# Saudi Arabia - United States Department of State

- Special Envoy for Sudan Perriello Travels to Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia Office of the Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Special Envoy for Sudan Perriello Travels to Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia				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();			}		});	}																										Special Envoy for Sudan Perriello Travels to Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia																																		Media Note																														May 13, 2024																																							Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello departed Washington on May 11 for travel to Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to meet with key regional partners to advance efforts to end the Sudan conflict and avert further mass atrocities, address the immediate and dire humanitarian needs of the Sudanese people, and map a path toward a transition to a civilian-led democratic government.The Special Envoy will meet with partner governments to coordinate diplomatic efforts to resume negotiations, build pressure needed to protect civilians and silence the guns, and facilitate a transition to a civilian-led democratic government.He will also meet with a broad range of Sudanese civilians, including civil society, resistance committees, local response networks, women, youth, grassroots organizations, and other parties to hear their perspectives on how to bolster efforts to end the conflict.						Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																								Egypt																								Kenya																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Saudi Arabia																								Uganda
- Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 6, 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 – May 6, 2024																																																					May 6, 2024																																																								1:47 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Don’t have any opening comments, so to you, Matt.QUESTION: You have nothing to say?MR MILLER: I think I &#8212;QUESTION: Nothing is going on in the world?MR MILLER: I think I imagine what your first question is going to be, so –QUESTION: Well, I figure &#8212;MR MILLER: So go ahead.QUESTION: You know what? I’m going to surprise you, because I don’t want – before we get into the long back and forth about Rafah and the ceasefire, I want to ask you if you can just answer this straight and – simply and straight about the Israeli closure of Al Jazeera. What is – what is your response?MR MILLER: So we have seen the announcement from the Government of Israel about closing Al Jazeera. We have made quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel, and that we are quite concerned about this action.QUESTION: You’re quite concerned about this action? Are you – are you asking the Israelis to do anything?MR MILLER: So as the President said on May 3rd, journalists and media workers are an essential part of any democracy &#8212;QUESTION: I know.MR MILLER: &#8212; because well-informed dissent is critical to building stronger and more successful societies, and we will continue to support and advocate for free and independent media around the world. We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as they operate in other countries in the region.QUESTION: Okay. So you oppose?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: You oppose this?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Then getting on to – so you’ve seen these reports in the last hour about Hamas accepting a ceasefire, but also the Israelis ordering or telling people in Rafah to get out. What’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I can confirm that Hamas has issued a response. We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region. As you know, Director Burns is in the region working on this in real time. We will be discussing this response with our partners over the coming hours. We continue to believe that a hostage deal is in the best interests of the Israeli people. It’s in the best interests of the Palestinian people. It would bring an immediate ceasefire. It would allow increased movement of humanitarian assistance. And so we’re going to continue to work to try to reach one.QUESTION: And so – but you haven’t made any – yet made any determination about whether this is – whether they’re accepting what is on the table or they’re accepting something that is different?MR MILLER: We have only received the response in the last hour, 90 minutes, and as I said, are going through it now and discussing with it – discussing it with partners in the region. So I don’t want to characterize the nature of that response just yet.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.MR MILLER: Okay. Shannon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Al Jazeera?MR MILLER: Wait. Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports that – from Israel that perhaps Hamas agreed to a proposal that was put together by Egypt and Qatar that was softer than the initial framework that was in the works last week. Is it possible that there has been a different proposal that the U.S. is not involved with tracking?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those suggestions; I’ve seen some of those reports. And I think you’ll – I hope you’ll understand that because we are still reviewing the response that has come in and because we are working on this in real time and trying to reach an agreement, I’m just going to decline to comment in detail about any of those reports. We are going to be discussing this response with our partners in the region in the hours ahead. It remains our top priority to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that will lead to the release of hostages, that will allow a surge of humanitarian assistance both into Gaza and allow it to move around inside Gaza. But I don’t want to comment on any of the various reports about what they might have been responding to until we’ve been able to go through it in detail and come to a full understanding and discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: And can you say at this point – maybe you can’t – but Hamas’s political wing and their militant wing, are they on the same page here? Do you feel like this is a response that at least indicates where the entire group is?MR MILLER: I am just not going to – I am just not going to speak for Hamas at all. As we have said for some time, there has been a significant offer on the table. The ball has been in Hamas’s court. We have made clear that they should accept that offer, that Israel made significant compromises, showed that they wanted to reach an agreement that would lead to the release of hostages, that would bring an immediate ceasefire. And we have hoped that Hamas would take the deal that was on the table. Now, as to what’s in their response, what it looks like, we’re going to review that and withhold judgment until we’ve had a chance to conduct a full review.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I ask about the – this – the threatened Israeli offensive in Rafah? In the hours before this, there were lots of reports about evacuations – not just a report, but Israel is talking about evacuations from Rafah. How does this – what’s the U.S. message to this now? Do you think that Israel should hold off on the – on any operations in Rafah as we discuss this response from Hamas?MR MILLER: Of course we do. We’ve made quite clear our position on Rafah for some time, which is that we cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned. We have made clear – the Secretary made this clear in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government last week – that we have not seen a humanitarian plan that is credible and that is implementable. And we believe a military operation in Rafah right now would dramatically increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, would lead to an increase in loss of civilian life, would dramatically disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, all of which is coming through – I shouldn’t say “all,” but the great majority of which is coming through Kerem Shalom or Rafah and is being distributed inside the Rafah area. If you think about what it would do when you have people moving north to places where internal distribution lines are not currently set up and you’re going to have to try to re-establish those in the middle of conflict in Rafah, we think that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do.So even absent this latest response, we have made clear that we do not support Israel launching a full-scale military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, you just said that in terms of – that’s the standard U.S. position on this. But has there been any communication with the Israelis about – I mean, in the past hours or so – about the response from Hamas and how this affects the situation in Rafah? Is there a message &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into our – those conversations. As I said, we just literally in the past hour, 90 minutes received that response from Hamas in the first place. Of course, we will be discussing it with Egypt, with Qatar, with Israel – the three countries with whom we have been working throughout this negotiation process. But I don’t want to get into the timing of those, but obviously, if we have – if those conversations had not already started, they will be ongoing in the next several hours.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, under the current circumstances, do you still think a ceasefire is achievable, based on what you know coming here?MR MILLER: I – what do you mean, is a ceasefire achievable?QUESTION: Like &#8212;MR MILLER: A ceasefire is what we are trying to achieve.QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, it has &#8212;MR MILLER: There is – there is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; over the weekend there was, like, there was a quiet impasse, and right now Hamas has accepted it. But from Israel, we’re hearing that that’s not the proposal that we’ve sent; that’s a softened version. That throws into – the whole thing into doubt.MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think I answered &#8212;QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, like, what’s your sense here?MR MILLER: A ceasefire is absolutely achievable. There has been a deal on the table – a proposal on the table – that would achieve an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. Now, as for Hamas’s response, which I think gets to your question, again, I don’t want to characterize it in any sort of detail until we’ve had a chance to review it in depth and talk with our partners in the region about it.QUESTION: And one thing on the humanitarian aid. Last week, when the Secretary was in Israel, there was an increased emphasis on – in his – during his trip on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We visited Kerem Shalom, which got shut down over the weekend after the Hamas attack. But can you give us, like, a sense of what a Rafah offensive – how that would impact all of Gaza? Because there are issues with distribution in the north. If we have a Rafah offensive in the south, could there be any meaningful humanitarian aid delivery in the north?MR MILLER: So let me just speak broadly to all of Gaza first, and then I’ll come to the north. So certainly a Rafah operation in – a Rafah operation would make it incredibly difficult to sustain the increases in humanitarian assistance that we have been able to deliver over the past few weeks since the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th. You have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in through Kerem Shalom; you have seen an increase in the distribution inside of Gaza, including inside southern Gaza. All of that would be put in jeopardy by a Rafah offensive because obviously, just look at what happened in the past 24 hours when you saw Hamas rocket attacks on Kerem Shalom that led to the death of three IDF soldiers and led to the closure of Kerem Shalom.If you had an ongoing kinetic military operation, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the impact that that would have on the delivery of humanitarian assistance – not just through Kerem Shalom, not just through Rafah gate, but of course inside all of Rafah and all of southern Gaza.Now, separate from that, we have been working on standing up additional delivery mechanisms to get aid directly in to northern Gaza without having to go through Kerem Shalom – not because we anticipated an upcoming Rafah operation, but because it’s so difficult to get aid through Kerem Shalom and then move it all the way to the north of Gaza. So that’s why you saw the opening of Erez crossing, which is something that the President insisted on and something that we achieved last week when the Secretary was there, first in Jordan and then in Israel. So you can have trucks move directly from Jordan, through Erez crossing in the north, not have to go all the way to Kerem Shalom and come back up north. You saw Ashdod Port opening so goods can come directly from Ashdod and go in through a northern crossing, and it’s why we’re standing up the maritime operation.So there will be ways to get humanitarian assistance in to northern Gaza directly; we have been working on those because it’s important to do so because we’ve seen how difficult it is to get aid from southern Gaza into northern Gaza. It’s hard to speculate what the impact of a Rafah operation would have on the delivery of that aid to northern Gaza, but certainly you can say without a doubt that it would dramatically impact the delivery of humanitarian assistance in southern Gaza.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just going off of that for a second, you said earlier – reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t support a full-scale invasion into Rafah. What about a limited invasion into Rafah?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate on the types of military operation. We &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not speculating &#8212;MR MILLER: No – so – no, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli Government has said limited &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m about to answer, Kylie. So there are proposals that we have put on the table – and this is why I’m not going to talk about some of this publicly &#8212; there are proposals that we have put on the table to the Israeli Government that we have discussed with them, that we think would be a much more limited, much more targeted, much more effective way of achieving their legitimate military – their legitimate military objectives, which is taking on the Hamas battalions that are remaining in Rafah. Those look very different than the types of operations that we have seen proposed publicly by the Israeli Government, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So just to be clear, what you have proposed to them isn’t your understanding of what they are planning to go ahead with in the near future?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they might be planning to go ahead with; I’ll let them speak to that. We’ve seen the announcement they made today about evacuation orders for not the entire – not entire southern Gaza, not entire – the entire Rafah area, but for a significant portion of it, 100,000 people. And I – of course we have concerns that any evacuation at all in such a crowded area, if you see 100,000 people move, you’re going to see other people in the next area move as well – which, of course, is something that you want to see happen if there is a military operation. But the problem now is there’s such limited places for them to go inside Gaza, and there is no effective way to distribute them – distribute aid to them and make sure they have access to shelter, access to sanitation, in the places that they would go if, say, you had hundreds of thousands of people moving from Rafah.QUESTION: And then without characterizing the Hamas response, given you guys are still reviewing it, would you say it’s a hopeful sign that they have given a response here?MR MILLER: I think that would be characterizing it, so I’m going to decline to do so until we have completed that review.QUESTION: And when do you think you will be able to complete that review? When should we expect an assessment from the administration?MR MILLER: The – Director Burns, as I said, is in the region literally working on this right now. I don’t want to put a timetable on it, but it is something that is a top priority for everyone in this administration from the President on down. You saw that the President had a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Achieving a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of hostages was one of the top priorities of the Secretary’s trip when he was in the region last week. So everyone is focused on this. Everyone is trying to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: Thank you. Last week there was some reporting that the Biden administration had put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel. Have you seen that report? Can you comment on its accuracy?MR MILLER: I have seen that report. As is usually the case, we don’t comment on specific cases of arms transfers, and I’m not going to do so here.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify on the offer, the offer that you said was generous and on the table and what seems to be accepted now. Does that mean that the ball is no longer in Hamas’s court?MR MILLER: Said, it’s impossible for me to answer that question without characterizing the response that Hamas has given, which I’m not yet willing to do.QUESTION: Okay, all right. On Al Jazeera, now we know that Israel is accusing the correspondents of Al Jazeera, our colleagues who are Israeli citizens by the way, accusing them of incitement that goes back many years and all these things, a crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Are you worried that these correspondents might actually be imprisoned by the Israelis? And if they are, what would the Government of the United States do?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to those specific allegations. It’s not something that we’ve reviewed in detail. We would have to do that. I’m certainly not going to speculate about what we might do in response to an action that has not yet been taken. I will just reiterate that when it comes to the decision to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, it’s something that we are concerned by. We support the work that journalists and media do.We have had – and I don’t think it’s any secret that we have had our differences with Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right, of course.MR MILLER: &#8212; over the years, including in some of the ways in which they – that they cover this conflict. But we support the free media &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; conducting their operations everywhere in the world.QUESTION: Yeah, I think most countries have had an issue with Al Jazeera. Let me ask you about Rafah. Now the movement, 100,000 people and so on, now how many would need to move before Israel can go in and legitimately go after Hamas’s position? I mean, the area is so small – al-Mawasi, where they are moving and so on – just meters – kilometers away.MR MILLER: It’s not &#8212;QUESTION: What – would prevent, let’s say a Hamas fighter or Hamas leaders and so on to actually move to another place? They allegedly have a network of tunnels that would allow them to do that and so on. And then we have the same kind of situation. We see the Israelis saying we want to go after them in that area. I mean, how do you read this whole situation?MR MILLER: So that is not really a question I can answer. I will just make clear, as I have already and as others in the administration including the President, including the Secretary have on a number of occasions, that an operation – a major operation in Rafah – is not something that we can support.QUESTION: Yeah. And finally, I asked on Thursday about Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh. I was wrong. He wasn’t shot. He was – apparently he died and some say under torture and so on. I know that your colleague at the White House said what she said, that she was saddened and all these things, but have you followed up on this issue? How do you follow up on it? Because apparently they are keeping his corpse. I mean, they are not turning it to his family or others and so on for proper burial.MR MILLER: It is one that we have raised with the Government of Israel. I don’t have a response to read out. We have made clear with Israel, as we have made clear publicly, that they must treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with international humanitarian law and that they must respect detainees’ human rights and also that they must ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Since they took all the Al Jazeera questions, I’ll skip mine.MR MILLER: No problem.QUESTION: I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, did you have something?QUESTION: No, no, no, no.QUESTION: I just want to – because I’m a little bit confused, if you can clarify. So the Hamas response is not on the general’s proposal? It’s not – it’s not accepting this proposal?MR MILLER: I think I made clear I am not going to characterize their response one way or the other until we’ve had a chance to fully review it, digest it, discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: All right. My second question is about the pier that the United States is conducting. We believe we have, in our reporting, that it is close to being operational. Can you just tell us how this pier will operate? I mean, who will have the upper hand in all – in making this &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is something that we have been trying to complete as soon as possible. And when I say we, I mean largely our colleagues at the Pentagon who are constructing the pier. We have been involved in liaising with humanitarian groups that will be involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance once it comes in to Gaza, but with the actual timeline for the launch of the pier and its operation, any details I’m going to defer to the Pentagon to comment on those in any detail.QUESTION: By the way, on the pier itself, it was – it was said over the weekend that it was moved to (inaudible) because of some high winds and waves and so on. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to the Pentagon for any of those operational kind of details.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: They’re the ones that are responsible for constructing and moving it and ultimately launching it.Michel, go ahead, and we’ll do a few more in the Middle East before we &#8212;QUESTION: Did you ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from Doha – from Doha, and is it the time for these leaders to leave?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As we have said a number of times, the Secretary in his conversations has made clear with a number of partners in the region that any relationship they have with Hamas, any influence they have with Hamas, they should use to make clear to Hamas that it – to Hamas that it needs to accept a ceasefire deal that includes the release of hostages. And he has also made clear publicly that at the end of this process there can be – there can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, as existed in too many places before October 7th. And I think I’ll decline to comment for any further.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: In the region on &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. For World Press Freedom Day last week, the Secretary did put out a statement about that. I’m just curious as to why that was a decision not to mention the Gaza war, granted that many journalists have been affected by a lack of press freedom around the world and that – and also being killed in various conflicts, but there was a substantial number of journalists that were killed in Israel and Gaza at the end of last year. Was there a reason why that wasn’t mentioned?MR MILLER: No. The Secretary has spoken to that a number of times, including in the region, including speaking directly to the colleagues of journalists in some instances who have lost their life tragically. We mourn the death of every journalist. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to the fact that it is because of journalists in Gaza that we see what’s happening, that the world knows what’s happening. And so we support their work. We want to see it continued. And we mourn the loss of every journalist, and I’ve spoken to that many times since the outbreak of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, just one more on the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Or just on Kerem Shalom.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the Israelis have agreed to reopen it after the attack that happened on Sunday?MR MILLER: So, yes, that was a – if you looked at the readout from the President’s call &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; it noted that the prime minister had agreed to open it in that conversation.QUESTION: Okay. Because the Secretary was just there on Wednesday, and you believed that Kerem Shalom was critical &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; with or without a Rafah &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: operation.MR MILLER: Kerem Shalom is absolutely critical to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, especially in southern Gaza now that we’ve stood up operations in the north. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. So is it open now, do you know?MR MILLER: I do not know if it’s been reopened. I’ll say it was an incredibly cynical act for Hamas to attack Kerem Shalom yesterday knowing that Kerem Shalom is the linchpin to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It goes to this point we’ve made on a number of occasions that Hamas claims that they represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but when you see some of their actions – and we talk about them hiding behind humans, using them as human shields all the time. When you see them attacking the gate that serves as the delivery point – as we saw if you were there last week, as we saw with our own eyes – the delivery point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, it really does undermine any claim that they have to acting on the people of Gaza’s behalf.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I switch regions?MR MILLER: Let me – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What action would the U.S. take if Israel were to invade Rafah?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we cannot support an operation, and I don’t want to speculate on what actions we might take if one should proceed.