# Mexico - United States Department of State

- Targeting Human Smuggling and Trafficking in the Northern Triangle and Mexico Ian Hanna, Co-Director of Joint Task Force Alpha, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of TexasJames Hepburn, Co-Director of Joint Task Force Alpha, Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions SectionWashington, D.C.Wednesday, June 5, 2024, 1:00 p.m. ETTHE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.MODERATOR:  Okay, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center.  My name is Leah Knobel, and I am the moderator for today’s briefing.   Today it is my pleasure to introduce Ian Hanna, co-director of Joint Task Force Alpha with the U.S.  Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas; and Jim Hepburn, co-director of Joint Task Force Alpha with the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section.  They will provide an overview of the task force’s accomplishments since its establishment three years ago and discuss efforts to target leaders, organizers, and facilitators of human smuggling and trafficking networks operating in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico.A reminder that this discussion is on the record, and the briefing transcript and video will be posted to our website, fpc.state.gov, later today.  Today’s briefing is being shared with our U.S.-based foreign journalists credentialed here at the Foreign Press Center and also journalists based in Latin America via the State Department’s Media Hub of the Americas.  This briefing will be conducted in English with Spanish interpretation available for those joining virtually.  And with that, I will turn it over to our briefers for their opening remarks.  MR HEPBURN:  Thank you, Leah.  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Jim Hepburn, and I’m a co-director on Joint Task Force Alpha out of Washington, D.C.  Before coming to – well, in Washington, D.C., I work out of the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section with the Department of Justice.  Before coming to D.C. about 10 years ago, I was down on the border in Laredo, Texas as a federal prosecutor.  And before that, I was a local prosecutor in Philadelphia.  Very excited to be here today and to tell you all about some of the great work we’ve been doing with Joint Task Force Alpha.  I’m going to turn it over to Ian to introduce himself.  MR HANNA:  Good afternoon, everybody.  As an initial matter, I want to say thank you for being here today and participating and showing an interest in this important area of discussion.  My name is Ian Hanna.  I am the other co-director of Joint Task Force Alpha.  I’m also an assistant United States attorney sitting in El Paso, Texas, my hometown.  And I’m thrilled to be here and talk with you all today.  Thank you.So we’d like to start off talking a little bit about what the task force is and how it became to be.  And three years ago, Attorney General Garland, together with the Department of Homeland Security, stood this project up to be a joint – a dedicated task force to focus on the emerging threat of globalized human trafficking and smuggling.  To encourage a whole-of-government approach, the way it was organized was asking for dedicated resources in terms of human capital from the five southern federal border districts, to include the Southern District of California, the District of Arizona, the District of New Mexico, the Western District of Texas, and the Southern District of Texas.  Each one of those districts has contributed lawyers as detailees, so federal prosecutors assigned to the task force to work specifically cases that involve human trafficking and human smuggling.Aside from that dedicated contribution of prosecutors at the local federal district level, there have also been contribution of human capital and resources from a whole host of organizations within the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security.  A few of those include the Office of Prosecutorial Development, Assistance, and Training; Office of International Affairs Violent Crimes and Racketeering Section; Office of Enforcement Operations Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section – all of which are nested underneath the auspices – the leadership in this case – of the joint task force through HRSP, which is the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Office.MR HEPBURN:  Even though we’re still very much in the nascent stages, the early stages for JTFA – and these are long-term investigations – I think we’ve shown some great results.  As you can see here, we have over 305 domestic and international arrests, 242 convictions within the United States, and 175 defendants sentenced – and here we are just about at our three – or almost up to our fourth year.  And you can see through this slide that the growth has really been exponential.  From June 2022, we go from 85 arrests to March of 2023 – 179 arrests – through December of 2023 – 260 arrests – and as you saw a moment ago, today, 305 arrests.  If this were a business, who would say that the growth is exceptional.  We’re doing really good work at JTFA.  But we’re not in it just for the numbers and to look up and to build stats for these convictions.  We want these convictions to matter.  We are aimed at specific deterrence.  We are taking people out of the smuggling realm.  But we’re also looking for a general deterrence to send the message that human smuggling will not be accepted and will not be tolerated, and smugglers will not operate with impunity.  You can see in this slide how we’ve delineated a standard smuggling case versus one that is carefully targeted and focused for JTFA purposes.  In the first case, we see a standard smuggler under the guidelines might receive a sentencing guideline range of four to ten months’ federal custody.  For the JTFA-targeted smuggler, we find ways to get up to, as you can see, 324 months to 405 months.  And how do we do that?  Well, we’re very careful about our case selection, so I want to tell you a little bit about one of the investigations that was the first investigation out of JTFA that started out of Odessa, Texas.  Back in May of 2021, we learned of the death of an indigenous Guatemalan woman whose lifeless body was discarded on the side of the road in the desert in Texas.  We worked backwards – with all of our resources, we are able to go back and rely on the relationships that have been built over the years in Guatemala, and we were able to build a case against the smugglers operating in Guatemala and the United States.  Through that great work, the Guatemalans were able to arrest 15 smugglers in Guatemala, and at the same time we were able to arrest four of the leaders of this organization.  After that arrest, it took less than two years to bring those individuals to justice in the United States.  That’s very, very fast.  We were able to arrest, extradite, prosecute, and see all four plead guilty to the lead charges in those cases, and all four received sentencing between 10 and 30 years.  This is exactly the kind of specific deterrence and general deterrence that I’m talking about.  And we get there, again, through target selection.  We have what we have to work with with sentencing guidelines.  We don’t have the harsh penalties that we might see in the drug context, but we can get to a deterrent message.  You see, if we build the case where we look at leaders who have moved more than 100 or more aliens, we got a nice enhancement.  If it’s a case that results in death, we get a nice enhancement.  If an individual is moving a minor, an unaccompanied minor, we get another extra push.  So we need to be careful in our selection and make sure that we focus our resources to go after the most egregious targets.Ian.  MR HANNA:  There’s a lot going on in this slide.  It’s a hard – hard to read, a lot of math.  But the fundamental takeaway is this:  There is a distinction between routine alien smuggling – migrant smuggling cases and trafficking cases – and JTFA cases.  And the takeaway from this slide is exactly what Mr. Hepburn said – the real innovation is targeting the leadership of these organizations both in the United States and overseas.  There is a misconception amongst certain criminal elements that if you are outside of the borders of the United States, you can engage in this type of illicit business without fear of prosecution, with some degree of impunity.  And it is our mission to let those people know that that is not the case.  If your illicit activity has ties to the United States, we are going to investigate it, we are going to build cases, and together with our foreign partners, we are going to come to you and extradite you to the United States when appropriate and share information with our overseas partners also where appropriate to support prosecutions in our host – in our partner nation countries.  So how do we get to a JTFA case?  There’s only two types of JTFA cases.  The first are what we call reactive cases, and examples of those cases are where there’s a tragedy – a semitrailer filled with people is abandoned, resulting in a mass casualty event.  We have cases where there are 50 or more people that have – that have tragically lost their lives.  That is one type of case.  That is a reactive case where we start at the end and we work backwards to try to find out where those people were coming from, what organization sponsored that illicit movement, and what organization is responsible for those deaths, and try to reach out and grab those people.  The second type of case is what’s called a proactive case.  That case – those types of cases typically originate through the sharing of law enforcement information from our partner nations, from our law enforcement agents on the ground, and also from our detailees that each of the southern federal districts have contributed.  So where does that take us today and beyond?  Well, our focus now in 2024 and forward are on three primary areas, right.  The first is bringing folks to account for those mass casualty events that we talked about.  The second is focusing – following the trend lines and focusing on the connection to organized crime.  In this case, that most typically means cartels.  And then thirdly, to expand our footprint out to other areas of the nation where the business of migrant smuggling is beginning to have really palpable impacts on local communities.  MR HEPBURN:  Never is it more clear how important this work is than when we – when we look at the tragic events that we’ve seen over the last few years.  This slide illustrates two of those most tragic events: in Chiapas, Mexico in December 2021, when we lost more than 56 migrants in an overturned tractor trailer – more than a hundred with serious injury as well; and then in San Antonio, Texas less than a year later in June 2022, where 53 were dead and many more injured.  It’s these sorts of events that give us the drive to push these cases, to work tirelessly to go after the smugglers operating south of our borders, and that’s what we’ll strive to do each and every day.  MR HANNA:  And with that, we’re happy to take any questions anybody may have.  MODERATOR:  Thank you both.  So yeah, we’ll turn to the Q&amp;A portion of our briefing today.  So for those of you in the room, if you have a question, please raise your hand.  And when you’re called on, state your name, media outlet, and please speak up.  And for those joining us on Zoom, please be sure your screenname includes your name, media outlet, and country.  And if you would like to ask a question, please submit it via the chat function of Zoom.  So we’ll start with questions from journalists in the room.  Okay, Macarena.  QUESTION:  Macarena Vidal with El Pais in Spain.  Well, congratulations on your figures, but I was wondering – because usually detentions are only the tip of the iceberg.  So if detentions are increasing, that – does that mean that the problem is increasing as well, that there is more smuggling and more trafficking?  MR HANNA:  I think it is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario.  So historically there has always been movement of people through the southern border.  Depending on geopolitical issues around the world, usually informs – effects the nationalities of the individuals that we encounter on our southern borders.  I would say that the number of interdictions increasing is a function of many things that are coming together, some of which include increased migration, some of which include increased enforcement.  Our role, though, is to target the leaders of the organizations.  So we don’t – the joint task force itself is not focused so much on interdicting people entering the country without permission, but rather focused on the criminal organizations that are profiting from this illicit movement.  QUESTION:  And do you, now – with the recent measures that – yesterday, there was a new measure announced to close the border.  Do you foresee that the efforts for smuggling and trafficking may have a – that it may impact on the smuggling and trafficking, this new law?  MR HANNA:  Unknown, because that’s not really our area, right.  Again, our area is not enforcing or interdicting people coming south to north.  What we’re focused on are the leaders.  So from that perspective, these organizations – criminal organizations that have built these logistical ties and these pathways and have put in this infrastructure to support this illicit business, they’re here right now.  And they continue to be here in the weeks and months later.  So that’s our area, and because that’s our area, that’s what we’re going to continue to focus on.  MODERATOR:  Okay.  Maria.  QUESTION:  (Inaudible) 24.  Following up what she is doing – she is saying, with this new executed border, unaccompanied minors are one of the exceptions that are going to be able to cross the border if the border is crossed.  Does it concern you that maybe the smugglers are going to be sending more unaccompanied minors?  And I would like to know the figures right now, if they have been rising or lowering, of minors traveling by themselves in the last years?MR HANNA:  So for figures on that, we wouldn’t have that information.  