A Biden official says Israel committed war crimes. Who else will come forward?
Politicians lie, and the people around them do too. When it's convenient – when the whole world is pulsing with revulsion, for example – they begin to reveal flavors of the truth.
The Biden administration lied more than most, its public-facing members particularly. Its policy in Palestine was to embrace the Israelis in a 'bear hug' – to smother them with love. And there's thin cover for a genocide beyond lies.
Now, Matthew Miller, the former state department spokesperson, is speaking out. It appears he has a new job – one that seems to require public-facing work, which may explain his decision to sit for a Sky News interview. You take your lumps and get it over with. Only I'm not sure it's over for Miller.
In the interview, the former spokesman shared his personal view that it is 'without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes'. Asked if that had been true when he was employed by the government, he suggested that lying is just part of the job: 'You are a spokesperson for the president, the administration, and you espouse the positions of the administration. And when you're not in the administration, you can just give your own opinions.'
Miller isn't alone. The Biden-era spokespeople for the genocide included the White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and the deputy state department spokesperson Vedant Patel, as well as Jake Sullivan, a primary policymaker for an addled president, who represented the actual center of power along with John Kirby, a former admiral, and Antony Blinken, the former secretary of state. The group spent the period from October 2023 to January 2025 lying to an anguished public. They lied scornfully (Jean-Pierre) or gleefully (Miller), mawkishly (Kirby and Blinken), or blandly (Patel and Sullivan). And they did it every day, for 15 months.
They told extravagant lies: Hamas beheaded 40 babies. They told savage lies about 'command and control' centers under al-Shifa hospital – they told us not to believe what we'd seen and to believe what they couldn't show us. They lied about Israeli investigations and Biden's humanity, his capacity for 'empathy'. Every lie they told was consequential, about infants in incubators; about the execution of Hind Rajab, a child; and about the way in which their pier was used to facilitate an Israeli massacre.
They lied about the things that matter most. They lied to obscure a genocide, spinning whorls of confusion.
In the Sky News interview, Miller twitched visibly just before he made the remarks about war crimes. Watching him, I wondered what had happened to his confidence, the brazen and unembarrassed way in which he skipped, lightly, through so much human carnage, whistling past Gaza's profusion of mass graves.
And yet, despite himself, the former spokesperson continues to lie. He claims to not know if what the Biden administration has orchestrated in Gaza is a genocide, perhaps to shield himself from the worst of the moral reckoning. The tactic he's taken is a tired one, and the interview is self-indulgent.
But at least Miller is braver than the others. In a video recorded at Harvard's Kennedy School, which is where both Brett McGurk, who also helped orchestrate the genocide, and Jake Sullivan have taken jobs, Sullivan meekly, dishonestly describes 'the choices the president made'.
The choices the president made.
It all brings to mind the former secretary of defense Robert McNamara's book, In Retrospect, a self-exculpatory account of his participation in the Vietnam war. Two million civilians were killed in that conflict, which achieved nothing, and was fought for nothing. And yet, McNamara waited 20 years to publish that account, long after many of his victims had died.
So with that retrospective, we may encourage Sullivan, Miller, McGurk, Jean-Pierre, Blinken, Patel and all the others to come forward. If they do, they will be pilloried and mocked and verbally abused for what they've done.
But they should do it anyway, because they owe their victims so much. Not least the truth.
Ahmed Moor is a writer and fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
In the wake of Trump's strikes on Iran, what are Keir Starmer's options?