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the department’s reaction to Türkiye suspending trade ties with Israel?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. They are both allies of ours, and we would encourage them to work through their differences, but I don’t have any specific comment.QUESTION: And finally, what is the department doing to hold the CCP accountable for continued Chinese assistance to Russia’s defense sector?MR MILLER: So you heard the Secretary speak to this when he was in China and made clear that China can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be a partner of Europe on the one hand and then continue to fund the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War on the other hand. He raised this directly with President Xi. He raised it with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. And he made clear in those meetings that if China didn’t act, we would. And a couple of updates to that. You saw us roll out additional sanctions on Chinese entities who have supported Russia’s defense industrial base last week.And then I want to note that we’ve made clear that it is not just the United States that is concerned about China’s activities, but it is also our partners in – and allies in Europe. And you know President Xi is in Europe today meeting with President Macron, meeting with the president of the EU. And if you noted the comments from the Government of France, they very much intended to press this same case with President Xi and make clear what a threat they see – that they see it the way we see it, which is that it is a threat not just to Ukraine but is a threat to European security. And we think it’s important that our allies and partners stand strong in sending that message as well.QUESTION: And just one more?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And what is the department’s message today given it’s Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, especially with Israel having suffered several months ago the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? And I note the Secretary’s step-father &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, the Secretary put out a statement on that yesterday &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; where he reiterated what has been our continuing message, which is never again. And I think you’ll see this President speak to this further.QUESTION: Matt, can I piggyback off &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, you said you (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; for a limited – more limited operation in Rafah. And you’re working – you are working on a ceasefire with your partners. What comes first? I mean, you share the objective, you said, with the Israelis that they have to defeat Hamas in Rafah. But since you are working on a ceasefire, it’s a little bit confusing what you support. What’s the priority here?MR MILLER: Our immediate objective is to achieve a ceasefire that alleviates the suffering of Palestinian people, that secures the release of hostages, and then we want to build that ceasefire, as we have made clear, into something more sustained and something longer lasting. I’m – a little bit of a bind here because I can’t really speak to the options that we have proposed to Israel – you can see why we would want to keep those confidential – but we have proposed options that we believe are more effective and would be more effective in dealing with the threat that Hamas poses. And those are options that they could pursue, and I think I’ll leave it – I’m – unfortunately, I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. In case these negotiations fail, are you preparing for a worst-case scenario that the Israeli went into Rafah – goes into Rafah and this lasts until the fall?MR MILLER: Of course we are prepared for every scenario, but I don’t think I want to read out what actions we might take.QUESTION: For every scenario?MR MILLER: Well, that’s a fair point, Matt – every scenario that you can reasonably predict we prepare for.QUESTION: Well, what happens if, like, aliens come down?MR MILLER: That’s why I said every scenario you can reasonably predict.QUESTION: Are you prepared for that one too?MR MILLER: If that happens, I’ll run to the hills with – right behind you, probably.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are we ready to move on to different region?QUESTION: Could I just do one more?MR MILLER: Shaun – yeah, Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: I know you &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Nike. I tried. Let the record reflect I called on you, and Shaun, the head of the State Department Correspondent Association, stepped on your question.QUESTION: Yes, I – exactly. Well, I’ll gladly defer to Nike – gladly defer to Nike after this, as – I figure you’re not – probably not going to answer this, but the – just &#8212;MR MILLER: For a question I’m not even going to answer, too.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: Sorry. Go ahead.QUESTION: But just a couple of – on a serious note – just a couple of moments ago, the Israeli army saying that the evacuation orders that it issued earlier – confirming that this is preparation for a ground invasion. I know they’ve been speaking about a ground invasion in – a ground operation in general for some time. Do you have any further comment on that? I mean the – this – whether – do you have signs that the Israelis are actually going ahead imminently with a ground operation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to their military activities. We have made quite clear that we oppose a military operation there and I’m going to leave it at that.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Russia, Russia President Vladimir Putin will be set to start another six-year term on Tuesday. Do you have anything on that? I understand U.S. Ambassador Tracy is currently out of the country. My question is: Is anyone from the U.S. embassy attending his inauguration ceremony, or is the U.S. joining other countries to boycott?MR MILLER: No, we will not have a representative at his inauguration.QUESTION: U.S. is boycotting?MR MILLER: We will not have a representative there. You can draw your own conclusions.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does that mean that you don’t consider Putin a legitimate president?MR MILLER: He – we certainly did not consider that election free and fair, but he is the president of Russia and is going to continue in that capacity.QUESTION: Let me get your immediate reaction to reports about Russia’s planned nuclear drills. How much it will complicate the situation, and what kind of response will that invite from the United States?MR MILLER: So Russia’s rhetoric – their nuclear rhetoric – has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. That said, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture in response to these announcements, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. On Georgia, we had a protest in front of this building on Saturday. Georgian Americans were asking the State Department to impose sanctions on Ivanishvili and the GD MPs – not for actions that they might or might not take, but the actions they have taken already. So are you considering any measure?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to make any sanctions announcements, whether that relates to what we might do or what we are considering, as is typically our practice here.QUESTION: We heard from senior officials, this building – it feels like you guys are – you guys expecting some U-turn in this case or some offramp by suggesting that Ivanishvili might be misinformed, so all the statements we have heard from him are not his or his – or reflecting his viewpoints. Is that a reflection of what we have heard from them?MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize at all. We are going to keep pressing our case, which is we believe that the law that they are considering would put Georgia on a precarious trajectory. It would jeopardize Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermine the U.S.-Georgia relationship, and we will continue to make that clear, and they will make their own decisions.QUESTION: And thank you. On – finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, ambassador to Baku today for the first time visited Karabakh. Let me get your sense of significance of it and where in – this week there will be ministerial in Kazakhstan. What are your expectations &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that or any expectations.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A question on Iran. As you may be aware, the IKR president, Nechervan Barzani, he’s in Iran with an official visit with a purpose finding solutions to the disputes between Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan region. How does the U.S. view this visit and efforts? Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So we have consistently encouraged de-escalation in the region, but we don’t have any comment about the specifics of that trip. I would leave it to the Kurdistan Regional Government to comment more in detail on President Barzani’s travel.QUESTION: And one more question: Do you think that having these kinds of discussion with Iran could help and lift any impacts on the Iraqi stability? Because we witnessed they attacked the Iraqi Kurdistan and there were a lot of tensions between these two capitals.MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to these specific conversations, but of course we have always encouraged any conversations that would lead to de-escalation and would lead to further stability in the region, including vis-a-vis Iran, which of course has been one of the greatest contributors to instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.QUESTION: And last question, as we are speaking of Iran. Minutes ago, the Iranian foreign minister put a post on X and he said that we sent Hamas response to the plan proposed by Egypt and Qatar. What he says that – he said that to stop the attacks by Israel, and second, exchange prisoners, and thirdly, the human blockades. And now the ball in the opposite court, we are honest with – in our intentions. This is what he posted. So how do you see the Iranian role in bringing that Gaza the conflict into the end and &#8212;MR MILLER: Bringing a Gaza conflict to an end? I see no Iranian role in bringing a Gaza conflict to an end. You’ve seen Iran be one of the greatest instigators of this conflict in the first place, from financing Hamas and supporting Hamas to financing and supporting Hizballah and other groups that have contributed dramatically to instability, not just when it comes to attacks on Israel but when you look at the – their proxy, the Houthis, and attacking international shipping, and greatly destabilizing the region. So no, I don’t see Iran playing any kind of productive role.QUESTION: And they are not the &#8212;MR MILLER: That would be – that would be completely out of character for them.QUESTION: They are not honest with their intentions, what he said on his post?MR MILLER: They’re not what?QUESTION: Honest with their intentions?MR MILLER: With their – Iran’s honest with their intentions? No, I would not characterize them as honest with their intentions. When it comes to the specific comments that they made about Hamas’s response, I’m not going to comment on those, because as I said, we’re reviewing their response, so I don’t want to confirm what may or may not have been in it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So can I just get your reaction to this? Over the weekend, a Moscow court sentenced a Russian Falun Gong practitioner to two months in detention for her beliefs. It’s the only other country outside of communist China to incarcerate a citizen for the meditation practice. Jake Sullivan said that he wasn’t surprised by this, as China’s – Russia relies on China’s economic and technological support. So given these circumstances, what’s the State Department doing to address the broader implications of the spread of China’s persecution of Falun Gong into Russia, possibly in exchange for support?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a specific response, since it relates to this one case that you mentioned.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: A little over a week ago, China held unification, unity talks between Hamas leaders and Fatah. Sir – and they – I think it resulted in them just saying that they’re agreeing to &#8212;MR MILLER: Keep talking, yeah.QUESTION: Keep talking? What’s your reaction to China being involved in unity talks between these &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have any reaction to them playing a role in these talks. We saw previous talks take place between Hamas and Fatah in Moscow. They’ve held talks in other locations. Leaving that aside, we have long said that if China wanted to play a productive role in bringing this conflict to an end, that it’s something that we would welcome. If they wanted to play a productive role in helping prevent escalation in the region, that is something we would also welcome. The Secretary has spoken to his counterpart, Director Wang Yi, six times since October 7th to press this case, to press China to use all of its influence in the region. And we will continue to press them to do that.We think there certainly are countries that they have a relationship – with whom they have a relationship in the region, including countries, most notably Iran, with whom we don’t really have a relationship. So if China can bring its influence to bear, that would be a productive step for it – it would be a productive step that it could take that would benefit the region and benefit the entire world.QUESTION: One more on Saudi Arabia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other day, you had said that in order for normalization to take place between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that Saudi Arabia is looking for calm in Gaza &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; as well as a path to peace. That path to peace, is that the Oslo Accords? Is that something different than Oslo? Is that expanding on Oslo or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the details, because it’s something that we still continue to talk with Saudi Arabia about, but it is a path to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. And the details of what that would look like is something that we’re continuing to discuss with them.QUESTION: So would that make Oslo irrelevant? MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to – it’s a – it is a negotiation and a discussion that is ongoing right now; I don’t want to characterize it in any way with respect to how it would interact with past agreements.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: A ceasefire deal doesn’t end the war in Gaza. It means returning to fighting again and more Palestinian civilian victims, as it’s happened daily – ten of thousands have already murdered due to the bombing and the famine imposed by Israel, most of them children and women. My question: Why the U.S. doesn’t intervene to stop the war completely – I mean, permanent ceasefire – especially that the Palestinian civilian killed with the American weapon?MR MILLER: So we have been working incredibly hard – it has been the focus of most of this briefing – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that would stop the fighting in Gaza and would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who have died as a result of the conflict and also those who are suffering as a result of lack of humanitarian aid or inability to access humanitarian aid.Now, that’s the first step. We want to get an immediate ceasefire and then we do want to see it turn into something more durable. We’re going to try to work to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible. That said – and I know I’ve – hammer on this – have hammered on this in the past and the Secretary hammers it on the past – has hammered it in the past – Hamas could achieve an immediate ceasefire right now. Hamas, the entity that started this conflict by murdering civilians – innocent civilians – could lay down their arms, could surrender and stop putting the Palestinian people in harm’s way.So it – when people ask questions about Israel that are legitimate questions, and when they ask questions about us that are legitimate questions, I hope people will also realize that Hamas plays – played the instigator role in beginning this conflict and could end it today if they wanted to.QUESTION: But it’s not permanent. It’s temporary.MR MILLER: We are – as I – I just spoke to that in my answer.QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, I want a question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: That IDF already requested the people in Rafah to evacuate. I wonder if the evacuation for Palestinian in Rafah across the Egyptian border is being considered.MR MILLER: So Egypt has made quite clear that they do not want to see the displacement of the Palestinian people. It’s not just Egypt. We have heard that from virtually every country in the region: that they do not want to see Palestinians displaced because of the very unfortunate history in that regard. And we have made clear to the Israeli Government that Palestinian – the Palestinian people shouldn’t be replaced – or displaced.Now, one of the major risks of a full-scale Rafah operation is that it would destabilize that border between Gaza and Egypt and would lead to that sort of displacement, which would destabilize the Sinai Peninsula, of course. It’s another reason why we believe such an operation is a bad idea in the first place.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you very much. U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Sunday that the United States will have to send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine is defeated in conflict with Russia. Any chances that is a real option for &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on statements made by members of Congress. The President has made clear that he will not send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine.QUESTION: Okay. And one more question. Can you explain why is it okay for the United States to have a law on foreign agents and it’s not okay for Georgia, Russia to have one?MR MILLER: So the difference is in the nature of those laws. When you see the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act, it is to people who are acting on behalf of a foreign government, not people who are doing legitimate nongovernment organization work, who are doing humanitarian work, who are doing civil society work. It’s a very different type of thing. I’ve seen those false equivalencies drawn in the past. And when you look at the text of the proposal in Georgia and the text of the proposal that has been passed due to Kremlin influence in other countries, they are very different than the type of law that we have on the books here in the United States.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Question is regarding the ministers’ priorities on the normalization talks regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned, insisted, in an interview that the administration will enter in any defense pact with Saudi Arabia if only they normalize ties with Israel. So question is: Is it diplomacy of United States for integration of Israel in the Middle East or it’s another defense pact by the United States to counter Iranian-backed movements in future from the Middle East?MR MILLER: I’m not sure I completely understand the question. But I will say I don’t want to get too much into the details of our negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing discussions, but that we continue to work to finalize both the bilateral pieces of such an agreement as well as what the pathway to an independent Palestinian state would look like.QUESTION: Secondly, Canadian authorities arrested three individuals linked with the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The United States have many findings on the connections of Indian foreign operations at U.S. soil, as Wall Street Journal reported last week regarding the connection of Indian Government with some targets here in the United States. So with this recent development, what do United States have more to take up with the Indian administration?MR MILLER: So I would refer you to the Canadian authorities to speak to the details of the investigation there. With respect to the indictment that was returned in the United States, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak on behalf of that in detail. And then the only thing further I’d say: When it comes to the State Department, we made clear when these allegations were first made public that it’s something we think India should take very seriously and investigate. They opened a Committee of Enquiry to look into the matter, and that work is ongoing, and we’ll wait to see the results. But we made very clear that it’s something that we take seriously and we think it’s something they should take seriously as well. Hudson.QUESTION: Matt, apologies for not asking in the Israel section, but I have nosebleed seats today so I didn’t get it. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just – I’m just happy to see you here in the briefing.QUESTION: Great to be here. In response to the Axios report that the U.S. is withholding an ammunition shipment to Israel, the Biden administration has told several reporters around town that the U.S. has surged weapons into Israel since October 7th. I’m kind of curious about this response because for much of the conflict, the administration has downplayed reports about the near-constant approval and shipment of arms to Israel. I’m just wondering if you could clarify, what’s the case? Has the U.S. been surging weapons to Israel since October 7th or not?MR MILLER: So we have provided weapons to Israel since October 7th. We have always made clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that includes providing security assistance to Israel since October 7th to ensure that the attacks of October 7th can never be repeated.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Kylie, and then I’ll come to Humeyra.QUESTION: Can you just provide us an update on the NSM-20 report and if it’ll go to Congress on time, when it’s due on Wednesday?MR MILLER: The only update I have is that we continue to work on it, and we’ll have more to say about it later in the week.QUESTION: You can’t say that it’s on track to be delivered on time?MR MILLER: It’s on track. We’re working on it. I just don’t have any updates. It is our intention to provide it on time, and we’ll have more updates as we get closer to the deadline.QUESTION: And just two quick questions on it. I know you don’t want to get into it, but I still have two questions. There are concerns among lawmakers that the Political-Military Bureau in this building is leading the drafting of the report, and I wonder how you respond to that.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the internal mechanisms that we go through to develop such a report, but I will say that a broad spectrum of the department will contribute to this report. People will have a chance to make their views known. People will have a chance to offer their assessments of what they’ve seen. It’s important that different bureaus inside the department which bring different skills to bear and different points of view and different capabilities have the chance to review both of the section – both of the tasks that we were given in the report, both when it comes to compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we expect all of them to speak candidly about what they’ve seen and make their recommendations and make their honest assessments, and we’ll deliver a report that reflects that.QUESTION: And one more question. The memorandum requires all recipients of U.S. weaponry, including Israel, to make assurances that they’re using those weapons, quote, “in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Will U.S. officials at the department be probing those assurances that they get from Israeli officials if there’s reason to believe that they aren’t credible assurances?MR MILLER: So we are taking very seriously the task that we were giving – that was given to us in this national security memorandum, and it pertains not just with respect to Israel but with other countries as well that receive U.S.-provided security assistance. So the initial step was to get assurances from those seven countries that they were complying with international humanitarian law and that they were not impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve received those assurances I think probably 43 days ago, somewhere around that, and now we are going through and looking at compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I don’t want to get into – too much in detail because we are close to when a report will be delivered and I should wait and let the report speak for itself, but it is – I can tell you it is something that we take incredibly seriously and there is a lot of work going on at the department to make sure we fulfill that obligation and we fulfill it thoroughly.QUESTION: So you’re not taking those assurances on face value?MR MILLER: I – let me just let the report speak for itself when it comes out, but it is something that we are absolutely taking seriously, and we are looking at a whole host of activities and actions when it comes to any one of the governments – the relevant governments in this case, and we’ll be making our own assessments not just based on what those governments have told us but based on what we have seen in our review here at the State Department.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one thing on that, actually, Matt. So when the report is produced, we have reported that there are people – there are some U.S. officials at the State Department who have raised serious concerns about Israel’s possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law, and what they say is its arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid. So when you produce that report, you’re basically weighing in on whether the assurances are credible or not. Is there going to be a section where you address those countering, let’s say, opinions from different bureaus, or is it just going to be we found that credible or not?MR MILLER: You – this is going to be a very unsatisfying answer, but you are just going to have to wait until &#8212;QUESTION: I’m used to that.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry about that – until the report is complete. But I will say that one of the strengths of this department is that we have people with a rich diversity of experiences, a rich diversity of expertise, and a rich diversity of views, and the Secretary takes all of those seriously. He takes all of their points of view seriously, and the entire senior leadership of the department looks at the entire landscape when compiling – when going through an exercise and compiling a report like the one we are doing here.QUESTION: Right. But really, from a format point of view, it’s just going to have, like, one assessment?MR MILLER: I know, and I’m just – that I’m not – and that I’m just not going to speak to today.QUESTION: Okay. And will there be a – because you said – in your answer to Kylie you said we collect recommendations. Can you confirm there is going to be a recommendation one way or the other from the legal department?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal mechanisms of a report that is still being compiled.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said, and then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly, but on breaking international law and so on, is the threatening of the ICC by Israel or even by members of Congress itself a violation of international law, the threat itself?MR MILLER: I am not enough of an expert in international humanitarian law to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. But this department &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this case and oppose their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I’m just saying the threatening of the ICC by Israel.MR MILLER: I see. You should take it up with an international humanitarian lawyer.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. On two things – two different topics. Rwanda – the Rwandan Government didn’t really like a statement that you issued last week saying that the Rwandan Defence Forces were involved in the attack near Goma on the east of the DRC, saying that the statement’s ridiculous and that the Rwandan forces weren’t involved in that. Do you stand by that? Has there been any communication with Rwanda?MR MILLER: We absolutely do. The attack in question came from the Rwandan Defence Forces and M23 positions on the Mugunga IDP camp. The Government of Rwanda must investigate this heinous act and hold all of those responsible accountable, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Has there been any communication directly with the Rwandans themselves?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to diplomatic conversations, but we have made quite clear what we think about this act and the fact it ought to be investigated.QUESTION: Great. And then a completely different topic, Mexico. The three surfers who were killed, one of them an American – I don’t know if you – do you have any lines, any communications with the U.S. on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, Carter Rhoad, near Ensenada, Mexico, and are closely monitoring the situation. We offer our sincere condolences to the family on their loss. We are coordinating with local law enforcement on their investigation into the matter, and out of respect for the privacy of the family, we will decline to comment further at this time.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Canada																								China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Rwanda																								Saudi Arabia																								Ukraine
