US report on Israel is damning but cautiously equivocal – here are the key passages
Israel has probably broken international law – that’s the conclusion of a US State Department report that is both damning yet cautiously equivocal too.
The report, released late last night, is highly critical of Israel, but will also be seen as intentionally non-committal by its critics.
Eagerly anticipated – it was due on Wednesday – the report was written by the US State Department for the US Congress as part of an audit determining how US-supplied weapons overseas are being used.
It concludes that it is “reasonable to assess” that some of Israel’s actions in Gaza have been “inconsistent with its international humanitarian law obligations”.
That is a significant admission by the US government.
But in a feat of legal and verbal gymnastics, the same report also concludes that Israel has not broken the terms for its use of US weapons.
The report is officially called a National Security Memorandum (NSM).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Rafah: Does Israel have enough weapons?
NSMs are published periodically to determine whether countries to whom America provides weapons have broken the terms for use of those weapons.
In other words, they determine whether weapons are being used in accordance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Given the accusations against Israel over Gaza, this report is particularly pertinent.
Remember that a significant proportion of the weapons being used by Israel in Gaza are provided by the US.
The key passages:
• “The nature of the conflict in Gaza makes it difficult to assess or reach conclusive findings on individual incidents. Nevertheless, given Israel’s significant reliance on US-made defence articles [weapons], it is reasonable to assess that defence articles covered under NSM-20 have been used by Israeli security forces since 7 October in instances inconsistent with its IHL obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.”
• “While Israel has the knowledge, experience, and tools to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations, the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.”
• “While the US has had deep concerns during the period since 7 October about action and inaction by Israel that contributed significantly to a lack of sustained and predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale, and the overall level reaching Palestinian civilians – while improved – remains insufficient, we do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance…”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The question then is how the US government can conclude that Israel had not violated the terms of the weapons transfer agreement, given that it has concluded that it is “reasonable to assess” that some of Israel’s actions in Gaza have been “inconsistent” with international law?
The US government is hiding behind the fog of war, claiming that they have not assessed any specific case where there has been a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
They have repeatedly told us that they have concerns and that they have opened inquiries with the Israeli government, but that not all the information has been provided.
Listen above then tap here to follow the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
The incomplete nature of the investigations into their concerns and the lack of any definitive legal conclusion to the incidents, allows the US government to fall short of concluding that the terms of the weapons deal with Israel have been broken.
US officials also argue that an individual incident or violation by itself does not determine a country’s overall compliance with international humanitarian law.
The report also concludes that US does “not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance”.
Read more from Sky News:
Netanyahu vows Israel will ‘stand alone’ if it has to
Analysis: Rafah offensive would test limits of West’s support
That assessment is already out of date given the closure, by Israel, of both the Rafah and Karem Shalom crossings in southern Gaza preventing all aid from crossing into the strip.
Aid agencies had already criticised the delay of the report’s release, with accusations that it was softened to avoid having to conclude that Israel had violated the weapons deal.
With its release, eventually coming at 5pm Washington time on a Friday, the White House was accused of trying to bury unhelpful news; something a spokesperson denied.
Donald Trump has posted an AI-generated image of himself dressed in papal regalia on his Truth Social platform – just 11 days after the death of Pope Francis.
Uploaded onto his account early on Saturday morning, it shows the US president with a large gold cross on a chain around his neck.
From there, it was published, without comment or explanation, on the White House X and Instagram accounts and, though it drew fierce criticism, it was liked more than 100,000 times.
It comes just a few days after the world leader joked that he’d like to be the pontiff.
Last week, he was asked by reporters on the White House lawn who he would like to succeed Francis and he replied: “I’d like to be Pope. That would be my number one choice.”
He went on to say that he did not have a preference, but there was a cardinal in New York who was “very good”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘I’d like to be pope’
Mr Trump was quickly accused of mocking Pope Francis’s death, but, by noon, UK time, the post had been liked more than 58,000 times on Instagram.
User comments, however, were mostly negative, with one saying that the image “isn’t funny. It’s not satire. And it’s not harmless”.
Another simply called it “disgusting”, while other reactions included “disturbing”, “disrespectful” and “offensive”.
On X, where the picture was liked more than 78,000 times, a user commented that Mr Trump was “making a mockery of the pious”, while another judged it “not a wise decision”.
The conclave to select a new pontiff will begin on 7 May after the death of Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Argentinian, who became pope in 2013, died on Easter Monday at the age of 88 due to a stroke and heart failure.
Last weekend, the president was criticised for wearing a non-traditional blue suit for Francis’s Vatican funeral and chewing gum during the ceremony.
However, his meeting in St Peter’s Basilica with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy before the outdoor mass got under way was dubbed “Pope Francis’s miracle” by members of the clergy.
Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy met in St Peter’s Basilica. Pic: Ukrainian Presidential Press Office
Read more:
Trump birthday parade planned
Who could be the next pope?
Mr Trump’s own religious views have long been a matter of speculation.
He was raised as a Presbyterian and publicly identified with it for most of his adult life, before, in October 2020, he renounced it and said he now considered himself a non-denominational Christian.
