# Lebanon - United States Department of State

- Lebanon HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Lebanon				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Lebanon																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																											i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Lebanon during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; refoulement of refugees to a country where they would face torture or persecution, including serious harms such as a threat to life or freedom or other mistreatment that would constitute a separate human rights abuse; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, which were enforced; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.The government did not take credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.Nonstate armed groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian militias, operated with impunity, using intimidation, harassment, and violence against perceived critics and opponents. Armed members of these groups impeded access to certain neighborhoods, refugee camps, and other areas where they operated outside the reach and authority of the government. These groups allegedly also operated unofficial detention facilities in which they unlawfully detained individuals, sometimes incommunicado, for indefinite periods of time.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.On April 5, a military court judge ordered the pretrial release of four detainees involved in the case regarding the September 2022 death of Syrian citizen Bashar Abdel Saoud, except for one lower-ranking state security soldier. The case remained pending as of year’s end.Investigations continued into the 2021 killing of Lokman Slim, a political activist and vocal critic of Hizballah. No findings were made public by year’s end.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no known reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities during the year.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited using acts of violence to obtain a confession or information regarding a crime, but the judiciary rarely investigated or prosecuted allegations of torture. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) alleged instances where security officials tortured detainees. Authorities acknowledged violent abuse sometimes occurred during pretrial detention at police stations or military installations where officials interrogated suspects without an attorney present.The Lebanese Center for Human Rights documented 25 cases of torture by security forces during the year. It reported torture cases often went undocumented because prisoners’ wounds healed during prolonged incarceration, making corroboration of their claims difficult.Amnesty International reported in September the Tripoli Bar Association filed 22 detainee complaints of torture with the government in 2022 as well as an additional six during the first 45 days of the year, all allegedly at the hands of security forces.A lack of transparency and urgency in investigations, leading to impunity, was a persistent problem in the security forces, including the Internal Security Forces (ISF), the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and the Parliamentary Police Force, according to NGO and media reports. Impunity was also a significant problem with respect to the actions of nonstate armed groups, such as Hizballah. The law allowed a security force unit accused of conducting abuses to conduct its own internal investigation and try its implicated security force members in military court for charges unrelated to their official duties.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening due to food shortages, gross overcrowding, and inadequate sanitary conditions. Prison facilities were inadequately equipped for persons with disabilities.Nonstate armed groups such as Hizballah and Palestinian militias also reportedly operated unofficial detention facilities.Abusive Physical Conditions: As of October, there were approximately 9,254 prisoners and detainees, including pretrial detainees and remanded prisoners, in facilities built to hold 4,760 inmates, according to the ISF.Most prisons lacked adequate food, sanitation, medical care, ventilation, and lighting, and authorities did not regulate temperatures consistently. In August, HRW reported food in prisons remained insufficient and of such poor quality that it was often unfit for consumption.Administration: Although the ISF did investigate alleged abuses in prisons and detention centers, prison directors reportedly often protected police and correctional officers under investigation. As of October, the ISF committee reported it had received 16 complaints.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted monitoring of prison and detention conditions by independent local and international human rights groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court; the government generally observed these requirements. The law required judicial warrants before arrests except in cases of active pursuit. Nonetheless, NGOs and civil society groups alleged the government arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, particularly protesters, refugees, and migrant workers.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law generally required a warrant for arrest and provided the right to a medical examination. It also required referral of detained individuals to a prosecutor within 48 hours of arrest. The law required officials to inform detainees promptly of the charges filed against them, and authorities generally adhered to this requirement. The law permitted military intelligence personnel to make arrests without warrants in cases involving military personnel or involving civilians suspected of espionage, treason, weapons possession, or terrorism.The law required a suspect caught in the act of committing a crime to be referred to an examining judge, who had to decide whether to issue an indictment or release the suspect. The law stipulated bail be available to detainees in all cases regardless of the charges against them, although the amounts required could be prohibitively high.The law stated a suspect or the subject of a complaint had the right from the moment of arrest to contact a family member, an attorney, their employer, or an advocate of their choosing, and if needed, an interpreter. The government did not consistently respect these rights. The law stated a lawyer could attend preliminary questioning of a detainee by the judicial police. Use of this right by some detainees, especially those who were low-income, remained limited in part due to failure of implementing mechanisms to provide lawyers free of charge.The law permitted a person to be held in police custody during an investigation for up to 48 hours. If the investigation required additional time, the law stipulated a general prosecutor could extend the period of custody for another 48 hours. If the suspect lacked the resources to obtain legal counsel, the law required authorities to provide free legal aid. Judicial police were not required to inform an individual who lacked legal counsel that the regional bar association could assign them one.Although the law granted some persons who were arrested the right to remain silent, authorities did not always inform individuals of this right. The law stipulated detainees should not be “coerced to speak or to undergo questioning, on pain of nullifying their statements.” The law excluded suspects accused of homicide, drug crimes, endangerment of state security, violent crimes, crimes involving terrorism, and those with a previous criminal conviction from this protection.The law allowed authorities to prosecute officials for “deprivation of personal freedom” in cases of prolonged arrest beyond legal limits, but authorities rarely filed such charges.International observers reported authorities failed to observe many provisions of the law and government security forces continued the practice of unjust detention. In addition, Hizballah continued the practice of unlawful detention, including holding detainees incommunicado.Arbitrary Arrest: According to local NGOs, cases of arbitrary arrest occurred, but most of those arrested chose not to report violations. NGOs reported most cases involved members of vulnerable groups, such as refugees, drug users, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals or migrant workers, who often feared retribution by authorities and had limited legal recourse.Pretrial Detention: Lengthy pretrial detention was a significant problem. The law stated the period of detention for a misdemeanor could not exceed two months. The law allowed officials to extend this period up to two additional months. The law stipulated the initial period of detention for felonies could not exceed six months but also permitted extensions.Pretrial detention periods were often lengthy, in some cases equal to or exceeding the maximum allowable sentence under the law for the alleged crime. A series of strikes by judges and judicial workers beginning in August 2022 and ending in January exacerbated already lengthy case backlogs, causing some pretrial detention periods for felonies to last for months or years.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										Although the constitution provided for an independent judiciary, government officials routinely subjected the judiciary to intimidation or political pressure, particularly through negotiations among political factions regarding the appointment of key prosecutors and investigating magistrates.Defendants involved in routine civil and criminal proceedings sometimes solicited the assistance of prominent individuals to influence the outcomes of their cases.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.Trials were generally public, but judges sometimes ordered closed court sessions. Defendants had the right to free interpretation, if needed; however, interpreters were rarely available.The Military Court had jurisdiction over cases involving the military, police, and government officials, as well as those involving civilians accused of espionage, treason, weapons possession, and draft evasion. It sometimes tried civilians on security charges or for violations of the military code of justice. While civilian courts in some circumstances tried military personnel, the Military Court often heard these cases, including for charges unrelated to official military duty. Human rights activists noted such proceedings created the potential for impunity.Governance and judicial reach in Palestinian refugee camps varied greatly, with most camps under the control of joint Palestinian security forces representing multiple factions, based on an informal understanding between Palestinian factions and the LAF dating to the 1960s. Palestinian groups in refugee camps operated an autonomous system of justice with little transparency to outsiders and beyond the control of the state.By law, the government permitted recognized religious groups to administer their own rules on family and personal status issues, including marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance. Shia, Sunni, Druze, and recognized Christian groups (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Latin Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian, and Protestant) had state-appointed, government-subsidized religious courts to administer family and personal status law according to the respective religious group’s beliefs.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no known reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Syrian refugees continued to be evicted from informal settlements and other irregular housing. The number of evictions increased significantly during the second quarter of the year, mainly due to the owners’ reappropriation of property and tenant-landlord tensions exacerbated by increased antirefugee rhetoric. While municipalities and the LAF carried out some collective evictions, landlords instigated the vast majority of reported collective evictions, most of which took place in the Beka’a Valley region.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										Although the law prohibited such actions, the security services monitored private email and other digital correspondence. The law allowed for the interception of telephone calls, with prior authorization from the prime minister or the judiciary, at the request of the minister of interior or minister of defense in cases of “extreme emergency” such as counterterrorism operations, threats to state security, and combating organized crime. Freedom House reported authorities regularly monitored social media and electronic communications, including those of prominent individuals such as politicians, dissidents, and journalists.Militias operating outside of central government authority frequently violated citizens’ privacy. Various nonstate armed groups such as Hizballah and Palestinian militias used informer networks, telephone monitoring, and electronic monitoring to obtain information regarding their perceived adversaries.																																				i. Conflict-related Abuses										Starting in October, Hezbollah, Palestinian militants, and the Israeli Defense Forces engaged in sporadic, and often tense, exchanges of fire along the Blue Line. This led to the deaths of 26 Lebanese civilians as a result of Israeli cross-border artillery, missile fire, or aerial bombardment through the end of the year. On November 14, an HRW report stated an Israeli strike on a family car in the southern part of the country on November 5 that killed three young girls and their grandmother and wounded the girls’ mother “should be investigated as an apparent war crime.” On December 7, an HRW report stated two Israeli strikes in the south on October 13 that killed Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah and injured six other clearly marked journalists was “an apparently deliberate attack on civilians and thus a war crime.” (See section 1.i. in the Israel Human Rights Report.)																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press, and stipulated that restrictions could be imposed only under exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, there were serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions against of journalists, censorship, and enforcement of or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression.Freedom of Expression: While individuals were somewhat free to criticize the government and discuss matters of public interest, several legal restrictions limited this right. The law criminalized erroneous or false news; threats or blackmail; insults, defamation, and contempt; dishonoring or insulting the president or that of a foreign country; inciting a crime through a publication; and sectarian provocation.The military code of justice prohibited insulting the security forces, and the Military Court prosecuted some of the misdemeanor cases on this charge during the year.Freedom House reported individuals sometimes faced police questioning, arrests, short detentions, or fines if they criticized the government, the military, foreign heads of state, or other powerful entities and individuals.Authorities selectively applied elements of the law permitting censorship of pornographic material, political opinion, and religious material considered a threat to national security or offensive to the dignity of the head of state or foreign leaders. On two separate occasions in August, authorities arrested comedian Nour Hajjar based on comments he made during his comedy routines. On August 25, military police interrogated Hajjar because of a joke regarding the military and detained him for 11 hours before releasing him. He was detained again on August 29 and interrogated for several hours because of a complaint from religious leaders, who accused him of threatening the civil peace by insulting Islam during a stand-up comedy routine he performed in 2018; Hajjar was released later that evening. The two reports filed against him remained pending at year’s end.Violence and Harassment: Journalists faced violence, intimidation, and harassment. While some outlets avoided reporting from areas where Hizballah exercised influence, those that did report from such locations often removed identifying markings from their vehicles and equipment. Authorities did not protect members of the media from violence or intimidation by members of political, religious, and other influence groups. Protesters and security forces attacked or harassed journalists covering protests on several occasions.On March 30 and April 4, the General Directorate for State Security summoned Jean Kassir, director of the Megaphone news website, to appear for questioning after the platform published an article criticizing senior officials, including the country’s chief prosecutor.On August 9, LAF members shoved Mahmoud Shukr, a correspondent of the al-Hadath channel, while he was covering an incident in which a truck carrying Hizballah weapons and ammunition overturned on a busy thoroughfare outside Beirut. The incident sparked an armed confrontation between Hizballah members and residents of the area that led to two deaths. The Samir Kassir Eyes Foundation reported a bodyguard for member of parliament Cesar Abi Khalil threatened to “break” MTV correspondent Ghadi Bou Moussa if he continued to photograph the politician during the network’s coverage of the incident.On September 30, Christian and Muslim extremists attacked demonstrators at the “Freedoms March” in Beirut. Megaphone News reported allegations the ISF used excessive force against members of the Sharika wa Laken and Naqd media outlets.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: The law stipulated rules and conditions for becoming a journalist and for the licensing of new publications.No specific law regulated online speech. Authorities sometimes used various laws, including cybercrime statutes, to prosecute individuals, journalists, and bloggers for what they expressed online.The law governing audiovisual media banned live broadcasts of unauthorized political gatherings and certain religious events, as well as any content promoting a relationship with Israel. The law prohibited the broadcast of programs deemed to harm the state or its relations with foreign countries. The law also prohibited the broadcast of programs deemed to harm public morals, ignite sectarian strife, or insult religious beliefs. Freedom House reported nearly all media outlets depended on the patronage of political parties, wealthy individuals, or foreign powers, and consequently practiced some degree of self-censorship.Authorities sometimes prosecuted online, print, and television journalists for violations of the country’s publications law, subjecting such work to censorship especially for content involving politics, religion, sex, or Israel. At times, prosecutors referred these cases to criminal courts, but more often referred them to the Publications Court where they typically remained open for a year or more and resulted in fines or dismissal.The General Directorate of Security (DGS) reviewed and censored foreign newspapers, magazines, and books to determine their admissibility into the country. Most of these reviews were for explicit, pornographic content. Some journalists reported political violence and extralegal intimidation led to self-censorship.Libel/Slander Laws: Under the law, libel, slander, and blasphemy were criminal offenses, and authorities enforced these laws. In most cases, criminal courts heard libel and other defamation complaints. Prison sentences ranged from one to three years, but more often, courts ordered fines or the removal of the offending material from the internet. Several human rights NGOs reported authorities filed dozens of criminal defamation suits against journalists, bloggers, political activists, and private citizens to intimidate and silence critics or those exposing alleged misconduct or corruption. While these cases rarely resulted in prolonged detentions or jail sentences, interrogations by police and lengthy, expensive trials reportedly created a chilling effect on free speech.The law allowed private citizens to file criminal complaints and required investigating judges to consider them, especially in cases of alleged defamation. Politicians at times responded to allegations of wrongdoing leveled at them by filing criminal complaints claiming defamation.Amnesty International documented 11 cases of authorities using defamation and insult laws to suppress freedom of expression, especially among journalists.On July 10, a Beirut criminal court judge sentenced MTV broadcaster Dima Sadek to one year’s imprisonment because of a defamation suit filed by Free Patriotic Movement Chief Gebran Bassil in 2020. She appealed the ruling but as of November, an appellate court had not heard her case.The law prohibited the press from publishing blasphemous content regarding the country’s officially recognized religious groups or content liable to provoke sectarian feuds. There were no known prosecutions under this law during the year.Nongovernmental Impact: Religious figures sometimes sought to rally public sentiment to inhibit freedom of expression, including through coercion and threats of violence. Some nongovernmental militias sought to inhibit freedom of expression, including for members of the LGBTQI+ community or perceived allies, through intimidating rhetoric and physical attacks. Leaders of Hizballah and the Amal Movement political party cited “foreign interference” as one justification for limiting media publications in areas under their influence.																Internet Freedom						The government restricted some access to the internet. The government maintained a monopoly over the internet backbone, as well as over the fixed and mobile telephone infrastructure, and in general exercised tight control over internet service providers by requiring them to obtain permits to operate.Through court orders filed with the ISF’s Cybercrimes Bureau, the government reportedly restricted access to some websites to block online gambling, pornography, religiously provocative material, extremist ideology, and Israeli websites. NGOs reported the Ministry of Telecommunications did not notify website owners regarding blockage of their websites and gave owners only 48 hours to file an appeal to have the decision overturned.When human rights groups published online posts deemed critical of political leaders or religious figures, they were sometimes subjected to online or in-person intimidation. The ISF’s Cybercrimes Bureau and other state security agencies also summoned journalists, bloggers, and activists for questioning concerning their social media and blog posts, especially when they criticized political figures or religious sects.On March 31, Cybercrimes Bureau officials summoned the editor in chief of the investigative journalism outlet Public Source after receiving complaints from the head of the Lebanese Forces party regarding a 2022 Public Source report alleging the party had committed environmental crimes decades earlier.On September 6, the ISF’s Cybercrimes Bureau summoned Beirut Today editor in chief Lynn Cheikh Moussa over a tweet in which she identified an alleged sexual predator.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The Ministry of Interior required organizers to obtain a permit three days prior to any demonstration. Despite this requirement, however, citizens routinely gathered without permits or coordination with security services.Security forces occasionally intervened to disperse demonstrations, usually when protesters caused property damage or clashes broke out between opposing protesters. The ISF sometimes used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters authorities alleged were engaging in violence or vandalism. In some instances, the LAF used nonlethal force to disperse protesters who resisted efforts to clear key thoroughfares. Amnesty International and the MENA Rights Group reported security forces used excessive force against protesters on some occasions.						Freedom of Association						The constitution provided for freedom of association, with some conditions established by law, and the government generally respected the law.No prior authorization was required to form an association, but organizers were required to notify the Ministry of Interior to obtain legal recognition. The ministry then verified that the organization respected “public order, public morals, and state security” before officially recognizing it. In some cases, the ministry sent an NGO’s notification paperwork to the security services to initiate an inquiry of the organization’s founding members. According to Freedom House, NGOs sometimes faced bureaucratic obstruction or intimidation by security services, depending on their line of work or activities, noting groups that focused on Syria-related matters or were led by Syrian refugees were especially prone to scrutiny and interference.Organizations were obligated to invite ministry representatives to any general assembly where members voted on bylaws, amendments, or seats on the board of directors; the ministry then validated the vote or election. If the organization failed to comply, the law allowed the Council of Ministers to dissolve it by decree.The law empowered the cabinet to license all political parties; however, Hizballah’s “political wing” operated without a license.In areas under Hizballah’s sway, independent NGOs faced harassment and intimidation, including social, political, and financial pressures.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. The government generally respected these rights for citizens but placed extensive limitations on the rights of refugee populations and asylum seekers, most of whom were Palestinian, Syrian, or Iraqi.In-country Movement: Nonstate armed groups hindered or prevented movement in areas where they operated. According to security services, armed members of Hizballah impeded access to some areas.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government continued to call for Syrian refugees to return to Syria but coordinated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations to allow the provision of protection and assistance to refugee residents, asylum seekers, and other persons of concern. During the year, some government officials limited humanitarian organizations from providing certain types of assistance to refugees. Officials imposed restrictions on the transfer value of food and cash assistance and limited sanitation services in informal tented settlements. Some government officials, media outlets, and members of the general public contributed to a considerable rise in antirefugee rhetoric that bordered on incitement to violence against refugees.As of October 27, there were approximately 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, of whom 790,000 were registered with UNHCR. The government had not allowed UNHCR to register Syrian refugees since 2015. There were no formal refugee camps in the country for Syrians. Most Syrian refugees resided in urban areas, many in unfinished, substandard, or nonresidential buildings, while others lived in informal tented settlements. According to the 2022 UNHCR assessment, nearly all Syrian refugees were in debt and food insecure after taking out loans to cover basic needs.Based on existing immigration rules, refugees and asylum seekers from Syria were not explicitly permitted access to the country. Only short business trips, medical treatment, transit, or study remained available as justifications for Syrians wanting to enter the country. Syrians who held a preexisting valid residency permit based on sponsorship by a Lebanese citizen were still allowed to exit and re-enter Lebanon.Syrian refugees faced barriers in obtaining and affording the identification documents from the Syrian government required to renew their Lebanese residency permits. Refugees of other nationalities – especially Iraqis – who wished to either obtain or maintain their legal residency also faced difficulties due to high renewal fees and sponsorship requirements.Authorities granted entry visas only to those Palestinian refugees from Syria (PRS) who had a verified embassy appointment, a preapproved visa from the DGS, or an airline ticket and visa to a third country. The duration for most of these visas was only 24 hours.PRS children up to age 15 were included under their parents’ identity card and residency permit. Thereafter, they were required to either obtain identity documents in Syria (at the risk of receiving an exit stamp on their identity documents and potentially losing their Lebanese residency) or obtain a passport through the Syrian embassy at a minimum cost of $400, a fee most PRS could not afford. However, the DGS permitted PRS children older than 15 to use their individual civil extract (a document containing personal identity information) as a substitute identity document until age 18.Access to Asylum: The law did not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and Lebanon was not a party to either the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.Refoulement: According to UNHCR, the LAF conducted individual deportations of 960 persons from January to August, an 89 percent increase from the same period in 2022. Group deportations by the LAF also increased during the year, with at least three reportedly occurring following the arrest of passengers of boat departures.Beginning in early April, the LAF conducted a series of raids primarily targeting refugees in urban residential areas in Beirut and Mount Lebanon. The raids then spread to every governorate. Authorities increased their scrutiny of Syrians at official checkpoints and established additional random checkpoints. These actions allegedly targeted Syrians without residency permits or documentation. Humanitarian organizations reported the LAF arrested at least 2,360 Syrians between April and May and carried out group deportations of 1,867 persons to Syria. While the LAF stated it stopped conducting these raids in mid-May, reports continued of DGS deportations of Syrians following their arrest at military checkpoints.While the raids primarily targeted Syrian refugees, humanitarian organizations also reported a small number of PRS were included as part of larger group deportations. Human rights organizations reported the Syrian regime arbitrarily detained, tortured, forcibly disappeared, and forcibly conscripted many of the individuals deported from Lebanon following their return to Syria.Humanitarian organizations contended the government’s deportation policy carried a significant risk of refoulement. Refugees who expressed a credible fear of persecution or torture upon return were often not afforded a formal review before deportation. Human rights groups expressed serious concerns regarding the human rights implications of returning refugees to Syrian authorities and observed the government often failed to respect due process in making its return decisions and deported some individuals registered with UNHCR. UNHCR and international donors urged the government to provide for a judicial or independent administrative review of each case, as well as the consistent application of procedural safeguards before carrying out deportations. The government maintained it did not have the capacity to hold court hearings on all deportation cases as required by law.Foreigners arrested due to irregular entry or residency faced administrative detention without being sentenced by a court. Cases of this nature typically resulted in the detainee’s deportation, except for non-Syrians registered with UNHCR who expressed the need for international protection and for those who had already secured resettlement to a third country.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: NGOs and UN agencies reported incidents of sexual harassment and exploitation of refugees by employers and landlords. This abuse included instances in which families were pressured to agree to the early marriage of their daughters, ostensibly to relieve economic hardship.Authorities arrested a farm owner and his associates after they violently beat 15 Syrian and three Lebanese field workers, including five minors, on June 22. The victims agreed to drop charges after the farm owner paid them financial compensation.In view of the poor economic environment, limited freedom of movement, and little opportunity for livelihoods for adults, many Syrian refugee families often relied on children to earn money for the family, including by begging or selling small items on the streets. The need to generate income put refugee children at greater risk than other children for exploitation, gender-based violence, and child labor. Some refugee children and the children of foreign domestic workers also faced obstacles to equal treatment under the law. NGOs reported discrimination against them, including bullying linked to race, skin color, religion, and nationality, although some could attend public school.Freedom of Movement: UN agencies reported local officials frequently used the threat of evictions, curfews, and other restrictive measures against Syrians.In Palestinian refugee camps, self-appointed security committees provided security for refugees through an agreement with the government. Checkpoints operated by government security forces controlled the movement of persons and material into and out of six of the 12 official Palestinian refugee camps.Authorities made residency determinations slowly, preventing renewal of most Syrian refugees’ legal documentation. Lack of documentation, including through confiscation at checkpoints, significantly affected freedom of movement due to the risk of arbitrary arrest and subsequent deportation. Refugees detained at security checkpoints in these circumstances reported authorities either confiscated their identity documents or required payment of fines before releasing them.UNHCR reported restrictions on movement increasingly forced families to send children and young women (whom authorities were less likely to stop but who were more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse) to perform family errands.While there was no official limitation of movement for PRS in the country, PRS without legal status faced de facto obstacles, mainly the threat of arrest at checkpoints.Employment: The government treated both PRS and Syrian refugees as foreigners, subjecting them to additional disadvantages in the labor market. There were reports such workers were paid below the minimum wage, required to work excessive hours, or forced into debt bondage. Formal and informal work restrictions also left many refugees without access to most “white-collar” professions that would offer increased social mobility.To be employed in the formal labor market, Palestinian refugee workers, whether from Syria or from Lebanon, needed an annual work permit the employer had to request from the Ministry of Labor. This application process was reportedly often lengthy, cumbersome, and marred with uncertainty. As a result, very few Palestinian refugees worked in the formal sector.A lack of written contracts in the informal labor sector, paucity of employment benefits, and insecure job tenure contributed to unstable income and working conditions for refugees.While most refugees received a work permit at no charge, the government required PRS to pay the same fees for one as other non-Lebanese nationals. The application process available to other Palestinian refugees in Lebanon excluded PRS. Like other foreigners, PRS seeking to work in Lebanon had to first request approval from the Ministry of Labor and the DGS before coming to Lebanon. Once in the country, they could receive work permits and legal residency tied to their employment. In practice, however, such arrangements were extremely rare.The law permitted Syrian legal residents to work only in the agricultural, construction, and custodial fields. Partner organizations reported no significant increases in the enforcement of employment restrictions during the year, despite the increase in antirefugee rhetoric. Refugees opted to limit the frequency of their movements, and thus their access to income-generating activities, in periods when deportations increased.Access to Basic Services: The law considered Palestinian refugees registered with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to be foreigners. UNRWA provided health, education, social services, and emergency assistance to registered Palestinian refugees residing in the country. Palestinian refugees faced de facto restrictions on accessing national education services. Rising transportation costs associated with the increased cost of fuel were a major barrier for Palestinian refugee children to access education. Many had to leave school at an early age to earn an income.Palestinian refugees benefited from neither the national sickness and maternity funds nor the family allowances fund authorized under the National Social Security Fund. With the exception of funding worker’s compensation, UNRWA continued to bear the cost of basic medical, maternity, and family health-care expenses for Palestinian refugees.Almost half of all Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA lived in overpopulated camps, some of which suffered heavy damage from violent conflicts. From July 29 until mid-September, sporadic heavy fighting between rival armed groups in the Ein al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp killed at least 30 persons. Occupation of, and damage to, all eight UNRWA schools in Ein al-Hilweh Camp delayed the beginning of the school year. UNRWA estimated the poverty rate of Palestinian refugees at 80 percent as of March. Many Palestinian refugees experienced significant difficulties paying for essential goods and services, including foodstuffs, electricity, health care, and rent. Many received only a few hours of electricity per day and struggled to access health care and hospitals due to high transportation costs. Increasingly, landlords raised rents and required tenants to pay them in U.S. dollars; Palestinian refugees’ income, aside from UNRWA’s cash assistance paid in U.S. dollars, largely was in Lebanese pounds, a currency that lost 98 percent of its value since 2019.The law prohibited Palestinians from purchasing or inheriting property.PRS received limited basic support from UNRWA, including food aid, cash assistance, and winter assistance, such as cash to purchase fuel for heating. Children of PRS were able to enroll in UNRWA schools and received care at UNRWA health clinics. Children without legal status in the country, however, faced barriers when taking official school examinations and receiving official certification of exam results from the government.Public schools operated in two shifts, a morning session for Lebanese children and an afternoon session typically attended by Syrian refugee children. According to UNHCR estimates, more than half of refugee children ages 3 to 18 did not receive any education during the year.Syrian refugees had access to a limited number of UNHCR-contracted hospitals for lifesaving and obstetric care.Iraqi refugees had access to both the public and private education systems. Iraqi refugees also had access to the primary health-care system. UNHCR, through NGOs, provided secondary health care with donor support.Durable Solutions: The government did not consider local integration of any refugees a viable solution. In May, the DGS announced it opened registration for Syrian refugees seeking a facilitated return to Syria. As of the end of the year, however, the DGS had not initiated any facilitated returns.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										Fighting in 2007 destroyed the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian Refugee Camp in the north, displacing its approximately 27,000 residents. Many of the displaced resided in areas adjacent to the camp or in other places where UNRWA services were available. The camp’s reconstruction, which began in 2008, was approximately 85 percent complete as of August. UNWRA expected 20,878 displaced persons to return to the reconstructed camp; 17,477 had done so as of August.For further information about IDPs in the country, please see the materials of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center:  https://www.internal-displacement.org .																																				g. Stateless Persons										There were no official statistics on the size of the stateless population. The country contributed to statelessness by discriminating against women in its nationality laws; through discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or disability; and by discrimination in birth registrations.Citizenship was derived exclusively from the father, resulting in statelessness for children of a citizen mother and a noncitizen father when registration under the father’s nationality was not possible. This legal discrimination particularly affected Lebanese, Palestinians, and, increasingly, Syrians from households headed by women. Undocumented Syrian refugees were unable to register their marriages and the births of their children due to their lack of official status. Additionally, administrative obstacles or a lack of understanding of the regulations prevented registration of some children born to citizen fathers. During the year, the government extended a waiver allowing late registration of Syrian children born in the country since 2011 to be affected administratively instead of through the courts.Palestinian refugees residing in the country could not obtain citizenship and were not considered citizens of any other country. Palestinian refugee women married to citizens could obtain citizenship after one year of marriage. Children of Palestinian refugees faced discrimination in birth registration, as bureaucratic and administrative procedures at the Directorate of Political Affairs and Refugees (DPAR) made it difficult to register these children after age one. According to the law, birth registration of children older than one required a court procedure, in some cases an investigation by the DGS, and final approval from the DPAR. The birth registration process often took more than a year to complete and was complex to navigate, especially for the DPAR-registered parents of Palestinian refugee children.UNRWA estimated 3,000 to 5,000 Palestinians remained unregistered with both UNRWA itself and the government. Nonregistered Palestinians faced restrictions on movement, risked arrest or detention, and encountered obstacles completing civil registration procedures.Undocumented Palestinians not registered in other countries where UNRWA operated (such as Syria or Jordan) were usually ineligible for the full range of UNRWA services. In most cases, and as part of its discretionary power to include vulnerable groups of Palestinians on an exceptional basis, UNRWA nonetheless provided primary health care, education, and vocational training services to undocumented Palestinians. The majority of these were men, many of them married to UNRWA-registered refugees or Lebanese citizen women who could not confer refugee status or citizenship to their husbands or children.Approximately 1,500 of an estimated 100,000 Kurds living in the country lacked citizenship, despite decades of family presence in the country.Stateless persons lacked official identity documents that would permit them to travel abroad. They had limited access to the regular labor market and lacked access to many professions. Additionally, they had limited access to public schools or public health-care facilities and could not register marriages or births. They were not allowed to own or inherit property.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						Although the law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections conducted by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage, political participation suffered due to lack of government control over parts of the country, defects in the electoral process, the country’s economic, financial, and social crises, and public corruption.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuse or Irregularities in Recent Elections: While the most recent parliamentary elections (2022) were conducted peacefully and were free and fair in many respects, observers from the Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections reported numerous procedural irregularities, and there were allegations of corruption and widespread vote buying. Independent candidates were reportedly harassed or physically threatened by supporters of the dominant political parties in their districts.The constitution required presidential elections between one and two months before the end of the incumbent president’s term. Former President Michel Aoun left office at the end of October 2022. No candidate received the required two-thirds majority in any of the 12 parliamentary votes to choose a president during the year. As such, Najib Mikati, whose government had functioned in a caretaker status since the May 2022 parliamentary elections, remained in office as caretaker prime minister. At year’s end, the presidency remained vacant. On April 18, parliament postponed for up to a year the municipal elections scheduled for May, which had already been postponed a year earlier.Political Parties and Political Participation: All major political parties and numerous smaller ones were based almost exclusively on religious affiliation, and parliamentary seats were allocated based on religion. Nonsectarian parties gained a foothold in parliament in 2022 when 12 first-time, reform-minded members won election. Established political parties and alliances largely maintained their positions by using intimidation, social pressure, and propaganda to marginalize new political forces.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: The law did not prevent or limit participation of women or members of minority groups in the political process, and they participated actively. There were significant barriers to women’s participation in politics, including religious restrictions, institutionalized inequality, legal obstacles, political culture, and societal discrimination. Women candidates were far less likely than men to receive media coverage during the campaign, and they were reportedly more likely to be the targets of violent speech on social media.According to long-standing agreements on sectarian power sharing, the president had to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shi’a Muslim. Authorities allocated every government-recognized religious group at least one seat in parliament regardless of the number of its adherents, with the exception of Isma’ili Islam and Judaism, neither of which had seats allocated. Voters also elected three parliamentarians representing minorities (one Syriac Orthodox Christian and two Alawites) in the 2022 elections.Since refugees were not citizens, they had no political rights in the country.