I think the best course of action would be to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security that could provide you with the concrete facts and figures on that.  And are we concerned about unaccompanied minors being used as pawns by transnational criminal organizations?  Of course, absolutely.  And that’s why this work is so important.  We found that once you can take out the top echelons of these leadership organizations, there’s a ripple effect that comes down the chain.  And that – this is – goes to the heart of what I think what we’re trying to do.  Our effort, the joint task force, its not an anti-immigrant or anti-migration effort.  It is an anti-criminal and anti-organized crime mission.  And so we’re concerned anytime an – any innocent human is used to generate a profit illicitly.  These cartels, one of their hallmarks is using people as things to be discarded at any stage along the journey.  So that’s something that we feel very strongly about, of course.    QUESTION:  (Inaudible) there – it might rise, like more smugglers are going to try to bring these accompanied minors because it’s one of the exceptions?  MR HANNA:  I don’t know.  Don’t have a good answer for you.  MR HEPBURN:  But just to add to that, one of the things that the sentencing guidelines does very well is it addresses the unaccompanied minor issue.  You’ll see on one of our slides that it’s a four-level enhancement when a smuggler moves an unaccompanied minor.  That’s a big deal.  That equates to years in prison.  So the guidelines do contemplate the dangers involved there.  And when we hear about cases where unaccompanied minors are a part of it, it definitely gets our focus and gets our attention.  MODERATOR:  Okay, go ahead. QUESTION:  Yes, thank you.  Sara Canals for Cadena Ser, Spain.  I know you guys say that you are focused on the top echelons and the leadership, but I’m working on a story on how smugglers, cartels, use misinformation and social media to recruit.  I’m not sure if you – or I was wondering if this is something that you monitor.  And also, what channel is the most efficient one to recruit potential victims of human trafficking?  And also, if – what’s the channel that – where they are more efficient?  And if you have ever got to, like, the top echelons and leaders through social media, or through WhatsApp and these channels.  MR HEPBURN:  Thank you for the question.  I’ll try to unpack a little bit of that.  First off, we do use social media as we can to conduct our investigations.  We’re able to use it – just as smugglers are able to use it to their benefit, we can use it to build our cases against those smugglers. To go back to the other questions that you were getting out about – and I’m sorry &#8212;MR HANNA:  Recruiting.QUESTION:  (Inaudible.) MR HEPBURN:  Yes.  No, no. QUESTION:  (Inaudible) channel that the cartels use.MR HEPBURN:  Yes.  And we’re not going to be able to comment on that.  We just can’t talk about the successes that they’re having there.  But there was another topic that you raised – yeah. MR HANNA:  Well, I’ll talk a little bit about some of the methods from a historical perspective.  But I think it’s important to draw a distinction between human trafficking and human smuggling.  So not every legal system sees a distinction between those two things; our legal system in the United States does.  So when we’re talking about human smuggling, primarily what we’re talking about, in general terms, is the movement from – people from one country to another without permission, illegally, right?  Whereas human trafficking is the movement of people from one country to another for a follow-on illicit purpose.  Oftentimes that’s sex work, work at factories, what have you.  So those are two different things in our system. But I’ll tell you, historically, in terms of using social media, it – the Facebook scams – and this is to recruit people for moving drugs as well as people where there’ll be an advertisement for work at an exorbitant amount; one of the requirements is that you have a visa or some kind of legal status to cross a port of entry, and a lot of times that’s the job.  And people are recruited surreptitiously, unbeknownst to them sometimes to move any commodity, whether it be a drug, some other contraband, or people.  That’s a very common scheme that’s used by a lot of organizations to recruit on the southern border, through Facebook. QUESTION:  Do you think these things will decrease now, with this changes of law, the new executive order? MR HANNA:  Well, we certainly hope so.  But I think that one thing we can count on is any time there is a profit to be made through illicit business schemes like this is that the scenarios that you’re talking about will always exist in one shape or another.  And so part of our task is to try to get in front of those. MODERATOR:  Okay.  We’re going to move to Zoom for some questions now.  So the first one is from Daniel Collin from TN23, Guatemala.  He asks:  “What actions will be implemented in Guatemala, considering some trafficker groups known as coyotes started to raise their offered services to take migrants to the U.S. borders to avoid the new migration policies announced by President Biden?” MR HEPBURN:  So I think we’re going to continue to do the great work that we have done already.  We have relationships with prosecutors in Guatemala that we work with on a regular basis, and we will continue to pursue those organizations with the Guatemalans and with our partners.  I don’t think that any action that was taken by the President or otherwise would impact the work that we’re doing down there. MODERATOR:  Okay.  And then another one from Zoom.  This comes from Lesli Almonte; she’s with Diario Libre in the Dominican Republic.  She asks:  “Has the U.S. received trafficked persons originating from Haiti and the Dominican Republic?  How many Dominicans did the U.S. receive in 2024?” MR HEPBURN:  This is a question that we’re going to have to defer to our DHS partners, as they would have the latest statistics on those numbers. MODERATOR:  Okay.  I have one submitted advance question that I can go to now.  This one’s from Joel Cano with Infobae in Mexico:  “How many and which criminal groups are involved in human trafficking in Mexico?” MR HANNA:  I think – so keeping in mind the legal distinction between human trafficking and human smuggling, I’ll speak, I guess, as to both.  I think it’s fair to say that every major cartel in Mexico has its hand in some way, shape, or form in the illicit business of human smuggling, and that is – there is no question about that.  Human trafficking, as we define it, probably to a lesser extent; the money seems to be – the vast amount of money seems to be generated right now via human smuggling. MR HEPBURN:  Just add to that through the course of history, the cartels have always profited from human smuggling, whether it’s the charging of a piso to operate in their territory or a tax to operate in their territory, or by being actually hands-on with the smuggling itself.  I think we are seeing a shift where the – where the cartels have seen how profitable it can be to move humans, just as they have always moved drugs, and they have decided to not only charge a piso but to actually be more hands-on with smuggling itself. MODERATOR:  Thank you.  The next question comes from Ernesto Cornejo with Channel 12 in El Salvador.  He asks:  “How will the State Department work with Northern Triangle countries to combat human trafficking, and what are the results obtained to date?” MR HEPBURN:  Well, we certainly don’t speak for the State Department.  But I can tell you from the perspective of Joint Task Force Alpha, we will continue to work with our foreign partners in the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico, as we have for the past three years.  And that is dedicating time and resources to building meaningful partnerships with our partner nations, training joint – not necessarily joint investigations but investigations that yield results on both sides of our respective borders, and certainly the facts and figures that speak for themselves that you’ve seen on the previous slide. MODERATOR:  And then Ernesto asks another question:  “How will the United States work with Panama and Colombia in trafficking in the Darién?” MR HANNA:  I think it’s a similar answer.  As routes that organized crime, transnational criminal organizations, use to move people, we will certainly strive to adjust our efforts to address those routes.  They are continuing to evolve, not just through the Darién Gap but through all sorts of places.  So as new threats emerge, we will try to be agile and responsive to those threats and apply our time and effort and resources as long as those threats may emerge. MR HEPBURN:  And just to add to that, it’s a very important question.  Because remember, when we’re talking about international smuggling, we’re often talking about migrants who are starting their journey in far-away lands and come flying into, say, for example, Sao Paolo, Brazil.  And they’re working overland up through South America, through Colombia, through Central America, through Mexico, and into the United States.  And remember, that includes some very treacherous territory, including through the Darién.  So while our focus is currently to look at smugglers who are operating in Mexico and in the Northern Triangle, we also are keenly aware of the dangers that occur south of those regions as well.  And so we do have that on our radar.MODERATOR:  Okay, I’ll turn back to the room to see if there are any additional questions.  Go ahead, Macarena.QUESTION:  Hi.  Macarena Vidal from El Pais, again.  Since you mentioned that one of your targets for this year and the future is increasing your footprint in the communities where smuggling has an impact, I wonder if you could describe a bit what the impact is that – and where are those communities.  MR HANNA:  So the – again, I’ll use quotation marks – the “business model” of human smuggling is one that is based on – almost always on suffering.  It’s human suffering that is prompting people to try to migrate, and these organizations take advantage of that to gain profit, and then further traumatize people as they’re on their journeys to points onward.  Our mission is to try to in many ways save lives and alleviate that suffering by taking down these organizations.  These organizations typically use well-worn paths of ingress and egress and movement, both to the United States and then once in the United States to points east, west, and north.  So when we’re talking about expanding our footprint, really in a – in many ways what we’re talking about is following those paths, the logistics trails, to places, to major commercial centers and population centers that are used as hubs for transport; and beginning to look at cases that originate in those localities, build up those cases, and target higher levels of organizations in those specific municipalities – with ties, of course, to our partner nations.  MODERATOR:  Okay, we’ll go back to one final question on Zoom.  Lesli Almonte with Diario Libre, she’s asked another question:  “Has the United States received Dominican traffickers?”MR HEPBURN:  I’m not sure if I follow the question.  Are they asking if we’ve extradited Dominican traffickers?MODERATOR:  I’m going to – I’m honestly not sure.  Perhaps we’ll get some more clarification from Lesli in a moment.  Yes, yes, I think that’s what they’re asking.MR HEPBURN:  Okay.  So Dominican Republic is not one of the mandated countries under JTFA.  However, we have other programs, like ECT, the Extraterritorial Criminal Travel nework, which focuses on other countries that might have smugglers who move migrants that perhaps present a danger to the United States or where the migrants would be in danger themselves.  It’s possible that under the ECT program, that some of those smugglers and/or traffickers have been pursued, but I’m not able to comment on much more than that at this point.MODERATOR:  Okay, we actually have one more question on Zoom if we can take one more.  So this one comes from Andres Fidanza with El Observador.  Andres asks:  “Is it true 30 percent of Mexican territory is controlled by narco groups, principally the Sinaloa and New Jalisco Generation cartels?”MR HANNA:  So we can’t comment on that because we don’t have those statistics.  But what I would say that is generally true is that Mexican cartels operate on Mexican territory, just as they operate in other countries.  So from that perspective, they are active participants all over the place, and that in some ways brings us back full circle to where we began, because those are types of organizations that we’re looking to target, that we have targeted.  But in 2024 and moving forwards it’s those organizations – the ones that are truly transnational, who are generating massive amounts of money every day in this illicit business – those are the groups that we’re looking to target and take down.  MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you both.  I’d like to turn it back to you briefly if you have any final remarks.MR HANNA:  Again, thank you for your interest in reporting on this area.  It’s one that is – it is of interest, obviously, to the United States, but I would respectfully submit to each of you that it is of interest globally, and certainly of particular interest here in the Western Hemisphere.  We are laser-focused in building meaningful relationships with our partners overseas.  This is not just the United States trying to act.  This is the United States trying to act in partnership with our partner nations in this project of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.MR HEPBURN:  Just briefly to thank you all for being here today, and to echo the fact that without these partnerships, we would not get anywhere.  We could not extradite these smugglers, we could not pursue these smugglers, and there would be no justice for individuals like those that I discussed earlier today.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay, thank you both.  I want to give a special thank you again, and also to those who participated today.  Thanks so much.  This concludes our briefing.