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken At McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum Keynote Conversation with Senator Mitt Romney Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateSedona, Arizona SENATOR ROMNEY:  I don’t know who gets to go off first, but I’m going to do that, because I get to ask the questions.  I’m not the questioner, usually.  Usually I’m the person trying to give answers, all right?  Have you ever watched Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood?  There’s a little train and there’s the little king, and he – the king is always right – “Right as usual, King Friday.”  My kids say, “Right as usual, King Romney.”  I mean, because I’m – (laughter) – I’m always out there with the answers.So I – tonight I’m supposed to ask the questions, which I will do.  But I want to begin by saying thank you to Cindy McCain for hosting us and bringing this extraordinary group together.  Thank you to the Navalny family and for your beautiful words – extraordinary.  Thank you so very much for your inspiration.  It is touching and powerful.  Thank you to the McCain Institute.  Thank you to David Axelrod.  I have mixed emotions about David Axelrod.  (Laughter.)I appreciate the Secretary of State and his leadership very much.  And we’re fortunate to have a Secretary of State who’s a thoughtful, perceptive, intellectually curious, devoted person; dedicated, determined, indefatigable, who has traveled the world time and time again – not a person of bombast, but a person who listens and is soft-spoken.  We are very fortunate to have a man of the kind of quality, experience, and character as our current Secretary of State, Secretary Antony Blinken.  Thank you.  (Applause.)So because I’m not noted for my questions – and frankly, my answers aren’t much better – (laughter) – but I’m going to ask a few questions, but if there’s a little time, I might turn to you to ask, if there are questions.  I’m going to just sort of go topic area by topic area.  I’m going to start with the Secretary’s most recent trip to the Middle East and then turn to Ukraine, and then finally to China.  And so if there’s someone who has a question on one of those topics, or – I’ll take a breath, and you can – and please ask questions that are interesting to you, but also, you might think, to the entire audience.  (Laughter.)First, I’m going to say up top, with regards to the trip to the Middle East, give us the lowdown, give us the rundown.  What is happening there?  What’s happening among the Israeli people?  What are – what is Bibi Netanyahu thinking?  What’s happening with Hamas?  What kind of a deal has been put on the table?  What’s – what is – the people and the leadership in Qatar – see, I can get all my questions out.  (Laughter.)  I mean, give us a full lay of the land, and then we can sort of probe areas of interest.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Mitt, thank you.  And before trying to tackle that multi-part question – (laughter) – actually, it sounds like &#8212;SENATOR ROMNEY:  It’s – it’s just the lay of the land.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  It sounds like the reporters in my pool, who manage to get in five questions for one.First, let me say how wonderful it is to be here and to be with a truly remarkable group of people.  I think there’s a common denominator in this room, and it’s epitomized by John McCain, it’s epitomized by Mitt Romney, but everyone in this room is for an engaged America.  Everyone in this room believes that our engagement, our leadership matters, makes a difference.  And that commitment is more important than it’s ever been.  That’s what I’m seeing and feeling around the world.Now, it may be that years from now people come back here and look at this group, and it’s the La Brea Tar Pits of internationalists and institutionalists.  (Laughter.)  But we’re fighting to make sure that’s not the case, and no one has fought harder than the gentleman sitting to my right.Now, Mitt, I was going to say thank you for reading the lines that I wrote – (laughter) – appreciate that.  But I think you all know – the country all knows – Mitt Romney is a man of extraordinary principle, married to extraordinary pragmatism.  It’s a rare combination, and I’ve gotten to see that up close these last few years since you’ve been in the Senate.  But for me, it’s an honor to share the stage with you.  So thank you.  (Applause.)SENATOR ROMNEY:  Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  And to the entire McCain family, starting with Cindy – following in the footsteps of John McCain – there too I have gotten to work with Cindy these last few years.  You are doing what is maybe the greatest calling anyone could have, which is trying to make sure that parents can put food on the table for their kids.  And when it comes down to it, nothing matters more than that.  So to you, to the entire family that remains so engaged, it’s wonderful to be here and to share this evening with you.Now, I have to tell you – and maybe the Middle East is actually a – it’s a perfect segue to the Middle East.  But let me just say quickly, before we were coming out here, we were listening, Dasha, we were listening to you, and the senator and I had the same reaction:  Let’s go in the other direction, because we don’t want to follow Dasha.  (Laughter.)  Thank you for your extraordinary profile in dignity and in courage.  And I can only imagine how proud your dad would be of you.  (Applause.)So when I’m asked how it’s going, and the Middle East is usually the first thing I’m asked about, I actually tend to quote John McCain.  John McCain used to say, “It’s always darkest before it goes completely black.” (Laughter.)  So – and I thank you, Cindy, for letting me borrow that.But now to get serious for a minute, so in this moment, the best thing that can happen would be for the agreement that’s on the table that’s being considered by Hamas – to have a ceasefire, the release of hostages, the possibility of really surging humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need it – that’s what we’re focused on.  And as I was talking to various colleagues this morning – and I see one of my closest colleagues, John Finer, the deputy national security advisor, here – we await a response from Hamas.  We await to see whether, in effect, they can take yes for an answer on the ceasefire and release of hostages.  And the reality in this moment is the only thing standing between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas.  So we look to see what they will do.In the meantime, even as we’re doing that, we are working every single day, the President’s working every single day, to make sure that we are doing what we can so that the people in Gaza who are caught in a crossfire of Hamas’s making get the help, the assistance, the support they need.  And we’re doing that with partners like the World Food Program; and of course, we’re working with many other governments, we’re working with Israel.I was just there, as you said, and I got to see firsthand some of the progress that’s been made in recent weeks in actually getting assistance to people who need it.  Progress is real; it’s still not enough.  And we are trying to make sure that in everything we do, we’re supporting those efforts.If you step back, I think we’ve seen a few things in the last few weeks – some incredibly promising, others incredibly daunting.  And to start with the daunting, we now have the Israelis and Palestinians, two absolutely traumatized societies, and when this conflict ends, building back from that trauma is going to be an extraordinary task.We also see in all directions – and I think we’re seeing this not only in the region, we’re seeing it around the world; to some extent we’re seeing it in our own country – maybe the biggest poison that we have to fight constantly, and that is dehumanization, the inability to see the humanity in the other.  And when that happens, hearts get hardened, and everything becomes so much more difficult.So the other great task that I think we’re going to have when we get through this is to build back that sense of common humanity.  And I hope we can do that amongst ourselves as well.  But there’s also some promise.  There’s promise in that one of the things we’ve been working on for a long time, with the President’s leadership over many months, is seeking to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.  And for Israel, this would be the realization of something that it’s sought from day one of its existence: normal relations with other countries in the region.This is something we were working on before October 7th.  In fact, I was due to go to Israel and Saudi Arabia on October 10th to work on this, and in particular to work on the Palestinian piece of the puzzle, because for us, for the Saudis, if we’re able to move forward on normalization, it has to include also moving forward on the aspirations of the Palestinian people.So I think there’s an equation that you can see, a different path that countries in the region can be on and really want to be on, which is a path of integration, a path where Israel’s relations with its neighbors are normalized; a path where Israel’s security is actually looked out for, including by its neighbors; a path where Palestinians achieve their political rights; and a path in which the biggest threat to Israel, to most of the countries in the region, and a threat that we share, Iran, is actually isolated.Now, whether we can move from the moment that we’re in to actually start to travel down that path, that’s going to be a big challenge.  But you can see it, and it’s something that the President is determined to try to pursue if we have the opportunity to do it.One other thing on this.  We saw something related that was quite extraordinary about two weeks ago.  Iran engaged in an unprecedented attack on Israel, the first direct attack from Iran to Israel.  And some people said, well, it was designed so it wouldn’t do much damage, carefully calibrated.  Nothing of the sort.  More than 300 projectiles launched at Israel, including more than a hundred ballistic missiles.  John and I were in the Situation Room watching this unfold.It’s because Israel had very effective defenses – but also because the President, the United States, managed to rally on short notice a collection of countries to help – that damage was not done.  And that also shows something in embryonic form: the possibilities that Israel has for, again, being integrated, a regional security architecture that can actually, I think, keep the peace effectively for years to come.So that’s where we want to go.  But getting from here to there, of course, requires that the war in Gaza come to an end.  And right now, the quickest path to that happening would be through this ceasefire and hostage deal.SENATOR ROMNEY:  I think a number of folks, myself included, have wondered why Hamas has not agreed to other proposals with regards to a ceasefire.  What are we misunderstanding? What is their calculation?  What are they – why are they hesitating?  This – I mean, we read about what’s being proposed.  It sounds like a no-brainer.  But they must have a different calculation.  What is going through their head?  What – I mean, they want to be just martyrs?  Is that – I mean, what is it that they hope to carry out, and why have they not just jumped on this, saying, oh, yeah, this is fantastic?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  One of the challenges we have, of course, is that the leaders of Hamas that we’re indirectly engaged with through the Qataris, through the Egyptians, are of course living outside of Gaza, living in Qatar or living in Türkiye, other places, and the ultimate decision makers are the folks who are actually in Gaza itself with whom none of us have direct contact.  So trying to understand what they’re thinking is a challenge.  Now, we have some sense of it, but it’s not – it’s far from perfect.  And there are different theories about what’s actually motivating their decisions in this time.  It’s something we – we’re constantly trying to get at.But I can’t give you a definitive answer, and I think we’ll see, depending on what they actually do in this moment, whether in fact the Palestinian people whom they purport to represent – if that’s actually true; because if it is true, then taking the ceasefire should be a no-brainer, as you said.  But maybe something else is going on, and we’ll have a better picture of that in the coming days.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Tell us about Bibi Netanyahu and what his – what his position of power is, how he’s seen among the Israeli people, what the level of commitment is in Israel for them to go into Rafah, to continue this effort.  Where is he?  If this – well, I’m not – I’m going to take the if out.  I was going to go back to the ceasefire.  But what’s his political posture now in Israel?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I think, as everyone knows, this is a complicated government.  It’s a balancing act when you have a coalition.  And if you’re just looking at the politics of it, that’s something that he has to factor in.But here’s what I’d say generally about this.  Irrespective of what you think of the prime minister, the government, what’s important to understand is that much of what he’s doing is not simply a reflection of his politics or his policies; it’s actually a reflection of where a large majority of Israelis are in this moment.  And I think it’s important to understand that if we’re really going to be able to meet this challenge.  That’s at least my observation.I’ve now been there seven times since October 7th, and you get a chance to get a feel for what’s going on in the society itself.  And as I said at the start, you have a traumatized society, just as you have traumatized Palestinians.  And breaking through that trauma in real time is an extraordinary challenge.  But it’s I think very important that we, as the United States, as Israel’s friend, try to share what we think is not only in our interest but also what’s in their interest.  And when it comes to Rafah – Mitt, you mentioned that a moment ago – look, our position is clear.  The President’s been clear on this.  Absent a credible plan to genuinely protect civilians who are in harm’s way – and keep in mind there are now 1.4 million or so people in Rafah, many of them displaced from the north – absent such a plan, we can’t support a major military operation going into Rafah because the damage it would do is beyond what’s acceptable.So we haven’t seen such a plan yet, but right now, as I said, the focus is intensely on seeing if we can’t get this agreement because that would be a way of, I think, moving things in a different direction.SENATOR ROMNEY:  You may not want to answer this question, but that is – the President sort of dipped his toe into the criticism of Israel and the way they’ve conducted the war so far, saying we’re not entirely happy with how this has been carried out.  What would our administration have done differently?  What is our specific criticism, and what guidance will that provide for what they do going forward?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, let’s start with the – in a sense, the obvious that seems to have been forgotten, or almost erased from the conversation, which is October 7th itself.  And it’s extraordinary how quickly the world moved on from that.It’s also extraordinary the extent to which Hamas isn’t even part of the conversation.  And I think that’s worth a moment of reflection, too.  And so we’ve said from the start, and the President has been committed from the start, to the proposition that Israel not only has a right to defend itself, not only has a right to try to make sure October 7th never happens again, it has an obligation.  And so that’s something that we have supported from day one.But we’ve also said – also from day one – how it does it matters.  And here, the damage that’s been done to so many innocent children, women, and men – again, in this crossfire of Hamas’s making – has to be something that we focus on, as it has been from day one, trying to make sure that the assistance gets to those who need it, trying to make sure that civilians are protected to the greatest extent possible.Now, everyone here knows that this is a – almost a unique challenge because when you have an enemy, a terrorist group like Hamas that embeds itself with the civilian population in ways that we really haven’t seen before, and that is hiding in and under mosques, schools, apartment buildings, it’s an incredibly tall order.  But even so, even so, I think where we’ve been pushing our friends – again, from the very start – is to do as much as possible, and to do more, to look out for civilians, and to make sure that those who need the help get it.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Why has the PR been so awful?  I know that’s not your area of expertise, but you have to have some thoughts on that, which is, I mean, as you’ve said, why has Hamas disappeared in terms of public perception?  An offer is on the table to have a ceasefire, and yet the world is screaming about Israel.  It’s like, why are they not screaming about Hamas?  Accept the ceasefire and bring home the hostages.  Instead, it’s all the other way around.  I mean, typically the Israelis are good at PR.  What’s happened here?  How have they – how have they/ and we/ been so ineffective at communicating the realities there and our point of view?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Look, I mean, there are two things.  One is that, look, there is an inescapable reality, and that is the inescapable reality of people who have and continue to suffer grievously in Gaza.  And that’s real and we have to – have to – be focused on that and attentive to that.At the same time, how this narrative has evolved, yeah, it’s a great question.  I don’t have a good answer to that.  One can speculate about what some of the causes might be.  I don’t know.  I can tell you this – and we were talking about this a little bit over dinner with Cindy.  I think in my time in Washington, which is a little bit over 30 years, the single biggest change has been in the information environment.  And when I started out in the early 1990s, everyone did the same thing.  You woke up in the morning, you opened the door of your apartment or your house, you picked up a hard copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal.  And then if you had a television in your office, you turned it on at 6:30 or 7 o’clock and watched the national network news.Now, of course, we are on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond.  And of course, the way this has played out on social media has dominated the narrative.  And you have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost, and the emotion, the impact of images dominates.  And we can’t – we can’t discount that, but I think it also has a very, very, very challenging effect on the narrative.SENATOR ROMNEY:  A small parenthetical point, which is some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature.  If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts.  So I’d note that’s of real interest, and the President will get the chance to make action in that regard.The President had also spoken about our commitment to a two-state solution, and a number of people have said to me that’s impossible.  And Bibi Netanyahu has basically said that’s impossible.  Is it possible to have a two-state solution?  What kind of – I mean, I know that’s far from where we are right now.  It’s like a whole different realm.  But is that essential to, if you will, beginning normalization relations with Saudi Arabia and with others to say, hey, here’s a vision, here’s some steps we might get to?  Is it possible, and what would that look like?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So for me and the President, the answer is yes.  And you can say that’s – especially in this moment – naïve, impossible.  But I think that it is an imperative.  And let me put it this way.  First, we were talking about normalization with Saudi Arabia.  I’ve sat with MBS multiple times, the crown prince, and he’s made clear that he wants to pursue normalization and he’d like to do it as soon as possible – if we can conclude the agreements that we’re trying to reach between the United States and Saudi Arabia.  But then two requirements: one, calm in Gaza; two, a credible pathway to a Palestinian state.  This is what people in the region need to see if they’re going to fully get behind normalized relations between the remaining Arab countries and Israel.  And it’s also the right thing for the Palestinians.  So there’s that.But the other, I think, more fundamental question is this.  You’ve got 5 million Palestinians living between the West Bank and Gaza.  You’ve got about 7 million Jews.  The Palestinians aren’t going anywhere; the Jews aren’t going anywhere.  There has to be an accommodation.  Now, I think that some believe that the status quo that prevailed before October 7th – fine, let’s live that way.  And that worked brilliantly until it failed catastrophically.So at some point, I believe there has to be a step back.  And everyone’s going to have to ask themselves questions about what do we want the future to be.  And the future that I talked about a few minutes ago, where Israel finally realizes what it has sought from day one – to be accepted in the region, to be part of the neighborhood – that’s achievable.  It’s there, but it also requires a resolution to the Palestinian question.  And I believe that there can be a Palestinian state with the necessary security guarantees for Israel.  And to some extent, I think you have Israelis who would like to get to real separation.  Well, that is one way to do it.  And then who knows what happens in the following years.But of course, as we say this, we are absolutely committed to Israel’s security.  And Israel cannot and will not accept a Hamastan coming together next door.  But I’m convinced that there are ways to put the Palestinians on a pathway to a state that demonstrate that the state will not be what Israelis might fear, and I think can lead to a much better future than we have.Look, everyone in this room knows there’s a long story here.  We were talking about TikTok.  Not a story you hear on TikTok.  You had – to oversimply, after the creation of the state of Israel you had decades of basically Arab rejection.  That went away with Egypt and Jordan making peace, and others following.  Then you had some decades, in effect, of Palestinian rejection, because deals were put on the table – Camp David, Ehud Olmert, others – that would have given Palestinians 95, 96, 97 percent of what they sought, but they were not able to get to yes.  But I think the last decade or so has been one in which maybe Israelis became comfortable with that status quo.  And as I say, I just don’t think it’s sustainable.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Yeah.  Yeah.  Anyone else, topic?  Israel, Middle East?  Yes, sir.QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)SENATOR ROMNEY:  You’ve got to be real loud.  And I’m going to repeat it, but it’s got to be short, too.QUESTION:  All right, it’s very short.  You talked about Israel and Palestine, Saudi Arabia being such a key U.S. ally there.  What do you see with China, Taiwan, India, Japan kind of doing the same (inaudible)?  What efforts (inaudible)?  What are the complications that you’re running into trying to overcome the China threat and the Russian threat to European allies?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Maybe that’s a great segue.  Did we need a segue?SENATOR ROMNEY:  There you go, go ahead.  Yeah, please.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  All right.  Well, just a few things to say here.  First, with China, just before we were in the Middle East we were in China.  