# China - United States Department of State

- Readout on Meeting of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s Office of the Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Readout on Meeting of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s				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();			}		});	}																										Readout on Meeting of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s																																		Readout																														May 10, 2024																																							On May 8-9, the United States hosted in Washington, D.C., a meeting of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s, which is co-led by Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta and PRC Special Envoy for Climate Change Liu Zhenmin and includes relevant officials from the two countries.The in-depth discussions recalled the San Francisco summit between the two Presidents and focused on areas identified in the Sunnylands Statement, including energy transition, methane and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases, circular economy and resource efficiency, deforestation, and low-carbon and sustainable provinces/states and cities, as well as cooperating on multilateral issues related to promoting a successful COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.&nbsp; They exchanged experiences and challenges with respect to their respective climate policies and actions, with a view to responding meaningfully to the climate crisis and beyond.&nbsp;Recalling the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal and reaffirming the importance of demonstrating their leadership, taking into account different national circumstances and pathways, the two sides welcomed the call in COP 28’s Global Stocktake decision for Parties to submit on time 2035 nationally determined contributions (“NDCs”) that are economy-wide, cover all greenhouse gases, and are 1.5C-aligned; they further expressed their intention to engage in related technical and policy exchange.Recalling the U.S. intent to achieve 100 percent clean power by 2035, and the Chinese intent to phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work, including by accelerating renewables deployment, the two countries intend to intensify technical and policy exchanges on realizing their respective goals.The two sides intend to host a second “Methane and Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases Summit” at COP 29.&nbsp; The two sides committed to promote bilateral cooperation and conduct capacity building on deploying abatement technologies, as well as developing and/or improving respective MRV systems and standards aiming to achieve significant methane emissions control and reductions in the 2020s.&nbsp; Both sides noted with interest the Methane Alert and Response System of the UNEP International Methane Emissions Observatory.&nbsp; They will also engage in technical cooperation and capacity-building for measurement and abatement solutions of other non-CO2 greenhouse gases, including industrial N2O as well as tropospheric ozone precursors.Recognizing the importance of developing circular economy and resource efficiency in addressing the climate crisis, the two sides expect to conduct further technical exchanges on circular economy, including food loss and waste reduction, textiles, and recycling standards.Both sides look forward to the U.S.-China High-Level Event on Subnational Climate Action, to be held May 29-30, in Berkeley, CA.						Tags																					Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								China																																														Climate and Environment																															Office of the Spokesperson
- Senior Official for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Pak’s Meeting with People’s Republic of China (PRC) Special Representative on Korean Peninsula Affairs Liu Office of the SpokespersonSenior Official for the DPRK Dr. Jung Pak met PRC Special Representative on Korean Peninsula Affairs Liu Xiaoming in Tokyo on May 9.Senior Official Pak noted the continued threat posed to regional and global security by the DPRK’s unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, as well as its provocative and irresponsible rhetoric toward its neighbors.  She stressed concerns regarding deepening military cooperation between the DPRK and Russia, including unlawful arms transfers, and noted that Russia’s veto of a UN Security Council resolution to extend the mandate of the UN 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee’s Panel of Experts will hamper the efforts of the international community to ensure implementation of previous UN Security Council resolutions.  Senior Official Pak emphasized U.S. commitment to dialogue and diplomacy with the DPRK as the only viable means of achieving lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.  She also expressed continued U.S. concerns regarding the forcible repatriation of North Koreans, including asylum seekers, to the DPRK and called on Beijing to uphold its non-refoulement obligations.This meeting follows Secretary Blinken’s April 24-26 visit to the People’s Republic of China, during which the Secretary underscored the U.S. commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with the PRC.
- 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
- United States Hosts PRC Special Envoy for Climate Change Office of the SpokespersonOn May 8-9, the United States will host People’s Republic of China (PRC) Special Envoy for Climate Change Liu Zhenmin in Washington, DC, for a meeting of the bilateral Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s, aimed at accelerating concrete climate actions this decade.  The meeting will focus on areas identified in the Sunnylands Statement, including energy transition, methane and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases, circular economy and resource efficiency, low-carbon and sustainable provinces/states and cities, and deforestation, among others.  The Working Group is co-led by Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy John Podesta and PRC Special Envoy for Climate Change Liu Zhenmin, and will include relevant officials from the two countries.
- 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.
- Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Travel to the People’s Republic of China and the Philippines Office of the SpokespersonDeputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard R. Verma will travel to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Philippines May 6-10.In the PRC, Deputy Secretary Verma will visit the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. Consulates General in Shenyang, Shanghai, and Guangzhou to thank personnel and ensure that their teams have the right equipment and facilities to most effectively serve U.S. interests.  The Deputy Secretary will also meet with members of the U.S. business community in Shanghai to advocate for a level playing field for U.S. workers and firms operating in China.In the Philippines, Deputy Secretary Verma will meet with senior government officials to build on the progress made during the annual U.S.-Philippines Bilateral Strategic Dialogue on April 22-23, the bilateral meeting between President Marcos and President Biden, the historic Japan-Philippines-U.S. Trilateral Leaders’ Summit on April 11, and the U.S.-Philippines 3+3 Ministerial on April 12.  The Deputy Secretary will also participate in a wreath laying ceremony at the Manila American Cemetery and Memorial and host a dinner with Philippine U.S. Exchange Program alumni.
- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Secretary Antony J.  Blinken with Kylie Atwood of CNN Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateBeijing, People’s Republic of ChinaQUESTION:  One of your major priorities here was to push China to stop sending to Russia dual-use technologies and goods that are being used to build up Russia’s defense industrial base.  You said at the press conference earlier if China does not address the problem, we will.  How long will the United States give China to cut back on those things that they’re sending to Russia?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, first, Kylie, we’ve already taken action.  We’ve taken action against more than 100 Chinese companies, individuals &#8212;QUESTION:  But it hasn’t worked.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  So one thing is very clear.  This is not only a problem for us, it’s a problem for countries around the world, but particularly in Europe.So what we’ve said to China is this:  We’re going to take action as we already have, and if it doesn’t stop, we’re going to have to take more action, and you can anticipate as well that other countries will because this is a matter of concern across the board.QUESTION:  Do you think we’ll see action within weeks?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I don’t want to put a timeframe on it, but it’s something that we’re tracking very closely and very carefully.QUESTION:  Did they even acknowledge to you that these dual-use technologies are actually being used by Russia to continue pursuing the war in Ukraine?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  They didn’t acknowledge it.  I think they acknowledged the fact that they’re trading with Russia.  But when you look at the volume, and again, when you look at critical components for the defense industrial base, machine tools – 70 percent of the machine tools that China – that Russia, excuse me, is getting from abroad are coming from China.  Microelectronics – 90 percent are coming from China.  While Russia is a big country with resources, it could not sustain what it’s doing in Ukraine absent the assistance it’s getting from others, notably from China.QUESTION:  I want to ask you about a commitment that CNN has reported President Xi made to President Biden when they met in November.  We reported that he told President Biden that China would not interfere in the upcoming presidential elections in the United States.  But since then, there have been reports of online Chinese accounts that have falsely mimicked Trump’s supporters.  Do you believe that these accounts violate President Xi’s commitment?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  What I can tell you is this: President Biden was very clear about that with President Xi, and I repeated that today in my meetings.QUESTION:  You repeated what?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  That any interference by China in our election is something that we’re looking very carefully at and is totally unacceptable to us.Look, it’s something we’re tracking very carefully.  I can’t speak to these specific reports.  I can say that as a general matter we’ve been very clear with China: don’t do it.QUESTION:  But they’re not violating the commitment yet, as far as you can tell?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, again, I’d have to look at the specific reports that you’re referring to.  But we have seen, generally speaking, evidence of attempts to influence and arguably interfere, and we want to make sure that that’s cut off as quickly as possible.QUESTION:  I want to transition to what we’re seeing in the United States right now.  You were asked about this earlier, but I want to talk about it again.  These pro-Palestinian protests are overwhelming college campuses in the United States.  Some of the protesters have turned to antisemitic rhetoric.  We heard from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu this week who called these protests antisemitic and said they must stop.  Do you think he’s right?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Look, the protests in and of themselves are not antisemitic.  There are protesters and there are also activists who may have other agendas, who clearly are engaged in rhetoric that is.  But what we’re also seeing is people, young people, people from different walks of life who do feel very passionately, who have very strong emotions about this – anger.  And I understand that.But we’ve certainly seen instances where that has clearly veered from a totally legitimate expression of views and beliefs to, in some instances, yes, clear expressions of antisemitism.  When you hear some people chanting in support of Hamas, what in the world does that mean?  And more generally, what we’ve seen is Hamas almost erased from the story.  It’s as if they had nothing to do with what’s going on in Gaza and in the Middle East.QUESTION:  Will these protests at all impact the policy of the Biden administration?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  In our democracy, too, of course we listen to the American people, and we’re supposed to both represent them and reflect their views.  So we take all of this into account.  But again, it’s important that &#8212;QUESTION:  So you might consider stopping shipping weapons to Israel because that’s what they’re calling for?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  No, we’re focused on what’s in the interests of the United States, how do we best reflect both our interests and our values in our foreign policy across the board, whether that’s for Israel or with anyone else.QUESTION:  There is a lot riding on this administration’s effort to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  There’s obviously other parts of that major potentially historic deal that could bring this war to a close.  But I wonder if – what makes you believe that Israel or Hamas are going to agree to any sort of ceasefire at this moment in time that could pave the way for that to come to fruition?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, first, the only thing standing between the ceasefire and the people of Gaza is Hamas, because the quickest way to get there is an agreement on the hostages and on a ceasefire that we’re very, very close to.When Israel was attacked by Iran.  You saw not only Israel effectively defend itself, but other countries jumped in.  And not only the United States and not only countries in Europe – some countries in the Middle East as well.  And you can see a path in the future where Israel is genuinely integrated in the region, where other countries are helping to make sure it’s defended.  But that also requires that Gaza come to an end and that there be a clear pathway to a Palestinian state.In that kind of future, Israel gets what it has sought from the start of its existence, which is normal relations with countries in the region, acceptance in the region.  And its biggest problem, the biggest threat to security to Israel, to other countries in the region, and to the United States – Iran – is isolated.QUESTION:  Is there a world in which you could roll out this framework for Israel, Saudi normalization and a two-state solution, before there’s a ceasefire in place, almost a push towards a potential ceasefire to end this war?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I think, Kylie, we’ve been clear about what the vision is.  And beyond that, we’ve been working intensively to flesh it out, working with Arab partners, working with European partners on this as well.  And I think the more concrete it becomes and the more it moves from the hypothetical and theoretical to something that’s actually possible, that’s real, then everyone above is actually going to have to make decisions and make choices.  And so we’re doing this work and we’re trying to make it as real as possible so that people do decide –QUESTION:  And maybe share it before a ceasefire is in place?SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I think – certainly that’s possible.  We’ve, again, been actively engaged on this, and ceasefire or not, we’ll continue to make these possibilities known.  But in order to actually realize this, there’s going to have to be an end to the conflict in Gaza.  And as I said, there’s also going to have to be a resolution to the Palestinian question or at least an agreement on how to resolve it.QUESTION:  Mr. Secretary, thank you.  Appreciate it.SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks, Kylie.