- Department Press Briefing – June 3, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – June 3, 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 – June 3, 2024																																																					June 3, 2024																																																								1:20 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to those of you who were traveling us last – with us last week. Start with some opening comments.Since the President’s remarks on Friday, Secretary Blinken has been engaging in intense diplomacy with foreign counterparts to urge the completion of an agreement for a ceasefire in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages and set the stage for lasting peace. Over that time, the Secretary has spoken to the foreign ministers of Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Israeli Defense Minister Gallant and war cabinet member Benny Gantz.In all of his calls, the Secretary has underscored the benefits of this proposal to both Israelis and Palestinians. For Palestinians, a ceasefire would see an end to the daily death toll in Gaza, an end to the destruction that has torn so many families apart, and robbed children, women, men of their lives and their futures. It would allow hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to begin returning to their neighborhoods as the international community surges humanitarian assistance into Gaza and launches a major reconstruction effort.For Israelis too, this proposal offers a path to a better future. It would bring home the hostages who have now been separated from their loved ones for 240 days. It would unlock the possibility of calm along Israel’s border with Lebanon, where we saw continued terrorist attacks by Hizballah just today, so the tens of thousands of Israelis who have been displaced from their homes for the past eight months could finally return home. And it would set the conditions to finally realize the strategic realignment which Israel has long sought – improved relations with its Arab neighbors and the isolation of Iran and the terrorist groups it funds.This is the possibility that exists for Israelis and Palestinians today. As the United States said in a joint statement on Saturday with Egypt and Qatar, this proposal will bring immediate relief to both the long-suffering people of Gaza and the long-suffering hostages and their families. It offers a roadmap for a permanent ceasefire and an end to the crisis.The world should know – the Palestinian people should know – that the only thing standing in the way of an immediate ceasefire today is Hamas. The proposal on the table is nearly identical to what Hamas said it would accept just a few weeks ago, and it is now time for them to act. It is time for them to accept the deal. It is time to finalize this agreement and put an end to the suffering of Israelis and Palestinians alike.And with that, Matt.QUESTION: All right. Thank you. And welcome back. Just logistically, all of these calls that – all of – well, if you did say calls, I guess they were all on the phone.MR MILLER: They were all calls, yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Because he did see Fidan in Prague. It was the day before &#8212;MR MILLER: He saw Fidan on Thursday. He then talked to – he talked to Fidan and the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the plane on the way back. On Friday, he talked to the foreign ministers – the prime minister of Qatar and the foreign minister of Egypt and – foreign ministers of Egypt and UAE on Saturday, and then he talked to Benny Gantz and Yoav Gallant last night.QUESTION: Okay. So nothing – or nothing today yet?MR MILLER: Nothing today yet.QUESTION: Okay. So where do things stand? I mean, I think you tried to make it very clear right now that everything rests with Hamas. But there seems to be a lot of friction, to say the least, inside the Israeli Government about this. Are you confident that the Israelis have, in fact, signed off and are willing to go along with this?MR MILLER: We are completely confident. It was an Israeli proposal. Obviously it was a proposal that they developed in consultation with the United States and Qatar and Egypt, the three countries that have played the mediating role throughout this process. But this was ultimately an Israeli proposal.In terms of where it stands, it was submitted to Hamas on Thursday night. We have yet to hear a response. We obviously saw the statement that they put out – I think it was on Friday – but we haven’t gotten a response back from them.In terms of the – inside the Israeli Government, the President spoke to this in his remarks on Friday, where he said that – fully anticipated that this would be controversial with some members of the Israeli Government, and of course we’ve seen some members of the Israeli Government already come out and oppose it, in fact opposed it over the weekend.But the case that he made and that we will continue to make is that this is a proposal that is in the long-term security interests of Israel. It’s obviously in the long-term interests of the Palestinian people as well, but this is a chance to not just come to an end in the – to the conflict in Gaza and return the hostages home to their families, but help solve the conflict in the north of Israel, which is displacing tens of thousands of Israelis, and finally bring further integration with the region, which is in Israel’s long-term security interests.QUESTION: Okay. And then – but then on the other side, where you make the case how it’s great for Israel, what does Hamas get out of it? And I’m not asking because I think or that they should necessarily get something out of it.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But it’s a negotiation, and there’s always give-and-take and concessions. So how – what’s one of the selling points for Hamas do you think?MR MILLER: So let me talk about the – what the Palestinian people get out of it. I know that’s not the exact question that you asked, but I &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s not. Because it’s actually – I think it’s a different question.MR MILLER: It is a different question, but I’ll – but I &#8212;QUESTION: So can you answer the one that I asked?MR MILLER: I’m going to answer both of them.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: So the Palestinian – because they ought to be the same. They ought to be the same answer, and it – but it might not be, you’re right. The Palestinian people get an end to the conflict in Gaza, an immediate ceasefire. They get a surge of humanitarian assistance, 600 trucks a day. We are ready with international partners to begin the reconstruction of Gaza. Credible – that they get to return to their homes and their neighborhoods, and those who have lost their homes get the ability to start to rebuild those homes.Now, as it pertains to Hamas, look, if Sinwar decides that he’s safe in a tunnel and this proposal isn’t in his interest because he feels safe, that’s an assessment he can make. But I think it is very clearly in the interests of the Palestinian people, and we would hope that, given that this proposal is nearly identical to the one that Hamas submitted just several weeks ago, that they would not move the goalposts now and try to walk away from it.QUESTION: Right. But – well – but – all right, I’ll let that be. The last one &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I get where you’re going, but look, I mean, I can’t answer for Hamas, but – hold on.QUESTION: I mean – I know, but – well, you can’t answer &#8212;MR MILLER: I would just say Hamas claims they represent the Palestinian people. This is manifestly in their interest, so – and given the fact that Hamas just a few weeks ago signed off on a virtually identically proposal, they should accept it.QUESTION: Yes, but you just spoke to the points of why this would be wonderful for Israel, and that there is – the way you’ve approached this so far is that – the way a lot of people have approached it is that Hamas doesn’t care about the Palestinian people, they only care about themselves. And so there are, in a sense, three parties to this: Israel, the Palestinian people – non-Hamas – and Hamas. So – but I think the answer to my question, which is “what’s in it for Hamas?” is essentially nothing for them.MR MILLER: So again &#8212;QUESTION: Right?MR MILLER: So they claim to represent – I’m not trying to be cute – they claim to represent the interests of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: I get it. They claim to. But you don’t believe that, and you’ve made it clear many, many times that you don’t think that they do care about the Palestinian people and they don’t &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, I suppose this proposal puts – I suppose that this proposal puts that question very squarely to Hamas.QUESTION: But didn’t the last one and the one before that and the one before that?MR MILLER: And given that this one is nearly identical to the one that Hamas presented &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; I think it puts it even more squarely in &#8212;QUESTION: And then my last one – I want to focus on this “nearly identical” – what does that mean? Because a lot of small changes – I’ve seen negotiations break down over the placement of punctuation marks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Commas, dashes. What do you mean, “nearly identical?”MR MILLER: And that I can’t get into in detail from here at the podium, but I will say if you look at the major elements of this proposal, they are nearly identical to the major elements of the proposal that Hamas submitted several weeks ago. There are some minor differences. They are differences that we think that can be bridged, and it’s not just the United States that thinks they can be bridged. They are differences that the other mediators, Egypt and Qatar, think that can be – that think can be bridged. I think actually – it’s – this is a serious enough proposal that Hamas should just accept it, but if we – there need to be further negotiations, we think those are all eminently bridgeable if – and this is the if – if Hamas wants a deal.QUESTION: And if – are there nearly identical – does that apply to the – what the Israelis submitted? Or is this word for word what the Israelis submitted?MR MILLER: The proposal that went to Hamas? Yeah, it is what the Israelis submitted. Their &#8212;QUESTION: Word for word?MR MILLER: Yeah, it is – it is the Israeli &#8212;QUESTION: So in other words, they – so in other words, the “nearly identical” does not apply to the Israeli &#8212;MR MILLER: That is a comparison between the Israeli proposal, which is what went to Hamas on Thursday, and the proposal that Hamas submitted several weeks ago.QUESTION: All right. Thank you.QUESTION: Maybe just following up on that – said that this is basically what Israel has proposed or accepted. Of course, there is criticism within Israel as well; it’s not a monolithic country. I mean, are you sure that Israel can follow through on this, that if Hamas says yes, that – considering the coalition politics and the politics within Netanyahu’s cabinet that Israel would definitely go ahead with this?MR MILLER: So I certainly can’t speak to internal Israeli politics – complicated enough for Israelis to speak to without the United States trying to weigh into them. I would say two things. Number one, this is a proposal from the Israeli Government, so that’s the first thing that’s important. But number two, I think it is important to speak to the benefits of this proposal to all Israelis, and that’s why you saw the President do it on Friday. It’s why you’ve seen the Secretary speak to some of these same themes and issues a number of times, including in Israel.And I will say the point that the President made in his remarks on Friday, that you’ve seen the Secretary say a few times, is that endless conflict in Gaza in pursuit of some idea of total victory is not going to make Israel safer. We agree with Israel that Hamas cannot run Gaza. We agree with Israel on Israel’s right and Israel’s obligation to pursue Hamas for the terrorist attacks of October 7th. But an endless conflict without a political plan forward is just going to leave Israel bogged down in Gaza and is going to exacerbate the security challenges that they face in the north of Israel. It’s going to exacerbate the security challenges they face in the West Bank. It’s going to exacerbate the security challenges they face against Iran and the proxies that it funds, because it makes it more difficult for Israel to work with its allies and its partners in the neighborhood.So in addition to the long-term security interests that we think this proposal would help address, in addition to bringing the hostages home, which is obviously in the national interest of Israel, it addresses the very real short, medium security challenges that they face. And that’s why we think it’s in their interest and that’s the case that we will continue to make. But the President was pretty clear about this, that we recognize there are people in Israel – including in the Israeli Government – that oppose it. And we’re going to continue to make that case and we expect that the Government of Israel will too.QUESTION: Could I just follow up on two things with that? The – first of all, in the proposal itself, I mean, the – sorry, in the President’s remarks, he said that Hamas basically can’t do another October 7th attack. In terms of what’s the assessment for that, what’s the basis for that, is there anything else that needs to be done to ensure that outcome? Basically, would – under this, would Hamas need to more formally lay down some arms? Is there some sort of settlement that would be involved to make sure that that’s the case?MR MILLER: So let me separate two parts of that question, because I think they’re slightly different. One is just a question of capability, and Hamas clearly does not have the capabilities it had on October 7th when it launched that horrific terrorist attack. It has seen its leadership degraded – not all, but significantly degraded. It has seen a great deal of its personnel killed or captured. It has seen a great deal of its military materiel destroyed, and not just the weapons themselves, but the underground factories that they were using to produce more weapons, that they used on October 7th; those have been in many cases destroyed by Israel.So it is in many ways an incredibly diminished organization from the one that it was on October 7th, and we do not believe could conduct an attack anything like the scale and scope that it did on October 7th. Now, it still poses a threat, absolutely. Hamas launched rockets against Israel just last week, and Israel needs to continue to have the ability to defend itself against that threat. But this goes to the point that we ultimately think you cannot address this threat with just a military solution. This is what I was getting to the other day when I said this idea of pursuing a total victory, which the President spoke to, that just a military campaign in itself, while it will without a doubt continue to kill and capture members of Hamas, is also going to serve as a recruitment device for other potential Hamas members that will come and join and replenish the ranks. And so you have to have not just a military campaign, but a political path forward as well.And that is – to get around to the second part, or what I deemed is the second part of your question – what the Secretary and other members of the administration have been working on with other partners in the region since – intensively since early January, and that is a political path that provides for the reconstruction of Gaza, a political path forward, the security of Gaza. And so when you look at this proposal, obviously the first phrase is for the immediate release of some hostages and a ceasefire; and then over – during phase one you would negotiate phase two, and in phase two and in phase three we would pursue what we’ve termed the day after. And it’s how you ultimately come up with a different governing authority for the West – for Gaza that is not Hamas.And I’ll just make clear, in case there is any question, when the Secretary gave a speech in November in Tokyo, he made quite clear that one of the principles that we see for the end of this conflict is that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza – period, full stop.Sorry for the incredibly long answer.QUESTION: That’s okay. I do have – can I just proceed?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There actually just one thing that’s slightly – but just in the proposal, just the language: “major population centers,” that the Israelis will withdraw from them. Is there actually a list of what the major population centers are, or is there some wiggle room? Could this be something that could become a point of contention in the future?MR MILLER: So it just means what it means, which is major population centers. And partly that is because the population of Gaza has been fluid, or where the population of Gaza is has been fluid over the past months because you’ve seen people move from one place to another. So it means major areas in Gaza where you have people gathered together. And so that’s the point of it. I don’t want to get into it any more from here, but I think the term is fairly obvious.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I just wanted to follow specifically on this assessment of Hamas’s military capability because some of Israeli officials seems to have taken objection to that line in the President’s speech about what they are capable of doing. John Kirby has since said that this stems from U.S. intelligence and military assessments as to what they’re capable of. Are those assessments something that the Israelis share in terms of what Hamas is capable of? And then secondly, is that the same bar for the Israelis? Because it seems to be that that’s at the crux of whether they’re willing to agree to a permanent ceasefire or not.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to what the Israeli military or intelligence assessment might be. I – as I just said, our assessment is that Hamas in no way could conduct a terrorist attack the size, the scale, the scope of what it launched on October 7th. It has been diminished as a terrorist organization. But that, again, does not mean that the threat has disappeared. It has not. Hamas continues to fight Israeli soldiers in Gaza; it continues to launch rocket attacks in Gaza. And those need to be dealt with.In terms of – but in terms of where the proposal – where this roadmap would go forward, there are a number of issues that would need to be negotiated as we transition from phase one to phase two, and that’s what I was getting at in my comments a moment ago, that we don’t think this idea of total victory where you pursue a military campaign in perpetuity with really no end in sight is something that’s in the security interests of Israel. It’s obviously not in the interests of the Palestinian people. And so that is the point that we’ll continue to make to them.QUESTION: Without getting into specifically what the Israelis assess, is there a difference between the U.S. assessment and the Israelis’ assessment?MR MILLER: Again, I can’t really get in – I can’t answer that question without getting to what their assessment is. I can only speak for the United States.QUESTION: Okay. So speaking only for the United States, is this a recent assessment? Because presumably Hamas’s capabilities would have been steadily degraded up until this point. Has something changed where they’ve reached a sort of benchmark, in our view?MR MILLER: I cannot give you a date where we made that assessment, but we have seen their capabilities steadily degraded over the past eight months of this campaign. Obviously, you saw it first in the north, and then in Khan Younis, and then significantly with the destruction of tunnels that housed Hamas’s major weapons manufacturing programs, as IDF made those quite public when they did it. And so when you look at Hamas’s capabilities, I think it – it’s quite clear that while they still pose a terrorist threat, and we will back Israel’s right to deal with that threat, we do not believe they can again launch an attack the size, the scale, of October 7th.QUESTION: I’m sorry. So there – so the U.S. is unilaterally assessing this. There may still be a difference as to what the Israelis think Hamas is capable of.MR MILLER: I just can’t speak – it is the U.S. assessment.QUESTION: You can’t speak to that.MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. And then one last one. I mean, if this, as you guys have put it, is the best possible deal that negotiators to this point have been able to present Hamas, what is the plan if they say no?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. As we’ve made quite clear, there’s no reason they should say no. This is essentially the proposal that they made. Now, if they want to move the goalposts and back away from what is essentially a proposal they put forward several weeks ago, at some point Hamas ought to have to explain to the world why it has rejected this proposal. And that’s what the President was making clear on Friday when – we all get why people criticize Israel. We all get why people criticize the United States for our support for Israel. But this is a proposal to actually reach an immediate ceasefire, to surge humanitarian assistance in, and ultimately set the conditions for an end to the war. Why wouldn’t Hamas accept it?And so we have welcomed the statements that have come out in the Arab world calling on this deal to be finalized. We have welcomed the statements that we have seen from the G7 and from other leaders calling for this deal to be finalized. Only Hamas can speak to what it will do. But it ought to have – it ought to have to explain that answer if they do reject this proposal that is, as I said, manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: If they do reject it, though, you would expect the Israeli campaign to continue and for the U.S. to continue supporting Israel as it pursues that campaign?MR MILLER: I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. But I think the Israelis have made quite clear that the campaign would continue absent a ceasefire.QUESTION: Okay. I’ll yield.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I wanted just to try and understand what the space for – we’re talking about going from phase one to phase two in this deal. If you’re saying – you still have the strong line that Hamas can’t run Gaza in the future. But you’re also saying that there is no path to total victory, to total sort of eradication of Hamas.MR MILLER: By military means alone is what I mean by that.QUESTION: By – right. So you’re – so what you’re asking is for Hamas to peacefully – the leaders and the members of Hamas to peacefully disarm and sort of just disappear. What is the actual sort of proposal here for someone like Yahya Sinwar, who’s there, he’s a leader? You’re saying him and his cadre of leaders of Hamas have no role in the future of Gaza. So what are – what’s – what are they – where are they going to be in the future?MR MILLER: So because that is quite clearly an issue that will still need to be negotiated – we haven’t even gotten the acceptance of this proposal yet, but should it be accepted, phase two and all of these related questions are things that will have to be negotiated as part of the process – I am not going to do that negotiation here in public. That said, we have long made clear that we think Hamas should lay down its arms, and that continues to be our position.QUESTION: But you have kind of moved from earlier in the war, I think, the – you were strongly supporting Israel’s goal of completely eradicating Hamas. Now there seems to be this little space for they can exist in some form in &#8212;MR MILLER: No. That is not at all what our position is. What our position is, is that you cannot eliminate Hamas just through military means, just through a military campaign. And this has been the experience of the United States in counterterrorism activities all around the world, that a military means by itself, without some kind of political path for the population, will ultimately prove ineffective.And you can take out terrorists and see those terrorists replaced and ultimately find yourself in the same strategic position you did at the start of the campaign. And so that’s why you have to pair a military campaign, which Israel has executed, with a political plan for the people in Gaza. And that is ultimately what we are trying to pursue.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. If the President said that this was an Israeli proposal in essence, why would there be the need to implore the Israelis to accept it? Could you explain that to us?MR MILLER: We are not – we are imploring others in the Israeli Government to accept this proposal.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: But this is – this is – this is a proposal that was put forward by the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I think we were – went into this with eyes wide open that there are certain people in the Israeli cabinet, in the Israeli Government, who would probably not look too kindly on this, and of course we’ve seen their statements in the days since. But ultimately, this is an Israeli Government proposal. But Said, to the point, it’s a proposal the Government of Israel made, and we expected that there would be intense debate about it in Israel. There has been. You saw demonstrators out on Saturday night urging that the proposal move forward. And of course you saw several members of the cabinet urging its rejection.And so what the President’s message was is that Israel should reject those voices at the ends of the spectrum who have said, don’t take a deal to bring the hostages home, don’t take a deal to advance Israel’s long-term security interest.QUESTION: So knowing that there is a war cabinet and then there is a larger cabinet and so on, where there is a great deal of veto power among certain people in the larger cabinet and so on – so conceivably they could turn it down. What would be your second plan in this case? Because we saw – we heard the President – allow me, if I may – we heard the President say this war must come to an end. And using the most authoritative podium on Earth, which is the White House, to say this, I mean, there seems to be some sort of commitment that this war has to end.MR MILLER: So the reason I was smiling at the question is I’m interested that the question is about what Israel might do about a proposal that they put forward that is pending with Hamas, and the real question right now is to Hamas, right.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: It is Hamas that has this proposal in front of them and Hamas that is the decisionmaker right now about whether it can go forward or not. Now, that said, we have been quite clear that we will continue to make – speak to the Israeli public, speak to the Israeli Government about why this deal is in their interests and why, should we get a deal, moving from phase one to phase two is in their interests and why further integration with their neighbors is in their interests. But let me be clear: The roadblock right now to a ceasefire is not Israel; the roadblock to a ceasefire is Hamas.QUESTION: Fair. Fair point. But we know that communication with Hamas, especially in Gaza, is very tenuous, is very difficult. It’s not that easy. So that may take time. So it could be just an issue of time. They may agree and so on. So if they do, that’s it. There is no backing down. Israel will have to sort of abide by this agreement?MR MILLER: If Hamas agrees to this proposal &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; we fully expect it to be implanted.QUESTION: Right. One – a couple of last points – allow me – on the West Bank – I really want to ask because &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; what we have seen is a situation that is really deteriorating in the West Bank. We see towns like Tulkarm, for instance, were being – it being almost besieged. The land was taken, they erected steel doors and so on, and all these things. And I wonder: What is your position on all this? Can – is this reversible? Is this something that you could sort of pressure the Israelis to sort of pullback from?MR MILLER: So the violence that we have seen in the West Bank is unacceptable. It must stop. Civilians are never legitimate targets of violence; they must be protected. We urge Israel to do everything its power to prevent these attacks in the first place and – when they’re not prevented – to hold those responsible accountable. We urge them to work with the Palestinian Authority to that end, and we have also made clear that we are willing to take our own actions to hold people accountable. You’ve seen us impose visa restrictions and economic sanctions on individuals and entities who perpetrate or support violence in the West Bank, and we will not hesitate to continue to do so.QUESTION: And finally, Samantha Power – the Israeli – I mean, I’m sorry, the – Samantha Power said that Israel is the chief impediment to Gaza aid. How do you assess what she said?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to her comments. I’ll let my USAID colleagues speak to them. I think if you look at her – the full substance, she was speaking to the conflict ongoing being the chief impediment to getting aid in. And that is – that is manifestly the case. You can get aid – even when you get – can get aid to Kerem Shalom, it’s often difficult to get it distributed inside Gaza because people are moving to new places and there’s ongoing conflict. That’s been a challenge throughout that we will continue to work through.But two things with – in that regard. Number one, so there were just officials from the U.S. Government who met in Cairo yesterday with officials from Egypt and from Israel to try and work on a solution to reopen Rafah gate. They were constructive discussions, professional, and we’ll continue to pursue them in the coming days because we want to see Rafah open, because that would be another gate to allow humanitarian assistance in. And then second – back to the bigger point – if we could get a ceasefire, if Hamas would agree to this ceasefire proposal, we could get 600 trucks a day coming in – and not just coming in, but it would be much, much easier for them to move safely around Gaza and get humanitarian aid into the hands of the people that we need – who need it.Nadia.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Prime Minister Netanyahu said neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will play a role in the day after in Gaza. Do you agree that the Palestinian Authority should be &#8212;QUESTION: Excluded.QUESTION: &#8212; excluded from playing any role?MR MILLER: No, we do not. We have made quite clear we see a role for the Palestinian Authority in the governance of Gaza after this conflict.QUESTION: So do you see this as a point of – that might be not acceptable for Israel in terms of this proposal that the President put forward?MR MILLER: So when it comes to all of those issues about who would govern Gaza at the end of the – this conflict, I’ll say two things. One, it is something that we have been, as you know well, discussing with Arab partners in the region. It’s been a good subject of the work that we have done and as well as the work that we have done to encourage the Palestinian Authority to take steps to reform itself – so not just Israelis could have faith in the Palestinian Authority, but so the Palestinian people could have faith in the Palestinian Authority governing as a non-corrupt, faithful actor in the interest of the Palestinian people. So that’s the first thing I would say.The second thing is – I would say is that we are going to continue to engage with the Israeli Government about this, and there are a diversity of views inside the Israeli Government about the Palestinian Authority and the role that they ought to play and the future that they ought to play in governance in Gaza. And we’re going to continue to make clear to them that we think a revitalized, reformed, fully functional Palestinian Authority is in the best interest of the Palestinian people, it’s in the best interest of Israel, and it’s especially in the best interest of Israel’s security.QUESTION: Okay. I want to have another go at the previous questions on Hamas. The President said that Hamas capabilities had been degraded to the degree that they don’t pose a threat equivalent to the October 7th. Would you entertain or accept some kind of political presence for Hamas, or do you think that is going to be a situation analogous to the de-Baathification that we have seen in Iraq after the war, which is de-Hamasization, if – I don’t know if the term applies. But basically, that nobody will be allowed to take part in any kind of shape or form of civil authority, of local authority, whatever. We’re not talking about a demolition brigade.MR MILLER: Yeah. So I’m not going to get into any level of detail because we’re just not that – at that point in the process. But I will say at a high level, it is the strongly held view of the United States that we will continue to push that Hamas can play no role in the governance of Gaza. It has lost any legitimate claim it ever had – and we didn’t think it had one to begin with, but it’s lost any legitimate claim to participate in the governance of Gaza by virtue of launching a brutal massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7th.QUESTION: And finally, Saudis and Qataris has condemned an Israeli Knesset attempt for a bill, actually, to label UNRWA as a terrorist organization. Do you condemn this attempt by the Israeli Knesset to do that?MR MILLER: So I am not – I was not aware of that vote. Obviously we do not believe UNRWA is a terrorist organization. We – there were members of UNRWA who UNRWA provided evidence had participated in some way in the attacks of October 7th, but that is not the &#8212;QUESTION: I want &#8212;MR MILLER: No, but hold – but that is not – that is not actions by UNRWA the body itself. So that’s our general position, but I can’t speak to a specific vote because I’m not – I’m not familiar with the specifics.QUESTION: Sure, but I just want – but if – I want you to clarify this: UNRWA has provided evidence that some members were a part – took part in the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah – well, so I should say provide – they briefed us on evidence that they found. Yeah, at the beginning of this – I’ve gone through this a few times – at the beginning of this entire issue with regard to UNRWA, a lot of people think it was – we took the action that we took to suspend UNRWA’s funding because of something the Israeli Government told us, and that’s not the case. It was UNRWA that came to us and said they were aware of these allegations. They had looked into them, found evidence that certain members of UNRWA had participated in the attacks of October 7th, and so had suspended and fired 13, 14 – I don’t remember the exact number now. And that’s why we took the action we did.QUESTION: And you can update us on the investigation because it’s been what a few months now?MR MILLER: I can’t because it’s not a U.S. Government investigation. It’s the United Nations investigation. I would refer you to them to speak to that.QUESTION: Matt, could I have &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; a clarification on your engagement with the PA? Are you engaged with the Palestinian Authority right now?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, what &#8212;MR MILLER: We have conversations with the &#8212;QUESTION: What are the whereabouts of Mr. Hady Amr, for instance? Is he engaged?MR MILLER: He has been – he travels back and forth between here and the region quite regularly. I don’t know if he’s here or in the region today. But yeah, he engages regularly with the Palestinian Authority, as do officials in our embassy in Jerusalem.Stay in the region.QUESTION: On this subject.MR MILLER: Anymore – yeah, yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, did you hear back from the Israeli regarding the investigation on the strike in – last weekend?MR MILLER: We have not &#8212;QUESTION: Because &#8212;MR MILLER: We have not – well, number one, I don’t know if the investigation has concluded. But in any event, we haven’t been briefed at this point.QUESTION: And on this proposed deal, the President – also the Secretary yesterday in his call with Gantz, he mentioned that this proposed deal will unlock a calm on the northern borders. Do you have something substantial? Did you – is there a progress made here with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So we’ve had ongoing conversations for some time to try to reach a political solution to the cross-border strikes between Israel and Hizballah. And we have made progress in those conversations, but ultimately, it is our assessment that it’s very difficult to reach a solution to that problem without calm in Gaza. Ultimately, all of these problems are interconnected, and as long as there is intense fighting in Gaza, it’s very difficult to reach a solution in the north. And it – that intense fighting also poses other security challenges for Israel. And so we do believe that, should we get a ceasefire in Gaza, especially if we can make that a durable ceasefire that ends the war, that that is a challenge that we can resolve.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: On this, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Did you discuss such a deal or diplomatic resolution for the conflict between Israel and Hizballah with Hizballah and Iran?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into any conversations. We don’t have direct communications with Hizballah, obviously. But we have been pursuing diplomatic – a diplomatic resolution to this issue for some time.QUESTION: And one more on Iran. Iran’s acting foreign minister said today that the process of negotiations between U.S. and Iran are currently underway, and exchange of messages and consultations continue. Can you confirm that?MR MILLER: I cannot. I will just say that we have always made clear we have the ability to get messages to Iran when it is in our interest to do so, but I’m not going to confirm or readout any specific conversations.QUESTION: Did you mean that his statement is not accurate?MR MILLER: No, I mean exactly what I said.