# Department Press Briefings – United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – June 06, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – June 06, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – June 06, 2024																																																					June 6, 2024																																																								1:43 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Let me start with some opening comments. The United States remains deeply concerned with the Georgia Dream party’s anti-democratic actions as well as its recent statements and rhetoric. These actions risk derailing Georgia’s European future and run counter to the Georgia – Georgian constitution and the wishes of its people. Secretary Blinken recently announced a comprehensive review of all bilateral cooperation between the United States and Georgia. As part of that review, the department implemented a new visa restriction policy to address these actions under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.Today, under this policy, we are taking steps to impose visa restrictions on dozens of Georgian individuals. This includes individuals responsible for or complicit in and immediate family members of those responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Georgia, such as by undermining freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, violently attacking peaceful protestors, intimidating civil society representatives, and deliberately spreading disinformation at the direction of the Georgian Government.This first tranche of visa restrictions comprises members of the Georgian Dream party, members of parliament, law enforcement, and private citizens. It remains our hope that Georgia’s leaders will reconsider their actions and take steps to move forward with their nations long-stated democratic and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. But if they do not, the United States is prepared to take additional actions.And with that, Matt.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Is – can you give us any better idea of how many dozen?MR MILLER: A few dozen. This is a first – this is the first tranche. It is a few dozen. We never &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. So a couple dozen could be read as two. A few – does that mean three?MR MILLER: Around that. Between – it is between two and three dozen. We don’t generally give out &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; specific numbers, but it’s between two and three dozen.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: And I want to emphasize this is a first tranche of sanctions.QUESTION: Yeah, but – and have these people been notified, do you know?MR MILLER: They have not been notified. We typically don’t notify people, but they find out if they try to come to the United States.QUESTION: Well, no, you do notify them if they have an existing visa.MR MILLER: If they – correct, if they have an existing visa.QUESTION: Has anyone been notified &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that their existing visa has been revoked?MR MILLER: I doubt it has happened because we have just put this into effect today. But for those – if there are people in that category, they would be notified subsequent to this.QUESTION: Okay. Unless anyone has anything else on this?QUESTION: Just a follow-up.QUESTION: Okay. I &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: May I cut in?MR MILLER: Air condition?STAFF: We’re working on it.MR MILLER: Yeah, good.QUESTION: Any idea how the &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s for the benefit of everyone in the room, not just me. Matt, too, I could tell.QUESTION: Just to follow up &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.QUESTION: &#8212; how are they selected? We know that there are 80-odd MPs that voted for the law. How do you select two dozen, three dozen out of 86 &#8212;MR MILLER: So first of all, I can’t give you specific names. It’s not – I know it’s not the exact question, but just as a reminder to everyone that visa records are confidential under law, so I’m not able to say with any degree of specificity. But as I said in the statement, we’ve looked at the people who have taken actions to spread disinformation, who have taken actions to undermine democracy, to violently attack peaceful protestors, and intimidate civil society representatives. And as I said, this is just the first step in our series of actions. And I should note that the actions that we are prepared to take are not just necessarily related to these new sanctions that we are posing. We also said that we are undertaking a full review of our relationship with the Government of Georgia.QUESTION: Does it include the speaker, the man who signed it into law?MR MILLER: As I just said, I’m prohibited by law from announcing who visa restrictions apply to.QUESTION: Okay. But how many tranches, Matt, do you expect, if you know?MR MILLER: I can’t give you any definition on that question today. I can tell you that we are prepared to impose additional sanctions, and we will take all other steps as appropriate.QUESTION: Matt, what message are you trying to send by splitting it into tranches? Are you still hopeful that you might stop this from happening? I mean, next steps &#8212;MR MILLER: So as I said in my opening statement, there is still time for the Georgian Government to reverse the trajectory that it’s on. That doesn’t just reply – apply with respect to this law that they passed. Its applies to the way they have been cracking down on dissent. It applies to the statements that their leaders have made rejecting the path that Georgia has been on for so long. So there is still time to turn it around, and our policy will dependent on – be dependent on the policy that Georgia undertakes.QUESTION: Please come back to me later.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can I move to the Middle East?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the proposal that was put forward? Has Hamas put forward any official response? We heard overnight in a statement some – it sounded like downtrodden response, but then Egypt has reportedly heard some encouraging signs. What’s the latest?MR MILLER: We have not received an official response from Hamas. Obviously, their – we have been in conversations with our partners in the region, especially with the Government of Egypt and with the Government of Qatar. And those partners have been in conversations with the political wing of Hamas, the – but we have not yet received an official response to the proposal &#8212;QUESTION: When do you expect to &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; that’s on the table.QUESTION: &#8212; receive a response?MR MILLER: I don’t have an update on that. We have wanted to see a response as soon as possible. We think this is an – should be an urgent priority to get this ceasefire over the line to start to alleviate the suffering that is happening every day in Gaza. So we would hope for a response from Hamas as soon as possible, and we continue to wait.QUESTION: And then can I ask on this deadly Israeli strike on a school that was housing IDPs in Gaza. What’s your response to that?MR MILLER: So we have been in contact with the Government of Israel about this strike. They have said to us essentially what they have said publicly, which is that – and this is their claim – that they were targeting 20 to 30 members of Hamas and other militant groups, that they used a precision strike to target only one part of the building without hitting areas where civilians were sheltering.At the same time, we’ve seen the reports on the ground. We’ve seen the videos from the ground. We’ve seen the claims that 14 children were killed in this strike. And certainly when you see – if that is accurate that 14 children were killed, those aren’t terrorists. And so the Government of Israel has said that they are going to release more information about this strike, including the names of those who died in it. We expect them to be fully transparent in making that information public.QUESTION: Were U.S. weapons used in this strike?MR MILLER: I don’t have any update to that. I’d refer to the Government of Israel to that question.QUESTION: And then my last question. How does this not cross the red line that the President laid out several weeks ago? This is the second incident in less than two weeks where we’ve seen a pretty large civilian toll and what was supposed to be a precision strike.MR MILLER: So with respect to the policy that the President announced, he was speaking specifically to a large-scale operation in Rafah, and we have not yet seen a large-scale operation conducted in Rafah.That said, we have seen strikes that put civilians in danger well before the President said that, and we have made clear to the Government of Israel that we expect them to do everything that they can to minimize civilian harm. We’ve been through this before. It applies in this situation, too. It is a difficult situation – if it is true – that you have this site where Hamas is hiding inside a school, other militants are hiding inside a school, those individuals are legitimate targets, but at the same time they’re embedded near civilians. Israel has a right to try and target those civilians but they also have the obligation to minimize civilian harm and take every step possible to minimize civilian harm. So that’s why we are pressing the Government of Israel and the IDF to be completely transparent about what happened here. We want to know the facts as much as anyone.QUESTION: Have they taken every stop possible at this &#8212;MR MILLER: We have seen them take improvements over time. But still, if it bears true that this strike resulted in the death of 14 children, the results aren’t where they need to be. So it gets back to this question of intent and results. Even if the intent is what the IDF has said publicly, that they were trying to hit – use a precision strike just to target 20 to 30 militants, if you have seen 14 children die in that strike, that shows that something went wrong. That said, these are all facts that need to be verified, and that’s what we want to see happen.QUESTION: Matt, could I ask a follow up?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Simon. I’ll come to you, Simon.QUESTION: Just to follow-up on the broader issue of civilian harm. So we had this NSM process that came to an end, and you came to these specific conclusions that didn’t lead to any impact on provision of arms to Israel. Now that that kind of 90-day process with the NSM is finished, I guess there’s an annual NSM requirement for you. But just to sort of be clear, as of now, what kind of – are there any, like, timelines you can give on when you’re going to be able to make conclusions regarding Israel’s conduct? Is there a date when we can – when all of these – or at least some of the assessments that you’ve been making since the beginning the war might be completed and you can actually make a definitive &#8212;MR MILLER: There’s not a definitive date I can give you, standing here today. I can tell you that there are a number of reviews going on of specific incidents, and those continue. As we’ve said – or as the report said, the NSM-20 report that we released – it’s often difficult to come to definitive conclusions in the middle of the war, where we don’t have access to information on the ground. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible. We look at it; we sort through; we take all the information that we can and try to use that to make our best judgments. But it does make it difficult.So that said, we have a number of these reviews going on. We want to see them wrapped up as soon as they can, but they’re difficult and time-consuming. You have to look at facts, and sometimes you have to make legal determinations as well that are informed by those facts, and that’s what’s – that’s what we continue to do.QUESTION: Will you make public the results of those reviews?MR MILLER: It’s hard for me to say what we will – it’s hard for me to say what we will do with the result that has not yet finished. I can tell you that there have been some – I’ve said this before – there have been some that have been finished and have found to be no violations, right. You can think about how this might work, same if you look – think about any kind of investigation, where you take a broad – you take say a big number of cases, you can look at some and see right away that no, they don’t rise to the level of violation, some that bear more scrutiny. So there were some that we looked at and were able to take out of the system quickly, and there are a great others that are going forward and we’re continuing to review.QUESTION: Without trying to go through the laundry list of – there are a lot of cases here, but are there any that you can give us as an example of? This came up in the briefing. For example, there was lots of cases that came up in the briefings. Are there any of those where we’ve asked you about it, and then you’ve gone away and looked at it and found we’re happy that there was no violation?MR MILLER: I just can’t give you that kind of specificity from here.Said, go ahead. I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: This particular area – you called on me? You called on me, right?MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry.QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I thought – yeah, okay.MR MILLER: I’ve never known you to be shy, Said. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, from time to time, you know.MR MILLER: I don’t believe that. (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: So – it’s with old age. Anyway, so this area, Nuseirat, was an area that the Israelis even did not ask people to evacuate. I mean, this is really refugees. They killed 64 people; we won’t know how many was killed. I mean, what possible advantage – and I wanted to ask you, because you – the other day, you said that maybe Sinwar prefers the safety of the tunnels, the comfort of the tunnel, to coming out and so on. So why would Hamas militants – what possible tactical advantage or strategic advantage for them to be in the school? Isn’t that just like a red herring, something that the Israelis can use time and time and time again as a cover to continue to kill people. I mean, considering that 130 civilians were killed in the preceding 24 hours.MR MILLER: So the advantage to Hamas – and it is a sickening advantage to them – is that they think they can hide behind civilians and prevent from being struck. And there have been times, I can tell you – hold on. There have been times that we know that Israel has passed on taking strikes because there were Hamas militants who were embedded directly with civilians, and they made the decision that they could not take a strike against a militant without causing disproportionate civilian harm. So that has happened, and there are militants who were not – there were strikes that they did not take because of that reason.Now with respect to this one, we need to know exactly what happened. As I said, and as you just pointed out, there are conflicting accounts about what exactly happened here, and that’s why we need to get to the bottom of it.QUESTION: We are no military experts, at least I speak about myself, but one knows from reading so much and so on, I mean the safety of the rubble area, the safety of the destroyed cities and buildings and so on, that becomes a concrete jungle – it’s a lot safer for these fighters. There would be no incentive whatsoever for them to go and be among their families and so on, because the food is probably better in the tunnels or in these places; the safety is a lot better. Why would they do it? Or just anything that Israel can say &#8212;MR MILLER: So number one, I just think I established exactly why they would do it. Number two, I just don’t think as a factual matter it’s actually in dispute that they have done it and they continue to do it.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MIILLER: We have seen clear, convincing evidence – some of that evidence has been made public – of them hiding in civilian targets going back before October 7th, and that it’s continued to be one of their primary tactics since October 7th.QUESTION: I tell you what &#8212;MR MIILLER: And I should say, launching – in addition to hiding, launching attacks, launching mortar attacks and launching other attacks from inside civilian infrastructure.QUESTION: But not from these – not from these areas. I mean, they want to launch attacks where the Israeli military is actually present and so on, not likely – and then (inaudible) where they could be bombed from the air and so on. I mean, this thing that we keep hearing about – human shields and so on – I just wanted to remind you that this is basically an Israeli thing to the point where the Israeli supreme court told them: you could not do it – you could not use Palestinian kids as human shields to (inaudible) and walk into the cities and so on. And in fact, they continued to do it.So what possible – I mean, Israel has no credibility whatsoever to believe what they say that there are Hamas fighters that are hiding there. We have not seen any evidence. They have not shown us any &#8212;MR MIILLER: So – so &#8212;QUESTION: – of these people that were killed.MR MIILLER: So what I just said is Israel said to us they are going to release the names of militants that they have killed. If that’s true, if they do it, the entire world will be able to see that and judge. But I’m going to wait until we see what happens.QUESTION: Can I ask you a couple more questions, if I may?MR MIILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And – on – yesterday there was the march into Jerusalem, the Old City and so on. And the marchers just beat the heck out of a Palestinian journalist and so on. And Palestinian journalists seem to be at the tail end of recognizing, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank and so on. Is there any particular reason for that?MR MIILLER: So we have seen the videos of this incident, seen the photos of this incident, and we strongly condemn them. Journalists and media workers are essential to democracy. They should not be attacked anywhere in the world, including in Israel, for doing their jobs. We expect Israel to uphold its stated commitment to human rights and press freedom. We expect them to protect journalists from these kinds of assaults. And if there are violations of criminal law, we expect people to be fully held accountable.QUESTION: And do you expect Israel to take what you just said seriously enough to actually abide by that?MR MIILLER: We – I’m going to make clear what the United States expectations are. But we have shown repeatedly that we are willing to have tough conversations with Israel about these matters.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: So you said you can’t say if it’s a U.S. weapon that was used in the school attack. Have you at least pressed Israel to use more strategically targeted weapons, as opposed that could explode widely? And then what is their response to that?MR MIILLER: Yeah. We have at a number of time – a number of occasions pressed them to use the most precision weapon possible and the smallest weapon possible to achieve a legitimate military aim so you minimize the civilian – the level of civilian harm. That’s been something we’ve pressed them really from the outset of this conflict.QUESTION: And so what is their response these past two attacks that have used what they say are precision weapons but have been very destructive?MR MIILLER: So their claim is that they are using precision weapons and that they are using the smallest weapon possible to achieve the target. That said, we have obviously seen the reports of civilian harm. Obviously, in the incident several weeks ago, you saw a catastrophic consequence when it seemed that the result of the weapon they used was a subsequent fire, a subsequent explosion of some sort, that caused tremendous civilian death. And so they need to investigate exactly how that happened. They have an ongoing review of that. As far as I’m aware. It’s not been concluded yet. I know we haven’t been briefed on any review yet. And with respect to this one, we – as I said, we need to see what the facts are, and we expect them to make those facts public and be completely transparent about it.QUESTION: And they are reviewing this one as well? Have you heard that?MR MIILLER: I don’t know if it’s an official review. They have said to us that they are going to release information about – that shows what happened, what the strike – what the result of the strike was and who it was that was killed in the strike. I don’t believe they’ve announced an official review yet, but if they – if there – if it is shown – if there are shown to be civilian deaths, as the reports on the – from the ground appear to show, then we would fully expect them to review that, consistent with their code of conduct.Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Just &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You’ve said repeatedly “transparent,” that you’re looking for – for the Israelis to be transparent. I mean, the Israelis are basically saying that militants were killed. So I mean, do you expect them to investigate beyond that to see whether children were killed, civilians were killed? And is there a track record of Israel actually investigating that on the ground?MR MIILLER: So two things. One, with regard to transparency, they have said that they will release the names of those who were killed.QUESTION: The names of the militants or the names &#8212;MR MIILLER: That is what they have said, and we’re going to watch and see what they do. If we think any further investigation is warranted after we see the results of what they announce first, we won’t hesitate to call on that, as we have in the past. There are incidents that they have reviewed in the past, and as we’ve said, they have a number of incidents where they have conducted reviews. And those have led to criminal referrals, and they have full-blown criminal investigations. But there are also incidents – and those are not public – but there are other incidents where they have announced – they have conducted reviews and announced the results publicly.So with the World Central Kitchen strike, for example, they announced the results of the review. They made clear what, from their perspective, had gone wrong and why that strike had happened in the way it did. And they announced disciplinary actions, including firing, against a number of military officials.QUESTION: And just to put a point on that, I mean, do you think it’s – are you basically calling on Israel also to identify those who were killed who were potentially noncombatants, who were children? Do you expect Israel to do that?MR MIILLER: So we want to – so I don’t know if they have any ability to do that, right, if they’re not there on the ground. But we want to know exactly what happened, and we’re willing to look at all sorts of information to determine that.QUESTION: I’m sorry if you covered this before, but I mean, is – how are you going to know if the list of names that they release is accurate?MR MIILLER: So we will – I don’t want to prejudge – it’s – it is &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, I could make up a bunch of names right now and tell you &#8212;MR MIILLER: It is – it is a good question.QUESTION: But that doesn’t – that doesn’t necessarily mean that those were actually the people who were killed or that they were militants.MR MILLER: Yeah, it is a good question. We’ll wait and see what it is they release and if they show – if they release any information to back that up. It could be that they – well, I don’t want to speculate to what they could release to back that up. But we will wait and see what it looks like.QUESTION: Okay. All right. But if it turns out that they named these people and they are confirmed to have been militants and you are able to – or there’s some kind of confirmation that they are in fact the ones who were hit, is that enough for you even if they don’t go into any civilian &#8212;MR MILLER: So we also want to see – no &#8212;QUESTION: Whether they’re identified by the Israelis or not, it’s clear that there were.MR MILLER: We – well, we also want to see the – see the civilian harm and look at what exactly happened and to have a full understanding of that. We’ve seen &#8212;QUESTION: Have the Israelis &#8212;MR MILLER: We’ve seen the initial reports, but we want to fully understand it, and then the Israelis should want to fully understand that, too. They have said that they want to minimize civilian harm. We have impressed upon them the importance of that, so they should want to know that information, too.QUESTION: Right, but – and I apologize because maybe I missed this while I ran out, but did they say that they would go into details on any civilians who were killed?MR MILLER: They have made clear initially what – that they would release information about it. I don’t have the full details about what they would say, but we &#8212;QUESTION: Well, that’s actually – but as far as what you understand, they’ve said that they will&nbsp;&#8212;MR MILLER: They are &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; release the names of the militants &#8212;MR MILLER: And other details. I don’t know what those details will include because they haven’t – they haven’t done that yet. So.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on what Simon was asking about the State Department’s own internal assessments after the NSM had concluded. The Secretary said in one of his Hill testimonies a few weeks ago – I think it was Senate Appropriations – he was asked about State’s own internal assessments about Israel’s actions, and he was also asked if the State Department has the kind of resources that it needs to meet the objective of carrying out its own internal assessments.And the Secretary – sorry if my notes are a little bit rough here, but he had said it’s a good – it’s a very good question and it’s something we’re looking at very hard and that we – it’s something that in order to do it in real time, the answer is probably no. And it’s an incredibly labor-intensive process. He indicated that the State Department doesn’t have the resources it needs to get this done quickly or efficiently. Can you just clarify if that’s the case? Because Simon was asking about when we might get some kind of conclusions on some of these cases.MR MILLER: It is – yeah, it is the case it is difficult to review the sheer number of incidents in real time and provide with – definitive answers on all of them in any kind of compressed timeframe. It is one of the challenges we face. If you just look at the sheer number of casualties in the war in Gaza, and of course the sheer number of civilian casualties, there are a number of specific incidents that we have felt obligated to look at. And certainly we would welcome additional resources, that we haven’t made an official request to Congress yet. It’s something that that is the type of thing we go through in our usual budgeting process. But certainly we would welcome more resources to look at these issues.QUESTION: Can I just ask one of the northern front? There’s reports that the Biden administration had – has cautioned Israel in recent weeks to keep the war with Lebanon or any escalation limited and also warned about Iran intervening. Can you comment on that?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations, but, as I’ve said earlier in the week, we have been clear with the Government of Israel since the immediate aftermath of October 7th that one of our top priorities as – in this conflict was to see it not expand any further than it already has, and that remains the case. And that remains the subject of our diplomatic conversations not just with Israel but with other countries in the region. I will say that we continue to see Hizballah taking strikes across the border, including incredibly destructive strikes, and Israel of course has the right to defend itself when hit by a terrorist organization, but we remain concerned about the risk of escalation and the risk that any type of escalation could further widen and broaden this conflict and get us back into the place where we were earlier in this conflict, when you saw strikes in Iraq that we have worked to try to mitigate and try to prevent from occurring. So that remains a top priority for the United States.Yeah. Tom.QUESTION: Can I – I just wanted to clarify on this issue of the names, because I don’t remember you – I don’t recall you having done this before you – where you’ve called for them to release names after an airstrike. I mean, given your close security relationship, are you – they often do release names later on, but were you given any names that they were targeting? Have you been given privately any names that they were targeting in this specific airstrike and, if not, is that why you’re calling for them to do so?MR MILLER: No, not yet. Just to make it clear, they have said that they were going to release the names of the 20 to 30 militant – they told us there were 20 to 30 militants they were targeting. They’re going to release the names of those. They believed that they’ve killed those militants. I think they want to show that they were actually killing militants, not civilians. That doesn’t, obviously, obviate the chance that they might have – there might have also been civilians that were killed in this strike. So – so I &#8212;QUESTION: But your list – their list of 20 to 30 names basically &#8212;MR MILLER: That is what they have said they would provide. We expect them to do that as well as any other details that would shed light on this incident.QUESTION: So – but they volunteered that. You’re not calling for it, are you?MR MILLER: We have called for it to be released publicly and as well as any other information that would &#8212;QUESTION: Before they said that they would do it you asked them to?MR MILLER: We went to them and asked for more – so what happened – let’s be clear. This is what I said in response to the first questions. We went to them earlier today and asked for information about this strike.QUESTION: Not necessarily the names.MR MILLER: No, we just asked for more information about what happened. They came back to us and said we were targeting 20 to 30 militants who were housed in one specific part of this ability. We had been – or of this building. We had been watching it for several days. We had been waiting for a moment when we could target just those 20 to 30 militants without harming civilians and we found the ability to do so. And that’s why we took this strike. They were going to – they said to us we will release the names of those 20 to 30 militants as well as other information. We said we think that’s appropriate for you to do it. There ought to be full transparency, which is what we have called for in other cases. Now, let me make also clear I can’t validate any of this information on my own. This is what they have told us. We think they should make public any further details.QUESTION: So you’re looking for a list of 20 to 30 names to be released of combatants – militants to be released publicly?MR MILLER: I’m looking for all the things I just outlined.QUESTION: And if they’re – and if that doesn’t – if you don’t have a list of 30 names?MR MILLER: Let me just – as always, I don’t want to deal with ifs and ifs. This is what they have said they would do. It’s what we think is appropriate. We think they should make any other details that are relevant public as well, it should be full transparency about this. If further steps are necessary after that, we won’t hesitate to call for them.QUESTION: If – sorry, sorry, but just &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry, Matt, but &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry, “if further steps are necessary,” meaning &#8212;MR MILLER: Any further – if there – it needs to be a further review, then we will call for that. If we need to look at it ourselves, we will do that.QUESTION: All right. Did you want to – because I – there was just one other issue I wanted to ask about.QUESTION: Yeah, no, I wanted to – just to follow-up on what you said, you and Matt, actually. COGAT has the names of every Palestinian born in Gaza. They do have a list of everyone. So, I mean, are we going to see names of, let’s say, commanders, recognizable commanders, or any Mahmoud, Ahmed, Yousef, Daoud?MR MILLER: Said &#8212;QUESTION: Anybody could be &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t know and you don’t know. No one in this room knows. The Israeli Government is going to release those names and we’ll look at – and see what they do.QUESTION: And I’ll just come back on something else.