# Israel - United States Department of State

- Israel National Day HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Israel National Day				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();			}		});	}																										Israel National Day																																		Press Statement																														May 13, 2024																																							On behalf of the people and government of the United States of America, I congratulate the Israeli people and their government as the State of Israel marks its 76th anniversary.The United States was the first country to recognize Israeli statehood when Israel declared independence in 1948. Our history of shared democratic values, trade, deep cultural ties, and commitment to regional security has provided the basis for our countries’ strong partnership and friendship.In this solemn moment of immense suffering from all those affected by the current conflict, mourning, and intense longing for the return of Israel’s hostages, we remain committed to advancing a vision for peace, security, and prosperity for Israel and the region.Please accept our congratulations on the 76th anniversary of the State of Israel. Yom Atzmaut Sameach!						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Israeli Minister Gallant  Office of the SpokespersonThe following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant today.  The Secretary affirmed the ironclad U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and the shared objective of the defeat of Hamas. They discussed the situation in Gaza and ongoing efforts to secure the release of hostages.  The Secretary reaffirmed the U.S. opposition to a major military ground operation in Rafah, where over one million people have taken shelter.  The Secretary underscored the urgent need to protect civilians and aid workers in Gaza and urged the Minister to ensure assistance can move into Gaza and help address distribution challenges inside of Gaza as Israel pursues Hamas targets.
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken  With Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press The Secretary of StateWashington, D.C.QUESTION:  And joining me now is Secretary of State Antony Blinken.  Secretary Blinken, welcome back to Meet the Press.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Morning, Kristen.QUESTION:  Thank you so much for being here.  I want to start with that State Department report that did not draw a definitive conclusion about Israel, whether it’s violated international law.  Amnesty International says of the report, this is the, quote, “international version of  ‘thoughts and prayers.’”  Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen says it ducks the ultimate questions that the report was designed to determine.Mr. Secretary, is the U.S. trying to avoid holding Israel accountable for its actions?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  No.  We don’t have double standards.  We treat Israel, one of our closest allies and partners, just as we would treat any other country, including in assessing something like international humanitarian law and its compliance with that law.  I would invite people to read the report.  They can see for themselves everything that we’ve laid out in the report.The report also makes clear that this is an incredibly complex military environment.  You have an enemy that intentionally embeds itself with civilians, hiding under and within schools, mosques, apartment buildings, firing at the Israeli forces from those places.  It’s very, very difficult in the heat of war to make a definitive assessment about any individual incident, but what the report concludes is that based on the totality of the harm that’s been done to children, to women, to men who are caught in this crossfire of Hamas’s making, it’s reasonable to conclude that there are instances where Israel has acted in ways that are not consistent with international humanitarian law.At the same time, Kristen, we continue to look at, investigate each of these incidents, but critically, so does Israel.  There are hundreds, as we understand it, of open inquiries into particular incidents that have taken place since October 7th.  There are criminal investigations that are going forward.  Israel, unlike many other countries, has both the means and the will to try to police itself.  So we need to let those play out, but our own process that has been underway for many months to look at individual incidents, that will continue as well.  And when we can reach definitive conclusions, we will, but it’s very difficult to do that in the midst of a war.QUESTION:  And I hear you saying how complex the situation is on the ground, but here we are in the seventh month of this war, Mr. Secretary.  How is it possible that the State Department, with all of its resources, was not able to reach a definitive conclusion on this critical question of whether Israel has violated international law?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Again, precisely because we continue to be in the midst of that war, and making these assessments in real time when we don’t have people on the ground, when we also have to make sure that we’re getting information from all concerned, that takes time, and we want to make sure that we can reach definitive conclusions.But as the report makes clear, given the totality of the damage that’s been done to civilians, to children, to women, to men – given that, given the fact that Israel clearly has procedures, rules, regulations, laws that go into the targeting decisions they make, the way they conduct themselves – but the results that we’ve seen in terms of the horrible loss of life of innocent civilians, it’s reasonable to assess, as we say in the report, that there are instances where they’ve acted inconsistent with their obligations under international humanitarian law.  Those investigations continue, both by us and by Israel.QUESTION:  Let’s zoom out a little bit and talk about U.S. policy.  The U.S. has urged Israel not to invade Rafah, yet troops are already on the ground, and this weekend we learned that over 300,000 people are being evacuated.  President Biden threatened to withhold certain weapons if Netanyahu goes into Rafah in a full-scale invasion, while at the same time sending in other weapons.  Big picture, why should Israel believe that the U.S. is willing to back up its threats?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, first let’s step back for one minute.  No one has done more to defend Israel when it mattered than President Biden.  He was there in the days after October 7th, the first President to go to Israel in the midst of a conflict.  When Iran mounted an unprecedented attack on Israel some weeks ago – 300 projectiles, including ballistic missiles, launched at Israel – the United States for the first time ever participated it its active defense and President Biden brought together a coalition of countries the helped defend Israel.  So no one has done more than Joe Biden.At the same time, what we’ve seen over the last few months is a deep concern on our part about the possibility of a major military operation in Rafah, given the damage it would do to civilians – there are more than 1.4 million Gazans in Rafah, most of whom have moved from other parts of Gaza.  Absent a credible plan to get them out of harm’s way and to support them, the President’s been clear for some time that we couldn’t and would not support a major military operation in Rafah.Now, at the same time, we share Israel’s objective in making sure that Hamas cannot govern Gaza anymore, that it be demilitarized, that Israel get its leaders – we continue to support them.  But there’s a better way of achieving that than going headlong into Rafah.  That’s what we’re talking about with Israel now.  We have a better way of doing it.  We’re engaged in conversations with them about that.  But the President, in answering a question, was very clear about where we are on Rafah itself and what we would do or not do in the event that they go with a major military operation.QUESTION:  I hear you saying you haven’t seen a credible plan yet for how Israel would go into Rafah and mitigate any civilian casualties.  Is it fair to see – say that President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu are not seeing eye to eye right now?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  There are two things.  One is that, as the President said and as we’ve said in many conversations over the last couple of months, there has to be a credible plan for the civilians.  We have to make sure &#8212;QUESTION:  Have you seen a credible plan?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  We have not.Second, there’s something else that’s important.  We also haven’t seen a plan for what happens the day after this war in Gaza ends, because right now the trajectory that Israel is on is even if it goes in and takes heavy action in Rafah, there will still be thousands of armed Hamas left.  We’ve seen, in areas that Israel has cleared in the north, even in Khan Younis, Hamas coming back.  So the trajectory right now is that going into Rafah, even to deal with these remaining battalions – especially in the absence of a plan for civilians – risks doing terrible harm to civilians and not solving the problem, a problem that both of us want to solve, which is making sure Hamas cannot again govern Gaza.Israel’s on the trajectory potentially to inherit an insurgency with many armed Hamas left or, if it leaves, a vacuum filled by chaos, filled by anarchy, and probably refilled by Hamas.  We’ve been talking to them about a much better way of getting an enduring result, enduring security, both in Gaza itself and, much more broadly, in the region.  Those conversations continue.  And that’s what partners, that’s what allies, do.  We are clear-eyed and we speak the truth to each other as we see it.  We have American interests first and foremost in mind; we also have Israel’s interests in mind.QUESTION:  Yeah.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  And there may be a difference in view in the best way to achieve them, but that’s also the nature of the relationship.QUESTION:  I want to drill down with you on President Biden’s threat to withhold weapons.  What exactly is his red line, Mr. Secretary?  What would trigger him to say, “I am now withholding weapons?”SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Look, we don’t talk about red lines when it comes to Israel.  We talk, again &#8212;QUESTION:  President Biden did talk about a red line, though, Mr. Secretary, respectfully.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So let me be – yeah, let me be clear.  Let me be clear about two things.QUESTION:  What would trigger him to make that decision?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Sure.  So first, we have been holding back – and we’re in active conversations with Israel about – the provision of heavy or high-payload weapons, large bombs, because of the concern that we have about the effect these weapons can have when they’re used in a dense urban environment like Rafah.  We’re discussing that with Israel right now.Second, what the President said is that if Israel goes in with a major military operation in Rafah, in that case there are certain systems that we will not provide to Israel that would aid in – aid that effort, because it’s something that we do not want to be part of given the damage that it would do to civilians, and again, not to achieve a durable, lasting, effective result for Israel and for its security.  That’s what the President said.  We’ve said that in conversations with our Israeli partners.  It’s unfortunate that that leaked out, but the President responded forthrightly to a question when he was asked about it.QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about the very latest on the deal to get the hostages released, for a ceasefire.  We know that the CIA director has since returned home.  Did those talks fall apart because Prime Minister Netanyahu was threatening and is making moves to go into Rafah?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Look, it’s important, first of all, to remind ourselves that Hamas could have ended this on day one.  Well, this never, of course, should have happened.  There was actually a ceasefire before October 7th, on October 6th, that Hamas destroyed in the most barbaric way possible, humanly imaginable.  But every day after that, Hamas could have decided to give up the hostages, stop hiding behind civilians, put down its weapons, and all of this would have been over.It still has that possibility.  The quickest way for this to end is for Hamas to give up the hostages.  We will get a ceasefire that we can build on – and build to something more lasting and more durable.  The different teams continue to talk.  It remains our view that the fastest way to get to a ceasefire, the fastest way to get hostages home, is through an agreement, and we’re determined every single day to pursue that and to try to get it to happen.  I think you can question whether Hamas actually wants to get this.  It would also be the best way to make sure that we can really surge humanitarian assistance and better protect civilians in Gaza.  Hamas purports to be interested in that; its actions certainly demonstrate the opposite.QUESTION:  All right.  Secretary Blinken, thank you so much for your time this morning.  We really appreciate it.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Kristen, thank you.
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Margaret Brennan of CBS’s Face the Nation The Secretary of StateWashington, D.C.QUESTION:  Good morning, Mr. Secretary.  I know military experts say Gaza is as complicated and challenging a battlefield as any modern warfare has seen.  But back in December President Biden said Israel conducted indiscriminate bombing; in February he said Israel’s offensive was over the top; and then this past week he was asked on CNN about pausing the delivery of 3,500 bombs.  Here’s what he said.PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.  And I made it clear that if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem.QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, is Israel living up to international humanitarian law standards?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, first, Margaret, good morning.  The report that we put out lays out some of the concerns that we’ve had throughout this period when it comes to humanitarian assistance, particularly the early months after October 7th, and when it comes to the use of weapons, concerns about incidents where, given the totality of the damage that’s been done to children, women, men, it was reasonable to assess that in certain instances, Israel acted in ways that are not consistent with international humanitarian law.It&#8217;s also critical to note that Israel itself has accountability processes to get at this.  There are hundreds of ongoing inquiries looking at different incidents that have taken place since October 7th.  There are criminal investigations that are going forward.  Unlike most other countries in the world, Israel has the ability, the means, and the actions to self-correct.  But we’ve been on this every single day.QUESTION:  So you have been able, then, to conclude that Israel has violated U.S. laws and weapons-sharing agreements?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  No, what we’ve concluded is, in the case of the use of weapons, as you said, this is an extraordinarily complex military environment in which you have an enemy, Hamas, that committed the most atrocious terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7th and then retreats to Gaza, hides behind and underneath civilians, in hospitals, schools, mosques, apartment buildings, and that makes it very difficult to determine – particularly in the midst of war – exactly what happened and to draw any final conclusions from any one incident.So we have a number of incidents that we continue to look at to try to get the best possible assessment.  The Israelis themselves are doing the same thing.QUESTION:  Yeah.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Our assessments will be ongoing.  But as I said, given the totality of what we’ve seen in terms of civilian suffering, in terms of children, women, men caught in this crossfire of Hamas’s making who’ve been killed or been injured, it’s reasonable to assess that in a number of instances, Israel has not acted in a manner that’s consistent with international humanitarian law.QUESTION:  So I understand you’re still collecting evidence, but &#8212;SECRETARY BLINKEN:  That’s right.QUESTION:  &#8212; on the policy, can you clarify?  Because even the lead Democrat on House Armed Services says it’s not clear.  Is the U.S. slowing down the delivery of any weapons to Israel at this point beyond the 3,500 so-called dumb bombs?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  As you know, Margaret, most of the population from Gaza displaced from the north and from central Gaza has gone to Rafah.QUESTION:  Right.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  There are about 1.4 million people there.  And we’ve said to Israel that we cannot, will not support an operation in Rafah – a major military operation – in the absence of a credible plan to protect civilians.  We haven’t seen that plan.QUESTION:  And they still haven’t delivered it.  So are you &#8212;SECRETARY BLINKEN:  We have not seen that plan.QUESTION:  &#8212; slowing the delivery of any weapons beyond these 3,500 bombs?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  No.QUESTION:  Are you pausing, for example, precision munitions, as some Republicans have claimed?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Right, the answer to that – the answer to that is no.  What the President said and what he’s been clear about in private conversations with the Israelis – which unfortunately leaked to the press, so the President responded forthrightly when he was asked about it – but what we’ve been clear about is that if Israel launches this major military operation into Rafah, then there are certain systems that we’re not going to be supporting and supplying for that operation.  But at present, the only thing that we’ve delayed and are holding back are these high-payload bombs because we’re in an ongoing conversation with Israel, given the impact that those weapons can have when they’re used in densely populated areas, including an area like Rafah.QUESTION:  So you still might deliver them?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So we’re in an active conversation with Israel about that.  We have real concerns about the way they’re used.  But here’s something else that’s critically important, Margaret.  We believe two things.  One, you have to have a clear, credible plan to protect civilians, which we haven’t seen.  Second, we also need to see a plan for what happens after this conflict in Gaza open – is over.  And we still haven’t seen that.Because what are we seeing right now?  We’re seeing parts of Gaza that Israel has cleared of Hamas where Hamas is coming back &#8212;QUESTION:  Right.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  &#8212; including in the north, including in Khan Younis.  As we look at Rafah, they may go in and have some initial success, but potentially at an incredibly high cost to civilians, but one that is not durable, one that is not sustainable.QUESTION:  Yeah.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  And they will be left holding the bag on an enduring insurgency because a lot of armed Hamas will be left no matter what they do in Rafah.  Or if they leave and get out of Gaza, as we believe they need to do, then you’re going to have a vacuum, and a vacuum that’s likely to be filled by chaos, by anarchy, and ultimately by Hamas again.QUESTION:  Yeah.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So we’ve been working for many, many weeks on developing credible plans for security, for governance, for rebuilding.  We haven’t seen that come from Israel.  We’ve been working with Arab countries and others on that plan.  We need to see that too.  We have the same objective as Israel.  We want to make sure that Hamas cannot govern Gaza again.QUESTION:  Well &#8212;SECRETARY BLINKEN:  We want to make sure it’s demilitarized.  We want to make sure that Israel gets its leaders.  That’s what we’re determined to do.QUESTION:  Yeah.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  We have a different way – and we think a more effective, durable way – of getting that done.  We remain in conversation with Israel about exactly that.QUESTION:  Well, Mr. Secretary, your National Security Memorandum that you signed says Israeli civilian harm mitigation efforts are, quote, “inconsistent, ineffective, and inadequate.”  The prime minister himself said Israel assesses the IDF killed 14,000 terrorists and 16,000 civilians.  Does the U.S. share the Israeli assessment that more civilians have been killed than actual terrorists?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Yes, we do.  And I think the report makes clear that while Israel has processes, procedures, rules, regulations, to try to minimize civilian harm, given the impact that this operation, this war in Gaza, has had on the civilian population, that &#8212;QUESTION:  And yet you’re still surging weapons to Israel.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  &#8212; those have not been – those have not been applied consistently and effectively.  There’s a gap between the stated intent and some of the result we’ve seen.  But because it’s so complicated in the midst of a war – and particularly in the midst of a war where you have an enemy that hides in civilian infrastructure, hides behind civilians – to make final determinations on these individual incidents, we’re looking at the totality of what’s happened.  We think it’s reasonable to assess, based on what’s happened, that there have been acts that have been inconsistent with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.  But we haven’t drawn definitive conclusions.  We need to pursue these investigations, just as Israel is doing itself.QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time this morning.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks, Margaret.
- Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 9, 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 9, 2024																																																					May 9, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Okay. Matt?QUESTION: Really, four days in a row?MR MILLER: Four days in a row. I’m sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: Four days in a row you &#8212;MR MILLER: As I was – as I was walking out here I was remembering our exchange about this yesterday and thinking, oh, I’m going to get it, I’m going to catch it.QUESTION: There’s nothing going on in the world. It’s all very quiet. Everything is fine and calm.MR MILLER: I – again, my lack of opening remarks does not indicate lack of anything to say. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. Okay. So can you explain to us what the – what the practical impact, at least for the State Department, is of the President’s comments last night about arms shipments to – arms transfers to Israel and whether or not this plays into the NSM report that I guess is not coming today, and maybe tomorrow?MR MILLER: So let me speak first with the NSM report. It doesn’t have any practical impact on the NSM report. The NSM report is a backwards-looking report where we’re looking at a number of things over the past – conduct from last year and then up to when we send the report, and it doesn’t have any impact either on the content of the report or the timing of that report, which won’t be today but, again, I expect in the very near future. It’s just a matter of days that we’ll be able to get that report up to the Hill.And then with respect to the larger question, so what the President made clear is that we have concerns about a potential military operation in Rafah. I don’t think that’s any secret. We’ve been making those concerns known publicly and we have made those concerns quite clear to the Government of Israel. And as the President noted, there are certain types of military assistance that we will not make available to Israel for use in a campaign in Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. But I was under the impression that you guys didn’t speak to hypotheticals.MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear for some time our concerns about a Rafah operation, something the Israel Government has signaled is likely to be coming. And so, yes, we have been engaged with them on that.QUESTION: Well, I get it, but isn’t it “if?” Isn’t there a big “if” in here?MR MILLER: Certainly that would be our hope. We don’t want to see an operation go forward, and we are making that clear.QUESTION: Well, I know. But every time you’re asked any question that’s got the word “if” in it or it’s not something that has already happened, you refuse to answer. And now, all of a sudden &#8212;MR MILLER: I wouldn’t say every time. Wouldn’t say every time.QUESTION: Pretty much.MR MILLER: Look, this – I – so just to be – I know we should be serious about this.QUESTION: I am not trying to be making light of it.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah.QUESTION: I just – but I just – you’re – you guys have made or the President has made a policy prescription, apparently, based on something that hasn’t happened yet.MR MILLER: He has &#8212;QUESTION: Right?MR MILLER: He – because we have been in close conversation with the Government of Israel about this fact.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: There is a different than I – there is a very real difference, obviously, between coming to the briefing room and getting a question about something that might happen, and something that we’re engaged with a foreign government that they say they intend to do. And we treat those differently for quite obvious reasons.QUESTION: Okay, so you’re saying you won’t tell us the full truth but you will – anyway. My point is &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m saying it’s different when a reporter raises a hypothetical question &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; versus a government saying, “This is what we intend to do, this is what our policy is going to be,” and we have to make determinations about our policy.QUESTION: And is it your understanding that the President has decided that what Israel has done in Rafah so far is – crosses the red line?MR MILLER: We have not yet seen an indication of a major military operation. That is something that we are watching closely, and the President made that clear in his comments.QUESTION: And yet he already decided to halt the – or to suspend these – the shipments based on something that hasn’t happened?MR MILLER: We have – we have paused one shipment &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and are reviewing others in the context of a potential operation. But again, we hope that there is no operation. That, I think, would be the best outcome for everyone involved.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Actually, can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; follow up? Just what is your definition exactly of a major operation in Rafah? I mean, you have tanks there. You have bombings going on every day. They took control of the Rafah crossing. What is your definition of a major operation in this case?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into too much detail about that from here, but I would differentiate it from the types of operations that we have already seen from the beginning when it comes to Rafah. We have seen Israel execute strikes against Rafah. We have seen – when I mean strikes, I mean airstrikes. Going back to last October, it’s something that they have engaged in. The operation that we saw to take control of the Rafah crossing appeared to be a limited operation; it’s not a major invasion of a civilian area, neighborhoods packed with people, thousands and thousands of people.So when we talk about a major operation, we’re talking about a campaign targeting these civilian areas that are densely packed with civilians, in many cases civilians who are refugees from their homes, sometimes refugees twice over who have moved once, twice, three times, and are now taking refuge in a place that is literally their last resort, where there’s nowhere else for them to go.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, on the NSM report, can we get the latest ETA on when State will submit that?MR MILLER: In the coming days.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: In the – it’s the very near future. I don’t have a date to affix on the calendar for you, but it will be very soon. I can assure you of that.QUESTION: So is there a chance it might slip into early next week?MR MILLER: I am not going to give any timetable at all other than to say the coming days, which is what I said yesterday. I can assure you it will not be long.QUESTION: Okay. A couple of other things. In your answer to Matt, you said the report is going to be retrospective. Right?MR MILLER: Correct. It’s looking at – it’s looking at past conduct.QUESTION: Right. And he asked you, I think, if I got it right, how – whether there is going to be any practical impact on President’s comments on the report?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: So – but the President’s comments last night also covered the past. He talked about – let me find the quote here. He talked about, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs.” So can you explain to us how his comments have no practical impact on the report?MR MILLER: What I was taking Matt’s question to mean is Matt’s question was related to the decision that the President announced last night or that the President made public to not provide Israel certain military weapons for a Rafah campaign. That is a forward – that is a forward-looking decision. We have paused shipments.Now, the report is a backwards-looking thing. Now, the report does – will obviously look at allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different thing than what the President – I mean, it’s a – I’m speaking just to a determination going forward versus a backwards-looking report.QUESTION: Okay, well, let me ask it in the way that I sort of was thinking about asking. It is a report that is assessing whether or not Israel’s assurances are credible on two things, and one of them is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law. And the President of the United States yesterday said, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs,” in reference to the 2,000-pound bombs. So can you explain again, like, how his comments – maybe that’s not a determination as a result of a legal process, but those are comments from the President of the United States. How does that not have any impact on the findings of the report?MR MILLER: So I think you have to look at two separate things. One is the tragedy – the tragic loss of civilian life throughout this conflict, which we have spoken to many times, the President has spoken to, the Secretary has spoken to, other members of the administration have spoken to. And we have said that far too many people have died; that Israel needs to do more to minimize civilian harm; that the actions they have taken have not yielded sufficient results – all of those things we believe to be true, still believe to be true. That is different than a legal question of whether there have been violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different question; it applies – it goes to not just questions of civilian life – or I’m sorry, loss of civilian life, but whether international humanitarian law was violated in the loss of that life. And those questions are something that we continue to look at and have not yet – not reached any determinations.QUESTION: And how do you determine whether international humanitarian law is violated with those killings? Is your criteria intent?MR MILLER: So there are all sorts of things when you look at – I’m obviously not a lawyer, but when you look at the standards that have been applied in every conflict around the world, it goes to questions of intent, it goes to questions of proportionality. There are other things you have to look at when making those determinations.QUESTION: Okay. My final thing on this. How do you think – I’m just trying to wrap my head around this. In his comments, the President has also said in the other part of the sentence, and in “other ways in which they go after population centers.” Going after someone or something does imply, to me, intent. And also, the bombs in question are 2,000-pound bombs, and their impact when dropped in a population center are known. We know that Gaza is already very – it&#8217;s very densely populated, and there are people squeezed in a small place. So how can any country claim there was no intent if you’re dropping a 2,000 bomb on a population center?MR MILLER: So this goes back to the very difficult problem that Israel has faced from the beginning, is that you have Hamas embedded in these population centers. So yes, the Israeli military very clearly is operating within population centers, because that’s where Hamas was; that’s where their military targets have been. And I will say as we have looked at this conflict from the beginning, obviously, we react to facts on the ground. So at the outset of this conflict, you saw Hamas that was well entrenched in civilian areas and was able to launch not just the attacks of October 7th, but dozens and dozens of rocket attacks. For a while, they were launching them every day for the first month of this conflict. And Israel, in the first stages of the conflict, was able to degrade Hamas’s ability to the fact that those attacks, while they still happen, are sporadic, they’re not – they’re not as frequent, and Hamas – the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza and central Gaza have largely been defeated and have been dismantled, though clearly there is still a Hamas population that exists in all of those areas.What we have also seen over the course of this conflict is Israel take measures to try and reduce civilian harm, and we have seen the numbers come down. Just if you look at the – at the death toll from back in October, November, as Israel implemented additional measures, the civilian death toll did go down. But we haven’t seen it come down far enough. And so when you look at – you take all those facts and you overlay them with a campaign in Rafah where you have a denser civilian population than we – than Israel would have faced anywhere else, just because of the people that have fled there, and you look at their track record at previous points in the operation, it leads us to believe that there would be incredible civilian toll, and it’s something that we can’t support.QUESTION: Okay. Truly final one, and I apologize to my colleagues. Can you tell us where we are on the hostage talks? And there are Israeli officials – I believe perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu – saying the deal on the hostage talks collapsed because of the President’s decision and because the President signaled this decision. What would you say to that?MR MILLER: So first of all, I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials – is that an on-the-record quote from someone? They’re not – I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials. But I would just say that is not at all our assessment of the hostage talks. We actually think that a Rafah operation would weaken Israel’s position, both in these talks and writ large. We’ve talked about this before, that a major military operation in Rafah would further weaken Israel’s standing in the world, would further create distance from its partners in the region who actually share Israel’s goal of seeing Hamas defeated and want to see Hamas replaced with a different governance structure in Gaza.And then also, if you look – just look at Hamas’s track record, they have never cared about Palestinian civilian lives. If they did, they wouldn’t have launched these attacks in the first place, which they knew would produce a response; they wouldn’t hide behind civilians, and they would have agreed to a ceasefire long ago. So I just don’t think that that argument holds any water.With respect to the talks itself – so we continue to engage with the Israeli Government on the amendments to the proposal that Hamas submitted earlier this week. There continues to be – we continue to work to try to finalize the text, try to get an agreement. And I will just say that any effort like this is incredibly difficult. This one has certainly been incredibly difficult, but we will continue to stay engaged to try to get a deal because we believe it’s in the interest of all relevant parties.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: So just – it wasn’t an anonymous official; it was the prime minister of Israel that &#8212;MR MILLER: So I hadn’t seen that on the record. That’s – I had seen anonymous quotes earlier. I think my comments stand.QUESTION: Okay. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I did give a substantive response in any regard, so – you can apply to that.QUESTION: Well, I – okay. Substantive – I don’t know by whose definition. But anyway, when you say the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ouch, Matt. I thought I was pretty substantive. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, when you say that the death toll – when you said prior – the death toll will continue – or has fallen since October, it’s come down but not yet enough, whose death toll are you talking about here? Whose figures are you accepting?MR MILLER: So we are looking at the figures that are released by the ministry of health, which we do have &#8212;QUESTION: By the Gaza – by the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, which you know that we have &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; which is run by Hamas?MR MILLER: Which you know that we &#8212;QUESTION: And you have &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – let me just finish. We know that we do have – we don’t have any way of verifying those figures on our own &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then how do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; but they are – they are the only figures that are available. And look, the UN relies on them, we look at them &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We do think there are probably issues with the numbers, but they do capture a large death toll and a large civilian death toll.QUESTION: But you’re fairly certain that, at least in terms of the trend, they’re accurate?MR MILLER: It – it’s just – I won’t – I can’t say accurate with any degree of certainty, like I can’t give you a, what, percentage accuracy &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then what – (laughter) &#8212;MR MILLER: But – no, no, hold on. But if you look at &#8212;QUESTION: With any degree of certainty? Like it could be zero percent?MR MILLER: No, no, I can’t say if they’re – I can’t say if they’re off – no, hold – if they’re off by 10 percent, by 5, by 50 – I can’t say something like that. But just –QUESTION: Well, I mean, they might be off by 50 percent. Who knows?MR MILLER: But stipulate whatever they’re off by, they have come down. And so they have come down over time – the daily number has come down over time when you look at where they were last October or November to where they are today.QUESTION: All right. Last thing really briefly, just on this whole “a hypothetical” thing – because when Humeyra started her question, it was about my question to you. And it is a hypothetical, because you have the President making a determination on something that hasn’t happened yet, right?MR MILLER: He is making United States policy based on conversations with the Government of Israel, where they tell us what they plan to do.QUESTION: Well, let me put it in a very flip way. Like should I be bringing an umbrella home with me when I leave work today?MR MILLER: I have not looked at the forecast. I can’t quite answer that.QUESTION: Right, so that’s a hypothetical, so you don’t know, right?MR MILLER: I don’t have control over the forecast. The Government of Israel &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. The Government of Israel has control of what it’s going to do, and so when they tell us that they intend to do something, we make our policy in reaction to that.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just a point of clarification on that very front, because Admiral Kirby said this morning that the Israelis have been saying their Rafah operation is limited, precise, and of a short duration. That’s something that you’re going to monitor. So are they – have they told you that they are going to undertake a big operation in Rafah, and that’s the reason for this policy shift?MR MILLER: They have made quite clear they intend to conduct an operation. The operation they have conducted so far has been limited. They have talked, I think quite openly, about conducting a major military operation in Rafah. We are opposed to that, but we’ll see what happens. We have made quite clear we don’t want to see it happen.We continue – and I should say we do continue to engage with them about other options that they can pursue. We have presented a full range of other policy choices that they can make that we think would achieve the goal of dismantling Hamas and choking off the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah without further endangering civilians there and without causing this mass population displacement with no place for them to go. And so they may end up taking that option, but right now we will wait and see what happens.QUESTION: Have you had any indication in conversations since this policy shift was announced that they are considering a different tactic?MR MILLER: I’m not going to talk about our private conversations with them, but you can look at their public remarks and draw conclusions from that.QUESTION: Okay. The original reason, going back to April 4th, that both the President and the Secretary have said that the U.S. would shift its policy was because Israel needed to boost the amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. That picture looks about as bleak as it has ever been with Rafah being closed, Kerem Shalom being open but no – nothing going in. So is this suspension meant to also address the humanitarian effect, or are there other potential consequences that the administration is considering on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into previewing any other potential policy options. I will say, first of all, you’re right – we have been very clear that the level of humanitarian assistance needed to come up and it needed to stay up, and it is not at the level it needs to be this week. That said, Kerem Shalom is open today and some trucks have moved through Kerem Shalom, so we are – have had a bit of an increase from where we were yesterday. I don’t have the number but I – just before I came out here – told that some trucks moved through.Some trucks also move through Erez, so there are trucks that have gotten in. Not enough – clearly, not enough, not at the level that they should be, and so that’s why we’ll continue to push, continue to work with humanitarian partners to try and get them back up as well as to get Rafah open. That will continue to be a priority for us.QUESTION: But are there any additional – because that was April 4th, so that was a month ago, a little over a month ago. So are there any additional consequences at this stage being considered for – specifically for the humanitarian &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not going to preview specific steps, but we have always made clear, when it comes to humanitarian assistance and the need to have it increased and sustained, that we will make our policy determinations based on the facts on the ground. And that’s the case.QUESTION: Okay. And one follow-up on Humeyra’s question about the hostage talks. How can you say with such confidence that the policy shift the U.S. has just announced didn’t meaningfully affect the trajectory of those talks, either by undercutting the Israelis at the negotiating table or emboldening Hamas at the negotiating table?MR MILLER: So it is just not our assessment, based on actually being in the middle of these talks and seeing how it’s happening and what Hamas is actually demanding and what their incentive structure actually is. That’s just not how we see it. But also, again, to my point, the idea that – we just have never seen Hamas as having any interest in the – in civilians and civilian life in Rafah. So the idea that a Rafah invasion that would kill civilians is something that they lose sleep over just isn’t backed up by the facts, isn’t backed up by their track record the past seven months, when they have put civilians in harm’s way time and time again.QUESTION: If a full-scale Rafah operation goes forward, is it safe to assume that it eliminates the prospects of a ceasefire and hostage deal altogether?MR MILLER: We will continue to work for a ceasefire that brings the hostages home no matter what it takes. That will continue to be the goal that we will try – that we will work for.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one question on the NSM delay. Is there any reason that you can provide to us for the delay?MR MILLER: That we just continue to work to finalize it.QUESTION: Okay. I’m curious about President Biden saying that those 2,000-pound bombs were used to kill civilians, and now the United States won’t allow those bombs to be used or doesn’t want those bombs to be used. But we know that all of Gaza is so intensely populated, so is there a differentiating factor in terms of how many civilians lives you’ll allow to be killed with those bombs?MR MILLER: No. First of all, we have always made clear that we don’t want to see any civilian loss of life. And we have consistently pressed the Israeli Government to take additional steps to minimize the loss of civilian life. But the assessments that we make are informed by what happens on the ground, and we are in a very different place today than we were last October. That’s what I made clear a minute ago in response to – I think it was to Humeyra’s question – where you have seen Hamas significantly degraded. You have seen their ability to launch the kind of attacks that they did on October 7th significantly degraded, if not completely eliminated.They couldn’t launch an attack of that scale today. Their weapons production factories underground have been eliminated. Their – most of their battalion leadership in the north and in central Gaza has been eliminated. So Israel has achieved a great number of its military objectives. So that’s one thing that is different now versus then.But the other thing that’s different now versus then is that we have watched the experience of those few months, and even when Israel has taken additional steps to minimize civilian harm, we’ve still seen results that were – we’ve still seen results where far too many civilians were dying. So we talked about this on some of the trips, where – there was one in November where the Secretary went and pressed Israel to take additional civilian harm measures. They did, they announced some of those, we talked about them publicly, and we still saw an unacceptable loss of civilian life.So when you look at all of those factors, both where the battlefield – the battle versus Hamas stands today and the track record over the last few months, it leads us to believe that the loss of civilian life in Rafah, where you have a situation unlike anywhere else, both because of the concentration of people and because there’s nowhere left to go because all of these people have come down to Rafah and there’s nowhere for them to go now, it leads us to believe that the results would be disastrous from a civilian harm perspective.QUESTION: Okay. And then NSC’s John Kirby said earlier today that Biden doesn’t want certain categories of American weapons used in particular operation in a particular place. Can you just clarify for us: Is this review of the future shipments of U.S. weaponry based on what those weapons are, or is it just based on the possibility of delaying or halting all U.S. weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get ahead of what the President said last night. We are reviewing – we have paused one shipment; we are reviewing others. But as the President made clear, we will always be committed to Israel’s defense. He talked about continuing to provide them defensive weapons. We will always be committed to Israel’s security. We will always be committed to helping Israel defend itself against Hamas, Hizballah, the threat from Iran, the threat from other terrorist groups and malign actors.But when we look at a potential operation in Rafah, the President made clear that we are not going to provide them certain weapons that they could use in such an operation.QUESTION: And then just last question. Kirby also said that Biden was forth – was as forthright in his conversations with Netanyahu about the possibility to pause weapons shipments as he was in the conversation publicly on CNN yesterday. Was the Secretary also as crystal clear in his private conversations as President Biden was publicly yesterday?MR MILLER: Yes. I don’t – we have been quite clear with the Government of Israel some – for some time that we are opposed to a major Rafah operation. And the Secretary in his conversations has made that quite clear and made quite clear the potential implications, as has – as the President did.QUESTION: He’s made clear which shipments might be paused?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – I’m not going to get into details, but you can be fully assured that the Government of Israel understood our policy.QUESTION: Sorry. Did he make that warning in last week’s trip?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into details. As I said, there is no doubt that they understood what our policy was should they launch a Rafah operation, or what our policy would be, I should say.Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And before I ask about Rafah, I want to bring your attention to two days from today, May 11, will mark the second anniversary since an Israeli sniper killed our colleague Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist. And I want to ask you: Are you satisfied that everything that could have been done to bring those responsible, to hold them accountable has been done, and do you consider that case to be closed?MR MILLER: That death continues to be a tragedy – one that was investigated by the Israeli Government, one that we investigated, and I don’t have anything further to add to what we’ve said – what we’ve said in the past.QUESTION: So the case is closed?MR MILLER: I just don’t have anything further to say on what we said many times from this podium.QUESTION: Now, on Rafah, Matt, I know there is – or what you guys keep saying that there is no major operation, but there are little tiny operations. They just killed a family of eight last night in an area that is to the west, not to the south or to the east, in Tel al-Sultan. I mean, I don’t want to name all their names, but four were children: Ahmad Abdulrahman (ph), 10 years old; Lanana (ph), 12 years old; Muhamad Ramzi Lulu (ph), five years old; Jana Muhamad Lulu (ph), one year old. I mean, so these things go on day in and day out, and &#8212;MR MILLER: Every one of those deaths is an absolute tragedy, Said.QUESTION: Right, right. But I mean, it is obvious that the Israelis are not heeding the President’s call, your call, to sort of hold back and so on. And the one thought or what we heard is that once they raise the Israeli flag on the Rafah crossing that maybe things will not go south from there, but they are. Right?MR MILLER: So I don’t know where you heard that, Said. Every death is a tragedy. We have made clear we want to see them take additional steps to reduce civilian harm, but that doesn’t change the fact that just as a factual matter we haven’t seen a full-scale major military operation. Again, what we’re talking about is – like the kind of operation you saw in Khan Younis, like the kind of operation you saw in Gaza City. Just as a factual matter, that has not yet begun.QUESTION: By the way, you said that Hamas is hiding among the civilian population. It was not Hamas that drove the people south. It was actually the Israelis. They told them to go and hunker in Rafah, and now &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Said, you’re getting to my exact point, which is it was appropriate to evacuate people when there was – hold on – when there was some place for them to go, right?QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: When there was Rafah, which was if not completely safe, safer than Gaza City, safer than Khan Younis, and someplace for them to go. That’s not true anymore. There are not sufficient – there’s not sufficient infrastructure in Khan Younis or elsewhere in Gaza for the people that moved to Rafah to go somewhere else. That is why we are so opposed to a military operation there.QUESTION: Yeah, which takes me to my next question. I mean, if the Israelis, as you said, have already achieved their goals, and if there is no place for these people to go anywhere, why can’t the United States say, no invasion of Rafah, this operation must end now, full stop? Because obviously this is a wall, or dammed, or whatever it is.MR MILLER: I think we have said no major invasion of – Said, hold on. You were just listening to the initial part of this briefing. But that said &#8212;QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold up. There are still Hamas fighters there. We have never said that Israel shouldn’t be able to do anything to take on the Hamas battalions that are there. We – there are things that we support. We have made clear in private conversations with them alternative paths for taking out and degrading and choking off those Hamas battalions. That continues to be our position. And it continues to be our position that Hamas could end all of this right now if they would – if those battalions would lay down their arms, if Sinwar would come out of the tunnels and if they would stop fighting. That’s another way that you could end all this.QUESTION: And lastly on the aid, it seems that there was another attack by Israeli settlers on aid trucks a couple days ago. Are you aware of that report, and is the United States doing anything about that?MR MILLER: I am aware of that report. In fact, we – if you looked at the statement we put out – I think it was day before yesterday – the Secretary talked with the foreign minister of Jordan about that attack and made clear that the Israeli Government needs to do everything possible to prevent those attacks and to hold people accountable. It’s our understanding that the Government of Israel arrested six people in response to those attacks. That was after they had arrested three people in response to the previous attack.That is clearly the right thing to do, but they need to do more to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. These are attacks on aid convoys delivering humanitarian assistance to civilians. They have nothing to do with this – with the conflict with Hamas. They should not be impeded, delayed, obstructed in any way.QUESTION: Well, they have nothing to do with it except that it wouldn’t be needed as desperately &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean. What I mean &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; as it is if it wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean is if your goal is to deprive Hamas of something, stopping these convoys for civilians does nothing to achieve that goal.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Josh.QUESTION: Hey, thanks. Just wanted to clarify something you said at the top. I think I heard you say there are certain types of military systems that we will not make available to Israel for use in a Rafah campaign. Does the President’s statement preclude delivering those weapons shipments or analogous ones to Israel for use in other areas during this timeframe?MR MILLER: I am just not going to get beyond what the President said last night at this point. We’ve made clear what our policy is. We will engage with the Government of Israel about this question and others, but as I said at the top, while we are opposed to the – I’m just going to speak about this generally – while we’re opposed to a Rafah – major Rafah military operation, we do still support Israel’s right to defend itself against other threats. That has not changed; that will not change. The President’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad.And I should have said this earlier, so I’ll make the point now – we actually think – one of the – we actually do believe that a Rafah campaign actually – in addition to all the harm it would cause to the Palestinian people, actually weakens Israel’s security, doesn’t make it stronger. It’s one of the other reasons we’re opposed to the campaign.QUESTION: So and – and this just as a practical matter, do you assess that Israel requires the weapons in these shipments to proceed with the – with the operation?MR MILLER: I am not – I just am not going to get into the details of how they would conduct an operation at all.QUESTION: Okay. So, well then, on Hamas’s incentive structure, granted that – granting your point that they are not concerned in these negotiations about civilian casualties, you have said before – you even alluded just now – there is Hamas – there are military targets in Rafah. Does Hamas in these negotiations feel an incentive to release hostages in order to preserve that military infrastructure?MR MILLER: We think the only thing the Hamas leadership cares about is protecting themselves, not the &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah fine – all the Hamas – all the Hamas assets that &#8212;MR MILLER: Is themselves, so I’m going – I’m kind of limited in what I can say here, but ultimately, when you look at the things that are on the table in the hostage deal, the point of a hostage – this deal, the things that Hamas gets out of it, are things that would benefit the civilian population of Gaza. Those aren’t things that they have shown they have a huge interest in advancing.QUESTION: Right. And I’m just trying to think about how – obviously, this is a big issue that has a lot of really important components, but I’m just trying to zoom in on how it affects the hostage negotiations. I’ve talked – spent a fair amount of time this week interviewing the families of Israeli Americans. They’re – I think every one of them was very complimentary of how the administration and this building has been supportive of them, but I can’t help but wonder, as we watch what Hamas says – and so much of this negotiation seems to hinge on the sticking point of a ceasefire, of an end to the military campaign – if – do you assess that the President coming out up front and saying that there – they will – that the U.S. would not provide weapons in this context – does that not undermine Israel’s leverage in a negotiation?Or do you just think that the military issue here is not – and I mean, I heard what you said earlier about how you think this would play out, but however self-serving Hamas is, does not the – do you just not think the threat of military losses on that file are relevant to the negotiations?MR MILLER: No. It just hasn’t been our assessment that that is how the negotiations have played out at all.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, so I want to go back to the talks and following up on that question. There was some reportings that the talks are now on pause because the Israelis brings a new demand of excluding Rafah from any ceasefire – agreed ceasefire in the – in Gaza Strip. Can you comment on that? Can you confirm or deny, or is this will be something acceptable for you, to exclude areas from ceasefire?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the kind of picayune details of leaked reports, but largely speaking – broadly speaking – the ceasefire negotiations have been about a ceasefire for all of Gaza, not isolating any one particular area.QUESTION: Not exclusions?MR MILLER: No seclusion – they have been a ceasefire for all of Gaza.QUESTION: And two days ago you were positive that a deal is possible and bridging the gap is still possible in the negotiations. Is it still your assessment?MR MILLER: It remains our assessment that it’s possible. This has always been difficult, though. It’s been difficult from the beginning, and when you get to the end of these types of negotiations, it – it can – you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. Oftentimes the last issues are the hardest ones to reach. There were other periods where we thought we might be close to a deal. All I can say is that we think there’s space for a deal still and we’re going to continue to stay engaged with our partners in the region to try to push for one.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Switching the topic?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Two questions on Iraq. Under Secretary Uzra Zeya was in Baghdad yesterday and she was in Erbil today, and she met with the different officials. I want to know if there is any connection between her visit to Baghdad and the recent law that was passed by Iraqi parliament, anti-LGBTQ. And overall, how does the U.S. view the human rights and democracy in both Iraq and Erbil?MR MILLER: So this was a long-planned trip to advance regional humanitarian, human rights, and civil security priorities. She had three objectives there: one, promoting democracy and partnering with Iraqis to support a vibrant civil society; two, advancing the protections of human rights, including press freedom and freedom of expression; third, advocating to create safe, informed, voluntary, durable solutions to internally displaced persons throughout Iraq. But of course our position on that law is well-known. We’ve made that quite clear.QUESTION: And secondly, in her meetings with the KRG officials, what we saw from the KRG statement, and also her meeting with the president of Kurdistan, they touched about the situation in Sinjar, the current situation in Sinjar, and also the agreement of Sinjar. How do you see the current situation in Sinjar and the agreement of Sinjar that was agreed in 2022 – in 2020, sorry, but it hasn’t been applied (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a full answer.Go ahead, Willy.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Are you worried that – I mean, this is – the weapons has kind of been your trump card. Are you worried that by using this card now you’ve lost your leverage and your ability to influence Israel, particularly on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So we have – I’ve gotten this question a lot about leverage. We’ve never seen it just as a question of leverage. Israel is a longstanding ally of ours. We have a deep relationship with them at a government-to-government level. We have a deep relationship with them at a people-to-people level. We have always seen this – understood this relationship is between two sovereign countries. Israel is going to make the decisions that they are going to make. They have to make a full assessment of the situation they face in Gaza. They have to take a full assessment of what that will mean for the policies of their allies and partners. And we have to do the same thing, and we will.That said, we will continue to give Israel our best advice about what they should and should not do, as we have from the beginning. We will continue to have – (cell phone rings). That’s loud, Kylie. (Laughter.) Will have very direct at times, I’m sure, conversations about both how they operate their military campaigns and the provision of humanitarian assistance. I don’t expect that to change in any way.QUESTION: Those channels remain just as open today after the President’s interview on CNN as they did (inaudible)?MR MILLER: We have continued to have conversations with the Israeli Government today, I can assure you of that.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Moving to Europe.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Happy Europe Day. The EU approved a plan to use some of the funding generated by profits from Russian – frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine. Are you on the same page with them now that REPO Act is the law of the land?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make. We continue to work with our European partners to ensure that we use those assets that remain frozen and that will remain frozen – that we use those assets for Ukraine’s benefit. But I don’t have any further announcements to make about it.QUESTION: On the supplemental, do you feel any urgency in terms of obligating the funding that you have available? The DOD already announced 7 billion immediately, but you have 2 billion available from State to meet the urgent needs in Ukraine (inaudible) the funding &#8212;MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: Hmm?MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: The State Department has &#8212;MR MILLER: When? Was the question when we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: To meet – to meet the urgent needs.MR MILLER: Stay tuned.QUESTION: All right. So &#8212;MR MILLER: If the question is when. I didn’t – I didn’t hear the first part of the question, but stay tuned.QUESTION: On Georgia, I know we discussed that yesterday as well, but an awful lot happened since yesterday. We have seen graphic pictures of them beating up the protesters. Some young protesters are being – are being beaten up in and outside of their apartments. Where are you standing? I know that you made it clear that you stand with the people of Georgia. Is there any obvious example you can give us to prove that’s the case?MR MILLER: So we are deeply troubled by the actions taken against those protesting against the draft law and the actions taken to advance it. We are aware of increased reports of harassment and physical assault of civil society and opposition activists and journalists. We condemn this and we call for a full, independent, and timely investigation. And I will just say, and kind of in response to the broader question, we have enjoyed a successful partnership with Georgia for more than 30 years. We would like to continue to work with Georgia. There is still time to work collaboratively with Georgia, but the Georgian Government needs to change course for that to be the case.QUESTION: Clearly they ignored every warning from this building. Is it time for the Secretary to step in and pick up the call, call them and say enough is enough?MR MILLER: I always appreciate the very prescriptive policy options you have to offer us in this briefing, but we will take – (laughter) – we will &#8212;QUESTION: It’s the general sentiment.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: That’s the sentiment in Georgia. People feel &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I understand. But we have made clear what our policy is and we will continue to make that clear, and I’m not going to preview any actions that we are going to – going to take from this podium.QUESTION: Again, I &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – let me just – let me go – just go ahead.QUESTION: I’m afraid I may have just gotten my answer with “stay tuned,” but now that the battle in Congress is over for aid and American support, what is going to be the main focus? And if Ukrainian manpower is now a concern, what, if anything, can the U.S. do to help in that regard?MR MILLER: So when it comes to manpower, that is a question that Ukraine of course has to answer for – answer for itself, and we have seen the Ukrainian Government take steps to that question. What we can do as a partner of Ukraine is to continue to support them militarily and to continue to support their economy, and most of all, to do what we can to help to get them to a place where they can stand on their own two feet. And you have seen us implement a number of policies in that regard. We’ve started to see the money that was passed in the supplemental flow. I can assure you there will be more announcements coming – upcoming in the next few weeks.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, question one. Senior UNRWA official Scott Anderson told Politico the other day that IDF units are already on the ground in Rafah killing dozens of people there, including kids. He also said one of the units is the same that killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, including an American, of course. So he is saying the IDF is already killing people, to Said’s point, kind of in a way that questions this line between major and minor operations. And one of these units is one that ostensibly killed an American. So how is the U.S. letting an Israeli unit that killed an American now continue to kill Palestinians? Like, is that not a red line?MR MILLER: So I’m just not able to verify that report; and since I’m unable to verify that report, I’m not able to comment on any implications of it.QUESTION: But conceivably, I mean, look (inaudible).MR MILLER: The red line I – bottom line, I cannot – I mean, I can’t verify that to be true, so I can’t talk about any &#8212;QUESTION: Understood.MR MILLER: &#8212; possible implications for something I don’t know to be true.QUESTION: But just to follow up on that, what is the latest on the unit that did kill the World Central Kitchen workers?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, it’s been 101 days now since Hind Rajab, her family members, the medics sent to save her were killed. So first question related to that: Is there an update on the investigation into that attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any – one. I’m happy to go back and get you the latest.QUESTION: All right, okay, okay. So she’s one of 14,000 kids killed, Israeli forces have killed. Those World Central Kitchen workers, of course there’s a hundred more. President Biden admits Israel has killed civilians with U.S. weapons. We have the delay of the memo as to whether or not the U.S. determines whether Israel has violated international law.With all of this, I understand there’s been a pause in one shipment of weapons. You have said other shipments are under review. But how did the U.S. feel comfortable sending Israel 17 billion if we can’t get answers to any of this, and how can it justify sending any more weapons at this point?MR MILLER: So two things can be true at the same time, and two things are true at the same time here. One, that we have – do have concerns about certain ways that Israel has conducted operations. We’ve been open and forthright about those. We’ve engaged with the Government of Israel about ways they can improve their operations to minimize civilian harm. We’ve seen them take some steps. We haven’t seen them take enough. And of course, that has led us to have concerns about how a Rafah operation would unfold. That is one thing that’s true.The other thing that’s true is that we are committed to Israel’s defense. Israel is a democracy in the Middle East that is a longtime ally of the United States with whom we share many values, that faces a number of threats from its neighbors, it faces a number of threats from terrorist groups, and we are not going to abandon Israel in the face of those threats, and that includes spending every dime that is contained in the supplemental for Israel’s defense. I would also add that there is money in that supplemental for humanitarian relief efforts for the Palestinian people, and we intend to spend every dime of that money as well.QUESTION: And I know you’ve said still Hamas remains there. But as we’ve discussed before many times in this room, there is the possibility not just of Hamas sustaining for many more months but that this might turn more people to sort of join Hamas after being bombarded. So, like, to what end does an operation remain just committed to, like, removing Hamas from, like, threatening Israel, given that there’s also the concern of hostages?MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Like, four have been killed, three have been saved in military operations.MR MILLER: I’m just saying I feel like you have been listening and internalizing the Secretary’s speeches, because what the Secretary has made clear is that there has to be a political path forward.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: That there can’t be only a military &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on – just be a military operation. There has to be a military operation that is followed by a political path forward that meets the legitimate political aspirations of the Palestinian people, or you will have a continuation of this endless cycle of violence. And that is why we have engaged in diplomacy in the region to try to create that political path forward.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Three quick questions, if I may. Yesterday Russia accused the United States of meddling Indian election and also stated that the U.S. has not yet provided any reliable evidence regarding the murder plot against a U.S. citizen named Pannun by Indian nationals. Could you comment on this?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first, no, of course we don’t involve ourselves in elections in India, as we don’t involve ourselves in elections anywhere in the world. Those are decisions for the people of India to make.With respect to the second question, there is a publicly-returned indictment that contains alleged facts. They’re allegations until they’re proven before a jury that anyone can go and read. I won’t speak to them here because, of course, it’s an ongoing legal matter. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Two Bangladeshi citizens were shot dead by Indian security forces at the Bangladesh-India border, and this continues a concerning trend of civilian killing at the border which appears to violation – violate international law. Could the U.S., given its strong partnership with India in the region, request that India assess these killings and ensure accountability for any violations?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports about this incident. We understand the Indian and Bangladeshi border security agencies are in communication with one another, and I would defer to them to speak to their respective investigations into the circumstances of the shooting.One more, quickly.QUESTION: One more, thank you. Following the sham election in Bangladesh in January 2006, the ongoing local government election which is being boycotted by the main opposition party BNP is experiencing issues of intimidation, voter rigging, harassment, attack on journalists, and low voter turnout. Could you provide an update on the U.S. visa policy as announced last year for those responsible for undermining democratic election in Bangladesh?