The choices Keir Starmer makes in the next few days could define his premiership. Tony Blair never escaped the accusation he had been George Bush 's 'poodle' over the invasion of Iraq. And how far the current Labour PM goes in backing another US president in another foreign conflict could help or haunt him for years to come. Despite the prime minister last week repeatedly saying ' de-escalation is the priority ', the Trump administration pressed ahead with strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran overnight on Saturday. The prime is now walking a tightrope between supporting the UK's closest ally and attempting to call for calm. In the wake of the strikes, Sir Keir appeared to give the US his cautious backing – describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. But he has also issued stark warnings about the conflict escalating beyond the region. As the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate, the prime minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. He is currently sat firmly on the fence - with his most senior ministers refusing to say whether Trump's strikes were either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. And while the US did not ask Britain for help in its first round of strikes, at some point, the prime minister will be forced to make a decision. So what are his options? One option – albeit the most diplomatically tricky – is to withhold support entirely. Sir Keir has spent months trying to build a special relationship with President Trump. Anything less than support for their actions is likely to go down badly in the White House. However, the Attorney General Lord Hermer, a close political ally of Sir Keir, is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. Lord Hermer is reportedly reluctant to sign off any offensive operations, with a source telling The Spectator: 'The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.' The weight the Labour leader places on his old friend's legal judgement could limit the extent of any support for the US, if Trump does decide to act militarily. The PM's own background will also play a role in the decision. The energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said on Thursday that he 'who is a lawyer and a human rights lawyer, he will obviously do everything that is in accord with international law.' But will he really risk infuriating President Trump at a time when the Republican's tariffs on goods entering the US have already led economists to downgrade their forecasts for the UK economy? Another option, considered the most likely, is to allow the use of the UK-US airbase at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. On Saturday, Trump's strikes on Iran were launched directly without the use of the Diego Garcia base. But in future military actions, the US may ask Britain's permission to use the joint airbase in the Chagos archipelago. The type of B-2 stealth bombers which are often based there are the ones that are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which were used in the operation over the weekend. This is a middle ground seen as the most likely option for the UK government to back. It would not require action from the UK, but could protect the relationship with the US by seeming to offer support. He is already under pressure over the issue at home. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has said the UK should give permission for the US to use Diego Garcia to launch bunker-buster bombs. One step beyond the Diego Garcia option is to provide logistical support to the US, and what that would look like in practice is being wargamed in Whitehall. The benefit of this option is that it would allow the UK to appear to be more supportive of Present Trump than just simply allowing him to use a US airbase, and at the same time risking only a limited response from Iran. The UK is keen not to allow Tehran a pretext to strike British bases or interests and has sent extra assets to the region, with another six Typhoon jets sent to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, joining the eight already there. The final option, considered the least likely, is full UK military intervention. Britain is still pushing hard behind the scenes for a de-escalation in the Middle East. The UK's most favoured outcome is a diplomatic solution, in which both sides dial down the aggression. Keir Starmer is also, as a politician, a gradualist and as such is considered less likely than some of his predecessors as prime minister to commit the UK military to support this kind of intervention, even if it is in the aid of one of our key allies, the United States.
The Sun
18 minutes ago
- The Sun
First vid of Trump's B2s after mammoth 37hr ‘bullseye' Iran blitz… as Russia warns US ‘Pandora's Box has been opened'
Starmer calls for Iran to return to the negotiating table Sir Keir Starmer has warned there is a risk of the Middle East crisis spiralling beyond the region after Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran's nuclear programme. The Prime Minister spoke to the US President on Sunday night after an air raid by B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities. Downing Street said the leaders agreed Tehran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and called for Iran to return to negotiations. "The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security," Downing Street said. "They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. "They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. "They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days." Earlier, Sir Keir - whose previous calls for restraint appear to have been ignored by the American leader - said there was a "risk of escalation", adding: "That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme." The UK was not involved in the US operation but there is the prospect of British forces being dragged into the conflict if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders a retaliation.
Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
Israel-Iran live: Israel attacks Iran's Fordow nuclear site - as Tehran threatens US with 'decisive response' after strikes
The Israeli military has targeted Iran's Fordow nuclear site a day after the US bombed the facility. Iran has vowed revenge against the US, while Donald Trump has hailed the "bullseye" strike. Follow the latest and listen to The World podcast as you scroll.