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						Although the law provided criminal penalties for official corruption, the government did not implement the law effectively, and officials reportedly engaged in corrupt practices with impunity on a wide scale.Corruption: The government continued to lack control over rampant corruption. There was limited parliamentary or auditing oversight of revenue collection and expenditures. Various government initiatives intended to limit corruption were not successful. The most common types of corruption included political patronage; judicial misconduct, especially in investigations of official wrongdoing; and bribery at multiple levels within the national and municipal governments.Freedom House reported political leaders and government officials often operated behind closed doors, outside of state institutions, and with little regard for formal procedures. Authorities reportedly sometimes intimidated, harassed, or filed criminal defamation suits against journalists and others seeking to expose alleged government misconduct or corruption.On August 14, the Central Bank’s Special Investigation Commission froze the assets and bank accounts of former Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh, his brother Raja Salameh, his assistant Marianne Howayek, his son Nadi Salameh, and Anna Kasakova, all of whom were sanctioned for involvement in corruption by several other countries.Riad Salameh attended two hearings by a visiting French judicial delegation between January 11 and 20. He failed to attend a hearing in Paris on May 9 where prosecutors planned to press preliminary fraud and money laundering charges against him. As a result, French prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for him on May 16. Salameh remained at liberty in the country as of the year’s end.On August 7, following political pressure by several members of parliament, the Ministry of Finance published the report of an independent forensic audit. According to the Associated Press, the report revealed years of misconduct by Riad Salameh and $111 million in “illegitimate commissions” taken by Salameh and his accomplices. On August 22, Public Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat referred the report to the Special Investigation Commission, the financial prosecutor, and the appeals judge of Beirut’s criminal court. No additional actions were reported by year’s end.Media continued to report political interference stalled the investigation into the 2020 Port of Beirut explosion. On January 25, Prosecutor General Oueidat ordered the release of 17 individuals held in pretrial detention following the explosion; they had already spent more time in jail than if they had been tried and convicted. Long-standing vacancies on the Court of Cassation prevented the court from resolving former officials’ complaints against the investigating judge, accusing him of political bias. Disagreement between politicians and judges on what court should try elected government officials suspected of criminal activity also delayed the investigation.For additional information about corruption in Lebanon, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country, and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						Several domestic and international human rights groups operated without government restrictions to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings. Government officials were sometimes cooperative and responsive to these groups’ views, but there was limited accountability for human rights abuses.Retribution against Human Rights Defenders: On May 24, local and international NGOs reported plainclothes officers of the ISF’s intelligence branch arbitrarily detained Abdelrahman Tarek, an Egyptian human rights activist who sought refuge in Lebanon after he endured arbitrary detention and torture for seven years in Egypt. The ISF detained Tarek without an arrest warrant and denied him the ability to have a lawyer present. His detention sparked collective advocacy to free him by local civil society, activists, foreign embassies, and the international human rights community. He was released after six hours.Government Human Rights Bodies: Neither the 10-member NHRC nor its constituent five-member National Preventive Mechanism against Torture were effective in their mandates of guiding the ministries in protecting human rights. On June 15, the NHRC published a report stating the government had failed to approve the decrees authorizing it to execute its mandate. As of year’s end, the NHRC neither had a budget nor had commenced its work.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law criminalized rape (of women only) and the use of threats or violence to claim a “marital right to intercourse,” although it did not explicitly outlaw spousal or intimate or domestic partner rape. While the government effectively enforced the law, the interpretation of cases by different religious courts led to inconsistent civil law rulings throughout the country. The minimum prison sentence for a person convicted of rape was five years and was seven years for the rape of a minor (defined by the law as a child younger than 18). The law did not criminalize so-called corrective rape of LGBTQI+ persons.The law criminalized domestic violence, gave women the ability to file a restraining order against their abuser, and assigned special units within the ISF to investigate domestic violence complaints. NGOs alleged the definition of domestic violence was narrow and did not provide adequate protection from all forms of abuse, especially spousal rape and rape by other male family members. Although the law provided for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for battery, religious courts often cited religiously based personal status laws and cultural expectations to require a battered wife to return home. Some police, especially in rural areas, treated domestic violence as a social rather than criminal matter.NGOs and activists claimed the domestic violence law did not sufficiently protect survivors or punish abusers, who they alleged often received disproportionately light sentences.Police and judicial officials worked to improve their management of domestic violence cases but noted social and religious pressures – especially in more conservative communities – led to the underreporting of cases. Some survivors, often under pressure from relatives, sought arbitration through religious courts or between families rather than through the justice system. There were cases of foreign domestic workers, usually women, who suffered from mistreatment, abuse, and in some instances rape or conditions akin to slavery.The ISF alerted its human rights unit to report all cases involving victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable groups; officers tracked the cases and provided appropriate support to victims.The Women’s Affairs Division in the Ministry of Social Affairs and several NGOs provided support services to address sexual or gender-based violence, including counseling and shelter for survivors.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: The law criminalized sexual harassment, which nonetheless remained a widespread problem. The economic crisis in the country increased the risks for exposure of women and girls to gender-based violence, including sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, sexual violence, child marriage, and intimate partner violence. On March 25, media reported Hussein Zeaiter shot and killed his wife Zeinab and fled the scene with his three children. In a video circulating on social media, the victim’s brother stated, “I would have done the same thing if her husband had not done it.” The local mayor characterized the killing as an “honor crime.” The investigation was underway at year’s end.Social and cultural practices disincentivized, stigmatized, and endangered women and girls from seeking justice related to gender-based violence or harassment. Access to justice on these issues was particularly difficult for women domestic migrant workers and unregistered Syrian refugees.Discrimination: Women suffered discrimination under the law and in practice, including under the penal and personal status codes. The constitution did not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex. In matters of marriage, child custody, inheritance, and divorce, personal status laws provided unequal treatment across the various religious court systems and generally discriminated against women. All 18 recognized religious groups had their own personal status courts, and laws varied from one group to another. Religious law on child custody matters favored the father in most instances, regardless of confession. Sharia courts weighed the testimony of one man as equal to that of two women. Nationality law also discriminated against women, who could not confer citizenship to their spouses and children. Women were allowed to own property but often ceded control of it to male relatives due to cultural norms and family pressure.Women experienced employment and occupation discrimination. The law did not distinguish between women and men in employment and provided for equal pay for both sexes. There were exceptions excluding women from a variety of construction and industrial jobs such as mining, factories, agriculture, energy, and transportation, although authorities did not always enforce these prohibitions. The law did not explicitly prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace. Although the law gave an employee the right to resign without prior notice if the employer or representative committed an indecent offense toward the employee or a family member, there were no legal consequences for the perpetrator.There were multiple reports domestic workers (mainly women from East Africa and Southeast Asia) – tied to their employers through the visa sponsorship system – faced physical, mental, and sexual abuse, unsafe working conditions, and nonpayment of wages. NGOs assisting migrant workers reported security forces and judges did not always adequately investigate these crimes, and victims sometimes refused to file complaints or retracted testimony due to threats and fear of reprisal or deportation.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Women in rural areas faced social pressure on their reproductive choices due to long-held societal values. Although not all health care centers offering sexual and reproductive health services were equipped to offer clinical management of rape, all 11 government health-care facilities certified to do so provided survivors access to emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										No laws specifically protected marginalized racial or ethnic groups against violence, discrimination, or hate crimes.International observers continued to raise concerns that authorities selectively enforced curfews only on Syrian refugees, who, because they often lacked legal residency status, generally incurred more severe consequences than other refugees for curfew violations, including confiscation of identification documents and fines. A few violent incidents against refugees occurred.Citizens of African descent reported instances of race-based discrimination and harassment by police. Foreign Arab, African, and Asian students, professionals, and tourists reported being denied access to bars, clubs, restaurants, and private beaches at the direction and discretion of venue owners and managers.																																				Children										Birth Registration: If a child’s birth was not registered within the first year, the process for legitimating the birth was long and costly, often deterring families from registration. Syrian refugees did not need legal residency to register the birth of their children, and authorities often waived several requirements for late birth registration by Syrian refugees. Birth registration remained inaccessible to some because the government required often-unavailable proof of legal residence and legal marriage.Additional impediments refugees faced included the inability to pay registration fees or travel costs, a lack of information, and the limited capacity of civil registry offices. Failure to register births resulted in denial of some public services.Education: Education for citizens was free and compulsory through the primary phase. Noncitizen and stateless children, including those born of noncitizen fathers and citizen mothers and refugees, lacked this right. The Ministry of Education and Higher Education continued a policy stipulating non-Lebanese students could not outnumber Lebanese in classrooms during the morning school shift, sometimes limiting enrollment. Syrian refugee children were not legally entitled to enroll in public schools during regular hours but could attend schools’ second shifts.Child Abuse: The country lacked a comprehensive child protection law, although the law furnished some protection to children who were victims of violence. The Ministry of Social Affairs maintained a hotline to report cases of child abuse. Child protection needs increased during the year, with more children at risk of exploitation, physical and emotional abuse, child labor, and early marriage, according to UNICEF and UNHCR.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: There was no legal minimum age for marriage. The government did not perform civil marriages or enforce minimum age requirements imposed by various religious sects. The minimum age of marriage varied from ages 14 to 18, depending on the sect. Religious courts generally enforced respective minimum age limits for marriage. UN agencies reported a shift in the age of girls subjected to early marriages in the country during the year, however, with some as young as 12 to 13. UN agencies, NGOs, and government officials observed high rates of early marriage among the Syrian refugee population, in some cases four times the rate of child marriage compared to the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011. The agencies partially attributed this circumstance to social and economic pressure on families with limited resources.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited and punished commercial sexual exploitation, including the sale and grooming of children, child sex trafficking, and child pornography. The minimum age for consensual sex was 18, and statutory rape penalties included hard labor for a minimum of five years and a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment if the victim was younger than 15. The government generally enforced the law.																																				Antisemitism										At year’s end there were an estimated 70-100 Jews living in the country and 5,500 registered Jewish voters who lived abroad but had the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Antisemitic discourse appeared in the media from time to time, and some politicians used antisemitic rhetoric.The Israelite Communal Council, which represented the interests of the country’s Jewish citizens, repeatedly but unsuccessfully submitted requests to change its government-appointed name to reduce stigma. The council blamed its official name in part for the difficulties experienced with renewals every six years.For further information on incidents in the country of antisemitism, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, please see the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: The law prohibited “sexual intercourse against nature,” a term understood to criminalize consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults. Authorities occasionally enforced the law, which carried a penalty of up to one year in jail, in civilian and military courts. In July, nine members of parliament submitted a draft law to repeal this article; signatories were subjected to online harassment. In August, the culture minister and a member of parliament introduced separate bills to explicitly criminalize consensual same-sex relations between adults and punish anyone who “promotes homosexuality,” which was undefined, with up to three years’ in prison. There was no vote on any of these bills by year’s end.Violence and Harassment: As of December 18, the Lebanese LGBTQI+ rights NGO Helem documented 159 cases of violence and physical abuse against LGBTQI+ persons, including 25 incidents of domestic violence. Additionally, Helem reported 350 cases of verbal abuse. NGOs received reports from LGBTQI+ refugees of physical abuse by local gangs, which the victims did not report to the ISF.Human rights organizations reported the government harassed members of the LGBTQI+ community through traditional methods, such as street harassment, arrests, and crackdowns on events or gatherings, and digital targeting, such as entrapment on social media and dating applications, online extortion, online harassment, and “outing” individuals online. As a result of being outed, LGBTQI+ individuals reported facing family violence and arbitrary arrest based on personal information found on cell phones and other devices through unlawful searches. An HRW report found LGBTQI+ Syrian refugees were especially vulnerable to digital targeting by the government.HRW found most of those prosecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity were acquitted upon appeal but documented one person’s detention for 52 days at a police station. The organization also documented cases of online extortion and blackmail by persons threatening to out LGBTQI+ individuals to their families and the authorities.There were reports ISF officers mistreated LGBTQI+ individuals in custody, particularly in areas outside of Beirut. Forms of mistreatment included forced HIV testing and threats of prolonged detention or exposing their identities to family or friends. The government did not investigate, prosecute, or punish those complicit in violence and abuse by state or nonstate actors against LGBTQI+ persons.Public officials, political and religious leaders, and members of the general public contributed to a marked increase in anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric during the year. In a July 22 speech, Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah explicitly incited violence against LGBTQI+ individuals and called for them to be killed. Nasrallah also urged use of derogatory terms to describe LGBTQI+ persons.On August 23, members of the “Soldiers of God” attacked an LGBTQI+-friendly club in Beirut, beating patrons and preventing them from leaving. In videos posted on social media, the attackers cursed at patrons and told them to “get out of the country.” According to HRW, ISF officers who arrived while the attack was under way did not intervene and instead questioned the bar owner and guests regarding the nature of the performance. No one had been arrested for the attack at year’s end.Discrimination: The law did not prohibit discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics. The law did not explicitly recognize LGBTQI+ couples and their families or grant them rights equal to rights of other persons. Official and societal discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons was a serious problem. Some LGBTQI+ individuals faced employment discrimination, as did transgender women due to the inconsistency between official documentation and gender self-presentation.Individuals who faced problems because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity or expression were reluctant to report incidents due to fear of additional discrimination or reprisal. There were no government efforts to prevent such discrimination or provide means of redress for those experiencing it.The domestic human rights organization Society for Inclusion and Development (SIDC) reported 85 cases of violence and discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons during the year. Of these, 35 persons experienced workplace discrimination as a result of their sexual identity or presentation and 16 persons experienced discrimination in the form of freedom of assembly restrictions from landlords and local authorities.During the year, the SIDC reported a transgender woman was evicted from her family’s home because of her gender identity and afterwards faced a constant threat of eviction by her landlord.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Gender marker change was possible, but the legal requirements to do so were not clearly defined. Issues of personal status such as name and gender could be changed only by a ruling through one of the country’s religious courts. Procedural obstacles (including high fees, lengthy procedures, and unavailability of legal assistance) deterred some transgender persons from pursuing legal gender recognition. Transgender persons inability to obtain identity documents affirming their gender presentation contributed to discrimination in employment, in finding and maintaining housing, and in health care.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: There were reports of faith-based organizations offering sexual orientation change efforts (also referred to as “conversion therapy”), but it was not clear whether participants were forced to attend against their will. Some mental health practitioners in the country argued against “conversion” therapies, stating that they were not effective. In December, the SIDC reported family members forced an LGBTQI+ person to undergo “conversion therapy” from a mental health professional the family chose. Professional physicians’ associations in Beirut prohibited their members from performing forced anal examinations of men suspected of same-sex activity, but according to NGOs no local associations outside the capital banned them.There were no known reports of medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries being performed on children or nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: The government severely restricted these freedoms with regard LGBTQI+ individuals, including via targeted harassment and arrests. A 2022 Ministry of Interior ban on peaceful gatherings “related to or addressing homosexuality” remained in place. Members of nonstate groups also restricted these fundamental freedoms through intimidation, harassment, and violence. During the year, more than a dozen media organizations expressed concerns the recent crackdown on freedoms under the guise of “combatting homosexuality” would inevitably impact all public freedoms.On June 17, the Islamic Cultural Center in Lebanon asked authorities to investigate the NGO Helem and called for its dissolution, due to its “provocative actions in public spaces, including numerous [LGBTQI+] celebrations,” as well as rainbow-flag-raising ceremonies at numerous embassies during Pride Month.																																				Persons with Disabilities										By law, persons with disabilities had the right to employment, education, health services, accessibility, and to vote; however, there was no evidence the government effectively enforced the law. Persons with disabilities did not have access to education, employment, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others. Although legally prohibited, discrimination against persons with disabilities continued.The law defined a “disability” as a physical, vision, hearing, or mental impairment. It required that persons with disabilities fill at least 3 percent of all government and private-sector positions, provided they met the qualifications for the position. There was no evidence the government enforced the law. Employers were legally exempt from penalties if they provided evidence that no otherwise qualified person with disabilities applied for the job within three months of its advertisement.In April, the Ministry of Social Affairs partnered with international organizations to establish a national disability allowance providing supplemental income to persons with disabilities in the country.The Ministry of Education and Higher Education required that newly constructed schools include all necessary facilities to accommodate persons with disabilities. Nonetheless, the public school system was ill-equipped to accommodate students with disabilities.NGOs reported persons with disabilities generally lacked access to education, since both public and private schools often refused to admit them. Depending on the type and severity of the student’s disability, parents sometimes sent their disabled children to mainstream schools. Schools that admitted students with disabilities often charged parents additional fees, citing a lack of appropriate facilities or staff. In addition, school staff were often unable to identify specific learning disabilities in children and could not adequately advise parents. In these cases, children often repeated grades or dropped out of school.The law mandated access to buildings for persons with disabilities, but the government failed to amend building codes to implement these provisions. The law did not mandate access to information or accommodations for communication for persons with disabilities.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										HIV and AIDS remained stigmatized due to sensitivities concerning extramarital relations and LGBTQI+ identities. HIV-positive persons experienced employment and occupation discrimination. NGOs reported there were limited resources to direct patients to clinics where they could receive tests without stigma or discrimination. Many persons with HIV and AIDS were unable to pay for routine tests the Ministry of Public Health did not cover, including the blood test the ministry required prior to the start of treatment. The law obliged the government to provide treatment to all HIV-positive citizens and Palestinian and Syrian refugees living in the country. Nonetheless, treatment was available at only one hospital in Beirut, making it difficult for patients outside the capital to receive the care they needed.Palestinian refugees remained barred from working in 39 skilled professions, including medicine, law, and engineering, all of which required membership in a professional association. According to reports from UN agencies, government officials, and Palestinian advocacy groups, Palestinian refugees consistently reported discrimination in hiring due to excessive bureaucracy and societal stigmas.Migrant workers and domestic workers faced employment discrimination. Syrian workers, usually employed as manual laborers and construction workers, suffered particular discrimination.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided for the right of private sector workers to form and join trade unions, bargain collectively, and strike but placed restrictions on these rights. In principle, the penalties for abuses of these rights were commensurate with those for other laws involving denial of civil rights, such as discrimination. The law prohibited civil servants and a broad range of public-sector workers from engaging in collective bargaining or striking. Some private-sector worker groups were not allowed to organize and bargain collectively, including agricultural, domestic, and migrant workers in the informal economy. The law required Ministry of Labor approval to form a union. The ministry controlled the conduct of all trade union elections, including election dates, procedures, and ratification of results. The law permitted the administrative dissolution of trade unions and barred trade unions from political activity.The law prohibited antiunion discrimination. If employers terminated a union member’s contract for union activity, the law permitted workers to receive compensation and legal indemnity and to institute proceedings before an arbitration board. Once the board made a determination, the employer could be compelled to reinstate the worker (although this protection was limited to the elected members of a union’s board). Anecdotal evidence showed widespread antiunion discrimination in both the public and private sectors. The International Labor Organization (ILO) noted prohibitions on the right to strike in banking, private schools, retail businesses, daily and occasional workers, and the civil service constituted situations in which freedom of association protections did not meet the standards of the ILO convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize.Foreigners with legal resident status were permitted to join trade unions. According to the ILO, however, most unions did not encourage or accept the participation of foreign workers. The law permitted foreign workers to join existing unions (regardless of nationality and reciprocity agreements) but denied them the right to form their own unions. Foreign workers were not granted full membership by most unions and could neither vote in trade union elections nor run for union office.Palestinian refugees were generally allowed to organize their own unions. Few other refugees participated actively in trade unions because of restrictions on their right to work. While some unions required citizenship, others were open to foreign nationals whose home countries had reciprocity agreements with Lebanon.The law protected the right of workers to bargain collectively, but a minimum of 60 percent of workers had to agree on the goals beforehand. The law required a vote of two-thirds of union members at a general assembly to ratify collective bargaining agreements.Unions had the right to strike, but only after approval from the Ministry of Interior. Organizers of a strike (at least three of whom had to be identified by name) were required to notify the ministry in advance of the number of participants and the intended location of the strike. Of a union’s membership, 5 percent had to assume responsibility for maintaining order among the strikers, and organizers had to sign a document assuming full responsibility for damages occurring during a demonstration.There were other significant restrictions on the right to strike. The law prohibited public-sector employees, domestic workers, and agricultural workers from joining or establishing unions or going on strike. The law required public sector workers to settle disputes through compulsory arbitration.Throughout the year, several labor federations staged strikes to protest inadequate wages and poor working conditions stemming from the country’s years-long economic crisis. Public sector employees – including judges, judicial clerks, public school teachers, and air traffic controllers – staged walkouts demanding an increase in salaries and transportation subsidies. The value of salaries and subsidies, paid in Lebanese pounds, declined by 98 percent compared to the U.S. dollar since 2019. Employees of the state-run electricity and telecommunications utilities also went on strike, making similar demands for higher pay and better working conditions.The government’s enforcement of applicable law was weak, including prohibitions on antiunion discrimination. Penalties were rarely applied against violators.Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining were not always respected. The government and other political actors interfered with the functioning of worker organizations, particularly the main federation, the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers, the only national confederation recognized by the government.Antiunion discrimination and other instances of employer interference in union functions occurred. Some employers fired workers in the process of forming a union before the union could be formally established and published in the official gazette.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings .																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The labor law stipulated a minimum wage, although it did not apply to foreign workers, including Syrians, PRS, and migrant domestic workers. Observers concluded that the minimum wage was lower than the minimum living wage, owing to the steep depreciation in the value of the Lebanese pound. According to a UN Humanitarian Aid report published on June 16, the minimum monthly wage was less than 675,000 Lebanese pounds ($25 based on the parallel market exchange rate at the time).There was no official minimum wage for domestic workers. Employment contracts for domestic workers stipulated monthly wages; however, the contractual wage depended on the nationality of the worker. Whenever an employee signed a contract with an employer, the contract had to be registered with the Directorate of General Security for the worker to obtain a residency permit. While the contract established uniform terms and conditions of employment and provided some labor protections, it did not address wages for domestic workers.The law prescribed a standard 48-hour work week with a weekly rest period that could not be less than 36 consecutive hours. The law stipulated 48 hours of work as the maximum per week in most businesses except for the agricultural sector. The law permitted a 12-hour day under certain conditions but stipulated that overtime pay should be 150 percent of normal pay. The law did not set limits on compulsory overtime.Many workers took on second and even third jobs to meet their basic living necessities. Some private-sector employers failed to provide employees with family and transportation allowances as stipulated under the law and failed to register them with the National Social Security Fund.Occupational Safety and Health: The Ministry of Labor set occupational safety and health (OSH) standards. The law required employers to implement proper safety measures and to hold fire, third-party liability, and workers’ compensation insurance. The ministry had the authority to revoke a company’s license if its inspectors found a company noncompliant. The law stipulated workers could remove themselves from situations that endangered their health or safety without jeopardy to their employment, although government officials did not protect employees who exercised this right. The responsibility for identifying hazards in the work environment remained with OSH experts and not workers.Labor experts deemed the country’s OSH standards inappropriate for the main industries in the country and noted that the government did not regularly enforce them. OSH violations were especially prevalent in the construction, industrial and informal sectors.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Ministry of Labor’s enforcement team handled all inspections of potential labor violations, although it lacked the staffing, resources, legal tools, and political support to carry out its mandate of enforcing minimum wage, overtime, and OSH laws. Political interference with inspectors sometimes affected the quality of inspections. Penalties for wage and hour violations were commensurate with those for similar crimes, such as fraud. Penalties were rarely applied against violators.Workers could report wage and hour violations directly to the General Confederation of Lebanese Workers, the Ministry of Labor, or the National Social Security Fund, or indirectly through their respective unions. In most cases, workers opted to remain silent due to fear of dismissal. Acceptable conditions of work statutes did not apply to those involved in work within the context of a family, day laborers, temporary workers in the public sector, or workers in the agricultural sector.Violations of wage and overtime pay were most common in the construction industry and among migrant workers, particularly with domestic workers. Foreign domestic workers often faced physical, mental, and sexual abuse, to include unsafe working conditions and nonpayment of wages.Penalties for violations of OSH laws were commensurate with those for similar crimes such as negligence. Penalties for OSH violations were rarely applied against violators. While most licensed businesses and factories strove to meet national OSH workplace standards, conditions in informal factories and businesses were poorly regulated and often did not meet these standards. Inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections and to initiate sanctions, but a shortage of OSH inspectors hampered enforcement. There were no reported cases in which the ministry revoked a company’s license for OSH violations.Some employers subjected domestic workers, mostly of Asian and African origin, to nonpayment of wages, mistreatment, and abuse, including rape. In many cases, domestic workers endured long hours without vacations or holidays. Victims of abuse could file civil suits or seek other legal action ‒ often with the assistance of NGOs ‒ but most victims, counseled by their embassies or consulates, settled for an administrative resolution that usually included monetary compensation and repatriation.Authorities typically did not prosecute perpetrators of abuse against domestic workers for reasons that included the victims’ refusal to press charges and a lack of evidence. Authorities settled an unknown number of cases of nonpayment of wages through negotiation. According to the embassies and consulates representing countries with large domestic worker populations, many of their citizens opted not to report violations of their labor contracts until after they returned to their home countries because they preferred not to stay in the country for a lengthy judicial process.Migrant workers were especially vulnerable to wage, hour, and OSH violations. Most arrived in the country through local- and source-country recruitment agencies. Although the law required recruitment agencies to be licensed by the Ministry of Labor, the government did not adequately monitor their activities. The visa sponsorship system tied a foreign worker’s employment visa to a specific employer, making it difficult to change employers. In cases of employment termination, the worker lost their legal status. This discouraged many migrant workers from filing complaints.A 2021 report by the ILO estimated 78 percent of total employment was informal and not subject to labor legislation, income taxation, social protection, or entitlements such as paid leave.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																						i. Conflict-related Abuses																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																								Lebanon
- Department Press Briefing – March 4, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; March 4, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; March 4, 2024																																																					March 4, 2024																																																								1:26 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon. Monday. Start with some opening comments. We remain extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. As last week’s incident in northern Gaza made painfully clear, people are desperate for food, for water, for medicine. Parents are facing impossible choices about how to feed their children. Many don’t know where the next meal will come from, or if it will come at all.The situation is simply intolerable. And that’s why the United States is focused on increasing and sustaining aid in Gaza through as many channels as possible.Over the weekend, the Department of Defense and the Jordanian Royal Air Force worked together to air drop 38,000 ready-to-eat meals into Gaza. Operating out of Jordan, this operation saw a United States contribution of 66 bundles of aid, packed across three C-130 aircraft, delivered to those in dire need.This air drop was the first in a series the Department of Defense will be conducting, but I want to be clear about one thing: these air drops are intended to supplement, not replace, aid through other mechanisms.We are also actively pursuing options to establish a maritime assistance corridor. We are in discussion with a number of partners about this initiative, and while it is still in the development phase, we are optimistic about its potential to supplement our air and land efforts.We continue to work to increase the amount of aid flowing through existing border crossings at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and to press the Government of Israel to open additional crossings and routes into Gaza. Even as we explore other means of delivery, it is critical that we maximize the aid flowing into Gaza over land.When it comes to distribution inside Gaza, over the past week, the ability of the UN and other humanitarian implementers to distribute assistance within central and south Gaza has improved. While over 100 trucks a day of humanitarian assistance are now being distributed to those in need, this level is still significantly below the levels needed to meet minimum requirements to avert famine.In northern Gaza, we remain concerned at the increasing severity of the humanitarian situation. While private sector convoys have attempted to deliver assistance and some have been successful, these efforts are not and cannot be a replacement for large-scale assistance to the north distributed by the UN. We will continue to press the Government of Israel to facilitate increased deliveries to the north.Our goal is clear: to establish a comprehensive aid strategy that includes air, land, and sea routes to maximize the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and ensure that aid is distributed to everyone in Gaza who needs it.Finally, we continue to push for a temporary ceasefire through a hostage agreement that would allow a massive surge of aid into Gaza and ease the distribution problems that are currently hindering humanitarian efforts. A deal is on the table – a deal that would bring the hostages home and that would alleviate the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people. Hamas should accept it immediately.With that, Matt.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Before getting back to the – before getting into the aid, I just want to ask you what you know about this U.S. Embassy employee who was found dead in Jerusalem.MR MILLER: I can confirm the death of a direct-hire employee of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. There’s not much more I can say at this point due to privacy considerations; as you know, there are steps we need to undertake, including next-of-kin notification, whenever such a terrible tragedy occurs. But it’s an incident that is under investigation, and I do just want to be clear that’s a step that always happens when someone dies, and there are no indications of foul play.QUESTION: Okay. But when you say a direct hire, what does that mean? Does it mean an American citizen?MR MILLER: American citizen. And I can’t say much more. I’m sure when we’ve finished next-of-kin notifications I’ll be able to say more, but that’s not where we are today.QUESTION: Okay. Well, do you know what this person did?MR MILLER: Again, due to the privacy and respect for the family, it’s not something I can say today. Be happy to get into it once we’ve completed that process.QUESTION: All right. And then back to the – unless someone else wants to go on that, just back on the aid situation. So you know that Bennie Gantz is in town and meeting with the Vice President and people at the White House today and with Secretary Blinken tomorrow. How focused are those – are these discussions going to be on the aid situation, which you just said was intolerable?MR MILLER: So it will be at the top of the agenda. I won’t speak in detail as to what the Vice President and the National Security Advisor will discuss with the minister. I’m sure that they will provide readouts and speak to those meetings at some point. But I can tell you it is at the top of the agenda. It will be at the top of the agenda when Secretary Blinken meets with Minister Gantz tomorrow. It’s something that the Secretary raised in a phone call with Ron Dermer, the Israeli minister for strategic affairs, earlier today to press that more must be done to get aid into Gaza, to ensure that the delivery of aid is sustained into Gaza, and to ensure that once aid gets into Gaza it can be disturbed to those who need it.QUESTION: Okay. And based on the conversation the Secretary had with former Ambassador Dermer this morning, do you have any indication that the Israelis are willing to allow more aid in, especially since you’ve been pushing for several weeks now on opening Erez crossing in the north into Gaza, and that has not yet happened?MR MILLER: So I will let the Israeli Government speak for themselves about decisions that they take, but we will continue to press them to allow more aid in through Rafah, through Kerem Shalom, and to open additional crossings to the north. As we’ve spoken about before, it’s extremely difficult to get aid from southern Gaza and central Gaza into the north right now. We all saw the horrific video last week of commercial deliveries in the north to people who are incredibly desperate for food and the way they – when they see any hope of a chance of getting food, the way they rush to get it. It’s a clear sign that more needs to be done, and so that’s what we’re pressing the Government of Israel to do.QUESTION: Do you have any indication that they get it and that they’re accepting your – your appeals?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to speak for them, but it’s something we’re continuing to press with &#8212;QUESTION: Well, I’m not asking you to speak for them. I’m asking you to tell me whether or – or to tell everyone here what – whether or not you think that your arguments are having an impact.MR MILLER: It is an issue that we remain incredibly focused on. The Government of Israel tells us, as they say publicly, that they want to ensure that aid gets to those who need it. But ultimately, as you’ve heard us say when it comes to other matters, it’s the results that matter, not the intent. And right now not enough aid is getting in and not enough aid is getting distributed, and that needs to change.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Humeyra.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. I just want to go back a little bit to the air drops because they have raised a lot of questions and some criticism as well. A lot of people made the point that why does Washington need to resort to a practice that it would use in battlefields or areas that are controlled by hostile forces? Given that this area is controlled by Israel, why is the United States forced to use this practice to get aid into an area that its closest ally controls?MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, we are using air drops because not enough aid is getting in right now. That’s the fundamental reason, and we want to do everything we can to get aid in through any mechanism possible.Number two, even as we air drop food and assistance into Gaza, as I said in my opening comments, we are continuing to push for the expansion of alternative mechanisms.But then the third thing I would say is I’ve seen people expressing their opposition to these air drops, and it’s something I frankly don’t understand. If you want to say that air drops are not enough, fine. We would agree with that proposition. As I said, we want to see aid come in through a maritime delivery route, and we’re exploring one. We want to see aid come in through the crossing that are already open but need to be increased. And we want to see aid come in through additional crossings that are open.But it’s a good thing, not a bad thing, to see thousands of meals distributed by air. And so we will continue to deliver aid through that mechanism, but it is very much not a replacement for every other mechanism to get aid into Gaza.QUESTION: I mean, I think a lot of people were pointing out to the fact that it’s a very expensive workaround. So I want to repeat a question that me and my colleagues have repeatedly asked you here over the last four months. The United States does have a very important and big leverage over Israel, like it does over other countries, and that is the military aid. And you have repeatedly said that Washington has so far – did not feel the need to or does not think it’s the best option to use that leverage.So after the events of last week and as the situation on the ground gets even more dire, and there seems to be an obvious inability on the part of U.S. Government to influence Israel in a meaningful way on this particular issue, does the United States – is the United States reconsidering its decision to not use military aid as its leverage over Israel?MR MILLER: So again, we continue to support Israel’s campaign to ensure that the attacks of October 7th cannot be repeated. We have provided military assistance to Israel because it is consistent with that goal. Hamas continues – the leadership of Hamas, that planned and plotted October 7th, continue to be at large inside Gaza. They continue to pose a threat to innocent civilians inside Israel. They would relaunch the attacks of October 7th today, tomorrow, if they had the capability to do so. So we support Israel’s legitimate military campaign consistent with international humanitarian law, and that’s why we continue to support them militarily.At the same time, we are incredibly concerned about the humanitarian situation, and that’s why you’ve seen engagement at the highest levels of this government. And you all have heard this from me before, but it is the engagement by the President, the engagement by the Secretary, that ensured that Rafah was open in the first place, that ensured that Kerem Shalom was open in the first place, that hopefully is going to ensure another crossing opens in the north.And so it is through that engagement that we have gotten humanitarian assistance in. That is in no way to say that we are satisfied. We are very much not satisfied. And so we are going to build on the record that has proven somewhat successful but very much needs to be expanded in getting more humanitarian assistance in, and we will engage directly with the Israeli Government on that question.QUESTION: So that’s a no?MR MILLER: It’s my – the answer I just provided.QUESTION: Okay, a couple of other little things &#8212;MR MILLER: Yes.QUESTION: &#8212; on maritime. You said this is in developmental – development phase. But – so I mean, as much as you can say, there is no port in Gaza. Where is this going to be offloaded?MR MILLER: So I can’t say very much about it. It’s a matter that we are exploring with commercial partners as well as other partners in the region. There are a number of different ways to do it. We’re trying to find the most efficient way to get as much aid in as possible. But while we’re reviewing that privately, I don’t think I should talk to it in detail from here.QUESTION: Is there any consideration that the U.S. military would be involved?MR MILLER: We have – as you’ve heard the President make clear, we do – he is not sending U.S. military to Gaza.QUESTION: Could I just basically follow up on Humeyra’s question, but maybe ask it in a slightly different way? Israel, of course, is a friendly country to the United States, is a very good relationship, but there are actually warnings of famine, perhaps, coming soon in Gaza. I mean, do you believe that Israel could do more to actually avert this?MR MILLER: We do think there is more that they could do. There is more that they could do practically. There are decisions that they could make that would have an impact. Opening an increased crossing would be one. There are practical decisions that they could make with respect to security around the distribution of aid inside Gaza that we have been pressing them to make. So yes, we very much agree that there is more that they can do and more that they should do.QUESTION: And why do you think they haven’t done it? Is there any influence that the U.S. could –MR MILLER: I will – I will let them speak to their own decision making. The point that we make to them is that the situation as it stands now is unacceptable and everyone involved needs to do more.QUESTION: And just one more on that. The situation in northern Gaza in particular, there’s been a security deterioration. I mean, do you think that everything has been done that could be possible to actually improve the security there, or do you think there are things the Israelis could do to improve the stability there?MR MILLER: I do think there’s more. I think the – one of the most important things that they could do to improve the security situation in northern Gaza would be to open a crossing to allow humanitarian aid to get in. There – Israel faces a – there are a number of security issues right now with respect to northern Gaza. One is that there are Hamas fighters that continue to operate there and continue to pop up from time to time and try to re-engage with IDF forces. But there is also a security situation with respect to the number of people who are there – who are desperate for aid. And that’s a security situation that you saw play out last week when you see hundreds if not thousands of people running to trucks just because they’re desperate for food for their families.So we think getting more aid in would both alleviate the underlying humanitarian situation but would alleviate the desperation, and that if people knew – it gets to this point. The reason we are trying to get aid in through as many channels as possible is it is our assessment that if people know that this truck they see today is not the last truck that’s going to be in their neighborhood delivering food in the next week or month, they’re less likely to rush out there and put themselves in danger, put their neighbors in danger, and create a chaotic situation.So we just need to get more aid in so people have confidence that there will be a next meal for themselves, for their family members. And that’s what we’re trying to do.QUESTION: Can I just follow up?MR MILLER: Jen, go ahead.QUESTION: Oh, do you want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: It was just a follow-up on the security point.