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to announce. We obviously made that policy public. At times we make designations under that policy public; at times we keep them private. I don’t have anything to announce today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I take your point a few moments ago about the word “leverage,” that you don’t love that word. But President Biden’s announcement about the arms shipment I think would be seen by most people as the most assertive mode for trying to rein Israel in. With approximately 35,000 people dead, approximately 80 percent of the population of Gaza displaced, and the UN saying there’s a fully blown famine in the north, what do you say to critics who say that such a move should have come earlier?MR MILLER: So I spoke to this earlier and said that our policy responds to the facts on the ground. We made clear at the outset of this conflict we wanted to see Israel defeat Hamas, we wanted to see Israel dismantle Hamas and prevent its ability to launch the terrorist attacks of October 7th again. They’ve largely succeeded in that goal. As I said, Hamas could not launch attacks again today. We also respond to the increasing civilian death toll, and while we’ve seen the daily count come down because of steps that Israel has taken that we have urged, it hasn’t come down enough. And so when you look at all of those things in total, that leads us to believe that an operation going forward would have enormous impact on civilian harm.And I do just want to say, again, every time I get this question about the number of civilians that died in this conflict, it gets posed to me as a question about the Government of Israel. And remember, it is Hamas that hides behind civilians, it’s Hamas that has built tunnels under hospitals and schools and mosques and at times hides in those facilities and puts civilians at harm’s way. So I get there are very fair questions about how Israel has conducted this war, and I stand here and answer them. The Israeli Government answers them too. But it is also true that a lot of the harm to civilians is because of the way Hamas decided to embed itself in the civilian population in the first place. That in no way changes the burden on the Government of Israel, as we’ve made clear.QUESTION: But respectfully, Matt, I mean, they’re dead because the armed forces of Israel killed them.MR MILLER: It – going after Hamas fighters who are hiding behind civilians. That has been the – the has been true since day one; it remains true today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just to follow up on his question, it makes it – your answer makes it sound like it’s an okay number for 40,000 &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s – that is not –QUESTION: &#8212; people to be killed.MR MILLER: That is not – hold on. That is not at all a fair reading of what I said. I made quite clear that – we have made quite clear for – since the – for months and months and months that far too many Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. And we have engaged with the Government of Israel to bring down the level of civilian death and convince them to take additional steps to reduce civilian harm. When we look at the operation in Rafah, it is a landscape like no other both because of the densely – the way people are densely packed into such a small area – people from Gaza City; people from Khan Younis – and, unlike with respect to an operation in Gaza City or Khan Younis, there’s nowhere for them to evacuate to, and that is a critical difference when it comes to a Rafah operation that didn’t exist for previous ones.QUESTION: So the Israeli army says that it has the munitions it needs for the Rafah operation and for any planned operations. Does that mean – do you think that that is their way of saying we will go into Rafah?MR MILLER: I will let them speak for themselves on those questions.QUESTION: And just more about the aid. You say that every dime in that U.S. aid to Gaza will be spent. How do you – how do you plan to spend it in Gaza given that settlers are stopping convoys from going into Gaza?MR MILLER: Delaying – delaying –QUESTION: And today UNRWA &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – delaying not stopping.QUESTION: And today UNRWA was set on fire by settlers as well.MR MILLER: So first of all, they delayed those convoys; they did not stop them. Those convoys eventually got through. And those attacks on those convoys are just one route into Gaza. That’s a specific route coming from Jordan being delivered into Erez. There are other routes. There’s deliveries from Ashdod that are coming straight into Erez, as well as hopefully we’ll get Kerem Shalom back open and running at a significant level as it has been for several weeks. And, of course, we want to get Rafah open. That’s what we’ve been working on. It’s what we’ll continue &#8212;QUESTION: And can I ask about Sudan?MR MILLER: Let me – that’s – just because that was three and we’ve been going a while, let me go &#8212;QUESTION: Sudan?MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to go back to the NSM report. Okay, the timeline, it starts in 2023 – January 2023, correct? I was wondering when is the cutoff. When does the report stop that review?MR MILLER: I am going to defer that answer – I know this will be unsatisfying – until you can see a public piece of that in the coming days. All of the questions about what’s contained in the NSM will be answered.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Maybe not all, but a number of them, so &#8212;QUESTION: All right. I have a couple more, please.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Have humanitarian organizations had any input in this report? And if so, how was it decided to be incorporated in the report?MR MILLER: So the report is written by people here in the State Department as well with input from the Defense Department. It’s not written by outside organizations. Of course, it can’t be. It is a report by the United States Government, so they don’t have input in the sense that they are actually looking at the report, editing, contributing components to it. But that said, we interact with humanitarian organizations all the time. We take their feedback. We take their input. And it is reflected in all of the work that we do.QUESTION: Okay. Two more now, moving away from Israel.MR MILLER: Two more?QUESTION: Just a little.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Two more.QUESTION: Earlier when you talked about defending – still defending Israel’s security, you mentioned a couple of threats to Israel, including Iran. Now, I was wondering if you mean Iran the country or the rulers – the people in power in Iran.MR MILLER: I certainly don’t mean the people of Iran. I mean the regime in Iran that has financed terrorism against Israel and recently launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel.QUESTION: It seems like Iran is feeling – feeling a little threatened, because today another senior advisor of Ali Khamenei, the leader, said that if Iran’s existence is threatened, they will review their military and nuclear doctrine. I was wondering how concerned are you by these – this threat – this comment about revision of their nuclear doctrine is – how concerning is it?MR MILLER: So those comments are irresponsible, but as the President and Secretary have made clear, the United States will ensure one way or another that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We continue to use a variety of weapon – or sorry – a variety of tools in pursuit of that goal and all options remain on the table. Ultimately, we believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve a sustainable, effective solution, but given their escalation across the board – including their failure to cooperate with the IAEA – we are far from – far away from anything like that right now.And then we’ll do one more and then wrap up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. The President said he put the hold on munitions and bombs to Israel over not wanting them used in a full-scale invasion of Rafah. Why has the U.S. put a hold given that a full-scale invasion is not underway and instead it’s a limited operation by Israel?MR MILLER: I think I may – I have answered that any number of times already in this briefing. So go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. And will other shipments &#8212;MR MILLER: No offense. It’s just kind of – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: Will other shipments be put on hold? Is that something under consideration?MR MILLER: We are reviewing other shipments. I don’t have any announcements to make.QUESTION: Finally, is the NSM-20 report binding in terms of providing weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: The – I’m not going to speak to the NSM report until it is final to make a conclusion. That said, you can look at the national security memo itself and see what factors go into our determinations and what potential outcomes are – not – and I will leave it at that.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 8, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; May 8, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; May 8, 2024																																																					May 8, 2024																																																								1:27 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: All right, we’ll get started. Matt, you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Again? Three days in a row you have nothing to start with? You didn’t include a &#8212;MR MILLER: So sorry to disappoint you.QUESTION: No, you’re not disappointing me, but I’m just surprised.MR MILLER: I will do better tomorrow, I promise, and come out here with a &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, you will?MR MILLER: I will come out with 12 minutes of opening remarks. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Eighteen. Eighteen.MR MILLER: I apologize to your colleagues in advance, yeah.QUESTION: Eighteen minutes would be better. Can I just clear something up very briefly? Can you say with 100 percent certainty that the NSM report will not be transmitted to Congress today?MR MILLER: It will not be transmitted today. We continue to work to finalize the report. We expect to deliver it in the very near future, in the coming days.QUESTION: In the coming days. So Friday at 10 o’clock?MR MILLER: I don’t think anyone here wants to be dealing with that at 10 o’clock on a Friday, any more than you do. I can’t give you an exact time, but in the near future.QUESTION: All right. And yesterday when you were asked about this you kept talking about this is a self-imposed deadline. And I suppose it is because it’s in the NSM, which the President signed, which said within 45 days of the receipt of the original stuff you would do it. But, I mean, so self-imposed deadlines don’t mean anything? I mean, they – for the government?MR MILLER: It – so it is – it &#8212;QUESTION: If I tell my editors I’m going to have a story done by Friday and then I say on Friday morning that sorry, can’t do it &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; and can’t do it until – wait until Monday. But that’s one thing.MR MILLER: So Congress is not our editor. They &#8212;QUESTION: But if you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: Congress is a co-equal branch, not our editor, just to be clear. (Laughter.)QUESTION: But if you guys – but if you guys say that we’re going to have this to you in 45 days and then you don’t, what should – what does that say about how serious you take this?MR MILLER: We have taken this incredibly seriously, and we will have it up in the coming days. But it is also important that we get this right, that we do a thorough job. This is the first time the department has conducted such an exercise. And so we are taking all deliberate care to make sure that we get everything in it absolutely correct. And it will be just a brief delay.QUESTION: It will be what?MR MILLER: Just a brief delay.QUESTION: A brief delay. Okay. So definitely this week, before – before the weekend?MR MILLER: Just – I am not going to – I am not going to say – I’m not going to put a timetable on it, but a brief delay, in the coming days.QUESTION: All right. And then a last one, which is probably a little bit broader but I’ll let other people pick up on it, is Rafah. So your understanding of the current situation and how that relates to the pause in these arms shipments?MR MILLER: So when you mean the current situation, you mean with respect to Israel?QUESTION: Well, what Israel – what – your understanding of what Israel intends to do.MR MILLER: So I will let Israel speak for what they intend to do. You’ve obviously seen them conduct a limited operation with respect to the Rafah crossing in the past few days. You’ve also seen them order the evacuation of people. They have not yet launched a full-scale military operation, and I will let them speak to any plans that they might have. I will say, on our behalf, we continue to have concerns about a potential Rafah operation, and we have made that quite clear. We’ve made it clear with the Israeli Government privately, and of course everyone from the President on down has made that clear publicly.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Could I expand on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Will it be – you have these concerns, and then there’s the halt on these – this shipment. So what’s the message from that? Is it the idea that this will – this will make it more difficult operationally for Israel to do this? Or is it more of a political statement? Why this and how does it directly affect the Rafah operation?MR MILLER: So let me say a few things about that. Number one, people should be absolutely clear that we are committed to Israel’s security. We are committed to the defense of Israel. We have demonstrated that in recent weeks with our participation in Israel’s defense when it came under attack from Iran. But as we have made clear, and I just did a moment ago, we have very serious concerns about a potential Rafah operation. We have concerns about what that would mean for the civilian population there – when you look at the fact that there are so many people crowded into such a small area, when you look at the way Israel has conducted its operations in the past and what the impact on the civilian population has been. And we also have concerns about the impact of any potential operation on the delivery of humanitarian assistance.So we have paused one shipment of near-term assistance, and we are reviewing others. And – but that said, our long-term commitment to Israel’s security has not changed.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, expanding on that, I mean, the – if I understand right, it’s a pause; it’s not – it’s not that this has been completely ended. I mean, it’s a halt in the shipment of these. I mean, is there a – is there a timeline for when that – are you waiting to see what happens in Rafah before making a decision? Is there a timeline?MR MILLER: I don’t have a timeframe to offer you, but we have always made clear that our policy determinations are dependent on Israel’s policy determinations.QUESTION: Sure. And just one more thing. I mean, as you know, they already do have these ` bombs in their arsenal; it’s not – these wouldn’t be their first ones. Is there a message communicated to the Israelis that they should not be using these weapons in Rafah or elsewhere?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to anything beyond the current pause of assistance, the one shipment that we have currently paused and the review of others. I’m not going to speak to any further long-term implications. I think the most important long-term implication is the one I said, which is that we are – we do remain committed to Israel’s security. We remain committed to Israel’s defense. But in the context of the unfolding situation in Rafah, it is a place where we have very serious concerns, and that’s why we take the actions we take.Yeah.QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, what exactly are you asking Israel to do in order for this pause to be lifted?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into our internal conversations with the Government of Israel. I will say, however, we have been pretty clear about what we want to see when it comes to an operation in Rafah, and that’s that we don’t want to see one go forward. We do not believe Israel has presented a credible humanitarian plan that would account for both the potential harm to civilian life of an operation in such a crowded area or for properly evacuating and caring for the over a million people who are there. We just don’t believe it’s possible to move those people to other places inside Gaza, and we have not seen a plan to take care of them if they were moved to other places. And so that’s what we have made clear, is that we don’t support such an operation.QUESTION: And if they continue on with these limited incursions, like we’re seeing happen at this moment, do you expect there will be further pauses?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to what actions we might take in the future. We make these assessments day by day based on what is happening on the ground and make our appropriate policy determinations based on those facts.QUESTION: Just to dive in a bit, you’ve mentioned looking at the way Israel has conducted operations in the past that is weighing on this decision to pause now. So what is it in the way Israel has been operating in Gaza that means you don’t think it’s right to provide 2,000-pound bombs?MR MILLER: So what I was referring to when I said we don’t want to see an operation go forward in Rafah because of the impact on – the impact that we have seen in previous parts of the campaign is – go back to something the Secretary has said a number of times when he’s been in the region. And that is: Intent is one thing, results are another. And we have seen Israel take important steps to improve deconfliction, to improve coordination, to try and limit the impact on the civilian population, but the results still have been far too many innocent civilians dying.And so when you take those results that we have seen over the course of the campaign and then you transpose them over a landscape in Rafah when you – where you have more than 1 million people in such a tight area – people who have moved from Gaza City, who have moved from Khan Younis, who have moved from other parts of Gaza, and all crowded into Rafah – all of those – all of those concerns that we had previously are magnified when you think about how they would operate in such a dense area.There is also an additional concern that we’ve made clear, which is that the Rafah area is the center for the distribution of humanitarian assistance – most of the distribution of humanitarian assistance in Gaza – both because that’s where the civilian population is, because that’s where they’ve moved, and also because that’s where the two principal crossings that have been open for months now also exist. And so there is no way to replace the delivery of humanitarian assistance through Rafah and Kerem Shalom and then the network that has been set up inside Gaza, headquartered in Rafah, that would be severely disrupted, severely jeopardized by kinetic action.QUESTION: But just specifically on the impact in terms of bombing because what you’ve – what you’ve held back is these 2,000-pound bombs, is that – does that mean – I mean, the President has talked about indiscriminate bombing in that campaign. But is there some kind of assessment that U.S. weapons have been used in an indiscriminate way, in a way that’s caught up more civilians than were necessary?MR MILLER: So that is not a conclusion that we have drawn when it comes to making this kind of legal assessment I think to which you’re referring when it comes to ongoing assessments that we have that relate to violations, or potential violations, of international humanitarian law. We are looking at those questions. We’ve been doing some – so for some time, and those processes remain ongoing. The NSM, of course, will interact with these questions in some very real ways.But that said, even aside from those questions of compliance with international humanitarian law, when you see the results of the campaign to date, you see too many Palestinians die. And so when you look at those results and you – as I said a minute ago, and you try to imagine a repeat of such a campaign in an even-more-dense area than where Israel has operated to date, that’s why we have such great concerns.QUESTION: Right. Just – I guess I’m just trying to understand how in the conflict up till now you haven’t made that conclusion, but you’re able to say for Rafah this is just beyond what we’re – what we’re willing to see our bombs &#8212;MR MILLER: We have been clear for some time that the results were not acceptable. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to this a number of times when he’s been in the region. I think it was on a trip last December when he talked about steps that they briefed us on that they were taking to improve civilian protections, and he said, look, the intent seems to be there but we’re going to judge them on the results. And the results that we saw in the months unfolded after that, including in the campaign in Khan Younis, was still far too much loss of civilian life. And I think we’ve spoken to that a number of times.And so the thing that is different in Rafah – difference – different is not quite the right word. The thing that heightens the concern in Rafah is you have so many more people in such a dense area, and so all of the concerns that we had previously are magnified when you look at the impact of all the people that have moved into such a dense area as well as the humanitarian assistance concerns that I’ve been detailing.QUESTION: And just finally, I wonder if you can just be clear. There are these larger bombs that have been held back. We’ve also – there’s also reporting about JDAMs that were included, and these are kind of tail kits to help target bombs. Are they – are you also holding them back related to the (inaudible)?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to specific weapons systems. I will say we have held – withheld, paused – one shipment. I’ll let the Pentagon speak to that because once you get into the realm of actually shipping weapons, that is a Pentagon function, not ours. But then we are reviewing other potential weapon systems, and I’m not going to get into the underlying details here.Tom.QUESTION: Do you have any update on operations at the Rafah crossing?MR MILLER: I don’t. So let me speak kind of beyond Rafah and talk about what we’ve seen with respect to humanitarian assistance today, if that’s okay. That’s a good question you didn’t answer – you didn’t ask, but it’s related.So Kerem Shalom opened today, opened for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. But at least as the last update I got before I came out here, we didn’t actually see humanitarian assistance move through Kerem Shalom because of logistical and security concerns on the ground. And that also relates somewhat to Rafah crossing, because what didn’t happen today is fuel going in through Rafah crossing. And so we think it’s critical that Rafah be open for fuel because without fuel deliveries into Rafah, humanitarian assistance that comes in through Kerem Shalom can’t actually be delivered. The two are critically linked, so it’s why we pressed to have not just Kerem Shalom open, but Rafah opened. Didn’t open today; didn’t open for fuel today; we’re continuing to push for that to happen.QUESTION: Okay. But – so you just said you haven’t seen movement from Kerem Shalom on the Gaza side?MR MILLER: Correct. We didn’t – so we saw Kerem Shalom open today &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, from the Israeli side, yeah.MR MILLER: &#8212; actually open for deliveries, but then trucks didn’t move in because of some of these logistical and security concerns.QUESTION: Okay. So – but, I mean, basically you’re back to the situation that you were in in the first weeks of the war, where you’ve got nothing open apart from Erez, where there’s not much happening at all it seems according to aid groups. That seems very significant. And on Rafah, I mean, you called it a limited operation, but the Israelis are occupying the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing. I mean, that’s quite a big move on the ground. And so I wonder what you see as the future for both aid supplies getting in, Palestinians who desperately need hospital treatment getting out. We’ve heard this morning in a briefing from some NGOs saying they can’t rotate their teams, they’re stuck, the ones in Gaza; they can’t get out, they can’t get humanitarian workers in, they don’t have Israeli visas. So this is now potentially a very big problem. And it was the – a signature achievement of the President after a couple of weeks, he said – or you’d been saying – to get Rafah open. You’re now all the way back seven months of what you had then.MR MILLER: So let me speak to the first one, and then I’ll come back and address the second, and if I’ve forgotten to address some of the aspects of it, I’d – I would appreciate a follow-up.So when it comes to the level of humanitarian assistance, the results as they are today are just unacceptable. There’s no other way to put it. Something that the President made clear on the call that he had with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th is that there needed to be a dramatic change in the delivery of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. And in the wake of that phone call, we saw Israel take steps to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance. One of those was the opening of Erez crossing, which does remain open; one of them was the opening of Ashdod for deliveries through Ashdod that would then go in through Erez; and there are other steps as well that we’ve detailed a number of times in this briefing.When the Secretary was in the region last week, one of the messages you heard him deliver over and over and over is that it was critical not just that the increase in humanitarian assistance continue, but that it be sustained; that the dips in delivery of humanitarian assistance that we have seen at previous stages of this conflict could not be repeated, that those dips would be unacceptable. Now, this week we have seen a fairly dramatic dip in the increase of humanitarian assistance. And so we are making quite clear to the Government of Israel that we need to see those decreases reversed, we need to get back to where we were, and we need to see the levels continue to increase and see those sustained, and that is why we need to see Kerem Shalom and Rafah opened.To Rafah specifically, on your question about Rafah, Rafah is absolutely critical for the delivery of – as I said, fuel into Gaza. There’s a fuel depot that exists right at the Rafah terminal, I think on the Gaza side of the crossing. And it has also been the primary entry and exit point, as you said in your question, for humanitarian aid workers to get in and out of Gaza and do the important work that they need to do, that we want them to continue to do. So it’s absolutely critical that that crossing open, that it remain open, and we’re going to continue to press for that.I think I may have left out one aspect of the question, so &#8212;QUESTION: Sure. I mean, how sustainable is it to have Israeli control on the Palestinian side at Rafah crossing &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; with all of the problems that that potentially brings? What’s your, first of all, assessment to how feasible and sustainable that is? And do you have an alternative policy you’re going to put to the Israelis on &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have an assessment to offer of the short or long-term sustainability. I will say our position on what ought to happen to Rafah crossing, and control of the Rafah side of the crossing, has been quite clear for some time, and that’s that we want the Palestinian Authority, united in Gaza and the West Bank, to ultimately assume governance in the West Bank. That’s where we want to get to, and of course that would include governance of the Rafah crossing, because they would be the controlling government authority.Now, what happens in the time between now and then ultimately is a question for Israel. Israel has seized that crossing and Israel is in control of it now, so it is – the responsibility to open that crossing and make sure that it is running effectively right now is a responsibility of the Government of Israel, which is why we have made clear to them that they need to open the crossing as soon as possible to make sure that aid deliveries can come in, make sure that humanitarian aid workers can come in and come out, and make sure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance isn’t further impeded.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on what Tom and Matt raised, on Rafah, let me ask you a straightforward question. Do you think the incursion happened with U.S. okay or with total defiance – I’m talking about the Israelis – of the United States, because &#8212;MR MILLER: It did not happen with our approval.QUESTION: It did not happen with your approval?MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: Okay. All right. So let me ask you about this, then. I mean, you mentioned that aid workers can only go through Rafah. Would the United States ask Israel to allow aid workers to go through the other points of entry?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into what steps we might take – what further steps we might take. The first priority is to get Rafah open &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; period. And then we’ll take other questions day by day.QUESTION: Okay. So do you expect that the Rafah crossing will be open anytime soon ?MR MILLER: I – one of the lessons I have learned &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; in the course of this conflict over the past seven months is not to make predictions about what’s going to happen on the ground, especially when it pertains to these crossings. I will just say that we have made clear that we want to see it open, and we’ll continue to push for that.QUESTION: On the NSM-20 issue, Tim Rieser, who basically wrote the Leahy statute way back, said that Israel has violated the Leahy Law consistently, always. Now, you guys say here that Israel did not get preferential treatment and so on, but according to the author of this document, Israel has always done that. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: There are all sorts of people outside of government who have drawn various conclusions one way or the other, and you see them offering those opinions in the press, as is their right to do, all the time. I can tell you that is not a conclusion that we have reached.QUESTION: Okay. But that’s the guy that wrote the book, right?MR MILLER: He is. And there &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: And I will just tell you for – on behalf of the United States Government, we have not reached that conclusion.QUESTION: All right. Let me ask you about something the President said yesterday. He said that Hamas is motivated by the ancient desire to eliminate the Jews. Is that the thinking in this building, that Hamas is only motivated by ancient desire to eliminate the Jews?MR MILLER: Is that the thinking in this building? That is what Hamas has said. Hamas has come out and publicly said that they want to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; eliminate – hold on &#8212;QUESTION: But that &#8212;MR MILLER: Said, Said &#8212;QUESTION: Contextually that is wrong, Matt &#8212;MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; because Hamas came into being in 1987 &#8212;MR MILLER: And &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; in the midst of an intifada against the occupation responding for a brutal Israeli attack on Gaza. So when we say ancient desires, I mean, that’s going back &#8212;MR MILLER: And Said, I think you are &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; two thousand years.MR MILLER: I think you are ignoring the repeated over years and years of antisemitic statements by Hamas &#8212;QUESTION: No.MR MILLER: &#8212; saying that they are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and committed to the death of the Israeli people.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I don think that’s a very controversial statement. That is well-documented.QUESTION: I’m asking you a straightforward &#8212;MR MILLER: And Said – Said, hold on. Just let me finish. Hamas has been quite clear what their goals are when it comes to &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; the Israeli people, and that is the total elimination of the Israeli people. We have seen them say they wanted to repeat the attacks of October 7th again and again and again.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: So, yes, the President was absolutely right in his response.QUESTION: He was also right that they are motivated by ancient desires?MR MILLER: That is what they – they have made that clear a number of times.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. There is reports that Israel is using white phosphorus in Rafah. Do you have any – I mean, any information on that?MR MILLER: I have not seen those reports. I’m happy to look into them.QUESTION: Will you take it? Will you look &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, that’s why I said I’ll take it and look into it.QUESTION: Okay. And yesterday you said that this operation is limited, and you’re still hoping that Israel is not going to go with the bigger operation. But what difference does it make when they evacuate 100,000, and yesterday there is videos of them attacking tents that has refugees, including kids – I think it was, like, tens of kids who were being killed yesterday. So &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; in the end, I mean, the results are the same.MR MILLER: So let me just differentiate two things. When we spoke about it being a limited operation, when I spoke about it here, I was speaking specifically to take – their taking control of the Rafah crossing. When it comes to the evacuation of 100,000 people, we made clear that we don’t want to see that happen. We don’t think that there is sufficient place for those people to go. We think that the evacuation – an evacuation order of 100,000 people will actually lead to more people moving and going to places where there is not sufficient care for them. So, no, that is not something we support.QUESTION: Okay. And finally, what message does the State Department send to people who really truly believe in the respect of international law, of the Geneva Convention, when you have lawmakers in the U.S. are threatening the ICC judges of basically sanctions if they indict Netanyahu? When you have an important report to look into whether Israel is misusing U.S. weapons against civilians is being delayed? When there is a unit in the U.S. Army – in the Israeli army that’s been accused of gross human rights violations in the West Bank, has been pushed aside? So – and also there is a statistic – 56 percent of the Democrats, which is the party of the Secretary and the President, saying they believe that Israel committed genocide. So what message would you send to the equally people who believe in democracy, and rogue state who just over – trample all over these principles?MR MILLER: So a number of things there. Number one, we don’t make our decisions based on polls; we make our decisions based on the facts, and that’s what we will continue to do to make decisions in the best interests of the American people. When it comes to members of Congress, they make their own decisions, they speak for themselves; they don’t speak for the State Department or the United States Government. That has always been the case. They are independent actors. When it comes to the NSM, I don’t think you should take a delay of a few days to speak at all to our commitment to compliance with international humanitarian law or to writing a thorough report that will look into all of these questions. We are committed to doing it, and I think it is a bit – I think it’s a bit silly to suggest that a very short delay in any way undermines that commitment. That’s &#8212;QUESTION: That’s only one example out of three.MR MILLER: I know. Well, I’m going through the examples one by one. But that said, our overall message is that we are absolutely committed to the upholding of international humanitarian law. We have made that clear. That is the case when it comes to Israel, as is is the case when it comes to every country anywhere in the world. We expect every country to comply with international humanitarian law, and we have ongoing processes inside this building to look at those very questions when it comes to Israel’s conduct during this war.QUESTION: On the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: On the ICC part of her question.