And about a little less than a year ago, I took a trip at a time when we had been very disengaged.  And I think that one of the things that President Biden believes is that we have an obligation to try to manage this relationship responsibly.  We’re in an intense competition with China, and of course, for Americans there’s nothing wrong with competition as long as it’s fair.  Hopefully it actually brings out the best in us.  But it is a real competition.But we also have a profound interest in making sure that competition doesn’t veer into conflict, and that actually starts with engagement.  And so we really began a process of re-engagement with our eyes wide open, and a number of my colleagues followed.  And then, of course, most important, President Biden and President Xi met at the end of the year in San Francisco on the margins of the APEC meeting.And what we’ve tried to do, first and foremost, is to re-establish regular dialogue at all levels.  One of the most important pieces of this was re-establishing military-to-military communications, because the quickest way to get into an unintended conflict is not to have those conversations happen.  That’s been fully restored.  We look for areas where we might actually cooperate where it happens to be in our mutual interest to do that – and I’ll come back to this in a second because we found a couple.  But mostly, it’s so important because you want to be able to be extremely clear, extremely direct, extremely explicit about your differences and your intentions.  And we have a world of differences, but it’s better to be talking about them directly than it is to remain disengaged.And so what I found, including in this most recent trip, was that we’re able to engage on those differences in a very clear way.  It’s not that we resolve them, but at least we might have a better understanding of each other’s intentions, and that’s important.Second, something else has changed, and this is something that we’ve talked about a lot and that the senator has been an extraordinary leader on in the Senate.  The relationship with China, as I said, is – for us is arguably the most consequential, maybe the most complex.  And I think it’s very hard to put it on a bumper sticker.  I said competition a moment ago – that’s probably the closest we have to a defining word – but there’s also contestation.  And there are some areas where we cooperate, because, again, it’s in our mutual interest to do so.In each of those areas, what makes the most sense for us is to be able to approach China from a position of strength, and that’s the biggest difference, I think, that we’ve seen ion the last few years, because we came in with the proposition that we needed to do two things in order to be able to engage China from a position of strength.  One was to make investments in ourselves, and you’ve seen that with infrastructure, you’ve seen that with the CHIPS and Science Act – and by the way, we have an extraordinary partner in Arizona State University for CHIPS and Science.  That’s been a remarkable thing to see.  You see it with other work that we’ve been – that’s been done, including on a bipartisan basis with Congress, which is also a nice thing to see these days.The flip side of the coin is the part that I’m in part responsible for, and that’s alignment with our allies and our partners.  From where I sit right now, we have a greater convergence with key partners in Europe, in Asia, and even beyond, on how to approach China.  And I can tell you that it’s something that our counterparts in Beijing know, notice, don’t particularly appreciate, but it’s a very powerful reality.If you’re dealing with China on economic issues where you have a real difference, as we do in so many areas, if it’s the United States alone, we’re what, 20, 25 percent of GDP.  If we have alignment, convergence, with European partners, Asian partners, it might be 50, 55, 60 percent of GDP.  That’s a very heavy weight and much harder for China to ignore.  So that’s what I’m seeing right now, and it’s making a difference.Last thing on this.  I mentioned that it makes sense, where we can, to cooperate if it advances an interest.  So right now, the biggest killer of Americans aged 18 to 45 – not guns, not car accidents, not cancer – it’s fentanyl.  Every single community in this country has been affected by it.  Forty percent of Americans know someone who has died from an opioid overdose.  That’s the impact.  And of course, we know that a big part of the problem, of course, has to be solved here at home, as we’re doing by investing a lot in awareness, in treatment, in prevention, law enforcement.But the other big side of the equation is supply.  And how this works, as everyone knows, is you’ve got the ingredients that go into making a synthetic opioid, chemicals that may be made halfway around the world – in this case, in China – and made for perfectly legal reasons, but then get diverted into a criminal enterprise and into the synthesis of fentanyl, comes into the country, kills our friends and neighbors.So China’s a critical actor in this.  And we have put – been putting a lot of pressure on China to take action against some of the enterprises in China that are engaged in producing these chemicals and then illicitly transferring them to use in making fentanyl.  But usually, you have a chance at getting even more done if you can find a way to do it cooperatively.  So the President spent hours with President Xi on this and made clear our determination, one way or another, to get to the bottom of this, and also shared that what we’re seeing around the world is – a problem for which we’ve been the canary in the coal mine is now manifesting itself in so many other places.The criminal enterprises that have saturated our market, they’re trying to make markets in Europe, in Asia, in Latin America.  And we said to the Chinese: there’s going to be a huge demand signal on you to lead on this, to act responsibly.  Well, one way or another, they heard the message, and we now have, at least in its early days, cooperation that we didn’t have before, with China putting out new regulations, China actually taking down some of the companies engaged in the illicit production of the precursors or transfer of these precursors, and establishing a working group together where we’re working through this problem.Now, again, they have their own reasons for doing this, and unless it’s sustained and unless we see certain other actions taken, it won’t produce the results that we need, but at least it’s a start.  So I shared all of that – and sorry for going on – just because I think it’s important to see the relationship in its – in 360 degrees, and all of that with eyes wide open, because this competition is not going anywhere for a long time.  If we’re approaching it from a position of strength, we’ll do very, very well.SENATOR ROMNEY:  The Secretary has been kind enough to listen to me on the topic of China, invited me to come by his office and spend some time.  And given the fact that my real career was in the world of business, I sort of look at China from a business standpoint and believe that if I were crafting a strategy for a country or a company, I would look at China and say:  Brilliant, what an extraordinary job; you don’t have to live by our rules, our regulations, our antitrust laws, and you’ve done everything that a good robber baron would do in this country at the turn of the century, 1800s to the 1900s.  And I wonder if we’ve figured out kind of how to deal with this, how to confront it, because their ability to mount a military – they spend about as much on their military each year as we do.  According to our Intelligence Community, they spend about $800 billion a year.  AEI says $810 billion, all right, but that’s about – that’s close to where we are.  We’re 850.  And so – and they’re buying a lot more equipment than we are.So, but their ability to spend that is a function of an extraordinary economy.  And even though it’s not as big as ours, they generate massive cash that allows them to make this kind of investment.  They’re – and then around the world, the Belt and Road, spent a trillion dollars.  We don’t spend a trillion dollars on ourselves.  They spend it around the world.  And one of the things they did, they – not following the Sherman Antitrust Act – they said we’re going to take over one industry after the other.  They had 5 percent of the world steel business; now they have 54 percent of the world’s steel business.  They’ve taken over the aluminum business.  They’ve taken over the nickel business.  They’ve taken over rail cars.  They’ve taken over buses.  Just boom, boom, boom, boom, one after the other.And they keep it going.  And when you – by the way, monopolies – you make a lot of money with a monopoly, and you drive the American businesses and the Western businesses out of business.  And then more – I don’t know how many years ago, they said, you know what, the world is going to go towards the electric world – solar panels, batteries.  So while we’re sitting around thinking about what kind of batteries we ought to have and so – they’re going around the world buying up the mines and processing for nickel and cobalt and lithium.  They basically have a dominant position in the major ingredients that go into batteries and solar panels.So as we go into a electric economy, guess who’s going to lead it?  We’re going to have a new OPEC, by the way, but only member of this OPEC: China.  All right.  And we’ve sat and watched them do this.  And then their cars come along.  Do you know what a Chinese electric car costs?  Eleven thousand dollars.  Why is that?  Well, because they’re getting the batteries where the country made a trillion dollar investment to dominate all of the raw materials in the creation of these batteries, so their companies are able to get batteries for a fraction of the cost.  By the way, the battery is the biggest single component in the cost of an electric car, so of course their cars cost half as much as ours, or less.How do we deal with this?  And the Secretary has – has described a strategy which has three major principles: invest, align with our allies around the world, and compete.  But do we need to align more to get – to say to China you can’t keep doing this?  You can’t keep taking over industry after industry and bankrupting our industries, dominating the raw materials we need, not selling them to us at the same price you’re selling to your own people.  You can’t have access to – what do we do?  How do we deal with this economic juggernaut that I think is brilliant but shouldn’t – they shouldn’t be allowed to do it and still – and have access to our market.  I believe in free markets, but you can’t have a free market if one person is not playing by the rules of free markets.  So how do we deal with this?  How do we say enough already?Sorry about that.  I know that was more of a speech than it was a question.  (Laughter.)  But I couldn’t resist.  (Laughter.)SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, you’ve been extraordinarily eloquent about this for a long time, and I think it’s exactly right.  Because what we have fundamentally in the economic relationship with China has not only with us but with countries around the world is a total lack of reciprocity.  And that’s unsustainable.  It was one thing when China first got into the WTO, and given where it was in its development, okay, some allowances reasonably could be made.  But we’re now 20-plus years later and China is exactly as you’ve described it and where it is.And I think what we’re hearing – again, not just here in the United States but from so many of our partners around the world – is no, enough, we can’t do this anymore, we won’t do this anymore.  And again, it’s the – when you bring all of that together it is, I believe, a lot harder for China to ignore.  So we spend a lot of time working with our allies and partners on taking this common approach and making sure that Beijing is hearing in stereo what it’s been hearing from us.  And I believe that this is the way to get change.Now, we have the immediate problem – and I think Secretary Yellen was here this morning, so I don’t know if she talked about this, but she has been intensely focused on this.  She was in China just before I was.  By the way, she is very famous in China – chopstick ability.  (Laughter.)  When I was there – oh, you work with Secretary Yellen?SENATOR ROMNEY:  They test you on the chopsticks.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Yeah, they do a little bit.  It’s good.  Janet’s really got it down.  (Laughter.)But the President is intensely focused on overcapacity right now, because we’ve been through this before.  We had what some called the China shock in the years after it got into the WTO and did exactly what you’ve described – flooded our market with certain products, pushed our companies out of business, devastated some communities – and we can’t have that again.  The President will not have that again.So a big part of my visit as well following Secretary Yellen was to help our counterparts in Beijing understand that we are making major investments in ourselves, including bringing good, strong manufacturing jobs back to the United States, and we were not going to allow our markets to be flooded with underpriced products that would drive our folks out of business.  And the cases you point to in particular – solar panels, electric vehicle batteries – China right now is producing in some cases double the entire global demand for those products, and it’s trying to work itself out of its own economic challenges at this moment by exporting, but exporting in unfair ways.I had this conversation with my Chinese counterpart, the Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and he said wait a minute, capitalist economies – they work on comparative advantage.  I said that’s absolutely right.  But there’s one thing to say comparative advantage, there’s another thing to say unfair advantage, and that’s what we’re focused on changing.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Help me get a sense of what – how they’re doing around the world geopolitically.  I hear stories.  I’m sure each of the people here have heard one or the other stories about how China is all over Africa, China is all over Latin America, it’s all over the Caribbean, that everywhere you turn the Chinese here, the Chinese there.  And yet in their own neighborhood they seem not to be doing so well, with the Philippines and the Vietnamese and the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Australians.  I mean, they seem to have badly misjudged what’s happening right around them.  Are they doing really well in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean or – I mean, sort of how are they doing geopolitically?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I think there are a few things going on.  First, of course, as you mentioned earlier and as you mentioned a few minutes ago, they’ve been engaged for a long period of time in their Belt and Road program making major investments in different parts of the world.  It’s had real successes over time in terms of positioning them economically and positioning them strategically.  The two things are, I think, very much married.But we’ve also seen two things.  The way that these investments have been made in many cases – not all cases, but in many cases – piling countries with debt, bringing in workers from China to take on the jobs instead of having local workers take them on, building things to substandards, bringing, shall we say, a disregard for workers and the environment with it – that also begins to have an effect.  So I think countries appreciate the magnitude of the investment.  They appreciate the rapidity with which China is able to act, something that is not our forte – but I want to come back to that in a second.  But then there is often a price to be paid later.Now, I think China is trying to adjust because it’s getting – it’s gotten pushback as people start to realize some of what these investments mean.  The other challenge that it has is it actually has less money to invest in this moment because it has its own economic challenges.  But we’re also not standing still, and you mentioned the imperative of critical minerals and the building blocks of the 21st century economy.  We put together something called the Mineral Security Partnership, where we’ve gotten now more than 14 countries to work together, to look together, and potentially to invest together around the world in projects to make sure that we can build our own resilient supply chains and not be dependent on any one part of the world, whether it’s China or anyone else.And we now have several dozen projects that are either moving forward or that we’re actively looking at.  And ultimately, our competitive advantage in this area is the private sector.  We’re never going to compete with China on a state-to-state level, dollar for dollar.  That’s not the nature of our system.  Our system is making sure that – and one of my jobs, one of the State Department’s jobs, is to try to make sure that we are helping open the terrain for American investment, for American business.  And that’s exactly what we’ve got the tools of government focused on now in ways that we haven’t before.  Development Finance Corporation, other parts of the government, are focused on trying to be more effective, to serve as guarantors or as catalysts for the private sector.But the critical difference is doing it with other countries.  The President put together something at the – with the with the G7 countries, the Partnership for Global Investment and Infrastructure, and it’s the same basic idea.  Any of us acting alone, it’s going to be hard to match what China’s doing.  When we can work collectively, marshal our resources, or, as necessary, have some of us active in one place, others in another, that’s the way I think you get at dealing with some of the advantages that China’s shown in recent years.Pacific Islands are a really good example of this.  China covers a lot of ground in the Pacific islands, maybe more ground that we can cover ourselves, although we’ve made a major investment there.  The President’s had two summit meetings with all the Pacific Island leaders at the White House.  But when we’re working in cooperation and collaboration with Australia, with New Zealand, with Korea, with Japan, with India, we cover a lot of ground.  You’re seeing that play out.  You’re seeing that play out with undersea cables.  You’re seeing that play out in our ability to help deliver some of the things that people in those countries want.And the last thing is this.  In diplomacy, it is often more effective to say to a country:  We’re not asking you to choose; we want to give you a better choice, and then you make up your mind.  So our responsibility is putting together that better choice.SENATOR ROMNEY:  There’s a clock up here that’s telling me how long I get to go.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  It says zero, zero, zero on it.  (Laughter.)SENATOR ROMNEY:  But it – from the very beginning – no, no, when we sat down it said zero, zero, zero.  (Laughter.)  It’s been zero, zero, zero the whole time.  So someone give me the signal if there – oh, I’m getting their signal.  I’m going to ask you one question.  I’ve got to ask you one question.  That’s my chief of staff, Liz.  Thank you, Liz.  It’s like, zero – what am I supposed to do with zero?And that’s help us with Ukraine, your perspective on Ukraine, which, I mean, there are – in my party there are people – and I do not understand the argument.  I’ve got to be honest – I do not understand how anyone can argue that we shouldn’t provide weapons to Ukraine.  I can’t – I listen to – they’ve changed their argument over time from, one, oh, the Europeans should do more.  Well, the Europeans are doing more.  Oh, well, we don’t have enough – we go from argument to argument.  But more recently, it is that there’s no way for Ukraine to win, that providing funding for weapons is going to lead to nothing but a continuation of the status quo.  What’s the pathway forward?  What are the scenarios that you see in Ukraine?And then please offer a last word.  You get the – you get the final word here, Mr. Secretary.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Well, first, thank you, because your leadership on this has been instrumental.  And one of the things I have to say, too, is your recognition of the threat, the challenge that Russia posed, well before many others saw it in this country.  Well, I think we’ve finally caught up with you, and that was a very important thing.Now, unfortunately, much of what you talked about some years ago is – we’ve seen come to fruition.  But here’s the thing.  First of all, I believe profoundly that in so many ways, despite the incredible challenge that Ukraine is facing, it’s already succeeded and Russia’s already lost, because keep in mind what Putin was trying to accomplish.  He was trying to erase Ukraine from the map.  He was trying to subsume it into a greater Russia.  That has failed, and that cannot succeed no matter what happens from here on.And the reason that’s failed, of course, is because first and foremost the Ukrainian people were determined and showed remarkable courage.  But it also failed because, yes, the world did come together, and I think American leadership was what made the difference.  We brought 50 countries together in support of Ukraine, and that continues to be the case today.  We often talk about burden sharing, and Americans complain about the lack of burden sharing.  This is the one place where I can say, without fear of contradiction, that we have extraordinary burden sharing for everything that we’ve done, and it’s a lot.  Collectively, our European partners and others in Asia have actually done more – military, economic, humanitarian support for Ukraine.  So I think if you – if you step back, that’s an important thing to recognize.The other thing that’s important to recognize is that, in so many ways, Putin has precipitated everything he sought to prevent, what Russia has invested in this horrible adventure.  We see it in a country that, despite the massive efforts it’s making, is going to be militarily, economically, and diplomatically weaker than it was.  You have Ukrainians who are united in ways that they never were before against Russia, and certainly before 2014 that was the case.  You have Europe that’s weaned itself off of Russian energy in a remarkably short period of time, and you have a NATO Alliance that’s stronger and bigger than it’s ever been.  I mean, the idea three years ago that we would be talking about Finland and Sweden as part of NATO – unimaginable.Now, all of that said, this is a challenging moment, and it’s been a challenging nine or ten months, because Russia does have extraordinary resources that it seems willing to throw at this in ways that most others wouldn’t.  Now, the supplemental that, thanks to your leadership and others’, we got done was just in time.  And I really also have to applaud the speaker, Mike Johnson, for the leadership that he showed in making sure that that got done.  So that assistance is on its way, and as you know, of the money – the new monies that we invested, virtually all of that is actually invested here in the United States into our own defense industrial base, providing good jobs in the United States but in a way that allows us to help Ukraine.  So that’s a win-win, too.But here’s where I think this is going.  Yes, there is a real challenge in the moment on the battlefield, and we’re engaged with that, Europeans and others are engaged in that.  But there’s also where we want to take this in the medium to long term, and on one level it’s pretty simple.  We want to see a Ukraine that stands strongly on its own two feet militarily, economically, democratically.Militarily – we have 32 countries now that have negotiated or are completing negotiations on security agreements with Ukraine that will help it build a force for the future, one that can deter aggression or defend against it as necessary.  Economically, we’re focused on trying to bring more private-sector investment into Ukraine.  We have Penny Pritzker, our former secretary of commerce, has been working on this.  And there is tremendous potential there, despite the incredibly difficult conditions.We can see Ukraine developing a strong defense industrial base that will help not only Ukraine, but other countries over time.  We can see with what they’ve achieved in the Black Sea, keeping that open – there is now more getting out of Ukraine from the Black Sea than before February of 2022.  Now, we have a real challenge in making sure that we get more air defenses to Ukraine so that this investment can actually be protected against Russian aggression.  We’re working on that.Democratically – the EU started accession talks with Ukraine now.  It’s a long process, but that is probably the most effective way to deep-root Ukraine’s democracy, to ensure the necessary reforms.  And the best possible rebuke to Vladimir Putin, no matter where the line ultimately gets drawn, is a strong Ukraine, and you can see that happening.  It’s – I’m convinced that as long as we continue the support, we can and get there – we can and will get there.So maybe the note to conclude on is this, because I think everyone in this room is so representative of this basic idea.  What I see and hear around the world, as I have the incredible privilege of helping to represent the country and traveling around, is an ongoing thirst for American engagement and for American leadership.  And even the countries that are complaining about what we’re doing at any given moment or don’t like a particular policy still want us.  And as we look at it, there’s a basic choice.  We can continue to engage and we can continue to lead, or if we don’t, we know one of two things is going to happen.  Someone else will, and probably not in a way that advances our interests and values – or maybe just as bad, no one will, and then you’re almost guaranteed to have a vacuum filled by bad things before it’s filled by good things, and that will ultimately come back to bite us.So as I see it, there’s now a greater premium than there’s been in the time I’ve spent in Washington on American leadership, and we have to find ways to come together to assert that and to carry it forward.  I also think there’s a greater premium than ever before on finding ways to cooperate and coordinate with other countries, because – and beyond countries, private sector, organizations – because for all of our power, for all of our strength, we can’t effectively deal with most of these challenges if we’re doing it alone.So we can’t go it alone, and we can’t go away.  And that’s what we’re determined to make sure we’re focused on as we carry on these next months.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Ladies and gentlemen, the United States Secretary of State.  (Applause.)Thank you, sir.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.