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, how much of a factor is the bombing of police forces that were securing these convoys by the Israelis in what has happened since? Because we know what a problem that has caused. These police, as far as I understand it, are sometimes unarmed, they contain remnants that are still called Fatah, not all Hamas, and they have been hit. And that seems to have been a huge factor in them no longer be willing to secure the convoys, which has led to this complete drying up of aid, particularly being able to get to the north, and therefore part of the problem with the terrible event we saw on Thursday. So how much of a factor was Israel doing that in what’s now happening?MR MILLER: It is a significant factor. And the point that we have made to the Government of Israel is what’s important is that aid be distributed from the warehouses at Rafah, the warehouses in – at Kerem Shalom or just inside the Gaza border, out to neighborhoods so people can get it. There are a number of ways in which that could occur. Police escorts could be one. As I mentioned a moment ago, there are increased deliveries that have been going on the last week in which the UN has been able to provide – to find security that is not provided by on-duty police. There may be other alternative mechanisms as well. Ultimately, that’s a question for the Government of Israel and the United Nations to determine.But what we have made clear is what’s not an acceptable alternative is for people to starve. And so whatever the security situation is that’s – that needs to be established to ensure that those trucks can deliver needs to be done. And Israel can – we will be happy to work with Israel and with the United Nations to find the best alternative to ensure that those trucks can safely deliver their food, their water, their medicine. But an unacceptable answer is allowing those – is leaving those trucks just sitting in warehouses and not getting the aid distributed to the people who desperately, desperately need it.QUESTION: But doesn’t it go – it goes to the fundamental issue, though, that there is no security in Gaza. So this is not a day-after problem, some sort of hypothetical in the future; it’s happening now. And it’s happening now because there was no plan.MR MILLER: I would not disagree with the assessment that it is not a day-after issue, it is an issue now, and it’s one that the Government of Israel needs to work with the United Nations to determine an answer to now, because there is a very urgent need on the ground.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, go ahead. Sorry, I was supposed to come to you &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple things. In your response to Humeyra and to Shaun, on the – what happened last Thursday, you’re saying that we’ve seen what desperate people needing food and so on, what could – are you saying that the tragedy was a result of the stampede of people?MR MILLER: There is an investigation ongoing by the Government of Israel. I know they’ve released preliminary – a preliminary assessment. But there’s a further investigation going on. But clearly, the reason all those people were out there in the first place at 4:30 in the morning – I think it’s easy to lose sight of that. This was not in the middle of the day; it’s 4:30 in the morning. And the reason that many people were out there was because they’re so desperate for food and assistance. When aid trucks roll in, especially in the middle of the night, you shouldn’t have to see people swarming them for aid. They should have confidence that that aid will be distributed, but they don’t right now and for good reason, because aid hasn’t been getting there, and they’re desperate to feed their families.QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t doubt that the Israeli military fired on those people?MR MILLER: They have &#8212;QUESTION: That there were gunshots?MR MILLER: They have offered a public assessment of what’s happened, and they said that they did fire in one context. We do not have any independent confirmation of how the actual events rolled out. I know that there are differing assessments and conflicting evidence about what happened, which is why we’re going to await the outcome of the investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, as wonderful as it is to send them aid by airplanes, I mean, it’s 38,000 meals. That’s, like, 0.07 – one-seventh each one person. I mean, that’s a very small amount. The best way obviously is via ground, and the U.S. can send in trucks. I don’t think that the Israelis would shoot or would fire on American-controlled trailer trucks and so on.MR MILLER: Said, I think you’re – you, number one, are missing everything I just said, both in my opening comments and &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Just – I – please don’t interrupt, because I didn’t interrupt you – about the fact that these air drops are intended to supplement, not replace. And while they are insufficient by themselves, they are still important and will provide meals to people who otherwise did not have them, so we do feel they meet a critical need and we will continue them. But that does not change the fundamental underlying issue, which is we do need to get more aid in through land delivery and potentially through sea delivery, and that’s what we’re trying to accomplish.QUESTION: Yeah. First of all, I’m not dismissing the value of that. In fact, I asked the question last week if the U.S. would do something like this – nor was I interrupting you. I’m just saying I realized that it’s an effort, but it’s a very small effort. There are other ways. And even by sea, I mean, I understand the U.S. military has these wonderful causeways they can roll things in. Doesn’t – you don’t even have to have a harbor and so on. But that is still inefficient. I mean, it’s – the United States and Egypt and so on, there is a political decision to ensure – I mean, to basically force Israel to allow trucks in. I’d believe that they will prevail. You don’t think that the U.S. can prevail if it pressures Israel to allow these trucks in?MR MILLER: We are making clear that more trucks need to come in from the seniormost levels of this government.QUESTION: Okay, a couple more questions. Of course I think it was raised that there is something like 15 children that have already died of starvation in Gaza, and there seems to be maybe hundreds more in the coming days and so on. So the situation is very, very desperate. Let me ask you about UNRWA. Have you arrived a decision on continuing aid or resuming aid to UNRWA?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we are going to make that determination at the conclusion of the two investigations the UN is conducting with respect to UNRWA. Neither of those investigations has concluded at this point.QUESTION: Do you have any, like, calendar or timetable on this, because &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s – it’s &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the people in UNRWA are saying that we are – the situation is pretty horrible.MR MILLER: So it’s a question you should direct to the UN about how long that – those two investigations will take.QUESTION: But you are not demanding that the UN sort of speed up the process?MR MILLER: I think it’s in the UN’s interest that the investigations be completed as soon as possible. I’m sure that they are well aware of that.QUESTION: And finally, I have one – can you share with us any update on the talks?MR MILLER: On the hostage talks? No, I’m not going to read those out in detail other than to say, as I said in my opening comments, that there is a deal on the table. And that deal would get hostages out, it would deliver a temporary ceasefire of six weeks, and it would allow more aid to come in, so we hope Hamas will accept the deal.Jen.QUESTION: On the hostage talks, Matt, what do you make of the fact that Israel did not send a delegation to Cairo for these continued working-level talks?MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak for itself. We want – we are engaged in the ongoing talks and want them to conclude successfully.QUESTION: Are you concerned that this indicates that they would not accept any Hamas counterproposals or discuss them at all?MR MILLER: Israel has made clear that they want a deal to secure the release of hostages. They have been engaged to try to secure a deal to release hostages and achieve a temporary ceasefire. And we’ll continue to engage with them in that regard.QUESTION: And you spoke of the Israeli investigation into what happened last Thursday. Would the U.S. support an independent investigation?MR MILLER: So I’ve heard those calls for an independent investigation. I have – as yet have not seen who people have in mind or what body they have in mind to conduct the – such an independent investigation. I did note that the UN says that it is sending UN staff into hospitals to look at the nature of the wounds to see if it was a small number of people who were killed by gunshot or whether it was a larger number, or whether the deaths have – came as a result of being run over by trucks or crushed in the horrific events that occurred. So it does appear the UN is conducting at least its own kind of assessment of what happened, and we support them doing that.QUESTION: And then on the Gantz visit, there’s been a lot of political furor in Israel from Netanyahu and members of his coalition there. Does the U.S. – I guess can you talk us through why you thought it was still appropriate to meet with Gantz despite &#8212;MR MILLER: So Benny Gantz is a member of the war cabinet, someone with whom the Secretary has engaged in his visits to Israel, someone with whom the Secretary has had one-on-one phone calls on repeated occasions when we’re back here in the United States. So what ministers travel to the United States is – and how they make those decisions and how they coordinate is ultimately an internal matter for the Government of Israel to determine on their own. For our part, we find him an important figure inside the Israeli Government to engage with and – given the number of issues that we have currently that we are in discussion with the Government of Israel about, including the need to surge humanitarian assistance in – for our purposes, it’s an important meeting to have.QUESTION: And I have a couple on Haiti when (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Let’s go ahead. Go ahead and go to Haiti, and I’ll come back.QUESTION: I was going to follow up. Is that all right?MR MILLER: Oh, go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Sorry. I don&#8217;t want to step on anybody, but just directly to follow &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: &#8212; on Jenny’s question, I mean does the fact that senior U.S. officials – including the Secretary, the Vice President, National Security Advisor – the fact that they’re taking these meetings with Benny Gantz signal that they see in him more of a willing diplomatic partner than Prime Minister Netanyahu?MR MILLER: I would not make that assessment. We’re meeting with Benny Gantz because he’s one of three members of the war cabinet thought to – one of five, if you count the two advisor members – but one of three members of the war cabinet who has a critical vote and a critical stake in how this war is conducted. He has a critical voice in the delivery of humanitarian assistance; he’s an important figure in the sitting government of Israel, and so that’s why we engage with him.QUESTION: I mean, he’s also a political rival of the sitting prime minister and Prime Minister Netanyahu made clear that he disapproves of these meetings going forward. So in taking these meetings, did the U.S. consider that they might fuel political instability within the existing Israeli Government.MR MILLER: We – that is – the various political intrigue inside Israel is ultimately a matter for the Government of Israel and the political class in Israel that we take no position on. The Secretary has met with Benny Gantz a number of times – met with him in the presence of the prime minister; he’s met with him separately, just as he’s met with members of the opposition and members of the – and other members of the government, and we’ll continue to do that, because we think it’s important to do so and advances the interests of the United States.QUESTION: Two quick follows on the region?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: One is, what can you say about Israel’s willingness to make good on the requirements set forth in the National Security Memorandum set forth last month, about providing written confirmation that they’ll use American military aid in accordance with humanitarian law? Absent having already supplied that response, have they indicated that they will be able to meet that deadline and provide you a written &#8212;MR MILLER: So it’s a matter we are in conversation with the Government of Israel about, as we are in conversation with other countries that receive security assistance from the United States. I don&#8217;t want to get into those underlying discussions, but there is a deadline that the executive order sets out. I think it’s 45 days from early February, when it was established. And we will engage with every country that we provide military assistance to about the requirements set out on the executive order and how they can fulfill them.QUESTION: Is Israel on track to meet that deadline?MR MILLER: Again, the deadline is clearly imposed. I don&#8217;t want to speak to it before we get there. It’s a matter, right now, we’re in discussion with Israel. And I should note, I know all the questions always come with respect to Israel, but this is a matter that’s not unique to Israel. It applies to every country that receives security assistance from the U.S.QUESTION: Last quick one on Rafah.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Was – has the U.S. been advised as to whether there is a likely or an imminent ground operation likely to be launched into Rafah?MR MILLER: No, we have not. And we have still not been briefed on any plan either for a military operation or a humanitarian assistance plan that we have said is critical before a military operation takes place.QUESTION: And you would still expect that to happen before anything happens on the ground?MR MILLER: It is what we have said is critical.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: The situation on the ground in Haiti &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; has deteriorated even further. What’s the U.S. assessment of where things go from here? Our understanding is the prime minister is not in the country. Is the U.S. trying to facilitate his return there? And then are there any plans to evacuate the embassy at this point?MR MILLER: So first of all, we are closely monitoring the situation and condemn efforts by gangs to further destabilize and take control of Haiti. It’s our understanding that the prime minister is returning to the country. We think it’s important that he do so and that he be allowed to do so.Many of those responsible for the uptick in violence have been designated by the United States under the Global Magnitsky Act and illicit drugs sanctions programs and by other members of the international community under their authorities. And I think the actions you’ve seen these gang members take over the last few days shows exactly why they have been so designated. And it also underscores the urgency of finalizing the Multinational Security Support Mission to assist the Haiti National Police in dealing with the dire security situation on the ground.With respect to the embassy, the embassy remains open. The – we announced yesterday that the embassy has moved to limited operations with no public services available the first three days of this week due to the ongoing violence in Port-au-Prince.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. Janne, I swear I’ll come to you. We’ll do this first and then &#8212;QUESTION: So just the tense – the prime minister is returning to the country. Like is he in the process of it? Is he &#8212;MR MILLER: I will let the Haitian Government speak to that.QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any role in &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, I’ll let the Haitian Government speak to the prime minister’s travel. Go ahead, Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions on Russia and North Korea. The Russian President Putin warned that if the Western countries sent troops to Ukraine nuclear war would break out. How do you think about the Russia as a nuclear threat?MR MILLER: So first of all, the – that rhetoric, as we’ve seen before, is irresponsible and inappropriate for a nuclear power and is inconsistent with the way that any nuclear power should talk about the use of such weapons in public. But we have seen no reason to change our nuclear posture. And I would just note, as I always note, as the President has made clear, we are not sending boots on the ground to Ukraine.QUESTION: Secondly, on North Korea, there are signs that North Korea will soon launch another reconnaissance satellite. Do you think Russia is providing satellite technology to North Korea as part of its weapons support?MR MILLER: I just don’t want to comment on that detail.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. A couple of separate topics. Staying on Russia rhetoric.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Russia ramped its rhetoric against Moldova, saying that West is trying to take over the leadership of Moldova. Do you have any response to Lavrov?MR MILLER: That’s obviously not true.QUESTION: He also accused Armenia of going towards the West, and then he promised that they will respond to Armenia. Any reaction?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to respond directly to that question, although it’s the kind of – it’s the kind of rhetoric that we have seen the Russian Government make that is destabilizing to the region, and it’s why you’ve seen so many of Russia’s neighbors be concerned about threatening rhetoric and threatening actions that the Russian Government has shown over and over it is willing to take against its neighbors. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Thank you. Do you want to weigh into a German leaked story in two contexts actually? One is Germany says that it – Russia has ramped up its information war against it since last night; secondly, whether do you see this might mean that Germany will be frozen out of intel sharing?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on intelligence matters at all.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: A couple of – a few questions, Matt, on Iran. Today, the director general of the IAEA delivered his report – officially delivered his report to the Board of Governors and made statements about the different subjects, including Iran. He didn’t have anything positive to say about what Iran’s been doing in the past few months.MR MILLER: Nor will I, much to your surprise.QUESTION: (Laughter.) He also expressed concern about some comments that Iranian officials have been making that – about their capabilities to build a bomb. This was the first time that Grossi made reference to that. Does the U.S. think that it’s time to censor Iran or at least report it directly to the UN Security Council? Because I think Reuters has reported and quoted Western officials that the E3 do have a draft for a censure, but the U.S. may not be very willing to go along with it.MR MILLER: So we are closely coordinating with our E3 allies on our approach to Iran’s nuclear program, including with respect to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting. I don’t have any actions to preview at this time, but we fully support the IAEA and Director General Grossi and believe that Iran must fully uphold its safeguard obligations without further delay.QUESTION: Your Iranian counterpart today was asked about the 2015 nuclear agreement. He said that the &#8212;MR MILLER: I didn’t know I had an Iranian counterpart. Does he hold press briefings?QUESTION: Yes, they do – once a week. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah. Once a week.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: With a thriving free press inside Iran.QUESTION: Perfect. He was asked about the JCPOA, and he said that the diplomatic channels was – were still open. Have any communication been exchanged in this regard regarding their nuclear program?MR MILLER: So we have the ability to communicate to Iran when it is in the U.S. interest to do so, but I’m not going to characterize those communications further.QUESTION: Okay. One last one. Shervin Hajipour, one of – who composed a song last year &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; about – yeah – the protests, and he was given an almost four-year sentence, plus that he has to read books on women’s rights in Islam and to compose an anti-U.S. song and publish it on social media. Do you have any comments?MR MILLER: So we condemn the years-long prison sentence for Shervin Hajipour, who many around the world know for his song Baraye which became a global anthem for the Iranian peoples’ protests. You may remember that Secretary Blinken had the – that song on his 2022 Spotify playlist and Dr. Jill Biden presented him with the first ever Grammy for best song for social change. And I think the Iranian Government’s actions are just another signal of their intent to crack down on freedom of expression and repress voices inside their own society whenever possible.QUESTION: Can I ask one more on Iran?MR MILLER: To – yeah.QUESTION: The – I know you commented on this before the election, but the election, particularly the turnout. Authorities are reporting its 41 percent, which would be the lowest since the Islamic Revolution. Do you have any comment either on the turnout – whether you think that turnout is accurate, but what the overall historically low turnout, what it means?MR MILLER: I don’t have our own assessment to offer about turnout, other than to say that the Iranian authorities’ claims about turnout have generally been unreliable. But as you heard me say last week, we did not assess that these elections would be free and fair and believe that many Iranian voters would assess that the elections would not be free and fair. And so it wouldn’t be surprise me if in that regards they chose not to participate.QUESTION: Can I just take it one step further? I mean, do you think this is a show of discontent or whatever the low &#8212;MR MILLER: We know that the Iranian people are discontented. We see them – we’ve seen them come out and protest on a number of occasions, and we’ve seen the Iranian authorities brutally crack down on those protests. So I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s discontent about the regime’s rule and the regime’s willingness to crack down and try and keep that discontent from bubbling up.Go ahead. I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: The 30 days notification by the U.S. State Department to the U.S. Congress on sale of drones to India has passed yesterday. What the next steps in that? Do you know?MR MILLER: I will have to take that and get back to you. I wasn’t aware that, that date had passed.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions on Gaza. First, on Israeli investigations – at recent briefings, you have urged a lot of investigations into a lot of issues. I wanted to follow up on two of these. You have urged for investigation into the sexual violence allegations, sexual assault allegations against Palestinian women, and the killing of Hind Rajab. Do you have any updates on those, any &#8212;MR MILLER: I – oh, sorry.QUESTION: Have you heard back from any of these?MR MILLER: I don’t have an update. I don’t know if we have. I’m happy to check, I’m just personally not aware with respect to that one.QUESTION: And the second question, on have you seen the reports of Israeli war planes bombing a makeshift cemetery in Sunday built near the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza? Have you seen those reports? Do you &#8212;MR MILLER: I have seen the reports. I haven’t been able to – we have not been able to verify them, but as we have said a number of times, it is important that Israel conduct this campaign in full compliance with international humanitarian law.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Shehbaz Sharif has been elected as the new prime minister of Pakistan. Would you like to comment on your expectations for bilateral relations with Pakistan under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak with respect to the new prime minister, but as we’ve said before, we value our longstanding partnership with Pakistan and have always viewed a strong, prosperous, and democratic Pakistan as critical to United States-Pakistan interests, and our engagement with new Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his government will continue to focus on advancing these shared interests.QUESTION: Sir, Maryam Nawaz, the daughter of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has been elected as the chief minister of the key province of Punjab in Pakistan, the country’s first woman to hold the post. Despite facing fabricated cases and spending time behind bars, she emerged as the winner and the first woman chief minister of Punjab. In your opinion, how does her historic election signify progress for women’s representation in Pakistani politics?MR MILLER: So her selection as chief minister is a milestone in Pakistani politics. We look forward to cooperating with Pakistan more broadly on integrating women more fully into the country’s political life, in the economy, including through the U.S.-Pakistan Women’s Council, civil society, and other decision making spaces. An inclusive Pakistan makes for a strong, prosperous country which all Pakistanis benefit from, and so we are always pleased when we see cracks in the glass ceiling anywhere in the world.QUESTION: Follow-up.MR MILLER: Go ahead – no, go ahead. Go ahead first. Yeah. I’ll come to you &#8212;QUESTION: Yes. Special Envoy Amos Hochstein is in Beirut today.MR MILLER: I – he does not work for the State Department. He works for the White House, so I will defer to them for comment on Amos’s travel.QUESTION: But the ambassador with him in his meeting with officials.MR MILLER: Again – again, I’m going to defer to the White House for comment on a – the travel of a White House official, but Amos Hochstein has been engaged, as have people at the State Department, on trying to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the situation in the north of Israel.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Yes. You just called my colleague that Maryam Nawaz Sharif was a milestone, becoming the first female chief minister of Pakistan. Has &#8212;MR MILLER: Of Punjab. Of Punjab.QUESTION: Of Punjab, yeah.MR MILLER: Of Punjab.QUESTION: Prime – we have had a prime minister, female, Benazir Bhutto, if you remember.MR MILLER: I do. That does not &#8212;QUESTION: She was a milestone too.MR MILLER: I do. She absolutely was. It in no way changes this accomplishment.QUESTION: But you know Maryam Nawaz Sharif was caught in the supreme court of Pakistan &#8212;MR MILLER: Do you have a question?QUESTION: No, but are you aware that Maryam Nawaz was caught in the supreme court by presenting a fake Calibri font as well?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into those underlying details. It’s a matter for Pakistan, but we do believe her selection as chief minister is a milestone for Pakistan (inaudible).QUESTION: Just one more question. One more question. Human rights – United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Mr. Richard Bennett urged countries to initiate a case against Taliban over women rights. Last week, Karine and you spoke about having a inclusive government, but the women rights are totally forgotten. Can the U.S. at least urge – like, be a part of this case? Because this is a very general case. Millions of girls just across the border from Pakistan are – have been without education for two years now.MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to the specific case that you’re referring to because I’m not aware of it, but of course we have said it many times that the treatment of women and girls inside Afghanistan is deplorable.Humeyra, you had something.QUESTION: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to go back to a couple of Israel-Gaza related stuff, so about Erez or the third border crossing opening, given your comments at the top about the urgency and how severe the situation is, what is the sticking point with the Israeli Government?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into our private conversations, but it’s a matter that we are engaged with them on. I will let them speak for themselves. We think it needs to open urgently.QUESTION: Okay. And just to push you a little bit more on that, given you think it needs to open urgently, can you give a timeline on like days, weeks?MR MILLER: I can’t because it’s not a decision that needs to be made by the United States Government; it’s one that needs to be – that can – has to be made by the Government of Israel. I can’t speak for them, but we continue to urge them to open it as soon as possible.QUESTION: Okay. And on Benny Gantz, following up from colleagues, do you think, like, given that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not happy with this particular trip – and I know the Secretary has seen Benny Gantz on several occasions in our trips – do you think that dispute with Netanyahu actually reduces his effectiveness in – for U.S. to push, like, on aid situation and – does that under – does that trip undercut his impact, his effectiveness?MR MILLER: I am not going to make assessments about the varying levels effectiveness – of effectiveness of any member of the &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you guys are meeting with him.MR MILLER: &#8212; of any member of the Government of Israel. But, that said, he is one of three members of the war cabinet, plays an important role inside the government. That’s why we’re meeting with him. It’s the same reason why the Secretary talked to Ron Dermer, minister for strategic affairs and an advisory member of the war cabinet, today because there are a number of issues that we need to urgently engage with them on. And so that’s what we’re doing.QUESTION: Okay. A couple of little things on CHIRG. You – you have said a few weeks ago that U.S. has begun reviewing reports that Israel may have harmed civilians in its war in Gaza under the CHIRG process specifically, and I know that you did say that this is not a process that is going to yield results right away, but I still would like to check back in and ask. We know that there are dozens, if not more, a number of – dozens of incidents that are being reviewed. Have any of them moved to stage two? Has – have the – has this building made any determination that yes, U.S. weapons were used in incident XYZ and that caused civilian harm, and Israeli military was at fault in this particular incidence?MR MILLER: Those reviews are ongoing. None of them have been concluded, and I’m not going to offer kind of preliminary assessments as they move through the process.QUESTION: Right. And final one. Do you have a better understanding – does this building have a better understanding on what it would do when it reaches – when and if it reaches that assessment? What is the next step of that review?MR MILLER: It &#8212;QUESTION: You should know that because, I mean, that’s the whole point of conducting that review, right?MR MILLER: It totally depends on the circumstances. And given that’s a variety of different cases with different circumstances, I wouldn’t want to speculate.Go ahead in the back, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: At least some recent report by United Nation there was a significant funding gap for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, more than $2 billion. Can you elaborate how does the United States plan to contribute to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan?MR MILLER: So the United States remains committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan. One way we continue to do that is to address underlying macroeconomic issues, which will provide necessary stability for the current humanitarian response to be more effective and will help alleviate many of the issues that fuel the humanitarian crisis we see in Afghanistan today. And we also remain the single largest provider of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, includes providing over $2 billion in lifesaving and sustaining assistance to the Afghan people since August of 2021.With that, we’ll wrap for – yeah, go ahead. Shaun, and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Just one on Zimbabwe.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The announcement this morning. I was wondering if you could expand a little bit about the thinking about doing this, about having the targeted – I mean, I realize the Secretary has a statement, but having targeted sanctions against the president and others. Some, including the Zimbabwean Government, are actually saying this is a victory, saying that the sanctions regime has been – in 2003 is over. Is this half full? Half empty? How are you &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s rare that you see a government say that sanctions on the sitting president is a victory for the government. So I won’t – I don’t think – I’ll let that one slide.With the transition, we are focusing our sanctions policy on Zimbabwe now to actively target those who are currently engaged in human rights abuses and corruption. So there were a number – under the old sanctions regime, which had been in place for 20 years, actually over 20 years at this point, there were a number of sanctions in place on people who were no longer in government, some of whom were deceased. So we thought it important to update our policy and focus on those who are currently engaged in human rights abuses and corruption, including the sitting president.QUESTION: Do you have a rough number how many were – will be taken off as a result?MR MILLER: I don’t know, sorry. All right, with that I’ll &#8212;QUESTION: On (inaudible) Pope Francis?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, appreciate it. Good afternoon, by the way.MR MILLER: Yes.QUESTION: So on Sunday, yesterday, Pope Francis, he called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so the hostages can be freed and civilians can get aid. He said, quote, “Enough, please! Stop!” Does the State Department believe that the pope’s urgent plea can help secure a ceasefire in Gaza?MR MILLER: So we believe there ought to be an immediate ceasefire in Gaza that brings the hostages out, that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and that’s what we are advocating for. There is a deal on the table that would deliver all of those things; Hamas just needs to accept it.With that, we’ll wrap for the day.(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 p.m.)						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Haiti																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Moldova																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Zimbabwe
- Department Press Briefing – February 20, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – February 20, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – February 20, 2024																																																					February 20, 2024																																																								1:41 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry to be – sorry, thank you. Sorry to be late. Let me &#8212;QUESTION: Are you really?MR MILLER: I am sorry to be late. You think I don’t want to get on with my day as much as you do. (Laughter.) Let me &#8212;QUESTION: I accept your apology.MR MILLER: No, thank you. Let me start with some opening comments. As we mark two years this week since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the brutality of Putin’s regime is increasingly evident both at home and abroad. The weakness and rot at the heart of the system that Putin has built was confirmed not only by Aleksey Navalny’s death last week, but also by the fact that the Russian – that Russia detained close to 400 people over the weekend just for mourning his passing.The Kremlin has poisoned Navalny, imprisoned him unjustly, kept him in harsh conditions, and denied him medical care. It is the Russian Government that is responsible for Navalny’s death while in detention. And now, in any other society – in a free, democratic society – we would see openness and transparency as his family seeks more information about their beloved son, husband, and father. But of course, in Russia, openness and transparency remain in short supply.We saw further evidence of Putin – the Putin’s regime’s brutality and disregard for human life in Avdiivka this weekend, where Ukrainian citizens bravely tried to hold off Putin’s illegal invasion while facing rationed ammunition due to dwindling supplies. Unfortunately, Russia made its first notable gains in months. It is now clear – more clear than ever what the stakes are in Ukraine. Without more support from Congress, Ukraine will not be able to replenish its air defenses and ammunition supplies to help protect itself from Russia’s aggression.As the White House announced this morning, at President Biden’s direction, we will be announcing a major sanctions package on Friday to hold Russia accountable for Navalny’s death in prison, and for its actions over the course of the vicious and brutal war they have waged in Ukraine for the past two years. We also renew our call for Congress to pass the national security supplemental funding bill, both to enable Ukraine and its people to defend against the ongoing invasion, and also to advance U.S. national security interests. It is critical that Congress act without further delay.With that, Matt.QUESTION: Thanks. Before we get into the – what you just talked about, I just want to get what you have to say about the detention of a U.S.-Russian dual national.MR MILLER: So with respect to this most recent detention, we are aware of the case. We are seeking consular assistance that has not yet been granted. I’d limit what more we can say because – with respect – because of privacy laws, as I’ve discussed many times from this podium.And I will just say generally, as I think you are aware, Russia – when it comes to dual citizens of the United States and Russia or dual citizenship of any other country and Russia, Russia does not recognize dual citizenship; considers them to be Russian citizens first and foremost, and so oftentimes we have a difficult time getting consular assistance. But we will pursue it in all matters where a U.S. citizen is detained.QUESTION: Okay. And then on the sanctions, why wait until Friday?MR MILLER: It takes time to put these sanctions packages together. There’s &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it’s been two years. I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: It has been two years.QUESTION: Well, it wasn’t a secret that the anniversary was coming up, so &#8212;MR MILLER: And if you have watched, you have seen us roll out a significant number of sanctions packages over that two years. So it’s not like we have delayed anything.QUESTION: Yes. No, no, no, I know. But &#8212;MR MILLER: But we are always looking to impose new sanctions as facts justify when we see sanctions evasion or activity moving to new areas, and to tighten our existing sanctions. And we’ll have more to say on Friday.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Or do you want to go to there? Could I ask – I’ll just ask you if you have any reaction on Evan Gershkovich’s, the latest pretrial detention, that he’s being kept in for another 30 months – excuse me – 30 days?MR MILLER: So with respect to Evan Gershkovich, Ambassador Tracy attended Evan’s hearing and spoke to the press soon after. You may have seen her comments. We’re disappointed but not surprised by the outcome of the hearing. As you’ve heard me say many times from this podium, the charges against him are baseless and Russia should immediately release Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, and the United States will continue to work towards securing both of their freedom.QUESTION: And just one other on Russia, Radio Free Europe. I don’t know if you saw the announcement on that saying it’s undesirable as an organization. Do you have any reaction on the Russian statement?MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific reaction other than to say that you have seen Vladimir Putin oppose the free dissemination of information, the free press inside Russia, and unfortunately that seems to be – seems not surprisingly but unfortunately not moved off that position.QUESTION: And may I follow up on that, Matt?MR MILLER: Let me go to Humeyra first.QUESTION: Matt, can you say at all if the administration is going to use this EO that you guys issued in December that threated basically penalties for financial institutions that help circumvent Russia’s sanctions?MR MILLER: You mean with respect to our announcements that are coming on Friday? I certainly don’t want to preview those.QUESTION: Yes, yes.MR MILLER: And I just – I’d just say in general &#8212;QUESTION: The announcements that are coming on Friday that you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: On Friday that you would like me &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; have made public on Monday.MR MILLER: That you would like – it’s Tuesday, actually.QUESTION: Oh, Tuesday. Long weekend.MR MILLER: But we made public that we’ll be taking that action. I don’t want to preview what they will be, but as we have said, they will be a major sanctions package.QUESTION: Right. Can I – can I just ask a little bit on Ukraine coming off the heels of Munich Security Conference, where a lot of European leaders and sort of various officials have tweeted their rather negative outlook about the supplemental and Congress and all that? And the Congress is on holiday until mid-March. What exactly is the administration planning how to convince the Speaker, whether you have a Plan B if the supplemental prospects look pretty bleak?MR MILLER: So we will continue to engage with Congress to make clear that it is in the national security interest of the United States to pass this supplemental funding request. You heard the Secretary speak about this last week. One of the points he made is that when it comes to our security assistance to Ukraine, 90 percent of that money is actually spent here in the United States. It benefits American manufacturing. It benefits American technological development.So we will continue to make that case, but I think it’s also the American people that make that case. If you look at the recent polls that came out, the American people overwhelmingly continue to support standing with Ukraine. And there were a number of members of Congress who were in Munich over the weekend and at the end of the last week attending the Munich Security Conference, and they heard directly from Ukrainian officials and from European officials how it is in the national security interest of Europe and also in our transatlantic national security interest. So we’ll continue to make the case, but I would say it’s not just the United States that will continue to make the case.And I will say, as you have heard the Secretary say, there is no other magic plan that we can unveil to support Ukraine. Ukraine will continue to defend itself even in the absence of a supplemental funding request passing Congress. That is without a doubt. You have seem them fight with bravery, you’ve seen them fight with skill, and we fully expect that they will continue to do so and they will continue to make gains against Russia as they have done in the Black Sea. But the situation will be very difficult. When you don’t have the ammunition you need on the front lines, you’re going to be vulnerable. And that’s what we saw over the weekend with the loss of Advika (ph) and – or Avdiivka. And so I think it’s the fact on the ground that will continue to make the case to members of Congress why they need to act, and we hope they will.QUESTION: Would you say that you’re – you still have some sort of confidence that it will pass?MR MILLER: I don’t want to make an assessment on what Congress will do. What we will say and continue to represent is why it is in the national interest of the United States for it to pass this bill. Members of Congress will have to make their own assessments, and it continues to be our belief that if you brought this funding up for an up-or-down vote it will pass the House, and that’s what needs to happen.QUESTION: Okay, I have some Gaza questions but I’ll let people ask questions.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, a single on Russia. Russian Supreme Court of Tatarstan today rejected Alsu Kurmasheva, RFE/RL reporter’s, request for house arrest. Can we do a quick reaction? And I want to follow up on that.MR MILLER: So we will continue to engage with the Russian Government. This is another one – another matter where they consider a – this to be a dual – well, not a dual citizen. It’s another matter of a dual citizen they – where they rejected that request. We’ll continue to engage with the Russian Government on this question, but I don’t want to speak to a specific court matter.QUESTION: I mean, yesterday marked four months of the arrest of – day before yesterday. Are you telling us that you are out of option here in terms of defending a U.S. citizen even on &#8212;MR MILLER: The safety and security of United States’ citizens overseas is always our first priority, and we always look to protect the safety and security of every United States citizen whether they be in Russia or whether they be in any other country.QUESTION: Is her designation – or designating her arrest as wrongful? Is it still on the table? Are you still considering it?MR MILLER: I just don’t want to make any kind of judgment about a wrongful detention determination. That is something that we always look at when it comes to American citizens who are detained overseas. It is a process. Sometimes it takes time. Sometimes new facts develop that we take under consideration. But I don’t want to put – I don’t want to speak to that any further from here.QUESTION: And going back to Shaun’s question, you &#8212;QUESTION: On this, Alex, RFE/RL too?