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Forget about members of Congress for the moment, but the last administration actually did impose sanctions on the ICC prosecutor and a bunch of others, and when you guys came in – when this administration came in – you made quite a big deal out of rescinding that. Are – can you rule out that – a change in that and that you might go back to what the previous administration had done in terms of the ICC with – if they go ahead with this – with indictments of Israeli officials?MR MILLER: I can’t make any predictions or any announcements one way or the other what – about what we will do about something that has not yet happened. I’ll just make clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this matter and we’re opposed to their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, is this administration willing to consider reversing its reversal of the Trump administration sanctions on the ICC?MR MILLER: So, again, the ICC hasn’t made a decision yet, and &#8212;QUESTION: I – yeah, I’m aware of that, but I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: Right – but I – but you’re asking &#8212;QUESTION: Is this something you’re willing to consider?MR MILLER: You’re asking me to forecast what we might do &#8212;QUESTION: No, no.MR MILLER: &#8212; or – hold on – what we might consider if and when they make that decision, which they haven’t made. I’m never willing to do that.QUESTION: No, I’m not asking you – I’m just – I’m only asking whether you’re going rule it out.MR MILLER: I shouldn’t say “never.” Not – I’m just not &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it would seem to be a big backtrack if you guys went and then reversed your reversal of what Secretary Pompeo did with the ICC.MR MILLER: I am just not going to make any forecasts one way or the other. We’re going to wait and see what the ICC does and make our decision based on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: The minister of defense of Israel was this morning at the border between Lebanon and Israel, and he said that it’s going to be a very hot summer. Do you have fear that this war could expand wider at – and, like, what we see in Rafah, could be also another attack inside Lebanon this time?MR MILLER: We have always been clear from the initial days of this conflict that we were worried about the escalation of the conflict, we were worried about the spread of the conflict, and that’s why we have worked so hard to keep it from escalating and keep it from spreading. And that includes through diplomatic efforts to try to bring calm to northern Israel and the border with Lebanon. Those efforts continue and it’s something that we focus on every day. As – while we’re dealing with all of the very serious issues in Gaza, we remain committed to doing everything we can to keep the conflict from expanding, and there is ongoing diplomatic efforts to that end.QUESTION: But Matt, also, like, I did go examine the protests that is going on on the campuses. We did not feel that it was antisemetic speeches. They are asking for a ceasefire; they’re asking for humanitarian aid; they’re asking to stop the war; they’re asking not to attack civilians; they’re asking to end the genocide. So why President Biden said we will not allow these protests to keep on going while they’re asking for human things – that this administration been always a big advocate for human rights and democracy, and now we see that this democracy’s been oppressed on college campuses? The whole world is kind of, like, watching America as going down in democracy, like (inaudible).MR MILLER: So for – I would completely disagree with that assessment of the state of American democracy. Let me say first of all I would largely defer to the White House to speak to that, only because it’s largely a domestic matter, and as I think you know, here at the State Department we usually speak to international and diplomatic matters, not concerns that happen here in the United States.That said, the President has made clear – and the Secretary has made clear when he’s spoken on this issue – that we are absolutely committed to Americans’ right to free speech. It is one of the things that makes our country great, but at the same time, other students have the right to go to class, to go to school, and those rights shouldn’t be impeded either. And beyond that, I will, as I said, refer to more domestic sides of our government to speak in any detail.QUESTION: Can I follow up (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of separate topics. On detained American citizens in Russia, I was hoping you could help us with the numbers here, because White House yesterday confirmed two cases. We were aware of another case in – back in April, and that’s on top of three other cases: Paul, Alsu, and Evan. How many cases are active that you guys are considering right now – how many of them are deemed to be wrongful and you’re seeking actively access to?MR MILLER: Let me go back and get you a kind of full accounting for that. There are obviously the two cases that we have announced as wrongfully detained, Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich. There are other Americans who are detained, people whose release that we have called for, and then there are other Americans who have been detained for any number of various alleged issues, and those are sometimes in a slightly different category, so I don’t want to be misleading. Let me take you back – take it back and get you an actual answer.QUESTION: What’s your sense of why this is increasing these days? Are they seeking some prisoner swap, that’s why they are &#8212;MR MILLER: So we have been quite clear that Russia has detained Americans for not legitimate law enforcement reasons but because it wants to hold them essentially as hostage and trade them for potential prisoners. It’s one of the reasons – if you look at the D indicators on our Travel Warning, it is one of the reasons why we have been so crystal clear that Americans should not for any reason travel to Russia, period.QUESTION: Thank you. On Ukraine, in light of last night’s attacks, I’m wondering if it’s going to trigger any change on your end in terms of expediting your support.MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make. Obviously the Congress just passed a new supplemental. We have already provided more – announced more than a billion dollars in assistance from that supplemental. We are working on other packages. I think you can expect to see us get back to the kind of tempo that we were at before we had this break in funding, so you should expect to see additional funding coming, but I don’t – I’m not going to give you a timetable today about when we will make such an announcement.QUESTION: Thank you. I have one more on Georgia, if I may.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: We’ve seen increasing rhetoric, anti-Western rhetoric, coming from Georgian Dream officials. Today they announced one more project – so Kremlin-inspired, if you want – incriminating database on opponents without providing any due process how they’re going to list those critics. What is your take on where – where is this coming from?MR MILLER: I don’t have any assessment on that particular thing. I will just say that, as we have said in the past few days, we remain incredibly – incredibly concerned not just about the legislation that is under consideration in the Georgian legislature but also the anti-Western rhetoric we have seen out of Georgian Dream’s leadership. We think that puts Georgia on a precarious trajectory. We think it jeopardizes their Euro-Atlantic path, and it quite obviously jeopardizes the relationship between our two countries.QUESTION: Do you find it puzzling that everything we hear from Georgian Dream officials are, if you want, reflection of everything we read from Sputnik or other Russian outlets?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any further comment than what I just offered.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions on Russia and North Korea. It was reported that the Russians attempted to assassinate Ukraine President Zelenskyy with missiles. Is there anything specific about this?MR MILLER: I spoke to this yesterday; I don’t have anything further to add to those comments.QUESTION: You couldn’t find yet?MR MILLER: I just – I don’t have any further to add. I will defer largely to the Ukrainian Government to speak to the details of that plot.QUESTION: Okay, another one: A UN investigation team recently announced that a North Korea-made missile used by Russia against Ukraine contained U.S. and European components. What is the U.S.’s reactions on this?MR MILLER: Let me take back and get you an answer to that.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Different topic.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hong Kong – I don’t know if you have any comment on this – the authorities in Hong Kong, they’ve banned the song that was sort of the anthem of the democracy movement, “Glory to Hong Kong.”MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And today they said that they are trying to get all online platforms, including Google, to take it down. Does the U.S. have any comment on that, and has it been in communication with tech firms on what to do?MR MILLER: So we remain seriously concerned about the continued erosion of protections for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, including the freedom of expression. And the decision to ban this song is the latest blow to the international reputation of a city that previously prided itself on having independent judiciary, protecting the free exchange of information, ideas, and goods. I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.QUESTION: How about on the online aspect, like trying to get them to take it down from online platforms?MR MILLER: I mean, I would say that the – it goes to my comments about being concerned about the continued erosions of protection, including freedom of expression, and that would include to trying to erase a song from the internet.QUESTION: Direct follow-up on that?QUESTION: Hong Kong.QUESTION: Direct follow-up.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Appreciate it. Sticking with Hong Kong, as we speak, as we sit here, pro-democracy advocate Jimmy Lai remains on trial. In fact, tonight in California there’s going to be a prayer service held for him. But in December, this State Department condemned his persecution, demanded his immediate release. It’s now May; we’re 72 days into his trial, I believe. Have you received any response from the authorities there after demanding his release?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to specific responses, but we have made clear for some time, as you said, that we want to see his release, and that remains the case.QUESTION: How closely are you monitoring that trial?MR MILLER: Incredibly closely. I can tell you there are people here in the State Department that are following that every day.QUESTION: And then finally, there’s an effort you may know by lawmakers right now, U.S. lawmakers, to rename a street after Jimmy Lai where the Hong Kong economic trade office in Washington, here in Washington, is located – Jimmy Lai Way. Supporters say it would signal to the entire world that the U.S. stands in solidarity with those who oppose the tyranny and repression of the Chinese Government. Does the State Department support renaming that street?MR MILLER: I just don’t know if the administration has taken a position on that. It’s not something we would generally do here at the State Department when it comes to a domestic matter inside the United States.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Human Rights Watch today published a report saying Israeli security forces have unlawfully used lethal force in fatal shootings of Palestinians, including deliberately executing Palestinians who posed no apparent security threat, based on documentation of several cases since 2022 – I would argue there were probably many before. Have you seen the report? Do you have any &#8212;MR MILLER: I saw that the report was released. I haven’t had a chance to review it in detail yet. But of course, we take any allegations of human rights abuses seriously. It’s something that we look into as part of our ongoing processes here at the department.QUESTION: And one more question on the Palestinian Authority. So you’re saying that you would like to see the Palestinian Authority take over governing in Gaza and also the Rafah crossing?MR MILLER: We have made – sorry, were you &#8212;QUESTION: Well, is there – is there any progress to that end? Is there any movement on plans to make that happen? Is there any talks with the Palestinian Authority on this, or is &#8212;MR MILLER: So there have been – there has been intense ongoing diplomatic efforts to this end with partners in the region about how we can present a plan for a pathway to an independent Palestinian state. As part of that, it would include reunited West Bank and Gaza under Palestinian Authority control, under a reformed Palestinian Authority, I should add. And the Secretary was just engaged in those conversations last week when he was in the region, and we continue to make good progress on it.QUESTION: One more on these unity talks between Hamas and Fatah. What is the State Department’s view on &#8212;MR MILLER: I just – I just don’t have any comment on this at all.QUESTION: Come on, Matt. Come on, Matt. That – come on.MR MILLER: Please don’t interrupt your colleague. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the &#8212;QUESTION: Don’t do that. We just – do justice to your podium, please.MR MILLER: Please. Please. Go ahead.QUESTION: Come on, Matt.QUESTION: On planned leave and Michael McCaul’s letter to Secretary Blinken about Robert Malley’s case, the letter has been sent on May 6th. Is the State Department planning to send an answer?MR MILLER: So that was two days ago, so we’ve not responded to the letter yet. But we have received the letter and we will take it seriously, as we all – do all congressional correspondence, and will respond to it. I will say, as we have made clear before, there are certain things that we can brief Congress on, and this has been a long – something we’ve spoken to any number of times since this matter first arose I think last summer, and we have briefed Congress on issues pertaining to Rob Malley’s status and issues pertaining to Rob Malley’s – or pertaining to Iran policy. But then there are other things that relate to security clearances that it has just been the longstanding position of the Executive Branch and the department that we cannot brief Congress on, and that remains the case.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: (Inaudible), Matt.QUESTION: Sir &#8212;MR MILLER: I see &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible.)QUESTION: Sir, a few media analyst and experts in – a few media &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Can I just ask my question, please? Thank you. A few media analysts and experts in Pakistan are discussing the expected release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, while a senior senator claimed that United States is working closely with the Pakistani authorities to end his unjust detention. I haven’t seen any evidence of this claim, but is it true or is it fake news?MR MILLER: We – no. We do not take a position on those matters. Those are matters for the Government of Pakistan to decide.QUESTION: A Pakistani military spokesperson that said that Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan is involved in the suicide attacks in Pakistan, including the killing of five Chinese engineers, while we’re also seeing some reports where U.S. asked their diplomatic staff and U.S. citizens to stay away from troubled areas in Karachi and some other parts of the country. How concerning is the security situation in Pakistan for the U.S.?MR MILLER: So Pakistan has suffered a great deal at the hands of terrorists. We regret the loss of life and injuries sustained, and offer our heartfelt condolences with those affected by this attack, and remain committed to working with Pakistan to address the shared threat posed by terrorist groups throughout the region.QUESTION: So do you have any comments on the treatment of Afghan refugees in Pakistan? Because after reporting thousands of our illegal Afghan refugees, now Pakistani Government started deporting those who have their documents – include journalists, students, and even those who were born in Pakistan. What are your comments on this treatment of Afghan refugees?MR MILLER: So we have been in close – I’ve spoken to this before – we’ve been in close and constant communication with the Government of Pakistan on the safety of individuals in U.S. resettlement and immigration pathways. We will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to address any issues or concerns. It is in both our countries’ interests to ensure the safe and efficient resettlement of those individuals. And we will continue to encourage Afghanistan’s neighbors, including Pakistan, to respect the non-return advisory, given the dire situation in Afghanistan, and to coordinate with international humanitarian organizations to provide humanitarian assistance, and to support the implementation of critical protection screening mechanisms.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Hudson, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, one of the NSM criteria is being an impediment to humanitarian aid. Is one of the reasons of the holdup of the assessment because of the disruptions at Kerem Shalom and Rafah, which are clearly impediments to humanitarian aid getting in?MR MILLER: The delay is not related to anything that has happened this week. The delay is just related to the fact that we are trying to put the finishing touches and finalize this report. That said – I think it was before you were in the room – I did speak to the delays in delivery of assistance through Kerem Shalom and Rafah and made clear that we find those delays unacceptable. And one of the things the Secretary said when he was in the region last week is after seeing an increase in humanitarian assistance, that increase needed to be sustained. Obviously, this week it’s not been sustained, so we need to see it return back to that level. And that’s what we’re pressing the Government of Israel to allow to happen.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Go ahead, and then we’ll do maybe one or two more, and go up to Shannon next after – go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: (Inaudible) two quick questions. The first one is: Is there something that the State Department would like to see in Europe towards the war in Gaza that the State Department would appreciate Europe to do? Looking at country like Italy, they are very close in the Mediterranean to those countries.And the second one: I know the State Department already had a statement yesterday. If you can say something about what happened to the Italian student in Miami that was arrested and got tied from the police (inaudible).MR MILLER: So I don’t have any comment on the second one. We can take that back and coordinate with Consular Affairs to get you a specific response to it.When it comes to the situation in Gaza, we have been in close coordination with our European partners on really two fronts: one in helping increase the delivery of humanitarian assistance; there are a number of European countries who have provided humanitarian assistance that has been critical for the needs of the Palestinian people. We appreciate the work that they have done and have stayed in close coordination with them about that.And second is in looking at all the post-conflict issues, the Secretary has worked with a number of issues, including with the Italian foreign minister. We talked about this both at the G7 and in a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Tajani – on the margins of the G7 about the role that European countries can play in the end of this conflict and providing a path forward for the Palestinian people, and we’ll continue to work with them on that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shannon, go next, and then &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. This is somewhat related to Alex’s question earlier, but do you have any specific updates on Gordon Black, the U.S. staff sergeant who has been detained in Russia since earlier this month?MR MILLER: I don’t.QUESTION: Have you been able to reach consular access?MR MILLER: We have not yet received consular access. We continue to push for that. And because of privacy issues, which I know you’re well aware of, I – there’s nothing more I can really say.Ryan.QUESTION: You don’t see me. You don’t – you don’t want to see me.QUESTION: Hi. I want to ask you about &#8212;MR MILLER: So I will just say as a general rule &#8212;QUESTION: If you would treat me with respect (inaudible) &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just going to say a general rule &#8212;QUESTION: So if you don’t treat me with respect &#8212;MR MILLER: When people – when people interrupt &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; then (inaudible) treat you with respect. (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: When people interrupt their colleagues, I don’t call on them. Go ahead, Ryan.QUESTION: Learn to respect journalists and you’ll be respected.QUESTION: Hi.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Ryan.QUESTION: Okay, you &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: All right – all right, you got your say. You got your say. You got your say.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: I want to ask you about Tally Gotliv, Likud official, a member of the Knesset. She said this – she said: The U.S. is threatening not to give us precise missiles. Oh, yeah? Well, I’ve got news for the U.S.. We have imprecise missiles. We’ll use it. We’ll just collapse ten buildings, ten buildings. That’s what we’ll do.So she’s threatening that if Israel is held accountable for war crimes, they’ll respond by committing greater war crimes. What kind of effect does that have on U.S. decision-making?MR MILLER: I would say those comments are absolutely deplorable and senior members of the Israeli Government should refrain from making them. We will continue to make our policy assessments based on what’s in the best interest of the American people, what is in the best interests of the region.Go &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.MR MILLER: Go ahead, then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap up.QUESTION: Hey, Shaun, can I ask, please?QUESTION: Go – go ahead. Go ahead.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Will the U.S. pause all military shipments to Israel, or are the bombs and munitions the only ones on hold?MR MILLER: As I said, there is one specific shipment that we have put on hold, pending a review, and others that we’re reviewing. I don’t have further – any further announcements to make. But as I made clear, we are committed to the long-term security of Israel. We are committed to the long-term defense of Israel. We are committed to spending every dime that was in the recently passed supplemental by Congress, and that includes – we have already approved the latest tranche of foreign military financing, which is $827 million worth of weapons and equipment, so I don’t think people should mistake or view that we have taken with respect to some short-term assistance with our long-term commitment to Israel’s security.QUESTION: And then lastly, is the administration concerned that Republicans in the Senate could place holds on nominees, like for State, until the hold is – of munitions and bombs for Israel is lifted? The GOP has done this practice in trying to get the administration to reverse certain policies.MR MILLER: Yeah, we have seen members of Congress take – put holds on our nominees for a number of reasons unrelated to those nominees’ specific qualifications or the jobs to which – for which they have been nominated. And I will say all that does is weaken American’s national security, because we need those officials in their jobs out fighting for America every day. And when they’re held up and they can’t get put in those jobs, it just makes it more difficult for – do everything we can to improve the national security of the United States.QUESTION: But I’m asking, like, in the specific case of the hold up?MR MILLER: I haven’t seen a specific hold in this case, so there’s nothing for me to really respond to.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shaun, go ahead, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, just back on this, I know you don’t speak for Langley, but I thought would just ask if you did have anything to say about Director Burns’s meeting with Netanyahu or more broadly on the hostage – the hostage talks?MR MILLER: I don’t have any readout of specific meetings. I will defer to other agencies that are responsible for those meetings to speak to them. It does remain our assessment that a deal is possible, that a deal is within reach. There is clearly space to reach an agreement, and we are going to push to try to get one over the line.With that, we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 7, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; May 7, 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; May 7, 2024																																																					May 7, 2024																																																								1:21 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon. Sorry to be late. Again, I don’t have anything to start with so Matt &#8212;QUESTION: Really? Nothing again?MR MILLER: &#8212; if you have – if you have a curveball for me two days in a row?QUESTION: A curveball. Okay, let me see.MR MILLER: I should not – I should not have walked into that. That’s tempting &#8212;QUESTION: You have &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s tempting – that is tempting fate. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Let’s go with – let’s go with New Caledonia.MR MILLER: I’m going to take the question. (Laughter.)QUESTION: All right. So seriously, can we – on Rafah and the situation there – and I recognize that your colleague at the White House just went over this for about an hour recently, so I’m not sure you’re going to have anything different to say. But since he spoke, has there been any change in the administration’s understanding of what the Israelis are doing there?MR MILLER: No, so a couple of things that we have seen over the past 24 hours. So obviously, there was the operation that they launched overnight last night to take control of Rafah gate. They have described that as a limited operation. It appears to be – at least that piece – a limited operation at this time. They have also, as we discussed yesterday, ordered the evacuation of some 100,000 people in neighborhoods in Rafah.This military operation that they launched last night was targeted just to Rafah gate. It wasn’t an operation in these civilian areas that they had ordered to be evacuated. So we will continue to make clear that we oppose a major military operation in Rafah, make that clear to them privately as well as publicly.QUESTION: So, but your sense of this is that this is not yet – the Israelis have not yet – at least not yet &#8212;MR MILLER: Not yet.QUESTION: &#8212; overstepped &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. Not &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; what you have &#8212;MR MILLER: So – sorry.QUESTION: &#8212; warned them against doing.MR MILLER: This appears to be a limited operation. But of course, it – much of that depends on what comes next. They have said I think quite clearly, it’s no secret that they want to conduct a major military operation there. We have made clearly – made clear that we oppose such an operation. And separately, but of course it’s related, we are trying to achieve an agreement that would bring an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages.QUESTION: And on that, how is that going?MR MILLER: Negotiations are ongoing in Cairo today. We continue to believe that there is space to reach a deal, and we are trying incredibly hard to push one over the line.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. On Rafah, are the actions that Israel is taking so far reflective of the advice that U.S. officials have been giving regarding targeted precise strikes in Rafah, or are the Israelis’ actions beyond that sort of thing?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the – either the – I’m not going to two thing. Number one, I’m not going to get into the private advice that we have given them. Two, I’m not going to offer an assessment about whether that it aligns wholly with the advice that we have given, because to do that I’d kind of have to lay out what it is that we have told them.I will say that this does appear to be a limited operation so far. But as I made clear, it does to a great extent depend on what comes next. And what we have seen so far is the ordering – is not just this limited operation, but the ordering of the evacuation of 100,000 people. And we have made clear that we don’t think the kind of military operation that would follow such an evacuation is one that we can support because of the dramatic impact it would have on the civilian population there and the ability to get humanitarian assistance in and delivered to those people.QUESTION: You and other American officials have reminded us consistently that the U.S. has been clear about what it thinks about a major Rafah offensive. Have you been coordinating with allies and partners on the potential consequences should Israel launch such an offensive?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that. We have – largely because I’m not going to speak to what decisions that we may make if Israel does launch such an operation. We have made clear that they have to make their decisions about policy, and we will make our decisions about our policy. Obviously, we discuss that with our allies and partners around the world. The Secretary – every time he meets with one of our allies, one of the first things on the table, oftentimes even before whatever bilateral issue we have to discuss, they want to talk about what is going on in the Middle East and what is going on with respect to the war in Gaza. So we do talk about this sometimes in quite detail – in quite a bit of detail, but I’m not going to talk about – I’m not going to read that out publicly.QUESTION: Okay. I have two more on the region. One is, on the hostage talks, there’s been some reporting that the U.S. may be making promises about the length and the permanence of the cessation of hostilities, promises that Israel may not be willing to keep. So can you clarify whether the U.S. and Israel are actually aligned on that front or whether the U.S. is making some unilateral promises?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to talk about the details of these negotiations, and I hope you’ll understand why. It’s something we have tried to do since the beginning is not to talk in too much detail about these negotiations because of how sensitive are, and they maybe have never been more sensitive than they are at this moment where we think a deal is possible, and we are trying to push one over – over the line.I will say that we have closely coordinated with the Government of Israel on this matter. We have been in touch with them on a daily, oftentimes an hourly basis, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Okay. One more. Without getting into what the conclusion is, tomorrow is the deadline for the national security memorandum that this building needs to deliver to Congress. Again, I don’t expect you to tell us what, if any, conclusion has been made, but has a conclusion been made as to whether Israel has violated U.S. or international law?MR MILLER: I’m not going to answer that question directly because the report is not yet finished. We are working incredibly hard to get that report finished, get that report finalized, and get it – to get it delivered to Congress as soon as possible.QUESTION: Do you expect it to be delivered tomorrow?MR MILLER: We are trying very hard to meet that deadline. It is, I will just note, a self-imposed deadline. It’s not one that is in statute, but we are trying very hard to get the report done. It is a complicated report. This is the first time the department has ever written something like this, first time we’ve ever gone through and made these kind of assessments about the two questions that are at issue in the report. So there is a lot of work that has to be done; that work is ongoing. We know we’re up against a deadline. We’re trying to get it – we’re trying to meet it. It’s possible it slips just a little bit, but we are still at this point trying to get it done by tomorrow.QUESTION: Sorry. This is the first time you guys have ever written a report about whether &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; whether your military sales to a foreign country are being used &#8212;MR MILLER: It is the &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; are being used in violation or not in violation of &#8212;MR MILLER: It is the first time we have had to write this kind of report that’s called for in the NSM. There may be other ones. Let me &#8212;QUESTION: But you know successive you and your predecessor and then previous administrations have always talked about how you’re always looking into whether or not the weapons that you provide to &#8212;MR MILLER: That &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; to countries are used in compliance with them. This is now all of a sudden it’s the first time?MR MILLER: That is – no, those are different questions, Matt. We are always looking into how things are used, but those are ongoing assessments. And right now, these are ongoing assessments. And that’s what makes the process a little difficult. We have ongoing assessments that are being made, and in the middle of that process we are, because we decided it was a good idea to do on our own volition, stopping in the middle of that and making assessments about or answering questions about Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law as well as the delivery of humanitarian assistance.And I should add it’s not just Israel. I always make this point. There are other countries as well that this applies to. It is the first time State has ever written a report of this nature, especially in the middle of a conflict, that goes to Congress, and so we want to make sure we have it right.QUESTION: All right. And then just one other thing that I was confused on is that you seem to be bothered by the idea that the Israelis have told 100,000 people to evacuate from part of Rafah. And yet it was my understanding that over the course of the last month or so you guys have been telling the Israelis that they – you would oppose one, you would oppose a major operation there, unless they had a plan to get civilians out. Are you suggesting that moving – or telling 100,000 people to get out of the way is a bad thing &#8212;MR MILLER: No &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; if they’re going to do – if they’re going to do an operation?MR MILLER: It is not &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, it seems to me that that is a plan.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Whether or not it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; worthy or not, but it is a plan &#8212;MR MILLER: It is not in theory a bad &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; to get people out of harm’s way.MR MILLER: It is not in theory a bad thing to do. Of course, if you’re going to conduct a military operation you want to see people evacuated. But those people need to have somewhere to go, and the place that they go to needs to have sufficient food, sufficient water, sufficient housing, sufficient sanitation, and we have not yet seen a plan that would deliver that.And I will add there is also the question that if you evacuate 100,000 people and launch military operations, will it be only 100,000 people that move, or will it be more, other people that see the conflict and flee in the face of it? Our assessment is it’s probably a lot more than 100,000 that would move, and so you have to have plans not just for 100,000 people but hundreds and hundreds of thousands of additional people to take care of their needs. And that’s not what we have seen.QUESTION: Can I?MR MILLER: So Simon, go ahead.QUESTION: Yes, I’m wondering – you’ve been warning, obviously, for – that this operation shouldn’t go ahead without – without that plan. You seem to be holding back from saying that it has gone ahead. But in terms of what you’ve been warning about – the humanitarian impacts – it seems there is already an impact in terms of another border crossing is closed and at the moment we understand both border crossings are closed. So do Israel’s actions over the last 24 hours set back the work that you’ve been pushing them to do on the humanitarian situation given that there’s near-famine conditions in Gaza.MR MILLER: Certainly, the closing of Kerem Shalom and the closing of Rafah set back the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Now, to some extent, the full answer to that question depends on what happens next and whether they’re quickly reopened. And Israel has committed to reopen Kerem Shalom tomorrow – we’re working to make sure that that actually happens – so humanitarian assistance can continue to come through.And I should add that Kerem Shalom didn’t close just because of an action by Israel; it closed because it was bombed by Hamas. So we want to see it reopened as soon as possible. They’ve said they’ll do it tomorrow. Same thing with Rafah. They said that Rafah will reopen for the delivery of fuel, which is incredibly important to desalinization of water, it’s incredibly important to fueling the trucks that deliver humanitarian assistance once it’s inside Gaza, and it’s incredibly important for running bakeries that deliver bread for the population there that needs it so much. But we want to see it fully reopened; and so when I say it depends on what happens next, if Kerem Shalom opens and Rafah reopens, those will be important steps because we don’t want to see humanitarian assistance limited or impeded in any way.QUESTION: Have they told you that now they’ve got control of Rafah this is actually going to be better in terms of getting humanitarian aid? Is that what you – you sort of seem to be suggesting &#8212;MR MILLER: No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. I don’t want to get into any private conversations. They’ve said it would reopen for fuel. We want to see it reopened for everything because it is &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: Rafah is a crossing that – should note that the amount of humanitarian assistance that has gone in through Rafah has gone down over time as assistance has shifted more to Kerem Shalom, but that assistance is still critical. We’re not in a position where we can afford to see any delivery mechanism shut down, even if it’s one of the relatively small ones. And I only say relatively small in relation to the amount coming in through Kerem Shalom.But we also want to see it opened for fuel. It is the entry point for humanitarian workers that come in. It is the exit point for people that come out of Rafah. So it’s important that gate be open not just for the delivery of humanitarian assistance but so that humanitarian workers can come in and out of Gaza to do the important work that they do every day.QUESTION: And just finally, we’re already seeing I think there’s some videos of tanks rolling over civilian infrastructure as they’ve entered into – into the area around the border crossing. There’s a lot – there are reports of civilian loss of life. There’s been airstrikes in Rafah. I guess just to try and get clarity on it, does the U.S. oppose what Israel has done so far, or are – you’re just saying we’ll have to wait and see?MR MILLER: So we clearly oppose the destruction of any civilian infrastructure if it does not constitute a legitimate military target. Now, when you get to – you’re looking at any one – any one video, we’d have to be able to assess whether that’s a legitimate military target, are Hamas fighters in there – the issues that we have gone through a number of times. But certainly we don’t want to see civilian infrastructure damaged, destroyed in any way.But that said, to the larger question, it is not our assessment that a military – a major military operation has begun at this point, but that could obviously change at any moment. And we will continue to make clear that we don’t – it’s not one that we can support.QUESTION: There’s one video in question has a – an Israeli tank rolling over an “I love Gaza” sign. Doesn’t – does that seem like something that could be a legitimate military target?MR MILLER: That does not seem like it would serve any legitimate military purpose, no.QUESTION: Well, do you consider an “I love Gaza” sign to be critical infrastructure?MR MILLER: No. So I’ve seen the video, but I don’t know where the tank was going or – but – just on the face of it, no, that would not seem to be so.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, on the NSM, is that taking into account anything that’s happening in Rafah over these past few days?MR MILLER: So it is a looking-backwards report. I’m not going to get into it. You’ll have to wait and see when we make it public.QUESTION: Yes or no, though? Can you say if that’s part of why you might not meet the deadline?MR MILLER: Again, when it comes to any of the content of the report, I think you’re just going to have to wait and see – something that we’re still working on.QUESTION: And the Jordanians say that another one of their aid convoys was attacked by Israeli extremists and the way to Erez. Do you have any comment on this? Has there been any discussion with the Israeli Government since this latest incident, which is I think the second one in recent days?MR MILLER: It is something that we have raised with the Israeli Government. We have made it clear to them that they need to take action to prevent these attacks and they need to take action to hold people accountable. This is something that happened for the first time – the first time with this particular route – last week when we were in Israel, and the Secretary raised it directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And in that case, they made three arrests of people responsible. That is obviously the appropriate thing to do. They need to make arrests in this case, hold people accountable, and send a strong public message as a deterrent that they will not tolerate these attacks on convoys that are just trying to deliver humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians that need it.QUESTION: There’s also – our team has reported that nine children have been killed in Rafah since the start of the Israeli “limited operation,” as you described it. Do you have any comment on this?MR MILLER: Obviously every death of any civilian, but especially children, is a tragedy, whether they’re in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza. And we have made that clear since the outset of this operation.QUESTION: Can I follow up on (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just to clarify on NSM20 &#8212;MR MILLER: I heard you sort of jumping in back there several times. I always get to you, Said.QUESTION: I know you – I know you will. I’m just getting some exercise. (Laughter.) So &#8212;MR MILLER: I think you can do – I think we can all do better than that.QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.MR MILLER: Than counting what we do in here as exercise. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah, that’ s about the extent of it. Anyway, the NSM20 – now, it’s been 90 – it’s been three months. How do you think – how long will it be before it is released?MR MILLER: We are – we &#8212;QUESTION: Do you have any expectations like next week or the week after?MR MILLER: So we are working incredibly hard to get it done. We want to get it done tomorrow. It’s possible it slips just a very short period of time, but as I said, our goal is still to try to get it done tomorrow.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: If we don’t, I’ll have an update for you, but we want to get done as soon as possible.QUESTION: So it could come out tomorrow?MR MILLER: It – absolutely.QUESTION: Okay. Now, a couple of things on the – on Rafah. You said that your understanding is that this is a very limited operation. So the Israelis can conceivably do a number of limited operations. In other words, collectively it will be a big operation, but they can hit – strike this area of Rafah and that area of Rafah and so on. Would that always be – would that also be okay with you?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate about some hypothetical scenario that may happen in the future. But obviously &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; there is a point where a series of limited operations are one large one. That is – that just as a theoretical point is obviously true. But in terms of what might happen, I’m just not going to speculate on that or comment on such a hypothetical.QUESTION: All right. On the crossing – on the crossing, I mean, it – you said that the crossing of Karem Abu Salem, or Kerem Shalom, was closed because of the strike, but in fact that – what was struck was a military base or a military encampment for the Israelis, and not really the crossing itself. I’m just saying logistics &#8212;MR MILLER: So, I mean, you could make that argument. It was that strike at Kerem Shalom that precipitated its closure. And I would say yes, it appears that the strike was aimed at IDF forces there. It could have hit the humanitarian workers; could have hit everyone coming through. It’s that strike that precipitated its closure. But that said, our – you should be very clear about what our position is. We want to see it open. We want to see it open as soon as possible. They’ve said that they’ll open it tomorrow. We’ll – we are going to work to see that that happens.QUESTION: Isn’t it a bit cynical of the Israelis to do this on the day after Cindy McCain came out and said there is a full-blown famine in Gaza? They closed Rafah; they closed Karem Abu Salem. They closed all these things.MR MILLER: I’m &#8212;QUESTION: Is that – doesn’t that bother you that right after the head of the World Food Program comes out and says there’s a full-blown famine in Gaza, they went and closed that?MR MILLER: So I don’t think you have to draw a connection between those comments and the closing of those two gates. It doesn’t matter. We want to see the gates open because we know the humanitarian assistance – or I’m sorry, the humanitarian situation is dire in Gaza. We know that people need food and need water and need medical supplies, and that’s why we want to see those crossings open. It’s also why we worked to get Erez crossing open. It’s why we’re working on a maritime option. It’s why we have continued to work hard, from the President on down, to get humanitarian assistance delivered into Gaza.QUESTION: One last question on the settlements. Israeli settlers seem to use – they shepherd their sheep and so on to – using their guns and so on – to basically take over, to seize, West Bank land. Are you aware of this report?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t know – I’m not aware of this specific report, but obviously that has been something that has been well reported and well documented over the past several months, as well as preceding that time.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: And I should add – I thought there was going to be a follow-up question. Since not, I’ll just go ahead. We have made clear that the Israeli Government needs to do more to crack down on settler violence. They need to do more to police settler violence; they need to do more to hold extremist settlers accountable for their violent actions. And we have also made clear – and you’ve seen us roll out sanctions to this effect – that when we don’t see sufficient action, we are ready and willing to take action ourselves, and we will continue to do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. The UN Secretary-General Mr. António Guterres said that the closing of Rafah crossing is adversely going to affect the humanitarian aid that’s getting into Gaza to a situation that’s already catastrophic. Do you believe that’s a violation of international law?MR MILLER: So to answer that question, you have to look at all the other deliveries of humanitarian assistance. I can’t offer you a legal definition from here because you have to weigh it against other factors, including whether sufficient humanitarian assistance is coming in through other crossings. If that’s – you could theoretically come up with a situation where all the aid that’s going in through one crossing diverts to another.That said, that’s not a situation that we want to see, because there is not enough humanitarian assistance going in right now. We have seen it increase over the past four, five weeks, since the President had that phone call on April 4th with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But we are not yet at the point where we can afford to shut down Rafah or any other one crossing. We need to see humanitarian assistance come in. And so that’s why we’ll work to continue to see it reopen.Now that said, one of the things that Israel said is very much accurate, which is Hamas did control the Gaza side of Rafah crossing and Hamas was continuing to collect revenue from that crossing being open. So it is a legitimate goal to try and deprive Hamas from revenue, money that they could use to continue to finance their terrorist activities. That said, we want to see the crossing open, and we’re going to work to try to get it back open.QUESTION: Okay, so you’re justifying basically that the Israelis closing it because they have many reasons, like &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not – that’s not what I said – it’s not – not at all – just not at all a take that that’s what I said &#8212;QUESTION: You were just saying that they – collecting revenue &#8212;MR MILLER: No – you could find another way to open that crossing, hopefully, without Hamas being the one that is manning the Gaza side of it and collecting revenue as goods flow through Rafah, collecting revenue – some of it licit, some of it probably illicit, when you think of bribes and other things that happen with the crossing of traffic through that crossing. So I will say, yes, it is a legitimate goal to try to deprive Hamas of that revenue, but we need to find a way of doing that that keeps Rafah open.QUESTION: I see. Let me just express concern about this 100,000 civilians who’ve been evacuated, and you said there is no place for them to go. In our reporting from Gaza – basically that there is no safe place for people to go. And as you know, many people have been walking 10 kilometers to go somewhere else. Isn’t this already defying what you’ve been calling the Israelis not to do? Whether evacuating a million and a half or 100,000, the evacuation has to be with a viable plan, as you said. But there is no viable plan, so the Israelis already defying you. Any consequences for that?MR MILLER: So we have made clear we don’t want to see a major military operation. This does look like the prelude of a major military operation, we have not yet seen that operation commence, and in terms of any policy response, we’ll wait to see what happens next before we make those determinations.QUESTION: Okay. One final question. Don’t know if I got a satisfactory answer, but anyway, one final question about these mass graves. Almost 400 people have been buried in mass graves. Some of them, according to the latest UN report – not eyewitnesses on the ground – the UN report or Palestinian media – that they’ve been buried alive, and some were children and some were women.I know you’ve been saying that you’re a bit slow in writing reports and delivering them on time, but while we’ve been calling about this investigation, what’s holding this investigation? Because there’s serious concern here about 400 people are being rounded and buried, and some have been buried alive.MR MILLER: So we have made clear that Israel needs to continue to be transparent about this issue. Israel has said that, with respect to this issue of mass graves, there were places where they were operated where there were mass graves, where Palestinians have buried their dead in – all together, probably because of the extraordinary circumstances in which they have been forced to live. And Israel has come in and exhumed some bodies to try to identify whether there were hostages here. They have gotten intelligence that there were hostages contained in those mass graves, and so they’ve exhumed them to check that and then rebury them after the fact.We believe they ought to continue to be transparent about what exactly took place, and that’ll continue to be our position.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, can I clarify just one thing?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Haaretz just reported that the crossing at Rafah would be managed by an American company. Are you aware of this kind of suggestion?MR MILLER: I’m not aware of that at all, no.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: That was my question.QUESTION: Ah, sorry about that.MR MILLER: That’s two days in a row I came to you and you had – (laughter) – somebody else had asked your question.QUESTION: I came to sit next to him and he steal my turn. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Right. (Laughter.)QUESTION: On this?MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel. Go ahead.QUESTION: (Laughter.)QUESTION: News reports said today that the administration is holding up munition shipments to send a political message to Israel. Is that true, and what is the message?MR MILLER: Look, our support for Israel’s right to defend itself, our support for Israel’s right to ensure that October 7th never happens again, remains strong. And with respect to any individual shipments, I’m just not going to speak to them from here.QUESTION: And second, did the U.S. give any guarantees to Hamas on ending the war in Gaza?MR MILLER: So I am not going to speak to what are very sensitive, delicate, ongoing negotiations. And you should not read into my kind of blanket refusal to do that anything as regards to your question; it’s just a rule that, given the nature of the negotiations right now, I don’t think it would be helpful, I don’t think it would be productive to get into it. There have been, obviously, a lot of reports over what has been in various proposals over the past 24 hours. Some of those reports have been more accurate than others; some of it – them have been completely off-base. I don’t think it serves our purpose, given the status of negotiations, to kind of parse through those here and talk about them.QUESTION: And what about this report, on sending the guarantees? Is it accurate, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I think I just answered the question; I don’t have anything further to add.QUESTION: On the – on the arms shipments – Michel’s first question.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: So your position is that you don’t comment about individual shipments?MR MILLER: I’m not going to – not in this case, no.QUESTION: Because you do in pretty much every other case.MR MILLER: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: In fact, I’ve looked – looked back over the last three weeks. I got one to Argentina, one to Iraq, one to the Netherlands, one to Poland, one to Saudi Arabia. You don’t have any problem talking about those.MR MILLER: It – it always depends on the situation, but we have made clear in this &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: It often does. There are times that we have congressionally mandated rules about the things we need to disclose; there are times that we disclose arm shipments because we want to rally our &#8212;QUESTION: So you don’t &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on – we want to rally our allies and partners to do the same, and there are times that we keep those shipments – some of those shipments private. There’s – it’s also true – as you know; you know this more than me – that there are a variety of different arms sales programs. There are different disclosure mechanisms for each of those.QUESTION: I am well aware &#8212;MR MILLER: I’ve – I – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; and I know where you’re coming from on this. I just think that it just is – it doesn’t make any sense. Because you guys – basically you just have to come out and say that you are not consistent about this, and that when it suits you to announce an arms sale or an arms shipment, you’ll do it; and when you don’t think that it suits you, then you don’t. And that’s inconsistency at its &#8212;MR MILLER: There &#8212;QUESTION: That is the definition of being inconsistent.MR MILLER: There are different situations all around the world, and of course we look at them differently.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Shifting to &#8212;MR MILLER: Are you –QUESTION: I want to stay in the region.MR MILLER: Yeah, if you stay in the region, I’ll – I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just one quick one. Is there any update on whether the U.S. has come to a new determination on possible Leahy Law violations &#8212;MR MILLER: No, it’s &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; by Israel in the case of that one IDF unit?MR MILLER: Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt. No, we continue to look through new – look through and review new information that Israel has provided to us and are working on what that assessment will be.QUESTION: And you have no expectation for how long that process could take?MR MILLER: I don’t. We’re trying to get it finished as soon as possible, but it’s important that we get it right as well.QUESTION: Yeah, I want to stay in the region, but farther east. On Syria. The U.S. repatriated several dozen, I believe – around 20, two dozen Westerners from the camps in al-Hol. There were apparently 11 Americans that were repatriated. Can you give us any details on how that operation played out? And could you tell us, if you have that number or a ballpark number, of how many Americans we’re talking about left in these camps?MR MILLER: So in terms of the operation that just happened overnight, there were 11 Americans, and then one family member who is not a U.S. citizen but a family member of a U.S. citizen, part of this 11 who were repatriated and brought to the United States. It’s something that we have been working on with our international partners, as well as humanitarian partners, because we believe that repatriation is the only durable, long-term solution to the humanitarian and security situation in northeast Syria. And just as we have done in this instance, we urge all countries of origin to repatriate, rehabilitate, reintegrate, and where appropriate, prosecute their nationals upon return to – from Syria.And then with respect to the number of Americans that remain, we’re aware of approximately 25 U.S. citizens who may be located in displaced persons camps and detention facilities in northeast Syria – around 25.QUESTION: Okay. Beyond the 11 that came &#8212;MR MILLER: Yes, beyond.QUESTION: Yep, okay.QUESTION: Follow-up.QUESTION: Follow-up – a follow-up on that.MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Just quick follow – so this was not the product of direct talks with Syrians, right?MR MILLER: No, it was not.QUESTION: If that’s the case, did you hear anything about the case of Austin Tice during this process?MR MILLER: So the – with respect to Austin Tice, we continue to call on the Syrian regime to ensure Austin Tice and every U.S. national held in Syria are able to return home. We continue to work every available path to ensure his return home. We’ve engaged extensively with regard to this case, trying to bring him home, and we’re not going to give up until we do.QUESTION: You might as well take this one for me. As you know, Austin’s mother was in town last week. She gave an interview and she said that she’s seeking an access to State Department report from 2020 fall about the trip of – of Trump administration officials to Syria. The report was not shared with the family, which contains significant details about how the Syrians are trying to provide proof of life. Are you willing to come up with the report?MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to that specific report. We have obviously been engaged with Austin Tice’s family, including his mother. I will just say we – as a parent, I think every parent in this room can’t – cannot imagine what it is she must be going through. And so people here from the department engage with her on a regular basis to talk about this case and update her on the work that we are doing to try to bring him home.QUESTION: Thank you. This might also be a good segue to details about the latest information about the U.S. soldier who was detained in Russia. What do you know? Anything new? And are you guys seeking access to him?MR MILLER: So there is – this is one where it’s often the case there’s not much I can say. You’re aware of the privacy rules and our inability to say very much about these cases when we don’t have a privacy waiver. I can confirm that a U.S. citizen has been detained in Russia. Whenever a U.S. citizen is detained abroad, consular officers seek to aid him with all appropriate assistance, and we are doing so in this case. I’m not able to say more, unfortunately. The Pentagon is able to say some more, and I think they’ve done so publicly, and would refer you to them for that.But I just have to say the same thing I always do when asked about a U.S. citizen who has traveled to Russia, which is our Travel Advisory is it a Level 4 for a reason. U.S. citizens should not travel to Russia for any reason. It’s dangerous. You risk being detained; you risk other threats to your health and well-being. And so for any American citizen anywhere in the world, whether they are here in the United States or whether they’re in some other country, if you are considering going to Russia, don’t do it. Just could not be less complicated.QUESTION: Thank you. One last one from me. We have heard a litany of statements coming from Russia about British potential participation in Ukraine war. And they say that they’re going to target British weapons, whether inside or outside of Ukraine. This begs the question – goes back to a question I’ve discussed with you, with Vedant, with Ned a – more than a year and a half. Why is it that Ukraine doesn’t have a right to target Iranian, North Korean targets, whether it’s inside or outside of the region?MR MILLER: You’re proposing that they – Ukraine should widen the conflict beyond even Russia &#8212;QUESTION: If you apply – if you apply &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; to other countries, and bring other countries directly &#8212;QUESTION: If you apply same standards &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on – you’re – bring other countries directly into the conflict? I would just say there – that is a rare question that answers itself. I don’t think that would be in anyone’s interest.Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir? Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: No, no, go – in front of you, sorry.QUESTION: Me?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks so much, Matt. Just a quick follow-up on Rafah offensive. You said it is limited, not a major operation. But do you think it’s a constructive approach to go into Rafah right after Hamas accepted a ceasefire and at a time – and many Palestinians were on the streets celebrating the possibility of a ceasefire?MR MILLER: So let me just make one thing clear, which is Hamas did not accept the – a ceasefire proposal. Hamas responded and, in their response, made several suggestions. It’s not the same as accepting. The statement that was issued yesterday that was widely reported – and I’ll blame the reportings – because what the statement said is not an accurate reflection of what happened. They responded, as people do in a negotiation process, but it was not an acceptance.Now, that said, we are trying very hard to get a ceasefire agreement over the line, as I said a moment ago. And I will just say, separate and apart from an operation in Rafah, the scenes that we saw in Gaza, when you see people coming out in the streets and celebrating what they thought was a ceasefire, number one, tells you just what they’ve lived through. I mean, you know that obviously, but you really see just the joy on people’s face – what they’ve lived through and the emotion in thinking that they might have some hope that this conflict will come to an end. But also, I can say for everyone here, just confirms why we think it’s so important to get this ceasefire agreement over the line and why we are going to continue to push for it.QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. You – I think you didn’t comment on whether or not you find Israel’s approach constructive.MR MILLER: So I mean, I spoke to this earlier in the process, which is we don’t want to see a major military operation. They have said this is a limited operation. There are some legitimate purposes, like I said, in keeping Hamas from depriving revenue from Rafah gate, but at the same time we don’t want to see Rafah gate shut, so we want to see it reopened. So I’m not going to comment. I’m not going to pass judgment one way or the other, whether it’s constructive or not. What is important from our perspective is that we not see a major military operation go forward, and we’ve made that, I think, pretty clear.QUESTION: But you said &#8212;QUESTION: Can I just clarify? It sounds like this is the case. The Secretary last week, multiple times, referenced this generous and flexible offer that Israel had put forward, and you’re saying this is not what he was referring to that Hamas put forward or accepted yesterday?MR MILLER: There was an offer – he was referring to offer that was put forward some 10, 11 days ago, April 26th, I believe it was. That’s the offer that was on the table. Hamas seemed to make clear that they – in their public statements that they accepted that offer yesterday. That is not what they did. They responded with amendments – call it a counterproposal if you want – and we’re working through the details of that now.QUESTION: And can you give us any updates on the military pier that’s being constructed in Gaza? Do you expect that the Rafah operation is going to delay its construction or (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So I would really refer you to the Pentagon for details on that just because they are the ones that are actually doing the construction and doing the operation. They’ll have the latest details on it. I would certainly hope that a Rafah operation would not delay it. It’s in a different part of Gaza from where they would be operating. If anything, it just shows what why it’s so important to get that pier finished.But that said, no one should think that the pier – I mean, you could see – no one should think that the completion of this pier and the opening of that route is in any way a replacement for Kerem Shalom and Rafah being open. Getting that pier finished is not sufficient means to close other gates. It’s not sufficient reason to operate in the south and disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, because even when that pier is open, the amount of aid it can deliver a day – somewhere around 100 trucks – in no way can replace what needs to come into Gaza through these other gates.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;QUESTION: I think they already said it’s opening tomorrow.MR MILLER: Very good. Someone that’s been watching the Pentagon briefings. (Laughter.) I wish I had – I wish – no offense. I wish I had time to watch their briefings as well as do my own. I just don’t.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Regarding the U.S. and South Korea’s defense cost sharing, it has been reported that if former President Trump is re-elected, South Korea’s defense cost sharing would increase significantly. Recently there was a discuss on the defense cost sharing between South Korea and the United States in Hawaii, and you know that. Would defense cost sharing be increased under the Biden administrations? If so, what percent will it increase?MR MILLER: I just don’t have that – those numbers at my fingertips. Sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: So you can’t – but you don’t have anything for the – because you have a &#8212;MR MILLER: I mean, in terms of the percentage, I just – it’s not something that I &#8212;QUESTION: But someone already have &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m happy – I’m happy to take – I’m happy to take it back and try to get you an answer.QUESTION: All right, thank you. And have another one. And recently a UN resolution to prevent nuclear weapons in space were rejected by Russia’s veto. What do you think about the UN’s permanent members imposing penalties to veto abuse?MR MILLER: So as we said at the time, we are incredibly disappointed that Russia vetoed what should have been a quite uncontroversial resolution regarding the obligations of state parties under the Outer Space Treaty. It should be clear, I think, that no country should have reservations about prohibiting putting a nuclear weapon into orbit. And in terms of potential actions, I don’t have anything to preview from here.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. Politico just reported that the – and I’m quoting from the report – “administration is holding up shipments of two types of Boeing-made precision bombs to send a political message to Israel,” end quote. Is this true?MR MILLER: I think Michel asked me that exact question five, ten minutes ago, and I answered it.QUESTION: Okay, sorry. Now that Israel has invaded Rafah, is the department considering any actions such as sanctions or withholding aid from Israel?MR MILLER: I also answered that question earlier when I said we are not going to preview policy options at this time.QUESTION: And finally, six lawmakers from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China have sent a letter to the State Department asking for State to use its existing rewards program to seek firsthand information on forced organ harvesting in communist China and disrupt the illicit trade. The State Department has expressed concerns about this issue before publicly and did in the Human Rights Reports. Do you have any response to the letter and will State consider using the rewards program to stop forced organ harvesting?MR MILLER: We, I’m sure, have received that letter and will respond in due course to the members themselves.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Two questions – comment – questions. One, as far as conflict in the Middle East or Gaza or Hamas and Israel is concerned, first, on October 7th Hamas attacked the innocent people in Israel. Now innocent people are being killed or they are dying in Gaza because of basics they are not getting. My question is that Hamas may be a common problem for the common people in Gaza, and how can you describe for the common people we are negotiating with Hamas? Is Hamas a terrorist organization or is it a political organization?MR MILLER: It is absolutely a terrorist organization.QUESTION: So why are we negotiating then with them?MR MILLER: Well, we don’t – Hamas is holding civilians hostage, including American citizens, and we want to see those American citizens return home. So it’s also true that Hamas is one of the parties to this conflict and has the ability to end it, so we think it’s appropriate. We’re not in direct negotiations with Hamas, but obviously we are engaging with countries in the region – Qatar and Egypt – who have the ability to talk to them. And we think it’s appropriate to do so because we want to see these hostages return home, especially the American hostages but the hostages of Israel and every other country – remember there’s not just Israeli citizens who are being held hostage – and we believe this is the best way to do so.QUESTION: Second, sir, Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury both were in China recently and both warned Chinese leadership about not to interfere in the U.S. elections, and among others. Can you describe that? What kind of warning was and what was the response from the Chinese leadership?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak that – to that in any level of detail, but the Secretary did make clear, reiterating something that we have – a message that we have delivered previously to the Chinese Government, that any interference, any attempt to influence our upcoming election is something that would be unacceptable.QUESTION: Thank you very much, sir.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to clarify, you’ve called the Rafah operation limited, but you also said it had the appearance of being a prelude – your word – to a major operation.MR MILLER: I don’t think that’s what I said. It’s not what I intended to – I said that they have – number one, they have described it as limited. It looks at this way to not be the major operation that you would see, say, for example, if they entered the neighborhoods where they have ordered evacuations. We don’t know if it’s a prelude or not. They have made clear that they intend to offer – to launch a major military operation, and we have made clear that we are opposed to that. I can’t speak to &#8212;QUESTION: So you’re not calling it a prelude?MR MILLER: No, I can’t speak to whether this is the beginning or not.QUESTION: Because Yoav Gallant is – I’m sorry.MR MILLER: No, go ahead.QUESTION: Yoav Gallant is touring Rafah, the Rafah area today, and he said, “I directed the IDF to enter the Rafah area, take the crossing... carry out its missions. This operation will continue until we eliminate Hamas in the Rafah area and the entire Gaza Strip.” So that doesn’t sound limited to me.MR MILLER: So they have made similar statements in the past about what their policy continues to be &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but they’re there now. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: &#8212; and we have made our statements about what our policy is, and we will continue to make that clear.Yeah, Leon.QUESTION: Yeah, I want to move to another region, Haiti. Do you have any updates for us on where we are, where we’re at in terms of the deployment of that police force, a security force, now that the presidential council was put into place? What is the status of play on that at this point?MR MILLER: So we welcome the process – the progress in the political process that has taken place. We continue to work with our Kenyan partners and other countries for the deployment of the MSS. In terms of an exact deployment schedule, we have, I think for operational security reasons, not wanted to affix a public date to it, but it’s something that we’re working to make happen as soon as possible.QUESTION: But are there any pre-elements or forward people going in now in Haiti from the U.S. or from &#8212;MR MILLER: Not that I am aware of. Not that I’m aware of.QUESTION: I mean, it’s more of a Pentagon question, I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, that’s why I was – kind of like why I’m – yeah.Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. So just back to Rafah. Prior to Israel taking control, Hamas is collecting revenues, you said, of those goods. Can you go into more detail on how Hamas was benefitting from that crossing, and also how you navigate the fine line of ensuring that they’re deprived while also keeping it open?MR MILLER: Well, Hamas is the – has been the government in Gaza, so they were performing – in addition to being a terrorist organization, they were the de facto government in Gaza and so were performing government functions. And that includes running a border crossing where you can collect customs. You can also, if you control a border crossing, collect – let’s call them more irregular payments, and we have seen both of those things happen. And so it is a legitimate goal to try to shut off and choke off that revenue stream to Hamas.That said, we want to see Rafah opened, so someone needs to be on the Gaza side of Rafah to – on that side of the crossing. The Egyptians can’t do it. We talked about this very early in the conflict when we were trying to open Rafah in the first place. So someone needs to be there to do it, and we continue to work through how to get that gate open and how to keep it open.QUESTION: And there’s a report – can you confirm that there was a plot to assassinate Zelenskyy and other top Ukrainian figures that failed?MR MILLER: So obviously, the Ukrainian Government has made an announcement to that effect. We have been in close contact with them about that. I would defer to the Ukrainian Government to speak to the details of it. But obviously, it just speaks to the depravity that we’ve seen on display from the Putin regime since the outset of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Ryan.QUESTION: So given that Israel is pledging to wage an operation in Rafah using U.S. weapons that the U.S. opposes, is there any internal process going on to figure out what went wrong internally? It’s like, how did the process allow the weapons to be shipped and then into a situation in which Israel is going to use them in opposition to what the United States wants done?MR MILLER: I don’t think I can answer that question without presupposing a policy decision that we have not yet announced. We have made clear that – we have made clear – I’ve said it here – what our position is on a major military operation in Rafah. And Israel will make its policy decisions, and we will make ours.QUESTION: But if they do continue this operation, will it result in a review of what went wrong internally?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just not going to speak to what policy determinations we might make or what internal – internal kind of mechanisms would go into answering such a question.QUESTION: A Pakistan question real quick?MR MILLER: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently met with the Pakistan ambassador, and he relayed to the ambassador that Imran Khan’s safety in prison was a high priority of the United States. Did he coordinate that conversation with the State Department? Does the State Department share that view that his safety in prison is a high priority of the U.S.?MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of any coordination. It may have happened; may have been conversations between this building and Senator Schumer, his staff, and I’m just not aware of them. It’s certainly possible. But obviously, we want to see the safety and security of every prisoner in Pakistan or anywhere else in the world – something that every person, every detainee, every prisoner, is entitled to basic human rights and protection under the law.QUESTION: Follow-up, please.