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just question on the framework that’s currently on the table.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can you say if it’s the U.S. expectation that during phase two and three of the deal, if it’s implemented, if Israel would still be able to carry out specific targeted military strikes should a threat emanate from within Gaza?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to – I don’t want to speak to that in terms of tying it to phase two and phase three, because those are things that are going to have to be negotiated in the exact – the exact parameters of that negotiation. We’re not – we don’t even have a deal for phase one yet, so I should refrain from commenting on that. But the President made clear we will always back Israel’s right to defend itself, and that remains true.All right. Go ahead, Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have two questions. I want to follow up again on the last North Korean garbage balloon question. Last time China sent spy balloons to the United States, but North Korea’s send over thousands garbage balloons to South Korea over the past few days. These garbage balloons contain all kinds of unsanitary germs. There could also be damage to U.S. troops in – stationed in South Korea. What measures do you think the U.S. and South Korea to take in this regard?MR MILLER: So I will just say that it’s obviously quite a disgusting tactic – irresponsible, childish – and it should come to an end. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So you’re not condemning?MR MILLER: Of course I condemn it. Absolutely.QUESTION: Okay. Do you – yeah.MR MILLER: Any country that sends trash to its – floats trash over in a balloon to its neighbors. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah.QUESTION: How about shipping it there?QUESTION: Yes.QUESTION: You guys – you guys do a lot of that.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) If it is an agreement between two countries, that is a very different thing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Do you think that the – yeah, one more. Do you think that this is a violation of the UN Security Council?MR MILLER: I would have to consult with people here whether trash-carrying balloons – I’m not trying to be flippant. I just have to consult with some people here about whether that’s the case.QUESTION: Also, do you think this action has anything to do with China – China involvement &#8212;MR MILLER: The – the trash balloons do?QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: I have not seen any assessment that it does, no.QUESTION: All right, thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very quick on Ukraine, then I’ll move to Georgia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the Secretary intending to accompany the Vice President in Switzerland at the summit?MR MILLER: I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make with that peace summit. I – you heard the Secretary say a number of times over the past few weeks, you heard us say that we would be well represented at that summit, and that’s – clearly saw that today with the announcement that the Vice President would be attending.QUESTION: Right. President Zelenskyy called out China for sabotaging that event. Do you share his concerns?MR MILLER: So I will just say that when it comes to the peace summit – I’m going to speak for the United States – that we support the peace summit. We want it to be successful, and that’s why you see the Vice President of the United States attending that summit. We support Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts. That said, we have always been clear that China could play a useful diplomatic role in helping resolve this conflict if it wanted to. But that said, right now it’s hard to see how they could play that role given the actions that we’ve seen China take over recent months to rebuild, reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. So we are going to continue to make clear to China that we object to those actions, that we will hold entities responsible for those actions, and we’ve heard our Russian – sorry, our European counterparts say the same thing.QUESTION: Thank you. Let’s head to Georgia, if I may, where the Kremlin-inspired draft already became law of the land. The speaker who signed it today was quoted as saying that the Western foundations – I’m quoting him – are financing organizations that are financing terror, violence, et cetera. There are other officials who are talking about clearly shutting down the civil society organizations – clear departure from what they told us intention – their original intention was. Moving forward, how do you expect them to apply the law?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that. I will say we have been quite concerned about exactly the point you raise, which is that this law moves Georgia away from its democratic trajectory and could stigmatize civil society and stifle the freedoms of association and expression, and that the actions fundamentally alter the U.S. relationship with Georgia. And so that’s why we have launched a review of our relationship and will consider our response to the actions that the Government of Georgia has taken.QUESTION: More on that point, the mayor of Tbilisi is quoted as saying that we have, quote/unquote, done nothing to be sanctioned. Is he mistaken?MR MILLER: We’ve announced a new sanctions policy. We have not yet announced individual sanctions. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: We – but we have made clear that we would not hesitate to impose them.QUESTION: Fair enough. Given what’s at stake here, why did the Secretary make no mention of Georgia during his Eastern European trip?MR MILLER: The Secretary just put out a statement announcing an entire comprehensive review of our policy with respect to Georgia that could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance that we provide to Georgia, and as well announced a new visa restriction policy that you should fully expect to see the United States take action on. I think I’ll leave it at that. His commitment to this issue has been quite clear.QUESTION: And one more, if I may.MR MILLER: Let me – let me go ahead to Shaun.QUESTION: Different topic.MR MILLER: That was – that was like three or four. Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Six. Six.MR MILLER: Go ahead. I’m sorry, I thought you had your hand up before. If you &#8212;QUESTION: No, I did. I did. Yeah.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Sorry. Getting back slightly to the Middle East but staying in Europe.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I don’t know how many times you get asked about Slovenia. The – so the parliament is debating recognition of a Palestinian state, of the state of Palestine. It’s been put on hold by the opposition. I know in the previous three cases of European countries, the reaction – you had a reaction coming out. But as it’s actually in process, does the U.S. want to tip the scales one way or another? Do you have a position on whether Slovenia should go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state?MR MILLER: So look, ultimately, we see those steps as not helpful or productive at this time. We have been quite clear that we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state – the Secretary has been working on actual paths to get us there through diplomacy in the region – but that ultimately that is a step that needs to come not through unilateral recognition but through direct negotiations between the two parties.QUESTION: Okay. And Slovenia in particular, is it &#8212;MR MILLER: That &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; comment applies to everyone. Yeah.QUESTION: Can I just ask you briefly about two elections? I know you issued statements on them already, but two major countries: Mexico and South Africa. I know that there have been statements issued in both, but particularly the case of South Africa, it seems the ANC for the first time since the end of Apartheid is going to lose a majority. The U.S. has a relationship with South Africa, but obviously there have been some ups and downs recently with regard to Russia, with regard to – with regard to the issues in The Hague. Does the United States anticipate any changes to the relationship with South Africa coming out of this, anything more to the U.S.’s liking potentially?MR MILLER: So I’d say that we remain committed to deepening our cooperation with South Africa. We cooperate with South Africa on a number of – a number of areas, even places where we have differences. There are other areas – such as expanding economic prosperity, fighting the climate crisis, ensuring that democracy delivers – where we work quite closely with South Africa, and we would fully expect to do that with the new government.And I do also want to take a note to congratulate the South African people on successful national and political elections, and this won’t – maybe won’t have resonance for everyone in the room, for the younger crowd in the room, but for some of us older folks, this is now three decades of South Africans having the opportunity to exercise the fundamental right to vote. Something that seemed difficult and far beyond reach when I was a kid has been achieved and now has – we have seen entrenched for three decades, and it’s I think important to highlight that positive development.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Continued positive development.QUESTION: And on Mexico, again, I know there was a statement issued, but with AMLO there are quite a few arrangements on migration that have taken place. Is it the understanding that these will continue on with the new administration? Do you think – do you anticipate any type of shakeup in terms of the migration protocols with &#8212;MR MILLER: So I think we’ll let the new president, the president-elect, take office before we start talking about specific policies. But we do expect to continue our close working relationship with the Government of Mexico. We value the special relationship we have with them and remain committed to working together to advance our mutual economic and security interests.Ryan.QUESTION: So back in February the White House announced sanctions on people undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank. I’m not sure if you saw, but Senator Chris Van Hollen just suggested that those sanctions ought to apply to Smotrich, who you mentioned earlier today as an obstacle to the peace deal. Is that something that the State Department would consider?MR MILLER: So I’m never – I make this a rule never to make sanctions announcements or talk about what we’re considering before we impose any sanction, and before anyone reads anything into that comment, you shouldn’t read that one way or the other. It’s just our blanket rule in not talking about possible sanctions.QUESTION: Quick Pakistan question. I’m not sure if you saw Imran Khan was acquitted of his previous conviction on the cipher case, so the only case that he’s currently jailed for is what’s known as this un-Islamic marriage charge. So the most popular politician in Pakistan is currently in jail because the Pakistani court says that there were not enough menstrual cycles between his wife’s divorce and his marriage. So you talked earlier about the Georgia law and that that was undermining Georgian democracy. Why does the – why is the State Department willing to weigh in on a law passed through the Georgian legislature, but for something insane like this, that’s a matter for the Pakistani courts?MR MILLER: So I just don’t have any further comment on the case. We look at – when we look at different countries, we take into account appropriate context, circumstances in making our judgments. We’ve addressed the question of Imran Khan many times. The legal proceedings against him are something for the Pakistani courts to decide in – I’d say in accordance with their laws and constitution.QUESTION: Could that really be – yeah. But could that really be a matter for the Pakistani courts? Is – could that possibly be the State Department’s position?MR MILLER: It is our position that it – when you come to these laws in Pakistan and this court case, it is something for the Pakistani courts to decide. And you just saw, to this question, charges against him thrown out by the courts, so &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Regarding the trilateral deal between United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel that included a defense deal between United States and Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia and Israel normalization, we have seen that Secretary Blinken in a Senate hearing mentioned that United States and Saudi Arabia are very near to a defense deal. It seemed like U.S. is prioritizing its defense deal with Saudi Arabia but not the ties with the Israel, the basic offer that U.S. led from – for the mediation between Saudi Arabia and Israel. So with this testimony in the Senate hearing, is it, like, understood that it will be a bilateral deal only with the defense deal between Saudi Arabi and United States and the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia sidelined?MR MILLER: No, the arrangement that we have contemplated, that we have been working on, is a agreement that encompasses three parties: the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. There are bilateral pieces between the United States and Saudi Arabia that would be part of that deal, and that’s what we have been working on, and then there are other components that are – that ultimately involve a path towards a Palestinian state.But I will just say as all of – as part of all of this, you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. There are two – there is one thing that has to happen – two things. One I just referred to, that – the path to a Palestinian state. But the other thing that has to happen before any such arrangement can go forward is calm in Gaza. We don’t have calm in Gaza today. We’re trying to get to calm in Gaza through this ceasefire proposal, and you heard the President speak to normalization with Saudi Arabia being one of the benefits that it ultimately could unlock.QUESTION: Secondly, from the second time in 21 years, United States allowed a jailed Pakistani lady who is facing 86 years of, like, sentence in a Texas jail with the allegations of alleged attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan – that is Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. So former Pakistani caretaker government official in a private conversation told – he revealed that U.S. sent Pakistan a very closed deal, a possible deal between United States and Pakistan that might be a swap deal, basically. So you have any information on that? Is there something behind U.S. and Pakistan are considering that?MR MILLER: So let me take the question. I’m just not familiar with the full details of the case that you mentioned.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A question on Türkiye. Today Türkiye interior ministry, they removed a recently elected pro-Kurdish party and mayor of Hakkari and replaced him with a trustee. Do you have any reaction or comment on that?MR MILLER: So the – our position on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party is well known; it hasn’t changed. The PKK was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State in 1997. And regarding the specific case you mentioned, I would refer you to the Government of Türkiye for comment on that.QUESTION: And did you say that he was linked with the PKK?MR MILLER: I’m sorry. What was that?QUESTION: Do you say that he was linked with the PKK?MR MILLER: I’m just speaking to our assessment of the PKK problem.QUESTION: And what’s your assessment on that case?MR MILLER: As I said, I don&#8217;t have any specific comment on it.QUESTION: And what’s your approach to the Kurdish issue in Türkiye? I mean, it’s been a long time &#8212;MR MILLER: The approach &#8212;QUESTION: The Kurdish issue in Türkiye – what’s the U.S. approach on &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear our longstanding position on that many times. I don&#8217;t have anything to add today. Go ahead here, and then we’re going to have wrap for today.QUESTION: You said that you would hope that the Israeli law enforcement would follow through in curtailing violence from settlers in the West Bank. However, on Thursday – last Thursday – the Israeli military raided a vegetable market in Ramallah, in al-Bireh, to be specific, but one of the largest vegetable markets in the West Bank, and which lit on fire. And who’s going to hold Israel accountable and the Israeli military in this sense? Which law enforcement authority should &#8212;MR MILLER: So a few things. First, I can’t speak to that specific raid. Obviously, Israel has the right to conduct legitimate antiterrorism activities in the West Bank. We have seen them do so, but those need to be legitimate; they need to comply with international humanitarian law. But as regards to this particular incident, I can’t speak to it at all.But that said, when it comes to holding people accountable, we have seen the Israeli Government take some actions to police settler violence in the West Bank. We’ve seen them make arrests; we’ve seen them hold people accountable. But in our assessment, it hasn’t been enough, and so that’s why &#8212;QUESTION: But this wasn’t settler.MR MILLER: But – I know. That’s why I’m separating out the two. I can’t – because I can’t speak to this one without knowing the details. But when it comes to what I was speaking to, settler violence, they need to do more. And if they don’t, we will. It’s that clear.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Saudi Arabia																								Slovenia																								South Africa																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Congratulations to Mexico’s President-Elect Sheinbaum Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateThe United States congratulates Claudia Sheinbaum on her historic victory as Mexico’s first woman president.  We also congratulate the people of Mexico for making their voices heard through the democratic process.  I look forward to building on the strong U.S.-Mexico partnership with President-elect Sheinbaum.We deeply value our special relationship with Mexico that is based on shared democratic values, deep economic ties, and strong cultural and familial connections.  The United States is committed to working together with Mexico as neighbors, friends, and partners, to advance our mutual economic and security interests.  I extend my best wishes to President-elect Sheinbaum and the people of Mexico.