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Do you have any update on how the policy towards a revitalized Palestinian Authority is progressing?MR MILLER: We have seen the Palestinian Authority take some steps, some initial reform steps. They appointed a new prime minister. That prime minister has announced a number of reforms he intends to put in place. We’re watching that very closely. We also realize that there are challenges that they face with funding that makes it difficult to carry out some of the reforms that they want to execute. It’s one of the reasons why we have been pressing Israel to release the clearance revenues that they have been withholding from the Palestinian Authority, because if you want to see a revised – revitalized Palestinian Authority, it needs to have the money to undertake these reforms. It’s why we have been pressing them not to take the devastating actions around correspondent banking that they have said they might pursue at the end of this month. So it’s something that we are continuing to engage with directly with the Palestinian Authority and with our Arab partners in the region who share this goal of ours.QUESTION: I mean, some of that might sound a bit like understatement. I was chatting to a PA official earlier today. He talked about the financial situation is unprecedented.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: PA finances are on the brink of collapse. If nothing changes in a few weeks next month, there is no extra income. There will be no ability to pay public wages. So they’re paying 50 percent already to tens of thousands of teachers, doctors, nurses, security forces, crucially. And they’re talking about weeks to potential collapse. So how concerned are you?MR MILLER: We are very concerned about it and we have made clear to the Government of Israel in some very direct conversations that there is nothing that could be more counter to the strategic interests of Israel than the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority – for all of its challenges, for all the need to pursue additional reforms inside the Palestinian Authority – the Palestinian Authority has worked to maintain stability in the West Bank.And if you look at the strategic situation that Israel faces right now, where they continue to fight a war in Gaza; they are seeing increased strikes along their northern border and the risk of further confrontation there; if you saw the Palestinian Authority collapse and instability spread across the West Bank, it’s not just a problem for the Palestinians, although that obviously – it obviously is a massive problem for the Palestinians and that alone ought to be reason for Israel to reverse this decision – it is also a massive security threat for the state of Israel.And so we have made clear to them that allowing the Palestinian Authority to receive the full revenue to which it is entitled – this is Palestinian money, not Israeli money – is not just the right thing to do, but it is also in Israel’s security interest, Israel’s strategic interest.QUESTION: That sounds like a nice way of trying to persuade them. But I’m interested in the issue of American power here, because your key partner, your ally, and the key figure in that government – the finance minister – is somebody who has an ideological background of he’s an expulsionist; he wants to get rid of Palestinians from the West Bank, history of making racist, anti-Arab statements. And so when he is the key figure that appears to be holding back all those revenues – and I think it stands at $1.6 billion &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; I mean, surely as the United States, the key ally of Israel, its key military backer, you can change that situation.MR MILLER: We continue to have, as I said, very direct conversations with the Government of Israel about the dire consequences this would have for Israel – or for the Palestinian people and for Israel’s own security situation.QUESTION: But do you see something like that &#8212;MR MILLER: There are other – let me just – let me just finish. There are other partners in the region who are having those same conversations with the Government of Israel. We are not yet at the point where they have run out of money, so we continue to work on it, and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.QUESTION: But do you see someone like that as a legitimate voice in this issue, who has a very key role in that in &#8212;MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear on a number of occasions that we disagree with the statements that particular minister has made.QUESTION: It’s not just statements. It’s actually – I mean, this is &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, this – Tom, just let me finish. I was about to say that. We have made quite clear on a number of occasions that we disagree with the statements that particular minister has made and the actions that that particular minister has taken. And we will continue to do that and we will continue to work to try to see them reversed, because ultimately these are actions that are not in the interest of Israel. As I said, not in the interest of the Palestinian people, but they are self-defeating for the state of Israel and its long-term security, and we hope that wiser heads will prevail inside the Israeli Government.QUESTION: But just finally, because I know you want to move on, but I think people might find it very puzzling that you have the leverage of $3.8 billion of defense supplied to the Israelis per year, and you cannot compel this situation to change, given the ideological background of &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; a figure like this in an absolutely key role in your key partner and ally in the region.MR MILLER: We have had this conversation a number of times on a number of different issues, and it remains the case that Israel is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions. Yes, we supply them with security assistance. Every country in the world that we provide security assistance to ultimately is a sovereign state that is going to make their own decisions. Now, we can go in and have very direct conversations with them, and we do and will continue to, but ultimately not only do they make their own decisions, but they are responsible for those decisions and they’re responsible for the consequences of them.QUESTION: Just – it’s related to &#8212;MR MILLER: Go back – yeah, go back and then I’ll &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; Palestinian Authority reform. I would imagine you’ve seen that there’s also been another report about a shouting match that happened between the Emirati foreign minister and a senior advisor to the Palestinian Authority where the UAE foreign minister called the Palestinian advisor Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. This was in relation to him accusing the Palestinian Authority of being corrupt, reforms not being effective. Can you give us an update on how it’s going or not going well with other Arab &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; Arab nations in terms of, like, supporting the Palestinian Authority, the new leadership reforms and &#8212;MR MILLER: So we continue to engage in conversations with our Arab partners about not just reforms to the Palestinian Authority, but the broad sweep of post-conflict issues that we need to work on. And there are differences among different countries in that group, and sometimes those differences are minor and sometimes those differences are major, and what we do is try to work to bridge all of them and come up with compromise proposals that the – that everyone can get behind.Now, none of this is easy, right? This is – there is a reason why this dispute has been going on for decades because there are very tough, thorny issues involved here, and probably no more – no more so than now, where we are prevented – presented with a host of very difficult issues that we have to resolve. But we continue to pursue diplomacy, and the Secretary continues to engage in conversations with those Arab partners about trying to bridge those differences.QUESTION: Do you feel at all confident that an Arab nation might step up and help at all with the financial issues of the PA? Is that &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not something for me to speak to. I would leave it to those countries to answer.QUESTION: Change of subject?MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: China has protested to India that exchange of greetings between Prime Minister Modi and President Lai from Taiwan. Following this there have been several state and nonstate actors going on social media and saying that India has to – India would have a price to pay. What do you say about the coercive and threatening behavior coming out of China on the issue?MR MILLER: So I haven’t seen those specific reports, so I don’t want to comment on them in detail. But I would say that such congratulatory messages are the normal course of diplomatic business.QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Matt, a couple F-16-related questions. Yesterday you guys put out – the PMA Bureau put out a post saying that, yes, Türkiye purchased the fighter jets. Have you guys already signed the letter of acceptance, or there’s a ambiguity there? Can you please clarify?MR MILLER: It was Türkiye that signed a letter of offer and acceptance to purchase the F-16s. The sale is an investment in NATO interoperability and will support the national security interests of the United States, Türkiye, and the NATO Alliance. You may remember that getting this particular sale over the finish line was – took some time, and we’re glad to see it moving forward.QUESTION: Thank you. And Ukraine seemed to be unhappy about some of the delays involving F-16 training. There was a Politico report about that yesterday. They believe that this doesn’t match with amount of jets that they might take and – to operate. Why there’s a delay?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to those specifics; I’m not familiar with them. Training is not something that we conduct out of the State Department, obviously. That’s something that happens in the Pentagon, so I would refer you to them to speak to any specifics with regard to that. But I can say that speaking generally, training Ukrainian pilots has been a major priority of us, something that we’ve worked hard on and worked to ensure our Allies in NATO can do as well. And that – those – that training is ongoing.QUESTION: Thank you. And final one from me. As I understand, Special Advisor Bono just returned back from the region, and he spent two weeks in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Any progress, any readout?MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on his travel. I would direct you to his office for anything specific on his travel.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Going back to the risk of escalation in conflict in the Middle East, today the Islamic resistance in Iraq said in a statement they carried out two joint military operation with Houthis on Israel’s Haifa port.MR MILLER: Can you – ask it again. Just speak up a little bit. Sorry. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, okay.MR MILLER: Maybe the microphone is poorly placed in your part of the room.QUESTION: Sure, I’ll repeat the question. Yeah, today the Islamic resistance in Iraq said in a statement they carried out to joint attacks with Houthis against the Israeli Haifa port. And I think this is the first time that the Islamic resistance in Iraq, that they are cooperating with the Houthis to attack the Israels. How do you see these developments, especially cooperation between Iraqi militia groups backed by Iran and the Houthis?MR MILLER: So we have long made clear that we oppose any attacks by the various militia groups, Iranian-sponsored militia groups, against the Government of Israel, and that we are prepared to help Israel defend itself against those attacks. Obviously any kind of cooperation between them is something that would be incredibly concerning and that we would work to mitigate.QUESTION: And this may trigger retaliation attack by Israel, and you said earlier that when there were attacks on the U.S. forces in Iraq, you worked to try to mitigate these threats from occurring. Have you reached the Iraqi Government to rein in these groups, do not attack Israeli from 100 miles away from &#8212;MR MILLER: So without speaking to any specific conversations regarding these attacks, it has been our general policy to press the Iraqi Government to prevent attacks being launched on their soil, either against the Government of Israel or against United States interests or United States troops in the region.QUESTION: And lastly, my last question, this week the Iraqi parliament passed the budget law which provided more than 4 trillion and 556 billion Iraqi dinar, which equivalent to 3.5 billion U.S. dollars to PMF, Iranian-backed groups, and including those groups who were attacking the U.S. troops in Iraq. So do you concern about that the future security of Iraq and this – the future security of the region when these groups are getting funding by Iraqi Government?MR MILLER: We do remain concerned that individuals within the PMF are not responsive to the Iraqi commander in chief and engage in violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq and Syria. Attacks against U.S. and coalition service members as well as Iraqi’s security service members and businesses undermine Iraq’s security and economy. And we continue to urge the Iraqi Government to rein in these individuals and hold them accountable for breaking Iraqi law.Shaun.QUESTION: Other violence in the region, in the Middle East, in the general region. Sudan – there was an attack in Al Gezirah state in which it’s been reported that over a hundred people were killed. The RSF was blamed for this. Do you have any update both on actions on the RSF and on the army, and any potential resumption of talks in Jeddah?MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is that we continue to engage in diplomacy to try to end the war, mitigate the humanitarian crisis. You may have seen that the Secretary spoke to the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia about this earlier this week. He spoke to General Burhan last week about this very thing. And what we have continued to urge is a return to talks between the SAF and the RSF to try to reach a ceasefire, and that remains what we’re focused on.QUESTION: Is there any progress on that? I mean, it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer from here.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: On the Lions’ Den sanctions, roughly how many people are you – are going to be impacted by that?MR MILLER: We – it is – they are not people; it is an entity. I don’t know how many people are members of the – that entity, but this is a sanction against an entity, not individuals.QUESTION: So do you think they have a lot of assets in the U.S. to seize?MR MILLER: So usually the question is not – it’s not just one of seizing assets. When we impose these kinds of sanctions – under this new executive order and that we’ve imposed several already – it prohibits people from doing any business with U.S. persons, U.S. entities, or accessing the U.S. financial system. So it’s not just about seizing assets, though clearly that is part of the potential accountability measures, but it is to prevent them from taking any transactions that could run through the U.S. financial system. And I know you’ve probably looked at these before, and there are a great deal of transactions around the world that do interact with our financial system in one way or the other.Yeah.QUESTION: My question is about your favorite subject.QUESTION: Related to the Lions’ &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I just ask one on the Lions’ Den? Sorry.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: That some, like, groups like FTD (ph) have been saying that this group is not active anymore since last summer, that it’s unlikely that the group will resurge, that basically these sanctions have come too late. Do you have a comment on that?MR MILLER: So the sanctions included – the sanctions that we imposed included – were based on not just activities that this group took in 2022 but also that they took just earlier this year. So no, I would not agree with that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Wednesday, China, Russia, and Iran issued a joint statement on the Iranian nuclear deal, calling on Western countries to step up their actions and restore the agreement. Do you have any reaction to this statement?MR MILLER: I don’t have a specific reaction to that statement, but we continue to have grave concerns about the – about Iran’s nuclear program, as we made clear at the IAEA just yesterday in voting for a resolution. We continue – we’ve seen the regime continue to amass a growing stockpile of highly enriched uranium for which it is – for which there is no credible civilian purpose, and we look forward to working with our allies and partners on a broad, comprehensive strategy aimed at achieving a sustainable solution that includes Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA.Yeah.QUESTION: And one more question on Georgia, on the sanctions. Can you please clarify what gives the United States the right to basically dictate to the Georgian parliament what laws it should pass, what laws it should not pass? Can you imagine Georgia telling the U.S. Congress what laws it should pass, what laws it should not pass?MR MILLER: So we are not dictating in any way to the Government of Georgia what laws it should pass, and in fact, if you look at where this law was inspired, I think it was from another country that has passed its own version of this law. It’s Russia that passed this version of law and clearly – and clearly was the model for the law that Georgia has passed. So the basis of our action is we have seen Georgia crack down on its own people, crack down on democratic dissent, and take these actions that reverse the steps that it has been on towards the EU and towards further integration with the West.Now, Georgia can make its own decisions about how it wants to move forward. We can make our own decisions about how we want to move forward. But we are not going to continue to allow people to come into the United States, we are not going to continue to support – well, I should say we will continue to review the financial assistance that we give to Georgia, and that all is potentially at jeopardy if Georgia is not pursuing policies that are in line with the interests and values we have seen it express here to date.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew.MR MILLER: Then we’ll – then Ryan, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Were Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the U.S., would Secretary Blinken meet with him?MR MILLER: So I heard an “if” at the beginning of that question. I don’t use &#8212;QUESTION: No, no, no.QUESTION: Well, as expected. As expected.QUESTION: No, he didn’t say “if.”MR MILLER: He said if he – he said &#8212;QUESTION: He said “were.”MR MILLER: “Were.” (Laughter.) Fair.QUESTION: He said were Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the United States.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: It is another – it is a &#8212;QUESTION: He did not use the “if.”MR MILLER: It is another entry into a hypothetical &#8212;QUESTION: No, back me up, Matt.MR MILLER: &#8212; into a hypothetical question that I typically decline to answer. He has not announced a visit, and certainly I’m not going to announce meetings for visits that are not yet on the books.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the administration’s reaction to China not participating in the Ukraine peace summit?MR MILLER: So we certainly would encourage China to participate in that summit. They have attended previous versions of the summit. We thought that was – that their presence was helpful. We think their presence would be helpful here, but I actually think there are other actions that China could take that would be even more helpful, and that would be cracking down on the companies that continue to help reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base.QUESTION: And finally, what does the 80th anniversary of D-Day mean for today’s global challenges?MR MILLER: So you heard the President speak to this earlier. You saw this – may have seen the Secretary speak to this in a couple of TV interviews he did. When you look at the alliance that the United States was part of in D-Day to stand up to tyranny and help push back tyranny when tyranny was on the march across Europe, it is an inspiration for some of the same challenges that we face today, and it is a reminder that we are stronger when we work in concert with allied nations that share our values, that support democracy, and work to – and push back against those forces who oppose it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Ryan.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. So the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations has said that Israel is now going to oppose the resolution that the United States is putting forward to push forward the Israeli ceasefire plan. Did that come as a surprise to the United States? And does that undermine the U.S. effort to get Hamas to agree to this deal if Israel is saying that it’s going to vote against its own deal at the UN?MR MILLER: So we have been talking with a number of governments, including the Government of Israel, about the direction of this resolution and what it ought to look like. Those conversations continue. We do think it is important that the United Nations Security Council speak with one voice on this. We have this rare opportunity where we have a chance to reach an immediate ceasefire that ultimately could lead to an end to this war, and so we want to see the Security Council act. We want to see it act as soon as possible. Now, the way this process works is that you often have to engage in diplomacy with members of the Security Council and sometimes with members off the Security Council to help get a resolution like this over the line. That’s what we continue to do.Quick – go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, I’ve got three really, really brief ones that you’ll probably be able to answer in several words.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: One, just on that last question, I was under the impression this was a Security Council resolution.MR MILLER: It is.QUESTION: It’s not a General Assembly resolution.MR MILLER: Correct. And Israel – I know the &#8212;QUESTION: Which means that Israel does not get to vote.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: They don’t have a vote.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: So why – I’m not sure why did you answer the question the way you did.MR MILLER: Because we are talking to Israel about this resolution.QUESTION: No, I understand that, but I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: We’re talking to other members off the Security Council about it as well.QUESTION: But they don’t get a vote because they’re not in the council.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, do you have anything new on the Beirut – and sorry if you did this while I was out – on the Beirut embassy incident yesterday?MR MILLER: I don’t. I don’t have an update on the investigation that the Lebanese authorities are conducting.QUESTION: All right. And then the very last thing: Yesterday you said that the amount of aid, assistance given to Georgia – I think you said over the last couple of years – is about 390. Can you be more specific? How many years is that?MR MILLER: It’s two. It’s two. And I can go back and – I can go back after – it’s a couple years.QUESTION: So since Fiscal ’23?MR MILLER: I will go back and get the specifics. My understanding is that’s the amount budgeted for the last two years to the Government of Georgia. That’s across a range of different programs, and we can get your more details on it.QUESTION: Okay. But it’s two years?MR MILLER: Two years, correct.QUESTION: Okay, great. Thank you.MR MILLER: If you finished – yeah, one more, and then we’ll go.QUESTION: Just real quick on the Human Rights Watch report on white phosphorous. We’ve seen tons of reports now about the use of white phosphorous by the IDF – 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon since October according to HRW. So does the U.S. have any policy that it – with regard to the use of white phosphorous?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: Putting – setting aside whether or not these individual incidents occurred.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah. So white phosphorous is something that’s commonly used in military operations to produce smoke to obscure ground forces, mark locations, or provide illumination, and just the usage by itself is not something that’s prohibited under international humanitarian law. But, as with any type of military operation, civilians can’t be targeted. If white phosphorous is used, precautions have to be taken to minimize harm to civilians, and it’s incumbent on countries to use white phosphorous in ways that are consistent with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Are these incidents concerning, that Human Rights Watch is saying that they were outside the bounds of what you just described?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen the reports, but that is the type of thing that we’d have to take a look at and assess before commenting in detail.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:31 p.m.)# # #Hamas fighters ↑						Tags																					China																								France																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Sudan																								Taiwan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – June 5, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; June 5, 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; June 5, 2024																																																					June 5, 2024																																																								1:18 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: All right. I do not have opening comments today, so Matt?QUESTION: Yeah. So, before we get into the rest of the Middle East, can you just give us an update if you have one – or even if you don’t have one – on what happened in Beirut?MR MILLER: So yes. Earlier today there was a shooting incident outside of our embassy in Beirut. One member of the embassy’s local guard force was seriously injured. The gunman was arrested after the incident. The U.S. embassy remains in contact with the Lebanese authorities as they investigate the incident. In terms of embassy security, the embassy was secured immediately. We achieved full accountability of all official U.S. citizens and locally employed staff, and the embassy closed today following the incident but plans to be open for business as usual tomorrow.QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any idea about who did it?MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: You’re relying entirely on the Lebanese?MR MILLER: So, we are – the DSS is coordinating with the Lebanese to answer that question. We are aware that the – the individual who was arrested was wearing what appeared to be ISIS insignia. But we are conducting a full investigation with the Lebanese authorities into the actual motivations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Same subject. There now have been five people, along with the shooter, that have been apprehended in Lebanon. Can you say, at this point, is there any indication indeed that there is some kind of cell working against the embassy?MR MILLER: (Coughs.) Excuse me, as I got something &#8212;QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: &#8212; stuck in my throat. It’s an ongoing investigation; I don’t want to get ahead of that.Yeah.QUESTION: Staying in the region, how worried are you given the Israeli’s prime minister’s comments on the northern front at Lebanon? How worried are you that that could spin out of control at any time?MR MILLER: So, we do remain incredibly concerned about the risk of isolation along the Israel-Lebanon border. It’s something we’ve been concerned about since the immediate aftermath of October 7th, and we have been engaged in intense diplomatic conversations and intense diplomatic negotiations to try to avoid that conflict from escalating beyond control.Now, a few things. Number one – and you heard me say this yesterday – it is an untenable situation for Israel right now that there are tens of thousands of Israeli citizens who cannot return to their homes in the north of Israel because it’s not safe to do so because of the risk of – not the risk, but the reality of constant Hizballah shelling and drone attacks in the area. That said, the Government of Israel has long maintained privately to us – and they’ve said it publicly, too – that their preferred solution to this conflict is a diplomatic one, and we continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution because we don’t want to see that escalation of the conflict, which would lead to further loss of life from both Israelis and the Lebanese people, and would greatly harm Israel’s overall security and stability in the region.So, we – kind of two things. One is this track we’ve been pursuing all along, but then secondly, one of the reasons we think a ceasefire in Gaza is so important is because that ceasefire would unlock the potential for us to actually achieve lasting calm in the north. And it is one of the reasons we continue to pursue it.Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Today marks the &#8212;MR MILLER: I finally got whatever it was in my throat out, so hopefully – hopefully &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: – hopefully I can be &#8212;QUESTION: You could borrow my bottle of water.MR MILLER: I don’t know if I’ll be any more clear in my answers, but hopefully I won’t be choking on them. (Laughter.)QUESTION: All right. Well, we’ll take it, frog and all. Today marks the 57th anniversary of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. And just to give you some of the things that happened on a daily basis, they blew up two homes in Jalbun. They – there’s a statement by the UN saying that the killing of people in the West Bank is unacceptable – 500 people – and so on and so on, and so on. I mean, my question to you: How long must the Palestinians endure? Should they endure another 57 years of occupation? Shouldn’t – isn’t it time for the United States of America to make good on its so many commitment, so many times over the decades, that this occupation must end? Or maybe you don’t feel that this occupation ought to end.MR MILLER: So Said, if you like at the work that we have been doing, it is to establish an independent Palestinian state &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; to answer the Palestinian people’s legitimate political aspirations. One of the things you heard the President speak to in – on Friday, when he outlined this ceasefire proposal that is still pending with Hamas, is that we want to resolve the immediate crisis in Gaza. We want to see an end to the death and destruction there. But then we also believe that the acceptance of that proposal could lead us to long-term peace, long-term stability, and of course self-determination for the Palestinian people.QUESTION: Well, looking at what this President has done, or former presidents have done in terms of exercising or leveraging the weight and the prestige of the United States on Israel to make good, to stop the settlement, you have not. To end the killing, you have not. I mean, we see –MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: We see this war that has been going on for the past eight months, which is just a small part of the past 57 years. It has already – already more than 40,000 Palestinians, maybe more, have been killed, many of them women and children. The entire Gaza is probably destroyed, or part of it is destroyed. The same thing goes on and on every day in the West Bank, which seems to have disappeared from the radar screen.MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: That is my point. When will we see &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; a real action by the United States of America to move the &#8212;MR MILLER: So, if you want to talk about how we are going to use the influence of the United States and the prestige of the United States, you have seen it over the past few days &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; in working with Egypt and Qatar to negotiate a proposal that Israel put on the table to achieve an immediate ceasefire that we would work to try to turn into long-term, lasting peace. And I would note, as I did yesterday when you asked similar questions and as I did the day before when you asked similar questions, the obstacle to that proposal getting off the ground right now is not Israel, it’s not the United States, it’s not any of the countries in the region – it is Hamas. I would also point you to the fact – the work that we have been doing with the Government of Saudi Arabia and with our other Arab partners to try to find long-term normalization of relations with Israel, and one of the things that would be included in normalization is a pathway to an independent Palestinian state.So the United States has been actively engaged in this question, not just speaking to it from podiums, not just giving speeches about it, but actively engaged with partners in the region to try to establish an independent Palestinian state; to try to take all the carnage of the past eight months, all the death of the past eight months, and to come out of that with real, tangible progress to answer the Palestinians’ legitimate hopes and aspirations.QUESTION: One last comment. We also see that the President of the United States yesterday, the – this administration signing a deal with Israel to give it one more wing of F-35s that have been solely used in Gaza and nowhere else, giving $50 billion of arms and so on for this war to continue. We’ve seen the President basically say that Mr. Netanyahu is – wants this war to continue for political reasons, and then he backtracks and so on. I don’t think these signals would in any way sort of show the red eye or – as we say in Arabic – or show the stick, so to speak, to the Israeli Government to end its atrocities in Gaza.MR MILLER: So a couple of things. First of all, when it comes to Israel’s long-term security, and when you referred to this negotiation over providing F -35s, that is a commitment to Israel’s long-term security. These are planes that would be delivered four years from now in 2028. We are committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. That’s something we’re required to do by law, and it’s something we support and something that we will continue to do. That said, we also are pursuing to – an end to the conflict in Gaza.And as I said, despite the premise of your question, it is not Israel that is the roadblock to a ceasefire right now. It is not Israel that is a roadblock to hostages being returned, 600 trucks a day of humanitarian assistance coming in, Palestinians been able to return, safely return, to their neighborhoods and eventually get to the reconstruction of Gaza. It is Hamas. All that is on the table in a proposal that is sitting with Hamas, as it has been sitting with Hamas for six days now. And we await their – and we await their – and we await their answer.QUESTION: Did Israel accept the proposal? Did Israel accept the proposal?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I follow up on the Hamas thing?QUESTION: You just said it’s with Hamas.MR MILLER: Please don’t interrupt.QUESTION: Sam, can I just &#8212;MR MILLER: We’ve had – Sam &#8212;QUESTION: Please, can I just &#8212;MR MILLER: Sam, we’ve had this conversation before.QUESTION: I’m – I’m trying to get clarification. It’s all about Hamas.MR MILLER: Please don’t interrupt me; please don’t interrupt your colleagues.QUESTION: I’m not interrupting her, I’m asking for clarification.QUESTION: Thank you, thank you. Sam, can I just follow up with my question, please?QUESTION: Has Israel accepted?MR MILLER: I think you are interrupting her. Nadia, go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Thank you. Actually, a spokesman for Hamas just told Al Arabiya an hour ago that they wanted a guarantee from the Biden administration to make sure that Israel implement what the President has asked for in the three phases. Can you respond to that?MR MILLER: So first of all, I’m not going to negotiate with Hamas in public. There is a proposal that has been transmitted to Hamas. And we will await Hamas’s response through official channels. I think that’s the appropriate way for these discussions to take place. That said, Israel has made clear they are committed to this proposal. They made clear to us they were committed to this proposal before they sent it. They have made clear to us since they sent it that they are committed to the proposal.Now, that doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be negotiations as we end – well, I should say if Hamas accepts, it doesn’t mean there won’t be negotiations as we get from phase one to phase two. That is built into the negotiation process. And I’m sure as we – as – if we get there, as we make that transition, there are demands that Hamas would have; there are demands that Israel would have. What we would do is push Israel to engage in good-faith negotiations. Qatar and Egypt have said they would push Hamas to engage in good-faith negotiations. And as long as those negotiations are going on, the ceasefire would continue.QUESTION: And I don’t want to follow up on Lebanon. I know that you gave the answer that the U.S. has been working to de-escalate from opening a front in the north. But the statements coming from Netanyahu and his ministers are more extreme and more serious, to the degree they’re actually discussing it in the cabinet, in the Knesset – in the war cabinet tomorrow. So do you believe that Netanyahu is trying to open another front to escape any kind of accountability by prolonging this war from Gaza to the north?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what he may be trying to do. I will just speak to what they have said their policy is, both to us and publicly. They have said for some time now that they will seek to find a solution for Israelis to return to their homes and neighborhoods in northern Israel. They have said their preference would be to resolve it diplomatically, but they were also prepared to do so militarily. We continue to prefer a diplomatic approach. That’s what we continue to pursue, and as I said, is one of the reasons we believe a – reaching a ceasefire in Gaza is so important, because it unlocks the potential of getting that diplomatic resolution in the north.QUESTION: And finally, the New York Times said that Israel has spent $2 million on creating fake accounts trying to influence lawmakers and the U.S. officials on their pro-Israel narrative. How do you see this differently from what Iran, Russia, and China all do when you accuse them that they’re interfering in U.S. election and influencing U.S. politics?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen that report. It’s a press report, not a U.S. Government report, so I don’t have any comment on the underlying facts. But I will say we have very clear laws on the books in the United States about foreign influence campaigns. We enforce those laws vigorously and we expect everyone to comply with them.Tom, go ahead. Come &#8212;QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. The BBC is reporting today about the aftermath of the al-Shifa raid by the Israelis, which happened in a two-week period at the end of March. Now, the Israeli Government had said that this was a precise and surgical operation; there was not a single civilian casualty. Palestinian civil defense workers speaking to the BBC said they found corpses of women, children, individuals without heads, as well as torn body parts. Another said signs of field executions, binding marks, gunshots wounds to the head, and torture marks on the limbs were observed on some of the bodies. I mean, is the U.S. Government – has the U.S. Government been looking at this particular incident? And if so, what is your view on what’s taken place there?MR MILLER: So with respect to your report, I apologize. I haven’t read that story yet today. And with respect to what we are looking at, without confirming any one incident, as we never do, we have made clear that we are looking at a number of incidents inside Gaza to assess Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law and those assessments continue.QUESTION: I mean, this particular case – is this one you’ve been looking at? I mean, this was a very significant raid, and I think it’s – the importance of it was that the Israelis went in once in the middle of November, pulled out, and then they went back in several months later &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; which is sort of indicative of perhaps military strategy but also this very significant number of dead people in Palestinians describe as mass graves.MR MILLER: So I will say with respect to military strategy, you’ve seen us make the point that the fact that they had to return to this location – as they’ve had to return to other locations that they had said they had previously cleared, is a sign that in our view you need more than a military strategy for eventually ending this conflict. You also need a political strategy as well.With respect to the specific claims of what happened there, I’m just not going to get into which incidents we are assessing, but I’ll say we do have a number of incidents that remain under assessment where we’re looking at Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Can I – just one final thing on this because it raises the wider point, which we talked about before, about the ban and the lack of ability for international journalists to get into Gaza – and the fact that the Israelis and Egyptians will not still allow this despite large numbers of humanitarian workers now being able to get in and out and assess things. What are the Israelis saying to you about what is the reason that international journalists cannot find out what is happening in Gaza – because these situations are a very good example about the need for transparency so that we can all understand what’s going on?MR MILLER: So I’m loath to speak for the Israeli Government. I know that they have said &#8212;QUESTION: I just wonder what they’re telling you.MR MILLER: I know. I know. I – well, I know that they have said publicly there are safety issues, but I don’t want to speak for them. I will – what I will say is we have raised this issue with the Israeli Government at senior levels to make clear that we think journalists ought to be able to operate inside Gaza. Now, of course, there are safety issues. You have to have a – the ability for them to do so without jeopardizing military operations. That’s standard when the military operate – when any military operates in a conflict zone and journalists are either embedded or in – or they’re actively covering. But we think journalists ought to be able to cover the war in Gaza, and that includes journalists from outside Gaza. A lot of what the world knows is happening in Gaza is precisely as you pointed out – is because of the work that journalists do, sometimes with incredibly tragic consequences. We support that work and we want to see it continue. And we think they ought to be allowed into Gaza.QUESTION: But apart from safety issues, which media organizations are expert at working in war zones and they make their own risk assessment decisions on this, do you know of any good reason why international journalists shouldn’t be able to get into Gaza?MR MILLER: I’m just going to say on behalf of the United States we think they should be allowed into Gaza.Jillian.QUESTION: Question on Gaza and question on Russia, if I may. I was going to ask – I think my question still holds up whether Hamas has responded formally or not in the last hour. So it was six days ago that the President announced publicly that the new ceasefire deal was on the table, already agreed to by the Israelis. I was going to ask if there’s any concern or if this is just as you would expect it to be that six days in there didn’t seem to be any back and forth, any movement on Hamas’s side?MR MILLER: So a couple of things about that. Number one, it sometimes takes a bit of time to get an answer back from Hamas, because Qatar transmits a response to the Hamas political officials who are not in Gaza. They transmit it to Sinwar and the Hamas military wing that are in Gaza. For reasons you can imagine, communications with them are a little strained, a little difficult, and it takes time to get an answer back. That said, we don’t think this ought to be a process that takes a long time for Hamas to consider given that the proposal that was submitted to them last Thursday evening is virtually identical to one that they said several weeks ago they would agree to. So we would hope for a response from them as soon as possible, because the benefits that this proposal offers to the Palestinian people are real. They’re tangible. They would be immediate, and so we think Hamas ought to accept as quickly as possible.QUESTION: Just for – so – clarity, when you saw a version of what they agreed to a few weeks ago, is that the one that they spoke publicly about and said they would agree to and then it fell apart?MR MILLER: That Hamas did. Correct. Yeah, correct.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Next question is Russia – can I go to another topic?MR MILLER: Of course. We’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Can we finish this – okay.MR MILLER: The – yeah. Go ahead, and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: We’ll &#8212;QUESTION: There is pretty widespread reporting now that Russia is trying to essentially scare the international community but Americans and particularly – in particular off the Olympics. So – and they’re putting out fake terror warnings. They’re putting out reporting online that people are sort of giving back their tickets and canceling flights because it’s going to be so unsafe to attend the games. The French spoke out about this back in April, but it seems like the efforts have ramped up. I was just wondering if you had a message for Americans hoping to attend the games, if there are concerns or if it’s just fully fabricated.MR MILLER: So – yeah, I would say first of all it’s not surprising to see that the Kremlin is seeking to disrupt the games with disinformation. We’ve seen them sow disinformation across any number of fronts. And it’s especially not surprising that they’re doing it with respect to the Olympics, where their athletes are banned from competing under the Russian flag because of the Kremlin’s long history of abusing fair competition in the Olympics.When it comes to a message for people who – that want to attend the Olympics, I think they should look at the information that law enforcement puts out, look at the information that the French Government puts out. We have been working with the French Government for some time to ensure a safe, secure Olympics, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: I just want to come back to Nadia’s question on the Lebanese – Israel-Lebanon border. So you’re kind of asking us to ignore the public statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli military that they’re ready to launch an offensive. And behind the scenes they tell you they don’t want a war, but are you – could you say whether sort of the U.S. has intelligence or is able to see whether Israel is actually preparing on the ground for a possible offensive? Because the language that they’re using suggests that they are.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to answer the second question with respect to intelligence matters. I will say – and I also – I don’t think you should ignore what they say publicly. What they say publicly is important. But I will also say what they’ve said publicly about this tracks what they have said privately to us. They have made clear all along that they want to resolve this situation one way or the other, and they’ve said that to us in private using largely the same language that you’ve seen them use in public, including the language that you’ve seen them use in public over the past few days. But they have also emphasized – and this has been in some of their statements over the last few days as well – that they want to see a diplomatic resolution but they are prepared for another option.And so we are trying to avoid military escalation in the north. We are trying to pursue a diplomatic resolution. But as I said, the – this goes back kind of to the situation that we’ve been in since October 7th. The longer the conflict in Gaza goes on, the more risk there is of further regional escalation, the more risk there is of escalation in the north of Israel, the more risk there is of that turning into a full-scale conflict with Hizballah, the more risk there is of further conflict in the West Bank, the more risk there is of other proxy groups being drawn into the war, as we saw flare up earlier in this – earlier in the past eight months when we were dealing with sustained proxy attacks in Iraq, sometimes against U.S. forces and U.S. interests.So we are continuing to try to manage that escalation and prevent it from happening, but that’s why – that is just at the – I know I keep coming back to this answer – it’s why at a fundamental strategic level we are trying to pursue this ceasefire, because we do think it helps unlock region-wide stability or makes region-wide stability much more possible, including in the north of Israel.QUESTION: Right, but – so this is a potential action that Israel could take in terms of crossing the border and escalating from their side. When it comes to Rafah, we had this – you’ve been quite clear that the U.S. disapproves of a full-scale operation in Rafah. So there’s a sort of a warning attached to that and there’s a potential for the U.S. to change policy towards Israel based on that, but in the north you sort of say you don’t want them to go in, but if they do, there’s no sort of warning attached to that that you might actually change policy.MR MILLER: You know I’m just not going to deal with a hypothetical. I would note, though, that the statements from the Israeli Government saying that they are ready for a military operation if necessary is different than saying that they have made a decision to conduct a military operation. We are still in a place where we believe they prefer a diplomatic solution. That’s what they’ve said to us and that’s what we’re pursuing.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Kylie.QUESTION: Just to be clear on this, you’ve said that obviously you guys want this ceasefire in order to avoid the risk of escalation in the north, but this ceasefire wouldn’t actually include any kinetic potential operations in the north, right?MR MILLER: The ceasefire is an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Obviously the north is a different terrorist organization, Hizballah, so no, it is a different process. But we believe a ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza unlocks the possibility of further diplomacy in the north.QUESTION: And then, just when it comes to the proposal that’s on the table right now, obviously you guys have gone to great lengths to try and pressure regional allies and regional players to put pressure on Hamas to accept the deal. Many of them have put out public statements. I’m wondering if the Biden administration feels like these countries are doing enough privately to pressure Hamas as well.MR MILLER: So, there are only a few countries in the region that have relationships with Hamas.QUESTION: Okay, fine. Qatar and Egypt, do you think they’re doing enough?MR MILLER: We do. We do. We have seen them exert significant pressure on Hamas. I’m not going to get into the details of that here. We have seen both countries play I think an incredibly important role in mediating this deal, in making clear that this deal is in the interests of the Palestinian people, and doing so appropriately.QUESTION: And what – can you just be a little bit more clear about what the consequences for Hamas will be if they don’t accept it? I mean, you keep saying they must accept it, they must, but, like, to what end?MR MILLER: Look, I think the consequences are that the war continues. I think that’s very clear. Without a ceasefire, the war will continue, and &#8212;QUESTION: They don’t necessarily want the war to end, so that’s not &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, so that gets to this question I’ve dealt with a bit the last couple of days, which is it may be that Sinwar, sitting in a tunnel, believes he’s safe and so makes that decision because he thinks my personal safety is assured and I don’t care about the Palestinian people who continue to die in conflict, and who continue to struggle from a lack of humanitarian assistance because of all the barriers and impediments to getting it in and getting it properly distributed. We can’t make that decision for him, obviously. All we can do is put a deal on the table that is in the interests of the Palestinian people, hope that enough countries in the world make clear that Hamas ought to take this deal. But ultimately the responsibility for that lies with Hamas, and the responsibility for the consequences if they don’t accept this proposal – which, as I have said, and I’ll keep harping on it, is nearly identical to one they said they would agree to – the consequences are – rest with Hamas if they decline to now take it.QUESTION: But will there also be consequences for Hamas outside of the battlefield if they don’t accept this deal?MR MILLER: What do you mean? You mean for the Hamas operatives that are not inside Gaza?QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: So look, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. We have long made clear there ought to be consequences for members of Hamas outside of Gaza who are engaged in terrorist activities. I don’t have anything to preview at this time.QUESTION: Okay. And then just one more line of questioning. We’ve now seen I think it’s like nine or 10 resignations of State Department officials, USAID officials, protesting this administration’s approach to the war. I wonder if any of those resignations have had any impact on the administration’s policy.MR MILLER: So we certainly understand that people have incredibly strong feelings about this proposal. That includes people, obviously, in senior officials – senior officials in this government have incredibly strong feelings about the conflict in Gaza. And we listen to people. We want to hear their opinions. We want to hear the expertise that they bring to bear. But ultimately, it is the President, the Secretary, other senior officials that make the decisions about what the policy of the United States ought to be.But I would say to all of those who disagree or have disagreed with the policy that the United States has pursued: Look at the work that we have done to try and get a ceasefire in Gaza, to get the proposal that’s on the table to the line and then over the line. This isn’t work that started last Friday when the President laid out this proposal. This is work that has been going on for months to try to find a way to get a ceasefire and bring a durable end to this conflict. It is what we have been focused on. It’s not always apparent. It’s not always evident to the public. But we have been trying to find a way to end this conflict in a way that is durable and lasting, that doesn’t ensure that Israel is fighting another war against the Palestinian people in three months or six months – or even a year or two years, and in a way that provides real security for Palestinians and Israelis alike.QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up?QUESTION: Well, hold on a second.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You said that doesn’t ensure that Israel is fight – is going to fight a war against the Palestinian people. I thought the whole point was that they’re not fighting the Palestinian people, they’re fighting Hamas.MR MILLER: It’s – it is a good correction. Fighting – it is a good correction, Matt. I thank you. It is a war against Hamas that, unfortunately, has had tragic consequences for the Palestinian people, but of course.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on a point that wasn’t, I don’t think, a slip of the tongue, because you’ve said this before, in relation to Kylie’s question, which is that you say that Hamas and Sinwar should bear in mind that what should draw them to a ceasefire is that Palestinian people are being killed. But your position is that no civilians – no Palestinian civilians should be being killed. So why do you raise that point as a point of pressure on Hamas?MR MILLER: It is a – just a point of actual fact.QUESTION: But it’s been your position that civilians should not be being killed.MR MILLER: This is a – no, the proposal – of course, of course. The &#8212;QUESTION: So – but the fact you’re raising it, the U.S. Government raises this as a point of pressure on Hamas &#8212;MR MILLER: No. The proposal on the table is a ceasefire – a ceasefire to a war that has led to thousands of innocent Palestinians been killed – being killed.QUESTION: Yeah, and your position is that innocent civilians should not be being killed.MR MILLER: That it should – that – of course, of course the &#8212;QUESTION: But yet you raise this as a pressure &#8212;MR MILLER: No, hold on, hold on &#8212;QUESTION: You do. You’ve done this before, and so have other U.S. officials.MR MILLER: Absolutely they should not be killed, but they are being killed in a war. And we want to see – and we want to see that war end &#8212;QUESTION: And your position is that they – that – your position is that they should not &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and if Hamas accepted the proposal, the war would come to an immediate halt for at least six weeks, and we would try to turn it into something more durable.QUESTION: But it just feels rather contradictory, if your position is that Palestinian civilians should not be being killed, to raise that as a specific point of pressure on Hamas to come to a ceasefire.MR MILLER: It is acknowledging the obvious reality, the harsh reality of this conflict.QUESTION: But – an obvious reality that &#8212;MR MILLER: It is not at all an endorsement of the tragic consequences; it is an acknowledgment of reality. The President talked about this too. We’ve seen tremendous death and destruction over the past eight months. We want to avoid that going forward, and the way to do that is to get a ceasefire.Go ahead.QUESTION: But you vetoed a ceasefire resolution?QUESTION: Yeah, two questions, Matt. One, Egypt is unhappy over rate of aid entering Gaza. Do you have any comment on that? Did they discuss this issue with you? And any updates on Rafah crossing?MR MILLER: So we have been engaged in conversations with our Egyptian counterparts as well as other counterparts in the region for some time, really for months. It’s an ongoing conversation about how to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance in – through all crossings into Gaza.I would say with respect to Rafah, and this is obviously related – I spoke to this some yesterday or the day before, maybe both – we are engaged in ongoing conversations with Egypt, with Israel about how to reopen that crossing, how to ensure that the crossing is administered not by Hamas on the Gaza side of it but by some other authority. We’re working through what that might look like and how we would provide appropriate security – I say “we,” not the United States – but how there could be appropriate security provided to ensure that the crossing is open and safely operated, and those discussions are ongoing.QUESTION: And second, the UAE president has received yesterday Taliban interior minister, who is on the terrorist list, U.S. terrorist list. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: So I would just note that member-states hosting UN-sanctioned Taliban members must seek permission for travel through an exemption process, as outlined by the UN 1988 Sanctions Committee, and it’s important that member-states follow these procedures.QUESTION: Did you discuss this issue with UAE?MR MILLER: I don’t have any conversations to read out. So &#8212;QUESTION: Change of subject.MR MILLER: Let me just stick – I will come to you. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. So last week it was pretty widely reported that Biden gave the green light to Ukraine to use U.S. weapons on Russian territory. Is that true?MR MILLER: With respect to targeting military targets just over the border in – outside Kharkiv.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: So across the Ukrainian border into Russia outside Kharkiv.QUESTION: And how far does that stretch into Russia?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into exact details from this podium. We’ve communicated them directly to the Ukrainian Government. But it was to allow the Ukrainians to defend themselves from a changing battlefield where Russia has rolled military equipment right up to the Russian border and used that equipment to shell civilians in Kharkiv. And the Ukrainians, in our assessment, needed the ability to be able to respond to that in a way that was appropriate, and so we’ve granted them the authority to target military targets just over the Russian border in that area.QUESTION: Are you concerned about potential escalatory risks?MR MILLER: I would say it is Vladimir Putin that has continually escalated this conflict over and over again, including by these latest actions. And we think this is an appropriate response.QUESTION: Right. So, well, your response you don’t find escalatory?MR MILLER: We do not. We will continue to take appropriate actions to respond to what President Putin has done, to allow Ukraine to defend itself. But again, it’s Russia that’s the aggressor here. It’s Russia that is rolling its military equipment right up to the border, and using it to shell civilian targets. And we think it’s appropriate that Ukraine be able to defend itself.QUESTION: Follow on Putin?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A couple questions on Iraq. In recent days, the anti-American groups in Iraq targeted a U.S. branch and UK branch in &#8212;MR MILLER: I – I – can you speak up just a little bit? I can barely &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. In recent days, the anti-American groups in Iraq, they attacked a U.S. branch and UK branch in Baghdad, and they are calling for attacking the other branch in other cities in Iraq. Are you going to conduct an investigation into these attacks? And what’s your assessment on that? Who do you blame for being behind these attacks?MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to speak to any investigation that we may or may not undertake. But I would say that the attacks on these – what are essentially franchises of U.S. companies harm Iraqi workers, Iraqi patrons, and sometimes Iraqi capital that is being employed there. And so they are attacks against – eventually against the Iraqi people, and we think the Iraqi Government ought to take appropriate measures to respond to those attacks and hold people accountable for them.QUESTION: And then today and yesterday the Iraqi interior ministry, they announced that they arrested assailants, and including the members of security forces. So what concerns do you have when the security forces in Iraq should protect the security of these companies and branch, but they are getting involved within the attacks and to this violence?MR MILLER: Well, I would answer that by saying whenever attacks like these are carried out, whoever the perpetrator is, it is appropriate that those individuals be held accountable. And in this case, that’s what the Iraqi Government is doing, and we want to see them continue to do it.QUESTION: And last thing, about the escalation in the region. Today the Iranian IRGC commander in chief said that the Israelis should wait for a response over the attacks that happened in Aleppo. What concerns do you have about that?MR MILLER: I would just say broadly that we want to continue to avoid further escalation.Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah, you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry.MR MILLER: Sorry.QUESTION: Thank you. Today a group of Israeli settlers attacked Palestinian journalist Saif al-Qawasmi and journalist Nir Hasson of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, who was protecting al-Qawasmi, in Jerusalem during the nation’s flag march. So first I’m just wondering if the U.S. has any response to this attack on our press colleagues.MR MILLER: So attacks of that nature should be prevented when possible, and when they can’t be prevented, they should be fully prosecuted; people should be held accountable under the law.QUESTION: And then following up on Nadia’s question on the New York Times and Haaretz reporting, a little over two months ago the U.S. announced sanctions on Russians for creating false websites and then using fake social media accounts to amplify the misleading content – so similar to what the Government of Israel has reportedly carried out. And of course, the U.S. has taken a similar stance for the past few years. So I’m wondering, I know that you said the U.S. has laws, you expect compliance. Will U.S. take similar action here?MR MILLER: So as I said in response to Nadia’s question, right now we have a news report. It’s not U.S. Government information, so I’m not going to speak to it specifically. But I think I’ll leave it at that. And as I said, though, we do have laws that we vigorously enforce, and we expect people to comply with them.QUESTION: Sure.QUESTION: Does that mean that when the question was asked about the Russians and the Olympics in Paris, that you do have your own independent information? Because you gave a fairly detailed answer to that.MR MILLER: The – we – we do have information as it relates to that, in fact, yeah.QUESTION: So there is a U.S. Government report lurking out there –MR MILLER: I’m not &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; about the Russians trying to disrupt the &#8212;MR MILLER: There is information – there is information that we have engaged with our allies and partners with respect to that report, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Okay. But – and – but in this case, though, this specific case that you’re being asked about now, there is nothing?MR MILLER: Not that I am aware of.QUESTION: Right. But just to finish. Sorry.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: If the U.S. does find that this reporting does bear out – and this is not meant to be like a hypothetical; this is meant to be more of a commitment towards norms – will the U.S. act in accordance with how it has before, and how it has with Russia? That’s not a hypothetical; it’s &#8212;MR MILLER: It is – so it is somewhat of a hypothetical, only because you have to actually look at the facts of every case and see what the appropriate response is. But as is always the case, we look at violations of our law – a lot of that is carried out by other agencies within the United States Government – and develop the appropriate response. But I just – I can’t respond with any level of detail here, because the – it is always very fact-specific.QUESTION: Okay. And then finally, it’s – I know I’ve asked about this before, but I’ll probably keep asking about it – it’s been 128 days now since Hind Rajab was killed and the medics sent to save her were killed, family members. Is there an update into this investigation?MR MILLER: Let me get you an answer to that – on that and come back to you.QUESTION: Can I ask you on the disinformation space?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There was the video of you at the podium &#8212;MR MILLER: I saw that.QUESTION: &#8212; that was circulated over the weekend, a doctored video of you speaking about the Ukrainians potentially hitting Russian cities. Does the U.S. now know who created that video?MR MILLER: We don’t have an official assessment; it’s something that we are continuing to assess, to find the actual provenance of that video. As I said in the response I gave to the New York Times, we have seen the Russian Government execute videos like this in the past and use disinformation to fool their own people, as well as people of other countries. But we don’t have an assessment of this official video.I will say, just as a warning to everyone, if you see a video of me at the podium and my – my tie color and shirt color change from the time I’m asked a question to the time that I answer, it is probably a good – it is probably a good indication that it is not real.QUESTION: It’s magic.QUESTION: And that leads me to a second &#8212;MR MILLER: Huh?QUESTION: Magic.MR MILLER: Yeah, it’s magic, it’s magic.QUESTION: Do you &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s also occurred to me that if I could get an AI version of myself, I can avoid a lot of Zoom meetings, but it’s not &#8212;QUESTION: Is the assessment that this was – that whomever created this video used AI, or that it was just doctored video?MR MILLER: So I don’t have – so I don’t have an official assessment. It’s something that people with a lot more technical expertise than myself are looking at at this point. I think clearly some of the video was from me at the podium. Whether the video itself was doctored, not exactly clear. The audio is not me at all, and whether it was spliced together clips from – I should say it’s not – whether it’s together – spliced-together clips from me saying one word and put together in different ways, or it’s an AI version, we don’t yet – we don’t yet know. We’re looking into it.QUESTION: Okay. And then &#8212;QUESTION: Is that really you up there right now?MR MILLER: I think so. (Laughter.) Look around. It seems to be. Is my – has my shirt and tie changed halfway through the briefing?QUESTION: I trust the &#8212;MR MILLER: I think that’s – I think that’s the test.QUESTION: Just a last question.MR MILLER: There are also a couple – there are also a couple of words and phrases you can ask me that reveal my Texas accent, that I doubt an AI could duplicate, so &#8212;QUESTION: How does this – seeing this video out there, are you expecting to see more doctored videos of this type leading up to the U.S. elections? How are you guys preparing for that? I mean, you still – it’s been six days now, you don’t know who created it.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You don’t know exactly if it was doctored or AI. Like, how do you respond more quickly in a way that is effective?MR MILLER: It is something that we are extremely concerned about. You have seen doctored videos of the President in the past. You saw an AI-generated video of the President several months ago that appeared in Africa. It is something that we are working on as part of our broad efforts to combat disinformation. The best thing that we can do is try to put out reliable information to the people of the United States, the people of the world every day, and to quickly call out disinformation when we see it.That said, in some ways, some of these, there is no perfect answer. For example, with this Russian video, it was circulated on Telegram inside Russia. No good way to combat that. But when it comes to videos that are circulating in the U.S., in the West, we will continue to pursue a strategy of identifying those when we see them, calling them out when we see them – and trying to be present ourselves communicating what our actual positions are to somewhat counteract disinformation.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Yeah, Alex. Then we’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple questions. On Ukraine question, are you seeing any initial impact on the battlefield besides how nervous the Russians have become?MR MILLER: I am not going to make battlefield assessments here. We have – I will defer. I think the question is, if I’m understanding correctly, is respect – with respect to the use of weapons across the border.QUESTION: Since they have been using &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m going to leave it to the Ukrainians to make assessments about that.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to South Caucasus, I’m struggling to understand or define, actually, the current state of your relationship with Georgia. I know you told us that Secretary requested a review, and the ambassador is here, presumably for a chiefs of diplomatic missions summit. But then I look at the Georgian media. Only in the 24 hours, GD officials and PM himself managed to attack on the U.S., the U.S. Congress, those who testified yesterday on the Hill. They’re calling – he called them traitors. He appreciated China for the relationship. He pushed another law with – this time homophobic law. Have you downgraded the relationship? If not, why not? Why do you &#8212;MR MILLER: So Alex, this is not the first time that the pace of our reviews have not met your demands for a four or five or six-day turnaround. We announced a review less than two weeks ago of our relationship given the law that Georgia has passed. And I’m being a little flippant in response to your answer, but it’s – it’s because there are actual serious policy ramifications here, not just rhetoric. It is about the amount of assistance that we provide to Georgia, some 390 million that was budgeted over the past few years, that is under review. It is about potential sanctions, visa restrictions that we announced as a policy less than two weeks ago, that we are studying right now whether and how and when to implement.So, you will see more from us. You will hear more from us, as regards to this question, but I’m not ready to do so today.QUESTION: The review at what level? Ambassador level or &#8212;MR MILLER: It was – it – so it was the Secretary of State that announced this review. Ultimately it is conducted by others in the State Department in consultation with our colleagues across the interagency. And the Secretary will make decisions in consultation with those same colleagues.QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Azerbaijan, they arrested another prominent economist and journalist, Farid Mehralizade, as part of the investigation on Abzas Media, even though there are facts that he’s not even related to that media organization. Do you have any reaction to that?MR MILLER: So we are deeply troubled by the continued arrest of members of Azerbaijani civil society. Those who exercise their fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, should not face arrest for doing so. And we continue to urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediate release – immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained and to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all.QUESTION: Thank you, and I have one more, if I may.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Sorry, let me – let me just go – go ahead.QUESTION: Within the last couple hours, there has been series of congratulatory messages to Prime Minister Modi and his coalition government there, including phone call by President Biden, tweet by Secretary Clinton. Is the U.S. planning to send any delegation for Prime Minister Modi’s swearing ceremony over the weekend?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make today, but stay tuned. We’ll have something to say about that in the coming days.QUESTION: And from – from the perspective of Secretary Blinken, what are the key priority areas for India-U.S. relationship for the next government?MR MILLER: So we will continue to look to expand our partnership. We work with India on economic matters. We’ve worked with them to deepen people-to-people ties between our two countries, and of course we work for them – work with them on a free, secure, prosperous Indo-Pacific. And those will continue to be our priorities.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Now the U.S. is also go – headed into an election season. And India-U.S. every year have the annual 2+2 dialogue. Do you think – do you have enough time between now and November to hold the 2+2 dialogue?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any announcements to make with respect to that dialogue, but it is an important priority for us. It’s an important priority for the Secretary, and we will continue to hold it, but in terms of when it will happen, I can’t tell you standing here today.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. The last decade, of course, has been Prime Minister Modi’s administration. What were the advantages of the last 10 decades, and going forward, the third term for Prime Minister Modi – what advantages does the U.S. see in this relationship?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that in terms of the prime minister’s coalition and the different government. Those are all choices for the Indian people to make, and we respect the will of the Indian people. I will say that we will look to continue our work with Prime Minister Modi, as you’ve seen President Biden undertake since he took office. That’ll continue to be a priority through the issues I just spoke to a moment ago.QUESTION: And now that the electoral test is over, a lot many people doubted democracy in India. What is the U.S.’s take on the democracy and the way the elections have played out and the results have played out?MR MILLER: So India is, of course, the world’s largest democracy, and the election that just played out over the last six weeks was the largest exercise of democracy in the history of the world. And we commend the Government of India, voters, and poll workers for this massive undertaking.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. As you called, largest democratic practice for Indian elections, but there is a dark side as well maybe overlooked by Department of State. So, from these elections, we have seen two jailed leaders got more votes than anyone else. From south Kashmir, Engineer Rashid that is in Tihar jail got more votes and defeat, like, the former chief minister in Kashmir region. And then believe separatist leader – a Khalistani leader may be – so Amritpal, he got more votes. So both are in jail, and they got more votes from their people. So how do you see their victories? Specifically, when will U.S. consider or recognize the elections in internationally disputed region Jammu and Kashmir where from August 15 – August 5, 2019, India unilaterally attempt to change its demography?MR MILLER: So I’m just not going to comment – with respect to the first, I’m just not going to comment on Indian – internal Indian electoral or political issues. With respect to the second, let me take the question and get you an answer.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, good afternoon. Joe Donnelly leaving the position as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, July 8th. How quickly do you anticipate that position being filled?MR MILLER: So I don’t have any announcements to make, but Joe Donnelly had an incredible tenure in that position, and we’ll look to fill it as quickly as possible.QUESTION: And will the new ambassador, do you – I know you can’t say when, but do you think one will be in place before the presidential election in November?MR MILLER: Look, I can’t just speak to that. We will look to have a new nominee as soon as possible, but it’s hard to answer that question because you’ve seen the Senate at times move quite slowly on some of our nominees. And over the last few days, you’ve seen senators announce that they would obstruct any nominee that the President makes. So we would urge those who wish to see our ambassador – ambassador nominees confirmed quickly to weigh in those senators who have said they’re going to block them.QUESTION: Any names being floated that you can share right now?MR MILLER: I’m not going to – certainly not going to speak from here, up here.QUESTION: And finally, the job requirement – what requirements you’re looking for on the job? I’m not running – I’m not applying, obviously, but looking for the requirements that you’re searching for.MR MILLER: Well, you can send an application in.QUESTION: Right. Right.MR MILLER: It’s open to – open to one and all.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: We look at someone that can – who can faithfully represent the interests of the United States.Go ahead. And then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: So Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to address Congress for the fourth time. He’ll be the first world leader to do so. How does that – is that reflective of U.S.‐Israeli relations?MR MILLER: So we do have, as I’ve spoken to many times from here in the past, a longstanding partnership with the Israeli Government. And there are deep standing people-to-people ties between the American people and the Israeli people. And as it pertains to a speech to Congress, ultimately that’s a matter for Congress.With that, we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Azerbaijan																								Egypt																								Georgia																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – June 4, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – June 4, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – June 4, 2024																																																					June 4, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Start with some opening comments. Over the past several days, the world has seen broad expressions of support for the proposal that President Biden outlined on Friday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I’d like to run through just a few of the statements that we have seen over the past few days. The United Arab Emirates said the proposals are constructive, realistic, and achievable, and both sides must seize them, as they are an opportunity to stop the war, prevent further loss of life, stop the escalation, release prisoners and hostages, and alleviate the catastrophic and dangerous situation that civilians are experiencing in Gaza.Morocco said it welcomed the initiative and hopes the various parties concerned will adhere to it and commit to implementing its various phases. Jordan said it supported efforts to reach a deal as quickly as possible. In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the Quint – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt – stressed the importance of dealing seriously and positively with the proposal highlighted by the President on May 31st, with the aim of agreeing on a deal that ensures a permanent ceasefire and the adequate delivery of aid to all parts of the Gaza Strip in a manner that ends the suffering of the people in Gaza.The European Union member-states said that they wholeheartedly agree with President Biden and that the latest proposal is a significant opportunity to move towards an end to war and civilian suffering. Last night, the G7 said it, too, fully endorses and will stand behind the deal, and it called on Hamas to accept it and urged countries with influence over Hamas to help ensure that it does so.Over the past 24 hours, Secretary Blinken has continued his diplomatic engagements to stress the importance of finalizing this deal. He spoke yesterday with the foreign minister of Morocco and earlier today with the foreign ministers of Algeria and Saudi Arabia, his second conversation with the Saudi foreign minister since Friday. He also met earlier today with United Nations Secretary-General Guterres. In all of these conversations, he has continued to echo the broad international view that Hamas must accept this deal, that we must finalize this ceasefire agreement and begin to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.In addition, the Secretary has been emphasizing to partners the importance of the Security Council speaking out to call for implementation of this deal without delay and without further conditions. Yesterday, the United States circulated a new draft Security Council resolution supporting the proposal to end the fight in Gaza, and we urge all members of the council to support that resolution. The international community must continue to insist that Hamas accept this deal. The proposal on the table is nearly identical to what Hamas said it would accept just a few weeks ago. Israel has said it is ready to implement it. It is time to finalize this agreement, put an end to the violence, and to build a better future for both Palestinians and Israelis alike.With that, Matt.QUESTION: So along those lines, the very intense focus – your very intense focus – since Friday has been on – or appears to be, at least from the readouts that you’ve just been outlining – on getting Hamas to accept this deal. And you keep saying that the Israelis have already – it was their idea, or it was their proposal, and they’ve already agreed to it. And yet, are you really convinced that that’s the case? And is – are you convinced that the focus should be entirely on Hamas?MR MILLER: So we are convinced it is the case that Israel is ready to implement this deal. As I said, it’s their proposal, proposal put forward by the government, and they have maintained to us they are ready to implement it. It doesn’t mean there aren’t voices inside Israel and voices even inside the Israeli Government who are opposed to it, but the government speaking on behalf of the government has said they support this proposal and are ready to stand behind that. And we take them at their word.The deal is in front of Hamas. It is to Hamas to accept, or reject, or come back and say they want to further negotiate the deal, but it is just the facts of it that Israel has agreed to this proposal, and it now stands with Hamas.QUESTION: All right, and what has been – other than all these statements of support, what has been the impact that you have seen from Hamas?MR MILLER: We haven’t seen any response yet from Hamas. But we do think it is important that the international community – and, I think quite importantly, countries in the Arab world – have spoken out to call on this deal to be finalized and Hamas to accept it. It’s important. I think the world – you can never say the world is speaking with one voice because there’s always a dissident country here or there. But when you see the broad support from Europe, from the Arab world, from countries in the Global South, I think it’s a significant statement of how – of the opportunity that we have here and how it’s important that we not miss this opportunity.QUESTION: Okay, sorry, which countries from the Global South?MR MILLER: I’ll get you a list. We have other lists as well. Saudi Arabia is often considered a Global South country – signed on to the – I know. I &#8212;QUESTION: It is?MR MILLER: I have seen them considered as a Global South country, yeah. And we have a full list. I have a full – I have a – I have a &#8212;QUESTION: Is the equator no longer the line that &#8212;MR MILLER: So I – I share that. It is not – it is &#8212;QUESTION: All right, well, let’s ask about a country from the Global South specifically: Brazil.MR MILLER: But I’ll take – I have – let me just say one thing.QUESTION: South Africa.MR MILLER: I have a long – I have a long list of countries in – I have a long list of countries &#8212;QUESTION: Argentina.MR MILLER: Let me just finish – I have a long list of countries in my – back in my office. I can send you statements of support, including a number from the Global South. But specifically those countries, I will just tell you our diplomacy continues to try to &#8212;QUESTION: India is often considered part of the Global South, even though it’s north of the equator. What &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; to try to push &#8212;QUESTION: Are they on &#8212;MR MILLER: There you go. There’s another one north of the equator.QUESTION: Well, all right, but are they on your list?MR MILLER: So I have not seen a statement from India. But look, we continue to push for every country in the world to support this deal.QUESTION: Okay, so none of the BRICS &#8212;MR MILLER: I do not have the whole list of my &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; which is often referred to as &#8212;MR MILLER: So – yeah, they’re not all the Global South.QUESTION: No, I know, but they’re often referred to as speaking for – but none of them have?MR MILLER: I have not seen a statement from India. They have been in an election the last few days, doing a few other things.QUESTION: Preoccupied.QUESTION: Can I follow up – India?MR MILLER: Let me just – I will – I will definitely come to India. I suspect there’ll be more Middle East questions. So let me – yeah.QUESTION: Could I just pursue that &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; slightly – it goes along the lines of what Matt was asking, but the Qataris, of course, who are playing a key role in this, they said basically that they don’t see a unified position from Israel. I know you’re saying that the onus is on Hamas, but the fact that you do have dissonant voices within the Israeli Government, do you think that complicates things at all in terms of getting a response from Hamas or moving this forward?MR MILLER: Look, I think some of the – when you talk about – let me separate it. First of all, there are clearly people inside Israel and inside the Israeli Government who are opposed to any kind of ceasefire at all and want the war to continue and have not seemed to make the return of the hostages a priority. But that said, there is also debate inside Israel about how you get from phase one to phase two. So I think it’s fair to say there are people who would support acceptance of the ceasefire that is on the table, and they are going to have significant things that they want to negotiate in phase two. And we fully expect that; that’s natural. We understand that the negotiation to get from phase one to phase two is going to be something that will require a great deal of work.But here’s the point. You’re not even at that point if we don’t get a phase one. We need to get a ceasefire so we can get to the point where we’re having negotiations about how to bring a durable end of the – end to the war. Because without a ceasefire, we’re not even at that point. We just have a continued military campaign and continued death and destruction inside Gaza, and hostages continue to be held away from their loved ones. So our focus is trying to get Hamas signed up to this deal so we can get phase one underway, and then 16 days into phase one we will begin negotiations about how to take phase one to phase two.And we are committed to trying to get it over the line, Qatar and Egypt are committed to trying to get it over the line, and Israel had said that – I mean, obviously, it’s Israel’s proposal. So while there be – there will be details that have to be negotiated, we believe Israel is committed to negotiating that as well.QUESTION: Matt, U.S. House of Representatives is due to vote on this legislation that would sanction ICC after its prosecutor applied for arrest warrant for Netanyahu and others. Does – the U.S. State Department supports this?MR MILLER: So we have made clear that while we oppose the decision taken by the prosecutor of the ICC – we don’t think it was appropriate, especially while there are ongoing investigations inside Israel looking at some of these very same questions – and we are willing to work with Congress on what a response might look like, we don’t support sanctions.QUESTION: Right. And what would that response look like, then, if you don’t support sanctions?MR MILLER: So that is a consultation that we will have with Congress; I’m not going to preview it from here. Those are discussions we need to have with members of Congress. But our position as the administration is that we don’t support sanctions, don’t believe they’re appropriate at this time.QUESTION: Right. One other thing is this TIME interview with President Biden. In there, he says – when he was asked if Israeli forces have committed war crimes in Gaza, he says “it’s uncertain.” The fact that he did not say an outright no – don’t you think that’s something that the State Department should consider launching an atrocity determination on, given that you also said in your NSM report that it is possible that there may have been violations?MR MILLER: So we do have processes ongoing to look at whether there have been violations of international humanitarian law. That’s – that &#8212;QUESTION: Is atrocity determination one of them?MR MILLER: Well, I’m not going to speak to that in specific. But that’s why the President says the answer to that question is uncertain is because we don’t know the answer. It’s something that we have a ongoing process to look at and to try to get an answer to. But at this time, we don’t know the answer, and that’s what we made clear in the National Security Memo 20 report, is that we are looking at those various questions and making those assessments now.QUESTION: Right. So you’re just saying that we don’t know if Israeli forces have committed war crimes in Gaza or not?MR MILLER: I would &#8212;QUESTION: You said, “we don’t know.”MR MILLER: I would go a bit further and say that we said in the – we don’t know the definitive answer to it, but the NSM-20 report said it’s reasonable to conclude that they may have, given the sheer number of incidents. But we need to finish these processes to have definitive answers to the question.QUESTION: So despite these assessments, you think – there is no change in the U.S. policy to continue providing arms to Israel?MR MILLER: There is no change in our policy. As you know, we paused one shipment; we have not – but we have not changed our overall policy, and we will continue to support Israel’s security.