Many have questioned the depth of his faith, but that hasn’t stopped him appealing to conservative Christians and the Christian right, particularly evangelicals, some of whom have helped him get elected twice.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Earlier this year, Mr Trump shared a bizarre AI-generated video on his Truth Social platform showcasing what appeared to be a vision of Gaza under his proposed plan.
The footage showed the area transformed into a Middle Eastern paradise with exotic beaches, Dubai-style skyscrapers, luxury yachts and people partying – and featured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Elon Musk.
One of Harvey Weinstein’s accusers broke down in tears and swore on the witness stand as a sexual abuse trial continues.
Warning: This article contains references to sexual assault
Miriam Haley claims the former Hollywood mogul forced oral sex on her in July 2006.
The case is being retried after the appeals court overturned his conviction last year.
She was working as a production assistant at the time.
Weinstein has strenuously denied all allegations, and Ms Haley also testified at Weinstein’s initial trial.
Miriam Haley. AP file pic
Harvey Weinstein on Wednesday as he appeared for his retrial. Pic: AP
The 48-year-old was testifying in a Manhattan court when Weinstein’s defence lawyer Jennifer Bonjean questioned her account of the incident.
In court, Ms Bonjean asked why Ms Haley would agree to Weinstein’s invitation to his apartment after testifying about his previous behaviour, including her alleging that he barged into her home.
Ms Haley then became emotional after being asked how her clothes came off before Weinstein allegedly pulled out a tampon and performed oral sex on her.
She said Weinstein took off her clothing, but she didn’t recall the details, before Ms Bonjean asked: “You removed your clothes, right?”
Read more:
Harvey Weinstein retrial: ‘He had all the power’
Weinstein accuser felt ‘the unthinkable was happening’ during alleged assault
Ms Haley then told jurors that Weinstein “was the one who raped me, not the other way around” – to which his lawyer said: “That is for the jury to decide.”
She then started crying and said: “No, it’s not for the jury to decide. It’s my experience. And he did that to me.”
Sky’s US partner network NBC News reported that Ms Haley said during the exchange: “Don’t tell me I wasn’t raped by that f*****g asshole.”
Judge Curtis Farber then halted questioning and sent jurors on a break. Ms Haley’s eyes were red and her face was glistening as she left the witness stand.
In February 2020, Weinstein was found guilty of sexually assaulting Ms Haley – along with raping former actor Jessica Mann in a New York hotel in 2013 – and sentenced to 23 years in prison.
His conviction for the two crimes was overturned in April after an appeals court ruled the trial judge unfairly allowed testimony against Weinstein based on allegations that weren’t part of the case.
After the appeal ruling, Weinstein was charged with raping one woman and forcing oral sex on two others.
Two of the charges are those he faced during the original trial, while the third – one of the charges of forcing oral sex on Kaja Sokola – was added last year.
Weinstein denies all allegations, and his lawyers argue his accusers had consensual sexual encounters.
Regardless of the outcome of the retrial, he will remain in prison over a 2022 conviction in Los Angeles for a separate count of rape. His lawyers are also appealing this sentence.
Timing’s everything for Donald Trump.
The time for sacking Mike Waltz was, clearly, not before the 100-day milestone – the measure of his performance in office.
The national security adviser had his card marked from the day the ‘Signalgate’ scandal broke.
Trump latest: Waltz ‘leaving White House’ hours after TV appearance
In any other government, at any other time, political expediency would have demanded his immediate sacking.
To have shared sensitive military information on a group chat is a most reckless error of judgement.
Bad enough that the information reached the inbox of a US journalist – who knows who else might have accessed the information in what is a commercially available app? China, Russia? Iran, the very country that backs the Houthi rebels who were under attack?
Initially, Donald Trump defended Waltz as a “good man” who had “learned a lesson”. The president will have known, though, that he’s a man who has fundamentally weakened him.
Waltz’s mistake put the lives of US service personnel at risk and called into question the credibility of his ultimate boss.
The emoji-laden group chat read like the stuff of excited youngsters breathlessly sharing gossip.
It was recklessness over responsibility at the heart of government, and it reflected on the commander-in-chief and his judgement in appointing Waltz in the first place.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Nobody was texting war plans’ – Hegseth
To keep him in post for weeks following the scandal looked like an acceptance, of sorts, and it didn’t look good. If there are questions about the circumstances surrounding Waltz, there are, too, about Trump’s defence secretary, Pete Hegseth.
Hegseth was also part of the Signalgate group chat and more.
Separately, he shared messages on Signal with his wife and brother about military strikes. Both are involved with the Pentagon, but are nowhere near the security clearance typically required to access that kind of detail.
Read more from Sky News:
Musk fury over report Tesla looking for new boss
Harris attacks Trump in biggest speech since election
If Waltz committed a sackable offence, why didn’t Hegseth?
It’s a question that won’t go away.
The answer, I suspect, is that Donald Trump invested considerable political capital in forcing Hegseth into position, in spite of strong opposition.
In a story that acknowledges weakness at the heart of government, Donald Trump has his limits.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway