The White House announced that it will not follow strict standards imposed by President Barack Obama last year to avoid civilian deaths in its airstrikes when it comes to military operations in Syria and Iraq. The decision comes just weeks after the State Department said that it supports an investigation of Israel for committing war crimes for civilian casualties during its strikes in Gaza.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf stated plainly in reference to Israel that "the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians."
Seth Mandel of Commentary compares this statement with the decision by the administration to exempt the current U.S. military operation in Syria and Iraq from Obama's "near certainty" rule that the United States would not execute an airstrike unless it is near certain that there will be no civilian casualties.
Mandel writes that Obama seems to be expanding the "when the (American) president does it, it’s not illegal" maxim of international law.
A former lawyer for the State Department told Yahoo! that the administration seems to "be creating a gray zone" for the conflict, and said that the strict standards of conflict created by Obama "are of relatively limited value" if they are not applied to the current fight against terror in Iraq and Syria.
Mandel wants the Obama administration to be called out for its hypocrisy, and thinks that Israel is owed an apology.
The difference, then, between the way the Obama administration and Israel conduct war boils down to: Israel puts the greatest effort it can into avoiding civilian casualties and then follows up with transparent investigations, while Obama basically just hopes for the best. The press should ask him about that.
Indeed, they should do more: will the New York Times shove down its readers’ throats a constant stream of enemy propaganda designed to engender sympathy for genocidal terrorists at the expense of the democratic West? To ask the question is to answer it. If Jews or Republicans can’t be blamed, what’s the point?
More likely, however, is the possibility that the walking disaster that is Marie Harf will be asked about it, since the diplomatic press pool tend not to find her petty sniping and cheerful ignorance intimidating in the least. Does she still think these acts are war crimes, now that her government is the one conducting them? And does she believe she owes Israel an apology? There’s no question she does owe Israel that apology, and so does the Obama administration more broadly. But it would be interesting to see if they could summon the necessary integrity to offer it.