- Diplomacy Lab Fair 2024: Student Research Furthering the State Department’s Mission Office of Global PartnershipsNaila Nicole RicarteThe Return of Diplomacy Lab FairMore than 200 students and faculty representing 26 academic institutions gathered at the George C. Marshall Center within the U.S. Department of State’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., for the Diplomacy Lab Fair, organized by the Office of Global Partnerships.  This April 19, 2024, event, the first of its kind since 2017, was a celebration of students and faculty in the Diplomacy Lab network and an opportunity to share their semester-long research projects with diplomats, policymakers, and peers.  Diplomacy Lab is a partnership between the Department and more than 60 U.S. colleges and universities that enables collaboration on research and tools around a wide-variety of Department-identified topics in priority policy areas.  From countering violent extremism to climate adaptation, the diversity of Diplomacy Lab&#8217;s numerous projects was on full display.Last week marked the long-awaited return of the in-person Diplomacy Lab Fair after 6+ years! Students nationwide gathered in #WashingtonDC, presenting their projects with boundless enthusiasm for diplomacy. Witnessing the future of global relations in action is inspiring! 🤝🌍 pic.twitter.com/4ORZhlaekW&mdash; Special Rep for Global Partnerships McAuliffe (@GPatState) April 23, 2024Modern Diplomacy:  Inspiring the Next Generation of DiplomatsDuring his virtual welcome remarks, Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized that &#8220;partnerships like these help us foster ideas, draw on diverse perspectives, and, ultimately, better address the issues affecting the lives of our people and people around the world.&#8221;  Diplomacy Lab exposes students to the work of the Department of State and inspires them to pursue careers in foreign policy.  For example, Salisbury University students partnered with the Foreign Service Institute to research post-conflict nation-building and its potential application to Ukraine&#8217;s reconstruction efforts.  Alison Wright, an aspiring Foreign Service Officer, quoted Secretary Blinken himself to express her commitment to this cause: &#8220;diplomacy is about the last three feet.”No matter their personal or academic background, there is a place for every student in Diplomacy Lab and at the Department of State.  Carter Dills, who is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Earth Science and Physics from Indiana University, assessed natural hazard risk in the Yukon region of Canada for his research project.  Carter commented: &#8220;In terms of the different backgrounds that can come in and contribute to projects, it is truly unlimited.&#8221;   A Diplomacy Lab participant explains a research project during this year&#8217;s Diplomacy Lab Fair at the State Department. &nbsp;One unique aspect of Diplomacy Lab is its direct engagement with U.S. Embassies and Consulates overseas.  For instance, Nancy Kwang Johnson from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, researched transitional justice in Montenegro by conducting interviews with nongovernmental organization (NGO) directors in the Balkans.  This was made possible with the guidance of the Political-Economic Chief at Embassy Podgorica. After their presentations, Diplomacy Lab Fair attendees interested in learning more about careers and fellowships at State met with Diplomat-in-Residence John Dinkelman.  Representatives for the U.S. Foreign Service Internship Program, Paid Student Internship Program, Pickering Fellowship, and Rangel Fellowship were also available to lend their advice.Influence of Student Research on U.S. Foreign PolicyBeyond the practical utility of student research to meet the immediate needs of the Department, the Diplomacy Lab program incorporates the diversity of the American people, most notably, diversity in perspectives within Generation Z.  Diplomacy Lab projects provide an avenue for students to contribute to U.S. foreign policy while studying topics where their work and passions align.  At the Marshall Center students also learned about careers at State. &nbsp;In this context, students from the University of Michigan collaborated with Consular Officers at the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey to protect the rights of seasonal and temporary workers participating in the H-2 visa program.  Their end-of-semester deliverable was a recommendation for engagement with and a comprehensive list of workers centers that have resources to support Mexican H-2 visa holders and protect their rights and wellbeing in the United States.  Consular leadership at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City will share this information with relevant stakeholders in the Mexican Government and NGOs.Throughout Diplomacy Lab’s eleven-year legacy, this model of mutual exchange has been applauded by Department of State employees.  Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard R. Verma, underscored this in his Diplomacy Lab Fair speech, saying: “It’s clear to me that the future of diplomacy is in good hands because of all of you.  You are our next generation of leaders&#8230;we need your voices to address the problems of today.”
- Traveling carnival business owner charged for crimes against migrant workers For Immediate release – May 7, 2024Click here to read more about this&nbsp;
- Special Envoy Finkenauer’s Travel to Bolivia and Mexico Office of the SpokespersonThe U.S. Department of State Special Envoy for Global Youth Issues Abby Finkenauer will travel to Bolivia and Mexico from May 8-14, 2024, to communicate the work of the State Department and emphasize the United States&#8217; commitment to fostering youth leadership and cooperation in the Americas.In Bolivia, Special Envoy Finkenauer will connect with youth and young professionals through a series of engagements focused on education, leadership, and civic engagement. She will engage with students at local universities, visit an &#8220;Inglés Yes!&#8221; classroom to meet with recipients of a U.S. Embassy La Paz-supported English scholarship program, and join a panel discussion on digital violence.In Mexico, Special Envoy Finkenauer will reinforce the United States&#8217; commitment to youth development through discussions with alumni of the Young Leaders of the Americas Initiative (YLAI). She will also engage with the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs (AWE) and visit the Boys and Girls Club in Ecatepec to learn about their programs and discuss opportunities for collaboration.For more information on the trip, follow along on Instagram, X, and Facebook.
- 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
- 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 24, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 24, 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 24, 2024																																																					April 24, 2024																																																								1:08 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: That was, like, very in unison. Good job, guys.I don’t have anything off the top, so Ellen, if you’d like to kick us off?QUESTION: Hi, Vedant. Former State Department Security and Human Rights Official Charles Blaha took part in a panel presentation on credible allegations of human rights abuses by Israeli forces this afternoon. And he said that in his experience in 30 years at the State Department, the State Department gave Israel special treatment that no other country in the world got and that it showed undue preference to Israel in accepting its accounts of incidents for – that involve allegations against Palestinians. So aside from the fact that he’s a free citizen, free to say what he wants to say, is he correct? Is the person who was central to the kind of reviews that are happening now in the State Department, is he correct in saying that’s the situation, or did he misunderstand how things worked over three decades?MR PATEL: So I can’t – I can’t speak to these comments; I haven’t seen them, or can’t really speak to this individual and their – what their role may have been here at the State Department. What I can say unequivocally is that we apply the principles and guidelines that are outlined in clear legislation when it comes to the security relationships we have with countries around the world, including Israel, consistently. I will also note that when it comes to the appropriate use of American security assistance we also apply the principles and guidelines as it relates to those consistently with countries across the board.Simultaneously, we have a number of measures and efforts in place when it comes to ensuring that there is compliance with international humanitarian law. We’ve talked about a number of those levers from this briefing room, and we apply the tenets laid out in those measures consistently across the board with countries across the board. There is no such thing as special or preferential treatment when it comes to the implementation and enforcement of what we believe to be U.S. law.Simultaneously, when it comes to Israel, at every conversation we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative to ensure that every possible step is taken when it comes to ensuring that civilian casualties are minimized, that deconfliction measures are implemented immediately, and that humanitarian aid can get to the place that it needs to go and that humanitarian aid workers are protected. And we’ll continue to be very direct about those efforts, and we’ll continue to apply the tenets of our – of these factors consistently across the board with all countries.QUESTION: A former – a couple of former senior State Department officials involved in the process have come forward now to say that’s not the case. Does that – does that prompt – should that prompt an examination of the State Department of its own process?MR PATEL: Again, I have not seen these other comments, but what I can say unequivocally is that there is no such thing as double standards or preferential treatment. We apply the rule of the law, and the standards outlined and the various accountability mechanisms we have consistently across the board with all countries that we have security relationships with. I assume these individuals that you outline are private citizens, so they have every right to speak whatever it is their opinion is on issues pertaining to global affairs, but we – as you know – we see no indication of – or reason to reassess our policy or the steps and procedures that we have in place.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. A senior Israeli defense official has said that Israel’s military is poised to evacuate Palestinian civilians from Rafah and assault Hamas holdouts in the city. Do you feel that U.S. concerns about an operation in Rafah have been heard or addressed?MR PATEL: We don’t. This is an ongoing process. We continue to be very clear – and Ambassador Satterfield reiterated some of this yesterday – that when it comes to a military operation in Rafah there needs to be a serious, credible plan when it comes to how to deal with some of the very pressing humanitarian challenges. You’ve heard me talk about these before: First and foremost, we have more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; Rafah as a region continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as a region of safe departure for foreign nationals. For these reasons and many others, we continue to engage directly with our partners in Israel about them needing a very serious, coordinated, and well-thought-out plan when it comes to any military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Have you gotten any assurances on protection of civilians from the Israelis?MR PATEL: We are having these conversations. They are ongoing. Obviously, in the broader sense of the conflict, we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative of pressing – of protecting civilians and making sure that every possible step is taken to protect and minimize civilian casualties. But on the topic of an operation in Rafah, this is a conversation that we’re going to continue to have. You might have been in the briefing last week in which we talked about National Security Advisor Sullivan’s meeting with the – through the Strategic Consultative Group to talk about some of these issues. These conversations will continue to be ongoing, and we’ll continue to engage with our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Will the U.S. take any action if they go ahead with an operation?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals here.QUESTION: Okay. And then if I could just ask, Palestinian Authority has reported finding hundreds of bodies in mass graves at a hospital in Khan Younis this week after it was abandoned by Israeli troops. I know you said earlier this week that the reports are troubling, but will the U.S. call for an independent inquiry?MR PATEL: So first, the – let me just say the allegations are troubling, they are disturbing, we take them very seriously, and we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. It’s our understanding the IDF has spoken to some of this publicly; they have stated that in search of Israeli hostages, they have uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously been buried. And after determining that no hostages were there, these graves were recovered. Obviously, the IDF can speak to – specifically about their operations in the region. But we’re also continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information onto what this is and what the circumstances are here. And when we have that information, we’ll be happy to share that with you.QUESTION: Can I follow up (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; my colleague. At that event, actually, where they released something called the independent task force on the application of National Security Memorandum 20 &#8212; I’m sure you’re aware of. Now, these two former officials from the State Department, they were – of course they’re private citizens, but they were speaking officially of their time spent in the State Department. So you are saying that there has never been at any time a special treatment of Israel in terms of the dispensing aid, military aid, or otherwise, or even political aid?MR PATEL: Said, what I am saying is that when it comes to the security relationships that we have with countries around the world – whether it be Israel, whether it be any other country where we have a robust security relationship – the applications and standards of the laws that guide that security relationship, including the laws and procedures that guide accountability measures that are in place within our system to ensure that human rights are not being violated, to ensure that American assistance is being used properly, the laws and guidelines and standards of those are applied consistently across the board. There is no double standards and is there no special treatment, regardless of country.QUESTION: There is absolutely no special treatment of Israel at any given point in the past 50 years, whatever?MR PATEL: Said, I can only speak &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; to this administration and the work that is ongoing here. I think we – you know we always don’t like turning these press briefings into history lessons.QUESTION: Right, okay. That’s fine.MR PATEL: I’m not here to speak about 50 years. What I can say is that since the onset of this administration and our longstanding security relationship with Israel, this has been the case.QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not interested in relitigating history either. I just wanted to ask you – now, the report they are talking about, or the memo they are talking about, was issued back on February 8th. I believe there is another one coming up soon in May. Can you tell us what it will – what it will do and will not do?MR PATEL: Said, I’m going to not get ahead of the process here. You saw around in March us speak to this first benchmark, which was receiving these letters from the various ministers and government officials who we have security relationships with. But beyond that, there is of course an additional component around the May 8th date, and so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Yeah. Two more points. On the Patrick Leahy Law, now we understand that it is obligatory, right, it is obligatory that whatever arms sent to anyone of your security partners and so on would abide by what is stated or what is dictated by the Leahy Law; it is a law. So can you share with us the mechanism