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. There are reports that &#8212;MR MILLER: I didn’t even call on you if you didn’t have your hand up.QUESTION: Oh no, I did. I just &#8212;MR MILLER: Just going along the – going along the front row.QUESTION: (Laughter.) There are reports that the CIA director and Brett McGurk are heading back to the region in furtherance of potential hostage and ceasefire talks. Do you expect that the Secretary will engage in in-person diplomacy in the region as well?MR MILLER: So the Secretary has been engaged – as I have discussed in my opening comments and as I discussed yesterday – in a number of phone conversations with partners in the region over the past now four days since Friday’s announcement. And he will be traveling to Europe, leaving tonight to join the President for his trip to Normandy and then a bilateral visit with France. And I don’t have any further travel to announce beyond that.QUESTION: Okay. And I know you said that there has been no response received as yet from Hamas. It is known from either Egyptian or Qatari interlocutors whether the proposal has actually reached Yahya Sinwar for his evaluation, even if a response hasn’t come back?MR MILLER: I don’t know an answer to that question.QUESTION: Okay. Have we &#8212;MR MILLER: I just – I don’t – I don’t believe we know.QUESTION: Okay. On aid, you mentioned yesterday that there were constructive discussions that took place in Cairo. Obviously, a number of international aid groups have been raising alarms that the situation is dire and getting worse by the day. So where do efforts to re-open Rafah stand, and what is the broader aid picture in terms of what the U.S. is facilitating on a daily basis?MR MILLER: So with respect to the opening of Rafah, there were conversations over the weekend in Cairo between the United States, Israel, and the Government of Egypt that focused on how to get Rafah open. We found them to be constructive discussions. There were detailed proposals that were put forth by the various parties, and then as often happens in these sorts of negotiations, the negotiators had to go back to their countries, consult with their capitals, and continue discussions. So we haven’t – there are a number of proposals that are on the table that need to be fleshed out. There are different ways you could go about reopening Rafah that we are working through.Separate from that, though it’s, of course, related, the question of humanitarian assistance. We have continued to work to get Kerem – to get humanitarian assistance back flowing through Kerem Shalom after the decision about 10, 11 days or so ago made by Egypt to allow trucks to move through Kerem Shalom. Yesterday I think it was somewhere around 250 trucks that went in through Kerem Shalom – I’m probably off by a dozen or so, because I’m doing this from memory – other trucks that went in through one of the crossings in the north. The majority of those were humanitarian assistance trucks, so trucks by the UN and partner agencies, not commercial trucks. Generally, over the past few days, we’ve continued to see a mix of commercial trucks and humanitarian assistance. We want to see both. We think it’s important that there be both, and we’re looking to maximize as many – maximize as many as possible coming through all the various crossings.Third thing I’ll say – maybe the third; maybe I’ve lost count – is that the Pentagon continues to work to try to re-establish the maritime option, get that pier up and running so we can flow assistance through there.But then the big question overhanging all of this is the status of the ceasefire proposal, which would alleviate all of these various logistical problems that make it so hard to move humanitarian assistance in through a conflict. It would make all of those – not 100 percent go away, but would make them, in many cases, evaporate or be at least significantly lessened. So the push for a ceasefire deal is inherently related to the push to try to dramatically increase the level of humanitarian assistance that makes it to the people of Gaza.QUESTION: One more. Just to tag onto Humeyra’s question about President Biden’s remarks in this recent interview, is the Secretary of the view that Prime Minister Netanyahu may be prolonging the conflict in an effort to stay in office?MR MILLER: I don&#8217;t think that’s exactly what the President said. I think he said &#8212;QUESTION: It’s a summary.MR MILLER: &#8212; that some people could conclude that. Look, the President’s comments speak for themselves. I’m not going to add anything to that. But I will just say we have been engaged with the prime minister on this question and the prime minister has put forward a proposal on behalf of the U.S. – the Israeli Government that would lead to a ceasefire and ultimately could lead to the end of the war, pending other negotiations, and we’re trying to get that ceasefire over the line.QUESTION: The President said, “there is every reason for people to draw that conclusion” &#8212;MR MILLER: To draw that &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; without commenting currently.MR MILLER: Right.QUESTION: So just one follow-up. I mean, so the proposal is on the table. As a contingency, have you had any indication that the Israelis are also planning for a day-after scenario, as you have urged them to do.MR MILLER: We’ve seen the defense minister come out and make public statements about possible day-after scenarios. You’ve seen, obviously, statements from Minister Gantz, a member of the war cabinet, about the need to do day-after planning. We have not – we have still not seen the kind of rigorous planning for the end of the conflict that we think is essential.And as you’ve heard us say, this isn’t just about the end of the conflict. Because, in our view, without a plan for the day after there won’t be a day after. Without a plan for post-conflict governance and some kind of political transition, you’re not going to have an end of the conflict. You’re just going to have a continued insurgency and Israel being bogged down fighting against Hamas or Hamas’s successors for years and years to come.QUESTION: I have another on Ukraine.MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up on Olivia about the interview in TIME magazine. I thought the President was very clear that it is Mr. Netanyahu’s desire to keep this war going, so – because he sees his political future – or the continuation of his political future in the continuation of the war. But also that comes along a statement by the prime minister himself who called the proposal incomplete, making remarks that seem aimed at sabotaging the deal and so on. So – but you are – and I don&#8217;t know how the next year will be, the fact – with what you said, that Israel will agree. If Hamas agrees to this proposal, Israel is going to agree to it. There is an element of certainty in what you’re saying.MR MILLER: So a good deal of that certainty, Said, comes from the fact that this is Israel’s proposal. It’s not a United States proposal. Let’s just – to make that very clear. The President outlined it publicly, but this was a proposal the Government of Israel put forward. So look, I understand why some people are cynical or have questions or look for ways that this deal might be completed. It doesn’t change the bottom line right now, which is there is a proposal on the table that Israel put forward, that the United States is backing, that Egypt is backing, that Qatar is backing – but not just those three countries who are mediators, but also a good number of countries around the world – and it is only Hamas that is saying no.Now, if you want to talk about how we get from phase one to phase two, that is a fair question to ask, because there will be a great deal of negotiation that has to go on. But we can’t even get there if Hamas doesn’t say yes.QUESTION: Okay. So Hamas is supposed to say something today, I guess. The spokesperson is going to hold a press conference in Beirut or somewhere else and say their say, whatever it is. So if they agree, how do you see – what kind of timeframe we have to begin the ceasefire, to start, to actually seal the guns from firing?MR MILLER: So I don&#8217;t want to get ahead of what Hamas would say, but we would expect it to agree as soon as – to begin as soon possible. We want a ceasefire start – we want to see it start immediately. So that is our goal. That’s what we’re working towards.QUESTION: Because you also &#8212;MR MILLER: It may take time to implement the various provisions of the deal &#8212;QUESTION: Because you also said &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; but we want it as soon as possible.QUESTION: So you also said yesterday that this was very close or identical to the proposal that Hamas signed onto on May 6th and so on. And now suppose this falls apart or falls – doesn’t come true to be. How will that impact your plans for aid?MR MILLER: We will continue to work to try to surge aid into Gaza. And we’ve been doing that &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; when ceasefire negotiations have been going well. We have been doing that when ceasefire negotiations have completely broken down, because our commitment to trying to get aid to innocent Palestinians has nothing to do with the status of ceasefire negotiations.QUESTION: Including the reopening of Rafah? Can you explain &#8212;MR MILLER: Yes, including the reopening of Rafah.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. I’ll – I promise I’ll come to you. Any more on the region?Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, related to Israel. How do you view the escalation of fightings between Hizballah and Israel? And do you expect a total war, especially that there are calls from the left and the right in Israel for a full-blown war against Hizballah?MR MILLER: The situation along the Israeli-Hizballah border continues to be extremely dangerous. Escalation of that conflict is something that we have been worried about and working to contain since October 7th, when you didn’t have to be a genius to figure out that this was a possible significant area of conflict and – of expanded conflict. And so that has been our focus, trying to keep it from moving from shelling across the border and airstrikes across the border to a full-fledged conflagration.I will say it is our assessment that the acceptance of a ceasefire by Hamas and the beginning of a calm would help us reach calm in northern Israel and southern Lebanon and would be the thing that would help us reach both temporary calm and potentially a long-term agreement to resolve the situation. That would allow Israelis to return to their homes in northern Israel. There are tens of thousands of Israelis who have been forced to move from their homes because it’s not safe to live there – they could return home – and a number of Lebanese who have been forced to flee their homes in southern Lebanon who would be able to return home too. So it’s something that we’re pursuing, but it is really difficult to do as long as there is continued fighting in Gaza. So it’s not the – it’s obviously not the sole reason or the main reason we’re pursuing an end to the fighting in Gaza, but it is something that we think would be a significant by-product of achieving a ceasefire there.QUESTION: And any comments on the Israeli calls for a full-blown war with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So we do not support a full war with Hizballah. We don’t want to see that happen. Now that said, Israel has the right to defend itself from Hizballah’s attacks. Hizballah is at terrorist organization that is committed to the destruction of Israel and has launched attacks against Israel for years. And so Israel has the right to defend itself and it has the right to deal with that threat.You can understand why it is not a tenable situation for Israel to see tens of thousands of its citizens continue to be displaced from their homes and why they would want to do something about it. But ultimately we’ve heard Israeli leaders say the solution that they prefer is a diplomatic solution, and obviously that is the solution that we prefer too and that we’re trying to pursue.QUESTION: And one more if you don’t mind. The Iran supreme leader has said in a speech yesterday that October 7th attack came at the right time and the action thwarted the grand plan of the Middle East region. Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So it goes to something you’ve heard this Secretary say before, which is there is – there are two paths for this region. One is a path to greater integration, greater peace, greater stability, greater commonality among the peoples of the region, and the other path is continued conflict and death and destruction and despair. And the – we obviously support the first path, but it’s also quite clear that the biggest opponents to further integration in the region, further peace in the region, stability are Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, the other proxy groups that Iran funds.So when you look at the possibilities that lie in front of the region in the long term if we can achieve a ceasefire, the possibility of greater integration that would bring peace to Israelis and peace to Palestinians and further stability in the region, it’s why we believe the greatest rebuke to Hamas and its sponsor and the greatest rebuke to those who support the attacks of October 7th would be not just this initial ceasefire but long-term peace and stability that leaves Israel further integrated with its neighbors.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Shannon.QUESTION: Thanks. Just quickly circling back to Qatar and the statement from its foreign ministry questioning Israel’s position, are you fully confident that Qatar is putting as much as pressure as it possibly can on Hamas to accept the deal, given that the U.S. and Qatar apparently are on different pages?MR MILLER: I – we are not on different pages. And I will say that, yes, I am confident that we have had a number of conversations with the Government of Qatar about this exact question, going back – without giving away too much – to the immediate days right after October 7th, and have always made clear that there can’t be any more business as usual with Hamas for countries in the region. But at the same time, we have valued the role that Qatar has played in being a channel to Hamas, in being able to mediate this potential hostage deal as well as the last pause, the one-week pause that they were able to mediate that happened last November. And so we greatly value the role that Qatar has played, including on sending the appropriate level of messages to Hamas.Yeah.QUESTION: Could I follow up slightly on Iran actually?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I know this is slightly off, a segue. The IAEA – could you explain what’s going on there? I mean, the European powers have talked about a reprimand, a censure. Iran, of course, has hit back at this. What’s the U.S. position? I mean, it’s been widely reported that the U.S. doesn’t think that it’s the right time for a censure.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to preview any of actions that we might take at the IAEA Board of Governors. I’ll just say that we have taken significant actions at the IAEA in the past. We are prepared to do so again in the future, and we continue to talk with our partners, including the E3, about exactly what those might look like.QUESTION: And a censure, do you think it’s not productive at this time? What’s the &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, I’m going to keep those conversations private for now. They’re conversations that are ongoing as part of the Board of Governors meetings. But as I’ve said, we’ve taken significant actions in the past &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; and are prepared to do so in the future.QUESTION: &#8212; I don’t think he’s asking you for the details of the actual conversations. He’s asking you what the administration’s position is. Correct?MR MILLER: And – he is, and those are positions – as I said, it’s an issue that we are &#8212;QUESTION: I don’t see how that has anything to do with your conversations with anybody else. It’s what &#8212;MR MILLER: It is – it does have – it does have something to do with our conversations with the private &#8212;QUESTION: Oh?MR MILLER: The content and nature of a resolution, a potential resolution, is absolutely something that would be the &#8212;QUESTION: But what &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; we’d be talking about with our partners.QUESTION: Right, but what’s your position on &#8212;MR MILLER: Should there – should &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; on a censure?MR MILLER: Should there be a resolution, you will see the United States’ position when that resolution comes forward. But I think you should not expect us to be acting in any sort of disharmony with our E3 partners. We’ve prized our unity with them, and I expect that to continue.QUESTION: I have another on Iran &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; sort of separate. Does the U.S. have clarity on these Israeli airstrikes in Syria that appear to have killed an Iranian general? Has it asked for information as to the target and intent of those acts?MR MILLER: We do not. I’ve seen the reports, but don’t have any further information on it.QUESTION: Have you consulted with the Israeli Government as to their purpose?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any information other than that we’ve seen the reports.QUESTION: Given the background of it rising to a almost-global conflagration when this happened last time in April, shouldn’t it kind of top the list?MR MILLER: I may have something to say later. But as I said, for now, just reports that we’ve seen. Don’t have anything further.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: So, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. My own question’s on – before that, let me follow up on the Secretary’s schedule. You said he is leaving tonight. Can you elaborate more on his schedule? Any bilats in Normandy? And when is he trying to – hoping to show up in Switzerland?MR MILLER: Show – what was the last part?QUESTION: In Switzerland for the peace conference.MR MILLER: So with respect to the initial part of this trip, he’s traveling with the President. He’s going to be in Normandy and then in Paris. His schedule will largely follow the President’s schedule. If we have any separate programming, meetings or such, to announce, we will make those public in the coming days. With respect to dates beyond that, I think a week beyond that, I don’t have anything further to announce.QUESTION: All right. A couple of questions on the EU elections. There are reports about increasing Russian disinformation campaign in Europe. What’s your level of concern about those reports?MR MILLER: So we have been incredibly concerned about Russian disinformation. This was a significant subject of conversation at the NATO foreign ministers meeting last week in Prague, something the Secretary raised, and not only raised but then heard significant concern about from our European partners. We have seen the Russian Government use disinformation against its own people. We have seen the Russian Government use disinformation to spread lies and rumors across Europe and across the world. And we continue to consult with our partners about the best way to respond to that.QUESTION: The Kremlin is also echoing Georgian Government’s propaganda. Today we heard from deputy foreign minister saying that the U.S. is planning to implement a new Maidan in October in Georgia. Do you have response to that?MR MILLER: So look, you continue to see – I think the answer I just gave about disinformation that you see from the Kremlin probably applies here pretty well. What you have seen in Georgia is – over the past few weeks is the Georgian people’s expression of their will and their opposition to this Kremlin-backed law that the Georgian Government has passed. It has nothing to do with the United States; it has to do with the people of Georgia expressing their own views.QUESTION: Thank you. And finally, on Ukraine, we have seen a letter came from the House Foreign Affairs Committee urging the Secretary, both the Secretary of State and Treasury, to speed up in terms of implementing REPO Act. Where are you at this, and why is – what is the delay?MR MILLER: So the Secretary has made quite clear that we have been given those authorities and we plan to use them. But it’s also important that we use them in concert with our European and other allies. As I think you know, the vast majority of the frozen Russian assets are not held in the United States. They’re held in European countries. So for this action to be as effective as possible, it’s important that we act in concert with our allies, and we are in consultation with our European allies about the best way to do that possible. But we are committed to ensuring that Russian frozen assets remain immobilized and that they’re put to use for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to ask you about India’s elections. After three months, the people of India have voted. It looks – some of the results are out now; Prime Minister Modi’s ruling coalition has crossed the halfway mark. How do you see the election results from the elections?MR MILLER: So first of all, our understanding is that the election results have not been finalized, so we will wait for the finalization of those election results before we offer any definitive comment. I’m also not going to comment on winners and losers in an election, as is our case around the world. What is important for us and what we have seen over the past six weeks is the largest exercise of democracy in history as the Indian people came to the polls. And on behalf of the United States, we want to commend the Government of India and voters there for successfully completing and participating in such a massive electoral undertaking, and we look forward to seeing the final results.QUESTION: During the election campaign, India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar and prime minister also indicated multiple times that there have been attempts to influence the India’s elections from Western sides, U.S. and other countries. Two statement that came out from this podium about you expressed concerns about arrest of the Indian chief minister and the freezing of bank accounts of the Congress Party were also not taken well. How do you see that?MR MILLER: So we always will express our views clearly and openly. We express them with foreign governments privately, and when we see – have things that we are concerned about, we also express them publicly, including from this podium. That’s what I’ve done. But that in no way is an attempt to influence an election in India or anywhere else.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Follow-up on India, Matt?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. Another one on India.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, how do you put relations between U.S.-India relations today and tomorrow Modi 3, how the relations will be between the two countries?MR MILLER: So I expect a continued close partnership between the United States and India. There is a great partnership both at the government level, at the – and at the people-to-people level, and I fully expect that to continue.QUESTION: And second, sir, there are a few actors against the United States working these days, including Russia and China, maybe a few others. Who are the worst as far as the U.S. national security is concerned, Russia or China?MR MILLER: Look, it is clear that it is Russia that is – has invaded a country right now, is actively trying to overthrow a democratically elected government, and it has required the United States to mobilize a international coalition to respond to that. But we also have concerns about actions that China has taken. Look, it’s clear that Russia and China are the two countries both with the size and ability and motivation to offer a different vision of the world than that that is put forward by the United States and a number of our allies. And so we will continue to offer our vision of the world and continue to stand up to either of those countries when we see actions that contradict that.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR MILLER: Humeyra.QUESTION: May I have an India election follow-up?MR MILLER: Let me just – Humeyra. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, this is – Excellency, this is – I mean, come on. Can I ask?MR MILLER: Yeah, I just called on you.QUESTION: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. So 27 members so far – Muslim members – have been winning in the elections in India. Do you really think that India is becoming secular? Because when President Biden was running for elections, one of the issue was that Prime Minister Modi is turning India into a Hindu state, where there are more than 300 Muslims – 27 seats they are so far winning. Modi is winning the election, but you have to admit that under President Biden, a leader is coming who is turning a country into a – one religion, a Hindu state basically, right? Would you agree with that?MR MILLER: So I will say that when we have concerns about human rights, as we have in India, we express those openly. We express them directly to the Government of India. We have done that and will continue to do it, as we do with countries all around the world.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Can I just ask one more on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The Pakistan military 83rd corps commander conference met just a couple of days ago, and they came up with this term called “digital terrorism,” where they think that official – public in the U.S. and Canada and the UK, mostly through digital platforms, they are spreading terrorism and creating anarchy sort of situation. Do you have any comments about that?MR MILLER: I have not seen that specific report or that allegation, but obviously we oppose terrorism or any attempts to recruit people to terrorism or fund terrorism anywhere in the world.QUESTION: No, no, no, sir, digital – digital terror.MR MILLER: I’m saying I don’t – I haven’t seen that report, but &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Thank you so much, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can I just quickly follow up?