- Department Press Briefing – May 2, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 2, 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 – May 2, 2024																																																					May 2, 2024																																																								1:21 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me just raise this a little.QUESTION: Welcome back.MR MILLER: Thank you. Good to be back. Good to see everyone.QUESTION: Good to see you.MR MILLER: Forgive me if I’m a little slow on the draw today. There’s been a lot of – a lot of travel the past week and a half or so.QUESTION: Between the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ellen, do you want to do the honors?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I’m impressed you’re here today.MR MILLER: We’ll see. We’ll see if you still feel that way at the end of this briefing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) As things stand now, how does the international community keep the bar from being lowered in setting the stage for future conflicts in the Middle East and globally to allow for the bombing of schools and hospitals and ambulances and aid convoys and journalists and places of worship if there – and with the conclusion that there won’t be practical penalties for them?MR MILLER: So I would say we absolutely do not want the bar to be lowered. This bar should be – the same standard should be applied to every conflict everywhere in the world, including in this one. Now, the nature of this conflict does make it a little bit more difficult because, for example, when you look at other conflicts around the world, it is not always true that you see one side of the conflict hiding itself in civilian sites, hiding – using ambulances to hide the passage of fighters around territory, embedding themselves under hospitals, inside hospitals. So that it makes it a difficult – that makes it a much more difficult conflict, but the principles of international humanitarian law apply the same to this conflict as they do anywhere else in the world, and they should be upheld the same way in this conflict as they are anywhere else in the world.QUESTION: And do there need to be penalties to make sure that happens?MR MILLER: International humanitarian law needs to be enforced – absolutely. That is true – that is the position of the United States everywhere in the world.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. What’s the latest on the hostage deal? A delegation from Hamas is set to visit Egypt soon for further ceasefire talks according to a statement today, and Israel’s war cabinet is meant to meet today on hostages and a plan for Rafah. Has there been any movement toward a deal?MR MILLER: There has not been any movement in the past few days. You heard the Secretary speak about this extensively while he in the region, that there is a proposal on the table that answers much of the demands that Hamas made in previous rounds of negotiations. Israel made a significant offer in this last proposal that went forward. They compromised on many long held positions that they had taken, and as I said, met many of the demands that Hamas had said they needed to agree to a deal. So we believe it’s now incumbent upon them to take the deal. The deal that they demanded that has been offered, they should accept and move forward. It is Hamas that is the only barrier to a ceasefire right now – an immediate ceasefire – and we’re awaiting their response.QUESTION: Why do you think they’ve taken so long?MR MILLER: I am not at all going to put myself in the heads of the leadership of Hamas, but I will say every day that goes by without a ceasefire right now is on Hamas, because they’re the ones that are holding up an answer to this proposal and they are the ones that are holding up reaching an immediate ceasefire that would help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza.QUESTION: And then just quickly, there’s been reporting that a Saudi-U.S. bilateral defense pact is close to completion as part of a wider Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. When do you plan to announce the full plan, and how confident are you that it will materialize if no truce between Israel and Hamas is reached?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to a U.S.-Saudi defense pact in specific terms. What I will say is that the Secretary did meet with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia this week when he was in Riyadh, as he’s met with him on previous meetings, and we are very close to reaching an agreement on the bilateral pieces of a normalization agreement – normalization agreement would, of course, be between the – Saudi Arabia and Israel, but as part of the bilateral piece – the package that is between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we are very close to reaching an agreement on that.There are a few details that we have to continue to work through, but we think we can reach agreement on those details in very short order. There is still more work to be done on a separate piece of that, which is the proposal for a pathway to a Palestinian state, but we are actively discussing that with our Saudi counterparts, as we are with the broader group of Arab countries that the Secretary met with also Monday in Riyadh, where we were looking at not just a path to two states but also the reconstruction of Gaza, governance in Gaza, security for Gaza.So we are working on all of those. Some pieces are further along than others – the bilateral piece between the United States and Saudi Arabia most relevantly – and some pieces are a little bit further along. We hope to make progress on that and have the agreements ready to put forward as soon as is possible.QUESTION: So – sorry, just to clarify, you’re close on U.S.-Saudi part &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; but not the Israeli part?MR MILLER: The – so the – let me unpack that a little bit.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: The idea of this agreement is that you would have a bilateral peace that are agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to speak to those in specific, but the details of them have been widely reported. I think everyone knows what they are. As part of that there would – and that part is fairly well advanced, and the Secretary has spoken to this. We have work to do to finalize some of the details, but we were very far along. I think the Saudi foreign minister also spoke to this on Monday in Riyadh after we met with him.Separately, and it will – I say “separate” but it will be a part of this package – there are pieces that that relate to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. That’s something that’s important to the United States; it’s something that is important and essential to Saudi Arabia and would be a key part of the deal. So while there are pieces of it that are closer than that, the entire package will include all of those pieces together.QUESTION: And how confident are you that that will materialize while there’s no truce between Israel and Hamas?MR MILLER: So we could reach an agreement – this gets – a little bit of speculating about timing, because we don’t know whether there’ll be a ceasefire. That’s in Hamas’s hands right now. But I’ll say we could reach an agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, and we could reach agreement with some – the other Arab countries we’re working with about what the broader package looks like, right – not just normalization but the post-conflict issues that relate to Gaza.But Saudi Arabia has been very clear for this – putting a proposal on the table is one thing, a proposal that we could take to Israel, but there will be no agreement in this regard while the conflict in Gaza is still raging. Saudi Arabia has made very clear that as part of any normalization deal with Israel, they have two requirements: one, calm in Gaza, and two, a path to an independent Palestinian state. So you could put a – you could you could see where we might reach agreement with Saudi Arabia on what this package ought to look like, but in terms of an actual deal that includes normalization with Israel, there needs to be calm in Gaza.QUESTION: And sorry, just one more follow-up. Netanyahu has repeatedly objected to a Palestinian statehood, a key condition for Saudi to agree to normalization, as you’ve said. What’s the point of your progress with Riyadh if in the end Netanyahu will end up objecting anyway?MR MILLER: So the Secretary has spoken to this in detail a number of times, including quite extensively in Israel in January when we first put together this group of Arab countries with whom we wanted to work on these issues. And the point he made then – and it continues to be our point today – is that we believe broader integration is key to Israel’s long-term security. It’s not just the right thing to do for the Palestinian people – and it is very much the right thing to do for the Palestinian people to answer their legitimate political aspirations – it is also the best thing that you can do to achieve Israel’s long-term goal, the goal they have had – the goal that that Israel’s had since the founding of its country, which is normal relations with its neighbors.It would provide broader security to Israel, it would isolate Iran, and significantly, it would address some very real challenges Israel is going to face in Gaza when you look at the end of this conflict with determining – with figuring out how to rebuild Gaza, with figuring out how to provide security to Gaza. So ultimately, the Government of Israel will have to make the choice about what’s in the best interest of their people. But for the United States, we have a point of view, we’re going to work to finish up the proposals that we are working on with our Arab partners, and we’re going to put that point of view forward, and Israel can decide.QUESTION: On this?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Following up on Daphne’s question, I understand you could reach an agreement, I guess, in principle with the Saudis on this bilateral component, but is there any world in which that would be operationalized without this broader Negev two-state normalization deal?MR MILLER: We have been very clear, Saudi Arabia has been very clear that this is a package deal that would include a bilateral component and also include a path to two states.QUESTION: So there was no discussion in the meetings in Riyadh about breaking off that bilateral piece and getting it into the &#8212;MR MILLER: No. No.QUESTION: Okay. And then on Rafah, did you get any sense of timing on when the Israelis plan to move forward on their incursion?MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak to that question.QUESTION: Do you get the sense that they are waiting on Hamas’s response before making a final decision?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to let Israel speak to what their plans are. I will speak on behalf of the Secretary, and the Secretary in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday made very clear the United States position on Rafah, which is that we do not support a major military operation there. We do not believe a major military operation is in Israel’s long-term security interests. We believe there are better ways to address the threat that Hamas does still propose – or does still pose in Gaza because of the four battalions that are in Rafah. Secretary spoke in some detail about our ideas in that regard yesterday, and I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: What was the reception to those deals &#8212;MR MILLER: We had a very direct conversation about it, and I’ll just leave it at that.QUESTION: And are – did you get any sort of commitment or is it your understanding that if a deal was reached on the hostages and ceasefire, that Israel would not move forward on Rafah incursion?MR MILLER: I think let’s take it one step at a time. The proposal that is on the table right now, as I said, is a significant offer that would achieve an immediate ceasefire. That is our goal; that’s what we’re trying to accomplish. We have always said that we – if we get a ceasefire, we want to work to build enduring peace, enduring calm from that ceasefire, but let’s get a ceasefire first and then we can talk about what would be – what would be the next step.QUESTION: And if I could quickly – on the determinations under Leahy Law, are there any updates on the status of cutting off military assistance to that fifth unit?MR MILLER: No. With that one remaining unit, we are still engaged in a process where we’re collecting information from the Government of Israel that they have provided to us and examining that information. And I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Is that new information – sorry.MR MILLER: One second – I don’t have a timetable.QUESTION: Is that new information since the last time you guys said there was new information? Have they presented even more information &#8212;MR MILLER: Which was what, a couple of days ago, I think, when Vedant said it?QUESTION: A couple days ago, yeah.MR MILLER: No, it’s – Michel, did you – did you – she answered – okay.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on something that Ellen raised on the hospitals and ambulances and so on, I want to bring your attention – I don’t know how we could probe this issue further. The Palestinian surgeon Ahmed – Adnan Ahmed Bursh was killed on the 19th of April. He was taken from Shifa Hospital back in December and was killed by the Israelis recently. I mean, he was shot I guess in cold blood and so on. Is there any way that the United States could look into this issue and find out the authenticity of such a &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not familiar with that case. I’m happy to see if we have any further information.QUESTION: Okay, okay, all right, all right. Just to follow up on a couple of things. Now, you said that it’s a generous offer. Everybody used that word and so on. Now, if the prime minister of Israel keeps saying that there is no – he will not agree to any permanent ceasefire, that this war will go on, I ask you: What incentive is there for Hamas or the militant groups to say okay, I mean, we will give whatever leverage we have and then they can come and so on?MR MILLER: What &#8212;QUESTION: I’m just curious.MR MILLER: What incentive is there for Hamas?QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: How about – hold on. How about the well-being of the Palestinian people in Gaza?QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. Let me say that ought to be an incentive enough.QUESTION: I’m with you. I’m with you.MR MILLER: That ought to be incentive enough.QUESTION: Of course.MR MILLER: Good. Well, then that answers the question because that &#8212;QUESTION: But they – but &#8212;MR MILLER: To be clear, that is the incentive.QUESTION: No. Okay, well maybe we have just a &#8212;MR MILLER: The incentive for Hamas is that an immediate ceasefire &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; would help alleviate the suffering of the &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: Hold on. Of the Palestinian people. It would allow aid – it would make it easier for aid to get in. It would make it easier for aid to move to people in Gaza.QUESTION: Fine.MR MILLER: It would allow people in Gaza to return to their homes and their neighborhoods &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; and rebuild them. So &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: I get your point about arguing about leverage, but let me &#8212;QUESTION: But let me ask you &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, Said, let me finish.QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, just let me finish. You will get your chance.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: The well-being of the people in Gaza that Hamas has always claimed they represent ought to be incentive enough for them to take this deal, period.QUESTION: I agree.MR MILLER: Period.QUESTION: I agreed.MR MILLER: Good.QUESTION: But – but the prime minister is not committing himself to a ceasefire. He’s saying that his war will continue. I am saying that in the long run he has the prerogative to continue this war however they please – go in, destroy, conquer, whatever, take hostages, do all kinds of things in the future. I am not talking – I’m not defending or saying – I’m asking, exploring, if the prime minister of Israel, if the cabinet in Israel, is determined not to have a ceasefire, doesn’t that make it less generous than people think it is?MR MILLER: So no, I would not agree with that. First of all, as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re going to judge every entity in this conflict by their actions.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: And the actions that Israel has shown in this negotiation process is making an offer for a ceasefire that, as I said, was a significant offer that answers a number of the demands that Hamas had said were prerequisites for them to agree to a deal. So if Hamas really does care about the Palestinian people, they should agree to the deal, period. This is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you about &#8212;MR MILLER: This is one of those rare issues where it’s just actually not that complicated.QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of question on the aid. Israeli settlers have vandalized Gaza aid trucks and so on, I think the trucks that left from Jordan that – probably the ones that you guys bade farewell to. I don’t know. Do you have any comment on that? Do you know of what happened and do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I do. I’ve been following this issue very closely because it happened while we were in Israel. And I’ll tell you what the Secretary said about it to the prime minister, which is that these attacks on aid shipments are unacceptable and that Israel ought to take steps to prevent them and ought to take steps to hold people accountable for them. And I will tell you we were glad to hear that Israel yesterday arrested three of the people involved in the attacks on this convoy. That is the appropriate step. That’s the step that they ought to take whenever there are attacks on aid convoys, and that furthermore they ought to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. That’s what we will hope they’ll do because these are aid shipments that are being delivered to innocent civilians who had nothing to do with October 7th and they ought to continue unimpeded.QUESTION: Now, lastly, the prime minister of Israel said that the ICC arrest warrant would be an antisemitic hate crime. Do you agree with that?MR MILLER: I will let the prime minister speak for himself. On behalf of the United States, we have made clear that the ICC in our view has no jurisdiction in this conflict and we oppose this investigation.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Ellen.QUESTION: Can you say anything about how distribution of that aid after the settlers – the aid shipment that was attacked by settlers, how the distribution went once inside Gaza?MR MILLER: I think you’re referring to these reports and the statement that Hamas put out about the diversion of that aid. So those aid convoys came from Jordan into Erez crossing, which was just opened – something that the President insisted on in his April 4th phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yesterday was the first major shipment of aid from Jordan over this new land route through Erez crossing. The convoys from the Jordan military that brought the aid in unloaded the aid inside Gaza. It was then picked up by a humanitarian implementer for distribution inside Gaza, and that aid was intercepted and diverted by Hamas on the ground in Gaza.And ultimately, the UN is either in the process or has by now recovered that aid, but it was an unacceptable act by Hamas to divert this aid to begin with, to seize this aid. We have made clear that it’s an unacceptable act. I think the UN partners will be also making clear that it’s an unacceptable act. If there is one thing that Hamas could do to jeopardize the shipment of aid, it would be diverting it for their own use rather than allowing it to go to the innocent civilians that need it, so they certainly should refrain from doing that in the future.QUESTION: Has this been a widespread issue, Matt? (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: No, it has not.QUESTION: No &#8212;MR MILLER: This is the first widespread case of diversion that we have seen. Hamas had diverted these trucks for some time after – not the original, just to be clear, because that could be misleading. The original trucks came in, unloaded the aid; they were then picked up on different trucks for distribution inside Gaza. They did divert those trucks; they were held for some time. To my understanding, the aid has now been released. It’s been returned to the humanitarian implementer that was responsible for it in the first place. And we have made clear – and we think the United Nations relief organizations involved will also make clear – it’s an unacceptable act that Hamas should not repeat in the future &#8212;QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; because it jeopardizes the delivery of aid to the Palestinian people.QUESTION: But in terms of the number of occurrences that Hamas has diverted aid, is this – how many times would you say this has happened?MR MILLER: There may have been minor ones in the past. I can’t speak to – this is the first major diversion of aid. And as I said, it ultimately has now been returned to the humanitarian implementer, so it will get where it needed to go. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was an unacceptable act.QUESTION: And what happened to the team that was with the aid at the time?MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. I don’t have the details.QUESTION: Do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: I do know that they are all safe now. I don’t &#8212;QUESTION: Do you know which organization it was?MR MILLER: I do, but I don’t think it’s my – should be my prerogative to speak for them.Anything else on the region before we go – Michel, yeah.QUESTION: Are you talking now about a permanent ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire? And did you talk to the – and how will you build on it, as the Secretary has said yesterday? And second, did you talk to the Israelis about the – their northern front with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So the proposal that is on the table is for an immediate ceasefire for a defined period of time. But as we have always made clear, we do want to build that into an enduring calm. We don’t want this conflict to go on a day longer than it has to. We want to see it brought to a close in a way that ends Hamas’s ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th, in a way that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ultimately gets to this broader point I was making in response to some of the earlier questions – in a way that establishes a political path forward for the Palestinian people, for the citizens of Israel, that provides greater peace, security, stability for the entire region.QUESTION: And on &#8212;MR MILLER: Oh, and on the north, sorry. It was a conversation – it was a subject of our conversations. I don’t have any updates. Our goal remains the same as it has been since the outset of this conflict, which is to resolve the dispute in the north of Israel diplomatically.QUESTION: And one more on Syria, if you don’t mind. Why did the administration oppose to include the Assad regime Anti-Normalization Act to the – or in the supplement aid package that passed last week?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any specific comment to that. We generally don’t comment when it involves pending legislation. Our position, however, has been clear, which is that we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress toward a political solution, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Our sanctions remain in full effect; I know that was one of the other pieces of this particular legislation. And we remain committed to using all tools at our disposal to promote accountability in Syria, including by issuing sanctions under the Caesar Act and other authorities.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A different &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Just also under the Syria policy. It’s reported that the Caesar Act that you just mentioned expires at the end of this year. Are you guys looking to extend that?MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that one back and get you a specific answer.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And secondly, just can you talk about – there was a report – or a group in Bahrain today claimed to have attacked Israel. And that seems to be a new – if accurate and true – that’s a new front that’s open. Is it the department’s assessment that U.S. policy towards trying to contain this conflict in Gaza is successful to this &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of that report, so I wouldn’t want to comment on it or the veracity of it specifically. But it has been our goal to prevent this conflict from spreading. We’ve seen a couple points where – during – or a couple points since October 7th where there have been serious – the serious potential of it spreading and having it escalate, and you’ve seen us work quite intensively during that period. Of course, the last month, with respect to Iran, was one of the most intense periods. So it continues to be our goal, and it is something that you have to work on every day. When you see the conflict in Gaza continue, obviously it adds to tensions in the region, and so it’s one of the – it is a type of thing that you can never rest on, in terms of trying to prevent the conflict from spreading.Go ahead.QUESTION: My question is out of the region if that’s okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask if the State Department is aware of the American that has gone missing in Mexico on a surfing trip – Jack Carter Rhoad, along with two Australians. Was wondering if the State Department’s aware, is working on it, and/or has comment.MR MILLER: There may be people who are aware of it; I’m not personally, and often, I think as you know, that we have Privacy Act rules when it involves cases of Americans overseas. I’ll have to take that back and get a more – check with others in the building, see if we have a more specific answer.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics – Russia, Russia first. I was wondering, in light of your latest finding that Russia that has been using chemical weapons in Ukraine, is the department getting any closer to state the obvious: that Russia is a terrorist state?MR MILLER: We have not changed our position with regard to that designation. But it in no way changes the actions that we have taken to hold Russia accountable. You’ve seen since the outset of this conflict the United States imposing sanctions on Russia, imposing export controls on Russia. We imposed new sanctions on Russia yesterday. You’ve seen us use our diplomacy to press other countries to stop their support from Russia – for Russia. It was a focus of the Secretary’s recent trip to China, where he made clear that China should stop supporting Russia by rebuilding its defense industrial base and also making clear that if they didn’t take action we would. And most significantly, we’ve taken action to hold Russia accountable by supporting Ukraine in its fight for its territory.So I know you always like to ask this question about this one particular designation, but if you look at the entirety of our policy with respect to Russia, I think you would see that it shows us taking actions across the board to hold them accountable for their aggression.QUESTION: But just so I understand correct, is there any ongoing effort for that SST designation, or this is just done deal, you are not going to review?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to my previous answer on this.QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, if I may.