Ex-Spokesman Miller Now Says Israel Committed War‍ Crimes

updated June 07,2025

Former State Department spokesman Matthew Miller,once a staunch⁣ defender of⁢ Israel against accusations of war ‍crimes,now asserts that Israel indeed⁤ committed war crimes in Gaza.⁤ This revelation⁣ has ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising questions about government ⁣accountability and the ethical responsibilities of public officials.

During his tenure under President Joe Biden,⁢ Miller faced relentless scrutiny⁢ over the administration’s stance⁣ on Israel’s actions. He consistently maintained that the U.S. ⁣government took such allegations seriously, carefully evaluating evidence before making any pronouncements. Critics often ⁢pointed to what they saw ⁢as ⁤a dismissive ⁤attitude,notably after Miller appeared‍ to laugh when questioned about starvation in Gaza in November 2024.

However, in a⁤ recent interview wiht Sky news, Miller stated unequivocally, “I think it is without a doubt true that Israel has committed war crimes,” further noting a lack of accountability for Israeli soldiers.

When ⁣questioned about the apparent⁢ contradiction between his past ⁤statements and present views, miller explained that as a spokesperson, he was bound to represent the administration’s positions, not his own. “When you’re not in the administration, you can just give your own opinions,” he said.

This justification has been met with widespread condemnation.critics argue that complicity in potential war crimes demands more then⁣ private disagreement;⁤ it ⁣necessitates public protest.they point⁢ to examples like Jerald terHorst, ⁢who resigned‍ as Gerald Ford’s press secretary over the Nixon‍ pardon, as examples of ethical conduct.

Several⁤ other officials also resigned over the administration’s approach to the conflict.Stacy Gilbert, a State Department ‍official, stepped down over a report she believed falsely claimed Israel wasn’t blocking aid. In⁢ May 2024, Gilbert told Democracy Now! that her view “is⁢ not the view of subject⁤ matter experts at the State Department, at USAID,⁣ nor ⁣among the‍ humanitarian community. And that was known.”

Critics argue that Miller’s actions reflect a troubling pattern of impunity within the American political system, where individuals ‍avoid⁣ accountability for ⁢catastrophic decisions⁣ and potential war crimes.

And it was⁢ clear to us ⁤in that period that there ‍was a time when our public discussion‍ of withholding weapons from Israel, as well as the protests on college campuses in‍ the United ⁢States, and the movement of‍ some European countries to recognize the state ⁢of Palestine—appropriate discussions, appropriate decisions—protests are appropriate—but all⁢ of those things together were leading the leadership of Hamas to conclude that they didn’t need to agree to a ceasefire, they just needed to hold out for a little bit longer, and they‍ could get what they always wanted.

Miller also suggested that halting Israeli war⁣ crimes would have been a political victory for‍ Hamas, a claim that has been widely disputed. Critics argue that opposing war ⁣crimes should be a⁣ worldwide principle, nonetheless ⁣of political implications.

What’s next

The controversy surrounding Miller’s statements is highly likely to fuel further debate about the ⁢U.S.’s role ‍in the Israeli-Palestinian ⁤conflict and the accountability of government officials regarding potential war crimes.The issue ⁣of government accountability and potential war crimes remains a contentious⁢ topic, with⁤ ongoing scrutiny of past and present administrations.