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: India has world’s largest – second-largest number of Hindu population – Muslim population after Indonesia. None of the other Muslim countries have that much Muslim population as India has. Why do you think India is converting into a Hindu &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR MILLER: &#8212; to that question.Go ahead, Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, just to go back to Hizballah and minutes ago, I just want to make sure I heard what you said – I heard right what you said. So you said U.S. does not support a full-blown war in the border, that &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not what we want to see. We don’t want to see a full-blown war. We want to see this resolved by a diplomatic resolution.QUESTION: Sure. So are you saying that U.S. is against the possible offensive that Israel is talking about carrying out?MR MILLER: So we want to see it resolved through diplomatic means, and that’s what we have been pursuing. I also said that Israel has a right to defend itself, and it is not a tenable situation for tens of thousands of people to be – to continue to be displaced from their homes. But what we’ve heard Israel say is that their preferred resolution is a diplomatic one, and we agree with that.QUESTION: Right. But they are also saying today – the military Chief of General Staff Herzi Halevi is saying Israel is ready for a military offensive along the border and that it was nearing a decision point. So what is your comment for that?MR MILLER: Our comment is that we want to see it resolved by diplomatic means. We want to see a ceasefire agreed to in Gaza that would allow us to pursue a diplomatic resolution in the north.QUESTION: Have you told &#8212;MR MILLER: This could all be solved by a ceasefire, and that’s what we’re pursuing.QUESTION: Sure. Have you told the Israelis in the past couple of days, or today, specifically about these – like, advising them not to do it?MR MILLER: I don’t – so I don’t – I don’t know of any recent conversations with them, but we have – we have had this conversation with them for a long time, and Israel has made clear they don’t want a war in the north. A war in the north would tax their resources, which have already been taxed by the conflict in Gaza. This goes to the thing that the Secretary has talked about and I talked about – a little bit about yesterday where we look at all of it and you see the potential of Israel being bogged down in Gaza; fighting a war in the north; if you have further instability in the West Bank, and as the President said, that drains them diplomatically, economically, militarily, and it’s not a strategic success for them.So we have heard Israel say publicly and privately that their preferred resolution is a diplomatic one. Now, should we not get a ceasefire in Gaza, should they continue to see strikes in the north, I don’t know what will happen. But we will continue to focus on trying to achieve a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. It is not in anyone’s interest to see escalation along the border between Israel and Lebanon.QUESTION: And from U.S. point of view, would it be unacceptable for Israel to start this offensive in the north in the event of a ceasefire in Gaza?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. As I said, we don’t believe it is in their interest. They &#8212;QUESTION: They’re saying they’re ready for it, so &#8212;MR MILLER: They have – they have said – that is different than launching. They have said it is not in – that it is not something they want to pursue, either, if they can pursue a diplomatic resolution. At the same time, the situation we do understand is untenable, so it does give urgency to the diplomatic negotiations to resolve that problem and, connected to that, for Hamas to reach a ceasefire.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Matt, one follow-up, please.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Are you confident that you will be able to find a diplomatic solution for the fightings and for the crisis between Hizballah and Israel?MR MILLER: Look, obviously we can’t make any predictions about what would happen. That would involve, of course, Hizballah being willing to agree to a resolution as well. But we are – we do believe that if we can get calm in Gaza, that it dramatically increases our chance. It unlocks the real possibility of calming the situation in the north, which does not need to be at the level it is today. It wasn’t at this level before October 7th. It was the – there’s always been, obviously, tension along that border and strikes and even wars that have been fought over that border, but we have seen an increase in strikes across the border after October 7th, and should we reach a ceasefire in Gaza, we think it’s something we have a good chance of resolving.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Oh. Thank you, Matthew. So I’m really confused by this proposal that the President said Israel put forward. There seems to be a misunderstanding between the sides and there are conflicting reports. Israel says its objectives have not changed, yet this deal would not, say, result in the elimination of Hamas. Prime Minister Netanyahu said some of what President Biden said in his speech on Friday is inaccurate. Can you please clarify?MR MILLER: So I think some of this goes to what has to be negotiated in getting to phase one and phase two. Israel has agreed to the proposal. That includes all of the elements of the proposal – phase one, phase two, phase three – but as the President said in his remarks, the details of how you get to phase two are going to have to be negotiated. And that’s what we’ll – we are prepared to do.QUESTION: But it doesn’t require Hamas to be gone, right?MR MILLER: So we have made clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza. We also don’t believe that you can eliminate Hamas just with a military campaign; that a military campaign can kill fighters, can detain fighters, but those fighters in many cases will be replaced by other recruits, so we need a political path forward, and that’s what we want to try to negotiate.QUESTION: But the proposal doesn’t require Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza, correct?MR MILLER: Again, these are all details that have to be negotiated as we get from phase one to phase two, and as we implement phase three.QUESTION: Wait, wait – it’s up to – for negotiation if Hamas can stay in charge of Gaza?MR MILLER: It is our position, it is Israel’s position that Hamas cannot stay in charge of Gaza, and as we &#8212;QUESTION: But it’s still up for negotiation?MR MILLER: The – to get from phase one to phase two, you have to negotiate what the – all – what the end of the conflict looks like and what the governance &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. You think that Hamas will agree to a deal in which they cease to exist?MR MILLER: You know what, we just – so we just need to get a ceasefire, and I will say I think the broad interests of the Palestinian people – if you look at what has happened over the past eight months because of the campaign that Hamas launched – is to see Hamas replaced as the leaders of Gaza. And so when you see the U.S. position, the Israeli position, the position of Arabs in the – Arab countries in the region, that’s what we’re going to try to achieve.QUESTION: So then it’s just a framework, (inaudible)?QUESTION: Can I just have a clarification on this?MR MILLER: No, you can’t interrupt your colleague. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sorry.QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR MILLER: One more, and then I’m – one more and then I’ll move on.QUESTION: Oh, sorry. So just – oh, wait &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: No, just let him finish. Go ahead.QUESTION: Oh, okay. Thank you (inaudible). So just to clarify, so this is just a framework that has to be modified through negotiations, correct?MR MILLER: So if you look at the President’s statement, he outlined this pretty clear – what is in phase one, what is in phase two, and the negotiation that has to get to phase two, which includes how to achieve an enduring end to the war.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead. I’m going to come to you next. Hold on, because we’re – I’ve got to leave in a few minutes because the President is starting to speak, so I’m going to try to get to everyone in the room. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks, Matt. I’ll just be very quick and I’ll pick up on my colleague here beside me. So when – you mentioned the President’s remarks, which included the idea that as long as Hamas lives up to its commitment, there could be, and I quote, “the cessation of hostilities permanently.” And you say that is an Israeli proposal. So the government of the state of Israel is signed up to a proposal that there could be a permanent end to hostilities and Hamas still in existence in a meaningful way?MR MILLER: No, they are signed up to a – an agreement that leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities but with a number of provisions that have to be negotiated to get there at the end of the – at the end of phase one.QUESTION: But if the provision &#8212;MR MILLER: And – but I said I’m not going to negotiation all those provisions in public. I talked about this a good deal yesterday, about the fact that one of the principles the Secretary outlined in Tokyo in November is that there cannot be continued rule of Hamas in Gaza after October 7th – I’m sorry, after the end of this conflict – and that’s what we’re committed to.QUESTION: No, but I understand that – but if the provisions required would be the dissolution of Hamas, why would Hamas sign up to get that ball rolling?MR MILLER: Because they don’t want to see continued conflict, continued Palestinian people dying. They don’t want to see war in Gaza. They want to see reconstruction of Gaza. Now, look, I will say – I will grant you one thing. I said this to Matt yesterday. It may be that Sinwar decides that he is safe in a tunnel and his interests have diverged from the people of Gaza, and so he’s not willing to agree to a ceasefire and he’s not willing to – he’s not willing to look at this proposal and say it requires good-faith negotiations to get from phase one to phase two, so I’m not going to accept it because I’m safe and I don’t have any interest in the Palestinian people who continue to suffer the ravages of war.But I will say if you look at the deal that’s on the table, it is manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people, it’s manifestly in the interests of the Israeli people, it’s manifestly in the interests of the world, and so that’s why we’ll continue to push for it. And if Hamas really does represent the interests of the Palestinian people, as they say over and over, it’s without a doubt that they’ll take this deal.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. We hear more from the U.S. administration about Netanyahu which sounds like there may be a frustration. For example, recently a follow-up to my colleague’s question about President Biden’s comment, which you clarified that President Biden said that Netanyahu may be prolonging the war on Gaza for political reasons. And last week &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not – it’s not what the President said. Go ahead.QUESTION: Actually &#8212;MR MILLER: It’s not the President’s – go ahead, but it’s not – it’s not his quote.QUESTION: And last week – yeah. Last week also President Biden implied that there is a risk for Israel to be isolated from the world. So given these statements by President Biden and the amount of Palestinians killed by the Israeli attacks in Gaza and the destruction in Gaza, is it fair to say that the U.S. administration frustrating about Netanyahu?MR MILLER: So we have – we’ve been over this a number of times in this room. There are things with which we agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu and things with which we disagree, and that’s true with other members of the Israeli Government. It’s true with a lot of our partners around the world and our allies around the world. We have at times had very frank, direct, candid conversations with the prime minister, and there are policy things where those disagreements are well known. We’ve been quite clear that we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and I think his view on that matter has been pretty clear as well.We will continue to work to try to achieve policies that are in the interests of the United States, that are in the interests of our partners in the region, including the Israeli people. And sometimes that means we’re going to disagree about the specifics, and what we are committed to do is continue to call it like we see it.Go ahead and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Bangladesh ruling Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina recently claimed a white man offered her that she can stay in power without any pressure if she allows a foreign country to establish an airbase. She also mentioned that there is a conspiracy to turn Bangladesh into another East Timor and make a Christian country taking a part of Bangladesh and Myanmar, forming a base in the Bay of Bengal. Is Sheikh Hasina shooting too many arrows towards the U.S. as you are asking for free, fair, and credible election and rule of law and anti-corruption? Yeah &#8212;MR MILLER: So I’m not exactly sure who those comments refer to, but if it is in fact the United States, I’ll just say that they’re not accurate.QUESTION: Nobel Laureate Professor – Nobel Laureate &#8212;MR MILLER: With that – all right, one more, then we’ll wrap. Oh, Guita, we’ll come – yeah. Sorry.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus on Sunday entered the dark and iron cage-like enclosure of the accused inside the courtroom and said he was at the worst point of his cursed life. Similarly, millions of Bangladeshis are on – at the worst point of their cursed lives due to the absence of democracy, rule of law – and massive corruption. We have seen you impose some sanction and visa restriction immediate past-army chief and police chief. Do you think this is enough to hold the regime accountable after the sham election held on January 7 last year, or will you consider more actions to show solidarity with the democratic – democracy-loving people of Bangladesh, as you promised before?MR MILLER: So we continue to closely monitor developments in the case against Dr. Yunus. We have expressed our concern that these cases may represent a misuse of Bangladesh’s labor laws to harass and intimidate Dr. Yunus. We also worry that the perceived misuse of labor and anti-corruption laws could raise questions about rule of law and dissuade foreign direct investment. We will continue to encourage the Bangladeshi Government to ensure a fair and transparent legal process for Dr. Yunus as the appeals process continues, but I don’t have any actions to preview.Go ahead, Guita.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Today’s the anniversary of the suppression of the demonstrators in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. I was wondering if you have any comments.MR MILLER: The Secretary issued a statement on that about two hours – two and a half hours ago. I’d refer you to that for detailed comment.And with that &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible) one, briefly?MR MILLER: Yeah. I hope the President is not – it’s a bad career move if I’m out here speaking.QUESTION: Just – I’ll just be very brief. Indonesia – Prabowo, the incoming president, he says that Indonesia is willing to send peacekeepers to Gaza to monitor any potential truce. Is that something the U.S. has been in discussions with, or do you have anything to – any comment on that?MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific comment on that. Obviously we’ve been engaged in a broad conversation with countries around the world about what the security situation could look like at the end of the conflict, but I don’t want to comment on that specific idea.Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:09 p.m.)# # # Israel-Lebanon ↑						Tags																					Bangladesh																								China																								Georgia																								India																								Israel																								Lebanon																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia
- Department Press Briefing – June 3, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – June 3, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – June 3, 2024																																																					June 3, 2024																																																								1:20 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to those of you who were traveling us last – with us last week. Start with some opening comments.Since the President’s remarks on Friday, Secretary Blinken has been engaging in intense diplomacy with foreign counterparts to urge the completion of an agreement for a ceasefire in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages and set the stage for lasting peace. Over that time, the Secretary has spoken to the foreign ministers of Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Israeli Defense Minister Gallant and war cabinet member Benny Gantz.In all of his calls, the Secretary has underscored the benefits of this proposal to both Israelis and Palestinians. For Palestinians, a ceasefire would see an end to the daily death toll in Gaza, an end to the destruction that has torn so many families apart, and robbed children, women, men of their lives and their futures. It would allow hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to begin returning to their neighborhoods as the international community surges humanitarian assistance into Gaza and launches a major reconstruction effort.For Israelis too, this proposal offers a path to a better future. It would bring home the hostages who have now been separated from their loved ones for 240 days. It would unlock the possibility of calm along Israel’s border with Lebanon, where we saw continued terrorist attacks by Hizballah just today, so the tens of thousands of Israelis who have been displaced from their homes for the past eight months could finally return home. And it would set the conditions to finally realize the strategic realignment which Israel has long sought – improved relations with its Arab neighbors and the isolation of Iran and the terrorist groups it funds.This is the possibility that exists for Israelis and Palestinians today. As the United States said in a joint statement on Saturday with Egypt and Qatar, this proposal will bring immediate relief to both the long-suffering people of Gaza and the long-suffering hostages and their families. It offers a roadmap for a permanent ceasefire and an end to the crisis.The world should know – the Palestinian people should know – that the only thing standing in the way of an immediate ceasefire today is Hamas. The proposal on the table is nearly identical to what Hamas said it would accept just a few weeks ago, and it is now time for them to act. It is time for them to accept the deal. It is time to finalize this agreement and put an end to the suffering of Israelis and Palestinians alike.And with that, Matt.QUESTION: All right. Thank you. And welcome back. Just logistically, all of these calls that – all of – well, if you did say calls, I guess they were all on the phone.MR MILLER: They were all calls, yeah.QUESTION: Okay. Because he did see Fidan in Prague. It was the day before &#8212;MR MILLER: He saw Fidan on Thursday. He then talked to – he talked to Fidan and the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the plane on the way back. On Friday, he talked to the foreign ministers – the prime minister of Qatar and the foreign minister of Egypt and – foreign ministers of Egypt and UAE on Saturday, and then he talked to Benny Gantz and Yoav Gallant last night.QUESTION: Okay. So nothing – or nothing today yet?MR MILLER: Nothing today yet.QUESTION: Okay. So where do things stand? I mean, I think you tried to make it very clear right now that everything rests with Hamas. But there seems to be a lot of friction, to say the least, inside the Israeli Government about this. Are you confident that the Israelis have, in fact, signed off and are willing to go along with this?MR MILLER: We are completely confident. It was an Israeli proposal. Obviously it was a proposal that they developed in consultation with the United States and Qatar and Egypt, the three countries that have played the mediating role throughout this process. But this was ultimately an Israeli proposal.In terms of where it stands, it was submitted to Hamas on Thursday night. We have yet to hear a response. We obviously saw the statement that they put out – I think it was on Friday – but we haven’t gotten a response back from them.In terms of the – inside the Israeli Government, the President spoke to this in his remarks on Friday, where he said that – fully anticipated that this would be controversial with some members of the Israeli Government, and of course we’ve seen some members of the Israeli Government already come out and oppose it, in fact opposed it over the weekend.But the case that he made and that we will continue to make is that this is a proposal that is in the long-term security interests of Israel. It’s obviously in the long-term interests of the Palestinian people as well, but this is a chance to not just come to an end in the – to the conflict in Gaza and return the hostages home to their families, but help solve the conflict in the north of Israel, which is displacing tens of thousands of Israelis, and finally bring further integration with the region, which is in Israel’s long-term security interests.QUESTION: Okay. And then – but then on the other side, where you make the case how it’s great for Israel, what does Hamas get out of it? And I’m not asking because I think or that they should necessarily get something out of it.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: But it’s a negotiation, and there’s always give-and-take and concessions. So how – what’s one of the selling points for Hamas do you think?MR MILLER: So let me talk about the – what the Palestinian people get out of it. I know that’s not the exact question that you asked, but I &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s not. Because it’s actually – I think it’s a different question.MR MILLER: It is a different question, but I’ll – but I &#8212;QUESTION: So can you answer the one that I asked?MR MILLER: I’m going to answer both of them.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: So the Palestinian – because they ought to be the same. They ought to be the same answer, and it – but it might not be, you’re right. The Palestinian people get an end to the conflict in Gaza, an immediate ceasefire. They get a surge of humanitarian assistance, 600 trucks a day. We are ready with international partners to begin the reconstruction of Gaza. Credible – that they get to return to their homes and their neighborhoods, and those who have lost their homes get the ability to start to rebuild those homes.Now, as it pertains to Hamas, look, if Sinwar decides that he’s safe in a tunnel and this proposal isn’t in his interest because he feels safe, that’s an assessment he can make. But I think it is very clearly in the interests of the Palestinian people, and we would hope that, given that this proposal is nearly identical to the one that Hamas submitted just several weeks ago, that they would not move the goalposts now and try to walk away from it.QUESTION: Right. But – well – but – all right, I’ll let that be. The last one &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I get where you’re going, but look, I mean, I can’t answer for Hamas, but – hold on.QUESTION: I mean – I know, but – well, you can’t answer &#8212;MR MILLER: I would just say Hamas claims they represent the Palestinian people. This is manifestly in their interest, so – and given the fact that Hamas just a few weeks ago signed off on a virtually identically proposal, they should accept it.QUESTION: Yes, but you just spoke to the points of why this would be wonderful for Israel, and that there is – the way you’ve approached this so far is that – the way a lot of people have approached it is that Hamas doesn’t care about the Palestinian people, they only care about themselves. And so there are, in a sense, three parties to this: Israel, the Palestinian people – non-Hamas – and Hamas. So – but I think the answer to my question, which is “what’s in it for Hamas?” is essentially nothing for them.MR MILLER: So again &#8212;QUESTION: Right?MR MILLER: So they claim to represent – I’m not trying to be cute – they claim to represent the interests of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: I get it. They claim to. But you don’t believe that, and you’ve made it clear many, many times that you don’t think that they do care about the Palestinian people and they don’t &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, I suppose this proposal puts – I suppose that this proposal puts that question very squarely to Hamas.QUESTION: But didn’t the last one and the one before that and the one before that?MR MILLER: And given that this one is nearly identical to the one that Hamas presented &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; I think it puts it even more squarely in &#8212;QUESTION: And then my last one – I want to focus on this “nearly identical” – what does that mean? Because a lot of small changes – I’ve seen negotiations break down over the placement of punctuation marks.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Commas, dashes. What do you mean, “nearly identical?”MR MILLER: And that I can’t get into in detail from here at the podium, but I will say if you look at the major elements of this proposal, they are nearly identical to the major elements of the proposal that Hamas submitted several weeks ago. There are some minor differences. They are differences that we think that can be bridged, and it’s not just the United States that thinks they can be bridged. They are differences that the other mediators, Egypt and Qatar, think that can be – that think can be bridged. I think actually – it’s – this is a serious enough proposal that Hamas should just accept it, but if we – there need to be further negotiations, we think those are all eminently bridgeable if – and this is the if – if Hamas wants a deal.QUESTION: And if – are there nearly identical – does that apply to the – what the Israelis submitted? Or is this word for word what the Israelis submitted?MR MILLER: The proposal that went to Hamas? Yeah, it is what the Israelis submitted. Their &#8212;QUESTION: Word for word?MR MILLER: Yeah, it is – it is the Israeli &#8212;QUESTION: So in other words, they – so in other words, the “nearly identical” does not apply to the Israeli &#8212;MR MILLER: That is a comparison between the Israeli proposal, which is what went to Hamas on Thursday, and the proposal that Hamas submitted several weeks ago.QUESTION: All right. Thank you.QUESTION: Maybe just following up on that – said that this is basically what Israel has proposed or accepted. Of course, there is criticism within Israel as well; it’s not a monolithic country. I mean, are you sure that Israel can follow through on this, that if Hamas says yes, that – considering the coalition politics and the politics within Netanyahu’s cabinet that Israel would definitely go ahead with this?MR MILLER: So I certainly can’t speak to internal Israeli politics – complicated enough for Israelis to speak to without the United States trying to weigh into them. I would say two things. Number one, this is a proposal from the Israeli Government, so that’s the first thing that’s important. But number two, I think it is important to speak to the benefits of this proposal to all Israelis, and that’s why you saw the President do it on Friday. It’s why you’ve seen the Secretary speak to some of these same themes and issues a number of times, including in Israel.And I will say the point that the President made in his remarks on Friday, that you’ve seen the Secretary say a few times, is that endless conflict in Gaza in pursuit of some idea of total victory is not going to make Israel safer. We agree with Israel that Hamas cannot run Gaza. We agree with Israel on Israel’s right and Israel’s obligation to pursue Hamas for the terrorist attacks of October 7th. But an endless conflict without a political plan forward is just going to leave Israel bogged down in Gaza and is going to exacerbate the security challenges that they face in the north of Israel. It’s going to exacerbate the security challenges they face in the West Bank. It’s going to exacerbate the security challenges they face against Iran and the proxies that it funds, because it makes it more difficult for Israel to work with its allies and its partners in the neighborhood.So in addition to the long-term security interests that we think this proposal would help address, in addition to bringing the hostages home, which is obviously in the national interest of Israel, it addresses the very real short, medium security challenges that they face. And that’s why we think it’s in their interest and that’s the case that we will continue to make. But the President was pretty clear about this, that we recognize there are people in Israel – including in the Israeli Government – that oppose it. And we’re going to continue to make that case and we expect that the Government of Israel will too.QUESTION: Could I just follow up on two things with that? The – first of all, in the proposal itself, I mean, the – sorry, in the President’s remarks, he said that Hamas basically can’t do another October 7th attack. In terms of what’s the assessment for that, what’s the basis for that, is there anything else that needs to be done to ensure that outcome? Basically, would – under this, would Hamas need to more formally lay down some arms? Is there some sort of settlement that would be involved to make sure that that’s the case?MR MILLER: So let me separate two parts of that question, because I think they’re slightly different. One is just a question of capability, and Hamas clearly does not have the capabilities it had on October 7th when it launched that horrific terrorist attack. It has seen its leadership degraded – not all, but significantly degraded. It has seen a great deal of its personnel killed or captured. It has seen a great deal of its military materiel destroyed, and not just the weapons themselves, but the underground factories that they were using to produce more weapons, that they used on October 7th; those have been in many cases destroyed by Israel.So it is in many ways an incredibly diminished organization from the one that it was on October 7th, and we do not believe could conduct an attack anything like the scale and scope that it did on October 7th. Now, it still poses a threat, absolutely. Hamas launched rockets against Israel just last week, and Israel needs to continue to have the ability to defend itself against that threat. But this goes to the point that we ultimately think you cannot address this threat with just a military solution. This is what I was getting to the other day when I said this idea of pursuing a total victory, which the President spoke to, that just a military campaign in itself, while it will without a doubt continue to kill and capture members of Hamas, is also going to serve as a recruitment device for other potential Hamas members that will come and join and replenish the ranks. And so you have to have not just a military campaign, but a political path forward as well.And that is – to get around to the second part, or what I deemed is the second part of your question – what the Secretary and other members of the administration have been working on with other partners in the region since – intensively since early January, and that is a political path that provides for the reconstruction of Gaza, a political path forward, the security of Gaza. And so when you look at this proposal, obviously the first phrase is for the immediate release of some hostages and a ceasefire; and then over – during phase one you would negotiate phase two, and in phase two and in phase three we would pursue what we’ve termed the day after. And it’s how you ultimately come up with a different governing authority for the West – for Gaza that is not Hamas.And I’ll just make clear, in case there is any question, when the Secretary gave a speech in November in Tokyo, he made quite clear that one of the principles that we see for the end of this conflict is that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza – period, full stop.Sorry for the incredibly long answer.QUESTION: That’s okay. I do have – can I just proceed?