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Russia has labeled Radio Free Europe today as an undesirable organization after designating it as a foreign agent. Do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I just – I commented on that a moment ago just to say we have seen Russia continue to crack down on a free press, continue to track down – crack down on transparency. It is quite clear that they do not want their people to have information about what the Russian regime does abroad, what the Russian regime does to its own people.QUESTION: And one more. Russia placed U.S. Senator &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t think Alex completely yielded the floor.QUESTION: Since you’re talking about Russia.MR MILLER: But go ahead, Michel. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Russia placed U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham on Russia’s terrorist and extremist list. Any reaction to that?MR MILLER: So I – we’ve seen obviously the Russian Government designate a broad range of United States officials with various sanctions. I doubt there are any significant ramifications from that, partly because I doubt very much that Senator Graham – who I shouldn’t speak to, he can speak for himself – planned to travel to Russia anytime in the near future.QUESTION: RFE/RL again.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it fair for us to report back that you just said you will not take any action just for RFE/RL designation?MR MILLER: Alex, you can report back what I just said, not your implication of what I didn’t said – say. And what I said was that the safety and security of American citizens abroad is always our first priority. That is true with respect to this case. It is true with respect to every American overseas. And when it comes to the wrongful detention determination, that is a process that takes time here at the department where we assess the facts, some of which change over time, circumstances change over time, and make a determination that is consistent with the law.QUESTION: Please come back to me on the region?MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions on South Korea, Cuba, and North Korea. South Korea and Cuba established diplomatic relations last week. Cuba has been a brother country with North Korea for a long time. What is the U.S.’s view?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on a relationship between South Korea and Cuba. Obviously, we have always said that countries are free to pick their own – free to decide their own diplomatic engagements and their own diplomatic alignments.QUESTION: Okay, on North Korea. North Korea Kim Yo Jong announced that North Korea is open to talks with Japan if Japan does not interfere with North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests and abduction issues. My question is: If Japan tolerates these and talked with North Korea, what impact do you think it will have on the U.S. and South Korea – North Korea – alliance?MR MILLER: I think that’s a pretty big “if.” I think I will wait to see how the Government of Japan responds to that question before I weigh in any further.Go ahead.QUESTION: You don’t have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I am aware of the North Korean offer.QUESTION: &#8212; any opinions or &#8212;MR MILLER: I have not see the Government of Japan respond, but it will be – continue to be our policy to achieve – that – for full denuclearization of the North Korean – or of the Korean Peninsula. That, of course, has not changed and will not change.QUESTION: Any intention – any intention of North Korea, why they suggest, talked with &#8212;MR MILLER: That is a good – that is a question for North Korea, not for me.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Sir?MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. I have a question about a statement by the UN experts from the UN Human Rights Office yesterday, expressing alarm over allegations of human rights violations to which Palestinian women and girls in the West Bank, in Gaza is subjected to. They said – the UN experts said that Palestinian women and girls in detention have been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault by male Israeli army officers. At least two of them were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence. Have you seen those allegations &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and do you have any reaction?MR MILLER: &#8212; I have seen the allegations. I cannot independently confirm the reports. I will say that we have been clear that civilians and detained individuals must be treated humanely and in accordance with international humanitarian law. We strongly urge Israel to thoroughly and transparently investigate credible allegations and ensure any accountability for abuses and violations, and that will continue to be our position.QUESTION: Have you heard back from your previous call for investigation into the killing of Hind Rajab?MR MILLER: The &#8212;QUESTION: Hind Rajab, killing of.MR MILLER: We have heard that those investigations are underway. We have – it’s our understanding that the investigations have not yet been concluded.QUESTION: Sorry, can I just – on the &#8212;QUESTION: Sir?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: When you said you had no independent confirmation of what the UN experts found &#8212;MR MILLER: I mean, the underlying &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I get it. But did you ever get – did you ever have confirmation of what Hamas allegedly did to Israelis who were – women and girls who were &#8212;MR MILLER: There are Israeli medical experts who have testified to that, and that is something we consider credible, yes.QUESTION: So you have – you consider those instances to be confirmed, but not what the UN was talking about yesterday?MR MILLER: We have seen this report and we have called for an investigation to confirm whether the allegations are true or not.QUESTION: I get it. And who – and if you’re willing to take a word of an Israeli – and I’m not saying you shouldn’t – but if you’re willing to take the word of Israeli medical experts on what happened to the people who were abducted on October 7th, whose word are you willing to take – if not the UN, who &#8212;MR MILLER: A full, independent, credible investigation &#8212;QUESTION: Would it have to be – would it have to be an Israeli medical expert?MR MILLER: We are calling for that – and, no, of course it would not have to be an Israeli medical expert. A credible medical expert, a credible &#8212;QUESTION: Or a Palestinian &#8212;MR MILLER: A credible – I don&#8217;t want to prescribe who it would be – a credible medical expert that can testify to it would be something we would look at, of course. It would not have to be &#8212;QUESTION: Well, you would look at, but you’d take – you’ve taken &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to – because that’s one where we have seen the outcome of the investigation and are able to opine on it. I’m not going to opine on a matter that hasn’t been conducted.QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you didn’t do your own independent investigation into what I think is pretty much well accepted by everybody that there were instances of rape and sexual assault on October 7th, so &#8212;MR MILLER: And the circumstances very much matter, and in this – in this &#8212;QUESTION: I completely understand that, but I’m just &#8212;MR MILLER: It is a well – it is a well – hold on. It is a well-accepted fact. With respect to this &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, no, no. It might be a well-accepted fact &#8212;MR MILLER: No, this – hold on. No, let me – just let me finish. It – just &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; but you’re saying that – but you’re saying that you have what you consider to be independent confirmation that those &#8212;MR MILLER: Let &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; attacks, those assaults, happened. And in this case &#8212; sMR MILLER: Independent confirmation – it is a well-accepted fact because the investigations produced credible evidence that not just the United States accepted but countries &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: No, no, let me finish – countries around the world accepted. With respect to these new allegations, we want to see an investigation, and we will, of course, look at the investigation, make our judgements when that investigation is concluded.QUESTION: Okay. So it’s just too early for you?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Could I stay in the Middle East?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Matthew, sir?QUESTION: Just – well, a couple things, but of course the Secretary’s on his way to Brasilia. I’m sure you saw the comments by Lula, by President Lula, in Ethiopia this past weekend. Israel’s quite upset with him likening what’s happening there to the Holocaust. Do you have any comment on – both on – both do you have any comment on what Lula said, and do you think the Secretary will raise this with him tomorrow?MR MILLER: So obviously we disagree with those comments. We have been quite clear that we do not believe that genocide has occurred in Gaza. We want to see the conflict ended as soon as practical. We want to see humanitarian assistance increased in a sustained manner to innocent civilians in Gaza. But we do not agree with those comments.QUESTION: And does – do you expect the Secretary to raise this? Will this affect relations &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m going to follow my general rule and never preview what the Secretary plans to raise before he has a chance to do so directly with officials, but we engage with Brazil on a number of issues, and I don’t expect that to change.QUESTION: And just – can we stay on the Middle East? Obviously there was the veto this morning at the Security Council. I know Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield spoke about this at length, but in terms of U.S. engagement with the region, how do you think this affects – I mean, do you think that – a number of Arab states in particular have been calling for a ceasefire. How does this take U.S. diplomacy &#8212;MR MILLER: So look, when it comes to an immediate ceasefire, this has been a place where we’ve had a disagreement with a number of countries in the region for some time now. I don’t think that’s anything that’s new. But that has not stopped us from being able to engage constructively about how to bring this conflict to an end – and not just an end, but a durable end, in a way that ensures that the violence that we saw on October 7th and the death and destruction that has plagued this region for so long is not continued, and that we can finally find a durable peace agreement.And so despite our differences of opinion about the – this UN resolution, we continue to engage with Arab countries about finding a way forward and working on some of the issues that we know we will have to deal with when it comes to establishing long-term peace and security in the region.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me make sure Shaun’s done before I go &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Just on Gaza, the mention of temporary ceasefire, the word “ceasefire” in the UN resolution, is this change in wording comes after President Biden used this last week?MR MILLER: “Temporary,” obviously, does. The President made that point last week, and now you’ve seen the draft resolution that we’re working on. But this has been a matter that we have been pursuing for some time, trying to get a temporary ceasefire in exchange for a release of hostages, and something we think is critical to try to achieve and we’ll continue to focus on.QUESTION: Right. Do you think – the administration has obviously been under pressure domestically on this and internationally as well. Do you think that the change in President’s wording but the fact that now it’s in draft resolution has anything to do with those pressures that it’s facing domestically?MR MILLER: No, I think it has to do with how we are responding to the situation on the ground and the situation in the region. We are trying to achieve a temporary ceasefire – or you can call it a pause; you can call whichever name you prefer – to secure the release of hostages. We worked on achieving a humanitarian pause back last year, were successful in doing it. It didn’t go as long as we wanted it to. We got some hostages out; we didn’t get all of them out. We are back now trying to get a longer pause, a longer temporary ceasefire, and secure the release not just to some of the hostages but all of the hostages.And I would say we have made quite clear that we want to see not just a temporary ceasefire, but ultimately an enduring end to the hostilities, and one that ensures that Palestinian civilians are protected, that we get humanitarian assistance to them, and that ultimately the attacks of October 7th cannot be repeated.And that’s one of the reasons why you’ve seen us oppose the resolutions at the UN, not just today but in the past, because we think just an unconditional ceasefire only benefits Hamas, that it would – that Hamas is not going to abide by a full temporary ceasefire. They’re going to continue to hold hostages; they’re going to continue to launch attacks against Israel. They may not do it for a week or so, but they have not forsworn their aims to destroy the State of Israel. And so we’ve oppose that policy, and we think it’s not one that’s effective.We think a negotiated agreement that would get a temporary pause, a temporary ceasefire, is ultimately not just the way to release the hostages and alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people but to give us a pathway to a more enduring end to hostilities.QUESTION: Right. And you’d like to achieve that pause before Ramadan starts?MR MILLER: We would like to have achieved that pause yesterday.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: We would like to achieve it today or tomorrow.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: We want to achieve it as soon as possible.QUESTION: Sure. But how concerned are you that the fighting will continue into Ramadan? Are you doing anything specific about that?MR MILLER: I don’t want to get ahead of the situation, because we are right now in conversations and in negotiations to try to achieve a humanitarian pause. We are still over two weeks away from Ramadan. We would like to get that humanitarian pause before Ramadan begins. We’d like to get it before the end of the week, as I said. We’d like to get it as soon as possible. So that’s what we’re going to continue to try to do.At the same time, we have made clear that Israel should not launch a full military campaign in Rafah unless it has a humanitarian plan that is both credible and realistic, and one that they can execute.QUESTION: Have you seen any indications of that humanitarian plan? And what is the United States prepared to do if they go ahead anyway?MR MILLER: One has not been presented to us yet. I’ve seen reports that one is being developed and will be presented to the Government of Israel this week. I will let them speak, of course, to that. But one has not been presented to the United States, so I, of course, can’t speak to it, and I wouldn’t want to deal with any kind of hypothetical situation down the road.QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Go – Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: While in Munich, the Secretary raised Russia’s pursuit of an anti-satellite capability in meetings with his Chinese and Indian counterparts. Can you say this is the first time the Secretary has raised such meetings with other countries and whether he hopes to achieve anything by raising the topic with China and India specifically?MR MILLER: So I will say that on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference he did raise Russia’s pursuit of an anti-satellite technology with our allies and partners, but not just our allies and partners – with other countries as well – because as the Secretary made clear, he thinks it’s an issue that should be of concern, not just to the United States but to other countries in the world. And I won’t speak to the details of those diplomatic engagements, but I would just say generally that when you have an issue like this that we think should be of broad concern, not just to the United States but other countries, we, of course, would fully expect that they would use their diplomatic engagements to, as we have done, urge that the pursuit of such a technology be abandoned.QUESTION: Can you say those other countries – did they express concern about the capability as well?MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to private diplomatic engagements.QUESTION: Matthew, sir?MR MILLER: Okay. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Sir, a senior Pakistani official admits to helping rig the vote. He claimed that he changed the election results with a margin of 70,000 votes in favor of Nawaz Sharif, and that those seats were actually won by Imran Khan’s party candidates. What are your views? You already talk about the allegations of rigging and fraud. What are your views on this?MR MILLER: So I saw that report. Any claims of interference or fraud should be fully and transparently investigated – excuse me – in accordance with Pakistan’s own laws and procedures. And that, of course, includes this claim as well.QUESTION: Sir, a number of Pakistani politicians and media analysts in Pakistan have termed these elections most controversial, and asking political leadership to respect Imran Khan’s party’s mandate as the largest group. Would you also like to see the political leadership in Pakistan to respect the PTI’s candidate – mandate?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to get – I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off.QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: What was the last piece?QUESTION: I’m – are you also, like, asking the political leadership in Pakistan to respect the PTI’s mandate?MR MILLER: Again, I don’t want to get into an internal Pakistani matter, which I very much believe that the formation of a new government is. But – so that’s a matter that I will leave to Pakistan. But as I said, when it comes to the – any claims of interference or allegations of irregularities, we want to see those fully investigated.QUESTION: Can I just follow up?QUESTION: Different topic?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: There was &#8212;QUESTION: Can I – do you mind if I just follow up very briefly on something?QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just on &#8212;MR MILLER: You guys are so nice to each other. Like, all the – (laughter) – you’re just tolerating all these interruptions today.QUESTION: Always cordial.MR MILLER: Huh?QUESTION: Always trying to be. Can I just follow up on Pakistan, though? In relation to the &#8212;MR MILLER: He’s going to be mad if I don’t come back to him now. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I’ll get two.MR MILLER: There you go.QUESTION: X, formerly known as Twitter, has been disrupted in Pakistan in recent days. There have been a number of calls from the Hill in particular for the State Department to raise this. Has it been raised? Do you have a stance on this?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates on whether it’s something that’s been raised, but we always want to see full internet freedom around the world, and that includes the availability of platforms that people use to communicate with each other.QUESTION: And specifically in Pakistan, is it of concern in light of these allegations about the election?MR MILLER: So I’ll just say as a general matter that we want that to – we want internet platforms to – I don’t know why I keep saying “internat” today, I don’t know where that came from – internet platforms to be available to people in Pakistan and around the world. And I don’t have anything further than that.Nick, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports over the weekend that the State Inspector General opened an investigation into Rob Malley and is being put on leave. Do you have anything you can add to that?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak on behalf of the inspector general. As you know, they operate independently and they should be the ones to decide whether to confirm any investigation or not confirm an investigation. I will say that when it comes to inspector general investigations, we always comply with those fully and will continue to do so.QUESTION: And then separately, there’s been some criticism of a cable that the Secretary sent a few weeks ago on gender identity to staff, urging staff to use gender-neutral language whenever possible, and avoid terms like “manpower” and “ladies and gentlemen.” Why do you think a memo like that was needed?MR MILLER: So I will say first of all, when it comes to these types of cables, they all come out with the Secretary’s signature on it – that tends to be standard department practice, has been for years. It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a memo from the Secretary himself. I would say if you look at that memo, as I have done, it’s a standard government practice to try to encourage just – people just to be respectful of others and use the terms that – with which others are comfortable, and talk to people the way that they would like to be addressed, and nothing more than that.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Actually, let me go back. Alex, I need – it’s too late to come back to you.QUESTION: Please come back to me, yeah.MR MILLER: You’re right in front, so sometimes I come back, but there are people in the back that need to &#8212;QUESTION: So you’re saying that it is not an order?MR MILLER: It is a – I would like to look at the memo again before – but my understanding is it was a best-practices piece.QUESTION: Okay. Well, you remember there was a little bit of a kerfuffle some time ago – maybe before you were here – when the email system &#8212;MR MILLER: When people’s pronouns were changed for them &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: &#8212; by mistake. I do remember that.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: No, yeah. No, this was just encouraging people to be respectful and treat people with – treat people with respect, and address them with the terms that they feel comfortable with.QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean, does the Secretary or anyone else in the building have an issue with the phrase “ladies and gentlemen?”MR MILLER: I do not have &#8212;QUESTION: Not you personally.MR MILLER: I do – hold on – I do not have any problem with the term “ladies and gentlemen,” and I feel fully confident saying the Secretary does not either.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Bangladesh regime people involvement in corruption is an open secret, according to a Bloomberg detailed report yesterday. Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, one of the cabinet ministers, is alleged to have built an empire in the UK and U.S. valued at 200 million pounds sterling, equivalent to 1 percent of the country’s foreign reserve. This is just one case among many. How is the U.S. addressing this matter to hold the government accountable and combat corruption globally?MR MILLER: We are aware of these reports and encourage the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that all elected officials comply with the country’s laws and financial regulations.QUESTION: Matt, can I follow up (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Go, go, go, go, go. No, no. Note that the best way to not get called on is to shout out a question while I’m calling on other people. Go ahead. I will come across to this side of the room in a minute.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. In light of world pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian state dividing their land with Hamas and Palestinian Authority terrorist organizations, and for Israel not to enter Rafah in Gaza to destroy Hamas there, what is the State Department’s response to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet, as well as the entire Jewish population, who are defending their right to live free from terrorism? And a follow-up.MR MILLER: We, of course, agree with Israel’s right to live free from terrorism. If you’ve looked at the repeated comments that Secretary Blinken has made – not just here in the United States, but in Israel itself on his five trips to the region – he has made clear that he supports Israel’s right to ensure that October 7th can never happen again. And more importantly, he is trying to achieve a resolution of this conflict that will ensure Israel has long-term peace and long-term security, including security, of course, from terrorism.QUESTION: Are you going to be wanting to prevent Israel from entering Rafah to take out Hamas there?MR MILLER: What we have said is we do not support an – a full-scale military campaign in Rafah that does not account for the more than 1 million Palestinians who are currently there – people who have nothing to do with Hamas, innocent civilians; men, women, children, the elderly, who in many cases have fled to Rafah from their homes; in some cases, have fled more than once – have fled two or three times to escape the war, the conflict that is raging in Gaza.So we fully support Israel’s right to take a military campaign to Hamas and ensure that the attacks of October 7th cannot be repeated, as I said, but we also want to see civilians properly accounted for, and right now we don’t believe that there is a way to conduct a military campaign in Rafah without moving some of those civilians and properly accounting for their humanitarian needs.QUESTION: What are the reasons of the State Department for not demanding Hamas immediately release all remaining hostages unconditionally?MR MILLER: I think you’ve missed dozens and dozens of statements from the State Department going back to October 7th – well, it’s actually October 8th by the time that we were aware that hostages should be released, and was the first time the Secretary called for the immediate release of hostages. And he has continued to make that clear; as have I, as has the President. We have demanded time and time again that hostages be released immediately and unconditionally.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I just wanted to circle back to the verbiage used in the draft – UN draft today. I mean, how important is it that you used the word ceasefire as opposed to an extended pause, which is what you’d been using prior?MR MILLER: I will let other people make those sorts of assessments. From a policy perspective, we want to achieve a temporary stop in fighting. You can call that a ceasefire. You can call that a pause. Ultimately, we want to see the fighting stop so hostages can get out, hostages can be released, and humanitarian assistance can get in.But I should make clear the only kind of temporary ceasefire that is going to achieve a release of hostages is one that’s negotiated. Just calling for a temporary ceasefire is not going to – that Hamas has not agreed to is not going to do anything to get the hostages out, which is why we continue to pursue diplomacy with Israel and with the governments of Egypt and Qatar to try to achieve a temporary ceasefire that would secure the release of hostages. We think that is by far the most productive way forward. It is what achieved a release of more than a hundred hostages last year and what we think should be the productive path for moving forward now.QUESTION: A question about Afghanistan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: As you know, the Taliban refused to attend a UN-sponsored conference in Doha that’s concluded yesterday. They didn’t send any delegation, and also they rejected the appointment of a special envoy by UN in Afghanistan. Does the United States still hope to engage with Taliban by considering all of that?MR MILLER: Let me just tell – speak to what we were trying to engage – or what we were trying to achieve by attending this conference. And it’s not surprising that the Taliban, of course, has different objectives. We were trying to achieve a number of things: One, to make clear that Afghanistan should not be a hotbed for terrorist activities that impact other countries; two, a vision for Afghanistan with inclusive institutions in which its diverse groups all feel represented in a state that is truly inclusive; and number three, a concern about the respect of human rights, and in particular the rights of women and girls.So that’s what we’re going to continue to pursue. I shouldn’t – I can’t say I’m incredibly surprised that the Taliban declined the invitation to participate in a meeting with a broad representation from the international community. But I will say, as you’ve heard us say before, that the Taliban are not the only Afghans who have a stake in the future of Afghanistan. We will continue to support giving all Afghans, including, of course, women and girls, a voice in shaping their country’s future.QUESTION: And the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian envoy into the peace meeting, they refused to meet with the Afghan civil society because they were not greeted by the Taliban regime. Do you support this idea, and what’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I won’t – I won’t speak to the actions of another country, but I will make clear we always find engagement with civil society to be productive. We try to take actions through our diplomacy to empower civil society, and we would certainly encourage every country in the world to pursue that path.Let me &#8212;QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Let me go back to – I promised you I’d come to you a minute ago. Go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah. Well, now I call on you &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, thank you.MR MILLER: &#8212; you don’t want a question, after like jumping in for other people – during other people’s questions? (Laughter.)QUESTION: No, I do. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. I’ll be very respectful. I – before I ask you a question, I have to let you know that Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu was speaking at the Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., last week. He said that the situation in Burma was not getting better, and what worried him was that the refugee crisis and security problem it was creating for Bangladesh and potentially for India could get deeper in coming days. Quote, “It is something we have to watch out for and enable our partners in the region – in this case Bangladesh and India – to cope with those stresses without it boiling over the instability in their countries as well,” over – I mean cross-border instability. What is your opinion on that? Thank you.MR MILLER: I think it was a well-crafted, well-delivered speech, and I don’t have anything to add to it. (Laughter.)Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Wow, going out on a limb there. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Thank you, Matt.Go ahead.QUESTION: Who?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, thanks. I have two questions. The Houthis have escalated their attacks on ships in the Red Sea during the weekend. One of the attacks targeted or damaged a ship and forced its crew to abandon it. How do you view this escalation and what or how the U.S. will react?MR MILLER: So obviously we continue to condemn the reported reckless and indiscriminate attacks on civilian cargo ships by the Houthis, not just those that were reported to have occurred over the weekend but all those that have been occurring for the past number of weeks. But I just want to mention something specific about one of these attacks this weekend – the attack on the Sea Champion. That ship was bringing corn and other food supplies to the Yemeni people in Aden. These were supplies for the Yemeni people, have nothing to do with Israel, have nothing to do with the conflict in Gaza. That of course is what the Houthis have claimed their attacks on civilian ships are trying to impact.This was a reckless attack on a ship delivering humanitarian assistance to the Yemeni people, and I think it was another sign that the Houthis continue to demonstrate disregard not just for international shipping, not just for supplies that are going to benefit civilians all around the world – in many cases far from the region, but ultimately for their own people. It was a dangerous attack, and the fact that they’re launching these just kind of wanton, indiscriminate attacks – even when they hurt their own people and hurt the provision of supplies to their own people – shows just how reckless their actions have been.QUESTION: And on Lebanon, how do you view the escalation of military operations between Israel and Hizballah? Will the U.S. participate in two conferences that will be held in France and Rome to help increase the Lebanese army capabilities to implement the UN Security Council Resolution 1701?MR MILLER: So we continue to be concerned about the risk of escalation and continue to be concerned about the risk of the conflict widening, and we continue to work to achieve a diplomatic path forward that resolves the legitimate concerns of the Government of Israel and the legitimate concerns of Israeli people who don’t want to move back to the north because they feel that their houses continue to be threatened, their communities continue to be threatened by attacks from Hizballah. So we’re continuing to pursue that diplomatic resolution.As it pertains to these two conferences – or I think maybe in one of the cases, potential conferences – I don’t have anything to add about possible U.S. participation.Let me go back here.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. I have two questions, one about the irregularities in Pakistan election. From the last Monday briefing you have mentioned that United States raised privately and publicly the irregularities matter with Pakistani officials, but ministry of foreign affairs in Islamabad just in last briefing said they are not aware of any bilateral messaging that has taken place post-elections. Meanwhile, what we observed are U.S. ambassador in Pakistan, just after two days after election, held a meeting with former foreign minister of Pakistan. So do United States directed speaking in Pakistan to have engagements with the officials or the politicians?Secondly, I want to ask regarding the efforts for United States for the Israel-Saudi normalization.MR MILLER: Let me – let me – before we get in – let me ask – let me answer the question you asked, which is I’m not going to talk to private diplomatic engagements, but we have made clear that we want to see any claims of – any – any irregularities or claimed irregularities fully investigated.Go ahead with the second one.QUESTION: So the October 7th is considered as big damage for diplomatic efforts by U.S. in Saudi-Israeli normalization process, so MBS – the crown prince – reminded two-state solution and he also looking for a timeline from U.S. So Netanyahu’s not, like, bothering this two-state solution, this condition, so what is the time frame after the post-Gaza war, what really the damage repair by the U.S. to repair this, as number of Arab nations have reservations on this. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to any timetable, but I will say – as, again, you have heard the Secretary say – we continue to work on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which we believe doesn’t just benefit the Palestinian people but would benefit the Israeli people and would benefit the entire region. That is something we have heard from a number of Arab partners in the region, including, of course, the Government of Saudi Arabia. And one of the things that the Secretary discussed directly with the crown prince and heard directly from the crown prince was that the – Saudi Arabia was not prepared to pursue normalization or was not prepared to agree to normalization, I should say, without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I just raise the extradition hearing of Julian Assange, which has taken place at the high court in London today, and his lawyers have repeated an allegation saying that there is evidence of – that a plan was discussed to either kill or kidnap Assange while he was in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Mark Summers KC, Assange’s lawyer, is saying senior CIA officials requested plans; the president himself – that’s President Trump – requested on being provided with options on how to do it and sketches were drawn up. Is there any comment?MR MILLER: No, I – I’m not going to comment on an ongoing extradition matter.QUESTION: Can I just ask a follow-up to that, please?QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead, Matt. Go ahead.QUESTION: Well – and I mean, I want to go back to what you were talking about a bit earlier, and that is just – the question is whether the administration regards Julian Assange as a journalist.MR MILLER: So with respect to that question, I think I should decline to comment in detail because, as I said, it is an ongoing extradition matter and it’s an ongoing legal matter. This is a case which is under indictment. But I will just say generally that I have never heard a journalist say that, as a legitimate journalistic practice, to help a source hack into a government computer to steal information. It’s not a legitimate journalistic activity to hack into anything to steal government information, so I think I will leave it at that.QUESTION: Well, okay. Well, that suggests, then, that you don’t. I’m – and I want to specifically avoid getting into what the Justice Department has to say about this case. I want to talk about what the State Department believes about his status, Assange’s status, because you guys are self-proclaimed champions of independent, free press. You are all the time saying journalism is not a crime and this kind of thing. So if you believe that what Julian Assange has been doing or was – or did is journalism, I don’t see how you can – I don’t see how that squares with &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: And if you don’t, are you saying, from your comment just now, that you don’t regard him as a journalist, because he accepted or allowed or helped someone hack into computers? Is that – is &#8212;MR MILLER: So again, I’m at a limit to what I can say about an ongoing legal matter that is under indictment. I remember from my days as the Department of Justice spokesperson that it was &#8212;QUESTION: Yes, exactly, which I think has probably colored your personal – your personal reaction to it.MR MILLER: Let me just – let me – no, let me just finish this answer, that it’s not appropriate for government officials to speak at length about matters that remain under indictment. We support an independent, free press in the United States; we support an independent, free press around the world. We feel that an independent, free press not just benefits the people of the United States, it benefits those of us in government by making us work harder, by making us be ready to explain what we’re doing, by making us think through the decisions that we are making and making sure that they fully represent the best interests of the American people. And we think that same process holds true everywhere in the world, and that’s why you see dictators and autocrats and others crack down on independent, free press.At the same time, helping someone hack into – which is a crime; hacking is a crime, right – helping someone hack into a government network or a private network, for that regard, is not something I think any journalist considers to be a legitimate journalism activity.QUESTION: Okay. Do you not think then that what was published as a result of hacks into the government database, especially as it relates to State Department cables, which are – many, many thousands of them, and that were then published by an independent, free press – you don’t see a problem here with the &#8212;MR MILLER: I think &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; prosecution or attempted prosecution, the indictment, and your stated view that you think that this kind of activity should be protected?MR MILLER: Again, if you look at the conduct that is alleged in the indictment, when it comes to helping someone hack into a government network, that is a very different type of activity.QUESTION: So – but publishing it is not &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the ongoing details of what is a – probably gone too far already in discussing this case – the ongoing detail – the details of what is very much a live, ongoing litigation matter.QUESTION: Well, do you not think the publication of these documents, when they came out, back – the original ones, the ones that Chelsea Manning provided to WikiLeaks, and when they were published by The New York Times and El País and all the – and others, do you not think that that helped informed public discussion? Do you not think that those – that that was useful?MR MILLER: So I – let me say this, because I’m not going to speak to that specific case, for the reasons I just articulated. But I will say that two things can often be true when it comes to the publication of classified government documents. It is true that at times the publication of a classified government document, well, will inform the public, and sometimes it will uncover wrongdoing. It’s also true that sometimes the publication of classified government documents serves no underlying purpose and can jeopardize sources and methods that the government uses to keep the American public safe. So it is a very difficult situation. It is a – I think one of the trickiest questions the government faces in navigating this area. But I can tell you that we try to do it as responsibly as we can.All right. Over here. And then &#8212;QUESTION: Good to see you, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And thank you so much for taking. I have two questions, if you will allow. First, I’d like to talk about the anniversary of the war in Ukraine that is coming up. And as you rightly know at the very start of the war African countries – there was sort of an outright split, right, some ambivalence in the support to Ukraine. So I’m seeking your assessment on U.S. efforts – I’m not saying that you – we’ve had this conversation and narrative about is or is the U.S. not trying to ask African countries to pick a side. That’s not what my question is. My question is to ask, while we recognize that garnering international support for Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity is important, what over the two years has been your efforts, the U.S., in garnering international support in terms of African countries?And then my second question is on Guinea.MR MILLER: Let me take that one first. So I will say that we have engaged in countries all over the world – not just in Africa, but of course across the world – to urge them to support Ukraine and support its efforts to defend itself from Russian aggression. We think when you see any country’s sovereign borders violated, see its – control of its territory violated, that it threatens all countries around the world. Because it is ultimately the UN Charter that upholds the territorial integrity and sovereignty of every country in the world.And I will just say we – not just because of our efforts, although they have helped, but because I think we’ve seen countries in the world outraged by Russia’s activities – we have seen a number of UN resolutions, including ones that were joined by dozens of African countries, in support of holding those – of upholding those principles of the UN Charter, of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and ultimately finding a comprehensive, just, and durable peace that recognizes those principles.QUESTION: Sure. And then on Guinea, if I may – and this will be my last question to you, Matt – since yesterday, as you may already know, there is no leadership in Guinea. I think there is currently maybe some low-level leadership. They dissolved the government. And so while I appreciate that you will not comment on the internal affairs of another country, I am asking you to see if you can comment on your own efforts and how you might be engaging any stakeholders in Guinea or in that part of the world, for that matter, or any regional organization besides ECOWAS, which may seem more weakened. Are there any other countries that you may be engaging – Angola, South Africa, Kenya – in your efforts in this regard?MR MILLER: Sure. So we are closely monitoring developments in Guinea. We encourage the transition authorities to work with ECOWAS. It’s something we’ve discussed with a number of ECOWAS states and – to continue positive momentum by holding a constitutional referendum and elections in order to complete democratic governance. We remain concerned about media restrictions placed on the Guinean people and calls on the – and call on the transition authorities to ensure that freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression are fully respected, including from members of the press. And we are engaging with a number of countries in the region around those goals.QUESTION: Can I just do one more on Africa?MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah, one more and then – Humeyra, did you have one?QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: We’ll do that.QUESTION: But just one more on Africa. Rwanda-DRC – you issued a statement on Saturday, I believe it was, on the – so the DRC is alleging Rwandan involvement in the drone attack in – on the airport. Besides the statement, has there been any response from Rwanda? Are you confident that there’s some progress in there? How do you see things going &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on the situation since we released that statement over the weekend.QUESTION: But is it – do you find the DRC allegations credible for Rwandan involvement in this?MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to add beyond what we said over the weekend.Humeyra, and then we’ll finish up.QUESTION: Matt, there were some incidents off the coast of Taiwan in the past couple of days. China’s coast guard boarded a Taiwanese tourist boat, and on Tuesday Taiwan drove away a Chinese coast guard boat that entered its waters. Are you guys worried about like any escalating tensions? Have you seen that?MR MILLER: Yeah, we are closely monitoring Beijing’s actions. We continue to urge restraint and no unilateral change to the status quo, which has preserved peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and throughout the region for decades. We urge the PRC to engage in meaningful dialogue with Taiwan to reduce the risk of miscalculation. And we share with other countries, not just in the region but around the world, an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and in the broader Indo-Pacific region, which impact global security and prosperity.And with that, we’ll wrap for today.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:32 p.m.)# # #access ↑access ↑						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Bangladesh																								Brazil																								China																								Cuba																								Guinea																								Israel																								Lebanon																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Ukraine																								Yemen
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Séjourné Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met with French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Stéphane Séjourné on the margins of the Munich Security Conference to discuss shared global interests. The Secretary and Foreign Minister Séjourné discussed the importance of preventing the conflict in Gaza from spreading, including avoiding escalation in Lebanon, and the need to deter illegal attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea by the Iranian-backed Houthis. They also discussed steadfast support for Ukraine as it continues to defend against Russia’s brutal aggression. In addition, Secretary Blinken and Minister Séjourné discussed the upcoming NATO Summit in Washington and our crucial relationship as NATO Allies.