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. U.S. ambassador in Pakistan Don Blome met with the current leadership of Imran Khan’s party, and after that meeting there were, like, dozens of stories circulating in Pakistani media. Could you just tell us something about that, as that meeting was arranged under guest of U.S. Ambassador Don Blome?MR MILLER: Dozens of stories circulating about a meeting with our ambassador?QUESTION: (Laughter.) Different stories.MR MILLER: What a new thing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Different stories. Every single &#8212;MR MILLER: I haven’t got a Donald Blome question in a while.Yes, U.S. Ambassador Donald Blome met with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Omar Ayub Khan, and other senior members of the opposition to discuss a broad range of issues important to the bilateral relationship. This includes U.S. support for continued economic reforms, human rights, and regional security.QUESTION: Sir, after that meeting, the leadership of PTI, Imran Khan’s party, told media that they have expressed their concerns about human rights violations, fabricated cases against Imran Khan, freedom of speech, and others. What is your position on these issues, sir?MR MILLER: So we have addressed this any number of times, and our position is the same as we have stated it previously, which is we take no position on elections in Pakistan, we take no position with respect to any particular political party, and of course, we want to see basic human rights upheld, as I said in my answer to Ryan’s question.QUESTION: So one last question.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Saudi Crown Prince MBS is visiting Pakistan in new few days. Recently, Iranian president was in Pakistan too. So how you see these trips when there is too much tension in the region?MR MILLER: So certainly, we always support diplomatic engagement between our partners. I don’t have any further comment on the visit between the Saudi crown prince to Pakistan, but it’s – that kind of diplomatic engagement is routine and something that we support and encourage.But when it comes to Iran, of course, while we welcome regional de-escalation, we’ve seen the outbreak of limited conflict between Iran and Pakistan; we do remain skeptical about Iran’s intentions given its continued destabilizing behavior broadly in the region.QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR MILLER: Take one more and then we’ll wrap for today. You can go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to ask you about Rafah. You said you don’t – you do not want to see a wide-scale military operation. But on a scale of limited versus large military operation, like, what is acceptable for you when you consider for the concerns of the lack of humanitarian aid, that this can be a problem? When you talk about the possible displacement of the people who are there already in the region, like, where is this line for you, United States? Are you going to say, like, okay, this is now large-scale operation and we don’t support that?MR MILLER: So yeah, I’m not going to get into trying to define it here. I will add, though, that we have had detailed conversations with the Israeli Government about this, much more detailed for obvious reasons than what we are willing to say publicly or what is productive to say publicly. And they know quite clearly what our position is, and I think I’ll leave it at that.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:11 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Haiti																								Israel																								Jordan																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Syria																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 6, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024																																																					May 6, 2024																																																								1:47 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Don’t have any opening comments, so to you, Matt.QUESTION: You have nothing to say?MR MILLER: I think I &#8212;QUESTION: Nothing is going on in the world?MR MILLER: I think I imagine what your first question is going to be, so –QUESTION: Well, I figure &#8212;MR MILLER: So go ahead.QUESTION: You know what? I’m going to surprise you, because I don’t want – before we get into the long back and forth about Rafah and the ceasefire, I want to ask you if you can just answer this straight and – simply and straight about the Israeli closure of Al Jazeera. What is – what is your response?MR MILLER: So we have seen the announcement from the Government of Israel about closing Al Jazeera. We have made quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel, and that we are quite concerned about this action.QUESTION: You’re quite concerned about this action? Are you – are you asking the Israelis to do anything?MR MILLER: So as the President said on May 3rd, journalists and media workers are an essential part of any democracy &#8212;QUESTION: I know.MR MILLER: &#8212; because well-informed dissent is critical to building stronger and more successful societies, and we will continue to support and advocate for free and independent media around the world. We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as they operate in other countries in the region.QUESTION: Okay. So you oppose?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: You oppose this?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Then getting on to – so you’ve seen these reports in the last hour about Hamas accepting a ceasefire, but also the Israelis ordering or telling people in Rafah to get out. What’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I can confirm that Hamas has issued a response. We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region. As you know, Director Burns is in the region working on this in real time. We will be discussing this response with our partners over the coming hours. We continue to believe that a hostage deal is in the best interests of the Israeli people. It’s in the best interests of the Palestinian people. It would bring an immediate ceasefire. It would allow increased movement of humanitarian assistance. And so we’re going to continue to work to try to reach one.QUESTION: And so – but you haven’t made any – yet made any determination about whether this is – whether they’re accepting what is on the table or they’re accepting something that is different?MR MILLER: We have only received the response in the last hour, 90 minutes, and as I said, are going through it now and discussing with it – discussing it with partners in the region. So I don’t want to characterize the nature of that response just yet.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.MR MILLER: Okay. Shannon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Al Jazeera?MR MILLER: Wait. Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports that – from Israel that perhaps Hamas agreed to a proposal that was put together by Egypt and Qatar that was softer than the initial framework that was in the works last week. Is it possible that there has been a different proposal that the U.S. is not involved with tracking?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those suggestions; I’ve seen some of those reports. And I think you’ll – I hope you’ll understand that because we are still reviewing the response that has come in and because we are working on this in real time and trying to reach an agreement, I’m just going to decline to comment in detail about any of those reports. We are going to be discussing this response with our partners in the region in the hours ahead. It remains our top priority to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that will lead to the release of hostages, that will allow a surge of humanitarian assistance both into Gaza and allow it to move around inside Gaza. But I don’t want to comment on any of the various reports about what they might have been responding to until we’ve been able to go through it in detail and come to a full understanding and discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: And can you say at this point – maybe you can’t – but Hamas’s political wing and their militant wing, are they on the same page here? Do you feel like this is a response that at least indicates where the entire group is?MR MILLER: I am just not going to – I am just not going to speak for Hamas at all. As we have said for some time, there has been a significant offer on the table. The ball has been in Hamas’s court. We have made clear that they should accept that offer, that Israel made significant compromises, showed that they wanted to reach an agreement that would lead to the release of hostages, that would bring an immediate ceasefire. And we have hoped that Hamas would take the deal that was on the table. Now, as to what’s in their response, what it looks like, we’re going to review that and withhold judgment until we’ve had a chance to conduct a full review.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I ask about the – this – the threatened Israeli offensive in Rafah? In the hours before this, there were lots of reports about evacuations – not just a report, but Israel is talking about evacuations from Rafah. How does this – what’s the U.S. message to this now? Do you think that Israel should hold off on the – on any operations in Rafah as we discuss this response from Hamas?MR MILLER: Of course we do. We’ve made quite clear our position on Rafah for some time, which is that we cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned. We have made clear – the Secretary made this clear in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government last week – that we have not seen a humanitarian plan that is credible and that is implementable. And we believe a military operation in Rafah right now would dramatically increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, would lead to an increase in loss of civilian life, would dramatically disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, all of which is coming through – I shouldn’t say “all,” but the great majority of which is coming through Kerem Shalom or Rafah and is being distributed inside the Rafah area. If you think about what it would do when you have people moving north to places where internal distribution lines are not currently set up and you’re going to have to try to re-establish those in the middle of conflict in Rafah, we think that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do.So even absent this latest response, we have made clear that we do not support Israel launching a full-scale military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, you just said that in terms of – that’s the standard U.S. position on this. But has there been any communication with the Israelis about – I mean, in the past hours or so – about the response from Hamas and how this affects the situation in Rafah? Is there a message &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into our – those conversations. As I said, we just literally in the past hour, 90 minutes received that response from Hamas in the first place. Of course, we will be discussing it with Egypt, with Qatar, with Israel – the three countries with whom we have been working throughout this negotiation process. But I don’t want to get into the timing of those, but obviously, if we have – if those conversations had not already started, they will be ongoing in the next several hours.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, under the current circumstances, do you still think a ceasefire is achievable, based on what you know coming here?MR MILLER: I – what do you mean, is a ceasefire achievable?QUESTION: Like &#8212;MR MILLER: A ceasefire is what we are trying to achieve.QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, it has &#8212;MR MILLER: There is – there is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; over the weekend there was, like, there was a quiet impasse, and right now Hamas has accepted it. But from Israel, we’re hearing that that’s not the proposal that we’ve sent; that’s a softened version. That throws into – the whole thing into doubt.MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think I answered &#8212;QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, like, what’s your sense here?MR MILLER: A ceasefire is absolutely achievable. There has been a deal on the table – a proposal on the table – that would achieve an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. Now, as for Hamas’s response, which I think gets to your question, again, I don’t want to characterize it in any sort of detail until we’ve had a chance to review it in depth and talk with our partners in the region about it.QUESTION: And one thing on the humanitarian aid. Last week, when the Secretary was in Israel, there was an increased emphasis on – in his – during his trip on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We visited Kerem Shalom, which got shut down over the weekend after the Hamas attack. But can you give us, like, a sense of what a Rafah offensive – how that would impact all of Gaza? Because there are issues with distribution in the north. If we have a Rafah offensive in the south, could there be any meaningful humanitarian aid delivery in the north?MR MILLER: So let me just speak broadly to all of Gaza first, and then I’ll come to the north. So certainly a Rafah operation in – a Rafah operation would make it incredibly difficult to sustain the increases in humanitarian assistance that we have been able to deliver over the past few weeks since the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th. You have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in through Kerem Shalom; you have seen an increase in the distribution inside of Gaza, including inside southern Gaza. All of that would be put in jeopardy by a Rafah offensive because obviously, just look at what happened in the past 24 hours when you saw Hamas rocket attacks on Kerem Shalom that led to the death of three IDF soldiers and led to the closure of Kerem Shalom.If you had an ongoing kinetic military operation, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the impact that that would have on the delivery of humanitarian assistance – not just through Kerem Shalom, not just through Rafah gate, but of course inside all of Rafah and all of southern Gaza.Now, separate from that, we have been working on standing up additional delivery mechanisms to get aid directly in to northern Gaza without having to go through Kerem Shalom – not because we anticipated an upcoming Rafah operation, but because it’s so difficult to get aid through Kerem Shalom and then move it all the way to the north of Gaza. So that’s why you saw the opening of Erez crossing, which is something that the President insisted on and something that we achieved last week when the Secretary was there, first in Jordan and then in Israel. So you can have trucks move directly from Jordan, through Erez crossing in the north, not have to go all the way to Kerem Shalom and come back up north. You saw Ashdod Port opening so goods can come directly from Ashdod and go in through a northern crossing, and it’s why we’re standing up the maritime operation.So there will be ways to get humanitarian assistance in to northern Gaza directly; we have been working on those because it’s important to do so because we’ve seen how difficult it is to get aid from southern Gaza into northern Gaza. It’s hard to speculate what the impact of a Rafah operation would have on the delivery of that aid to northern Gaza, but certainly you can say without a doubt that it would dramatically impact the delivery of humanitarian assistance in southern Gaza.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just going off of that for a second, you said earlier – reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t support a full-scale invasion into Rafah. What about a limited invasion into Rafah?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate on the types of military operation. We &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not speculating &#8212;MR MILLER: No – so – no, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli Government has said limited &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m about to answer, Kylie. So there are proposals that we have put on the table – and this is why I’m not going to talk about some of this publicly &#8212; there are proposals that we have put on the table to the Israeli Government that we have discussed with them, that we think would be a much more limited, much more targeted, much more effective way of achieving their legitimate military – their legitimate military objectives, which is taking on the Hamas battalions that are remaining in Rafah. Those look very different than the types of operations that we have seen proposed publicly by the Israeli Government, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So just to be clear, what you have proposed to them isn’t your understanding of what they are planning to go ahead with in the near future?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they might be planning to go ahead with; I’ll let them speak to that. We’ve seen the announcement they made today about evacuation orders for not the entire – not entire southern Gaza, not entire – the entire Rafah area, but for a significant portion of it, 100,000 people. And I – of course we have concerns that any evacuation at all in such a crowded area, if you see 100,000 people move, you’re going to see other people in the next area move as well – which, of course, is something that you want to see happen if there is a military operation. But the problem now is there’s such limited places for them to go inside Gaza, and there is no effective way to distribute them – distribute aid to them and make sure they have access to shelter, access to sanitation, in the places that they would go if, say, you had hundreds of thousands of people moving from Rafah.QUESTION: And then without characterizing the Hamas response, given you guys are still reviewing it, would you say it’s a hopeful sign that they have given a response here?MR MILLER: I think that would be characterizing it, so I’m going to decline to do so until we have completed that review.QUESTION: And when do you think you will be able to complete that review? When should we expect an assessment from the administration?MR MILLER: The – Director Burns, as I said, is in the region literally working on this right now. I don’t want to put a timetable on it, but it is something that is a top priority for everyone in this administration from the President on down. You saw that the President had a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Achieving a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of hostages was one of the top priorities of the Secretary’s trip when he was in the region last week. So everyone is focused on this. Everyone is trying to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: Thank you. Last week there was some reporting that the Biden administration had put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel. Have you seen that report? Can you comment on its accuracy?MR MILLER: I have seen that report. As is usually the case, we don’t comment on specific cases of arms transfers, and I’m not going to do so here.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify on the offer, the offer that you said was generous and on the table and what seems to be accepted now. Does that mean that the ball is no longer in Hamas’s court?MR MILLER: Said, it’s impossible for me to answer that question without characterizing the response that Hamas has given, which I’m not yet willing to do.QUESTION: Okay, all right. On Al Jazeera, now we know that Israel is accusing the correspondents of Al Jazeera, our colleagues who are Israeli citizens by the way, accusing them of incitement that goes back many years and all these things, a crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Are you worried that these correspondents might actually be imprisoned by the Israelis? And if they are, what would the Government of the United States do?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to those specific allegations. It’s not something that we’ve reviewed in detail. We would have to do that. I’m certainly not going to speculate about what we might do in response to an action that has not yet been taken. I will just reiterate that when it comes to the decision to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, it’s something that we are concerned by. We support the work that journalists and media do.We have had – and I don’t think it’s any secret that we have had our differences with Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right, of course.MR MILLER: &#8212; over the years, including in some of the ways in which they – that they cover this conflict. But we support the free media &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; conducting their operations everywhere in the world.QUESTION: Yeah, I think most countries have had an issue with Al Jazeera. Let me ask you about Rafah. Now the movement, 100,000 people and so on, now how many would need to move before Israel can go in and legitimately go after Hamas’s position? I mean, the area is so small – al-Mawasi, where they are moving and so on – just meters – kilometers away.MR MILLER: It’s not &#8212;QUESTION: What – would prevent, let’s say a Hamas fighter or Hamas leaders and so on to actually move to another place? They allegedly have a network of tunnels that would allow them to do that and so on. And then we have the same kind of situation. We see the Israelis saying we want to go after them in that area. I mean, how do you read this whole situation?MR MILLER: So that is not really a question I can answer. I will just make clear, as I have already and as others in the administration including the President, including the Secretary have on a number of occasions, that an operation – a major operation in Rafah – is not something that we can support.QUESTION: Yeah. And finally, I asked on Thursday about Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh. I was wrong. He wasn’t shot. He was – apparently he died and some say under torture and so on. I know that your colleague at the White House said what she said, that she was saddened and all these things, but have you followed up on this issue? How do you follow up on it? Because apparently they are keeping his corpse. I mean, they are not turning it to his family or others and so on for proper burial.MR MILLER: It is one that we have raised with the Government of Israel. I don’t have a response to read out. We have made clear with Israel, as we have made clear publicly, that they must treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with international humanitarian law and that they must respect detainees’ human rights and also that they must ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Since they took all the Al Jazeera questions, I’ll skip mine.MR MILLER: No problem.QUESTION: I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, did you have something?QUESTION: No, no, no, no.QUESTION: I just want to – because I’m a little bit confused, if you can clarify. So the Hamas response is not on the general’s proposal? It’s not – it’s not accepting this proposal?MR MILLER: I think I made clear I am not going to characterize their response one way or the other until we’ve had a chance to fully review it, digest it, discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: All right. My second question is about the pier that the United States is conducting. We believe we have, in our reporting, that it is close to being operational. Can you just tell us how this pier will operate? I mean, who will have the upper hand in all – in making this &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is something that we have been trying to complete as soon as possible. And when I say we, I mean largely our colleagues at the Pentagon who are constructing the pier. We have been involved in liaising with humanitarian groups that will be involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance once it comes in to Gaza, but with the actual timeline for the launch of the pier and its operation, any details I’m going to defer to the Pentagon to comment on those in any detail.QUESTION: By the way, on the pier itself, it was – it was said over the weekend that it was moved to (inaudible) because of some high winds and waves and so on. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to the Pentagon for any of those operational kind of details.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: They’re the ones that are responsible for constructing and moving it and ultimately launching it.Michel, go ahead, and we’ll do a few more in the Middle East before we &#8212;QUESTION: Did you ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from Doha – from Doha, and is it the time for these leaders to leave?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As we have said a number of times, the Secretary in his conversations has made clear with a number of partners in the region that any relationship they have with Hamas, any influence they have with Hamas, they should use to make clear to Hamas that it – to Hamas that it needs to accept a ceasefire deal that includes the release of hostages. And he has also made clear publicly that at the end of this process there can be – there can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, as existed in too many places before October 7th. And I think I’ll decline to comment for any further.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: In the region on &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. For World Press Freedom Day last week, the Secretary did put out a statement about that. I’m just curious as to why that was a decision not to mention the Gaza war, granted that many journalists have been affected by a lack of press freedom around the world and that – and also being killed in various conflicts, but there was a substantial number of journalists that were killed in Israel and Gaza at the end of last year. Was there a reason why that wasn’t mentioned?MR MILLER: No. The Secretary has spoken to that a number of times, including in the region, including speaking directly to the colleagues of journalists in some instances who have lost their life tragically. We mourn the death of every journalist. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to the fact that it is because of journalists in Gaza that we see what’s happening, that the world knows what’s happening. And so we support their work. We want to see it continued. And we mourn the loss of every journalist, and I’ve spoken to that many times since the outbreak of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, just one more on the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Or just on Kerem Shalom.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the Israelis have agreed to reopen it after the attack that happened on Sunday?MR MILLER: So, yes, that was a – if you looked at the readout from the President’s call &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; it noted that the prime minister had agreed to open it in that conversation.QUESTION: Okay. Because the Secretary was just there on Wednesday, and you believed that Kerem Shalom was critical &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; with or without a Rafah &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: operation.MR MILLER: Kerem Shalom is absolutely critical to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, especially in southern Gaza now that we’ve stood up operations in the north. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. So is it open now, do you know?MR MILLER: I do not know if it’s been reopened. I’ll say it was an incredibly cynical act for Hamas to attack Kerem Shalom yesterday knowing that Kerem Shalom is the linchpin to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It goes to this point we’ve made on a number of occasions that Hamas claims that they represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but when you see some of their actions – and we talk about them hiding behind humans, using them as human shields all the time. When you see them attacking the gate that serves as the delivery point – as we saw if you were there last week, as we saw with our own eyes – the delivery point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, it really does undermine any claim that they have to acting on the people of Gaza’s behalf.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I switch regions?MR MILLER: Let me – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What action would the U.S. take if Israel were to invade Rafah?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we cannot support an operation, and I don’t want to speculate on what actions we might take if one should proceed.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the department’s reaction to Türkiye suspending trade ties with Israel?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. They are both allies of ours, and we would encourage them to work through their differences, but I don’t have any specific comment.QUESTION: And finally, what is the department doing to hold the CCP accountable for continued Chinese assistance to Russia’s defense sector?MR MILLER: So you heard the Secretary speak to this when he was in China and made clear that China can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be a partner of Europe on the one hand and then continue to fund the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War on the other hand. He raised this directly with President Xi. He raised it with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. And he made clear in those meetings that if China didn’t act, we would. And a couple of updates to that. You saw us roll out additional sanctions on Chinese entities who have supported Russia’s defense industrial base last week.And then I want to note that we’ve made clear that it is not just the United States that is concerned about China’s activities, but it is also our partners in – and allies in Europe. And you know President Xi is in Europe today meeting with President Macron, meeting with the president of the EU. And if you noted the comments from the Government of France, they very much intended to press this same case with President Xi and make clear what a threat they see – that they see it the way we see it, which is that it is a threat not just to Ukraine but is a threat to European security. And we think it’s important that our allies and partners stand strong in sending that message as well.QUESTION: And just one more?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And what is the department’s message today given it’s Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, especially with Israel having suffered several months ago the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? And I note the Secretary’s step-father &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, the Secretary put out a statement on that yesterday &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; where he reiterated what has been our continuing message, which is never again. And I think you’ll see this President speak to this further.QUESTION: Matt, can I piggyback off &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, you said you (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; for a limited – more limited operation in Rafah. And you’re working – you are working on a ceasefire with your partners. What comes first? I mean, you share the objective, you said, with the Israelis that they have to defeat Hamas in Rafah. But since you are working on a ceasefire, it’s a little bit confusing what you support. What’s the priority here?MR MILLER: Our immediate objective is to achieve a ceasefire that alleviates the suffering of Palestinian people, that secures the release of hostages, and then we want to build that ceasefire, as we have made clear, into something more sustained and something longer lasting. I’m – a little bit of a bind here because I can’t really speak to the options that we have proposed to Israel – you can see why we would want to keep those confidential – but we have proposed options that we believe are more effective and would be more effective in dealing with the threat that Hamas poses. And those are options that they could pursue, and I think I’ll leave it – I’m – unfortunately, I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. In case these negotiations fail, are you preparing for a worst-case scenario that the Israeli went into Rafah – goes into Rafah and this lasts until the fall?MR MILLER: Of course we are prepared for every scenario, but I don’t think I want to read out what actions we might take.QUESTION: For every scenario?MR MILLER: Well, that’s a fair point, Matt – every scenario that you can reasonably predict we prepare for.QUESTION: Well, what happens if, like, aliens come down?MR MILLER: That’s why I said every scenario you can reasonably predict.QUESTION: Are you prepared for that one too?MR MILLER: If that happens, I’ll run to the hills with – right behind you, probably.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are we ready to move on to different region?QUESTION: Could I just do one more?MR MILLER: Shaun – yeah, Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: I know you &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Nike. I tried. Let the record reflect I called on you, and Shaun, the head of the State Department Correspondent Association, stepped on your question.QUESTION: Yes, I – exactly. Well, I’ll gladly defer to Nike – gladly defer to Nike after this, as – I figure you’re not – probably not going to answer this, but the – just &#8212;MR MILLER: For a question I’m not even going to answer, too.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: Sorry. Go ahead.QUESTION: But just a couple of – on a serious note – just a couple of moments ago, the Israeli army saying that the evacuation orders that it issued earlier – confirming that this is preparation for a ground invasion. I know they’ve been speaking about a ground invasion in – a ground operation in general for some time. Do you have any further comment on that? I mean the – this – whether – do you have signs that the Israelis are actually going ahead imminently with a ground operation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to their military activities. We have made quite clear that we oppose a military operation there and I’m going to leave it at that.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Russia, Russia President Vladimir Putin will be set to start another six-year term on Tuesday. Do you have anything on that? I understand U.S. Ambassador Tracy is currently out of the country. My question is: Is anyone from the U.S. embassy attending his inauguration ceremony, or is the U.S. joining other countries to boycott?MR MILLER: No, we will not have a representative at his inauguration.QUESTION: U.S. is boycotting?MR MILLER: We will not have a representative there. You can draw your own conclusions.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does that mean that you don’t consider Putin a legitimate president?MR MILLER: He – we certainly did not consider that election free and fair, but he is the president of Russia and is going to continue in that capacity.QUESTION: Let me get your immediate reaction to reports about Russia’s planned nuclear drills. How much it will complicate the situation, and what kind of response will that invite from the United States?MR MILLER: So Russia’s rhetoric – their nuclear rhetoric – has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. That said, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture in response to these announcements, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. On Georgia, we had a protest in front of this building on Saturday. Georgian Americans were asking the State Department to impose sanctions on Ivanishvili and the GD MPs – not for actions that they might or might not take, but the actions they have taken already. So are you considering any measure?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to make any sanctions announcements, whether that relates to what we might do or what we are considering, as is typically our practice here.QUESTION: We heard from senior officials, this building – it feels like you guys are – you guys expecting some U-turn in this case or some offramp by suggesting that Ivanishvili might be misinformed, so all the statements we have heard from him are not his or his – or reflecting his viewpoints. Is that a reflection of what we have heard from them?MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize at all. We are going to keep pressing our case, which is we believe that the law that they are considering would put Georgia on a precarious trajectory. It would jeopardize Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermine the U.S.-Georgia relationship, and we will continue to make that clear, and they will make their own decisions.QUESTION: And thank you. On – finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, ambassador to Baku today for the first time visited Karabakh. Let me get your sense of significance of it and where in – this week there will be ministerial in Kazakhstan. What are your expectations &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that or any expectations.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A question on Iran. As you may be aware, the IKR president, Nechervan Barzani, he’s in Iran with an official visit with a purpose finding solutions to the disputes between Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan region. How does the U.S. view this visit and efforts? Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So we have consistently encouraged de-escalation in the region, but we don’t have any comment about the specifics of that trip. I would leave it to the Kurdistan Regional Government to comment more in detail on President Barzani’s travel.QUESTION: And one more question: Do you think that having these kinds of discussion with Iran could help and lift any impacts on the Iraqi stability? Because we witnessed they attacked the Iraqi Kurdistan and there were a lot of tensions between these two capitals.MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to these specific conversations, but of course we have always encouraged any conversations that would lead to de-escalation and would lead to further stability in the region, including vis-a-vis Iran, which of course has been one of the greatest contributors to instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.QUESTION: And last question, as we are speaking of Iran. Minutes ago, the Iranian foreign minister put a post on X and he said that we sent Hamas response to the plan proposed by Egypt and Qatar. What he says that – he said that to stop the attacks by Israel, and second, exchange prisoners, and thirdly, the human blockades. And now the ball in the opposite court, we are honest with – in our intentions. This is what he posted. So how do you see the Iranian role in bringing that Gaza the conflict into the end and &#8212;MR MILLER: Bringing a Gaza conflict to an end? I see no Iranian role in bringing a Gaza conflict to an end. You’ve seen Iran be one of the greatest instigators of this conflict in the first place, from financing Hamas and supporting Hamas to financing and supporting Hizballah and other groups that have contributed dramatically to instability, not just when it comes to attacks on Israel but when you look at the – their proxy, the Houthis, and attacking international shipping, and greatly destabilizing the region. So no, I don’t see Iran playing any kind of productive role.QUESTION: And they are not the &#8212;MR MILLER: That would be – that would be completely out of character for them.QUESTION: They are not honest with their intentions, what he said on his post?MR MILLER: They’re not what?QUESTION: Honest with their intentions?MR MILLER: With their – Iran’s honest with their intentions? No, I would not characterize them as honest with their intentions. When it comes to the specific comments that they made about Hamas’s response, I’m not going to comment on those, because as I said, we’re reviewing their response, so I don’t want to confirm what may or may not have been in it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So can I just get your reaction to this? Over the weekend, a Moscow court sentenced a Russian Falun Gong practitioner to two months in detention for her beliefs. It’s the only other country outside of communist China to incarcerate a citizen for the meditation practice. Jake Sullivan said that he wasn’t surprised by this, as China’s – Russia relies on China’s economic and technological support. So given these circumstances, what’s the State Department doing to address the broader implications of the spread of China’s persecution of Falun Gong into Russia, possibly in exchange for support?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a specific response, since it relates to this one case that you mentioned.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: A little over a week ago, China held unification, unity talks between Hamas leaders and Fatah. Sir – and they – I think it resulted in them just saying that they’re agreeing to &#8212;MR MILLER: Keep talking, yeah.QUESTION: Keep talking? What’s your reaction to China being involved in unity talks between these &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have any reaction to them playing a role in these talks. We saw previous talks take place between Hamas and Fatah in Moscow. They’ve held talks in other locations. Leaving that aside, we have long said that if China wanted to play a productive role in bringing this conflict to an end, that it’s something that we would welcome. If they wanted to play a productive role in helping prevent escalation in the region, that is something we would also welcome. The Secretary has spoken to his counterpart, Director Wang Yi, six times since October 7th to press this case, to press China to use all of its influence in the region. And we will continue to press them to do that.We think there certainly are countries that they have a relationship – with whom they have a relationship in the region, including countries, most notably Iran, with whom we don’t really have a relationship. So if China can bring its influence to bear, that would be a productive step for it – it would be a productive step that it could take that would benefit the region and benefit the entire world.QUESTION: One more on Saudi Arabia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other day, you had said that in order for normalization to take place between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that Saudi Arabia is looking for calm in Gaza &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; as well as a path to peace. That path to peace, is that the Oslo Accords? Is that something different than Oslo? Is that expanding on Oslo or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the details, because it’s something that we still continue to talk with Saudi Arabia about, but it is a path to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. And the details of what that would look like is something that we’re continuing to discuss with them.QUESTION: So would that make Oslo irrelevant? MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to – it’s a – it is a negotiation and a discussion that is ongoing right now; I don’t want to characterize it in any way with respect to how it would interact with past agreements.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: A ceasefire deal doesn’t end the war in Gaza. It means returning to fighting again and more Palestinian civilian victims, as it’s happened daily – ten of thousands have already murdered due to the bombing and the famine imposed by Israel, most of them children and women. My question: Why the U.S. doesn’t intervene to stop the war completely – I mean, permanent ceasefire – especially that the Palestinian civilian killed with the American weapon?MR MILLER: So we have been working incredibly hard – it has been the focus of most of this briefing – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that would stop the fighting in Gaza and would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who have died as a result of the conflict and also those who are suffering as a result of lack of humanitarian aid or inability to access humanitarian aid.Now, that’s the first step. We want to get an immediate ceasefire and then we do want to see it turn into something more durable. We’re going to try to work to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible. That said – and I know I’ve – hammer on this – have hammered on this in the past and the Secretary hammers it on the past – has hammered it in the past – Hamas could achieve an immediate ceasefire right now. Hamas, the entity that started this conflict by murdering civilians – innocent civilians – could lay down their arms, could surrender and stop putting the Palestinian people in harm’s way.So it – when people ask questions about Israel that are legitimate questions, and when they ask questions about us that are legitimate questions, I hope people will also realize that Hamas plays – played the instigator role in beginning this conflict and could end it today if they wanted to.QUESTION: But it’s not permanent. It’s temporary.MR MILLER: We are – as I – I just spoke to that in my answer.QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, I want a question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: That IDF already requested the people in Rafah to evacuate. I wonder if the evacuation for Palestinian in Rafah across the Egyptian border is being considered.MR MILLER: So Egypt has made quite clear that they do not want to see the displacement of the Palestinian people. It’s not just Egypt. We have heard that from virtually every country in the region: that they do not want to see Palestinians displaced because of the very unfortunate history in that regard. And we have made clear to the Israeli Government that Palestinian – the Palestinian people shouldn’t be replaced – or displaced.Now, one of the major risks of a full-scale Rafah operation is that it would destabilize that border between Gaza and Egypt and would lead to that sort of displacement, which would destabilize the Sinai Peninsula, of course. It’s another reason why we believe such an operation is a bad idea in the first place.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you very much. U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Sunday that the United States will have to send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine is defeated in conflict with Russia. Any chances that is a real option for &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on statements made by members of Congress. The President has made clear that he will not send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine.QUESTION: Okay. And one more question. Can you explain why is it okay for the United States to have a law on foreign agents and it’s not okay for Georgia, Russia to have one?MR MILLER: So the difference is in the nature of those laws. When you see the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act, it is to people who are acting on behalf of a foreign government, not people who are doing legitimate nongovernment organization work, who are doing humanitarian work, who are doing civil society work. It’s a very different type of thing. I’ve seen those false equivalencies drawn in the past. And when you look at the text of the proposal in Georgia and the text of the proposal that has been passed due to Kremlin influence in other countries, they are very different than the type of law that we have on the books here in the United States.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Question is regarding the ministers’ priorities on the normalization talks regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned, insisted, in an interview that the administration will enter in any defense pact with Saudi Arabia if only they normalize ties with Israel. So question is: Is it diplomacy of United States for integration of Israel in the Middle East or it’s another defense pact by the United States to counter Iranian-backed movements in future from the Middle East?MR MILLER: I’m not sure I completely understand the question. But I will say I don’t want to get too much into the details of our negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing discussions, but that we continue to work to finalize both the bilateral pieces of such an agreement as well as what the pathway to an independent Palestinian state would look like.QUESTION: Secondly, Canadian authorities arrested three individuals linked with the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The United States have many findings on the connections of Indian foreign operations at U.S. soil, as Wall Street Journal reported last week regarding the connection of Indian Government with some targets here in the United States. So with this recent development, what do United States have more to take up with the Indian administration?MR MILLER: So I would refer you to the Canadian authorities to speak to the details of the investigation there. With respect to the indictment that was returned in the United States, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak on behalf of that in detail. And then the only thing further I’d say: When it comes to the State Department, we made clear when these allegations were first made public that it’s something we think India should take very seriously and investigate. They opened a Committee of Enquiry to look into the matter, and that work is ongoing, and we’ll wait to see the results. But we made very clear that it’s something that we take seriously and we think it’s something they should take seriously as well. Hudson.QUESTION: Matt, apologies for not asking in the Israel section, but I have nosebleed seats today so I didn’t get it. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just – I’m just happy to see you here in the briefing.QUESTION: Great to be here. In response to the Axios report that the U.S. is withholding an ammunition shipment to Israel, the Biden administration has told several reporters around town that the U.S. has surged weapons into Israel since October 7th. I’m kind of curious about this response because for much of the conflict, the administration has downplayed reports about the near-constant approval and shipment of arms to Israel. I’m just wondering if you could clarify, what’s the case? Has the U.S. been surging weapons to Israel since October 7th or not?MR MILLER: So we have provided weapons to Israel since October 7th. We have always made clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that includes providing security assistance to Israel since October 7th to ensure that the attacks of October 7th can never be repeated.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Kylie, and then I’ll come to Humeyra.QUESTION: Can you just provide us an update on the NSM-20 report and if it’ll go to Congress on time, when it’s due on Wednesday?MR MILLER: The only update I have is that we continue to work on it, and we’ll have more to say about it later in the week.QUESTION: You can’t say that it’s on track to be delivered on time?MR MILLER: It’s on track. We’re working on it. I just don’t have any updates. It is our intention to provide it on time, and we’ll have more updates as we get closer to the deadline.QUESTION: And just two quick questions on it. I know you don’t want to get into it, but I still have two questions. There are concerns among lawmakers that the Political-Military Bureau in this building is leading the drafting of the report, and I wonder how you respond to that.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the internal mechanisms that we go through to develop such a report, but I will say that a broad spectrum of the department will contribute to this report. People will have a chance to make their views known. People will have a chance to offer their assessments of what they’ve seen. It’s important that different bureaus inside the department which bring different skills to bear and different points of view and different capabilities have the chance to review both of the section – both of the tasks that we were given in the report, both when it comes to compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we expect all of them to speak candidly about what they’ve seen and make their recommendations and make their honest assessments, and we’ll deliver a report that reflects that.QUESTION: And one more question. The memorandum requires all recipients of U.S. weaponry, including Israel, to make assurances that they’re using those weapons, quote, “in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Will U.S. officials at the department be probing those assurances that they get from Israeli officials if there’s reason to believe that they aren’t credible assurances?MR MILLER: So we are taking very seriously the task that we were giving – that was given to us in this national security memorandum, and it pertains not just with respect to Israel but with other countries as well that receive U.S.-provided security assistance. So the initial step was to get assurances from those seven countries that they were complying with international humanitarian law and that they were not impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve received those assurances I think probably 43 days ago, somewhere around that, and now we are going through and looking at compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I don’t want to get into – too much in detail because we are close to when a report will be delivered and I should wait and let the report speak for itself, but it is – I can tell you it is something that we take incredibly seriously and there is a lot of work going on at the department to make sure we fulfill that obligation and we fulfill it thoroughly.QUESTION: So you’re not taking those assurances on face value?MR MILLER: I – let me just let the report speak for itself when it comes out, but it is something that we are absolutely taking seriously, and we are looking at a whole host of activities and actions when it comes to any one of the governments – the relevant governments in this case, and we’ll be making our own assessments not just based on what those governments have told us but based on what we have seen in our review here at the State Department.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one thing on that, actually, Matt. So when the report is produced, we have reported that there are people – there are some U.S. officials at the State Department who have raised serious concerns about Israel’s possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law, and what they say is its arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid. So when you produce that report, you’re basically weighing in on whether the assurances are credible or not. Is there going to be a section where you address those countering, let’s say, opinions from different bureaus, or is it just going to be we found that credible or not?MR MILLER: You – this is going to be a very unsatisfying answer, but you are just going to have to wait until &#8212;QUESTION: I’m used to that.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry about that – until the report is complete. But I will say that one of the strengths of this department is that we have people with a rich diversity of experiences, a rich diversity of expertise, and a rich diversity of views, and the Secretary takes all of those seriously. He takes all of their points of view seriously, and the entire senior leadership of the department looks at the entire landscape when compiling – when going through an exercise and compiling a report like the one we are doing here.QUESTION: Right. But really, from a format point of view, it’s just going to have, like, one assessment?MR MILLER: I know, and I’m just – that I’m not – and that I’m just not going to speak to today.QUESTION: Okay. And will there be a – because you said – in your answer to Kylie you said we collect recommendations. Can you confirm there is going to be a recommendation one way or the other from the legal department?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal mechanisms of a report that is still being compiled.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said, and then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly, but on breaking international law and so on, is the threatening of the ICC by Israel or even by members of Congress itself a violation of international law, the threat itself?MR MILLER: I am not enough of an expert in international humanitarian law to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. But this department &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this case and oppose their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I’m just saying the threatening of the ICC by Israel.MR MILLER: I see. You should take it up with an international humanitarian lawyer.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. On two things – two different topics. Rwanda – the Rwandan Government didn’t really like a statement that you issued last week saying that the Rwandan Defence Forces were involved in the attack near Goma on the east of the DRC, saying that the statement’s ridiculous and that the Rwandan forces weren’t involved in that. Do you stand by that? Has there been any communication with Rwanda?MR MILLER: We absolutely do. The attack in question came from the Rwandan Defence Forces and M23 positions on the Mugunga IDP camp. The Government of Rwanda must investigate this heinous act and hold all of those responsible accountable, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Has there been any communication directly with the Rwandans themselves?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to diplomatic conversations, but we have made quite clear what we think about this act and the fact it ought to be investigated.QUESTION: Great. And then a completely different topic, Mexico. The three surfers who were killed, one of them an American – I don’t know if you – do you have any lines, any communications with the U.S. on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, Carter Rhoad, near Ensenada, Mexico, and are closely monitoring the situation. We offer our sincere condolences to the family on their loss. We are coordinating with local law enforcement on their investigation into the matter, and out of respect for the privacy of the family, we will decline to comment further at this time.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Canada																								China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Rwanda																								Saudi Arabia																								Ukraine
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken At McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum Keynote Conversation with Senator Mitt Romney Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateSedona, Arizona SENATOR ROMNEY:  I don’t know who gets to go off first, but I’m going to do that, because I get to ask the questions.  I’m not the questioner, usually.  Usually I’m the person trying to give answers, all right?  Have you ever watched Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood?  There’s a little train and there’s the little king, and he – the king is always right – “Right as usual, King Friday.”  My kids say, “Right as usual, King Romney.”  I mean, because I’m – (laughter) – I’m always out there with the answers.So I – tonight I’m supposed to ask the questions, which I will do.  But I want to begin by saying thank you to Cindy McCain for hosting us and bringing this extraordinary group together.  Thank you to the Navalny family and for your beautiful words – extraordinary.  Thank you so very much for your inspiration.  It is touching and powerful.  Thank you to the McCain Institute.  Thank you to David Axelrod.  I have mixed emotions about David Axelrod.  (Laughter.)I appreciate the Secretary of State and his leadership very much.  And we’re fortunate to have a Secretary of State who’s a thoughtful, perceptive, intellectually curious, devoted person; dedicated, determined, indefatigable, who has traveled the world time and time again – not a person of bombast, but a person who listens and is soft-spoken.  We are very fortunate to have a man of the kind of quality, experience, and character as our current Secretary of State, Secretary Antony Blinken.  Thank you.  (Applause.)So because I’m not noted for my questions – and frankly, my answers aren’t much better – (laughter) – but I’m going to ask a few questions, but if there’s a little time, I might turn to you to ask, if there are questions.  I’m going to just sort of go topic area by topic area.  I’m going to start with the Secretary’s most recent trip to the Middle East and then turn to Ukraine, and then finally to China.  And so if there’s someone who has a question on one of those topics, or – I’ll take a breath, and you can – and please ask questions that are interesting to you, but also, you might think, to the entire audience.  (Laughter.)First, I’m going to say up top, with regards to the trip to the Middle East, give us the lowdown, give us the rundown.  What is happening there?  What’s happening among the Israeli people?  What are – what is Bibi Netanyahu thinking?  What’s happening with Hamas?  What kind of a deal has been put on the table?  What’s – what is – the people and the leadership in Qatar – see, I can get all my questions out.  (Laughter.)  I mean, give us a full lay of the land, and then we can sort of probe areas of interest.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Mitt, thank you.  And before trying to tackle that multi-part question – (laughter) – actually, it sounds like &#8212;SENATOR ROMNEY:  It’s – it’s just the lay of the land.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  It sounds like the reporters in my pool, who manage to get in five questions for one.First, let me say how wonderful it is to be here and to be with a truly remarkable group of people.  I think there’s a common denominator in this room, and it’s epitomized by John McCain, it’s epitomized by Mitt Romney, but everyone in this room is for an engaged America.  Everyone in this room believes that our engagement, our leadership matters, makes a difference.  And that commitment is more important than it’s ever been.  That’s what I’m seeing and feeling around the world.Now, it may be that years from now people come back here and look at this group, and it’s the La Brea Tar Pits of internationalists and institutionalists.  (Laughter.)  But we’re fighting to make sure that’s not the case, and no one has fought harder than the gentleman sitting to my right.Now, Mitt, I was going to say thank you for reading the lines that I wrote – (laughter) – appreciate that.  But I think you all know – the country all knows – Mitt Romney is a man of extraordinary principle, married to extraordinary pragmatism.  It’s a rare combination, and I’ve gotten to see that up close these last few years since you’ve been in the Senate.  But for me, it’s an honor to share the stage with you.  So thank you.  (Applause.)SENATOR ROMNEY:  Thank you.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  And to the entire McCain family, starting with Cindy – following in the footsteps of John McCain – there too I have gotten to work with Cindy these last few years.  You are doing what is maybe the greatest calling anyone could have, which is trying to make sure that parents can put food on the table for their kids.  And when it comes down to it, nothing matters more than that.  So to you, to the entire family that remains so engaged, it’s wonderful to be here and to share this evening with you.Now, I have to tell you – and maybe the Middle East is actually a – it’s a perfect segue to the Middle East.  But let me just say quickly, before we were coming out here, we were listening, Dasha, we were listening to you, and the senator and I had the same reaction:  Let’s go in the other direction, because we don’t want to follow Dasha.  (Laughter.)  Thank you for your extraordinary profile in dignity and in courage.  And I can only imagine how proud your dad would be of you.  (Applause.)So when I’m asked how it’s going, and the Middle East is usually the first thing I’m asked about, I actually tend to quote John McCain.  John McCain used to say, “It’s always darkest before it goes completely black.” (Laughter.)  So – and I thank you, Cindy, for letting me borrow that.But now to get serious for a minute, so in this moment, the best thing that can happen would be for the agreement that’s on the table that’s being considered by Hamas – to have a ceasefire, the release of hostages, the possibility of really surging humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need it – that’s what we’re focused on.  And as I was talking to various colleagues this morning – and I see one of my closest colleagues, John Finer, the deputy national security advisor, here – we await a response from Hamas.  We await to see whether, in effect, they can take yes for an answer on the ceasefire and release of hostages.  And the reality in this moment is the only thing standing between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas.  So we look to see what they will do.In the meantime, even as we’re doing that, we are working every single day, the President’s working every single day, to make sure that we are doing what we can so that the people in Gaza who are caught in a crossfire of Hamas’s making get the help, the assistance, the support they need.  And we’re doing that with partners like the World Food Program; and of course, we’re working with many other governments, we’re working with Israel.I was just there, as you said, and I got to see firsthand some of the progress that’s been made in recent weeks in actually getting assistance to people who need it.  Progress is real; it’s still not enough.  And we are trying to make sure that in everything we do, we’re supporting those efforts.If you step back, I think we’ve seen a few things in the last few weeks – some incredibly promising, others incredibly daunting.  And to start with the daunting, we now have the Israelis and Palestinians, two absolutely traumatized societies, and when this conflict ends, building back from that trauma is going to be an extraordinary task.We also see in all directions – and I think we’re seeing this not only in the region, we’re seeing it around the world; to some extent we’re seeing it in our own country – maybe the biggest poison that we have to fight constantly, and that is dehumanization, the inability to see the humanity in the other.  And when that happens, hearts get hardened, and everything becomes so much more difficult.So the other great task that I think we’re going to have when we get through this is to build back that sense of common humanity.  And I hope we can do that amongst ourselves as well.  But there’s also some promise.  There’s promise in that one of the things we’ve been working on for a long time, with the President’s leadership over many months, is seeking to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.  And for Israel, this would be the realization of something that it’s sought from day one of its existence: normal relations with other countries in the region.This is something we were working on before October 7th.  In fact, I was due to go to Israel and Saudi Arabia on October 10th to work on this, and in particular to work on the Palestinian piece of the puzzle, because for us, for the Saudis, if we’re able to move forward on normalization, it has to include also moving forward on the aspirations of the Palestinian people.So I think there’s an equation that you can see, a different path that countries in the region can be on and really want to be on, which is a path of integration, a path where Israel’s relations with its neighbors are normalized; a path where Israel’s security is actually looked out for, including by its neighbors; a path where Palestinians achieve their political rights; and a path in which the biggest threat to Israel, to most of the countries in the region, and a threat that we share, Iran, is actually isolated.Now, whether we can move from the moment that we’re in to actually start to travel down that path, that’s going to be a big challenge.  But you can see it, and it’s something that the President is determined to try to pursue if we have the opportunity to do it.One other thing on this.  We saw something related that was quite extraordinary about two weeks ago.  Iran engaged in an unprecedented attack on Israel, the first direct attack from Iran to Israel.  And some people said, well, it was designed so it wouldn’t do much damage, carefully calibrated.  Nothing of the sort.  More than 300 projectiles launched at Israel, including more than a hundred ballistic missiles.  John and I were in the Situation Room watching this unfold.It’s because Israel had very effective defenses – but also because the President, the United States, managed to rally on short notice a collection of countries to help – that damage was not done.  And that also shows something in embryonic form: the possibilities that Israel has for, again, being integrated, a regional security architecture that can actually, I think, keep the peace effectively for years to come.So that’s where we want to go.  But getting from here to there, of course, requires that the war in Gaza come to an end.  And right now, the quickest path to that happening would be through this ceasefire and hostage deal.SENATOR ROMNEY:  I think a number of folks, myself included, have wondered why Hamas has not agreed to other proposals with regards to a ceasefire.  What are we misunderstanding? What is their calculation?  What are they – why are they hesitating?  This – I mean, we read about what’s being proposed.  It sounds like a no-brainer.  But they must have a different calculation.  What is going through their head?  What – I mean, they want to be just martyrs?  Is that – I mean, what is it that they hope to carry out, and why have they not just jumped on this, saying, oh, yeah, this is fantastic?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  One of the challenges we have, of course, is that the leaders of Hamas that we’re indirectly engaged with through the Qataris, through the Egyptians, are of course living outside of Gaza, living in Qatar or living in Türkiye, other places, and the ultimate decision makers are the folks who are actually in Gaza itself with whom none of us have direct contact.  So trying to understand what they’re thinking is a challenge.  Now, we have some sense of it, but it’s not – it’s far from perfect.  And there are different theories about what’s actually motivating their decisions in this time.  It’s something we – we’re constantly trying to get at.But I can’t give you a definitive answer, and I think we’ll see, depending on what they actually do in this moment, whether in fact the Palestinian people whom they purport to represent – if that’s actually true; because if it is true, then taking the ceasefire should be a no-brainer, as you said.  But maybe something else is going on, and we’ll have a better picture of that in the coming days.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Tell us about Bibi Netanyahu and what his – what his position of power is, how he’s seen among the Israeli people, what the level of commitment is in Israel for them to go into Rafah, to continue this effort.  Where is he?  If this – well, I’m not – I’m going to take the if out.  I was going to go back to the ceasefire.  But what’s his political posture now in Israel?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I think, as everyone knows, this is a complicated government.  It’s a balancing act when you have a coalition.  And if you’re just looking at the politics of it, that’s something that he has to factor in.But here’s what I’d say generally about this.  Irrespective of what you think of the prime minister, the government, what’s important to understand is that much of what he’s doing is not simply a reflection of his politics or his policies; it’s actually a reflection of where a large majority of Israelis are in this moment.  And I think it’s important to understand that if we’re really going to be able to meet this challenge.  That’s at least my observation.I’ve now been there seven times since October 7th, and you get a chance to get a feel for what’s going on in the society itself.  And as I said at the start, you have a traumatized society, just as you have traumatized Palestinians.  And breaking through that trauma in real time is an extraordinary challenge.  But it’s I think very important that we, as the United States, as Israel’s friend, try to share what we think is not only in our interest but also what’s in their interest.  And when it comes to Rafah – Mitt, you mentioned that a moment ago – look, our position is clear.  The President’s been clear on this.  Absent a credible plan to genuinely protect civilians who are in harm’s way – and keep in mind there are now 1.4 million or so people in Rafah, many of them displaced from the north – absent such a plan, we can’t support a major military operation going into Rafah because the damage it would do is beyond what’s acceptable.So we haven’t seen such a plan yet, but right now, as I said, the focus is intensely on seeing if we can’t get this agreement because that would be a way of, I think, moving things in a different direction.SENATOR ROMNEY:  You may not want to answer this question, but that is – the President sort of dipped his toe into the criticism of Israel and the way they’ve conducted the war so far, saying we’re not entirely happy with how this has been carried out.  What would our administration have done differently?  What is our specific criticism, and what guidance will that provide for what they do going forward?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, let’s start with the – in a sense, the obvious that seems to have been forgotten, or almost erased from the conversation, which is October 7th itself.  And it’s extraordinary how quickly the world moved on from that.It’s also extraordinary the extent to which Hamas isn’t even part of the conversation.  And I think that’s worth a moment of reflection, too.  And so we’ve said from the start, and the President has been committed from the start, to the proposition that Israel not only has a right to defend itself, not only has a right to try to make sure October 7th never happens again, it has an obligation.  And so that’s something that we have supported from day one.But we’ve also said – also from day one – how it does it matters.  And here, the damage that’s been done to so many innocent children, women, and men – again, in this crossfire of Hamas’s making – has to be something that we focus on, as it has been from day one, trying to make sure that the assistance gets to those who need it, trying to make sure that civilians are protected to the greatest extent possible.Now, everyone here knows that this is a – almost a unique challenge because when you have an enemy, a terrorist group like Hamas that embeds itself with the civilian population in ways that we really haven’t seen before, and that is hiding in and under mosques, schools, apartment buildings, it’s an incredibly tall order.  But even so, even so, I think where we’ve been pushing our friends – again, from the very start – is to do as much as possible, and to do more, to look out for civilians, and to make sure that those who need the help get it.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Why has the PR been so awful?  I know that’s not your area of expertise, but you have to have some thoughts on that, which is, I mean, as you’ve said, why has Hamas disappeared in terms of public perception?  An offer is on the table to have a ceasefire, and yet the world is screaming about Israel.  It’s like, why are they not screaming about Hamas?  Accept the ceasefire and bring home the hostages.  Instead, it’s all the other way around.  I mean, typically the Israelis are good at PR.  What’s happened here?  How have they – how have they/ and we/ been so ineffective at communicating the realities there and our point of view?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Look, I mean, there are two things.  One is that, look, there is an inescapable reality, and that is the inescapable reality of people who have and continue to suffer grievously in Gaza.  And that’s real and we have to – have to – be focused on that and attentive to that.At the same time, how this narrative has evolved, yeah, it’s a great question.  I don’t have a good answer to that.  One can speculate about what some of the causes might be.  I don’t know.  I can tell you this – and we were talking about this a little bit over dinner with Cindy.  I think in my time in Washington, which is a little bit over 30 years, the single biggest change has been in the information environment.  And when I started out in the early 1990s, everyone did the same thing.  You woke up in the morning, you opened the door of your apartment or your house, you picked up a hard copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal.  And then if you had a television in your office, you turned it on at 6:30 or 7 o’clock and watched the national network news.Now, of course, we are on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond.  