside the bounds of what might credibly be considered self-defense. And instead, I would argue that with with, you know, I would add to the argument others have made that Israel is committing war crimes and is possibly engaging in an act of genocide. And again, I have to say that obviously the State Department position is allegations that Israel is committing genocide are unfounded. That’s the State Department position. And you would expect me to to read that position out. What is the atmosphere in the dissent channel? Because there is a dissent channel as you all talk about it has existed, I believe, since the Vietnam War. And the spokesman, Miller, was very careful to say that the Secretary of State appreciates the dissent, appreciates conversation. Whether or not they agree with what you say, they appreciate the ability for you to be able to say it. I mean, you’re not denying that you were able to say it right. You’re basically denying that it made a difference. Yes, I I very much appreciated that inside state there they on this issue they did cultivate an atmosphere of openness like I mentioned the the open forums, the dissent channel. It is something very much that is is in discussion at the same time as the the spokesperson mentioned. They’re not going to change the policy no matter how many members of the rank and file push back against it. This is something that does get decided at the very top. Unfortunately, I do think it’s going to require President Biden himself to to realize that this is either so becoming potentially so politically costly that he realizes it’s time to to change course. Or I hope would would re examine his assessment of this situation and and think more deeply about how history is going to view his actions here both in terms of U.S. law and the impact on the people of Gaza. And now very very quickly I wonder because you are the 2nd to actually resign there was Josh Paul we also interviewed him. It’s two people it’s not a massive you know it’s not a herd it’s so to speak and they’re obviously people inside the state department who support the the administration’s policy. Can you give us a sense from what you know inside the State Department of how much the support is do you can you make that judgement. I know that I I speak for many people. There’s a group for example called Feds united for Peace the outside of state. But in other government agencies there are there are many other groups of people who are very concerned about this. Staffers for Ceasefire for example of among Hill staffers. People are shocked and appalled by what the US government is doing. Many people continue to do the very important work inside the State Department and continue to feel that their efforts are making a difference on, you know, the many, many issues that the State Department is involved in. But on the other hand, I do know people who who may be considering resigning. Well, we appreciate you telling us your truth and thank you for being with us. And now, Charlene, thank you so much indeed.