- Department Press Briefing – February 14, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – February 14, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – February 14, 2024																																																					February 14, 2024																																																								MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Happy Valentine’s Day, especially Happy Valentine’s Day to those of you celebrating with us on a flight somewhere over the Atlantic tonight instead of with your significant others. I wish you peace and tranquility at home. With that, no Matt – Shaun, you want to go first?QUESTION: Sure. Happy Valentine’s Day to you.MR MILLER: Thank you. Thank you.QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about – to start off – the talks in Cairo that took place recently, that are (inaudible) in some form. I know there’s a limit to probably what you’re going to say about it, but do you have any assessment right now about how things stand? Is the U.S. still hopeful that there could be a deal for hostages and a pause in fighting?MR MILLER: As has always been the case, I don’t want to kind of give a day-by-day, step-by-step update or assessment on the talks, or the status of them, or where they might stand; but we continue to believe that it is possible to achieve a deal. We continue to believe it’s in the national security interest of the United States to achieve deal. And we believe it’s in the interest of both Israel and, of course, the Palestinian people. So we will continue to work to try an achieve an agreement that would not just secure the release of hostages, but, of course, enable – allow a pause that would enable the delivery of humanitarian assistance that would alleviate the suffering on the ground in Gaza.QUESTION: Sure. Not to jump around too much, but the – I was wondering if you could comment on today’s developments in Lebanon. There’s some strikes there from the Israeli side in particular. How dangerous is the situation in Lebanon? Do you have any reaction in particular to the use of force?MR MILLER: We continue to be concerned about escalation in Lebanon. As you know, it has been one of our primary objectives from the outset of this conflict to see that it not be widened, to see that it not be escalated in any way. That continues to be a primary national security objective of ours that we will continue to pursue. And we continue to believe that there is a diplomatic path forward, and we will continue to push forward to try to resolve this issue diplomatically so both Israelis and Lebanese can return to their homes.QUESTION: Is there active diplomacy in Lebanon right now?MR MILLER: There is active diplomacy. There has been active diplomacy on this question for some time. I, of course, am never going to get into the underlying details of those diplomatic conversations, but we continue to pursue diplomatic resolution of this situation.QUESTION: And just one more before I yield to somebody else. The – I’m sure you saw, and I believe the National Security Advisor was asked about it, but I wanted to ask you – the report from The Wall Street Journal on white phosphorus use in Lebanon. Is there anything you can say whether the State Department is actually looking into that?MR MILLER: So as I said yesterday, we do continue – we are reviewing reports of human rights violations and civilian harm incidents through the CHIRG process that we set up last August. I’m not going to comment on the specifics of any one incident. We take these on a case-by-case measure and assess them to see whether, number one, civilian harm actually occurred; and, two, to identify any appropriate policy responses if it has occurred, to mitigate such – to reduce the risks of such incidents happening in the future. But we are going to make it as a kind of blanket policy not to confirm specific incidents that may be under review.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to ask you a couple questions on Gaza, but first I wanted to ask you about what the Israelis did today – demolished a house for Fakhri Abu Diab – he’s an activist against demolition – to basically make room for a biblical theme park. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: We condemn the demolition of Fakhri Abu Diab’s home. He is a community leader in East Jerusalem. We believe that demolition not only obviously damages his home, and his family, and the lives that they have built there, but the entire community who live in fear that their homes may be next. This has been their family home for generations. Part of the structure dates back to before 1967. He has been an outspoken community leader, including against demolitions, and now his family has been displaced.But I want to – I would also like to reiterate that the impact of these demolitions – this is obviously not the first – goes beyond just the impact on this individual family. These acts obstruct efforts to advance a durable and lasting peace and security that would benefit not just Palestinians, but Israelis; they damage Israel’s standing in the world; and they make it ultimately more difficult for us to accomplish all of the things we are trying to accomplish that would ultimately be in the interest of the Israeli people. And so we condemn them and we’ll urge them – continue to urge that they not continue.QUESTION: Well, Silwan is really adjacent to my neighborhood so I know – I know the area. I know how many people have lost their homes, how many homes have been demolished, but the Israelis seem to have a methodical plan forward, going forward. I know that you condemn, but do you condemn saying “or else,” for instance?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: “You must stop this”? And you – they should not demolish anybody’s homes, not even for – as a form of collective punishment if someone has done something from the household.MR MILLER: So we condemn them, and let me tell you what we are offering as an alternative.So the Secretary has made clear that after conversations with others in the region that there is a path forward – an alternative path to the one that Israel has pursued to date – to provide lasting peace and security for Israel, and it would include the establishment of two states. And we will continue to pursue that path. And we have made clear and other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, have made clear that there are enormous benefits on offer for the Israeli people should they pursue that path, including in further integration with the region, including security guarantees.And so when it comes to all of these types of issues, what we will continue to lay out is the vision that we think is a better path – as I said, not just for the Palestinian people, but ultimately that provides greater security benefits for the Israeli people as well.QUESTION: Now, on the looming or the expected attack on Rafah, I know that the President, the Secretary of State, you from this podium many times, however, warned against such a storming of Rafah. But on the other hand, I mean, one reads reports and so on that okay, by not doing anything, or by not saying that there will be consequences if you do this, you’re basically green-lighting – essentially giving a green light to the Israelis to go ahead. I mean, we just – we don’t like it, but we’re not going to do anything about it.MR MILLER: I think that would be a significant misinterpretation of what we have said. We have made quite clear both publicly and privately that we cannot support any military operation in Rafah until such time as Israel has developed a humanitarian plan that can be executed, and that they have executed such a plan.So I know people like to jump ahead far into the process and talk about what-ifs, but we’re not at the what-if stage right now; we are at the making very clear to Israel what we expect stage, and we have seen the Government of Israel ask the military for such a plan. We haven’t seen that plan yet; we don’t know what it’ll contain; we don’t know if it will be executable, as we have said. So we will wait before offering any prejudgments about what will, or may, or might, or might not happen. We’re going to wait to see what that plan looks like and then engage directly with the Government of Israel about it.QUESTION: So you’re saying, yeah, you can do this, with the caveat that you have to make sure that the population, the civilian population, is not harmed or somehow moved from place to place. Now, remember, these people have already been moved there. They have been instructed by the Israelis to go to Rafah (inaudible).MR MILLER: You don’t have to tell me “remember;” I’ve said that myself from this podium.QUESTION: I remember. But this is the thing. I mean, it’s déjà vu all over again.MR MILLER: Which is why we have made clear that there has to be a plan &#8212;QUESTION: To quote Yogi Bera, “déjà vu all over again.”MR MILLER: Look, there are – there are Hamas – there are – as I’ve said yesterday, there are two things that are true in this situation, right. One, that there are Hamas battalions that operate in Rafah, that exist in Rafah, that continue to pose a threat to the national security of Israel, Hamas battalions, part of an organization that attacked Israel and has made clear they want to continue to attack Israel. At the same time – so I’d say as a first matter of course, Israel has the right to take military action against those Hamas battalions that pose a threat to it. At the same time, they have an obligation to make sure that they only do so in a way that puts civilian protection first. And that is what we have made clear to them, and so we will see the plan that they will develop, and I will wait and pass judgment until we see that.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Alex.QUESTION: (Inaudible) topics. I want to start with NATO, given the recent debate in this town. NATO today disclosed that its defense spending hit a high record – record high, 18 members &#8212;MR MILLER: Eighteen.QUESTION: &#8212; about to hit the 2 percent.MR MILLER: Up from 11 I believe, right?QUESTION: That was a target, not the goal – or they don’t owe anyone any money. But can you speak to this, the import of this development?MR MILLER: We think it’s incredibly important. So look, we have made clear that there are targets that NATO countries have agreed to, that they would spend 2 percent of their budgets on national security. We have made clear that we expect countries to meet that target. There is often this misnomer that countries pay money to the U.S. and they’re in arrears; that, of course, is not factually the case. It’s not factually how it works. But there are defense spending targets that they are supposed to meet. As the secretary general announced today, a record number of those countries are now meeting those targets – 18, almost two thirds of the Alliance. And we continue to see progress from other countries towards meeting those targets, and we will urge those who have not yet met them to continue to take steps to do so.But again, as I’ve said – as I said earlier this week, NATO is an Alliance that the American people derive tremendous benefit from, provides tremendous security to the United States. And that’s why we have seen durable, long-lasting, widespread support – not just in Congress, not just from leaders in Congress, but also from the American people, and we expect that to continue.QUESTION: Thank you. A couple questions on the sanctions. The U.S. took part today in Brussels at EU Sanctions Coordinators Forum. This is the first time, if I – as far as I follow. There are reports that EU, on its end, is considering secondary sanctions against Central Asia, Türkiye, and other countries, or companies based in those countries, in its next batch. I know you don’t telegraph your sanctions, but can you at least assure us that &#8212;MR MILLER: But would I do it in this case?QUESTION: At least assure us that you &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s okay.QUESTION: &#8212; will not – you will follow unless you – once they put it out, or is it part of the conversation?MR MILLER: Assure you that – assure you that what?QUESTION: That the U.S. will not lag behind when Europeans move forward with this?MR MILLER: I don’t think – if you look at the United States actions in this guard – in this regard, we have been a leader, we have been at the forefront at holding Russia accountable for its actions, and we will continue to be – to be a leader in this regard. But of course, as you I think knew by the way you framed your question, I am not going to preview any sanctions action that we may or may not take.QUESTION: And on that line, Putin today signed a confiscation law, which experts believe that further complicates – endangers, if you want – foreign investment, including Americans. And this is something we discussed in this room before, that State Department recently updated its Business Advisory for Burma. Why not impose a same advisory on Russia?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any update on where that stands.QUESTION: And one – my final question, if you don’t mind &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on Nagorno-Karabakh. Jake Sullivan today from White House podium announced that the conflict in itself – also support for the victims of the conflict – he said it’s part of the next package. Is the State Department looking for additional resources? I mean, in what form you are trying to get involved?MR MILLER: Additional resources in what – in what regard?QUESTION: In next package, he mentioned that the Congress should support supplemental, because it also covers, among other conflicts, he mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh. So what additional resources you are seeking right now?MR MILLER: So there are additional resources that were in the supplemental request for humanitarian assistance. I didn’t see all of the National Security Advisor’s remarks. I believe that’s what he was referring to, or I suspect – I should say – that’s what he was referring to. But there was humanitarian assistance contained in the supplemental request that we put forward and in the bill that was passed the Senate that would – could be used by the United States for humanitarian response to conflicts all around the world.QUESTION: Any update for me about additional efforts that U.S. wants to bring together the sides and to discuss the conflict? Anything about the next couple of days, weeks?MR MILLER: I do not have any schedule announcements for you. I know what you’re getting at, but I’m not going to bite, Alex.QUESTION: I want to go back to the Lebanese-Israeli border if you don’t mind.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. It’s clear now that Hizballah – Hizballah announced a few days ago, a couple of days ago, that his war activities or military activities or engagement in this conflict is linked to the war and military activities in Gaza. If there is a humanitarian pause, he will pause; if there is end of the war, he will end his activities. Is it the same diplomatic approach you are applying to this conflict of the northern border, or you are trying to push Lebanon to distance itself from the conflict, regardless of what happened in Gaza?MR MILLER: We have had specific diplomatic engagements related to the situation at Israel’s northern border and to resolving that situation diplomatically beyond the efforts to secure a humanitarian pause. Now, that said, of course it is our assessment that achieving a humanitarian pause and an agreement to secure the release of hostages would help with the risk of escalation and help – might help lessen the risk of escalation. That’s one of the many reasons why we continue to pursue such an arrangement.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You touched on this yesterday, but with the Secretary heading to Munich, European security and the war in Ukraine a focus, does he find himself in a difficult negotiating position with aid, foreign aid, stalled in the House? And how does he plan to address this, and how confident are you that the aid will make its way through?MR MILLER: So it’s not really a question of a negotiating position. I will say that, when it comes to our European partners, they have stepped up and made contributions to Ukraine I don’t believe because the United States has made contributions to Ukraine’s defense but because they see it in their own independent national security interest, and they have made their own assessments that it is the right thing to do, both on the merits, and that it is in their – in the interest of their particular countries. So it’s not a question of the United States needing to negotiate with these countries, though we, of course, always are encouraging countries to do more if they can do more.But that said, we very much do want to see Congress act as quickly as possible to pass the supplemental. As you heard the President say yesterday, it’s not just in the interest of Ukraine, but, as I said, it’s in the interest of European countries. It’s in the interest of the United States, we believe, to do so. A lot of that money is spent here, helps develop the manufacturing base here in the United States.And so we will continue to push for the passage of the supplemental bill, and ultimately we think – as the President said, the world is watching. And certainly I’m sure that when we are in Munich we will hear directly from foreign leaders that they are watching very much what Congress does. We know the Ukrainian people are watching. And as the President said, history is watching as well.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yes. It’s on Pakistan elections, thank you. How is U.S. State Department tackling the pressure from some of the U.S. lawmakers who are asking the State Department not to accept the results of Pakistan election until and unless thoroughly allegations of rigging are investigated?MR MILLER: So we have called for those allegations to be investigated. We think that’s appropriate step to take. That’s – that is our response to questions of irregularities not just in Pakistan, but when we see them anywhere in the world. We think that they’re thoroughly investigated and resolved. And so that – we will continue to call for that. But at the same time, it’s clear that the elections in Pakistan were competitive, and we look forward to working with the government, once it’s formed, that the people of Pakistan elected.QUESTION: Can I just follow up?MR MILLER: Yeah, Shaun. Go ahead. And then I’ll come back.QUESTION: Sure, sure. Just on that – I mean, of course, as you’ve probably seen that there’s a coalition being formed in Pakistan that doesn’t include Imran Khan’s party – I know you’re probably loath to talk about the details of Pakistani politics, but – (laughter) &#8212;MR MILLER: You’ve noticed.QUESTION: Well, let me – but I want to &#8212;MR MILLER: To be fair, loath to talk about the internal details of politics in any country, but &#8212;QUESTION: Sure, sure, sure. But can I just ask you if the U.S. has an assessment on this, whether this is in keeping with democratic principles to have the largest winner being excluded from the emerging coalition?MR MILLER: Look, that is ultimately an internal matter. You see this in a number of countries that have parliamentary systems of government, where no country has – or – I’m sorry – where no party has established a majority you see the kind of coalitions that are formed. Ultimately that’s not a decision for the United States to make. It’s a decision for Pakistan to make.QUESTION: Follow-up, Matt.MR MILLER: I promised her I would come to her next, so &#8212;QUESTION: The Foreign Policy magazine &#8212;MR MILLER: In fact, I was calling on her before Shaun interrupted, so anyway. So – and now I interrupted you, so I apologize for that. Go ahead. (Laughter.)QUESTION: The Foreign Policy magazine published an investigative report last week which shows that a former drug trafficker, Mr. Bashir Noorzai, who was serving a lifetime prison here in United State, was later released to the Taliban in exchange for one U.S. citizen, now is started working closely with China in the mineral contract and doing money laundering for Taliban. What’s your reaction to Chinese for this kind of partnership with this former drug trafficker?MR MILLER: You know, I have not seen that report. Let me take it back and get you a comment on it.Now go ahead.QUESTION: Happy Valentine’s to you, Matt.MR MILLER: Thank you.QUESTION: My next couple of questions are in the backdrop of former U.S. ambassador Mr. Ryan Crocker, who I believe served in – with both the Republicans and Democrats, so very well-respected diplomat. Yesterday while speaking to Voice of America, he said that the Biden administration policy towards Afghanistan is not good and he said not much importance has been given to the country, plus the education part has been neglected by the government.In the backdrop of all this, I want to ask you: Now, when the PTI government is in a province which is right next to Afghanistan, is my assessment correct that in coming days we will – we are going to see Taliban further increasing as far as their strength is concerned, or no?MR MILLER: So I do not want to make any predictions based on – about what may happen in the future, nor get into a question involving an internal political party in Pakistan. But with respect to our policy in Afghanistan, I think you heard me speak to this yesterday. We have been very – have been quite clear about our policy in – as it regards to Pakistan, including through the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution just in December.QUESTION: And just &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks &#8212;MR MILLER: You want one follow-up? Go ahead.QUESTION: One follow-up, please. There are quite a few citizens – U.S. citizens – right now on social media who criticize the Pakistan serving military generals, army chiefs; they curse at them. I tried to get a reaction from Global Engagement Center. What do you, as a State Department official – is it fair that the social media influencers just curse around at serving military? Does not – does that not affect the government relationship with each other? I &#8212;MR MILLER: I think if I started trying to comment on the random postings of citizens on social media, I would be up here for the rest of the day and probably the rest of the week, so I’m going to pass.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner said that there’s information that’s been made to members of Congress regarding a serious national security threat. Is the State Department aware about this and – I’m – you’re probably going to say no, but is – what – do you know what is the threat?MR MILLER: So the National Security Advisor did just speak to this, and as he said, he has scheduled a meeting with Chairman Turner and other members of the House leadership, and it’s not appropriate to speak to the matter any further from – in a public setting, and so I will leave it at that for now.QUESTION: And following up on a question I asked yesterday regarding Ahlam Tamimi, who’s a terrorist wanted by the United States, did Secretary Blinken bring up that case in his meeting yesterday with King Abdullah?MR MILLER: I don’t have any further readouts, other than the note we issued publicly.QUESTION: And then finally, the House CCP Select Committee issued a report stating that some U.S. venture capital firms invested $3 billion into critical tech companies in China, some with ties to PLA and involved in genocide. What’s your reaction to that? And is the Biden – and has the Biden administration taken actions in the past to curb investments going into China, and does more need to be done?MR MILLER: So I have not seen that report, so I do not want to comment on the details of the report. But of course, there are U.S. statutes that prohibit the U.S. business – U.S. companies from doing business with companies that are engaged in genocide, and you – in addition to that, on a separate note, I will say that the U.S. has imposed a number of investment restrictions as it relates to China.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you. Matt, two natural gas pipelines blew up in Iran today, and the officials have called it a sabotage work. I was wondering if the Biden administration has any theory of its own on the cause of these explosions.MR MILLER: I’ve seen the reports, and I just don’t have any comment on them.QUESTION: When earlier one of the proxy groups of Iran attacked Tower 22 in Jordan, which led to the killing of three American servicemen, the Biden administration said that they were going to retaliate. Is it safe to assume that the retaliation will only be military or otherwise?MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to that. The – we have made clear that some of our responses would be seen and some would be unseen, and I think I’ll leave it at that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. The Russian Ambassador Antonov said last week that he held meetings with U.S. officials, including at the State Department, and that he discussed with them the crash of the cargo plane, the Russian plane with Ukrainian prisoners of war, in the Belgorod region. And he said that U.S. officials showed interest in considering Russian proposals on investigating the incident.MR MILLER: I’m – sorry, go ahead. Didn’t mean &#8212;QUESTION: Can you confirm that the U.S. is ready to investigate the incident?MR MILLER: I cannot. I’m not aware of those meetings or able to comment on them in any regard. We obviously have an embassy in Moscow that does, at time, engage with the Russian Government, but I don’t have any readout of those meetings.QUESTION: And one more question on the same issue. Vedant said last week that the U.S. doesn’t consider Russian claims about the incident as credible. At the same time, New York – The New York Times reported last week that some U.S. officials admit that it was Ukraine that shot down the plane using a Patriot missile system.MR MILLER: I don’t – I seldom want to comment on claims made anonymously in any outlet, but we continue to engage with the Ukrainian Government about this question. We’ve seen their public comments, and we engage with them privately about it as well.Go ahead.QUESTION: Excuse me. During the hostage negotiations, like, we see there is some obstacles. Like, from your perspectives, which party is, like, more flexible for making these deals happen, like Hamas or Israel? Because what we see in the media – yeah – that, like, Hamas submitted a full proposal, but, like, we see Netanyahu is kind of a stubborn guy somehow. How do you assess this?And, like, last question, related to the Rafah. We see many protest in, like, Kerem Shalom border, like Israeli people preventing many aids to get in Rafah from their side. What is the action that you can take to facilitate this? Like, are you going to put some sanction? Like, what (inaudible) effort that you do to convince the Israeli Government to, like, let this protest stop and let this humanitarian aid get in the Rafah?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first one, I think the only way I’ll answer that is that in the response that you saw come back from Hamas to the proposal that was put forward by the Government of Israel and other countries, you saw a number of issues that were obvious nonstarters. For example, the status of al-Aqsa is not going to be resolved in a negotiation over hostages, and I will leave it at that.With respect to the second question, I will say we have seen the Government of Israel take steps to keep Kerem Shalom open. They declared the area around Kerem Shalom a military zone. The IDF has made – has moved forces in to police that crossing to ensure that it can stay open so much-needed humanitarian assistance, including humanitarian assistance that was supplied by the United States, can continue to flow into Rafah. And we think that’s important to do it. It is extremely unfortunate that, at times, that crossing has been blocked. We have engaged with the Israeli Government and made clear that it is the position of the United States that it ought to be – that it ought to remain open and they ought to take whatever steps they can to make sure that it remains open. And we’re glad that they have taken those steps.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go. I’ll come to you next, Said.QUESTION: Thank you and good afternoon, sir.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a couple questions on Gaza. It’s been over two weeks since Israeli forces attacked Hind Rajab’s family, killing her aunt, uncle, and cousins, leaving her trapped alone in her vehicle. We heard her pleas to the Red Crescent Society. Two medics were sent, all to be blown up, allegedly by Israeli forces. I wanted to ask about the status of the inquiry into this just because it seems if the Israeli Government, which seemingly does have a pretty sophisticated operation, is prioritizing this – if they don’t already know which soldiers to interview, for instance, they have Red Crescent calls, timestamps, the location of the Red Crescent staff to question and rely on, planning material to figure out who exactly to inquire with and to figure out who to hold accountable.So I want to first ask about the status of this investigation.MR MILLER: Sure. So I think that question is appropriately directed to the Government of Israel. I will say, on behalf of the United States, we have made clear to them that we want that incident to be investigated. They have told us they are investigating it. It’s our understanding that investigation is not yet complete. You should direct questions to them about where it stands. But we want to see it completed as soon as possible, and as I said from this podium several days ago, if accountability is appropriate, we want to be – we want to see accountability put in place.QUESTION: And then a follow-up to that before the second one. Just similarly, with regards to Al Jazeera cameraman Samer Abudaqa being left to bleed out while Israeli forces reportedly stopped medics from reaching him, I know that previously you have said there’s investigations into that. Is there any updates on that investigation?MR MILLER: I don’t have – I don’t have any update on that. Again, we press the Government of Israel on these matters but – and at times I have – I’m able to comment on specific incidents from here where we’ve gotten answers. But ultimately, those are questions better directed to the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Thank you. Okay, and then the last question.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: As you’ve said repeatedly, the U.S. chose to be cautious as it suspended funding to UNRWA for allegations that 12 of its 30,000-person staff may have been involved in the atrocities on October 7th. And as you described yesterday, that’s kind of standard U.S. policy to have this type of caution with all sorts of entities. But as our colleagues have asked you over the please few months, there have been broad and specific human rights violations that we’ve been concerned about, human – attacks against hospitals and churches; targeting people with white flags, both Israeli hostages and Palestinians; torturing Palestinians; and now, of course, this attack on Hind Rajab’s family and then leaving her to die horribly.And so I’m wondering, on all this you’ve said we’re looking into it and Israel is investigating. But in each of these cases, the U.S. doesn’t seem to be as cautious with its money and support as it is with UNRWA. It’s to the point that the ICJ and the U.S. court both say Israel may be plausibly committing genocide. Still, U.S. money is coming while the U.S. shut off UNRWA funding immediately. So I’m just wondering if you could explain that sort of difference.MR MILLER: Let me say there is, I think, a false equivalency embedded in that question between members of a terrorist organization who went out and intentionally killed innocent civilians.QUESTION: Right, right.MR MILLER: This – no, that is the difference. When you have members of Hamas who participated in October 7th according to the allegations made by the Government of Israel, that I should say UNRWA itself found credible – those are allegations that UNRWA found credible of people intentionally participating in a terrorist action to murder civilians. That is different than a military campaign conducted in an environment where that terrorist organization hides behind human shields. And so we will continue to engage with the Government of Israel about how to minimize civilian casualties – there have been far too many over the course of this campaign – and how to prevent civilians from killed. But I think they are very different matters for the reasons I just articulated.Said.QUESTION: Just a follow-up to –MR MILLER: Let me – Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Because I’m going to have to – I’m going to have to wrap in a minute to go to a meeting, so &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Antony Blinken spoke yesterday about hostage diplomacy, and as an international security threat and so on. I want to ask you, the Israelis have arrested roughly 5,000 Palestinians from the West Bank – not in Gaza, from the West Bank. Almost none of them have been charged with anything since October. No charges. What do you call this? I mean, they come in the middle of the night. They take young men and women and so on. Many are children, as a matter of fact: 12, 13, 14 years old and so on. Isn’t this really something that a government, in this case, leveraging – leveraging the taking of people, incarcerating them out any charges, for maybe a future kind of a bargaining chip?MR MILLER: So I’ll say two things about that: number one, that we want to see due process for those individuals, as we want to see for anyone; and number two, we will continue to encourage Israel not to take any steps that can increase tensions in the West Bank.Let me go to Ksenija and then I’ll come back to you, and then I got to wrap because I do have a meeting. Sorry to – quick wrap today. Go ahead, Ksenija.QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt. So we say in this room that the word of the United States matter. But despite this, Prime Minister of Kosovo Albin Kurti has not been responding to the words, as you’re aware, of the United States to suspend his decisions, unilateral decisions. Immediately you had even James O’Brien going on record yesterday (inaudible) is happening. So besides words, what other tools do you intend to use next to compel Kurti to stop with his unilateral actions given that, in the end of the day, this is a question that concern the U.S. taxpayer?MR MILLER: So I will say that we will continue to engage in diplomacy to resolve and – to resolve this matter, and we want both sides to return to the EU-facilitated dialogue. And beyond that, I don’t want to preview any specific steps from here.Shaun.QUESTION: And can you just say about &#8212;MR MILLER: Shaun – I’m going to – only because I have to wrap and I said, Shaun, I’d go to &#8212;QUESTION: Albania is tomorrow.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: Albania is tomorrow. I just want to ask if Secretary Blinken in Albania is going to talk to Prime Minister Edi Rama &#8212;MR MILLER: The &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; about Kosovo issue in order &#8212;MR MILLER: So let me just say &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; to compel him to reason with Kurti.MR MILLER: &#8212; whatever the Secretary is going to say to the prime minister, I think I’ll wait and let him say it privately to them. He does have a press conference in Albania afterwards where he’ll talk about that meeting, so please tune in to that.Shaun, go ahead and then I do have &#8212;QUESTION: Can I just follow up on a statement that you had earlier on the elections in Indonesia?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I know it’s quite general, I know. In line with what you said about Pakistan – you’re not getting ahead of who is taking power – but Subianto has claimed victory in this. Of course, as you know, until recently he was barred from entering the United States on human rights ground – human rights grounds. I mean, that’s been resolved since. But do you think that there’s any lingering issue with – on human rights regarding a Subianto presidency?MR MILLER: So you’re right, we did say we would wait for the results to come in. It does appear that he’s received the most votes, but I don’t want to get ahead of the process that still needs to unfold, the official process in Indonesia. We are committed to the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Indonesia that we have had, and of course our 75 year diplomatic relationship with Indonesia, and we are prepared to work with whoever the Indonesian people choose as their democratically elected leader, whether it’s Subianto or – as it appears to be, President Subianto.QUESTION: Can I just very quickly &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other statement that you had on the call with the Algerian foreign minister. Do you know if there was discussion about the Security Council resolution that the Algerians are putting forward about a ceasefire? Did the Secretary say it’s not a good idea or some other message?MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into the private conversation other than what we already included in the readout.With that, sorry for the quick wrap but I do have to go, so wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 1:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Azerbaijan																								China																								Indonesia																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – February 8, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – February 8, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – February 8, 2024																																																					February 8, 2024																																																								MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for being a little tardy. I do not have anything off the top. So Simon, since you’re in that chair, I’m going to ask if you’d like to kick us off.QUESTION: That is quite intimidating.MR PATEL: What’s that?QUESTION: It’s quite intimidating to be in &#8212;MR PATEL: I don&#8217;t think so, no. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah, I want to – first of all, there’s some reporting about two American citizens in Gaza who appear to have been detained by the Israelis. Is there anything beyond just the fact you’re aware of reports? Have you’ve been in touch with the family? Can you tell us anything about their cases?MR PATEL: I don&#8217;t have any other updates, Simon, than what you said. As you know, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We are aware of these reports, and we are currently seeking additional information, but I don&#8217;t have any additional information to share and would not be able to at this point, given the privacy considerations.QUESTION: I just wondered – the Israeli Defense Forces did say today that they have been operating in Khan Younis and have apprehended dozens of suspected militants. If – have there been any cases where American citizens have been accused by the Israelis of being militants involved with Hamas in Gaza?MR PATEL: I’m not aware and I just wouldn’t want to speculate on such a hypothetical situation. As it relates to the questions that you asked, we are seeking out additional information. Broadly, as it relates to American citizens in Gaza, we continue to be communicative to them through online and through our consular channels for avenues and options for safe departure, specifically through the Rafah crossing, and we’ll continue to have those resources available.QUESTION: And I believe the same family involved in a lawsuit against the State Department about – regarding this very issue of whether you’ve done enough to help Palestinian Americans who want to evacuate from Gaza, is your understanding that there are still Americans in Gaza who would like to leave who haven’t been able to? And what has stopped you from being able to get them out?MR PATEL: So let me say a couple things. First, I am just not going to comment on any kind of litigation matter. But since October 7th, we have assisted nearly 1,600 individuals, including U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other eligible family members with entry into Egypt from Gaza at the – from the Rafah border crossing. We will continue to be in close touch and make ourself available to U.S. citizens seeking to depart. We believe that the vast majority of U.S. citizens so far who are seeking assistance have reached out. And our expectation continues to be that we expect the number of American citizens, LPRs, and eligible family members who are able to depart – we expect that number to continue to grow, as long as the crossing remains open.Again – you’ve heard me say this before – this is not a crossing that the United States of America has any control over. It’s not one of our ports of entry. But we’ll continue to work closely with the Egyptians, the Israelis, and others on the safe departure of foreign nationals.QUESTION: Can I follow up on this, please?MR PATEL: On the region broadly or on the consular question?QUESTION: On this, on this issue.MR PATEL: All right. Go ahead. Then I’ll come to you, Jenny.QUESTION: Thanks. There’s also a young Palestinian American woman in the West Bank that was arrested by the Israelis. How do you – what mechanism do you use to follow up on these things? Do you do it through the embassy, or you go directly to the – how do you do it? What is the mechanism?MR PATEL: Well, Said, there are appropriate channels that exist in the respective governments’ foreign ministries to talk about consular issues. I’m not going to get into the specifics of those, but those channels exist. And specifically on the issue that you’ve raised, we are also trying to continue to get more information as we can. We are aware that a U.S. citizen from the West Bank is detained in Israel, and we are in direct contact with the family and Israeli authorities and providing all appropriate consular assistance.QUESTION: So it is something that is done through the American security coordinator, a military general who’s in the West Bank? Is that how it’s done? I mean, for instance, there was a young man that was shot a couple weeks ago. We don’t know what happened. It seems like you go into some sort of a never neverland. What happened afterward?MR PATEL: Said, I &#8212;QUESTION: How are you following up with that particular case?MR PATEL: So on that &#8212;QUESTION: Which we raised here.MR PATEL: On that specific case, as you heard me say, the investigation into that matter was referred to the INP, and that process continues to be underway. And we hope and expect that that investigation to be conducted expeditiously, and we’re eager to hear and learn of the findings of that circumstance.Broadly though, Said – I’m not going to speak specifically about one country – when it has made – it has been made to our attention that an American citizen is detained, we work through the appropriate consular channels that exists in the consular conventions that we have with that country to assess information, ask for consular access to that individual, and that continues to be in the case here.QUESTION: Yeah. I have a couple of follow-ups on Secretary statements.MR PATEL: Okay. I’m going – is it okay if I come back to you? Because Jenny had her hand up and &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I’ve been &#8212;MR PATEL: We’ll – don’t worry, Said. No doubt we’ll get to you.QUESTION: I understand you’ll come back to me.QUESTION: Can I get a quick follow-up on Said’s question, though? When do you expect the INP investigation into this person’s case to be wrapped up?MR PATEL: I don’t have a sense on a timeline.QUESTION: Have you given them any timeline, that you need answers by X date?MR PATEL: I’m going to keep those diplomatic conversations private. We – of course, our hope is to have answers and clarity as soon as possible. And like I said, we want this to happen expeditiously, but I don’t have a timeline to prescribe or offer.QUESTION: Got it. And our understanding is the Secretary was briefed on the Israeli forces’ plans for Rafah. What can you tell us about their intended military operation there? Are you confident that they are going to be able to take steps to protect more than the one million people who have now had to flee to Rafah for safety?MR PATEL: So specifically on Rafah and on the Secretary’s meetings broadly, I’m not going to get more descriptive than how you heard the Secretary himself describe his engagements with Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, over this past week.But on Rafah, we have seen those reports. We have yet to see any evidence of serious planning for such an operation. And to do – conduct such an operation right now with no planning and little thought in an area where there is sheltering of a million people would be a disaster. And you’ll note that I spoke a little bit about this on Monday: Rafah is also a region that is a key conduit for access of humanitarian aid. The Rafah border crossing is where foreign nationals, including American citizens and LPRs, are able to safely depart.So this is not something that we’d support, and the Secretary made that clear in his meetings with &#8212;QUESTION: You would not support a military operation in Rafah? Is that what you’re saying?MR PATEL: And the Secretary made that clear with the prime minister.QUESTION: Just so I’m understanding your message correctly, the U.S. does not support a military operation in Rafah?MR PATEL: We would not support the undertaking of something like this without serious and credible planning as it relates to the more than a million people who are sheltering there, as well as without considering the impacts on humanitarian assistance and the safe departure of foreign nationals as well.QUESTION: And so you say there are – you have not heard any plans for a military operation. Is that what Halevi and other Israeli officials &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just – I’m not going to &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; relayed to the Secretary yesterday, or is this just based on the public – what – what is being said.MR PATEL: I am not going to get more specific on the Secretary’s engagements, beyond what you’ve heard him read out in his own press conference yesterday.QUESTION: And then he also mentioned in this press conference the need for Erez to be open for humanitarian goods. Is that something the Israelis have indicated they are open to, and when might we see that opening?MR PATEL: I’ll let the Israelis, of course, speak to their own planning and operations. But you’re absolutely right; he did raise that in his press conference, and we think that it could be an important and vital step for continuing to increase the humanitarian aid that flows into Gaza.QUESTION: Can I just follow up specifically on Rafah?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: I mean, you’ve talked about without a serious undertaking of how it relates to more than a million people there. Presumably, if they want to carry out a military operation there, that means those people have to be evacuated and moved, but where are they supposed to go? There is nowhere left to go, and they’re not allowing them back to the north. Khan Younis is another center of military action. So just if you could flesh out what that means.MR PATEL: These are legitimate questions that we believe that the Israelis should answer. I mean, it’s not for us to be prescriptive about these things. But what you so exactly raised is why it is important to be – make sure that these kinds of operations are fully thought out, especially in an area that, like I said, there are more than a million people sheltering, continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid, as I’ve said, as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals.QUESTION: Sorry, let me just – on the same topic.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: It’s 1.4 million. That’s the estimates. It’s a lot of people. And it doesn’t seem to have much military value, so – and I know the Secretary said that October 7th should not – should not be a license to Israel to dehumanize others. I assume he’s talking about this looming catastrophe. So why can’t the administration just issue a very firm statement on Rafah? Because obviously, until most recently, it had no military value, none whatsoever.MR PATEL: Said, it’s really not &#8212;QUESTION: That’s what the Israelis kept saying.MR PATEL: It’s really not for me to stand up here and speak to what has military or strategic value or not. What I can just say and reiterate what I just said is that such an operation needs to be conducted with planning and factoring and taking the things into consideration that I laid out, specifically the more than a million people sheltering, the impacts on humanitarian assistance. And we have not seen such kind of planning take place yet, and therefore, as I said, the Secretary made clear that this is not something that we would support.QUESTION: The Secretary also &#8212;QUESTION: There’s been just so &#8212;QUESTION: Just to follow up &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: The Secretary also said something akin that we want an irreversible path to Palestinian statehood. What does that mean?MR PATEL: Said, you have heard &#8212;QUESTION: What does that mean? I mean, can you explain to us in whatever the understanding of this building, what does it mean?MR PATEL: Said, you have heard the Secretary talk about this quite clearly since October 7th and even before. We believe that there is an avenue and an opportunity here to get us out of this endless cycle of violence, to work towards and make credible progress towards a two-state solution, a Palestinian state. And we believe that that is a key factor in how we look at regional stability and security for the overall region and to get us out of this endless cycle of violence.We are not – I am not – no one here is being prescriptive about what exactly that policy is. As the Secretary said in Tel Aviv, part of this diplomatic process is engaging in a variety of these ideas and engaging in a lot of these policy proposals.QUESTION: So is it conceivable to go to the UN Security Council and say – talk – or maybe recognize a Palestinian state although it may not be implemented, let’s say, in the immediate future? Is it conceivable that the United States would not veto it if such a resolution is proposed?MR PATEL: Said, I’m not going to entertain or get into hypotheticals. You’ve heard us say before that a Palestinian state should be realized through direct negotiations. That’s not a position that has changed. But what the Secretary said was that there are a number of policy options that people may propose as part of that process, and our focus continues to be on the diplomacy needed to bring all of this about – getting ideas, getting proposals from concerned and appropriate regional parties, and putting together a credible and clear plan. That’s part of what the Secretary is doing on his travels to the region.QUESTION: Is it fair to assume &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, Rosiland.QUESTION: &#8212; that if the Israelis describe to the U.S. why they needed to go into Rafah, what they would be doing in Rafah, what the targets would be, would the U.S. be in support of such a mission? And – echoing what my colleagues have already raised – where would people go? Egypt has already indicated it does not want people coming into the Sinai. It does not want a refugee problem in the Sinai. So two parts.MR PATEL: Rosiland, I’m just not going to get ahead of a hypothetical or a process here. I’ve seen these reports about a military operation into Rafah. As I said in answering Jenny’s question, we have not seen evidence of serious planning for such an operation. And to do any kind of – such thing right now with no planning and little thought in an area where more than a million people are sheltering, an area that is a key conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, a key conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals, that would be a disaster. It’s not something that we would support, and the Secretary made that clear to the prime minister.QUESTION: Yeah, and &#8212;MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, I was wondering, because from this podium you’ve always been very clear that you are not involved in operational planning &#8212;MR PATEL: We are not. We are not.QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yes.MR PATEL: That is – that is absolutely correct.QUESTION: And they didn’t – they didn’t give you a heads-up with Gaza. They’ve never given you a heads-up really on the operational planning, and you’ve always been very clear that you are not – obviously not involved and not – so now you’re saying you want to see those plans before they do what they do in Rafah?MR PATEL: That’s not what I’m saying, Leon. What I am saying is that we have not seen evidence of serious planning around this operation. And of course &#8212;QUESTION: Well, what kind of evidence are you waiting for &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; when it comes to &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; are you expecting?MR PATEL: We’ve just spent the past, I don’t know, 15 minutes talking about how there are a million people sheltering in this region, how it’s a region that is a key conduit for humanitarian aid and the safe departure for foreign nationals. I’m answering yours and your colleagues’ questions about what our viewpoint would be on this. And so we’ve been pretty clear that we’ve not seen any evidence of any serious planning around this, that we’ve seen these reports and we’ve also reiterated what the Secretary laid out when it came to his concerns, which you saw him address in Tel Aviv as well.QUESTION: Just quick on the evidence thing, though. So did the IDF and everyone Blinken met with yesterday say we are not going into Rafah?MR PATEL: I am not going to speak to the specifics of the meetings and engagements that the Secretary has had beyond what we have already wrote out. And he gave a pretty lengthy press conference that your colleagues on the road attended and asked questions in which &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, we all watched the press conference, but we’re trying to figure out &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; he spoke to this pretty clearly.QUESTION: &#8212; how you are saying there is no evidence you have seen if he had an entire briefing yesterday with top Israeli officials. Did – yes or no, did they tell him we are not going into Rafah?MR PATEL: I am just not going to get into the specifics of the engagement that he had on the road.QUESTION: Yeah, Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli prime minister said yesterday that he directed the army to prepare for an operation in Rafah.MR PATEL: Again, when I’m saying that we’ve not seen these reports, Michel, what I am speaking about is that – reports around the serious planning for such an operation. And we believe that planning for such an operation should require and – some thought into the more than a million people who are sheltering in the area. It’s also an area that is a key conduit for humanitarian aid and the safe departure of foreign nationals. Conducting an operation without thinking these pieces through is not something we’d support, and the Secretary made that clear to the prime minister.QUESTION: And what’s your assessment or the department’s assessment for the Secretary’s trip? Was he able to achieve the goals that he set before he went?MR PATEL: Michel, in all of our travels to the region, we go with some broad goals in mind and broad goals that we hope to continue to push forward: one of those, of course, continues to be doing everything we can to ensure that hostages can come home and that the hostages that are being held and continue to be unaccounted for can be released and come home.Additionally, we continue to do everything we can to try and push for additional humanitarian assistance to flow into Gaza. That continues to be something the Secretary raised. You saw him talk about how important we feel that Erez be opened for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. And additionally we’ll continue to coordinate appropriately with regional parties on two fronts: first, taking every step we can to ensure that this conflict does not expand, does not grow and wade into other parts of the region; and additionally, of course, as Said was talking about, beginning to lay the groundwork and have conversations about a solution here that gets us out of the endless cycle of violence and closer to a two-state solution, which we believe is integral for peace and stability in the region.QUESTION: Any progress that has been made on any of these points that you – that you already (inaudible)?MR PATEL: You saw the Secretary lay out a number of these things in his press conference yesterday as it relates to how we are talking to our partners in Israel and other regional interlocutors about humanitarian aid and some of these other issues, and we’ll continue to work at them.Go ahead, Simon.QUESTION: Just a follow-up on this. You’ve sort of given this warning of it would be a disaster to go into Rafah with no planning. Does the U.S. – the U.S. is the main supporter of Israel in terms of military aid and weapons. Would you do anything if they go ahead and do something that you just said would be a disaster?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or hypothesize on something, Simon.QUESTION: And just – just – so more than two months ago, on the same theme, but more than two months ago the administration sort of said – started saying that there have been too many deaths in this conflict. That was when about 15,000 Palestinians had died. And there was a warning that Israel faces strategic defeat if they continue down a path of conflict, which is – which was creating so many civilian deaths and kind of – they were basically losing the longer-term fight through these – this tactic. Now, like, more than two months later, that number of deaths has almost doubled. We’re – I think we’re around 29,000 now. Can you just continue to give these rhetorical warnings without any actual consequences for Israel, or aren’t they just going to continue doing the same thing?MR PATEL: We continue to believe that the daily toll of this military operation is too high, especially the toll that it is taking on innocent civilians, specifically women and children. And so what we are doing is we’re having very specific conversations with Israel about steps that can be taken that we believe would help alleviate some of that. You saw the Secretary talk about some of those things yesterday – first, of course, opening Erez so that the assistance can flow into northern Gaza, where hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to survive under dire conditions. We also believe that steps could and should be taken to expedite the flow of humanitarian assistance from Jordan. There are steps that can be taken to strengthen deconfliction and improve coordination with humanitarian providers. And we also believe that Israel should take any step possible to ensure that the delivery of lifesaving assistance to Gaza is not blocked for any reason by anyone.QUESTION: Can I follow up on &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Just on the same region.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: When it comes to retaliation for the killing of three Americans in Jordan, is your objective still deterrence or, as we’re hearing from the opposition officials recently, degrading their capabilities? Has there been any shift on that front?MR PATEL: Both things can be true, Alex. Of course, my colleagues at the Pentagon, I’m sure, would be happy to talk to you in greater detail about some of the contours of the military operation, but the focus continues to be both: to deter these Iran-backed malign proxy groups from taking dangerous action against our servicemembers while also degrading their capability and their ability to do so down the line. And so both can certainly be true.QUESTION: Can you please come back to me?QUESTION: Follow-up?MR PATEL: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you, I promise. (Inaudible.)QUESTION: Thank you. Follow – following up on the civilian deaths in Gaza. There have been some reports in Israeli media suggesting that during their meeting, Blinken told Netanyahu that he will think about thousands of children killed in Gaza all his life. Can you provide any confirmation or clarification on that? And what was the nature of the conversation between Blinken and Netanyahu regarding the civilian deaths in Gaza?MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything to offer to further characterize the Secretary’s meetings in Israel beyond what you heard him say. What I can just say broadly is that we believe that the civilian death toll in Gaza has been far too high, and the impact that this military operation has had on civilians is far too high, and there continue to be steps, we believe, that can be taken that we believe are a moral and strategic imperative to minimize the impact on civilians. And that’s something we’ll continue to work towards.QUESTION: So you have been urging Israel to take some steps to minimize civilian harm – and you have been urging them for maybe past four months. And have you determined that Israel has taken any of these steps? And if you determine that Israel is not taking those steps, what will be the consequences?MR PATEL: Look, I am not going to Monday morning quarterback this – the operation from here or specific incidents that are reported in the media. We believe that there are more steps that can be taken. We also believe that over the course of this conflict, when we have raised the need to take certain steps that we believe will have a positive impact on civilians, our partners in Israel have done so. And so we’ll continue having these very tough and frank conversations.I’m going to do Guita because she had her hand up, then I’ll come to you, Rosiland. Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. My question is about the CENTCOM attack against the KH member in Baghdad last night. Number one, is there a fixed list of targets, and is the DOS in any way involved in identifying the targets?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to the operational specifics around this operation. What I can say is that the individual killed was a commander of KH, which as you know, is an Iran-aligned militia group and a designated terrorist organization. This commander was directly responsible for planning and participating in attacks on U.S. forces in the region, and we have said that attacks against U.S. and coalition forces by groups who call themselves the Islamic Resistance in Iraq need to stop.And so if we continue to see threats and attacks from these militia groups, we will respond. We’ll take appropriate steps to hold them accountable.QUESTION: You just said that the goal is to degrade their capabilities. But they could easily replenish with Iran’s help.MR PATEL: Again, I’m – the specifics around the operation, I’m happy – I’m sure my colleagues at the Department of Defense would be happy to speak to you about this. But as I said to Alex, our goals can continue to be dual fronted on this.QUESTION: One more &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on this. Politico is reporting that the U.S. intelligence agencies have started – after the October 7th, they started warning about possible attacks on U.S. interests in the Middle East, military and diplomatic facilities. Are you confident that all diplomatic facilities are secure in the region? Because there’s very – when they get to Tower 22, they could easily do, I mean, Baghdad.MR PATEL: So the safety and security of our facilities, our embassies, our consulates, as well as our American personnel operating there is of the highest priority for the Secretary and for this department. I am just not going to speak to threat assessments or security assessments from here, but it is something that is of the highest priority for the Secretary. And we will take appropriate precautions and steps as the risk circumstances and the threat tolerance changes.QUESTION: Did you change anything in the U.S. embassy (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: No updates to offer. Rosiland, go ahead.QUESTION: Let me just ask this very plainly. The U.S., Qatar, Egypt, other interlocutors worked out some kind of deal to try to bring this war to an end. Hamas came back with its concerns. Netanyahu yesterday said: absolutely no way, no how. Where is the space to try to negotiate an end to this war?MR PATEL: Well, first and foremost, I think it’s important to remember that the negotiations and the specifics and the sensitive conversations around these things are, of course, often best kept to be done in private. But I think the Secretary was pretty clear yesterday that while certainly there were some clear nonstarters in the proposal, that we believe that there is space to continue to pursue negotiations and see if we can get to an agreement, and that’s what the United States will intend to do in hopefully a constructive role.Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we have seen this work earlier in the conflict, where we have seen a pause take place, where we saw approximately 100 hostages released, we saw a pause in the conflict which allowed the additional entrance of humanitarian aid into Gaza. So we know that there is a clear track record of this working, and we believe that there continues to be space to pursue and engaged on this.QUESTION: Is the U.S. trying to temper expectations because, as the war continues, it becomes easier for Netanyahu and for his government to maintain a hard line?MR PATEL: I don’t think we would be saying that there is a – there is space for some progress here if we were trying to temper expectations. That’s not hyperbole; that’s just legitimately where we believe things to be as it relates to this conversation.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Going back to the – Alex and Guita’s question &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You said that the U.S. goal is to degrade the capabilities of these groups and also to deter these groups. Does that meaning that the U.S. will continue with their attacks on these Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, even if they stop attacks on your personnels in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere?MR PATEL: So I think the important thing to remember is that we are not going to hesitate to defend our people and hold responsible all who harm U.S. personnel at the time and place of our choosing. And as I just said, if we continue to see threats and attacks from these militia groups, we will respond to them and we will hold those responsible to account. What you also have to remember is that absent attacks against U.S. personnel for many of these groups based in Iraq, there certainly would be no reason for these kinds of strikes.QUESTION: But you are working to degrade their capabilities until – to that end?MR PATEL: I am not going to speculate or offer a timeline here.QUESTION: One more question. Two days ago, the Iraqi foreign ministry said that there were a phone call between the Iraqi foreign minister and Secretary Blinken, and they touched two issues: The U.S. strikes in Iraq, which there is a lot of reactions to that, which they see that this is a violation to the Iraqi sovereignty; and also they said that the U.S. sanctions on the Iraqi bank is – there’s no explanation for that. Is there any political reason behind that, or is there any legal issue the U.S. are not giving as details? And I haven’t seen any readout from the State Department for that phone call between Dr. Fuad Hussein and Secretary Blinken.MR PATEL: So first and foremost, let me just say we fully respect Iraqi sovereignty, and the Iraqi Government itself has rejected attacks on U.S. and coalition advisors by these Iran-aligned militia groups. I don’t have any policy updates for you on our sanctions regime, and I’m happy to check back on a readout between the Secretary and the foreign minister to see if we have any updates there.QUESTION: My last question, Vedant.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you think that your attacks in Iraq is not violating the Iraqi sovereignty, which they say that?MR PATEL: We have fully respect for Iraqi sovereignty. And the Iraqi Government itself has rejected these kinds of attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. What these strikes are about &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’m answering his question, Said. What these strikes are about are holding those who attempt to harm – and in some cases have lethally harmed – our personnel and our service members doing important work in the region.QUESTION: And this is not violation to the Iraqi sovereignty?MR PATEL: It is – it is not. It is us holding Iran-backed malign groups accountable for their reckless and dangerous behavior.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Yeah, but for the record, Vedant, these guys were not underground. They were not fugitives. They could have – the United States still wields a great deal of influence in Iraq on the government, on the security forces. Why not arrest them instead of resorting to an assassination – assassination, and then compromising Iraqi sovereignty?MR PATEL: We have urged them, Said. We have urged the Iraqi Government to take appropriate action against these groups who we believe, when they undertake these kinds of actions, they are undermining their own country’s sovereignty and drawing Iraq into a violent conflict.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yes. We learned that Amos Hochstein has been handling Lebanon’s file in all aspects, not just the negotiation to stop the war or expand the war in south of Lebanon – also the presidential file, to maybe the cabinet in the future. Is it because the State Department failed to do so, or why this shift of responsibilities to a special envoy and not for NEA office?MR PATEL: So the State Department continues to be integrally involved in our engagements around Lebanon as well as making sure that this conflict does not spread further, specifically as it relates to Israel’s northern border. Of course, Senior Advisor Hochstein also plays an integral role, and we – this is a collaborative effort involving a lot of key players across the interagency.Janne.QUESTION: Okay, one more question.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: This ongoing negotiation, maybe it’s direct talk or indirectly between Israel and Hizballah mediated by U.S. – and other European countries helping out – to find a solution, a diplomatic solution, on the border – maybe back up Hizballah forces on the Blue Line and maybe apply 1701 in future. Can you – some reports came out that – soon that we are going to hear a ceasefire at the Lebanese border despite if there is any ceasefire in Gaza. Is it something that you can give us extra information about the ongoing negotiation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on that, but I’m happy to check and see if we have anything to share.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; Russia and North Korea. The Russian ambassador to North Korea said that if the United States continues to take provocative actions against North Korea, North Korea will conduct its seventh nuclear test. How would you react to this?MR PATEL: Well, this kind of rhetoric is just another example of the kind of behavior that we believe to be just incredibly destabilizing, risky, and dangerous. And so we have repeatedly said that the United States does not harbor any hostile intent towards the DPRK. We continue to be willing to engage with Pyongyang without preconditions, and we simultaneously will continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan trilaterally, as well as other allies and partners, on how to continue to best engage the DPRK and deter this kind of aggressive behavior.QUESTION: One more, quick. The New York Times reported that Russia released $12 million in frozen funds from North Korea and allowed North Korea to use its own bank account. How concerned are you about Russia violating UN sanctions?MR PATEL: Of course it is something that we are deeply concerned about – not just this specific event, but we spend a good amount of time in this briefing room talking about the closening of relations between the DPRK and Russia. There continues to be a clear track record of that, and so it’s something that we’re continuously monitoring. And like I said, we will continue to consult closely with allies and partners on how to best deter this kind of aggressive behavior.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Cindy, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. I have a couple questions on Ukraine. Do you have any reaction to President Zelenskyy firing his army chief?MR PATEL: That is a sovereign decision for the Government of Ukraine to make, and I will defer to them to speak to that.QUESTION: Right. And closer to home, with foreign aid at an impasse in Congress, can you talk about the consequences if aid for Ukraine in particular dries up? There have been some assessments that Russia could win the war outright within weeks or months. And is there any way that the Biden administration has to bridge the gap if there’s just a more permanent &#8212;MR PATEL: So let me start with the second part of your question. I think you’ve heard the Secretary say this a number of times before. There is no magic second pot of money. There is no other alternative here when it comes to this, and that’s why you have seen this administration come out strongly for the text of the supplemental funding bill that was made public over this past weekend. There is not another alternative than for Congress doing its job and passing this, and the effects that it could have on our partners – not just on our partners, on Ukraine, but there is – there are broader national security implications of not getting this done.Of course, part of that conversation continues to be supporting our Ukrainian partners. Passing this will allow us to continue to support them in their effort to protect their sovereignty and to protect their territorial integrity. They’re also – not funding this would severely limit our ability to get humanitarian aid to some of the places where it is needed, including in Ukraine but also in Gaza. Of course, also, it would have dire impacts on our ability to support our Israeli partners as they hold these Hamas terrorists accountable for October 7th. So the consequences are surely cross-cutting, and that is why you’ve heard the Secretary say, in the clearest terms, there is not another alternative here.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, Vedant.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Senate just approved the supplemental – Senate Appropriations – back to Congress, but more broadly speaking, the past few days, Ukraine has been facing assault – increasing assault – from Russia. Given that and also given increasing criticism from allies, most notably today from Polish PM, how concerned are you about the U.S. – the state of – current state of U.S. leadership?MR PATEL: Well, look, Alex, I think it’s important to not link these two things together. While we will continue to work tirelessly to get the supplemental across the finish line – I think you saw the President speak about this quite clearly earlier in the week – simultaneously, though, Alex, in the various conflicts that are currently taking place around the world, what there continues to be in common is this desire for the United States to continue to play its role as a key diplomatic partner on a lot of these endeavors. Countries around the world are seeking further U.S. engagement in preventing these conflicts from spreading and holding malign actors accountable. And so that is a role we’ll continue to play and we’ll continue to engage. You saw the Secretary do some of this on his travels as it relates to the conflict in Gaza right now.QUESTION: And on flip side – don’t want to drag you into a Tucker Carlson debate, but given the fact that the Secretary has been on the record urging journalists, American journalists, not to go to Russia, and also GEC came up with the special report just two weeks ago approving – confirming how Russia has been using historically same tools to push its propaganda in the Western capitals, what is the Secretary’s position on this very episode?MR PATEL: The Secretary really doesn’t have a position on this specific episode. What I will just reiterate, Alex, is that our message to all Americans, not just journalists, is that there is a pretty clear Travel Advisory warning when it comes to Russia. It’s a Level Four. It’s do not travel, and the reasons for why that is our very serious recommendation are pretty clear. And we have seen, just in the past year and a half, American journalists being detained in Russia just for doing their job.Nike, I know you had your hand up. I’m sorry for breezing past you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Right. First, going back to the Hamas response to the hostage deal, what elements of the response makes the U.S. say that there are room for negotiation? And then is it fair to say that Hamas asked that it will have a governing role in the aftermath of Gaza is a nonstarter?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the specifics of these conversations and these proposals, as this continues to be something ongoing. But like the Secretary said, we continue to believe that there is space for progress here, and we’ll continue to play a role in moving that forward.QUESTION: And then separately, on the Pakistan elections, I know you have been asked several times. Now that the elections were held, does the United States have a message to people in – not – sorry. Does the United States have a message to people in Pakistan after their controversial elections?MR PATEL: Well, first, millions of Pakistanis went to the polls today to vote, and I will reiterate that Pakistan’s future leadership is for the Pakistani people to decide, and our interest continues to be in the democratic process. We strongly condemn all instances of election-related violence, both in the weeks preceding elections as well as those that transpired on election day. These kinds of election-related violence, we believe, affected a broad range of political parties across Pakistan. It impacted polling stations, election officers, as well as the election commission.And as you heard me say earlier in the week, we are concerned about the restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression. We are tracking reports of restrictions on internet and cellphone access across Pakistan on polling day. And we, along with the international community, will continue to emphasize the importance of democratic institutions, a free press, a vibrant civil society, and expanded opportunities for political participation of all of Pakistan’s citizens. But I am not going to get ahead of any of the other official election results, so I’m not going to comment on this any further.QUESTION: How would you characterize the relations – the working relationship between the United States and Pakistan moving forward?MR PATEL: Look, you heard me say is that – what you heard me say is that when it comes to Pakistan’s leaders, that is for the people of Pakistan to decide. Our interest is in the democratic process, and we are interested in taking the appropriate steps to continue to foster our relationship, our partnership with the Government of Pakistan, whatever it should be.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: On Pakistan?MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead.QUESTION: So following up on Pakistan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you for taking the question. So far the preliminary results have been Imran Khan’s party, I think at this point, with leading in 136 districts. That’s the three times the next closest one. You’re now seeing reports of Pakistan of two separate things: one, the army is in the streets, the police are in the streets, they’re surrounding polling stations. And you’re seeing a lot of reports and videos of efforts to change the vote. They’re kicking election officials out. There’s a lot of concern that number – 136 – by tomorrow morning in Pakistan could be pushed down lower.Separately, you’re seeing also surface in Pakistan an attempt by the kind of military-connected officials to take the independents who are associated with PTI and pressure them to join other parties. So even though Imran Khan’s party might win a majority, after torture and bribery, you could have a different government take power.So you’ve from the podium stood up for free and fair elections, but free and fair elections are one thing. But if you torture your way to a majority after that, that doesn’t quite – that doesn’t quite live up to kind of the values that you are stating from here. So this seems like a pretty pivotal moment &#8212;MR PATEL: Look, Ryan &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; for America and the – and Pakistan’s relationship.MR PATEL: Look, Ryan, the thing about preliminary results is that they are preliminary. And I am not going to get ahead of any official results, and so I’m not going to comment or speculate further on what a government could look like, what the makeup could be, or anything like that. What I will just &#8212;QUESTION: You’d be okay if &#8212;MR PATEL: What I will just reiterate again is that we condemn all instances of election- related violence, even some of the kinds that you are describing that took place in the weeks preceding the election as well as on election day. We also believe that these kinds of actions have affected a number of political parties across Pakistan, and we’re also concerned about the steps that were taken to restrict freedom of expression, specifically around internet and cellphone use. But again, I’m just not going to &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you. Just real quick &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; speculate on results or government makeup.QUESTION: But let’s say the Pakistani people do elect a majority of independents associated with the PTI, but then after a bunch of backroom negotiations, which are accompanied by reports of torture, all of a sudden there’s another candidate that has a majority. Would that be okay with the United States?MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not going to speculate or hypothesize on &#8212;QUESTION: You can’t say that wouldn’t be okay with the United States?MR PATEL: I’m not going to hypothesize on a made-up situation that you’re just describing right now. We will at some point – I have no doubt that the United States of America will comment on the election – official election results when they happen, but till then we will defer to the electoral process, which we believe – we take very seriously.Nick, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Let’s – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. During the last few days, we have seen a rise in the terrorism in Pakistan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: A couple of bomb blasts killing security forces and innocent people in Pakistan. Pakistani foreign ministry officials say that they have shared some evidence with the United States and some other foreign countries regarding the involvement of neighboring countries sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. You have seen reports or what you want to say about that? (Inaudible) of cooperation with Pakistan?MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t have any comments on that, and I would defer you to the Government of Pakistan to speak further on that.I’m sorry I missed you earlier. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: So would the U.S. accept the results of Pakistan election while they’re being tainted by rigging, violence, torture?MR PATEL: So again, I think I’m starting to sound like a little bit like a broken record on this, but we’re going to continue to monitor the electoral process. We’re not going to get ahead of any official results, and we want to see a process that took place in a way that allowed for broad participation, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. And there were some clear restrictions of the exercise of freedom that took place – addressed some of those in speaking to Nike and Ryan’s questions, specifically around internet and cellphone use – and those, of course, are concerning. We’ve also seen reports of election-based violence in the weeks leading up to this, as well as on election day. Those continue to be concerning, and those, we believe, have impacted a number of political parties. But again, I’m just not going to get ahead of this, and it is truly up to the people of Pakistan to decide their political future.QUESTION: Just last question. Some here do think the U.S. has been fairly muted on human rights violations in Pakistan, but the focal point between bilateral talks or the relations between U.S. and Pakistan is the Pakistan military, so it doesn’t really matter what the outcome of the election is because U.S. prefers to deal with the Pakistan military. Is that true? That’s the question.MR PATEL: I would certainly take issue with that characterization. We are interested in the – first, let me take a step back. The makeup of the Government of Pakistan is up for the Pakistani people to decide. What the United States is interested is in deepening our partnership and cooperation with the Government of Pakistan irregardless of what the makeup of the government is. That is not for us to decide. There are a number of areas which we believe we’ve got some strategic shared priorities, and we look forward to continuing to work in that space.All right.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Nick, I think we’re going to – that’s all we’ve got time for anyways. Go ahead.QUESTION: So two questions, then.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: The first is: The U.S. embassy in Colombia put out a security alert a couple of weeks ago warning about the risk of using dating apps. Apparently eight citizens died between November and December in Medellin after being drugged on dates from dating apps. Are you aware of this issue? Any comment on it, and is it happening in any other countries where Americans are being targeted?MR PATEL: So I would have to take a look at every single Travel Advisory to see if others are listed as specifically, but what I can just say broadly, Nick, is that when we update our Travel Advisories or when we add specific information to them – in this case dangers around cyber – a cyber presence and online dating – it’s rooted in circumstances on the ground. As you recall, there are instances in which we’ll update our Travel Advisories based on public health guidance, natural disasters, other things that are happening. It’s something that we take very seriously, and so I will just leave it at that. I don’t have any other specific contours to offer on this.QUESTION: And then a lot lighter topic. More than 100 million people around the world are going to be watching the Super Bowl this Sunday. Wondered if you had any predictions.QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)MR PATEL: I will be one of them. I will be one of them. Look, I grew up &#8212;QUESTION: 49ers.MR PATEL: I grew up in San Jose.QUESTION: Off the record. Off the record.MR PATEL: Said – Said said right – I grew up in San Jose, California. Go Niners.QUESTION: Go Niners.MR PATEL: So I will be – I will be tuning in.All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a safe Super Bowl weekend.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR PATEL: I will see you all next week.(The briefing was concluded at 1:46 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Egypt																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Jordan																								Lebanon																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Digital Press Briefing with Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara A. Leaf, Assistant SecretaryBureau of Near Eastern AffairsMODERATOR:  (In progress) from the U.S. Department of State’s Dubai Regional Media Hub.  I would like to welcome our participants joining us from across the world for this on-the-record briefing with Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.  During this call, Assistant Secretary Leaf will discuss U.S. policy toward the Middle East following the terrorist attacks of October 7th.  Assistant Secretary Leaf will also take questions from participating journalists.We are pleased to offer simultaneous interpretation for this briefing in Arabic.  We request that everyone keep this in mind and speak slowly.I will now turn it over to Assistant Secretary Leaf.  Ambassador, the floor is yours.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thanks so much, Sam, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this far-flung group of press colleagues on the critical issues of the day, and, of course, most importantly, our ongoing efforts to address the Israeli-Hamas conflict and support the groundwork for an enduring peace in the region.So look, this work is profoundly important and it’s also personal for me.  I’ve spent my – almost my whole adult life working in and on the region, and there is nothing like – in my experience, nothing like the challenges that present themselves to us today and indeed present themselves to the region in terms of the far-flung and expanding impact of this conflict.So since October 7th, I have been back and forth to the region six times, and in fact I’m going to head out this evening, which is why I will have to keep this to a short 30 minutes with our colleagues.  Early in the conflict I shuttled with the Secretary between Israel and the West Bank and among a circle of Arab partners.  I’ve made stops in the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Türkiye.And throughout this my aim, like the Secretary’s aim, has been to seek a durable solution to this conflict – so not only ending the conflict of this moment but, as importantly, looking beyond to how we can build a pathway to a Palestinian state and put aside for good the causes of insecurity for Israel and insecurity for the Palestinian people, as well as the larger region.So our priorities for the immediate, the near term, are as follows:First, we’re wholly focused on improving the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, and that means working with all of our partners to increase the aid making its way to the people of Gaza and urging that every feasible measure be taken to protect civilian lives.Second, we’re pushing hard for the secure and safe and immediate release of all hostages.Third, we want to ensure that October 7th and the ensuing conflict can never happen again – not to Israelis, not to Palestinians.Fourth, we’re seeking to ensure that the conflict does not expand, and that has been a focus of every bit of our diplomacy since the first days of the conflict.  This goal is complicated, obviously, by this destabilizing action undertaken by Iran-backed actors across the region.And finally, let me just say while we remain focused on the shorter-term, immediate goals, concurrently we are working with partners to begin the hard work of establishing a pathway to a Palestinian state.  It is the only way to create a longer-lasting peace that will benefit not just Israelis and Palestinians but the region more generally.  We are as committed – the United States is committed as ever to this region and to finding a better pathway to security and stability and prosperity for the region.I’ll stop there.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of today’s call.Our first question is a pre-submitted question, and it comes from our colleague Suzy Elgeneidy, from Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper.  And Suzy asks:  “Assistant Secretary Leaf, what role can the United States play in preventing the escalation of the conflict in Gaza and ensuring that there are no plans to forcibly displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip?”  Over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Well, thank you, Suzy, for that question.  Look, it has been an unstinting piece of work for us from the very first days of the conflict to ensure that the conflict did not spread – that it was not escalated, that it was not weaponized by others in the region to spread the conflict – whether it’s to Lebanon, to the West Bank itself, to Iraq, Yemen, et cetera.  So that is a constant piece of our work.And the second part of your question is just as vital.  And I think you’ve heard the Secretary and the President speak to this issue repeatedly in public, and certainly it informs our diplomacy.  It informs the set of parameters, or principles rather, that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo in November at the G7, which is to say that we absolutely reject and will ensure that there is no displacement of Gazans from Gaza.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We do have many, many pre-submitted questions from our Arabic-speaking journalist colleagues, so I’d like to get through at least a few of those before we go to the live queue.  I see many of you have your hands raised as well.  We’ll take another pre-submitted question, and that comes from our colleague Jubran Nour – or Nour Jubran, from the Ma’an News outlet in the Palestinian Territories.  And Nour asks:  “Assistant Secretary, regarding the funding for UNRWA and the suspension, even if it is proven that some employees were involved in the October 7th event, what – how will the U.S. deal with that, and how will the U.S. balance between the steps it needs to take to hold UNRWA accountable and the need to get assistance to the Palestinian people?”  Over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thank you for that question, Nour.  And look, it’s an issue of absolute urgency for the U.S. Government.  I know it is for other donors.  We’ve had intensive consultations over the last days, including I myself this morning with my EU counterpart.Look, there’s an urgency for several things.  One is to get to the bottom of these extraordinarily serious and really terrible allegations that members of a mission that are dedicated – that the mission itself is dedicated to humanitarian support for the Palestinian people, be they in Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan – that members of that organization would be involved in the horrendous attacks of October 7th is really just, just terrible.  So the urgency of getting to the bottom of that, which the UN secretary-general said he is committed to.  I understand he said – it was announced today that they would look for an independent assessment of this investigation.  It’s critical that that be done with the greatest speed and thoroughness.  It’s also critical that there be accountability.But as you know, UNRWA serves a population, including right now in Gaza, for which there is no alternative to the work they do and to the structure, the – to the staffing that they bring to Gaza in particular.  But I think that’s also true across those other populations of Palestinians.So there’s urgency in both directions.  We really had no choice but to suspend our funding last week, given the severity of these allegations.  But we and other donors and the UN are working with all speed to understand what – to get to the bottom of this, and also to ensure that it does not happen again.  And we’re consulting closely, obviously, with the Israeli Government, as well as other donors and countries of the region, and of course, with our own members of Congress.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary Leaf.  We’ll now go to a question from the live queue, and that comes from our colleague Monalisa Freiha, from Annahar newspaper in Lebanon.  Monalisa, I’m going to go ahead and open your line, and you should be able to unmute yourself and ask your question, please.QUESTION:  Hello?  Can you hear me?MODERATOR:  Yes, we can.QUESTION:  Yeah.  Hello, Assistant Secretary.  I want to ask you about – there were a lot of speculations about the U.S. intended possible retaliation on the American base in Jordan-Syria border.  What would you say about this attack and the possible retaliation?ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thanks for that question, Monalisa.  Look, our soldiers, our military is there on that Jordanian post for one reason, and it’s a part of the mission to defeat – to bring an enduring defeat to ISIS.  ISIS has threatened all of the countries of the region, including Iraq and Syria and Jordan itself.  It is both a horrendous and tragic loss of life, but it is also an absolutely unacceptable attack on both Jordanian sovereignty and on U.S. forces.  The President’s been very clear – the Secretary, the Secretary of Defense have all been clear – that it is unacceptable, and the President will decide on a course of action.  And I’m not going to speculate about that.I would also just say that this is part and parcel of a proxy network across the region fostered in some places, created altogether by Iran, but resourced by Iran, that has had terrible repercussions on the stability and security of this region.  But I won’t get ahead of the President in speculating as to when and where that response might be.  But it is also going to be at a time and place of our choosing and could be in a multitude of ways.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll go back to our pre-submitted questions – from our colleague Manal Sharaf from Yemen’s Al Joumhouriya Channel.  And Manal asks: “Assistant Secretary Leaf, what are some of the upcoming steps – or what can we expect – from the United States to address the ongoing Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea?”  Over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thank you for that very pertinent question, Manal.  Look, these wholly unacceptable and reckless attacks by the Houthi in the Red Sea on civilian shipping, as well as some military ships, they are, first and foremost, devastating for the countries and the peoples of the Middle East.  Countries whose ports and economies directly benefit and rely on Red Sea commerce and the Suez Canal are feeling the greatest effects.  All Arab countries depend on shipping from these vital waterways.  But it’s – more broadly, the attacks threaten everyone’s economies and livelihood.  So this is not just about the U.S., and it’s by no means about the conflict between Israel and Hamas.So we have a growing coalition of partners who are bringing both political, diplomatic, and military pressure to bear.  But I would just say for a country that is deeply food insecure as Yemen and for other countries like Egypt and Jordan, whose commercial traffic and whose economies really depend on this waterway, this is a terrible assault on them, and the escalation in inflation and the cost of goods, the cost of foodstuff – it’s a terrible thing to – on the part of the Houthis to bring to the peoples of this region and to these countries in particular.  So we will continue to address ourselves with a growing collection of partners to this really reckless approach by the Houthi until they stop.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We’ll go back to the live queue now to a question from our colleague, Diyar Kurda from the Rudaw news network.  Diyar, I’m going to go ahead and unmute you, and then you can unmute yourself and ask your question.  Go ahead.QUESTION:  Thank you so much, Sam.  Thank you, Ambassador, for doing this.  A very quick question on the Iraq.  The Iraqi Government says that the decision of the Kata’ib Hizballah to suspend their attacks on the U.S. forces came alive with our tireless efforts and pressure.  So how does the U.S. Government sees the Iraqi Government efforts to hold these groups accountable and preventing them from future actions against you personnels and facilities in the region?  Thank you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Excellent question, Diyar.  So look, I would say attacks by this growing collection of Iran-affiliated militias are, first and foremost, an assault on the sovereignty of Iraq.  They are an assault on the sovereignty of the state itself – on the state to have control of arms and for the state to have control of foreign and national security policy.  So for a proxy like Kata’ib Hizballah to launch attacks on a foreign country and countries that are partners to Iraq is really just an assault on sovereignty in the most primal form.  It is a threat to the Iraqi state, and it is a source – I mean, it is an issue on which we consult very closely with the Iraqi Government, with Prime Minister Sudani and other members of the government.And look, it’s been a situation that Iran has nurtured over the years, so it is, first and foremost, a responsibility of the state of Iraq to bring these creatures under control.  But it is a tough thing to do at the same time, because they have been nourished and resourced and provided arms by Iran over years.  But we’d like to see more action.  We’d like to see action that doesn’t – that prevents and that holds people to account.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We’ll move around the region a little bit and go to a question from our colleague Rawad Taha from Lebanon’s LBCI.  And Rawad sent us a question in advance, and Rawad asks:  “Assistant Secretary, are the chances of an escalation between Israel and Hizballah still high in your view, and what has been the outcome of recent diplomatic efforts to address this situation on the Lebanon-Israel border?”  Over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  So Rawad, look, I would say the following.  There is a sobering level of volatility on that northern border, and let’s recall how it started and how it has been fostered.  It’s Hizballah getting into the fray, as it were, with rocket attacks and other attacks on Israel and violations of the Blue Line and bringing forces close to the border, which are terribly, terribly threatening to the communities of northern Israel.So we have been working closely with the Israeli Government, in close discussions with them throughout these last several months, to counsel or to provide an understanding of what we’re seeing in terms of activity there on the border and to ensure that the Israeli military has an understanding of what is and isn’t happening.Now, that’s important because, as you know, the two parties may not intend to go into conflict but may be seeing a different picture or misunderstanding a picture.  As for Hizballah, we’ve been messaging very clearly that they are on a slippery slope in terms of attacks on civilian communities – missile attacks, rocket attacks, attempts to infiltrate.So we have a – as you know, we have an exceptionally talented negotiator in Amos Hochstein.  Amos is very engaged on this effort, and I would say we are first and foremost looking for a diplomatic resolution, and there’s nothing to say that we can’t find one ultimately.MODERATOR:  Great, thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We’ll do another pre-submitted question.  Again, I see many hands raised, and we got dozens and dozens of pre-submitted questions, so we’ll try to get through a couple more questions before the assistant secretary has to leave for her travel.Let’s take a – let’s go to a pre-submitted question that came from our colleague Mohamed Maher from Egypt’s Al Masry Alyoum newspaper, and Mohamed asks:  “In your view, Assistant Secretary Leaf, when is the appropriate time for the United States to call for a ceasefire and initiate a comprehensive political process leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state?”  Over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thanks for that question, Mohamed.  Look, we are thoroughly involved in the effort to bring about an arrangement for a release of hostages, so you saw that the director of the CIA was in Europe this past weekend working intensively with our partner Egypt, our partner Qatar, and our Israeli partners to put together a proposal to forward to Hamas to kick off a deal that would also involve a humanitarian pause or pauses.  You’ve heard the Secretary say this before, and I can only reinforce this:  The conflict could end pretty quickly with Hamas ceasing its attacks – it was directing rockets this week, this past week, at civilian communities – and if the perpetrators of the massacre of October 7th lay down their arms.  That seems unlikely at this point, but I can’t exactly impose a ceasefire on Hamas.So what I would say is this – we believe this hostage deal is a critical starting point.  Ultimately, as you say, there is a pathway that also has to be built towards Palestinian statehood.  It is kind of two separate things.  Hamas’s use of extraordinary violence has, if anything, set back efforts towards that end.  But out of every crisis, there is still room for opportunity, and you’ve heard the Secretary speak to this, the National Security Advisor speak to this, the President himself speak to this.  Ultimately, peace and stability and security for Israelis and for Palestinians is going to come about through a negotiated pathway to Palestinian statehood, and that’s something we’re committed to.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We’ll go to another pre-submitted question, if that’s okay, and this comes from our colleague Moriah Asraf from Israel’s Channel 13, and Moriah asks:  “Assistant Secretary, is the Biden administration currently contemplating a reduction in the pace of arms deliveries to Israel?  And can you clarify whether this is being considered as any form of sanction or anything like that?”  Over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thanks, Moriah, for that question.  In a word, no – we are not contemplating that.MODERATOR:  Okay, that was a short answer so I’ll need to scramble for the next question.  Sorry for that.  Let’s go to the live queue, and let’s go to our colleague Jared Malsin from The Wall Street Journal.  Jared, I’m going to go ahead and unmute you on my end, and then if you can unmute yourself and ask your question.QUESTION:  Hi, thanks very much.  I just wanted to ask another question about the negotiations towards a possible ceasefire and hostage release deal.  We understand that both Hamas and the Israeli Government are considering the proposal that was discussed in Paris last weekend.  Can you tell us if there’s been any response from them and just what the latest is in general on the negotiations?  Thank you very much.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Hi, Jared.  At the risk of, you know, misspeaking, well, I can certainly say I’m not aware today, at this moment, of any definitive response.  I think they’re still very much in the deliberation stage.MODERATOR:  So that’s just about all the time we have.  I know there’s many, many, many other questions; I’m sorry we couldn’t get to all the questions today.  I do want to turn it back over to Assistant Secretary Leaf if she has any closing remarks or anything she wants to say about her upcoming travel or anything else.  Back over to you, Assistant Secretary.ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF:  Thanks, Sam, and I will try to make this a longer call when I come back from the region, which will – could be anywhere from 10 days to two weeks from now.  Look, I would just underscore what I think many of you feel, especially those of you who feel – who are resident in the region.  It’s a time of extraordinary volatility, as I suggested in terms of the Israeli-Lebanon border.  It’s also a time of flux and opportunity.  We’re determined to seize the opportunities.  As grim as the starting point of this crisis, this conflict was, we’re determined to seize and use the opportunity presented by people focusing on the – focusing on the unfulfilled and quite legitimate Palestinian quest for statehood and the way that the failure to achieve that has been effectively weaponized by Iran and its proxy networks.  So, it will not be an easy course, way, to say the least, but notwithstanding this volatility, we’re quite committed to finding that – forging that pathway.Thanks very much, Sam, and thanks for everybody who’s on the line now.MODERATOR:  That concludes today’s call.  I would like to thank Assistant Secretary Barbara Leaf for joining us and thank all of our colleagues from the media around the world for participating.  If you have any questions about today’s call, you can contact the Dubai Regional Media Hub at DubaiMediaHub@state.gov.  Thank you and have a great day.
- Department Press Briefing – January 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – January 18, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – January 18, 2024																																																					January 18, 2024																																																								1:19 p.m. ESTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. On Sunday, Secretary Blinken will depart for his fourth trip to Africa as Secretary of State, traveling to Cabo Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and Angola. Over the course of the trip, the Secretary will highlight how the United States is strengthening our longstanding engagement with African nations and institutions and delivering on commitments made at the U.S. Africa Leaders Summit to benefit both Americans and Africans.This trip will advance a policy agenda that is responsive to priorities shared with our African partners along three core lines of effort. First, we are accelerating U.S.-Africa partnerships to advance global priorities such as cultivating sustainable and resilient food systems, strengthening health systems, and addressing the challenge of climate change. Second, we are deepening mutually beneficial economic ties between the United States and Africa. And third, we are working together in elevating African leadership and promoting democracy, respect for human rights, and security.These three lines of effort are solidly anchored in the U.S. Strategy Towards Sub-Saharan Africa. As Secretary Blinken said in his August 2022 speech in Pretoria, our partnership is rooted in the recognition that Africa is a major geopolitical force – one that has shaped our past, is shaping our present, and will shape our future. America’s prosperity is tied to Africa’s growth, and African voices are vital to shaping the most consequential global conversations. The Secretary looks forward to continuing that conversation and making progress on all these issues during this upcoming trip.With that, Matt, over to you.QUESTION: Okay. So not to cast any aspersions on the Secretary or his – the importance of Africa to the administration, but this is – this will be the – I mean, he’s spent more time overseas so far this month than he has at home. Is there a reason that he doesn’t want to be here?MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I – as someone who, like the Secretary, has spent a lot of time away from home lately, I think I can safely speak for him and say that he would love to be spending home at his – spending time at home seeing his family, as I know I would, and I’m sure – I think most days my family would love to see me, but there are a number of pressing challenges, and that’s the job.QUESTION: Okay. So in terms of – in terms of this trip, it’s coming – he’s just done this big Middle East trip and he went to Davos, which is slightly less urgent a task, but now Africa. And you have the situation in the Middle East compounding. Ukraine is still an issue. We have a situation with the Houthis in the Red Sea, where there just another – more strikes today. Is he comfortable spending time in Cape Verde, Ivory Coast &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Nigeria, and Angola which are important – I’m not saying they’re not – but they are not the most pressing issues.MR MILLER: So, I would say that they are incredibly important – incredibly important countries that require and – that require U.S. engagement. We have challenges on the continent of Africa, but as I said in my opening remarks, we also have a lot of opportunities that the President has made a priority and the Secretary has made a priority. So I think it’s important that we make this trip and important that we engage on all the issues that I mentioned, from promoting democracy to deepening our economic ties.But I will also say that one of the things that you’ve seen the Secretary do during his travels is, that no matter where we are in the world, he still tends to be focused on other challenges. And so you’ve seen in the Middle East – when he’s in the Middle East, he’s often on the phone with leaders in other continents working on challenges in those continents. And when he’s in Europe, he’s been on the phone a lot with people in the Middle East. And I’m sure that will be the case of this trip – that even while we’re in Angola and Nigeria, I would suspect we will be having calls with – that he will be having multiple calls with leaders in other parts of the world.QUESTION: Okay. And then off this topic and before – I’ll let other people go on to Gaza and that situation there, but I just wanted to ask you really quickly about what your read is – what the administration thinks of the situation between Iran and Pakistan right now? And how concerned are you that this could escalate into a potentially – at least on one side and maybe on both sides – a nuclear conflict?MR MILLER: So, we are concerned about escalating tensions in the region. It’s been something, as you know, we’ve spoken about a number of times. It’s something we’ve focused on. We’ve been incredibly concerned about the potential for escalation since October 7th, and that’s why we have engaged in intense diplomatic efforts to try to prevent escalation. So, I will say we noted the comments from the Government of Pakistan about the importance of cooperative relations between Pakistan and its neighbors. We thought those were productive, useful statements. And certainly, there’s no need for escalation, and we would urge restraint on all sides in this case.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Follow up?MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Just so we are clear, in this feud between Iran and Pakistan – was triggered by Iran – who are you standing with? With the terrorist regime of Iran or with the non-NATO ally – major ally Pakistan?MR MILLER: So, I think I made pretty clear yesterday that – what we think about Iran’s attacks, not just the strikes that it has launched in the past three days against three of its neighbors but it’s long history of funding terrorism, of funding instability, and sowing discord in the Middle East. And that’s something that we have seen contribute to the conflict in Gaza. You’ve seen Iran, the principal supporter of Hamas for years. They’re the major funder of Hizballah. They are one of the major funders of the Houthis. So, we’ve seen the consequences of the actions that Iran has taken to add to regional instability, and that’s why we continue to take actions to hold Iran accountable, but also send very clear messages to Iran that we don’t want to see this conflict escalated in any way, shape, or form, which is the message I just sent from this podium.QUESTION: If it does escalate, which again is not after Pakistan, can Pakistan rely on its major ally, the United States?MR MILLER: So, I don&#8217;t want to get into hypotheticals. We don’t believe this should escalate in any way, shape, or form. Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States. That will remain the case. But we would urge restraint in this case. We do not want to see escalation, and do not think there is any need for escalation.QUESTION: Can you just come back for more on South Caucasus?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So, I – just to pick about a little bit, are you – you’re sort of treating the Iran‐Pakistan tensions as part of the spillover from Gaza. Do you see this as connected to that?MR MILLER: No, I don&#8217;t think it’s in any way, shape, or form connected to Gaza. But whenever you see things – see strikes in the region – given the tensions in the region, there is the risk for an increase in conflict, which is something that we’re trying to avoid.QUESTION: Do you assess that Iran’s – the initial strike is – was somehow – somehow is inspired by or related to what’s been happening elsewhere further west?MR MILLER: So, no. It in no way, shape, or form is or should be connected to the conflict in Gaza.QUESTION: I have more on Gaza, but if we’re sticking on this.MR MILLER: You can &#8212;QUESTION: I’ll follow up.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ll go to Gaza. Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Israel yesterday – the Israeli military occupied and destroyed Israa University in Gaza. I mean, this is probably number of ten of – all ten universities that they have destroyed. And is it the assessment of this department or this government that this was a legitimate target?MR MILLER: So, I can’t speak to this individual action. I don&#8217;t have independent information to verify that. But I can say that we continue to urge Israel to avoid damage to critical infrastructure – that would, of course, include universities – and to ensure the protection of humanitarian and medical sites. That has been something we have urged from the outset of this conflict. I will give the – make the point that I always make, that it is very difficult – and again, I’m not talking about this particular site, because I don&#8217;t have information about this particular site – but it is always difficult when you see Hamas use those civilian sites to hide its fighters, to launch attacks on Israel. But it doesn’t change the burden that Israel has to comply with international humanitarian law and avoid strikes, avoid military action against humanitarian infrastructure.QUESTION: But there seems to be no evidence that there were any fighters – in fact, any presence of – any kind of military presence in the university itself. But that – I mean, we’ve seen – I mean, you keep saying that you want Israel not to destroy the infrastructure. Yet we have seen almost a total destruction of all infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, roads, cemeteries. They just – they excavated a cemetery for instance and took bodies, whatever. I mean, this is not exactly – tell us in any way that the Government of Israel is really paying heed to what you tell them, in any way, by any measure. They’re not listening to you.MR MILLER: So, we have seen them take some steps to add civilian infrastructure to deconfliction sites. There are other things that we have urged them to do that we want them to do better on. It is an ongoing conversation between our two governments and something that the Secretary spoke directly with the leadership of Israel in his trip last week. But again, there is also this problem that Hamas does continue to hide in and under civilian infrastructure. So, when you see a strike against any one civilian – piece of civilian infrastructure, to assess the validity of that strike you have to know what it is that was there, and we don’t always know that when – or at least I don&#8217;t know that when I’m speaking from here.QUESTION: Yeah, a couple more &#8212;MR MILLER: And I suspect that a lot of the people writing about it don’t know it either. It’s very hard to know the facts on the ground.QUESTION: Okay. The West Bank is basically a situation that’s just getting completely out of control. The Israelis are doing their excursions on a nightly basis. They killed ten yesterday. They keep going into these refugee camps in the West Bank and so on. They have been struck by unmanned aerial vehicle, drones and so on. They have been struck even by fixed-wing a couple times at the beginning of the month. So, I just wonder what are you doing to sort of calm the situation down in the West Bank?MR MILLER: So, I will say that Israel faces very real security challenges and it has the right to defend its people and it has the right to carry out counterterrorism operations. Those need to be carried out in coordination with – or in compliance with international humanitarian law. We do remain deeply concerned about maintaining stability in the West Bank and we continue to urge Israel to take all feasible measures to protect civilian lives in the West Bank, just as we encourage them to do in Gaza. But they do have the right to carry out legitimate counterterrorism operations.QUESTION: In a territory that they have occupied for over 56 years, right? I mean, they go in. They know everything about this area. They occupy it. They go in unprovoked. And you’re saying that they have to defend themselves against &#8212;MR MILLER: So, I – so &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; a defenseless population.MR MILLER: So unprovoked is a big word, Said. And I would say that they do face security challenges and they do face security threats, including from the West Bank. And they have the right to carry out counterterrorism operations to deal with those threats.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just on the ongoing diplomatic efforts, the conversation. It’s been 27 days since the leaders of Israel and the U.S. have spoken. Did the Secretary hear any indication while in Israel that the prime minister thought it would be productive to have another conversation soon?MR MILLER: So, we maintain ongoing dialogue with the Government of Israel at the most senior levels. The Secretary obviously engaged not just with the prime minister, but had one-on-one meetings with the defense minister, had one-on-one meetings with Minister Gantz, another member of the Israeli war cabinet, and of course the Secretary – sorry, the President has spoken with Prime Minister Netanyahu on a number of occasions. I’m not going to speak to either the private conversations that Secretary Blinken had with Prime Minister Netanyahu or the tempo of conversations between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu. But we always have ongoing dialogue at very senior levels, and I will say we have no inability to make our messages clear to the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Sure, but isn’t the tempo of leadership exchanges something that you pay close attention to? You did so with China. So, does that lack of leader-to-leader engagement of late suggest that diplomacy between the U.S. is faltering, or at an impasse, or simply that there’s nothing for the leaders to exchange views about?MR MILLER: I would not read too much into it. The Secretary just finished a week of diplomacy in the Middle East, including several days when we were in Israel and engaged with the highest members of the Israeli Government. He, of course, is not the only official in the United States Government to have traveled to Israel in recent months. You’ve seen officials from the White House, you’ve seen Secretary Austin travel to Israel. And of course, the President himself traveled to Israel and has conducted a number of conversations with the prime minister, and I am sure that they will speak again. But I would not read too much into the tempo of those conversations.QUESTION: Before we leave this topic, can I just – so have you seen Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest comments &#8212;MR MILLER: I did. I did.QUESTION: &#8212; about – that he’s rejected your guys’ assertion that the only way that Israel is going to achieve long-term security and peace is with the creation of a Palestinian state? This is obviously not new. This is something that he has said for some time and told you all directly last week, even. But I’m just wondering if you have any new – particularly new reaction &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; to him being apparently, in this situation, the roadblock? Your ally, your partner – all the Arab states are on board, at least according to what you guys say, with the post-conflict Gaza future planning, but Israel is not. So &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me echo something the Secretary said when he was in the region last week, and that is that Israel faces some very difficult choices in the months ahead. The conflict in Gaza is going to end; it will end. And at the end of that conflict, someone is going to have to rebuild Gaza. Someone is going to have to govern Gaza. Someone is going to have to provide security in Gaza. And one of the things the Secretary was able to achieve in his travels through the region last week are commitments from other countries in the region that they would participate in the reconstruction of Gaza, that they would participate in helping establish Palestinian-led governance of Gaza, but they would only do that if there was a tangible path to the establishment of a Palestinian state.But the question is actually bigger than that, because the question is not just about the short-term future of Gaza, but it is about how you solve this long-term challenge that Israel has, which is how Israel ensures real security for itself and how it ensures that October 7th is never repeated again. And the opportunity that Israel has right now before it is that, for the first time in its history, you see the countries in the region who are ready to step up and further integrate with Israel and provide real security assurances to Israel. And the United States is ready to play its part too, but they all have to have a willing partner on the other side.So, we will continue to reiterate to the leadership of Israel, the Government of Israel, and to the people of Israel that these are the opportunities that they have, these are the challenges that they face, but there is no way to solve their long-term challenges to provide lasting security, and there is no way to solve the short-term challenges of rebuilding Gaza and establishing governance in Gaza, and providing security for Gaza, without the establishment of a Palestinian state.And so, this is clearly going to be a conversation.