The New Observer Uncategorized Let’s not get ahead of the matter

Let’s not get ahead of the matter

This is State Department spokesperson John Kirby displaying some rather interesting body language as he assures the media that since October 7 Israel has not violated International humanitarian law once.

The urging for a investigation (by Israel) into the (most) recent aid worker massacre to be allowed to take place at its own pace stands in rather striking contrast to the categorical statements that Ukraine was not involved in the Russian Crocus Hall terrorist attack. (Personally I would be surprised by that but, I take John Mearsheimer’s point, that the denials seemed to be rather swift and categorical).

The three vehicles seem to have been precisely targeted. Two of them were clearly marked and according to the charity involved their movement had been coordinated with the Israeli military. It is very hard to explain this as a targeting mistake.

The reality is that a whole series of credible NGOs and UN bodies have repeatedly said over the last few months that Israel either has or is on the point of breaking International humanitarian law. There is an ICJ order on Israel, (which they have ignored), to let in more aid. One assumes this reflects a concern on the part of the ICJ that Israel has indeed been blocking humanitarian aid reaching the civilian population, which is a war crime.

We shouldn’t forget the children Israel shoots dead in the West Bank for, typically, throwing stones at secure armoured vehicles. [1]

The State Department has a process for “determining” if their ally to whom they are sending the weapons to commit the alleged crimes has indeed committed war crimes. This is obviously a conflict of interest. If the State Department “determines” that Israel has committed war crimes US officials will be on the line for war crimes charges and they will have to stop sending weapons. “Go figure”, one is tempted to say.

In their unconditional support for their out of control ally [2] the US weakens even further any conceivable claim they can have to be aligned with International Law. Inventing the fiction that the recent UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, which they abstained from, presumably for domestic political reasons, was “non-binding” sets an extraordinary precedent. Russia or China can now simply say that any existing UN Resolution, for example those on North Korea, which they don’t agree with is, in fact, “non-binding”.


  1. This was happening before October 7. and more since.