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There actually just one thing that’s slightly – but just in the proposal, just the language: “major population centers,” that the Israelis will withdraw from them. Is there actually a list of what the major population centers are, or is there some wiggle room? Could this be something that could become a point of contention in the future?MR MILLER: So it just means what it means, which is major population centers. And partly that is because the population of Gaza has been fluid, or where the population of Gaza is has been fluid over the past months because you’ve seen people move from one place to another. So it means major areas in Gaza where you have people gathered together. And so that’s the point of it. I don’t want to get into it any more from here, but I think the term is fairly obvious.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I just wanted to follow specifically on this assessment of Hamas’s military capability because some of Israeli officials seems to have taken objection to that line in the President’s speech about what they are capable of doing. John Kirby has since said that this stems from U.S. intelligence and military assessments as to what they’re capable of. Are those assessments something that the Israelis share in terms of what Hamas is capable of? And then secondly, is that the same bar for the Israelis? Because it seems to be that that’s at the crux of whether they’re willing to agree to a permanent ceasefire or not.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to what the Israeli military or intelligence assessment might be. I – as I just said, our assessment is that Hamas in no way could conduct a terrorist attack the size, the scale, the scope of what it launched on October 7th. It has been diminished as a terrorist organization. But that, again, does not mean that the threat has disappeared. It has not. Hamas continues to fight Israeli soldiers in Gaza; it continues to launch rocket attacks in Gaza. And those need to be dealt with.In terms of – but in terms of where the proposal – where this roadmap would go forward, there are a number of issues that would need to be negotiated as we transition from phase one to phase two, and that’s what I was getting at in my comments a moment ago, that we don’t think this idea of total victory where you pursue a military campaign in perpetuity with really no end in sight is something that’s in the security interests of Israel. It’s obviously not in the interests of the Palestinian people. And so that is the point that we’ll continue to make to them.QUESTION: Without getting into specifically what the Israelis assess, is there a difference between the U.S. assessment and the Israelis’ assessment?MR MILLER: Again, I can’t really get in – I can’t answer that question without getting to what their assessment is. I can only speak for the United States.QUESTION: Okay. So speaking only for the United States, is this a recent assessment? Because presumably Hamas’s capabilities would have been steadily degraded up until this point. Has something changed where they’ve reached a sort of benchmark, in our view?MR MILLER: I cannot give you a date where we made that assessment, but we have seen their capabilities steadily degraded over the past eight months of this campaign. Obviously, you saw it first in the north, and then in Khan Younis, and then significantly with the destruction of tunnels that housed Hamas’s major weapons manufacturing programs, as IDF made those quite public when they did it. And so when you look at Hamas’s capabilities, I think it – it’s quite clear that while they still pose a terrorist threat, and we will back Israel’s right to deal with that threat, we do not believe they can again launch an attack the size, the scale, of October 7th.QUESTION: I’m sorry. So there – so the U.S. is unilaterally assessing this. There may still be a difference as to what the Israelis think Hamas is capable of.MR MILLER: I just can’t speak – it is the U.S. assessment.QUESTION: You can’t speak to that.MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. And then one last one. I mean, if this, as you guys have put it, is the best possible deal that negotiators to this point have been able to present Hamas, what is the plan if they say no?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. As we’ve made quite clear, there’s no reason they should say no. This is essentially the proposal that they made. Now, if they want to move the goalposts and back away from what is essentially a proposal they put forward several weeks ago, at some point Hamas ought to have to explain to the world why it has rejected this proposal. And that’s what the President was making clear on Friday when – we all get why people criticize Israel. We all get why people criticize the United States for our support for Israel. But this is a proposal to actually reach an immediate ceasefire, to surge humanitarian assistance in, and ultimately set the conditions for an end to the war. Why wouldn’t Hamas accept it?And so we have welcomed the statements that have come out in the Arab world calling on this deal to be finalized. We have welcomed the statements that we have seen from the G7 and from other leaders calling for this deal to be finalized. Only Hamas can speak to what it will do. But it ought to have – it ought to have to explain that answer if they do reject this proposal that is, as I said, manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people.QUESTION: If they do reject it, though, you would expect the Israeli campaign to continue and for the U.S. to continue supporting Israel as it pursues that campaign?MR MILLER: I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. But I think the Israelis have made quite clear that the campaign would continue absent a ceasefire.QUESTION: Okay. I’ll yield.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I wanted just to try and understand what the space for – we’re talking about going from phase one to phase two in this deal. If you’re saying – you still have the strong line that Hamas can’t run Gaza in the future. But you’re also saying that there is no path to total victory, to total sort of eradication of Hamas.MR MILLER: By military means alone is what I mean by that.QUESTION: By – right. So you’re – so what you’re asking is for Hamas to peacefully – the leaders and the members of Hamas to peacefully disarm and sort of just disappear. What is the actual sort of proposal here for someone like Yahya Sinwar, who’s there, he’s a leader? You’re saying him and his cadre of leaders of Hamas have no role in the future of Gaza. So what are – what’s – what are they – where are they going to be in the future?MR MILLER: So because that is quite clearly an issue that will still need to be negotiated – we haven’t even gotten the acceptance of this proposal yet, but should it be accepted, phase two and all of these related questions are things that will have to be negotiated as part of the process – I am not going to do that negotiation here in public. That said, we have long made clear that we think Hamas should lay down its arms, and that continues to be our position.QUESTION: But you have kind of moved from earlier in the war, I think, the – you were strongly supporting Israel’s goal of completely eradicating Hamas. Now there seems to be this little space for they can exist in some form in &#8212;MR MILLER: No. That is not at all what our position is. What our position is, is that you cannot eliminate Hamas just through military means, just through a military campaign. And this has been the experience of the United States in counterterrorism activities all around the world, that a military means by itself, without some kind of political path for the population, will ultimately prove ineffective.And you can take out terrorists and see those terrorists replaced and ultimately find yourself in the same strategic position you did at the start of the campaign. And so that’s why you have to pair a military campaign, which Israel has executed, with a political plan for the people in Gaza. And that is ultimately what we are trying to pursue.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. If the President said that this was an Israeli proposal in essence, why would there be the need to implore the Israelis to accept it? Could you explain that to us?MR MILLER: We are not – we are imploring others in the Israeli Government to accept this proposal.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: But this is – this is – this is a proposal that was put forward by the Government of Israel.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I think we were – went into this with eyes wide open that there are certain people in the Israeli cabinet, in the Israeli Government, who would probably not look too kindly on this, and of course we’ve seen their statements in the days since. But ultimately, this is an Israeli Government proposal. But Said, to the point, it’s a proposal the Government of Israel made, and we expected that there would be intense debate about it in Israel. There has been. You saw demonstrators out on Saturday night urging that the proposal move forward. And of course you saw several members of the cabinet urging its rejection.And so what the President’s message was is that Israel should reject those voices at the ends of the spectrum who have said, don’t take a deal to bring the hostages home, don’t take a deal to advance Israel’s long-term security interest.QUESTION: So knowing that there is a war cabinet and then there is a larger cabinet and so on, where there is a great deal of veto power among certain people in the larger cabinet and so on – so conceivably they could turn it down. What would be your second plan in this case? Because we saw – we heard the President – allow me, if I may – we heard the President say this war must come to an end. And using the most authoritative podium on Earth, which is the White House, to say this, I mean, there seems to be some sort of commitment that this war has to end.MR MILLER: So the reason I was smiling at the question is I’m interested that the question is about what Israel might do about a proposal that they put forward that is pending with Hamas, and the real question right now is to Hamas, right.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: It is Hamas that has this proposal in front of them and Hamas that is the decisionmaker right now about whether it can go forward or not. Now, that said, we have been quite clear that we will continue to make – speak to the Israeli public, speak to the Israeli Government about why this deal is in their interests and why, should we get a deal, moving from phase one to phase two is in their interests and why further integration with their neighbors is in their interests. But let me be clear: The roadblock right now to a ceasefire is not Israel; the roadblock to a ceasefire is Hamas.QUESTION: Fair. Fair point. But we know that communication with Hamas, especially in Gaza, is very tenuous, is very difficult. It’s not that easy. So that may take time. So it could be just an issue of time. They may agree and so on. So if they do, that’s it. There is no backing down. Israel will have to sort of abide by this agreement?MR MILLER: If Hamas agrees to this proposal &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; we fully expect it to be implanted.QUESTION: Right. One – a couple of last points – allow me – on the West Bank – I really want to ask because &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; what we have seen is a situation that is really deteriorating in the West Bank. We see towns like Tulkarm, for instance, were being – it being almost besieged. The land was taken, they erected steel doors and so on, and all these things. And I wonder: What is your position on all this? Can – is this reversible? Is this something that you could sort of pressure the Israelis to sort of pullback from?MR MILLER: So the violence that we have seen in the West Bank is unacceptable. It must stop. Civilians are never legitimate targets of violence; they must be protected. We urge Israel to do everything its power to prevent these attacks in the first place and – when they’re not prevented – to hold those responsible accountable. We urge them to work with the Palestinian Authority to that end, and we have also made clear that we are willing to take our own actions to hold people accountable. You’ve seen us impose visa restrictions and economic sanctions on individuals and entities who perpetrate or support violence in the West Bank, and we will not hesitate to continue to do so.QUESTION: And finally, Samantha Power – the Israeli – I mean, I’m sorry, the – Samantha Power said that Israel is the chief impediment to Gaza aid. How do you assess what she said?MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to her comments. I’ll let my USAID colleagues speak to them. I think if you look at her – the full substance, she was speaking to the conflict ongoing being the chief impediment to getting aid in. And that is – that is manifestly the case. You can get aid – even when you get – can get aid to Kerem Shalom, it’s often difficult to get it distributed inside Gaza because people are moving to new places and there’s ongoing conflict. That’s been a challenge throughout that we will continue to work through.But two things with – in that regard. Number one, so there were just officials from the U.S. Government who met in Cairo yesterday with officials from Egypt and from Israel to try and work on a solution to reopen Rafah gate. They were constructive discussions, professional, and we’ll continue to pursue them in the coming days because we want to see Rafah open, because that would be another gate to allow humanitarian assistance in. And then second – back to the bigger point – if we could get a ceasefire, if Hamas would agree to this ceasefire proposal, we could get 600 trucks a day coming in – and not just coming in, but it would be much, much easier for them to move safely around Gaza and get humanitarian aid into the hands of the people that we need – who need it.Nadia.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Prime Minister Netanyahu said neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will play a role in the day after in Gaza. Do you agree that the Palestinian Authority should be &#8212;QUESTION: Excluded.QUESTION: &#8212; excluded from playing any role?MR MILLER: No, we do not. We have made quite clear we see a role for the Palestinian Authority in the governance of Gaza after this conflict.QUESTION: So do you see this as a point of – that might be not acceptable for Israel in terms of this proposal that the President put forward?MR MILLER: So when it comes to all of those issues about who would govern Gaza at the end of the – this conflict, I’ll say two things. One, it is something that we have been, as you know well, discussing with Arab partners in the region. It’s been a good subject of the work that we have done and as well as the work that we have done to encourage the Palestinian Authority to take steps to reform itself – so not just Israelis could have faith in the Palestinian Authority, but so the Palestinian people could have faith in the Palestinian Authority governing as a non-corrupt, faithful actor in the interest of the Palestinian people. So that’s the first thing I would say.The second thing is – I would say is that we are going to continue to engage with the Israeli Government about this, and there are a diversity of views inside the Israeli Government about the Palestinian Authority and the role that they ought to play and the future that they ought to play in governance in Gaza. And we’re going to continue to make clear to them that we think a revitalized, reformed, fully functional Palestinian Authority is in the best interest of the Palestinian people, it’s in the best interest of Israel, and it’s especially in the best interest of Israel’s security.QUESTION: Okay. I want to have another go at the previous questions on Hamas. The President said that Hamas capabilities had been degraded to the degree that they don’t pose a threat equivalent to the October 7th. Would you entertain or accept some kind of political presence for Hamas, or do you think that is going to be a situation analogous to the de-Baathification that we have seen in Iraq after the war, which is de-Hamasization, if – I don’t know if the term applies. But basically, that nobody will be allowed to take part in any kind of shape or form of civil authority, of local authority, whatever. We’re not talking about a demolition brigade.MR MILLER: Yeah. So I’m not going to get into any level of detail because we’re just not that – at that point in the process. But I will say at a high level, it is the strongly held view of the United States that we will continue to push that Hamas can play no role in the governance of Gaza. It has lost any legitimate claim it ever had – and we didn’t think it had one to begin with, but it’s lost any legitimate claim to participate in the governance of Gaza by virtue of launching a brutal massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7th.QUESTION: And finally, Saudis and Qataris has condemned an Israeli Knesset attempt for a bill, actually, to label UNRWA as a terrorist organization. Do you condemn this attempt by the Israeli Knesset to do that?MR MILLER: So I am not – I was not aware of that vote. Obviously we do not believe UNRWA is a terrorist organization. We – there were members of UNRWA who UNRWA provided evidence had participated in some way in the attacks of October 7th, but that is not the &#8212;QUESTION: I want &#8212;MR MILLER: No, but hold – but that is not – that is not actions by UNRWA the body itself. So that’s our general position, but I can’t speak to a specific vote because I’m not – I’m not familiar with the specifics.QUESTION: Sure, but I just want – but if – I want you to clarify this: UNRWA has provided evidence that some members were a part – took part in the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah – well, so I should say provide – they briefed us on evidence that they found. Yeah, at the beginning of this – I’ve gone through this a few times – at the beginning of this entire issue with regard to UNRWA, a lot of people think it was – we took the action that we took to suspend UNRWA’s funding because of something the Israeli Government told us, and that’s not the case. It was UNRWA that came to us and said they were aware of these allegations. They had looked into them, found evidence that certain members of UNRWA had participated in the attacks of October 7th, and so had suspended and fired 13, 14 – I don’t remember the exact number now. And that’s why we took the action we did.QUESTION: And you can update us on the investigation because it’s been what a few months now?MR MILLER: I can’t because it’s not a U.S. Government investigation. It’s the United Nations investigation. I would refer you to them to speak to that.QUESTION: Matt, could I have &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; a clarification on your engagement with the PA? Are you engaged with the Palestinian Authority right now?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, what &#8212;MR MILLER: We have conversations with the &#8212;QUESTION: What are the whereabouts of Mr. Hady Amr, for instance? Is he engaged?MR MILLER: He has been – he travels back and forth between here and the region quite regularly. I don’t know if he’s here or in the region today. But yeah, he engages regularly with the Palestinian Authority, as do officials in our embassy in Jerusalem.Stay in the region.QUESTION: On this subject.MR MILLER: Anymore – yeah, yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, did you hear back from the Israeli regarding the investigation on the strike in – last weekend?MR MILLER: We have not &#8212;QUESTION: Because &#8212;MR MILLER: We have not – well, number one, I don’t know if the investigation has concluded. But in any event, we haven’t been briefed at this point.QUESTION: And on this proposed deal, the President – also the Secretary yesterday in his call with Gantz, he mentioned that this proposed deal will unlock a calm on the northern borders. Do you have something substantial? Did you – is there a progress made here with Hizballah?MR MILLER: So we’ve had ongoing conversations for some time to try to reach a political solution to the cross-border strikes between Israel and Hizballah. And we have made progress in those conversations, but ultimately, it is our assessment that it’s very difficult to reach a solution to that problem without calm in Gaza. Ultimately, all of these problems are interconnected, and as long as there is intense fighting in Gaza, it’s very difficult to reach a solution in the north. And it – that intense fighting also poses other security challenges for Israel. And so we do believe that, should we get a ceasefire in Gaza, especially if we can make that a durable ceasefire that ends the war, that that is a challenge that we can resolve.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: On this, Matt.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Did you discuss such a deal or diplomatic resolution for the conflict between Israel and Hizballah with Hizballah and Iran?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into any conversations. We don’t have direct communications with Hizballah, obviously. But we have been pursuing diplomatic – a diplomatic resolution to this issue for some time.QUESTION: And one more on Iran. Iran’s acting foreign minister said today that the process of negotiations between U.S. and Iran are currently underway, and exchange of messages and consultations continue. Can you confirm that?MR MILLER: I cannot. I will just say that we have always made clear we have the ability to get messages to Iran when it is in our interest to do so, but I’m not going to confirm or readout any specific conversations.QUESTION: Did you mean that his statement is not accurate?MR MILLER: No, I mean exactly what I said.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just question on the framework that’s currently on the table.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Can you say if it’s the U.S. expectation that during phase two and three of the deal, if it’s implemented, if Israel would still be able to carry out specific targeted military strikes should a threat emanate from within Gaza?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to – I don’t want to speak to that in terms of tying it to phase two and phase three, because those are things that are going to have to be negotiated in the exact – the exact parameters of that negotiation. We’re not – we don’t even have a deal for phase one yet, so I should refrain from commenting on that. But the President made clear we will always back Israel’s right to defend itself, and that remains true.All right. Go ahead, Janne.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have two questions. I want to follow up again on the last North Korean garbage balloon question. Last time China sent spy balloons to the United States, but North Korea’s send over thousands garbage balloons to South Korea over the past few days. These garbage balloons contain all kinds of unsanitary germs. There could also be damage to U.S. troops in – stationed in South Korea. What measures do you think the U.S. and South Korea to take in this regard?MR MILLER: So I will just say that it’s obviously quite a disgusting tactic – irresponsible, childish – and it should come to an end. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So you’re not condemning?MR MILLER: Of course I condemn it. Absolutely.QUESTION: Okay. Do you – yeah.MR MILLER: Any country that sends trash to its – floats trash over in a balloon to its neighbors. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah.QUESTION: How about shipping it there?QUESTION: Yes.QUESTION: You guys – you guys do a lot of that.MR MILLER: (Laughter.) If it is an agreement between two countries, that is a very different thing. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yeah. Do you think that the – yeah, one more. Do you think that this is a violation of the UN Security Council?MR MILLER: I would have to consult with people here whether trash-carrying balloons – I’m not trying to be flippant. I just have to consult with some people here about whether that’s the case.QUESTION: Also, do you think this action has anything to do with China – China involvement &#8212;MR MILLER: The – the trash balloons do?QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: I have not seen any assessment that it does, no.QUESTION: All right, thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very quick on Ukraine, then I’ll move to Georgia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the Secretary intending to accompany the Vice President in Switzerland at the summit?MR MILLER: I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make with that peace summit. I – you heard the Secretary say a number of times over the past few weeks, you heard us say that we would be well represented at that summit, and that’s – clearly saw that today with the announcement that the Vice President would be attending.QUESTION: Right. President Zelenskyy called out China for sabotaging that event. Do you share his concerns?MR MILLER: So I will just say that when it comes to the peace summit – I’m going to speak for the United States – that we support the peace summit. We want it to be successful, and that’s why you see the Vice President of the United States attending that summit. We support Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts. That said, we have always been clear that China could play a useful diplomatic role in helping resolve this conflict if it wanted to. But that said, right now it’s hard to see how they could play that role given the actions that we’ve seen China take over recent months to rebuild, reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. So we are going to continue to make clear to China that we object to those actions, that we will hold entities responsible for those actions, and we’ve heard our Russian – sorry, our European counterparts say the same thing.QUESTION: Thank you. Let’s head to Georgia, if I may, where the Kremlin-inspired draft already became law of the land. The speaker who signed it today was quoted as saying that the Western foundations – I’m quoting him – are financing organizations that are financing terror, violence, et cetera. There are other officials who are talking about clearly shutting down the civil society organizations – clear departure from what they told us intention – their original intention was. Moving forward, how do you expect them to apply the law?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that. I will say we have been quite concerned about exactly the point you raise, which is that this law moves Georgia away from its democratic trajectory and could stigmatize civil society and stifle the freedoms of association and expression, and that the actions fundamentally alter the U.S. relationship with Georgia. And so that’s why we have launched a review of our relationship and will consider our response to the actions that the Government of Georgia has taken.QUESTION: More on that point, the mayor of Tbilisi is quoted as saying that we have, quote/unquote, done nothing to be sanctioned. Is he mistaken?MR MILLER: We’ve announced a new sanctions policy. We have not yet announced individual sanctions. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: But &#8212;MR MILLER: We – but we have made clear that we would not hesitate to impose them.QUESTION: Fair enough. Given what’s at stake here, why did the Secretary make no mention of Georgia during his Eastern European trip?MR MILLER: The Secretary just put out a statement announcing an entire comprehensive review of our policy with respect to Georgia that could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance that we provide to Georgia, and as well announced a new visa restriction policy that you should fully expect to see the United States take action on. I think I’ll leave it at that. His commitment to this issue has been quite clear.QUESTION: And one more, if I may.MR MILLER: Let me – let me go ahead to Shaun.QUESTION: Different topic.MR MILLER: That was – that was like three or four. Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: Six. Six.MR MILLER: Go ahead. I’m sorry, I thought you had your hand up before. If you &#8212;QUESTION: No, I did. I did. Yeah.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Sorry. Getting back slightly to the Middle East but staying in Europe.