And of course, the way this has played out on social media has dominated the narrative.  And you have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost, and the emotion, the impact of images dominates.  And we can’t – we can’t discount that, but I think it also has a very, very, very challenging effect on the narrative.SENATOR ROMNEY:  A small parenthetical point, which is some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature.  If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites, it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts.  So I’d note that’s of real interest, and the President will get the chance to make action in that regard.The President had also spoken about our commitment to a two-state solution, and a number of people have said to me that’s impossible.  And Bibi Netanyahu has basically said that’s impossible.  Is it possible to have a two-state solution?  What kind of – I mean, I know that’s far from where we are right now.  It’s like a whole different realm.  But is that essential to, if you will, beginning normalization relations with Saudi Arabia and with others to say, hey, here’s a vision, here’s some steps we might get to?  Is it possible, and what would that look like?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So for me and the President, the answer is yes.  And you can say that’s – especially in this moment – naïve, impossible.  But I think that it is an imperative.  And let me put it this way.  First, we were talking about normalization with Saudi Arabia.  I’ve sat with MBS multiple times, the crown prince, and he’s made clear that he wants to pursue normalization and he’d like to do it as soon as possible – if we can conclude the agreements that we’re trying to reach between the United States and Saudi Arabia.  But then two requirements: one, calm in Gaza; two, a credible pathway to a Palestinian state.  This is what people in the region need to see if they’re going to fully get behind normalized relations between the remaining Arab countries and Israel.  And it’s also the right thing for the Palestinians.  So there’s that.But the other, I think, more fundamental question is this.  You’ve got 5 million Palestinians living between the West Bank and Gaza.  You’ve got about 7 million Jews.  The Palestinians aren’t going anywhere; the Jews aren’t going anywhere.  There has to be an accommodation.  Now, I think that some believe that the status quo that prevailed before October 7th – fine, let’s live that way.  And that worked brilliantly until it failed catastrophically.So at some point, I believe there has to be a step back.  And everyone’s going to have to ask themselves questions about what do we want the future to be.  And the future that I talked about a few minutes ago, where Israel finally realizes what it has sought from day one – to be accepted in the region, to be part of the neighborhood – that’s achievable.  It’s there, but it also requires a resolution to the Palestinian question.  And I believe that there can be a Palestinian state with the necessary security guarantees for Israel.  And to some extent, I think you have Israelis who would like to get to real separation.  Well, that is one way to do it.  And then who knows what happens in the following years.But of course, as we say this, we are absolutely committed to Israel’s security.  And Israel cannot and will not accept a Hamastan coming together next door.  But I’m convinced that there are ways to put the Palestinians on a pathway to a state that demonstrate that the state will not be what Israelis might fear, and I think can lead to a much better future than we have.Look, everyone in this room knows there’s a long story here.  We were talking about TikTok.  Not a story you hear on TikTok.  You had – to oversimply, after the creation of the state of Israel you had decades of basically Arab rejection.  That went away with Egypt and Jordan making peace, and others following.  Then you had some decades, in effect, of Palestinian rejection, because deals were put on the table – Camp David, Ehud Olmert, others – that would have given Palestinians 95, 96, 97 percent of what they sought, but they were not able to get to yes.  But I think the last decade or so has been one in which maybe Israelis became comfortable with that status quo.  And as I say, I just don’t think it’s sustainable.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Yeah.  Yeah.  Anyone else, topic?  Israel, Middle East?  Yes, sir.QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)SENATOR ROMNEY:  You’ve got to be real loud.  And I’m going to repeat it, but it’s got to be short, too.QUESTION:  All right, it’s very short.  You talked about Israel and Palestine, Saudi Arabia being such a key U.S. ally there.  What do you see with China, Taiwan, India, Japan kind of doing the same (inaudible)?  What efforts (inaudible)?  What are the complications that you’re running into trying to overcome the China threat and the Russian threat to European allies?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Maybe that’s a great segue.  Did we need a segue?SENATOR ROMNEY:  There you go, go ahead.  Yeah, please.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  All right.  Well, just a few things to say here.  First, with China, just before we were in the Middle East we were in China.  And about a little less than a year ago, I took a trip at a time when we had been very disengaged.  And I think that one of the things that President Biden believes is that we have an obligation to try to manage this relationship responsibly.  We’re in an intense competition with China, and of course, for Americans there’s nothing wrong with competition as long as it’s fair.  Hopefully it actually brings out the best in us.  But it is a real competition.But we also have a profound interest in making sure that competition doesn’t veer into conflict, and that actually starts with engagement.  And so we really began a process of re-engagement with our eyes wide open, and a number of my colleagues followed.  And then, of course, most important, President Biden and President Xi met at the end of the year in San Francisco on the margins of the APEC meeting.And what we’ve tried to do, first and foremost, is to re-establish regular dialogue at all levels.  One of the most important pieces of this was re-establishing military-to-military communications, because the quickest way to get into an unintended conflict is not to have those conversations happen.  That’s been fully restored.  We look for areas where we might actually cooperate where it happens to be in our mutual interest to do that – and I’ll come back to this in a second because we found a couple.  But mostly, it’s so important because you want to be able to be extremely clear, extremely direct, extremely explicit about your differences and your intentions.  And we have a world of differences, but it’s better to be talking about them directly than it is to remain disengaged.And so what I found, including in this most recent trip, was that we’re able to engage on those differences in a very clear way.  It’s not that we resolve them, but at least we might have a better understanding of each other’s intentions, and that’s important.Second, something else has changed, and this is something that we’ve talked about a lot and that the senator has been an extraordinary leader on in the Senate.  The relationship with China, as I said, is – for us is arguably the most consequential, maybe the most complex.  And I think it’s very hard to put it on a bumper sticker.  I said competition a moment ago – that’s probably the closest we have to a defining word – but there’s also contestation.  And there are some areas where we cooperate, because, again, it’s in our mutual interest to do so.In each of those areas, what makes the most sense for us is to be able to approach China from a position of strength, and that’s the biggest difference, I think, that we’ve seen ion the last few years, because we came in with the proposition that we needed to do two things in order to be able to engage China from a position of strength.  One was to make investments in ourselves, and you’ve seen that with infrastructure, you’ve seen that with the CHIPS and Science Act – and by the way, we have an extraordinary partner in Arizona State University for CHIPS and Science.  That’s been a remarkable thing to see.  You see it with other work that we’ve been – that’s been done, including on a bipartisan basis with Congress, which is also a nice thing to see these days.The flip side of the coin is the part that I’m in part responsible for, and that’s alignment with our allies and our partners.  From where I sit right now, we have a greater convergence with key partners in Europe, in Asia, and even beyond, on how to approach China.  And I can tell you that it’s something that our counterparts in Beijing know, notice, don’t particularly appreciate, but it’s a very powerful reality.If you’re dealing with China on economic issues where you have a real difference, as we do in so many areas, if it’s the United States alone, we’re what, 20, 25 percent of GDP.  If we have alignment, convergence, with European partners, Asian partners, it might be 50, 55, 60 percent of GDP.  That’s a very heavy weight and much harder for China to ignore.  So that’s what I’m seeing right now, and it’s making a difference.Last thing on this.  I mentioned that it makes sense, where we can, to cooperate if it advances an interest.  So right now, the biggest killer of Americans aged 18 to 45 – not guns, not car accidents, not cancer – it’s fentanyl.  Every single community in this country has been affected by it.  Forty percent of Americans know someone who has died from an opioid overdose.  That’s the impact.  And of course, we know that a big part of the problem, of course, has to be solved here at home, as we’re doing by investing a lot in awareness, in treatment, in prevention, law enforcement.But the other big side of the equation is supply.  And how this works, as everyone knows, is you’ve got the ingredients that go into making a synthetic opioid, chemicals that may be made halfway around the world – in this case, in China – and made for perfectly legal reasons, but then get diverted into a criminal enterprise and into the synthesis of fentanyl, comes into the country, kills our friends and neighbors.So China’s a critical actor in this.  And we have put – been putting a lot of pressure on China to take action against some of the enterprises in China that are engaged in producing these chemicals and then illicitly transferring them to use in making fentanyl.  But usually, you have a chance at getting even more done if you can find a way to do it cooperatively.  So the President spent hours with President Xi on this and made clear our determination, one way or another, to get to the bottom of this, and also shared that what we’re seeing around the world is – a problem for which we’ve been the canary in the coal mine is now manifesting itself in so many other places.The criminal enterprises that have saturated our market, they’re trying to make markets in Europe, in Asia, in Latin America.  And we said to the Chinese: there’s going to be a huge demand signal on you to lead on this, to act responsibly.  Well, one way or another, they heard the message, and we now have, at least in its early days, cooperation that we didn’t have before, with China putting out new regulations, China actually taking down some of the companies engaged in the illicit production of the precursors or transfer of these precursors, and establishing a working group together where we’re working through this problem.Now, again, they have their own reasons for doing this, and unless it’s sustained and unless we see certain other actions taken, it won’t produce the results that we need, but at least it’s a start.  So I shared all of that – and sorry for going on – just because I think it’s important to see the relationship in its – in 360 degrees, and all of that with eyes wide open, because this competition is not going anywhere for a long time.  If we’re approaching it from a position of strength, we’ll do very, very well.SENATOR ROMNEY:  The Secretary has been kind enough to listen to me on the topic of China, invited me to come by his office and spend some time.  And given the fact that my real career was in the world of business, I sort of look at China from a business standpoint and believe that if I were crafting a strategy for a country or a company, I would look at China and say:  Brilliant, what an extraordinary job; you don’t have to live by our rules, our regulations, our antitrust laws, and you’ve done everything that a good robber baron would do in this country at the turn of the century, 1800s to the 1900s.  And I wonder if we’ve figured out kind of how to deal with this, how to confront it, because their ability to mount a military – they spend about as much on their military each year as we do.  According to our Intelligence Community, they spend about $800 billion a year.  AEI says $810 billion, all right, but that’s about – that’s close to where we are.  We’re 850.  And so – and they’re buying a lot more equipment than we are.So, but their ability to spend that is a function of an extraordinary economy.  And even though it’s not as big as ours, they generate massive cash that allows them to make this kind of investment.  They’re – and then around the world, the Belt and Road, spent a trillion dollars.  We don’t spend a trillion dollars on ourselves.  They spend it around the world.  And one of the things they did, they – not following the Sherman Antitrust Act – they said we’re going to take over one industry after the other.  They had 5 percent of the world steel business; now they have 54 percent of the world’s steel business.  They’ve taken over the aluminum business.  They’ve taken over the nickel business.  They’ve taken over rail cars.  They’ve taken over buses.  Just boom, boom, boom, boom, one after the other.And they keep it going.  And when you – by the way, monopolies – you make a lot of money with a monopoly, and you drive the American businesses and the Western businesses out of business.  And then more – I don’t know how many years ago, they said, you know what, the world is going to go towards the electric world – solar panels, batteries.  So while we’re sitting around thinking about what kind of batteries we ought to have and so – they’re going around the world buying up the mines and processing for nickel and cobalt and lithium.  They basically have a dominant position in the major ingredients that go into batteries and solar panels.So as we go into a electric economy, guess who’s going to lead it?  We’re going to have a new OPEC, by the way, but only member of this OPEC: China.  All right.  And we’ve sat and watched them do this.  And then their cars come along.  Do you know what a Chinese electric car costs?  Eleven thousand dollars.  Why is that?  Well, because they’re getting the batteries where the country made a trillion dollar investment to dominate all of the raw materials in the creation of these batteries, so their companies are able to get batteries for a fraction of the cost.  By the way, the battery is the biggest single component in the cost of an electric car, so of course their cars cost half as much as ours, or less.How do we deal with this?  And the Secretary has – has described a strategy which has three major principles: invest, align with our allies around the world, and compete.  But do we need to align more to get – to say to China you can’t keep doing this?  You can’t keep taking over industry after industry and bankrupting our industries, dominating the raw materials we need, not selling them to us at the same price you’re selling to your own people.  You can’t have access to – what do we do?  How do we deal with this economic juggernaut that I think is brilliant but shouldn’t – they shouldn’t be allowed to do it and still – and have access to our market.  I believe in free markets, but you can’t have a free market if one person is not playing by the rules of free markets.  So how do we deal with this?  How do we say enough already?Sorry about that.  I know that was more of a speech than it was a question.  (Laughter.)  But I couldn’t resist.  (Laughter.)SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, you’ve been extraordinarily eloquent about this for a long time, and I think it’s exactly right.  Because what we have fundamentally in the economic relationship with China has not only with us but with countries around the world is a total lack of reciprocity.  And that’s unsustainable.  It was one thing when China first got into the WTO, and given where it was in its development, okay, some allowances reasonably could be made.  But we’re now 20-plus years later and China is exactly as you’ve described it and where it is.And I think what we’re hearing – again, not just here in the United States but from so many of our partners around the world – is no, enough, we can’t do this anymore, we won’t do this anymore.  And again, it’s the – when you bring all of that together it is, I believe, a lot harder for China to ignore.  So we spend a lot of time working with our allies and partners on taking this common approach and making sure that Beijing is hearing in stereo what it’s been hearing from us.  And I believe that this is the way to get change.Now, we have the immediate problem – and I think Secretary Yellen was here this morning, so I don’t know if she talked about this, but she has been intensely focused on this.  She was in China just before I was.  By the way, she is very famous in China – chopstick ability.  (Laughter.)  When I was there – oh, you work with Secretary Yellen?SENATOR ROMNEY:  They test you on the chopsticks.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Yeah, they do a little bit.  It’s good.  Janet’s really got it down.  (Laughter.)But the President is intensely focused on overcapacity right now, because we’ve been through this before.  We had what some called the China shock in the years after it got into the WTO and did exactly what you’ve described – flooded our market with certain products, pushed our companies out of business, devastated some communities – and we can’t have that again.  The President will not have that again.So a big part of my visit as well following Secretary Yellen was to help our counterparts in Beijing understand that we are making major investments in ourselves, including bringing good, strong manufacturing jobs back to the United States, and we were not going to allow our markets to be flooded with underpriced products that would drive our folks out of business.  And the cases you point to in particular – solar panels, electric vehicle batteries – China right now is producing in some cases double the entire global demand for those products, and it’s trying to work itself out of its own economic challenges at this moment by exporting, but exporting in unfair ways.I had this conversation with my Chinese counterpart, the Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and he said wait a minute, capitalist economies – they work on comparative advantage.  I said that’s absolutely right.  But there’s one thing to say comparative advantage, there’s another thing to say unfair advantage, and that’s what we’re focused on changing.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Help me get a sense of what – how they’re doing around the world geopolitically.  I hear stories.  I’m sure each of the people here have heard one or the other stories about how China is all over Africa, China is all over Latin America, it’s all over the Caribbean, that everywhere you turn the Chinese here, the Chinese there.  And yet in their own neighborhood they seem not to be doing so well, with the Philippines and the Vietnamese and the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Australians.  I mean, they seem to have badly misjudged what’s happening right around them.  Are they doing really well in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean or – I mean, sort of how are they doing geopolitically?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I think there are a few things going on.  First, of course, as you mentioned earlier and as you mentioned a few minutes ago, they’ve been engaged for a long period of time in their Belt and Road program making major investments in different parts of the world.  It’s had real successes over time in terms of positioning them economically and positioning them strategically.  The two things are, I think, very much married.But we’ve also seen two things.  The way that these investments have been made in many cases – not all cases, but in many cases – piling countries with debt, bringing in workers from China to take on the jobs instead of having local workers take them on, building things to substandards, bringing, shall we say, a disregard for workers and the environment with it – that also begins to have an effect.  So I think countries appreciate the magnitude of the investment.  They appreciate the rapidity with which China is able to act, something that is not our forte – but I want to come back to that in a second.  But then there is often a price to be paid later.Now, I think China is trying to adjust because it’s getting – it’s gotten pushback as people start to realize some of what these investments mean.  The other challenge that it has is it actually has less money to invest in this moment because it has its own economic challenges.  But we’re also not standing still, and you mentioned the imperative of critical minerals and the building blocks of the 21st century economy.  We put together something called the Mineral Security Partnership, where we’ve gotten now more than 14 countries to work together, to look together, and potentially to invest together around the world in projects to make sure that we can build our own resilient supply chains and not be dependent on any one part of the world, whether it’s China or anyone else.And we now have several dozen projects that are either moving forward or that we’re actively looking at.  And ultimately, our competitive advantage in this area is the private sector.  We’re never going to compete with China on a state-to-state level, dollar for dollar.  That’s not the nature of our system.  Our system is making sure that – and one of my jobs, one of the State Department’s jobs, is to try to make sure that we are helping open the terrain for American investment, for American business.  And that’s exactly what we’ve got the tools of government focused on now in ways that we haven’t before.  Development Finance Corporation, other parts of the government, are focused on trying to be more effective, to serve as guarantors or as catalysts for the private sector.But the critical difference is doing it with other countries.  The President put together something at the – with the with the G7 countries, the Partnership for Global Investment and Infrastructure, and it’s the same basic idea.  Any of us acting alone, it’s going to be hard to match what China’s doing.  When we can work collectively, marshal our resources, or, as necessary, have some of us active in one place, others in another, that’s the way I think you get at dealing with some of the advantages that China’s shown in recent years.Pacific Islands are a really good example of this.  China covers a lot of ground in the Pacific islands, maybe more ground that we can cover ourselves, although we’ve made a major investment there.  The President’s had two summit meetings with all the Pacific Island leaders at the White House.  But when we’re working in cooperation and collaboration with Australia, with New Zealand, with Korea, with Japan, with India, we cover a lot of ground.  You’re seeing that play out.  You’re seeing that play out with undersea cables.  You’re seeing that play out in our ability to help deliver some of the things that people in those countries want.And the last thing is this.  In diplomacy, it is often more effective to say to a country:  We’re not asking you to choose; we want to give you a better choice, and then you make up your mind.  So our responsibility is putting together that better choice.SENATOR ROMNEY:  There’s a clock up here that’s telling me how long I get to go.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  It says zero, zero, zero on it.  (Laughter.)SENATOR ROMNEY:  But it – from the very beginning – no, no, when we sat down it said zero, zero, zero.  (Laughter.)  It’s been zero, zero, zero the whole time.  So someone give me the signal if there – oh, I’m getting their signal.  I’m going to ask you one question.  I’ve got to ask you one question.  That’s my chief of staff, Liz.  Thank you, Liz.  It’s like, zero – what am I supposed to do with zero?And that’s help us with Ukraine, your perspective on Ukraine, which, I mean, there are – in my party there are people – and I do not understand the argument.  I’ve got to be honest – I do not understand how anyone can argue that we shouldn’t provide weapons to Ukraine.  I can’t – I listen to – they’ve changed their argument over time from, one, oh, the Europeans should do more.  Well, the Europeans are doing more.  Oh, well, we don’t have enough – we go from argument to argument.  But more recently, it is that there’s no way for Ukraine to win, that providing funding for weapons is going to lead to nothing but a continuation of the status quo.  What’s the pathway forward?  What are the scenarios that you see in Ukraine?And then please offer a last word.  You get the – you get the final word here, Mr. Secretary.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Well, first, thank you, because your leadership on this has been instrumental.  And one of the things I have to say, too, is your recognition of the threat, the challenge that Russia posed, well before many others saw it in this country.  Well, I think we’ve finally caught up with you, and that was a very important thing.Now, unfortunately, much of what you talked about some years ago is – we’ve seen come to fruition.  But here’s the thing.  First of all, I believe profoundly that in so many ways, despite the incredible challenge that Ukraine is facing, it’s already succeeded and Russia’s already lost, because keep in mind what Putin was trying to accomplish.  He was trying to erase Ukraine from the map.  He was trying to subsume it into a greater Russia.  That has failed, and that cannot succeed no matter what happens from here on.And the reason that’s failed, of course, is because first and foremost the Ukrainian people were determined and showed remarkable courage.  But it also failed because, yes, the world did come together, and I think American leadership was what made the difference.  We brought 50 countries together in support of Ukraine, and that continues to be the case today.  We often talk about burden sharing, and Americans complain about the lack of burden sharing.  This is the one place where I can say, without fear of contradiction, that we have extraordinary burden sharing for everything that we’ve done, and it’s a lot.  Collectively, our European partners and others in Asia have actually done more – military, economic, humanitarian support for Ukraine.  So I think if you – if you step back, that’s an important thing to recognize.The other thing that’s important to recognize is that, in so many ways, Putin has precipitated everything he sought to prevent, what Russia has invested in this horrible adventure.  We see it in a country that, despite the massive efforts it’s making, is going to be militarily, economically, and diplomatically weaker than it was.  You have Ukrainians who are united in ways that they never were before against Russia, and certainly before 2014 that was the case.  You have Europe that’s weaned itself off of Russian energy in a remarkably short period of time, and you have a NATO Alliance that’s stronger and bigger than it’s ever been.  I mean, the idea three years ago that we would be talking about Finland and Sweden as part of NATO – unimaginable.Now, all of that said, this is a challenging moment, and it’s been a challenging nine or ten months, because Russia does have extraordinary resources that it seems willing to throw at this in ways that most others wouldn’t.  Now, the supplemental that, thanks to your leadership and others’, we got done was just in time.  And I really also have to applaud the speaker, Mike Johnson, for the leadership that he showed in making sure that that got done.  So that assistance is on its way, and as you know, of the money – the new monies that we invested, virtually all of that is actually invested here in the United States into our own defense industrial base, providing good jobs in the United States but in a way that allows us to help Ukraine.  So that’s a win-win, too.But here’s where I think this is going.  Yes, there is a real challenge in the moment on the battlefield, and we’re engaged with that, Europeans and others are engaged in that.  But there’s also where we want to take this in the medium to long term, and on one level it’s pretty simple.  We want to see a Ukraine that stands strongly on its own two feet militarily, economically, democratically.Militarily – we have 32 countries now that have negotiated or are completing negotiations on security agreements with Ukraine that will help it build a force for the future, one that can deter aggression or defend against it as necessary.  Economically, we’re focused on trying to bring more private-sector investment into Ukraine.  We have Penny Pritzker, our former secretary of commerce, has been working on this.  And there is tremendous potential there, despite the incredibly difficult conditions.We can see Ukraine developing a strong defense industrial base that will help not only Ukraine, but other countries over time.  We can see with what they’ve achieved in the Black Sea, keeping that open – there is now more getting out of Ukraine from the Black Sea than before February of 2022.  Now, we have a real challenge in making sure that we get more air defenses to Ukraine so that this investment can actually be protected against Russian aggression.  We’re working on that.Democratically – the EU started accession talks with Ukraine now.  It’s a long process, but that is probably the most effective way to deep-root Ukraine’s democracy, to ensure the necessary reforms.  And the best possible rebuke to Vladimir Putin, no matter where the line ultimately gets drawn, is a strong Ukraine, and you can see that happening.  It’s – I’m convinced that as long as we continue the support, we can and get there – we can and will get there.So maybe the note to conclude on is this, because I think everyone in this room is so representative of this basic idea.  What I see and hear around the world, as I have the incredible privilege of helping to represent the country and traveling around, is an ongoing thirst for American engagement and for American leadership.  And even the countries that are complaining about what we’re doing at any given moment or don’t like a particular policy still want us.  And as we look at it, there’s a basic choice.  We can continue to engage and we can continue to lead, or if we don’t, we know one of two things is going to happen.  Someone else will, and probably not in a way that advances our interests and values – or maybe just as bad, no one will, and then you’re almost guaranteed to have a vacuum filled by bad things before it’s filled by good things, and that will ultimately come back to bite us.So as I see it, there’s now a greater premium than there’s been in the time I’ve spent in Washington on American leadership, and we have to find ways to come together to assert that and to carry it forward.  I also think there’s a greater premium than ever before on finding ways to cooperate and coordinate with other countries, because – and beyond countries, private sector, organizations – because for all of our power, for all of our strength, we can’t effectively deal with most of these challenges if we’re doing it alone.So we can’t go it alone, and we can’t go away.  And that’s what we’re determined to make sure we’re focused on as we carry on these next months.SENATOR ROMNEY:  Ladies and gentlemen, the United States Secretary of State.  (Applause.)Thank you, sir.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.
- Building Partnerships for Innovation and Safe Tech Around the World Richard R. Verma, Deputy Secretary of State  for Management and ResourcesIn our ever-changing tech landscape, the private sector is leading and, in many ways, outpacing the work happening in government. But this doesn’t mean that our governments need to get out of the way. Rather, as governments, we need to create the right ecosystem for innovation.Forging International Tech PartnershipsOne of our core strategies is to build strong partnerships globally. Take, for instance, the groundbreaking INDUS-X project initiated during Prime Minister Modi&#8217;s visit to Washington in 2023. It connects U.S. and Indian private sectors – addressing defense supply chain weaknesses and boosting innovation.I recently participated in the INDUS-X Summit in New Delhi, where I saw a strong commitment from both the U.S. and India to accelerate innovation, support researchers and start-ups, and eliminate regulatory obstacles for private industry success. To echo Prime Minister Modi: &#8220;A society that does not innovate will stagnate.&#8221;Launched in 2023, INDUS-X promotes #USIndia defense cooperation and bilateral trade via investments and capitalizes on critical and emerging technologies. This year we are working to lay sustainable commercial foundations for defense innovation and collaboration. pic.twitter.com/5QJRyUE2mq&mdash; Richard R. Verma (@DepSecStateMR) February 20, 2024Driving Digital Transformation in AfricaPartnerships drive our bilateral and multilateral initiatives in digital innovation. In 2022, President Biden initiated the Digital Transformation with Africa (DTA) program, underscoring our commitment to this cause.Through DTA, we&#8217;re allocating over $350 million and mobilizing further funding to enhance digital accessibility and literacy throughout Africa. Our goal is to partner with African nations, ensuring broader participation in the global digital economy.Innovating Defense CooperationOur partnerships go beyond traditional security aims. During Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin&#8217;s visit to Kenya in 2023, he signed a framework for defense cooperation in Nairobi, opening avenues for enhanced cooperation on defense technology and innovation.As Kenyan Defense Minister Aden Bare Duale said, &#8220;In an increasingly complex and interconnected world, our ability to work seamlessly together is paramount. This cooperation will enable us to respond effectively to the ever-evolving security challenges in our region.&#8221;Such partnerships are vital, not just for security but also for fueling economic growth and tackling environmental challenges, propelling businesses forward and preparing for the future.Today I met with 🇰🇪 Cabinet Secretary of Defense Duale in Nairobi. The signing of the Framework for Defense Cooperation between our countries demonstrates that our ever-growing defense partnership is resilient and strong. pic.twitter.com/P0lQIp6FNj&mdash; Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III (@SecDef) September 25, 2023Harnessing Technology for Environmental ResilienceSecretary Blinken&#8217;s recent visit to Brazil highlighted our partnership in using technology to combat climate change. With investments exceeding $260 million, we are upgrading infrastructure and deploying technologies to enhance environmental resilience.In Rio de Janeiro, the United States is providing more than $260 million in financing to help upgrade infrastructure and install 5,000 public Wi-Fi access points, as well as public lighting systems that cut electricity consumption by up to 60 percent, while also lowering costs and cutting CO2 emissions.Met with President @LulaOficial ahead of the G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting. Brazil is a key partner on many issues including combatting the climate crisis and advancing human and labor rights. As we approach 200 years of U.S.-Brazil relations, our ties are stronger than ever. pic.twitter.com/wdVWL6KQ5j&mdash; Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) February 21, 2024Global Dialogues on Emerging TechnologiesOur conversations with other nations about emerging technologies are pivotal in constructing a digital landscape that embraces inclusivity and sustainability for all while benefiting the environment. We have launched high-level critical and emerging tech dialogues with the Republic of Korea, Singapore, India, and Israel to drive closer cooperation on AI, biotechnology, and quantum information sciences.During the U.S.-Republic of Korea ICT Policy Forum and the Japan-U.S. Dialogue on Digital Economy, we engaged with businesses to ensure safe 5G tech and foster digital growth in developing countries, focusing on AI, data security, system integrity, and eco-friendly tech.Ensuring Responsible AI DevelopmentAs we explore the possibilities of technologies like AI, it&#8217;s crucial to make sure they&#8217;re used responsibly and ethically. Through initiatives like President Biden&#8217;s Executive Order on AI, we are leading efforts to set international standards and guidelines for how AI is developed and used. We celebrate the recent adoption of the U.S.-led UN General Assembly Resolution together with 123 co-sponsors to demonstrate the widespread agreement on the need to seize the opportunities of safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development.While AI offers immense opportunities, we must ensure safety, accountability, fairness, and privacy. To leverage AI’s tremendous potential to advance U.S. diplomacy and statecraft and ensure ethical and responsible use at the Department, we’ve developed an enterprise-wide Artificial Intelligence Strategy.The challenges and opportunities of AI are global. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re working with our partners to make sure AI is safe, secure, and works well for everyone, everywhere.Shaping a Better Future TogetherOur commitment to fostering global innovation is unwavering. As Secretary Blinken has said, “our success ultimately depends on working effectively together.”By leveraging partnerships, embracing digital transformation, and prioritizing responsible innovation, we&#8217;re not just shaping the future of technology — we&#8217;re shaping a better world for all.