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: We’ve seen all the warning lights are blinking bright these days. So the embassy made a statement saying that we offered them engagement, they refuse. We have heard oligarch Ivanishvili’s statements about the U.S. and NGOs. I don’t want to repeat everything he said. But there are calls from the Hill for a policy shift. I know that you made clear that you are deeply concerned, but that’s not enough, so when is it going to be &#8212;MR MILLER: Are you going to make policy claims now? Or are you going to ask a question, Alex? No offense, but – (laughter).QUESTION: When is it the right time? When is it the right time for the U.S. Government to announce the policy shift?MR MILLER: So I will say, as we reiterated in the statement we put out last night, we are deeply concerned with the legislation that is currently working its way through the Georgian legislature. And we’re also concerned and condemn the false narrative that government officials have adopted to defend the legislation. And the anti-Western rhetoric of Georgia Dream’s leadership has put Georgia on a precarious trajectory that jeopardizes Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermines the U.S.-Georgia relationship. It is still draft legislation, and I’m not going to comment on specific responses that we might take or preview specific responses that we might take while it remains pending legislation. But I think we have made quite clear how seriously we take this issue and how concerned we are about it.QUESTION: How closely the Secretary has been involved with this? We haven’t heard from him on this very &#8212;MR MILLER: I can assure you he’s watching incredibly closely. Even on our travels around the world and other countries, it’s something that he’s regularly updated on.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions, if I might. National Security Communication Advisor Kirby said this morning about the Russian refined petroleum, and their shipment have already pushed North Korea input above the 500- barrel and your cap mandated by the UN Security Council. March alone, Russia shipped more than 165,000 barrels of refined petroleum to North Korea. So any refined oil import limit is 500- barrels. Kirby said 165,000 barrels transactions was over the limit. 165,000 is less than the actual import limit of 500,000 barrels. What is the North Korea’s actual annual limit on the refined petroleum imports?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that – that number. I will just say that the United States will continue to impose sanctions against those working to facilitate arms and refined petroleum transfers between Russia and the DPRK. We are currently working with our partners, including Australia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom to announce new coordinated sanctions designations this month.QUESTION: Do you think Kirby made &#8212;MR MILLER: I think I just violated one of my own rules. How many times have – I say I’m not going to preview sanctions actions? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Please &#8212;MR MILLER: Always an exception to every rule.QUESTION: And do you think Kirby made a little mistake about numbers? Because &#8212;MR MILLER: I will defer to him to comment on his remarks.QUESTION: And one more quick, regarding terrorist threat alert. South Korea’s national intelligence services reported that North Korea is searching for terrorist attacks targeting diplomatic missions and officers abroad. Can you give us some comment, or are there any terrorist threat alert for U.S. diplomatic missions or abroad?MR MILLER: The safety and security of our personnel is our first – is our number one priority. I don’t have any specific assessment to offer, but we are constantly monitoring the situations around the world and adjusting to events, as is appropriate and necessary.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shannon.QUESTION: Thank you. I know these cases have been addressed from the podium before, but I wanted to ask about Bryan Hagerich and Ryan Watson, the two Americans who are facing more than a decade behind bars in Turks and Caicos potentially for carrying a relatively small amount of hunting ammunition in the country. Do you have any updates on their cases or assistance that the State Department might be offering?MR MILLER: So the safety and security of United States citizens is our first priority, and as you know, oftentimes we are limited in what we can say about some of these cases. There are times when there’s much that I’d like to say from the podium that I’m not able for privacy reasons. But we are aware of the arrests of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested overseas, we stand ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance, and we do that in every case where we can.QUESTION: And just as more generally speaking, there have been a spate of high-profile cases involving U.S. citizens who are facing very serious punishments for carrying what would be considered domestically innocuous items into foreign countries. Is the State Department considering any action to either warn Americans, or address the issue by perhaps coordinating with TSA to stop them from carrying these items overseas?MR MILLER: Well, presumably, if you make it through an – you shouldn’t be able to make it through an airport with ammunition in the first place, but we constantly update our Travel Alerts to make sure or to warn people that they are of course subject to local laws when they travel overseas. That’s true – we expect – when citizens of other countries come to the United States, we expect them to abide by United States law, and we hold them accountable if they don’t. And that is true for people traveling overseas.In Turks and Caicos, firearms, ammunitions, or other weapons are prohibited. Our Travel Alert for the Turks and Caicos makes that clear so people are aware of that before they travel. And I would once again, as we always do, urge every American to check State Department Travel Alerts before they travel to a country. We’ve put them out for every country in the world so they can see what the local rules, what the local laws are, and it’s very important they follow those laws so they aren’t put in this position.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. As far as these demonstrations are concerned across the U.S. cities and colleges, before my question, if I say one thing – that when I used to go to college and university in Chandigarh in India, my mother told me you are going there to study, not create any troubles for yourself and for others. My question is now here that – who is behind these demonstration and how the U.S. diplomacy with other countries around the globe, who also have many students from across other nations also in these higher universities and colleges there studies are also affecting? Because I’m getting many calls from the Indian American community and their parents also. So how the relations affecting as far as these demonstrations are concerned? Violations are going on and breakings and all the – we never heard in the U.S. as far as students in colleges and university except during Vietnam War, because there was a cause, because America was in war in the – U.S. in Vietnam War, but America is not in war as far as these – what’s going on in Palestine and other places.MR MILLER: So the President spoke to this earlier today, and I don’t have much to add to his remarks. And but the thing that he made very clear is that one of the things that makes this country great is the right to free expression and free speech, and we welcome free speech and we welcome free expression even when it’s about – even when it is people protesting in opposition to policies that we have promulgated in this administration. But it’s also true that we expect people to follow the law, and law enforcement has a right and responsibility to enforce the law when people don’t. I’ll leave it – leave it at that.QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: One more?QUESTION: My other question, please. Thank you so much. These are in connection with that – in one side, India’s largest democracy is going on elections, like more than 700 million people are going elections. In Pakistan, other side, in the parliament of Pakistan, they are saying that U.S. and IMF and other countries should not give any aid to Pakistan because it’s not reaching to the basics people are needing today, and parliamentarians are saying that Pakistan is now going bankrupt. And Pakistan’s prime minister is going in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia and IMF and all there – because otherwise Pakistan will break down and will be filing bankruptcy and all them.My question is: People of Pakistan are telling me and saying that U.S. and other international institutions give aid to the basics and people for the development of Pakistan’s, and at the same time recently State Department held four companies in China and Belarus – held – and that they were supplying ballistic missile parts to Pakistan.So in the one hand they are saying in Pakistan, Pakistan is spending all this money on the ballistic missile parts and others have done – not on the people of Pakistan. What they are saying finally, look at India today and look at Pakistan today, and both countries got freedom on the same day, and today India is the – one of the largest trading partner with the United States. So where do we stand as far &#8212;MR MILLER: I was waiting for the question. (Laughter.) That was a lot. I was wondering what the question was going to be.QUESTION: So what message do we have for Pakistan from the Secretary of State &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; that basics – that Pakistan can be uplifted like India in the future and their people?MR MILLER: So a couple things. First, when it – as it relates to the ballistic missile program, we’ve made quite clear our position on that, including through the actions that we take – we took last month that you referenced. But when it comes to efforts to stabilize its economy, including through reaching an agreement with the IMF, we support those efforts. We support the progress that Pakistan has made to stabilize its economy and manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges, and our support for Pakistan’s economic success is unwavering and we will continue to engage with them through technical engagements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. Excuse me. Is the administration looking to admit into the United States refugees from Gaza? If so, how would the administration ensure there is no Hamas infiltration?MR MILLER: So since the beginning of the conflict, we have helped more than 1,800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. At President Biden’s direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals, such as children with serious health problems and children who are receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm’s way and receive care at nearby hospitals in the region. And Palestinians may be eligible for a variety of existing pathways to enter the United States, such as immigrant or nonimmigrant visas. We are constantly evaluating policy proposals to further support Palestinians who are family members of American citizens and may want to join them in the United States. I don’t have any potential changes to preview at this time, but as is true everywhere in the world, we have strict vetting whenever we admit people to the United States.QUESTION: And Republicans have called for the administration to revoke visas of students on American college and university campuses who express support for Hamas. What’s the administration’s reaction to those calls? Would the administration do such a thing?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on that.QUESTION: And one more thing.MR MILLER: Go – yeah.QUESTION: What is the administration doing regarding Qatari funding of America’s college and universities that critics have said have contributed to Israelis &#8212;MR MILLER: Has there been – hold on – wait, is the evidence of that?QUESTION: That Qatar is the largest donor – foreign donor of the American college university campuses? Yes.MR MILLER: No, but I mean of – if they are supporting the protests. I’ve heard that claim but I’m just asking before I comment on – whether there’s evidence that you can put forward to substantiate it.QUESTION: Well, I mean, like, not – not just these protests, but, like, the protests on American college university campuses regarding Israel, like, even before October 7th – there have been critics who have said that Qatari money has contributed to this &#8212;MR MILLER: I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; like through funding, like, university programs.MR MILLER: So what – what critics – just what critics, specifically, so I know what I’m responding to?QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the critics, yeah.MR MILLER: No, no, but who?QUESTION: Like conservatives, foreign policy folks, like scholars.MR MILLER: I just – before I respond to something in general, I’d like to see a piece of evidence or &#8212;QUESTION: Like folks that are &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; or a specific – a specific – I would just – I would love to see a specific charge or a piece of evidence before I respond to something that may or may not be true.QUESTION: I can send.MR MILLER: Okay.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last week that Ukraine and the United States are working on a new bilateral agreement on security and have already begun discussing a specific text of this agreement. Do you have any comments, confirmation?MR MILLER: So I’m not going speak to it in specific – other than to say that we have made clear that we are working on ways to provide long-term support for Ukraine’s security. Obviously we provide significant assistance to Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s aggression, and we have been working on long-term security arrangements. That’s something that the President made public around the time of the last NATO summit. Those discussions continue but I’m not going to speak to them in any detail.QUESTION: One more question. Polish media reported last week that Poland has made a formal request to the U.S. to deploy American nuclear weapons in the country. Is the United States discussing this with them?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I just want to get back to the protests and ask if there’s any concern in the State Department about these protests reflecting a spread of the conflict that you been expressing fears about earlier? And secondly, have these protests at the universities featured in any of the conversations that the Secretary had on his recent trip?MR MILLER: So when we speak to being concerned about the spread of the conflict, we’re worried about kinetic conflict in the region. We’re not talking about free speech on United States campuses. So I’m not sure I understand what the linkage is between the two? But &#8212;QUESTION: Well, it is a spread of conflict regardless, in many people’s eyes, that there is a conflict emerging on U.S. campuses as a direct result of Israel’s actions in Gaza.MR MILLER: Okay, it’s a very different thing than what we’re talking about when we talk about diplomatic efforts, which are by nature overseas, to address the spread of the conflict between Israel and other terrorist organizations, between Israel and other countries in the region. That’s specifically what we’re referring to. It’s in no way related to, I think, the actions you’ve seen on United States campuses.And then the second question, remind me again, was?QUESTION: Was it the – did it come up in any of the conversations?MR MILLER: Oh, did it come up. Yeah, it did come up somewhat in conversations, as you would expect. It’s been all over TV. People around the world watch American television, and so of course it’s come up in conversations, but not in any substantive or serious way.Go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Follow-up on that – is Israel seeing these protests, and is it a concern about the – losing the messaging war? And then conversely, are there any concerns that Hamas is seeing these protests in his feeling emboldened by the anti-Israel sentiment of them?MR MILLER: So I will let Israel speak for itself, and I’m not going to speak for Hamas either.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. The world’s largest election has begun in India. However, there has been significant increase in intimidation, harassment. Prime Minister Modi’s inflammatory rhetoric against the Muslim community has heightened fear and uncertainty within the 200 Muslim community in India. At the same time, major social media platform like Twitter, YouTube, Google, and Meta are removing critical content and blocking channels at the request of the Indian authority, raising concern about the censorship and the impact on free speech. What steps are being taken to protect these U.S.-based social media platforms and ensure that the right to free expression is upheld?MR MILLER: So let me take that one back – regards to any specific actions, not – which is not to say there are any. But of course we support freedom of expression all around the world, in every country in the world.QUESTION: One more – just I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I draw your attention one of my colleague was asking a question about India, and it is very difficult, someone asking questions and facing harassment. I also have faced even life threat sometimes in my social media message and texts that I’m receiving. So – and they are questioning about the ethnicity. Is that a matter that someone is asking questions – he has to be – or he or she has to be the – that ethnicity or from that country’s background in this briefing room?MR MILLER: So I don’t even know where to go with that question. Obviously, we welcome people from all over the world, of any ethnicity, from countries all over the world, to ask whatever questions they want to ask us. Unfortunately, one of the sad features of social media is that people make all sorts of inappropriate comments and threats and intimidation. I see that on social media; I’m sure you do too. It doesn’t make it acceptable in anyway.Go ahead.QUESTION: Except for &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the student protests in the U.S., have you find any sign of foreign intervention, be it social media campaigns, funding, et cetera?MR MILLER: It’s not the kind of assessment we make here at the State Department, but, no, we’ve not that made that – any – that assessment.QUESTION: Are you going to look for it or it’s not part of &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s just not – it’s not the kind of thing that we do here at the State Department.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We are – so no.QUESTION: And on the bilateral agreement you have with Saudi Arabia, I got a bit confused there when you were answering at the beginning. So the disagreement that you’re going to have with Saudi Arabia, is it tied to the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, because you said it’s a package?MR MILLER: Yeah, so I realized as I was going through it it was probably a bit confusing. So in the normalization agreement, the potential normalization agreement that we are talking about with Saudi Arabia, there are several components. One component is a package of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Another component is normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And another package would be a path to two states for the Palestinian people. All of them are linked together; none go forward without the others.QUESTION: So obviously you are not going to have a final package to present to Senate to give the approval, to get Senate’s approval. So my question is that a few of these components – like the AI or nuclear or the security agreement, all of that – can they be executed before the other components even being finalized or achieved or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would say this is a package deal, but we are also putting the cart before the horse a little bit here and getting too much into the details, and that’s because, as I said, one of the things that Saudi Arabia has made clear is a prerequisite for them agreeing to any normalization deal in the first place is calm in Gaza, which of course we don’t have right now. And it’s not the reason why we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire – we’re trying to pursue a ceasefire with the release of hostages for its own sake and the benefits it would bring – but it is absolutely one of the things that we would try to push forward should we achieve that ceasefire that includes the release of hostages.QUESTION: But you’re going to go ahead with the nuclear agreement regardless of what is happening with &#8212;MR MILLER: No, as I just said, it is a package deal.And Guita go ahead, and we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Iran. You may have seen that the BBC World has obtained some documents which seem to be minutes of a hearing in Iran on the reason – on the how and when and who caused the death of Nika Shakarami, one of the – a teenage protestor a couple years ago.MR MILLER: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: The UN spokesperson suggested that if this document – if these documents were presented to the UN Human Rights Council that they could start a proceeding, look into it, those conversations that outline how she was killed. As a member of the UNHCR, would the United States encourage presentation of these documents to hold the people responsible for the death of Nika Shakarami?MR MILLER: So let me just apologize. I haven’t seen that actual report. I’ve been on the road a little bit, as I spoke about at the beginning of the briefing, but let me take that back and get you an answer to it.QUESTION: Okay. It’s kind of follow-up, but it can go separately, I think.MR MILLER: Yeah, I’ll get – I – yeah, I’ll get you an answer. If you have a follow-up, we can get an answer to that too. So &#8212;QUESTION: Well, the follow-up could be – I mean, it’s not dependent necessarily.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: So the Iranian constitution – the constitution of the Islamic Republic, actually. It says that the supreme leader sets the policies and is – the ultimate decision maker in the country. So as such, does the State Department believe that Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader, is responsible for the suppression of demonstrators and death of a high number of people two years ago and general suppression of the public?MR MILLER: He is absolutely responsible for the actions that government has taken. With that, we’ll end for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								South Korea																								Syria																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 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 – April 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 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; April 29, 2024																																																					April 29, 2024																																																								1:10 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Starting early.MR PATEL: Try – always like to keep you all on your toes. I have a little bit of a hard out today, guys, so I will try to get through as many of you I can, but I’m going to be mindful of the time.Ellen, would you like to kick us off?QUESTION: Sure, thank you. On – Secretary Blinken has made a decision to give Israel more time to rectify the situation with the IDF unit that – after deeming that it was guilty of gross abuses of human rights, and that Israel has not held it accountable. And separately, there are the four other cases where there was, I believe, a staff recommendation, according to ProPublica, that these other groups had also committed gross human rights violations and should – the Leahy Law should apply to them. And Secretary Blinken waited five months, according to the ProPublica article, to make a decision on that.So this – is there – the one unit, Netzah Yehuda, is, according to the Israeli military, still operating, and operating in Gaza sometimes. There’s not much of a sign of urgency from the State Department that there are these Israeli units accused of gross human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, killing – torture, rape, and the death of a U.S. citizen.MR PATEL: Is there a question there, Ellen? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yes, I’m getting there. There doesn’t seem to be – that there needs to be any urgency to protect the Palestinian civilians who are being exposed to these gross human rights violations, including with the postponed decision on Netzah Yehuda.MR PATEL: So to take a step back, I take it you are referring to some of the things that were publicly reported at the tail end of last week in reference to some correspondence that the Secretary had with congressional leadership? Is that what you’re referring to?QUESTION: Yes. Yes.MR PATEL: Okay. So let’s – I think important that we take a little bit of a step back here. First, when it comes to the Leahy Law, we have a careful and very deliberate process when it comes to implementing the Leahy Law. And I want to reiterate what you’ve heard me, the Secretary, Matt, and others say before, which is that the same standards when it comes to the implementation – or, sorry, the same standards of the application of this law applies to every country that receives U.S. security assistance.What I can say in terms of where the process is right now is that after a careful process, we found five Israeli units responsible for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights. All of these were incidents much before October 7th, and none took place in Gaza. Four of these units have effectively remediated these violations, which is what we expect partners to do. It is consistent with what we expect all countries whom with we have a security relationship with. For a remaining unit, we continue to be in consultations and engagements with the Government of Israel; they have submitted additional information as it pertains to that unit. And we’re continuing to have those conversations consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel that was entered into in 2021.When conclusions are made under actions that fall under the auspices of the Foreign Assistance Act, we are required to consult with officials from the Government of Israel, and that is ongoing. We are engaging with them in a process, and we will make an ultimate decision when it comes to that unit when that process is complete.I would also just want to note that the remediation standard is consistent, and it is the same for all countries. And what we ask of host governments in that situation is effective steps being taken consistent within their processes and systems to bring respective parties to justice. So as it relates to the process here, that’s all of the update that I have for now, but we’re going to continue to engage with the government on that and we will have more to share, I’m sure, at some point in the future.QUESTION: There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in the meantime; concern for Palestinian civilians exposed to these units doesn’t factor into the timeline of &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me just – I would 100 percent dispute the premise of that question. This is a deliberate process, it is a detail-oriented process, and it is a rigorous process. It is easy to sometimes want things to happen as quickly as possible, but it is more important to ensure that these processes are happening in the most robust and rigorous way possible, because we are ultimately dealing with facts, and we want to make sure that we can follow the facts and make sure that we are appropriately engaging with appropriate stakeholders, including, in this case, the Government of Israel. There is a clear process on this that we intend to follow, and that is the same process for determining these things, the standards of which are consistent with all countries.Go ahead, Kylie.