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We’ve had direct conversations with him, and now we’re having a public conversation as well.QUESTION: So, you think that – you think that &#8212;MR MILLER: But it’s going to be – it’s going to be a process.QUESTION: You think that Netanyahu is basically squandering an opportunity for real lasting peace for his country?MR MILLER: I don’t want to characterize his remarks, but I will say that there is a historic opportunity that Israel has to deal with challenges that it has faced since its founding, and we hope the country will take that opportunity.QUESTION: All right. And then the – what makes – you said at some point – at the beginning of your answer, you said at some point the war in Gaza is going to come to an end. Why are you so confident of that? I mean, the situation right now appears to be one in which this is going to be never-ending, and the youth who survive in Gaza – Palestinian youth – have been radicalized to the point where – or seem to be, have radicalized to the point where there isn’t going to be an end anytime soon, even with the creation of an independent Palestinian state.MR MILLER: It is – that is such a good question, Matt. I will say we believe that the short-term conflict will come to an end. We’ve had a conversations with the Israeli Government about that, about how they will transfer – how they will transition to lower tempo operations. But they see an end to this conflict, we see an end to this conflict. But you’re right; that is –QUESTION: Well, wait. Do they? Are you convinced that the Israelis do see an end to this conflict?MR MILLER: I am convinced that they do. But to get to your underlying question, that does not solve the long-term challenge. And we think the only way to solve the long-term challenge is to offer a solution that answers the legitimate hopes, dreams, aspirations of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Okay. And the last one, based on Said’s question about the demolition of the university. I don’t know if you’ve seen the video; it’s pretty widely-available.MR MILLER: I have seen the video.QUESTION: But it’s – it looks – I mean, it looks like a controlled demolition. It looks like what we do here in this country, when we’re taking down an old hotel or a stadium. And you have nothing to say? You have nothing to say about this?MR MILLER: I have &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, to do that kind of an explosion you need to be in there. You have to put the explosives down, and it takes a lot of planning and preparation to do. And if there was a threat from this particular facility, they wouldn’t have been able to do it.MR MILLER: So, I have seen the video. I can tell you that it is something we are raising with the Government of Israel, as we do – often do when we see &#8212;QUESTION: Well, raising is what? Like &#8212;MR MILLER: When we see – to ask questions and find out what the underlying situation is, as we often do when we see reports of this nature. But I’m not able to characterize the actual facts on the ground before hearing that response.QUESTION: Yeah, but you saw the video.MR MILLER: I did see the video. All I – I don’t know – I don’t know what was &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it looks like people – it looks like a bridge being imploded.MR MILLER: I don’t know what was under that building. I don’t know what was inside, inside that building.QUESTION: Well, yeah, but it doesn’t matter what was under the building because they obviously got in there to put the explosives down to do it in the way that they did.MR MILLER: Again, I’m glad you have factual certainty about it. I just don’t.QUESTION: I don’t. All I have is what I saw on the video, right?MR MILLER: I just don’t, but I can say &#8212;QUESTION: And I think you guys saw it too.MR MILLER: We did see it. And I can say that we have raised it with the Government of Israel.QUESTION: And it’s not troubling to you?MR MILLER: We are always troubled by the – by any degradation of civilian infrastructure in Gaza. But without knowing the actual underlying circumstances, I’m a little hesitant, I think for reasons that should be understandable, to pass definitive judgment on it from this podium.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask you just a follow-up?MR MILLER: Yes, Said. Go ahead.QUESTION: Not on this issue but on something that you said. You said you see an end to this conflict in the short term and so on.MR MILLER: Yes.QUESTION: What does this end look like in your view?MR MILLER: So, we believe that there are military goals that are achievable for the Government of Israel. But to get into the point I was making that ultimately there also needs to be a political resolution, and there needs to be a political path towards statehood for the Palestinian people, period.QUESTION: I understand. But this conflict – I mean, how would it end? How is it going to end?MR MILLER: I did not bring my crystal ball today, Said. So, I’m afraid I’m not going to offer any predictions. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. But you – you’ve become quite an expert at &#8212;MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: I’m saying you guys have a great deal of expertise that basically can give you sort of a direction on how this is going to end at one point, whether it’s next month or in two months or whatever.MR MILLER: So, I am not going to make predictions about it, but we do believe that this conflict, as all conflicts do, will end at some point and that there needs to be a political path forward for the establishment of a Palestinian state. That is the only way not just to answer the legitimate hopes, dreams, aspirations of Palestinian people, but it is also – and this is critical – the only way to provide lasting security for the Israeli people.I promised you I’d come to you next, and then I’ll go to &#8212;QUESTION: Matt, thank you. I wanted just to follow up on the Israeli prime minister remarks. I know he didn’t say something new, but he said that he informed you that he doesn’t support a Palestinian state. Did he inform you? Because it explains a lot. He didn’t speak with the President since December 23rd.MR MILLER: So, I will speak to our side of the conversation, and I will let him speak to his side of the conversation. But what I will say in speaking to our side is that the points that I just made publicly from this podium about the path forward, the opportunities for Israel, and the challenges that Israel faces are points that Secretary Blinken made very clear in all of his meetings with leaders of the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Okay. You said also during the Secretary’s trip in the region he heard from the leaders that – and they are willing to engage with Israel. Do you characterize Prime Minister Netanyahu as a willing partner to engage for peace in the region?MR MILLER: So, I think certainly we have seen the Government of Israel want to engage with its neighbors. You’ve seen the Government of Israel normalize relationships with a number of its neighbors already, and it wants to pursue further integration, it wants to obviously normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, and we had been making progress on that and believe that progress is still possible to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.But the point that we have made to Israel is that to achieve those goals, to provide security assurances for Israel, it’s going to take Israel making some tough choices as well.QUESTION: One more question, on Lebanon. I know the risk has been high for a second front or a bigger front – there is a front going. But given the new statements by the Israeli leaders and also the threats from Hizballah, do you see the risk as higher on the northern border?MR MILLER: So, I don’t want to assess any change in risk, but we have always though the risk was high for escalation on the northern border since October 7th. And that’s why we have made it a focus of our diplomatic efforts since October 7th in making clear to Hizballah that they should not escalate. You saw the President speak on October 7th itself making clear that any enemies of Israel who wanted to capitalize on this situation for their own perceived benefit should not do so – and that’s a message we’ve continued to send loud and clear. And we’ve engaged in diplomatic efforts to make clear that there is a path to de-escalation, and we think that’s a path that ought to interest both Israel and all other parties in the region.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, just to come back on to the Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments. So, your response seems to be, and what you were saying in the region, is you’ve outlined very clearly for the Israelis why there’s – how there’s an opportunity here, right, to have – but what they need – they need to make these tough choices. But clearly, with these comments it’s kind of drawing a line under that and saying the current prime minister is not willing to make those tough choices. So, as well as offering an opportunity and saying here’s a great solution to all your problems, are you also offering some kind of pressure, or what is it that you are actually saying to the Israelis we will do if you don’t accept – or are you just going to hold your hands up and say, well, we gave them an opportunity and they didn’t take it?MR MILLER: I don’t think we need to offer any kind of pressure. The pressure is reality. The pressure is the reality that I just laid out, that without a tangible path to the establishment of a Palestinian state, there are no other partners in the region who are going to step forward and help with the reconstruction of Gaza. There are no other partners in the region who are going to step forward and help establish Palestinian-led governance of Gaza. There are no other partners in the region who are going to step forward and integrate with Israel and make further assurances about Israel’s long-term security. So that’s just the reality. It’s not the United States exerting pressure or not, it’s the reality of the situation that Israel faces, and without making some of these tough choices that we’ve outlined, that will continue to be the reality and there will be no actual solutions to any of those very real short, medium, and long-term problems.QUESTION: So there – if there’s – you’re basically saying that there’s – their current position is only going to – is not going to lead to any solution. There’s no way that this will be solved. Does that mean cutting – do you continue to supply weapons and other support to an ally that is not listening to the warnings that you’re giving?MR MILLER: So, I know that’s a question I get a lot, and I will answer it by saying Israel is a longtime ally of the United States. They’re a longtime friend of the United States, and there are friendships not just at the government-to-government level, but there are longstanding friendships between our two peoples. And one of the things that you can do when you have this kind of longtime alliance and longtime friendship is that you can have these very frank, candid, and sometimes actually quite difficult conversations – both with the leadership of the country and with the country at large, and that’s what you saw the Secretary do in his last trip, where he didn’t just lay all this out to the government. He laid this all out publicly in a speech in Israel that was – in a speech in Israel. And we will continue to make that clear publicly. We will continue to make it clear privately, because we do really believe the choices are stark.QUESTION: But the message is – I guess that you could read from that is that U.S. support for Israel is not at risk no matter what choices they make.MR MILLER: So, we – our support for Israel remains ironclad, but that doesn’t mean that there are no differences between our two countries and that there will not be any differences between our two countries. We have differences with all of our allies. There are things that we don’t necessarily see 100 percent eye to eye on. But again, I think the question here is less about a difference in opinion about a path forward between Israel and the United States. The question is really more about the opportunity that Israel faces and whether they will grab it, because this is not a question of the United States pressuring them to do anything. This is about the United States laying out for them the opportunity that they have, in part because of the work that we did, that Secretary Blinken and that President Biden have done to talk with other countries in the region to make clear that there is a path for further integration. There is a path for real security assurances &#8211; but again, we can’t make those choices for anyone. They have to make them for themselves.Olivia, and then I’ll – I know I have to get to some of the other hands in the room.QUESTION: I was going to ask about the Houthis, so if there’s something else about Gaza specifically.MR MILLER: Yeah, no, go ahead.QUESTION: Well, so a day after the SDGT designation, the Houthis’ attacks in the Red Sea have continued unabated, arguably intensified, targeting U.S. interests. The U.S. is now the sole power conducting strikes on Houthi interests. So where is the international coalition that the U.S. had worked so hard to galvanize in order to deter these Houthi attacks?MR MILLER: So, if you look at the coalitions that we have assembled there, people have a number of different roles. There are more than 40 countries that issued a statement making clear that they condemned the Houthis’ attacks. There is a coalition of more than 20 countries that we assembled for Prosperity Guardian to defend against the Houthis’ attacks. There are all the countries at the United – on the United Nations Security Council who voted to make clear that those attacks are unacceptable. Then there are the – the countries that participated in direct military action, and of course that is a smaller group of countries. That’s always going to be the case when it comes to action of this nature.I will say that we will continue to use all the instruments of military power, and that includes – or, I’m sorry, all the instruments of national power, and that includes not just military power, but it also does include our diplomatic efforts. We think it’s important that other countries of the world have made clear to the Houthis that these attacks are unacceptable and that these attacks must stop. And we will continue to use our sanctions authority to deprive the Houthis of resources and to further our efforts to crack down on people who provide them with finances or provide them with military equipment.But we have been clear that – we have said from the outset that we did not think that the attacks would stop after our first military strike, that we would have to take further action. You have seen us take further action. And we are committed to continuing to do so because the attacks on commercial shipping are just unacceptable. They don’t have anything to do with the conflict in Gaza and they need to stop.QUESTION: All right. I recognize that the statements were made, the resolutions were passed, but I mean, just as an example, you saw the president of France saying that France declined to engage in these more kinetic activities out of fears of escalation. So, is the U.S. risking being, again, sort of the sole power undertaking this more military-focused kind of activity?MR MILLER: I don’t – I would not agree with that characterization only because of the reasons I just outlined, which there are a number of countries who have made clear that these attacks are unacceptable. And we are the ones who, of course, are leading the military response to actually add some teeth to that statement, but we certainly think the diplomatic statements are important as well.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The Russian ambassador to South Korea said in an interview with South Korean press that he was ready to improve relations between Russia and South Korea and he wanted a high-level dialogue between South Korea and Russia. How can you explain Russia’s intention to – Russia dual action toward South Korea while engaging in military cooperation with North Korea?MR MILLER: So, I have not seen those specific comments, so I am going to decline to comment on them from here and I’ll take it back and get you an answer.QUESTION: Yesterday they held a &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, I just didn’t see the specific comment, so &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Second one: Do you have anything on the United States and South Korea, Japan, representatives of Korean Peninsula meeting in Seoul?MR MILLER: Let me take it back and get an answer on that as well.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very quick question on Bangladesh. What steps will the United States take in response to the reported – reported sham election in Bangladesh involving the undermining of democracy and imprisonment of thousands opposition members? As you mentioned in your statement, that election was not free and fair.MR MILLER: So, we do remain concerned by the arrest of thousands of political opposition members and by the reports of irregularities on election day. We share the view with other observers that these elections were not free and fair. We regret that not all parties participated, and we condemn the violence that took place during elections and in the months leading up to it. We are now encouraging the Government of Bangladesh to credibly and transparently investigate the reports of violence, to hold perpetrators accountable, and we all urge all parties to reject political violence.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Matt, in light of an NBC News report yesterday that describes President Biden and Saudi Prince Salman’s frustrations with Prime Minister Netanyahu refuses to accept a Palestinian state as a required path to – pathway to peace, what is your response to Prime Minister Netanyahu and evangelical Christians who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state to divide Israel? And I have a follow-up.MR MILLER: I think this is the point in the press conference where I just say “ibid.” Is that how you pronounce it, the term you see in &#8212;QUESTION: “Ibid.”MR MILLER: “Ibid.” Is that how – so I have it wrong. “Ibid.” I think I’ve spoken to that at some length, probably at too much length, so I’ll refer you to my earlier comments.QUESTION: Okay. Then follow-up: Do you expect Iran to cease their hostilities against Israel if Israel agreed to a Palestinian state given that Iran’s ayatollah has called for the total annihilation of Israel?MR MILLER: So, one of the things that the Secretary made clear when we were in the region is actually the answer to Iran’s aggression against Israel is this further integration with other partners in the region. Iran clearly is not interested in peace with Israel, but other countries are, and there are other countries that are willing to step up and normalize their relationships with Israel, to integrate Israel further into the region, and to have real lasting security agreements with Israel. And what that would do is it would further isolate Iran, and isolate the groups that Iran funds – the Houthis, Hizballah, Hamas – and at least take some steps to depriving those groups of the political oxygen that they use to recruit new members.So, it’s precisely because of the long-term threat that Iran poses to Israel’s security and to the security of the entire region that we think the establishment of a Palestinian state is so important.QUESTION: About Iran also, since the head of the snake is Iran that is fueling unrest in the Middle East, what do you see the U.S. and its allies can do to stop their aggression?MR MILLER: So, as I said – as I’ve said a number of times from this podium, we will continue to take actions to deter Iran’s hostile activities. We will continue to take actions to hold Iran accountable for its activities. We’ve imposed more than 400 sanctions on Iran since the outset of this administration, and we will continue to take whatever actions are appropriate.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A question on Syria. NGO Forum warning on the escalation of hostilities between the Türkiye and SDF: “From January 13-16, 2024, 40 verified strikes were conducted across northeast Syria. At least six civilians  – been injured,  at least 26 critical infrastructure sites are either severely damaged or out of service.” That is what they mentioned in the report they published yesterday. I understand that Türkiye is your NATO Ally, and SDF is your local partner – they are fighting against ISIS with you. So how does the United States is trying to make these two parties to get together and de-escalate the situation?MR MILLER: So let me take that back and get you a complete answer.QUESTION: And one more question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Iraqi prime minister says that the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq is no longer needed. I understand that you are in Iraq on the Iraqi invitation, but now the Iraqi Government repeatedly says that they don’t need the U.S.-led coalition to fight against ISIS. What’s your assessment? Do you think that you still need to be there to face the ISIS? How do you see that?MR MILLER: So, I will say that we are there at the invitation of the Government of Iraq. There is a process that we go through to engage in dialogue with the Government of Iraq, and we will continue to engage in that process.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Well, let’s remember that you got there first without the invitation of the Government of Iraq &#8212;MR MILLER: I am &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and then you stayed and through repeated administrations while the Iraqi parliament &#8212;MR MILLER: I – I am &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; after the invasion and the return to their&#8211;MR MILLER: I am well aware.QUESTION: &#8212; quote/unquote “sovereignty,” they have asked numerous times for U.S. troops to leave and you guys have basically given them the finger &#8212;MR MILLER: I am – I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and said, “No, we’re not going anywhere.” And that was not just the Obama administration or the Bush administration, but also the Trump administration and now this administration.MR MILLER: I am &#8212;QUESTION: But is there a process ongoing right now, a discussion with the Iraqis, about the eventual withdrawal?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the substance of our conversation, but we have an ongoing process with the Government of Iraq to talk about exactly these issues – the status of our forces in Iraq – and we are there at the Government of Iraq’s invitation. And beyond that, I don’t want to discuss our private diplomatic conversations.QUESTION: But how many times does the invitation have to be, like, rescinded before you actually – before you actually agree to it?MR MILLER: (Laughter.) So, I don’t think I’m going to accept the premise of the question, but I will say that we engage in ongoing and private diplomatic conversations about all of these issues.QUESTION: Yeah, telling them that’s very nice, but no thank you, we’re staying.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Sir, a member of the media in Pakistan has reported that Pakistani authorities consulted with the U.S. before the airstrikes in Iran. Is it true?MR MILLER: I don’t – I do not have any private conversations to read out.QUESTION: And sir, India’s role in the assassination attempt on Sikh activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun was highlighted at yesterday’s congressional hearing on transnational repression. Sir, is there any update from India about their internal investigation on that assassination attempt?MR MILLER: So, I will say that there is – that is a subject of an ongoing Department of Justice investigation and – or I should say ongoing legal matter, law enforcement matter, and because of that, I’m not going to – I’m going to decline to comment on it.QUESTION: So, when you say that the election results in Bangladesh were not credible, free, or fair, does this imply that the U.S. will not recognize Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s fourth straight term?MR MILLER: No, no.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Lots of stuff has been heard about Iran and their activities. Is the U.S. at all happy that Pakistan took the action to at least teach them? Because after a long time, somebody has taken step to go inside Iran or – you know?MR MILLER: So, I did speak to this earlier, and what I said was that we are concerned about escalating tensions in the region, and we will continue to urge all parties to show restraint.QUESTION: Okay. One more. Elections in Pakistan are happening, and you are hoping that the escalation will not grow and the elections are such that Imran Khan is out, obviously. His foreign minister was arrested. His interior minister was arrested. Many of his – his party ticket has been taken from him. Are you going to just comment the same thing you did to my colleague about Bangladesh elections – after the election, you are just going to regret it – or are you going to say that the elections are not being held fair?MR MILLER: So, I’m going to say what we say about countries all over the world, which is that we want the elections in Pakistan, as we do all over the world, to be free and fair and held in a manner that allows the Pakistani people to express their will. And we will align our policies to achieve that objective.QUESTION: Just last one.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Modi is going to inaugurate the Babri Mosque in a couple of days. It’s the same site where more than 2,000 people have been killed. Does it suit the prime minister to go to a place where it’s already from decades and – it’s an issue that has created a lot of hate between Hindus and Muslims. And Prime Minister Modi is doing this special ritual before going and he’s going to be there for the opening of a Hindu temple. Does that leadership – good leadership sign?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Two topics. On Nagorno-Karabakh first, I was hoping you could update us on the latest efforts about the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Last week, Special Advisor Bono was in the region to carry Karabakh talks, but he avoided Baku. Any reason why? And, also, any sense of what he heard in Armenia? Any message he conveyed?MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to get into the exact substance of those – those meetings other than to say that we welcome the work towards peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both countries. We hope they will sign a durable peace treaty that recognizes such sovereignty and territorial integrity, the sooner the better. The parties have made significant progress over the past year, and we encourage them to maintain momentum building on past negotiations and conclude an agreement.QUESTION: Thank you. And second topic: Today marks three months since the detention of Radio Free Europe reporter Alsu Kurmasheva in Russia. Do you have any message to Alsu – to her family, to her two little daughters who are also American citizens, to her colleagues at RFE/RL who are (inaudible) American citizens and are watching and wondering, three months in, the State Department still refuses to recognize her detention as wrongful?MR MILLER: So, I would say that it is a case that we continue to focus an enormous amount of attention on. It’s something we continue to look into. And as I have said a number of times, that just because we have not made a wrongful detention determination at any point does not indicate anything about the work that we are doing or about what our future posture may be. We are constantly gathering information in all of these cases, assessing facts, assessing law in helping us guide – in helping guide us to what ultimately will be the right determination.QUESTION: I understand that, but when push comes to shove, I mean, you offer something to Russians about American citizens’ detention – detained in Russia. You did not include Alsu. Why is that?MR MILLER: I just don’t have anything further to add on it beyond what I just said.With that, I’ll wrap from there unless Matt – unless Matt has a &#8212;QUESTION: Well, what I – as I did yesterday &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; Lagniappe, for the end.QUESTION: &#8212; I have one last one on Guatemala.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So, after I asked you the last question of yesterday’s briefing about Guatemala and the criticism or complaints from some people about your policy towards there – well, not just after, it was about four hours after &#8212;MR MILLER: It was a few hours later.QUESTION: &#8212; as I was walking out the door, not – with no heads-up that you guys were going to do this, you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: Give me a heads-up what time you’re leaving today, and I’ll try to make sure we make any news before that so as not to disrupt your commute.QUESTION: Well, I want to leave right now. (Laughter.) I won’t leave right now, but anyway, so you guys put the former president – former by three days president &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; on – you put a travel ban on him, essentially.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And so, this is a guy who, while he was president, had annoyed the U.S., this administration, with his – with his policies, particularly on migration and other things. But what I’m wondering about is the timing of this, because these designations take some time to do. So, is it fair to say that this administration was considering doing this while he was still in office, but you held off until he was out of his office for whatever reason?MR MILLER: I will answer that by saying whenever we take any sanctions action, we look at that action and the timing of it and try to achieve both the maximum impact and we try to minimize any downside risk. And so, in making the determination about when to impose this sanction – obviously, as we said in the statement – we had evidence of his involvement in significant corruption. We did not want to take any action that might have hurt our ability to achieve our goal in this – our goal in Guatemala, which was not just a free and fair election, but the actual ability of the duly-elected president to take office.QUESTION: Okay. But a decision like this isn’t made – isn’t – the process of this isn’t started and then finished within three days.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: And clearly you had – if you say you have this evidence against him for massive corruption or I don’t know what the adjective was in front of “corruption,” but if you had &#8212;MR MILLER: Significant.QUESTION: &#8212; “significant,” all right – evidence of significant corruption, why didn’t you act against him while he was still president?MR MILLER: So, I don’t want to get into the exact timeline, but the point I was making here is we – in looking at how to maximize the impact of this, did not want to take any action that would impede what we were trying to achieve, which was a free and fair election.QUESTION: Well, I’m sorry. I guess I just don’t understand.MR MILLER: A free and fair election, and remember what – that there was significant risk of the duly-elected president not being able to take office, and we had to make an assessment whether any action &#8212;QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; we were doing would add to that risk?QUESTION: Well, so you say – you keep saying “maximize,” that you wanted to maximize. In fact, you wanted to minimize &#8212;MR MILLER: And minimize – no, no, did you just say – no, no, minimize the risk also. I mean, the risk that I’m just outlining &#8212;QUESTION: Well, okay, so what is &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; that we take an &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; maximizing the impact? What does that mean? What – so how did this announcement coming three days after the guy left office &#8212;MR MILLER: So, what I said was – so &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; how did that maximize the impact?MR MILLER: What I said is, as a general statement, we’re trying to do two things: maximize impact, minimize risk.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: And I think what you just heard me outline is a risk that we were aware of that we were trying to avoid &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; that was any action that we take that might in any way impact the president-elect’s ability to take office, which, as you know, was – there was a great deal &#8212;QUESTION: It did not go without hitch.MR MILLER: It didn’t – exactly my point. It did not go without hitch, and we did not want to do anything that might make it more difficult.QUESTION: So, you think that – you think that holding off on this was part of the reason or part of what allowed him to eventually take – the new president to take the oath?MR MILLER: I think that establishes a causal link that I was not &#8212;QUESTION: Oh.MR MILLER: &#8212; prepared to make, but the point I was making &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; is we did not want to add to risk in any way.QUESTION: Okay. But then when you talk about maximizing the impact, what – wouldn’t it – wouldn’t the impact be maximum or most – I don’t know what the Latin is.MR MILLER: It’s about &#8212;QUESTION: A “maximus impactus.”MR MILLER: My &#8212;QUESTION: If you had done it while he was still &#8212;MR MILLER: Not &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; a head of state.MR MILLER: Not if we raised the risk of the elected president – the duly-elected president not taking office. No, that would not have maximized the impact.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.MR MILLER: All right, we’ll end there. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Angola																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Bangladesh																								Cabo Verde																								Côte d&#039;Ivoire																								Guatemala																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Nigeria																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to the Press HomeOffice of the SpokespersonBriefings&#8230;Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to the Press				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to the Press																																		Remarks to the Press																														January 8, 2024																																							SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, good evening, everyone.&nbsp; We’ve just finished our third day of a trip that thus far has taken us from Türkiye to Greece to Jordan to Qatar to the United Arab Emirates to here in Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; Everywhere I went, I found leaders who are determined to prevent the conflict that we’re facing now from spreading, doing everything possible to deter escalation, to prevent a widening of the conflict.&nbsp; We also talked about the future for this region, and I think there’s broad agreement on a few basic objectives: first, that Israel and Israelis should be able to live in peace and security, free from the fear of terrorist attacks or aggression from any of their neighbors; second, that the West Bank and Gaza should be united under Palestinian-led governance; third, the future of the region needs to be one of integration, not division and not conflict; and fourth, for that to happen, we need to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.&nbsp;Now, no one I talked to thinks any of this will be easy.&nbsp; All recognize the hurdles, and no one thinks that anything will happen overnight.&nbsp; But we agreed to work together and to coordinate our efforts to help Gaza stabilize and recover, to chart a political path forward for the Palestinians, and to work toward long-term peace, security, and stability in the region as a whole.&nbsp;I also found across the board that the countries we visited, the leaders we spend time with, are prepared to make the necessary commitments, to make the hard decisions to advance all of these objectives, to advance this vision for the region.&nbsp;We’re heading now to Israel, where I’ll have an opportunity to share with Israeli leaders everything I’ve heard thus far on this trip, and also to talk to them about the future direction of their military campaign in Gaza.&nbsp; I will press on the absolute imperative to do more to protect civilians and to do more to make sure that humanitarian assistance is getting into the hands of those who need it.&nbsp; We’ll also, of course, focus on our relentless efforts to bring back the hostages – Americans, Israelis, and others.&nbsp; And we’ll talk about how we see the future for the region and for Israel.&nbsp; And I’m convinced that there is a future path that can actually bring lasting peace and security for Israel, that can assure that October 7th never happens again, and that can bring the region together, that can meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and do it in a way that makes this a region focused on the future, not on the challenges of the past.With that, I’m happy to take a couple questions.&nbsp;MR MILLER:&nbsp;&nbsp;Iain.QUESTION:&nbsp; Secretary, your trip is partly about trying to prevent a wider war, but Israel has now killed two Hizballah leaders within a week.&nbsp; What does that say about U.S. leverage over Israel, and doesn’t that risk a second front?And secondly, Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani yesterday said military strikes against the Houthis were not the best option and that he preferred diplomacy since the military strikes would raise regional tensions.&nbsp; What message are you giving to Arab partners in the region about U.S. and coalition efforts and intentions towards potential military strikes in Yemen?SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp; Well first, Iain, with regard to Lebanon, it’s clearly not in the interest of anyone – Israel, Lebanon, Hizballah for that matter – to see this escalate and to see an actual conflict.&nbsp; And the Israelis have been very clear with us that they want to find a diplomatic way forward, a diplomatic way forward that creates the kind of security that allows Israelis to return home – nearly 100,000 Israelis have been forced to leave their homes in northern Israel because of the threat coming from Hizballah and Lebanon – but also allows Lebanese to return to their homes in southern Lebanon.&nbsp; And we’re working intensely on that effort, and doing so diplomatically.Second, with regard to the Red Sea, the international community as a whole faces a challenge.&nbsp; These attacks, consistent attacks by the Houthis on international shipping, are a threat to everyone.&nbsp; We talked about this yesterday.&nbsp; You’ve got about 15 percent of the world’s commerce every day going through that strait, going through the Red Sea.&nbsp; And these attacks are having a real effect on the prices that people have to pay for food, for medicine, for energy.&nbsp; Ships have to get diverted to other places, insurance rates go up, and the basic principle of freedom of navigation is what’s at stake.So the international community has a real stake in upholding that principle.&nbsp; As I said, we’ve had 40 countries come together to make clear that what the Houthis are doing has to stop.&nbsp; And we have other countries that have made clear that if it continues, there have to be consequences.So our strong view, our strong preference, is that the Houthis get the message that they’re receiving from countries around the world that this needs to stop.&nbsp; And that’s what we’re focused on.QUESTION:&nbsp; Hi, Secretary Blinken.&nbsp; Thanks.&nbsp; Before the October 7th attacks, you and other aides to President Biden were trying to pursue the idea of Saudi-Israel normalization, and that’s become – it seems that’s become much more difficult in light of the attacks, given the animus on different sides now.&nbsp; But you still want to pursue that, because it might be one way for – to get Israel to recognize the aspirations of the Palestinians.&nbsp; What did the crown – what did Crown Prince Mohammed tell you today about the prospects for normalization?&nbsp; What’s – what conditions would he – is he looking for to reach normalization?&nbsp; And what do you think the U.S. and Israel have to put forward to reach that, to reach an agreement?Secondly, what did Crown Prince Mohammed and MBZ today tell you about what they’re willing to do in a post-war state in Gaza?SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp; So the second part of the question first.&nbsp; What I’ve found on virtually every stop was a willingness of all of the countries involved to do important things to help Gaza stabilize and revitalize.&nbsp; And I heard that in every place.&nbsp; And one of the things that we’re going to be working on together is just what that would require, and just what countries specifically are prepared to do.&nbsp; But that was a pretty constant theme.With regard to integration, to normalization, yes, we talked about that actually on every stop, including of course here in Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; And I can tell you this:&nbsp; There’s a clear interest here in pursuing that; there’s a clear interest in the region in pursuing that.&nbsp; But it will require that the conflict end in Gaza, and it will also clearly require that there be a practical pathway to a Palestinian state.&nbsp; This is what I heard from everyone we talked to about it.&nbsp; But this interest is there, it’s real, and it could be transformative.QUESTION:&nbsp; Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:&nbsp; Thanks, everyone.						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																																Counterterrorism																																							International Security																															Israel																								Lebanon																																Maritime Security																															Office of the Spokesperson																																Official International Travel																															Palestinian Territories																																Peace																																							Red Sea																															Saudi Arabia																																Secretary Trip																															The Secretary of State																								Yemen
- Lebanon (22-628) – Agreement Concerning Security Assistance and Leahy Ineligible Units Office of Treaty AffairsForeign AssistanceSigned at Beirut April 1, 2022; entered into force June 28, 2022.