that you apply in enforcing that law?MR PATEL: So Said, without getting technical, let me just be clear: Of course we take our obligations to the Leahy Law incredibly seriously. It is another example of a tool that we have at our disposal that we continue to apply consistently across the board when it comes to countries of – in which we have security relationships. A determination on a Leahy Law violation would essentially mean that it – we would have been found gross violations of human rights, and then particular components under a particular country where we have a security relationship, those specific components would be ineligible for U.S. assistance. But again, that is talking about it in a broad term, and I’m not going to get more specific than that.QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, on the mass grave. Now an Israeli spokeswoman for the Israeli army basically dismissed the whole thing, dismissed the charge. Now you’re saying you find it troubling, and you ask the Israeli Government for clarification. Do you expect them to come back to you with this clarification? Do you have a timeframe?MR PATEL: I don’t have a timeframe for you, and we do expect them to provide us with more information.QUESTION: But considering that this is just happening and it has a certain level of urgency – I mean, considering that the UN is asking for an independent investigation and so on – do you say that we need a response within this period of time?MR PATEL: We are stressing the urgency of not just this incident but other incidents in which we continue to press our partners in Israel for more information and more details about the circumstances surrounding it. We don’t always read those conversations out; sometimes they are private. But our partners in Israel are ones in which we engage with regularly around the clock at varying levels, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Elizabeth, go ahead.QUESTION: There was a report in Israeli media over the weekend that Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich is pushing to legalize 68 outposts in the West Bank. Does the State Department have a reaction to that report? And is this something you’ve raised with Israeli officials?MR PATEL: So look, these reports about directives to support illegal outposts in the West Bank, we believe that to be dangerous and reckless. Our policy, U.S. policy, remains that settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace and the Government of Israel’s program is inconsistent with international law. And we’ll continue to urge Israeli officials to refrain from taking actions to fund outposts that have long been illegal under Israeli law. Actions or announcements seeking to expand outposts will only move the goal of peace and stability in the region further away.Abbie. On the region or anything else?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Hamas released a video today of Israeli American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin. I wondered if you had any comment on the video and if you had any further information on proof of life or the date of the video – and more broadly, if you could give an update on the hostage discussions.MR PATEL: Sure. So the video itself is being actively examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. I can’t comment it – on it any further at this time, on any of the specific parameters on the verification of it or not. But I will just note that if it’s real, that this is another example of Hamas preferring to hold hostages rather than end the war and bring much-needed relief to the Palestinian people in Gaza.On the matter of hostage talks and negotiations, Abbie, there is a deal on the table: release the sick, the wounded, the elderly, women, and there is a ceasefire. It’s simple as that. The whole situation continues to be totally unacceptable to us; since October 7th, we have stressed at every tide and turn that every single hostage needs to be released. And candidly, over the course of this conversation, it’s something that the world has lost focus on a little bit, that it is Hamas that started this war. It’s Hamas that is continuing to hold hostages and has the ability to end it by releasing them.When it comes to this video, Hersh should be home with his family, and we and Secretary Blinken are not going to rest a single minute until that happens, including the President, of course.Alex. On the region?QUESTION: On Iran, if I may.QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Let me see if there’s anything else on Gaza specifically before we pivot to some of the broader topics.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Does the U.S. support an investigation into the mass graves found in Gaza, an independent investigation?MR PATEL: So as I said, we’re continuing to ask our partners in Israel for more information. I don’t have an additional assessment to offer.QUESTION: So you want Israel to investigate but not an independent &#8212;MR PATEL: We are asking for more information on the circumstances relating to the reporting of the mass grave, as I said to both of your colleagues when they asked this very same question.QUESTION: That’s not &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So in the Human Rights Report released on Monday, you said that Israel, the government, took some credible steps to identify and punish officials who may committed – who may have committed human rights abuses. However, we have not seen some credible steps regarding several investigations since October 7, including the killing of Hind Rajab. I wanted to follow up on what Matt said last week. He said that you would ask for more information in the light of – in light of the recent Washington Post report, which cast doubts on earlier Israeli findings. Any updates on this? Have Israelis gotten back to you?MR PATEL: So specifically as to what mechanisms might be in place within the Israeli system, I will let our partners in Israel speak to that, about any efforts that they are undertaking. From the United States perspective – you’ve heard me say this before – we consistently, in all conflict zones, continue to assess and identify evidence, facts, situations on the ground. Those are analyzed. Those are looked through the various inputs and systems that we have to assess violations of possible human rights, and we take the process from there. And we’ll make additional assessments as we need.But these are deliberative processes that are rigorous, that are detail-oriented, that are rooted in the law and rooted in facts, and they take time. I don’t have anything official to offer.QUESTION: But specifically, I’m asking about the killing of Hind Rajab. Have you asked them for more information, and have they gotten back?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on this case specifically. I don’t have anything from up here.QUESTION: And any updates on World Central Kitchen aid workers? You were reviewing Israeli findings. Have you made an assessment?MR PATEL: So when it comes to the findings in the World Central Kitchen, that tragic event, you saw our partners in Israel take a number of steps when it came – comes to accountability measures, specifically as it relates to dismissing three officers and placing some additional others on probation.In light of that, we’ve also continued to see some steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance, but we also continue to stress the importance and we need to see additional steps being taken when it comes to deconfliction mechanisms and steps that they can take to protect humanitarian workers. Ambassador Satterfield spoke a great deal about that yesterday, about things like comms equipment and other ways in which steps can be taken to ensure that humanitarian workers are kept safe, and we’re going to continue to press our partners in Israel for those kinds of things.I’ll go back to you, Ellen. Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask about the – the work being done for the findings that will be finished on May 8th? Are there any additional new investigations or inquiries being done as part of that examination of Israel’s &#8212;MR PATEL: So the national security memorandum is not a new process or a new policy process in which there are new standards or some sort of new thing that is applied to the countries that we have a relationship on. It is an assessment of whether we find a particular country who we have a security relationship with – whether we find their assurances to use U.S. security assistance properly – whether we find those assurances credible and viable. And that work is ongoing.When it comes the – but when it comes to ensuring that there are not violations of human rights and that human – and that U.S. assistance is being used appropriately, there are a number of processes in place that already exist within the federal government. We’ve talked a lot about them here &#8212;QUESTION: But I understand – I understand that the same processes and standards as before. My question is are there new – any additional investigations, reviews (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not an investigation, Ellen. It’s not an investigation. It is an assessment &#8212;QUESTION: So there’s – so you’re looking at (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t fully understand what you are asking.QUESTION: I mean, are you looking at – is there a deeper look being taken into specific instances in Gaza?MR PATEL: This is work that is already ongoing and totally separate from the national security memorandum. You are conflating these two very separate things.QUESTION: No, I’m talking about the national &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand, I understand, and what I am stressing to you is what we have said from the onset since the national security memorandum was signed. It is not a new investigation or a new process. When it comes to ensuring the appropriate use of American security assistance and ensuring that human rights violations are not taking place, there are a number of steps that already exist within the U.S. Government that are being inputted into, that are being assessed. We are looking at the facts on the ground as we would in any conflict zone, but I’m not going to speak to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: But I’m not going to speak to these ongoing deliberative processes. We’re not gathering new facts. This gathering of facts has been ongoing since the onset of October 7th, as it would in any conflict zone. The national security memorandum process is a totally separate thing. It is not an – outlining any new process or any new investigation. It is an assessment of assurances operated – offered by host governments when it comes to the assurances that they provide on the use of U.S. assistance. We’ve been pretty clear about this going – dating back to a number of press briefings.QUESTION: Right. I guess I’m saying are you doing any additional – you’ve got the assurances, but how do you determine they’re accurate?MR PATEL: That is the work that’s ongoing. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but this is the work that has been ongoing not just in this conflict zone but in every conflict zone on the face of this planet, where we look at the facts on the ground, we work with civil society organizations, we work through our embassies and consulates to assess what is happening on the ground, and those facts, they then are assessed at – looked at further. They are examined. They can move into various other processes as well, whether they be CHIRG, whether it be a Leahy process, whether it be something else. That work is always ongoing.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia.MR PATEL: Okay. I’m going to come back to you at the end.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying with Iran for a while – I have a couple of other questions on Ukraine – Toomaj Salehi, very well-known dissident rapper, very well known for criticism of – his criticism of the Iranian regime, got sentenced today to death. Any reaction, and any steps the U.S. can take to prevent this from happening?MR PATEL: We have seen those disturbing reports. He – we’re talking about someone who has already faced torture and other harsh treatments in detention. This is just another example of the Iranian regime’s horrific and pervasive human rights abuses. We once again condemn the Iranian regime’s use of death – use of the death sentence as a tool to suppress people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms. We continue to closely follow reports of Mr. Salehi’s situation.QUESTION: The MAHSA Act is now the law of the land. Can you guys give us sense of how you’re going to implement it, when, and will you directly – will you be willing to directly target Iranian supreme leader for his gross human rights violations?MR PATEL: So, Alex, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime accountable – the MAHSA and SHIP Act, as you so noted. We’re of course going to implement the law, but I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, and we’ll wait on speaking to any of the Iran-related provisions specifically for now.QUESTION: May I move to Ukraine if I may, or &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me finish out on the region and then &#8212;QUESTION: Please come back to me.MR PATEL: &#8212; come back to you.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Toomaj Salehi and the sentence he was just given, is there anything you can do on the international scene to stop it?MR PATEL: Well, look, Guita, we continue to have tools at our disposal when it comes to the – to pressuring the Iranian regime, when it comes to their crackdown and their various serious egregious violations of human rights. I’m not going to preview those from up here. But again, it is – this is just another example of the regime’s pervasive and egregious human rights abuses.QUESTION: Sure. Among the tools you’ve – you always refer to is sanctions, but sanctions is not going to stop them from executing somebody who has spoken in support of freedoms. Anything else you may be able to do?MR PATEL: Well, look, the reports are incredibly disturbing and troubling. And we’ll continue to raise cases like this one and raise violations of human rights like this and continue to make clear these kinds of egregious crackdowns, in public forums like this one, through the international community, so that we can further collectively hold the Iranian regime accountable for its crackdowns.On the region?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Doc.QUESTION: Okay, thank you, Vedant. I just had really a follow-up, but I didn’t get to finish my question about the Netzah Yehuda Battalion. And this is the question: In light of jewishpress.com and Middle East Forum reports regarding the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization criticism of the IDF, that battalion, and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas in its war against Israel, does the U.S. Government vouch for the credibility of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization reports regarding those U.S. sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda Battalion? And a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully am following your question. What exactly are you asking about?QUESTION: Have you heard of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization?MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this organization.QUESTION: Okay. Well, I’ll go to the next question here.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: Right. There’s – United States continues to sanction more and more Israelis. Can you describe in detail what is the basis for these sanctions, why there isn’t a public hearing so that the American public can see or hear the evidence, and which other allies does the United States currently have sanctions against the citizens and military units?MR PATEL: So generally, public hearings are not part of the process of designating individuals or entities under our system. But let me just be clear and let’s talk about what this is about. This is about violence in the West Bank, violence that we believe to be destabilizing when it comes to our ultimate goal of peace and stability in the region. And that’s why you saw the administration take steps last week to designate individuals that we believe to be contributing to that instability through violent extremism.Go ahead. Yep.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A question on Iran. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Agency, said in an interview with Deutsche Welle that Iran is weeks rather than months away from having enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. What’s the U.S. assessment on that? Do you have the same belief?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here. What I can say is that we sincerely appreciate the IAEA’s extensive efforts to engage Iran on longstanding questions relating to Iran’s safeguard obligations. And we’re going to continue to support Director General Grossi and the IAEA in their efforts. We’ll also continue to consult closely with the E3 and other appropriate partners on this, but I’m not going to – don’t have anything &#8212;QUESTION: What about his comments? He says that Iran is weeks closer to enriched uranium to have the nuclear – does that concern the U.S. Government?MR PATEL: Look, any kind of – the President has been very clear that we will go at all lengths to ensure that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon. But I don’t have an assessment to offer on Director General Grossi’s comments, but we certainly continue to appreciate his efforts to engage the Iranian regime as it relates to their safeguard obligations.QUESTION: And one last question, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Yeah. This week and after the Iraqi prime minister went back to Baghdad, the militia group has resumed their attacks. The Pentagon spoke of that, and here at the State Department Matthew spoke of that, too. But my question is that were there any connections with the Iraqi Government on that specific attacks and the resumption of the militia groups attacks on the U.S. forces?MR PATEL: I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon to speak in greater detail about this. I don’t have anything to offer from here.QUESTION: No – no connections from State Department?MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. Just a few one – and promise to make them brief. On Monday Secretary gave detail about the Human Rights Report, and you said you do not have double standards. Since last year and a half, you do not see a million Pakistani moving out of the country, journalists being put in jail, women in jail, political workers in jail.MR PATEL: Is there a question here?QUESTION: So Pakistan was not part of human rights violation in the yearly report. Do you guys not see any violation happening there since last one year?MR PATEL: I am sure that there is a section that is – that includes Pakistan. But beyond that, did you attend the briefing on Monday?QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: Then you probably recall both the Secretary, Matt, Ambassador Gilchrist being pretty explicit about the fact that the Human Rights Report is not a compendium of every single human rights violation that has occurred in calendar 2023. It is – it has picked certain specific entries. It is not supposed to be some sort of cross-cutting total list that includes every single violation. Of course, when it comes to any country in the world, including of course to Pakistan, human rights continues to be on the agenda, and it’s something that we’ll continue to raise with them.QUESTION: Okay – just one, sir?MR PATEL: Yeah, just one. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the same topic, the Human Rights Report, the Mexican president spent 40 minutes today early in morning criticizing the report. He said, among many other things, that the reporting itself, it’s a breach of international law. He also said that the criticisms of his Mexican Government in the report were not accurate. So what do you have to say about this? Is it unlawful under international law issuing these kind of reports? And do you give assurances of the things that you included regarding Mexico?MR PATEL: So one, certainly the publication of the Human Rights Report is not a violation of international law. It’s something that we have done every year that this secretary has been secretary and for every year almost before that – I can’t think of a year in which the State Department – across administrations, across Secretaries – have issued Human Rights Reports. Again, I’ve said this a number of times this week: the Human Rights Report is not an United States assessment on these various anecdotes and entries that are in there. It is a compilation of entries made from credible inputs – media organizations, government organizations, civil society actors, our embassies and consulates – who input these specific entries.And as it relates to the section on Mexico, I just am not going to speak to these specific entries. Your opportunity to do that was on Wednesday when – or Monday when Ambassador Gilchrist was here. So you all should have attended to talk about some of these entries more specifically.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia &#8212;MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: &#8212; about the Human Rights Reports. Colombia also sent a diplomatic note of protest because of the inclusion of an investigation against the son of the president, of President Petro. Colombia believes that it’s unfriendly, it shouldn’t be included there. And on the other hand, they protested against you, your statements yesterday, because they believe you gave credibility to the information of the investigation. I want to clarify exactly what were you trying to say when you said that you gave credibility, because that – let me be clear – some people are even saying that you said that money enter the campaign.MR PATEL: So I don’t think that – there should be no confusion as it relates to my comments. Let’s just take a step back and talk about this as a matter of fact. First, the Colombian Government has every – it is their prerogative to conduct whatever kind of diplomacy or take whatever actions that they see fit under their government. But what we’re talking about here is that in the 2023 Human Rights Report, in the Columbia section, there are references to an inquiry that was opened by the Colombian attorney general’s office. The – it’s a matter of public record, that the attorney general’s office has opened this inquiry. The State Department didn’t announce it; the Human Rights Report didn’t announce it. This is a matter of public record.And government organizations are one of the many credible inputs that go into compiling the Human Rights Reports. This report, one of the things that it’s known for is compiling credible actions that governments take. But the inclusion of any entry in the Human Rights Report does not denote any kind of fact-finding or assessment by the United States Government as it relates to these specific entries.And on the case that you note yesterday, I was pretty clear yesterday and I will be so again: I have no comments or assessment or details to offer as it relates to this specific matter that the attorney general’s office has raised. That is for them to speak to, including the details and any specifics around the inquiry that they’re looking into. The United States Government does not have an opinion or point of view or an assessment on what’s laid out there.QUESTION: Mr. Patel, just one last thing. There’s a new attorney in Colombia, it was appointed by President Petro, and the course of that investigation is already changing. Does the U.S. trust that the investigation can be conducted fairly? Do you trust, like, the Colombian institutions on this, on the attorney general office appointed by President Petro, investigating his son?MR PATEL: I have no different assessment to offer when it comes to the justice system in Colombia. This is an issue for the Government of Colombia and the Colombian attorney general’s office. I don’t have any other perspective from the United States.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Abbie, go ahead.QUESTION: Turks and Caicos?MR PATEL: Sure. What a pivot.QUESTION: At least – it’s good, yeah. Serious pivot. At least two Americans are currently being detained in Turks and Caicos after bringing in ammunition to the country earlier this year. Does the State Department have any concerns regarding the detention of Americans for bringing ammunition into the country? They’re both looking at the potential of 12-year sentences.MR PATEL: So Abbie, as you know, our embassies and consulates, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We’re aware of the arrest of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested, we stand by ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. But in a foreign country, U.S. citizens are subject to the country’s laws even if they may differ from what is law in the United States.I will note that our department put out a security alert in September of 2023 that states that in the Turks and Caicos Islands, firearms, ammunitions, and other weapons are not permitted. Turks and Caicos Island authorities strictly enforce all firearms-related laws, and the penalty for traveling to Turks and Caicos Islands with a firearm or ammunition or other weapon is a minimum of a custodial sentence of 12 years. So – but beyond that, we are aware of these reports, and we are continuing to engage and provide all appropriate consular assistance.QUESTION: Are you able to provide any estimate for how many Americans are being detained in Turks and Caicos for &#8212;MR PATEL: As you know, Abbie, as a veteran covering this department, the number of Americans citizens not just in Turks and Caicos but in any country, that is a number that fluctuates. We do not ask or even require American citizens to register or notify with us when they travel, when they head to any destination, so that is just not a number I can offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been reports that President Erdogan’s meeting with the Hamas leader might have affected his anticipated White House visit. I will not ask you to confirm whether the Turkish president is coming, but I will ask you, what is your message to your allies? Will a meeting with a Hamas leader potentially set an obstacle to White House visit?MR PATEL: So our message to our allies and partners today is the same that it was on October 7th, which is that it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas and that any country who may have a relationship with Hamas, influence with Hamas, needs to send a very clear message that they should take the deal on the table that will release hostages and help bring about much-needed relief to the Palestinian civilians in Gaza; and that they should ultimately ensure that every single hostage is released. But I don’t have any other &#8212;QUESTION: So that – that mean that a meeting with a Hamas leader is business as usual? Or it can influence a visit in United States?MR PATEL: I have no assessments to offer on that meeting beyond that.QUESTION: So could I just follow up on that point very quickly?MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah.QUESTION: So would you like to see your ally – like Qatar, for instance – throw the Hamas leadership from Qatar?MR PATEL: I spoke &#8212;QUESTION: Because there’s been a lot of talk about that.MR PATEL: I spoke a little bit about this &#8212;QUESTION: I understand.MR PATEL: &#8212; last week, Said.QUESTION: But since this was brought up now &#8212;MR PATEL: And that – I will, again, leave it to the Government of Qatar to speak to any steps or – that they may be taking as it relates to their own government.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the Secretary’s visit to China, he said he would address human rights. But on this report that came out on Monday, will he specifically address the persecution of religious groups like the Uyghurs and Falun Gong? And what have talks been like on this in the past?MR PATEL: So what I can say is that in every engagement that we have had with the People’s Republic of China since the onset of this administration, human rights have always been on the agenda, and they will continue to be so. And I have no doubt that human rights will be discussed this week while the Secretary is there.Go ahead.QUESTION: The Secretary’s trip to China comes on the heels of the state visit by the Japanese prime minister, the unprecedented U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral, and forward movement on AUKUS. And next month the inauguration of the Taiwanese president-elect is approaching. How will these factor into discussions with Chinese officials, potentially President Xi?MR PATEL: So, look, broadly the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region continues to be a key tenet of what we will be engaging on, not just with these countries that you laid out, but also in our engagements with the PRC over the course of this week. It’s important to note that there’s a number of other topics that we expect to come up. We talked a little bit about them earlier this week. He’s going to work, the Secretary, to accomplish three main goals: first, make progress on key U.S. priorities, including resuming counternarcotics cooperation, continuing military-to-military communication, issues around artificial intelligence, and strengthening people-to-people ties.He’ll also clearly and directly communicate concerns on regional and global issues; as I said, peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, maintaining cross-strait ties, ensuring that tensions are kept in check. We also will discuss managing our relationship and competition responsibly with the PRC. You can expect all of these things to be talked about, and more importantly, you’ll have a chance to hear from the Secretary at the end of the week when he has a press conference at the conclusion of his trip.You had your hand up in the back. Did you not?QUESTION: Yeah, but my question has been asked.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: But just to follow up &#8212;MR PATEL: Relax, Alex, I will get to you.QUESTION: &#8212; is the Secretary going to have his ending press conference in China or back here in the U.S.?MR PATEL: It will be in Beijing at the end of the week.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two topics, Ukraine first. The first tranche is out today. It did not include long-range ATACMS, but there are reports that the President has already directed administration officials to send them. I think the reports actually say that it has already been delivered and is being used. Can you please confirm that, and overall, your reaction to the first package?MR PATEL: Sure, Alex. So, yes, I can confirm that the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS at the President’s direction. He quietly directed his national security team to send ATACMS to Ukraine for use inside Ukrainian sovereign territory in February. They started moving as part of the military aid package we announced on March 12th, and those missiles arrived in Ukraine this month. We did not announce this at the onset in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request, and I’ll defer to them to speak about their use and how they may or may not be operationalized in their own military operation.QUESTION: Extremely helpful. And moving forward, can you guys give us a sense of how you guys are going to determine what kind of guns, weapons, do they need to make a tangible change?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on any forthcoming drawdowns or any forthcoming security systems or assets we may be providing our Ukrainian partners, only to say you saw us take a huge step today with the announcement of this $1 billion package. It was incredibly helpful, and our message to our Ukrainian partners is that this assistance is on the way and that our commitment to their defense is unwavering.QUESTION: Again, final one from me on Armenia-Azerbaijan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I saw reports about some progress has been made in terms of border delimitation. Any reaction? Are you guys involved? Is Special Advisor Bono planning to go to the region or is he involved at all?MR PATEL: I don’t have any travel to announce, Alex, but the Secretary mentioned this in his tweet, that we welcome the announcement that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed upon the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration as the basis for border delimitation between the two countries. This is an important step towards concluding a durable and dignified peace agreement.Daphne, did you have your hand up?QUESTION: Yeah, I was just going to ask how many ATACM – long-range ATACMS &#8212;MR PATEL: Again, I’m not going to speak to the specifics.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Colombia																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Mexican National Sentenced for Wire Fraud and Identity Theft For Immediate release – April 16, 2024Click here to read more about this