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you’ve been saying about the standard being a typical process that you follow and remediation being standard across the board. So what is the remediation standard here? How long are you going &#8212;MR PATEL: So that’s the point that I was making, is that the standard of remediation is that the – these respective countries take effective steps to hold the accountable party to justice. And that is different on a country-by-country basis. I’m not going to be prescriptive of that on here, including in this incident. But it is &#8212;QUESTION: So then – I’m sorry, but then it’s not a standard if you’re saying it’s different on a country-by-country basis.MR PATEL: It’s a standard in the sense that we expect to see remediation in – but each country in which we have a security relationship is different. There are different protocols and procedures in place in those respective countries, and those respective countries can speak to what accountability measures they have within their systems. I’m not a spokesperson for those components.QUESTION: So you won’t speak to what the process you’re expecting to play out here is? How long you’re giving Israel for remediation in this?MR PATEL: Correct. Absolutely. I’m not going to get into that, beyond saying that we are engaging with the Government of Israel on these things. And I’m sure we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.QUESTION: And then the Secretary said ten days ago that a determination on the Leahy front with Israel had been made, and that we would see results. So I’m wondering if the determination that he made ten days ago is this determination that you guys are now making public, or if that changed due to engagements with the Israelis.MR PATEL: What we were talking about was the gross violations of human rights. As it relates to this one particular unit, I will say that this process continues to be ongoing, given this additional information that we’re engaging with the Government of Israel consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Simon.QUESTION: Okay &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll get to you, I’m sure.QUESTION: So no answer as to if it’s changed?MR PATEL: What – sorry, what?QUESTION: The determination ten days ago. Is this – you won’t say if it’s the same determination as &#8212;MR PATEL: What we were speaking about was the gross violations of human rights. That’s what the – the Secretary was alluding to. I will say that this process, though, with the Government of Israel broadly, continues to be ongoing, especially as it relates to this one unit.QUESTION: Just to clarify &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; where we are, because this is a bit complicated: The U.S. Government has concluded that five different Israeli units committed gross human rights violations, but as of now all of those units can still continue to receive U.S. arms, weapons, ammunition.MR PATEL: Well, in the – in four of those instances, as I just said, we have seen remediation of those violations. And that is, of course, what we expect of partners. Beyond that, as it relates to this fifth unit, that is a process that is still ongoing.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: But let me just say, Simon, since you gave me the opportunity, when we’re talking about the Leahy Law, what we are talking about are unit and component restrictions when they are found in violation. It does not have bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a country, especially a country like Israel in which we have a longstanding security relationship, the provision of bulk assistance that’s gone back many, many years.QUESTION: But as of now, even the fifth unit, where you’re unsure whether there’s been remediation, they are still eligible to receive U.S. arms?MR PATEL: That is – that is – that is the interpretation of the law, correct.QUESTION: Okay, yeah. And to sort of – I wonder, the public might listen to you say that you’ve concluded that that there are gross violations of human rights, but is there any detail you can give us? What are these incidents? What kind of things are we talking about? Some of the reporting has involved sexual assaults, murder. Are these – is there anything you can tell us about what this conclusion is that &#8212;MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of these incidents from up here because overall, the totality of the situation continues to be an ongoing process. But I am – have no doubt that we will have more to share in the time ahead that is consistent with the appropriate congressional pieces as well as the engagements with the host government on this going forward.QUESTION: And you’re not going to tell us – you’re not going to tell us what the units are in question?MR PATEL: Again, that is not something that we generally make public beyond through appropriate consultations with legislative bodies as well as the host government.QUESTION: So the U.S. Government has conducted a process, found these units have conducted grave violations of human rights; that sounds very serious, but you won’t tell us what those violations were, who committed them, and you’re going to continue to send weapons to them?MR PATEL: That is a process that is consistent with the standards that we have with other countries as well. You have to remember, Israel is a country in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. Other countries similar in this grouping, I would say, would include the government – in terms of the kinds of relationship we have – include Ukraine, include Egypt. And in those kinds of countries, there is a proactive vetting of the whole security universe, a constant evaluation in close consultations with our embassies and consulates, NGOs, civil society, media reporting on the ground, as to assess what is happening in those countries. And so consistent with that process, we – not in a place to share publicly the specific components of their security services that – in which this is applicable to.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Sorry, hold on. Is this on this, or &#8212;QUESTION: On this.MR PATEL: Okay. Let me get to Olivia, then I’ll come to you, Leon. I’m so sorry.QUESTION: Can you talk about within what timeframe this new information from the Israeli Government reached the State Department?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to that specificity on diplomatic engagements. What I can say is that they provided additional information to us, and that is a process that’s going to continue to be ongoing.QUESTION: But was that additional information supplied after the Secretary made his – revealed that some determinations had been made (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the diplomatic engagements that we have. What I can say is that this is consistent with the memorandum of understanding and which we have with Israel to talk about these things, prior to any conclusions that are made under things that fall under the Foreign Assistance Act.QUESTION: Generally speaking, are governments under Leahy that we have relationships with bound by a certain amount of time &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not.QUESTION: &#8212; with which they need to provide evidence or sort of confirm that they have taken steps on accountability or &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not. They are not.QUESTION: So this is a completely open-ended process &#8212;MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; and violations can stretch on for an indeterminate amount of time? And at what point then does the department actually take any punitive measures?MR PATEL: Well, again, you have to – it’s important to remember, Olivia, that each country is different, so it’s difficult to talk about these circumstances with a broad-brush stroke. What I can say is that there is not a stipulation on timing, but we’ll continue to have these engagements and we will press directly with governments and countries about sharing applicable information.Again, in the context of Israel, this is a government in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. There is constant around-the-clock evaluation and vetting ongoing as it relates to the security parameters and circumstances on the ground. So we are looking at reports, we are looking at public reporting, we are looking at media reporting, just as we would do in any conflict zone, ensuring that there are no violations of international law, no violations of humanitarian law.QUESTION: But that seems to be at the core of the problem here, is that Israel is a unique country being offered unique treatment in this circumstance.MR PATEL: They are not being offered unique treatment. There is nothing that I have outlined here that is inconsistent with the Leahy process that is – when it comes to the countries that which we have security relationships with.QUESTION: You’ve cited the longstanding security relationship and how it might &#8212;MR PATEL: Because there are some countries in which the relationship we have with them would require us to approach this just slightly differently – Ukraine being an example, Egypt being an example, Israel being another example. But there is not a special treatment. There is not a different standard to &#8212;QUESTION: So what does “slightly differently” mean?MR PATEL: So Israel is a country that – in which we have a longstanding security relationship. There is a lot of bulk assistance that is going whether – to use an example, things like bulletproof vests or something – in which the Government of Israel may choose to want something like that. And then it is then on the central government to disseminate that to specific units or components within their security system.So for countries in which we have that kind of longstanding deep relationship – in Israel’s case, it’s called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum – there is around-the-clock, proactive, constant vetting and evaluation of the circumstances that are on the ground to assess whether there are international – there – whether there are violations of international humanitarian law, violations of international law. That is a process that is ongoing. There is no such thing as special treatment or double standards here. The standards of the Leahy Law are applied consistently to all countries.Now, in some countries, like the ones that I stipulated, the security relationship is such as that there is this additional forum vehicle, but that is not a double standard or any kind of special treatment.QUESTION: I want to defer to my colleagues, which is – I mean, it just seems hard to countenance there’s no double standard with this as a special arrangement and set of circumstances that Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not a special arrangement, the standards of which – in fact, it is taking a closer look at the situations on the ground. It’s not a double standard; the standards are the same. It is a forum created to allow for the – for an assessment that is comparable to the kind of security relationship that we have with that particular country. Israel is not the only one that – in which this model exists.QUESTION: My last question on this is that – does the State Department believe that actually taking punitive measures under Leahy in this instance with regard to this one unit would somehow damage diplomatic relations with Israel?MR PATEL: I’m not going to get ahead of that process, Olivia, and we would certainly hope not, because throughout this whole process, we have been clear-eyed and consistent. You’ve heard the Secretary, you’ve heard the President, you’ve heard me, you’ve heard Matt – that throughout the course of this conflict, you have – we have reiterated our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. That was true then; it is true now. And is Leahy unit-specific. It is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we have with that particular country.I will also note that this is – continues to be an ongoing process. And if at any point remediation efforts or things like that are found to be inconsistent with the standards that we find, there of course will be restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. We intend to be an administration that’s going to follow the law as prescribed.QUESTION: Vedant?MR PATEL: Tom – oh, sorry, let me go to Leon, because he’s had his hand up, and then I’ll come to you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; of course you’re going to get a question. Has there ever been a briefing where you’ve not gotten a question on this issue?Leon.QUESTION: Thank you. We agree that all this is pre-October 7 and involves the West Bank, abuses in the West Bank, okay? So quite a while ago – I don’t know exactly how long depending on which of the units you’re talking about, but I find it a little bit strange that in four of those units, you – they have the remediary corrections that they did, and you accept that evidently. And in this fifth unit, what sort of additional information could have come through all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks that would make it that you are not able to make the determination yet?And then second question: What kind of remediary decisions are we talking about? I mean, disciplinary – or what kind of corrections? Can you speak to that?MR PATEL: So on the second point, that’s up to the host government. The standard that we expect is that they bring the relevant parties to justice. We cannot have some kind of prescriptive metric given that each country is different and their procedures as it relates to their own government systems and military systems are different, but our standard for remediation, we expect that of all countries in this case. But beyond that, Simon – I’m sorry, not Simon, Leon – it is an ongoing process so I’m not going to get more prescriptive or specific on the relevant details.Tom, go ahead.QUESTION: To follow up – can I just follow up on that?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, I’m confused. Do you know whether or not the Israelis have remediated this unit?MR PATEL: That is – that is essentially what we are engaging with them on as it relates to this. Again, I can say that in these five individual incidents of gross violations of human rights, for four of these units they have effectively remediated those violations, which is, again, something we expect and want from the countries that – which we have security relationships with. It’s what we expect of our partners. As it relates to this remaining unit, the Government of Israel has submitted additional information. We are currently reviewing it, which is consistent with the memorandum of understanding we have with them. We’re engaging with them in a process, and we’ll make a decision from there when that process is complete.QUESTION: Okay. But the answer is you don’t know. You don’t know if they’ve remediated this unit on these places and we don’t know what the cases are because you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: When I say something is mid-process, it’s safe to assume that. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, but the law – the law is really clear. So the law says, “No assistance shall be furnished...to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” So you’ve made that determination that they have committed a gross violation of human rights. The exception is that that prohibition “shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports” – to the appropriate congressional committees – “that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring responsible members of the security forces to justice.” So has the Secretary notified Congress that they are taking effective steps?MR PATEL: So I’m not a legal or technical expert.QUESTION: No, because you don’t – you don’t know, and you just said you don’t know if they’ve remediated so &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on the specifics of the legal process for you, Tom, and get back to you.QUESTION: But that is the legal process. So according to the legal process, you’ve determined that they have carried out gross violations of human rights, but you haven’t determined that they’ve remediated. And yet the Secretary said on April the 19th you had made the determinations. So I’m – I’m just really confused about what changed after April the 19th?MR PATEL: As I was pretty clear, what I shared was that the Government of Israel has shared additional information with us, and we are &#8212;QUESTION: But that – according to the law, that is not an effective remediation. So at the moment, you have a situation where you have – you have determined there was a gross violation, but you don’t have remediation. And I can’t see any part of the law which says you might decide over a couple of days that it’s been remediated and therefore keep security assistance going.MR PATEL: So like I said, this is an ongoing process. I’m not going to speak to it more specifically, but consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel, we are engaging with them, consulting with them as it relates to not just this broader process but additional information that they’ve shared. And we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you – thank you, Vedant. By the way, did – can you share with us the outcome of the investigation of the death of Omar Assad that was – that actually died while in the custody with this unit, Netzah Yehuda? Do we know what was the outcome of that investigation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer right now.QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Said.QUESTION: Yeah, please, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The other thing is it seems that Israel has rebuked the United States call or your call the other day for investigating the mass grave, the mass burial and all these things. Do you have any comment on that?MR PATEL: So Said, there has been some – and if you’ll allow me a quick second, I don’t have – make sure this is the right thing here. As it relates to this Said, the IDF has been pretty public in that in its search for Israeli hostages &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; they uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously buried their dead.QUESTION: They excavated – you mean excavated – yeah.MR PATEL: There has been some pretty consistent public reporting dating back to January that that is an area that Palestinians had to bury some bodies, but the IDF can speak more specifically about that process. But you heard me speak to this, you heard the National Security Advisor say – and consistently across this administration, I’d say that the facts matter and, of course, if there is any kind of inconsistency that needs to be looked into – but I believe that the IDF has spoken publicly about what this is and what this isn’t.QUESTION: Okay. So you accept their answer? I mean, their answer was we did not do that; we don’t do this. I mean that’s what – and they consider the matter to be over. Do you consider the matter to be over?MR PATEL: Said, I just said if there are in fact any inconsistencies, then that should be looked into. But based on even just the public reporting, the IDF has been clear about what this is and what this isn’t. That being said, we engage with the Government of Israel and the IDF around the clock. This is something we’ll continue to discuss with them if we need to raise any further issues.QUESTION: Okay. A couple more questions, if you allow me. It has reported that the U.S. is working with Israel to prevent any kind of ICC warrant of arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Are you aware of that? Is that true? Can you confirm that?MR PATEL: It’s important to take a step back here, Said, that since this president has come into office, we have worked to reset our relationship with the ICC. And we are in contact with the court on a range of issues, including in connection to the court’s important work on Darfur, on Ukraine, on Sudan as well. But on this investigation, our position is clear. We continue to believe that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Palestinian situation.QUESTION: Yeah, but you did welcome the warrant of the arrest for Vladimir Putin, correct? I mean, you welcomed that. I’m just asking. You did.MR PATEL: Said, these are two very different – first of all, I actually – I really – I don’t appreciate &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not making a comparison. I’m &#8212;MR PATEL: You literally are, though. You literally are. There is no moral equivalency between the kinds of things that we see President Putin and his – and the Kremlin undertake in comparison to the Israeli Government, Said.QUESTION: I’m not asking for a justification. I’m saying you did – you did welcome it, right? Okay.MR PATEL: This is also not – the ICC, as you know, is not – we are not party to the Rome Statute on this.QUESTION: Right, that’s true. Let me ask you one last question on the Saudi trip.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip to Saudi Arabia. It has been said that the Saudis suggested or came up with a proposal that basically said let’s focus on the security issues, arrangement on security issues and the civilian nuclear program, whatever, and leave the normalization, the Palestinian state, to another time when things are more propitious to discuss these things. Can you confirm that to us?MR PATEL: Said, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: Did the Saudis submit a new proposal that delinks &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to set into the specifics of our ongoing diplomatic engagements, but we remain committed to the long-term goal of a more stable and prosperous and integrated Middle East region, including through normalization and of course also including through the advancement of a two-state solution. The Secretary just addressed this in Capri that this is something that we have continued to be working on as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s been something that he himself has been intensively engaged on. But beyond that, I’m – we’ll just defer to our Saudi partners to speak to that.QUESTION: Yeah. As far as your – you know, there has been no proposal delinking these issues, focusing on the security issue versus the Palestinian normalization issue?MR PATEL: Said, we think that an integrated Middle East region should include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia but also the advancement of a two-state solution as well.Go ahead, Guita.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the ceasefire aspect of the Gaza war, the Secretary in Riyadh today said that, and I quote, “...between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas,” unquote. He met with the Arab foreign ministers. He met with the Turkish foreign minister there. Does the State Department see a role for the Islamic Republic of Iran on this decision by Hamas that everybody is waiting on whether to take the proposal or not, one way or another?MR PATEL: I cannot think of any actions in the past I don’t know how many years that the Iranian regime has taken that – one, that has been actually beneficial to the Palestinian people. What I would just say broadly, any country is welcome to play a positive role, but actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to the actions of the Iranian regime, the track record is pretty clear: they continue to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism; they continue to be a backer and funder of groups that have been focused on destabilizing and bringing violence to the region. So their actions are pretty clear here.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Friday, State Department strongly commended the attack on the on the Khor Mor gas field in Kurdistan, but my question is how the United States can protect Kurdistan Region from militia groups where there is also U.S. investment in the region.MR PATEL: So we do strongly condemn the attack on the Khor Mor gas field, and we offer condolences to the families of those who were killed, and we wish for a quick recovery of those who were injured. And as we’ve said previously, attacks like this on civilian infrastructure, they’re an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.QUESTION: A follow-up on that?Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Let me try to approach the whole Leahy Law thing in one or two different ways. You say that U.S. law is applied systematically throughout. Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Because there is U.S. law that says that there should be a funding cutoff under the Arms Export Control Act and the Glenn-Symington Amendments that says that there shouldn’t be aid to nuclear proliferators, and Israel is a damn sure nuclear proliferator. But last time I asked, you folks won’t even acknowledge the existence of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.MR PATEL: Yeah, I don’t – I still don’t have a comment for you on that, Sam.QUESTION: But U.S. law is applied systematically, but you won’t even acknowledge the existence of &#8212;MR PATEL: Of course U.S. law is applied systematically.QUESTION: But you won’t even acknowledge the empirical reality of a nuclear weapons arsenal.MR PATEL: Don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let me try a different fact then. Tomorrow there will be a decision issued by the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – not just simply to punish genocide but to attempt to prevent it in real time. Nicaragua’s lawsuit says that it is, quote, “enabling Israel to  genocidal acts.” Quote, “Germany has provided political, financial and military support to Israel fully aware at the time of  authorization that the military equipments would be used in the commission of  breaches of international law by this State and in disregard of its own obligations.”As I understand it, Nicaragua is doing this against Germany and not the U.S. because the U.S. has a reservation in the Genocide Convention saying that it will not adhere to any judgments by the International Court of Justice. But it doesn’t have to invoke that. My question to you is: Would the United States invoke that; or, if a state wanted to go to the International Court, will the United States actually adhere to international law and say we will not invoke this way of bailing out of the legal system, we will actually abide by a court decision?MR PATEL: Sam, let me say a couple of things there. First, we’ve been incredibly clear on this dating back to a number of months that we find allegations of genocide in this current, ongoing conflict in Gaza to continue to be unfounded. That was the case previously when similar matters were brought before the ICJ, and that continues to be the case. And let me just say when it comes to our partners in Germany, they share our convergence on the importance of doing everything we can to make sure hostages are released, to make sure that there is more humanitarian aid going into Gaza, and that everything can be done possible to make sure that this conflict ends as quickly as we can.QUESTION: But I’m not asking you for your alleged assessment. I’m asking you: Will you adhere to a court ruling from the world court?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals, Sam.Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: No, no, it’s not a hypothetical.MR PATEL: Ellen.QUESTION: It’s a “will you adhere?”MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: I was just wondering if the – Secretary Blinken himself has made clear that there is not remediation by this unit. The letter to the House Speaker says that Blinken will work to identify steps to get Israel on a path of remediation for this unit. And as my colleague here pointed out, that’s not in the Leahy Law. The Leahy Law doesn’t say you can enter one – you enter negotiations to try to bring a country into remediation.MR PATEL: First, I would not call it negotiations. We are engaging with the Government of Israel on facts and on information that is consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them. I think it’s also important to remember we want to see remediation when it comes to our partners and countries in which we have longstanding security partnerships with.Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Gaza university protests, which have intensified across American campuses over the past week with the students making several demands, including calls for policy changes and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and according to a poll by CNN over the weekend, young Americans under 35 disapprove the administration’s handling of Israel’s war on Gaza. And many countries, including your allies in the region, also expect you to change course and put more pressure on Israel. So are these objections and protests considered on – in policymaking process in this building? And specifically I’m wondering: Will U.S. policy be changed or affected by these protests in any way?MR PATEL: Look, Rabia, when it comes to people protesting and sharing their opinions, making their voices heard, that is something that is consistent with the First Amendment. It is consistent with things we see in this country, and certainly people have every right to do so, including people who may have differing viewpoints on foreign policy that we’re pursuing. The same would be applied to employees of the federal government. They, of course, have every right to express their opinions and points of view. I’ve said a number of times before that the Secretary, at least when it comes to the workforce, he is incredibly receptive to different points of view. He believes that that makes him a stronger policy maker, and the outcomes include better and more well-thought-out policy. And we’ll continue to encourage the mechanisms that we have for people to share their points of view.When it comes to protests, though, people continue to have every right to do so. We would just continue to press that they be nonviolent and that they remain peaceful.QUESTION: But will the U.S. policy be changed or affected in any way by these protests?MR PATEL: When it comes to – when it comes to the policy that we’re pursuing, Rabia, the only real metric for us is what is in the interests for the American people and what keeps the American people safer and more secure.QUESTION: So you don’t take into account &#8212;MR PATEL: And in our point of view – and what – and in our point of view, more humanitarian aid going into Gaza is also good for the United States. The defeat of Hamas is also good for the United States. Ensuring that Gaza can no longer be a springboard for terrorism is also good for the United States. And a two-state solution that brings about greater peace and stability and integration in the Middle East region is also good for the United States.We are pursuing these policies because we believe they are in the interest of the American people. It will bring about greater peace and stability in the region, and it will keep our country and other countries in the region safer. People are allowed to disagree. It is a free country and they have every First Amendment right to express their points of view and to make them heard, and we encourage people to do so in a peaceful and nonviolent way.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Vedant. A question on the attack on the Khor Mor gas field in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, as you could speak of moments ago about it. Last time, in January, when a field – when that field was attacked, you request the Iraqi Government to investigate and bringing to justice those who were responsible. And this time we saw the same statement from State Department on that attack. In your assessment, who was or is responsible for this attack, and have you ever get back by the Iraqi Government why they are not bringing those responsible into justice? And are they willing or they can’t do it? Is that something of your concern?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer when it comes to a responsible actor there, and so I will just refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And one more question on that. As you are pushing or helping or wanting Iraq to get its energy independence from Iran and that’s why you are waivering the sanctions to get electricity from Iran, and this field is one of the alternates for the Iranian energy supply to Iraq, do you think that this attack – these kinds of attack – is a warning to all the stakeholders and parties, including the United States, that getting Iraq independence energy from Iran is not an easy and – it’s not easy to divest Iraq from Iranian independence? Are you considering these attacks in your – into your calculations when you’re speaking of Iraqi independence energy from Iran?MR PATEL: So I’m certainly not going to speculate on why or why not someone chose to strike an electricity – or a gas field. What I can say, though, is that this kind – these kinds of affronts to civilian infrastructure, they are a direct attack on Iraqi sovereignty, and that’s why you saw us condemn them, but I don’t have anything else beyond that.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: On the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Secretary Blinken said that we’re getting close to an agreement on bilateral things. Can you elaborate on that?MR PATEL: I can’t, Michel. I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, but the Secretary just last weekend in Capri was – laid out that this is something that we’ve been working on, including as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s something that we’ve been intensely engaged on, and we believe that this is something that is key to what is our long-term goal, which is a more stable, prosperous, and integrated Middle East region.Olivia.QUESTION: One quick question on hostages.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Public comments by the Secretary this morning – he indicated that a new offer by Israel on the table was extraordinarily, extraordinarily generous. Is there a sense that a deal is closer than it has been in recent weeks, or is Hamas the same unknown that is has been?MR PATEL: So our hope is that – our hope is that – of course that some kind of progress can be made. We remain committed to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and takes some additional steps for the surge of humanitarian aid. To echo the Secretary, a generous deal has been put on the table, and it’s now on Hamas to accept the deal. I will just say that currently what is standing in the way between a ceasefire and some progress for the Palestinian people is Hamas.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I have a clarification on this one, please? On this?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Now, the Secretary was talking about sustainable calm, sustainable calm. What we heard today from the foreign secretary of United Kingdom, David Cameron, he was – he was talking about 40 days of ceasefire. Could you – could &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about this process, Said, beyond saying that we’re committed to reaching a deal that includes an immediate ceasefire, that includes the release of hostages and additional humanitarian aid. It’s something that we’re continuing to work towards. As the Secretary said, a generous deal has been put on the table, and really the responsibility now is for Hamas to accept it.QUESTION: But it includes no time, no 30 days &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about the process, Said.Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Said’s question regarding Omar Assad now. Netzah Yehuda has been cited for violations – gross violations of human rights, including for being responsible for the death of an 80-year-old American citizen, Omar Assad. So that took place almost two years ago, 2022, and now you’re saying that Israel presented new information and that there’s a discussion of – or remediation of that military unit. What kind of new information provided almost two years later could make the family of Omar Assad, an American citizen, feel like they’ve received any kind of justice?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to the specifics of this process because it is ongoing, but remediation is what we want to see in as many of these instances as possible. That is what we expect of our partners and that’s what we expect of countries that we partner with. But beyond that, I’m not going to get ahead of this.I will also note that if at the end of our engagements and discussions in this process with the Government of Israel it is found that processes are inconsistent with what is laid out in Leahy or if information is inconsistent with what is expected under Leahy, there will of course be a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. As I said to one of your colleagues, we intend to be an administration that follows the law, and that is also true in this case here.Janne.QUESTION: Are you in touch with the family to explain all this to them?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and China. It has been reported that the Russian ship transporting North Korean weapons is using a Chinese port and is currently docked. What measures is the United States taking in response to North – China’s toleration of arms trade with Russia and North Korea?MR PATEL: So look, Janne, we have – this is something that we take incredibly seriously. You saw the Secretary and Matt and myself speak about the closening that – of the relations we are seeing between Russia and the PRC, especially as it relates to ongoing endeavors as it relates to the Russian defense industrial base. We think that that is not just risky to the region, but it is directly an affront to Ukraine. So we’re going to continue to take appropriate steps to hold relevant actors accountable.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: On China, quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Secretary Blinken last week and urged the United States not to step on the – cross forbidden line against China’s sovereignty. What specifically does the forbidden line on sovereignty mean? Is this Chinese red line?MR PATEL: So this is not a new position of ours, Janne. Over the course of our engagements with the PRC since Russia’s aggressive, unjust, and illegal infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, we have made clear – including to the PRC – that any kind of provision of lethal assistance from the country, from the PRC, would be unacceptable to the United States, and we would take appropriate steps to hold them account should that happen. We reiterated that and will continue to reiterate that in every engagement that we have.Alex, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying on Russia, then I have a couple more on the South Caucasus.MR PATEL: You can get one. Go ahead.QUESTION: Over the weekend – yeah, thanks so much – over the weekend, Russia arrested two more international reporters – one working for AP, another one for Reuters. What do you know about their cases, and do you have any response yet?MR PATEL: So I don’t – I don’t have specifics that I can get into, Alex, again, when – in any of these situations involving detention, we’re dealing with privacy areas as well. But to take a step back, the Kremlin has an egregious track record when it comes to its crackdown on media freedoms, its crackdown on journalists, its detention of journalists. I would point you no further than the case of Evan Gershkovich, who continues to be wrongfully detained by the Russian Federation, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure the release of both Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: And then – I have a couple more &#8212;MR PATEL: Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Germany																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Nicaragua																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								The Secretary of State
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Arab Foreign Ministers Office of the SpokespersonThe following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today in Riyadh with the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, as well as Palestine Liberation Organization Secretary General Hussein Al Sheikh.  They discussed the importance of a sustained increase in humanitarian assistance to address the dire situation in Gaza. The Secretary reaffirmed the United States’ support for efforts to achieve lasting peace in the region, including through a pathway to a Palestinian state with security assurances for Israel.  Secretary Blinken emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. The Secretary also underscored the importance of regional coordination to prevent the conflict from spreading.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud in Riyadh Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud in Riyadh. The Secretary underscored the importance of sustaining the increase in humanitarian assistance to Gaza, reaching an immediate ceasefire in Gaza that secures the release of hostages, and preventing further spread of the conflict. The Secretary and the Crown Prince discussed ongoing efforts to achieve lasting regional peace and security, including through greater integration among countries in the region and enhanced bilateral cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The Secretary and Crown Prince also discussed the urgent need to reduce regional tensions, including a cessation of Houthi attacks undermining both freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and progress on the Yemen peace process.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:&nbsp;&nbsp;Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.&nbsp; Secretary Blinken underscored the need to avoid further escalation in the region.&nbsp; The Secretary discussed ongoing efforts to reach an immediate&nbsp;ceasefire in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages held by Hamas. The Secretary discussed the recent increase in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza and emphasized that increase must be sustained. &nbsp; The Secretary and Foreign Minister continued discussions on regional and bilateral efforts to achieve lasting peace and security in the region, including through greater integration among countries in the region and a pathway to a Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. They also discussed efforts to resume negotiations under the Jeddah platform aimed at ending the conflict in Sudan and preventing further widespread civilian harm.						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																																Israel-Hamas Conflict																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Saudi Arabia																																Secretary Trip																															The Secretary of State
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Meeting with Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council Member States Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State Saudi ArabiaThe Secretariat General of Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf RiyadhMINISTER AL THANI:  (In progress) (Via interpreter) to welcome His Excellency Mr. Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State, for his participation in this joint meeting with – between the GCC and the U.S.  And we look forward to finding common grounds and to coordinate between us, especially in light of what the region is witnessing in terms of conflicts and our responsibility to achieve peace and security at the regional level and to coordinate at all levels.So it’s very important for us to coordinate this on our joint strategic relationship, and I should also refer to the (inaudible) for cooperation and development, and President Biden’s participation in July 2020, and the historic Strategic Partnership that it established based on the achievements of previous summits to enhance cooperation and coordination between us at all levels, and also at the ministerial level, which was evident in the last joint ministerial meeting between the GCC and the U.S. which was held in New York on September 18, 2023, on the margins of the UN General Assembly meetings and – which also stressed the importance of continued work. This strengthened (inaudible) developments and military escalation in the Middle East is extremely grave and dangerous to international peace and security, and (inaudible) to all work together, and we’ll concentrate a concerted efforts to achieve peace and exercise self-control and to prevent war in the region.  Foremost among these challenges in the Middle East is the failure of the international community to find a solution to the Palestine problem, which continues to see the bloodshed of innocent women, children, and elderly as a result of the Israeli aggression on Gaza. From here, I mean, the State of Qatar, of course, is calling for ceasefire, and – of the military and processes and operations, of course, and then to provide all humanitarian aids and relief aids Israel to – the whole world must stand as one front.  Israel is not to use the humanitarian aids as (inaudible) so as to bridge all the national resolutions.  And I’d like to make sure and stress the importance that the State of Qatar will do its best along with the –  mean, the other countries in the councils towards the peace process will – so as to serve the Palestine – and cause Israel – and based on the very and self-situation of Qatar on behalf of the Palestinian – I mean, cause Israel’s – and we call for the (inaudible) solution, Israel based on the respect of international law, as we’ll go back to the 1967 borders Israel’s – as to – so as to help push the peace process regionally and globally.  Distinguished guests, we would like to stress the importance of cooperation between all the GCC countries and the United States of America (inaudible) work all together so as to bridge what might provide peace and stability for the region and the whole world, and supporting all diplomatic efforts as well.  I mean, and – (inaudible) regional conflicts builds to the conclusion of this important (inaudible).  I wish you all the best – and for our people, for more growth will (inaudible) peace.  And God’s peace and mercy upon all of you.  And now I give the speech to His Excellency Antony Blinken, the State Department and Secretary of the United States. SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, thank you very, very much.  And let me just say at the outset how grateful I am to be together again with all of our colleagues, colleagues who share a clear interest in building a more stable, a more secure, a more integrated region for everyone.  That work is more important than it’s ever been, and of course, it comes against the backdrop of conflict with Israel and Hamas, and increasingly destabilizing actions by Iran and its proxies.  I want to thank the chair of the GCC, Qatar, and especially my friend Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Al Thani, for genuinely tireless efforts to try to find a path to an immediate ceasefire and release of hostages in Gaza.  Thank you on a personal as well as professional level for everything that you’re doing.The most effective way to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, to alleviate the suffering of children, women, and men, and to create space for a more just and durable solution is to get a ceasefire and the hostages home.  But we’re also not waiting on a ceasefire to take the necessary steps to meet the needs of civilians in Gaza.  President Biden has insisted that Israel take specific, concrete, measurable steps to better address humanitarian suffering, civilian harm, and the safety of aid workers in Gaza, including in his most recent call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We have seen measurable progress in the last few weeks, including the opening of new crossings, an increased volume of aid delivery to Gaza and within Gaza, and the building of the U.S. maritime corridor, which will open in the coming weeks.  But it is not enough.  We still need to get more aid in and around Gaza.  We need to improve deconfliction with the humanitarian assistance workers, and we have to find greater efficiency and greater safety, and deconfliction is at the heart of that.  And finally, we have to make sure that we’re focusing not just on inputs, but on impact.  All of this is going to be a focus of the next few days for me as I travel on to Jordan and Israel.  I’ll have a chance to meet with humanitarian groups, with the Israeli Government, to hear from them where more work is needed, and to continue to press for tangible, immediate, and sustained progress.  Even as we focus on these immediate needs, we continue to work with our GCC colleagues on a plan to build a just and lasting peace, a pathway to a state for the Palestinians with guarantees for Israel’s security as part of a more integrated and a more secure region.  Today’s also an opportunity to advance efforts to promote greater stability in this region and to prevent conflict from spreading, which has been one of our core objectives from day one, ever since October 7th.  We’re focused on addressing the greatest threat to regional stability and regional security: Iran.  This is the first meeting since Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel, the first direct attack from Iran to Israel, with more than 300 projectiles, including over 100 ballistic missiles.  This attack highlights the acute and growing threat from Iran, but also the imperative that we work together on integrated defense.  That’s the focus of the meeting that’s coming up in a few weeks with the U.S.-GCC Working Group on Integrated Air and Missile Defense and Maritime Security.  This brazen attack also underscores the risks of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and why we must continue to work together to make sure that that does not happen.Today we’ll also discuss ways to prevent – preserve freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.  The Houthi attacks have not only undermined security, but they’re undermining the lives and livelihoods of people throughout the region, including in Yemen – the very people they profess to want to represent.  The costs of goods are going up, harder to get things into Yemen, including to the north where people so desperately need it.  We’ve seen an – mini-environmental catastrophe with the sinking of a ship that spilled oil and fertilizer.  We’ve seen attacks on ships that were actually bringing food to the people of Yemen, and of course we have a larger impact on the global economy.  So this needs to stop, and we will be resolute in doing everything we can to put a stop to it.  We’re working to forge as well a diplomatic solution to conflict in Yemen and to meet humanitarian needs for all of its people, and here, I applaud the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the work that it’s been doing so assiduously over the last couple of years to try to move in that direction.Finally, I would just say that I think one of the things that the last few months have brought into the sharpest possible relief is that there really are two paths forward for the region as a whole.  One – riven with division, with destruction, with violence, with permanent insecurity; the other – greater integration, greater security, greater peace.  I think the meeting today shows that many more of us want to pursue that affirmative path, and I’m grateful to our colleagues from the GCC for working in partnership to advance in that direction.  Thank you. SECRETARY GENERAL AL-BUDAIWI:  (In progress) (Via interpreter) the Gulf Cooperation Council and the United States of America.   The GCC states attach a special importance to their (inaudible).  Welcome His Excellency of the State Department – Secretary of the State Department of the United States of America, taking into concentration the importance of the GCC (inaudible) its historic partnership and relationship with the United States of America which has been shown through enhancing the joint cooperation – I mean, (inaudible) three meetings in less than a year, aiming, looking forward – looking forward to achieving success with such important meeting.  I mean, a – the holding our meeting today underlines a strategic importance of the historic relations between the two sides and their joint commitment to build on the outcomes of the previous ministerial meetings and summits, and the most recent of which was the summit held in Jeddah in July 16th, 2022, and the joint ministerial meeting in New York in last September, with a view to fostering consultation, coordination, cooperation in all areas, which would contribute to maintaining regional and international security and stability. Ladies and gentlemen, this – I mean, our meeting today is of a great importance, particularly in the light of the exceptional difficult and unprecedented circumstances in the region, which makes it imperative to intensify efforts at all levels, with a view to de-escalating situation and avert the region new levels of violence, tension, and instability due to the war in the Gaza Strip, the military escalation between Iran and Israel, and the increasing tensions in the Red Sea that pose a threat to maritime security and freedom of navigation, as well as the potential risk of nuclear proliferation and ballistic missiles and drones.So we reiterate the GCC firm position towards the Israel aggression on the Gaza Strip, demanding an immediate, long-lasting ceasefire, and calling Israel to stop hostilities throughout Gaza, including the city of Rafah, in order to ensure delivery of all humanitarian and relief aid and basic needs to the people of Gaza.  We also stress the need for the international community to adopt effective policies and measures to stop escalation and the acts of violence against the Palestinians in the West Bank, including the city of Jerusalem and Islamic sanctities, and to discontinue the settlement and the confiscation of lands as the displacement of the Palestinians from their lands, and to support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and establishment of their independent Palestinian state on the 1996 boundaries, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative and relevant international resolutions. Here, I would like to point out to the statement issued by the 44th extraordinary meeting of the GCC Ministerial Council, where we affirmed our commitment to our call for an international conference with participation of all concerned parties to discuss all issues related to the Palestinian issue, with a view to reaching a solution that would end the Israeli occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.  Your highnesses, your excellencies, the continued escalation between Israel and Iran poses a grave threat in the region which would (inaudible) intensify the conflict and undermine regional security and stability.  Hence, we call on all parties to exercise utmost self-control and resolve political dispute through diplomatic channels in order to avert the region and its people the dangers of war.  We also express our great concern over the escalating tensions in the Red Sea, following the ongoing attacks by the Houthis on maritime navigation in the Bab al-Mandeb and the Red Sea area, which pose an unacceptable threat to the international trade, region security, any other national interests.  We re-underscore the UN Security Council Resolution 2722 of January 2024, which demands the Houthis to stop attacking the transiting vessels in the Red Sea.  Your highnesses and excellencies, the GCC-U.S. distinguished cooperation relation have produced several tangible achievements which constitute the cornerstone of these relations.  In this context, I would like to commend the outcomes of the GCC-U.S. Strategic Partnership, as five joint summits were held over the past years in addition to several ministerial meetings that provided clear guidelines on how to further move forward with our present partnership and developing it. These ministerial meetings resulted in forming joint working groups on the following areas: working group on the integrated air missile defense system, working group on the maritime security, working group on cyber security, working group on military training, working group on special operations, working group on combating terrorism, working group on the special group for Iran, working group on trade and investment.  All these working groups seek to strengthen our Strategic Partnership.Also, I would like to proudly point out to the advanced level of joint military cooperation and coordination, as we are currently forholding the upcoming meetings of the working group on – upcoming meeting of the working group on air and missile defense – and the working group on maritime security – next May, with a view – I would like to extend my appreciation to both parties for the tangible efforts, actually for enhancing military cooperation.  And also, I would like also to thank both sides’ specialists for their ongoing efforts to hold the GCC-U.S. Trade and Investment Dialogue scheduled for June 26th, 2024, in the United States.  I also welcome the invitation to GCC-U.S. business roundtable on June 27th, 2024, organized by the American Chamber of Commerce, in Washington on the sidelines of the 10th U.S. Investment Summit. My friend, Tony Blinken, I welcome Your Excellency once again to this meeting with your GCC friends.  I strongly commend our distinguished partnership, which has always been seeking to strengthen the foundations of security, stability, prosperity, and common understanding. Wishing our meeting every success with this (inaudible).  God’s peace and mercy upon all of you.