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I don’t know how many times you get asked about Slovenia. The – so the parliament is debating recognition of a Palestinian state, of the state of Palestine. It’s been put on hold by the opposition. I know in the previous three cases of European countries, the reaction – you had a reaction coming out. But as it’s actually in process, does the U.S. want to tip the scales one way or another? Do you have a position on whether Slovenia should go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state?MR MILLER: So look, ultimately, we see those steps as not helpful or productive at this time. We have been quite clear that we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state – the Secretary has been working on actual paths to get us there through diplomacy in the region – but that ultimately that is a step that needs to come not through unilateral recognition but through direct negotiations between the two parties.QUESTION: Okay. And Slovenia in particular, is it &#8212;MR MILLER: That &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; comment applies to everyone. Yeah.QUESTION: Can I just ask you briefly about two elections? I know you issued statements on them already, but two major countries: Mexico and South Africa. I know that there have been statements issued in both, but particularly the case of South Africa, it seems the ANC for the first time since the end of Apartheid is going to lose a majority. The U.S. has a relationship with South Africa, but obviously there have been some ups and downs recently with regard to Russia, with regard to – with regard to the issues in The Hague. Does the United States anticipate any changes to the relationship with South Africa coming out of this, anything more to the U.S.’s liking potentially?MR MILLER: So I’d say that we remain committed to deepening our cooperation with South Africa. We cooperate with South Africa on a number of – a number of areas, even places where we have differences. There are other areas – such as expanding economic prosperity, fighting the climate crisis, ensuring that democracy delivers – where we work quite closely with South Africa, and we would fully expect to do that with the new government.And I do also want to take a note to congratulate the South African people on successful national and political elections, and this won’t – maybe won’t have resonance for everyone in the room, for the younger crowd in the room, but for some of us older folks, this is now three decades of South Africans having the opportunity to exercise the fundamental right to vote. Something that seemed difficult and far beyond reach when I was a kid has been achieved and now has – we have seen entrenched for three decades, and it’s I think important to highlight that positive development.QUESTION: Sure.MR MILLER: Continued positive development.QUESTION: And on Mexico, again, I know there was a statement issued, but with AMLO there are quite a few arrangements on migration that have taken place. Is it the understanding that these will continue on with the new administration? Do you think – do you anticipate any type of shakeup in terms of the migration protocols with &#8212;MR MILLER: So I think we’ll let the new president, the president-elect, take office before we start talking about specific policies. But we do expect to continue our close working relationship with the Government of Mexico. We value the special relationship we have with them and remain committed to working together to advance our mutual economic and security interests.Ryan.QUESTION: So back in February the White House announced sanctions on people undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank. I’m not sure if you saw, but Senator Chris Van Hollen just suggested that those sanctions ought to apply to Smotrich, who you mentioned earlier today as an obstacle to the peace deal. Is that something that the State Department would consider?MR MILLER: So I’m never – I make this a rule never to make sanctions announcements or talk about what we’re considering before we impose any sanction, and before anyone reads anything into that comment, you shouldn’t read that one way or the other. It’s just our blanket rule in not talking about possible sanctions.QUESTION: Quick Pakistan question. I’m not sure if you saw Imran Khan was acquitted of his previous conviction on the cipher case, so the only case that he’s currently jailed for is what’s known as this un-Islamic marriage charge. So the most popular politician in Pakistan is currently in jail because the Pakistani court says that there were not enough menstrual cycles between his wife’s divorce and his marriage. So you talked earlier about the Georgia law and that that was undermining Georgian democracy. Why does the – why is the State Department willing to weigh in on a law passed through the Georgian legislature, but for something insane like this, that’s a matter for the Pakistani courts?MR MILLER: So I just don’t have any further comment on the case. We look at – when we look at different countries, we take into account appropriate context, circumstances in making our judgments. We’ve addressed the question of Imran Khan many times. The legal proceedings against him are something for the Pakistani courts to decide in – I’d say in accordance with their laws and constitution.QUESTION: Could that really be – yeah. But could that really be a matter for the Pakistani courts? Is – could that possibly be the State Department’s position?MR MILLER: It is our position that it – when you come to these laws in Pakistan and this court case, it is something for the Pakistani courts to decide. And you just saw, to this question, charges against him thrown out by the courts, so &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Regarding the trilateral deal between United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel that included a defense deal between United States and Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia and Israel normalization, we have seen that Secretary Blinken in a Senate hearing mentioned that United States and Saudi Arabia are very near to a defense deal. It seemed like U.S. is prioritizing its defense deal with Saudi Arabia but not the ties with the Israel, the basic offer that U.S. led from – for the mediation between Saudi Arabia and Israel. So with this testimony in the Senate hearing, is it, like, understood that it will be a bilateral deal only with the defense deal between Saudi Arabi and United States and the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia sidelined?MR MILLER: No, the arrangement that we have contemplated, that we have been working on, is a agreement that encompasses three parties: the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. There are bilateral pieces between the United States and Saudi Arabia that would be part of that deal, and that’s what we have been working on, and then there are other components that are – that ultimately involve a path towards a Palestinian state.But I will just say as all of – as part of all of this, you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. There are two – there is one thing that has to happen – two things. One I just referred to, that – the path to a Palestinian state. But the other thing that has to happen before any such arrangement can go forward is calm in Gaza. We don’t have calm in Gaza today. We’re trying to get to calm in Gaza through this ceasefire proposal, and you heard the President speak to normalization with Saudi Arabia being one of the benefits that it ultimately could unlock.QUESTION: Secondly, from the second time in 21 years, United States allowed a jailed Pakistani lady who is facing 86 years of, like, sentence in a Texas jail with the allegations of alleged attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan – that is Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. So former Pakistani caretaker government official in a private conversation told – he revealed that U.S. sent Pakistan a very closed deal, a possible deal between United States and Pakistan that might be a swap deal, basically. So you have any information on that? Is there something behind U.S. and Pakistan are considering that?MR MILLER: So let me take the question. I’m just not familiar with the full details of the case that you mentioned.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A question on Türkiye. Today Türkiye interior ministry, they removed a recently elected pro-Kurdish party and mayor of Hakkari and replaced him with a trustee. Do you have any reaction or comment on that?MR MILLER: So the – our position on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party is well known; it hasn’t changed. The PKK was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State in 1997. And regarding the specific case you mentioned, I would refer you to the Government of Türkiye for comment on that.QUESTION: And did you say that he was linked with the PKK?MR MILLER: I’m sorry. What was that?QUESTION: Do you say that he was linked with the PKK?MR MILLER: I’m just speaking to our assessment of the PKK problem.QUESTION: And what’s your assessment on that case?MR MILLER: As I said, I don&#8217;t have any specific comment on it.QUESTION: And what’s your approach to the Kurdish issue in Türkiye? I mean, it’s been a long time &#8212;MR MILLER: The approach &#8212;QUESTION: The Kurdish issue in Türkiye – what’s the U.S. approach on &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear our longstanding position on that many times. I don&#8217;t have anything to add today. Go ahead here, and then we’re going to have wrap for today.QUESTION: You said that you would hope that the Israeli law enforcement would follow through in curtailing violence from settlers in the West Bank. However, on Thursday – last Thursday – the Israeli military raided a vegetable market in Ramallah, in al-Bireh, to be specific, but one of the largest vegetable markets in the West Bank, and which lit on fire. And who’s going to hold Israel accountable and the Israeli military in this sense? Which law enforcement authority should &#8212;MR MILLER: So a few things. First, I can’t speak to that specific raid. Obviously, Israel has the right to conduct legitimate antiterrorism activities in the West Bank. We have seen them do so, but those need to be legitimate; they need to comply with international humanitarian law. But as regards to this particular incident, I can’t speak to it at all.But that said, when it comes to holding people accountable, we have seen the Israeli Government take some actions to police settler violence in the West Bank. We’ve seen them make arrests; we’ve seen them hold people accountable. But in our assessment, it hasn’t been enough, and so that’s why &#8212;QUESTION: But this wasn’t settler.MR MILLER: But – I know. That’s why I’m separating out the two. I can’t – because I can’t speak to this one without knowing the details. But when it comes to what I was speaking to, settler violence, they need to do more. And if they don’t, we will. It’s that clear.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								Israel																								Mexico																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Saudi Arabia																								Slovenia																								South Africa																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 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 – May 30, 2024																																																					May 30, 2024																																																								1:26 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: I don’t have anything off the top today. So, Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. So Algeria has proposed a draft UN Security Council resolution that demands a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and essentially orders Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah. What’s the U.S. stance on this resolution, and have you been engaging in Algeria – with Algeria on negotiations on it?MR PATEL: So we are aware of the draft resolution that’s been circulated by Algeria and have provided feedback. We’re certainly not going to negotiate on the ins and outs of this in public, but I will just note that it is imbalanced and it fails to note a simple fact, which is that Hamas is to blame for this conflict and the fighting in Rafah could end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to a deal for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. It’s important that the United Nations not erase Hamas’s role from this conflict or ignore its repeated violations of international law. But beyond that, I am just not going to get ahead of the process.QUESTION: Would you veto it as it stands now?MR PATEL: That would me – be me getting ahead of the process, which is what I said I was just not going to do.QUESTION: Okay. And then the United Nations said on Wednesday that the amount of humanitarian aid entering the enclave has dropped by two-thirds since Israel began its military operation in the southern Rafah region this month. What is the U.S. doing about this?MR PATEL: Sorry, I didn’t hear that. Entering the what?QUESTION: The amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza &#8212;MR PATEL: Got it.QUESTION: &#8212; has dropped by two-thirds.MR PATEL: Right. Right. Sorry, I didn’t hear that. I just wanted to make sure.So look, we have urged Israel to allow increased assistance into Gaza through as many points as possible and to ensure the safe and secure distribution of aid throughout the region. We’ve also called for consistent access through Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings to prevent harms to civilians reliant on aid, and we’re continuing to work with partners in Israel and Egypt to do everything we can to ensure as many of those crossings as possible are as open and can serve as conduits for additional humanitarian aid.QUESTION: And then just one more on Gaza, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Stacy Gilbert, a State Department employee of more than 20 years, said she resigned after the administration released the NSM report this month, which she said was wrong. She said a draft of the report had said clearly that Israel was blocking humanitarian assistance but that subject matter experts were removed, and it was edited at a higher level before being published with the conclusion that Israel was not blocking assistance. What was the reason for the change to this conclusion, and do you have any comment on this?MR PATEL: So first, let me just say I’m not going to comment on personnel issues, but we have been clear that we welcome diverse points of view and believe it makes us a stronger department and it makes and leads to a stronger policymaking process. The Secretary and department leadership will continue to seek out a wide range of views because we think it – it improves our policymaking process, as I said. We continue to press the Government of Israel to avoid harming civilians and urgently expand humanitarian access to and inside Gaza, and this includes the provision of lifesaving assistance, allowing fuel entry, and ensuring the safe freedom of movement for humanitarian workers.What I can say on the National Security Memorandum 20 and the process – and we spoke a little bit to this about when the report was released – is that this was a joint State Department-Defense Department report. It reflected input from across the interagency, including the Intelligence Community, including our embassies and consulates in the relevant countries that are laid out in the NSM, as well as input from NGOs and nonprofits. Relevant State Department bureaus, including, of course, the Bureau of Near East Affairs as well as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration provided input.And I will also just say is that we stand by the National Security Memorandum 20 report. We are not an administration or a department that twists the facts, and allegations that we have are unfounded. But this is, as any report and as any process that is undertaken in a policymaking process, these processes are deliberative and they involve inputs from people at a variety of seniority and expert levels.QUESTION: Thank you. I have a few other questions on other things, but &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay. Great. Jan,* go ahead.QUESTION: Further on the assistance to Gaza &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; with the DOD’s temporary pier out of commission, has the U.S. engaged with Israel to try to get some of that assistance that’s presumably sitting in Cyprus to come in through the Port of Ashdod and then land route?MR PATEL: So we’re looking at what other options might be available. So first, let me just say the pier part of the overall, broader maritime corridor has proven to be crucial in delivering supplies, and we expect that the repair and the re-anchoring of this pier to happen as swiftly as possible. I know my colleagues at the Department of Defense are working around the clock, as is others across the interagency, to get that to happen.There is, of course, the warehouse in Cyprus, there is the Port of Ashdod, there are the facilities on the beach side and other avenues like that. We think that those are viable options for the humanitarian aid commodities, and so we’re continuing to consult with donor countries, the Government of Israel, and other interlocutors on what might be feasible. But I don’t have a new process to announce.Leon, wat that you who had your hand up?QUESTION: Yeah, I was just hesitating – you said that the part of this pier has been crucial to distribute aid to Gaza. But In fact, since it started, it’s been having a series of issues and problems. I mean &#8212;MR PATEL: Leon, since it started, more than a hundred metric tons of aid has been transported from the pier to a staging area where UN humanitarian groups distribute it to Palestinians. Of course, we want these repairs and the re-anchoring to happen as swiftly as possible, but it has been an important piece of our overall humanitarian aid efforts, and I know that across the interagency we are working around the clock to rectify the challenges that were found due to some inclement weather. But we are doing everything we can to continue to open this process back up. We think it’s been vital. But as I was mentioning to Shannon, there are some other components of this overall corridor, including the warehouse in Cyprus, Ashdod Port, other setups that we think are viable options for these commodities, and we’ll continue to work on that process.QUESTION: Can I have a quick follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. But the UN – the United Nations has said that aid has dropped by 67 percent – that’s a lot of aid – I mean, since the – since the operation in Rafah began. Doesn’t that tell you that these – I’m sorry what – to call it this way, but band-aid kind of solutions like the pier and so on, they really – they have no long-term effect. They’re subject to all kinds of weather or mishap or whatever it is, and the only way are really the land crossings. Isn’t that the case now? Isn’t that the proof?MR PATEL: As I said when answering Leon’s question, when the pier was anchored and functioning it allowed the provision of a thousand metric tons of humanitarian aid. Also I was pretty clear up here – as has Matt, as has Secretary Blinken when we were talking about the JLOTS process and it being established – that this administration is one in which we are pursuing an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to humanitarian aid.At no point since the onset of this conflict have we tried to make the case that a maritime corridor or a pier – establishment of a pier system was meant to replace or supersede land route crossings, and that’s why we continue to work around the clock to make sure that those land crossings are open as swiftly as possible as well.QUESTION: But I mean, you guys said time and again that it’s not an alternative to land crossings.MR PATEL: Correct. But that continues to be the case.QUESTION: Then why? Why not? Then why not bring to bear whatever abilities you have, whatever pressure you have on the Israelis, to allow more aid to go through the crossings, the land crossings, or your Egyptian – your ally – Egyptian allies, or whatever? I mean, whatever land crossing there is available or can be available.MR PATEL: We are continuing to engage exactly in that kind of diplomacy to turn on and to open as many crossings as we can. We’ll continue to pursue that.QUESTION: And do you feel that we can see the reopening or the resumption of aid through these crossings anytime soon? Do you have a &#8212;MR PATEL: Said, it’s important to note that aid is flowing among the crossings that exist. On May 29th, a total of 325 trucks crossed into Gaza. Certainly I’m not indicating that that is enough or enough to alleviate the dire situation in Gaza, but aid is flowing and we are continuing to work around the clock with partners in Egypt and Israel to do what we can to make sure other vital crossings are open and can open as swiftly as possible. Simultaneously, we’re doing everything we can to repair and retrofit this pier and make sure that it can be re-anchored as swiftly as possible as well. And I’m sure my colleagues at the Department of Defense can speak to you a little more precisely about that process.QUESTION: Now, the – there is a CNN – New York Times investigation that determined that the weapons used in Rafah were American weapons, the GBU-39 or whatever. Do you have any comment on that? Because yesterday I think the Secretary said he was not sure yet whether it was American-made weapons or something like that, so what is your position today?MR PATEL: So I’m going to let the IDF speak to their investigation, including what pieces &#8212;QUESTION: I’m asking you about the – is this a U.S. weapon as far as you know?MR PATEL: Again, it is – it is not for us to speak to. We can’t speak to individual weapons loadouts to Israeli aircraft, so I will let the IDF speak to their investigation findings and indicate – including anything that they have to share about what weapons were used. I just don’t have an assessment for you that on, Said.QUESTION: And lastly &#8212;MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Does it bother you guys when former officials, high-profile officials like the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, writes on a bomb, “Finish them off,” or when someone that’s still like a senator, a U.S. senator says drop a nuclear bomb on them and so on? I mean, like in a final solution kind of thing. Does that really bother you that – do you feel disgust? Do you feel that maybe you ought to issue a statement? If somebody said this about any other group of people and so on, I think you would probably be disgusted. You would say this is terrible, this is awful. What is your position on what they say?MR PATEL: Said, Ambassador Haley is a private citizen, and what we are focused on is the diplomacy and the task at hand. We’re focused on doing everything we can to get this conflict to end, to secure a ceasefire; a ceasefire that is coupled with the release of hostages; a ceasefire that can be coupled with an additional influx of humanitarian aid; one that ensures Palestinians in Gaza are protected, have their humanitarian needs met; a ceasefire that will help identify a vision for the post-conflict of Gaza – a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard of terrorism and a Gaza where Palestinians and, in a separate state, Israelis can live with equal measures of security and prosperity. That’s what we’re focused on.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Said’s question?MR PATEL: Sure, and then I’m going to go to Abbie because she’s had her hand up patiently, unless Abbie wants to go – I’ll let you &#8212;QUESTION: No, go ahead.QUESTION: I mean, why can’t you comment on whether or not this was a U.S. bomb? Is that a matter of policy or is it because you don’t know?MR PATEL: Tom, we just can’t speak to individual weapons loadouts on Israeli aircraft. That’s not something for us to speak to. This is – this was not a U.S. operation, and we are not – we don’t have boots on the ground as it relates to this conflict. And I will let the IDF speak to their investigations and their findings.Broadly, of course, the United States has a broad and robust security relationship with the Government of Israel. That is certainly no secret. But when it comes to speaking as it relates to individual operations, we’re just not going to do that from the U.S. Government and I’d defer you to our partners in Israel to speak to that.QUESTION: I mean, it matters, though. You’re the – you’re a spokesman for the U.S. Government. This is a – if this was a U.S. weapon, as has been widely reported and all the publicly available images are suggesting, there’s obviously a locus of interest for you and potential responsibility given catastrophic deaths and the way that people were killed in this incident after an Israeli airstrike. So I’m just trying to understand why. I mean, have you looked at the pictures? Do you have &#8212;MR PATEL: Tom, let’s – it’s important – let’s not conflate multiple things here. First, as it relates to the origin of the weapon that was used, that is something that the IDF can speak to as it relates to their own investigations and its – and whatever findings it chooses to make public or share or not.Separately but related, regardless of the origin of this weapon and regardless of what the weapon was that was used, it is devastating to see the images and the videos and the imagery that we saw from over the weekend. And that is why we have – we went to the Israelis as soon as we were made aware of this about answers about how this incident happened, why the level of civilian harm took place, even though it was not necessarily the intent. We need to understand how this transpired, and we believe that understanding that will also continue to help the Government of Israel and the IDF as it continues to conduct its operations. That is true. That is our belief regardless of whatever the weapon of origin is. And that is something that our Israeli partners can speak to in their own investigation.QUESTION: I think my question is more about whether you know the origin of this weapon and you can’t and won’t talk about it, or whether you don’t know. So &#8212;MR PATEL: I – that’s just not something I’m going to speak to, certainly not from the State Department. What you’re talking about, if you want to get very technical, is what this specific weapon used in a specific operation &#8212;QUESTION: No, it’s not technical. It’s because it – every weapons expert that’s looked at these images has established that it’s an American weapon. So it just seems a slightly peculiar position not to be able to talk to that.MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to specific weapons payloads on specific operations.QUESTION: Okay. And just on the – I think there was a bit of confusion perhaps on Monday about the location of the tents and the fire and where the bomb or the bombs were dropped. And certainly the aerial images that have emerged since then appear to show the structures that were attacked very close to quite a lot of tents. The Palestinian journalist that took the photos of the tailfin and the electronics board of the weapon says that a child told him he found the electronics board in his tent, which would suggest a close proximity of the tent to the strike. So have you got any further, three days on now, about proximity?MR PATEL: We don’t have – we don’t, unfortunately, have any additional information, Tom. That’s something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. We have been told by the Israelis that it is conducting an investigation. We want to see that happen thoroughly, swiftly, and transparently. And as I said, looking into these kinds of things, making these kinds of assessments, are critical to ensuring that the IDF avoids similar tragedies in the future.Abbie. Sorry.QUESTION: Thank you. The Secretary said yesterday that in light of the horrific consequences, further actions within Rafah, they have to consider whether the incremental gains made against Hamas are worth those unintended consequences. Is the administration – does the administration believe that Israel is moving closer to that red line that they drew for reconsidering supplying U.S. weapons?MR PATEL: So look, as it relates to a major military operation in Rafah, we have yet to see such a one transpire. There has been an uptick in military operations along the Philadelphi Corridor on the outskirts, but we have not seen a major operation as it relates to Rafah. We’re going to continue to monitor conditions on the ground and see what happens.But Abbie, to take a step back, what the Secretary was referring to is something you’ve heard him say before, in that over the course of this conflict, it is imperative that our partners in Israel have a vision for what the day after this conflict is going to look like, and steps are taken to do whatever we can to help get the region out of this endless cycle of violence. That is in line with what the Secretary laid out in Tokyo last December, where we were talking about some of the key tenets of our vision for this region: a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people; a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority with the West Bank; and we’re looking for real – a real plan for progress for the Palestinian people, one that will bring the equal measures of dignity and justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike.To put it more candidly, a military operation here we have never felt is enough. We of course support and encourage every effort to defeat Hamas, but without some plans for some broader or greater diplomacy, we will continue to find ourselves in this endless cycle of violence.QUESTION: Can I follow up?QUESTION: I have one more.QUESTION: Sorry.QUESTION: Go ahead.MR PATEL: No, go ahead.QUESTION: Yes, please.MR PATEL: Better – one of you can go ahead.QUESTION: I just had one more related question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Can you confirm some of these reports that U.S. and Israel and Egypt will be meeting next week to discuss opening the Rafah crossing and securing the border between Egypt and Gaza? And what does the U.S. hope to see as far as who would be administering the Gaza side of the border?MR PATEL: Well, Abbie, I’m not going to speak to specific reports and diplomatic conversations. What I can say is that we are engaged in this work around the clock. We have been working tirelessly with our partners in Egypt and partners in Israel to do what we can to get the Rafah border crossing open. I’m not going to preview or hypothesize on logistically or technically what that can look like. We will let this process play out.Rabiyah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the wording you use on Rafah, you say it’s not a major operation. But I mean, 54 people have been killed in Gaza over the past 24 hours; nearly 1 million people have already fled Rafah over the past three weeks as Israeli strikes continue. We have seen Israeli tanks in Rafah, although you deny. Are these acceptable for you? I mean, is there a line? Where is the line, the limit for you to say, okay, this is enough and this cannot continue anymore?MR PATEL: I am just not going to preview or try to pinpoint a hypothetical like that, Rabiyah. The truth of the facts on the ground are – it is that we have yet to see a major military operation into Rafah. As I said, we have seen an uptick in military operations at the border in the Philadelphi Corridor and in the outskirts, but we have not seen a major operation into Gaza. We are – into Rafah, I’m sorry. We will continue to monitor conditions, and we will continue to see what happens.QUESTION: What would be a major operation? I mean, what &#8212;MR PATEL: Again, we have been – we have been clear about what this isn’t, which is not a major military operation. I’m not going to categorize it into one box or another. This is obviously a very dynamic and fluid situation. We’re going to continue to consult with our partners in Israel and engage on these issues.QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Tom and Said’s question regarding the CNN analysis on U.S. weapons.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: I mean, this analysis was based on open-source information, like footage. Why isn’t the State Department able to make a similar assessment based on – instead of relying on the IDF investigation?MR PATEL: We’re just not going to speak to individual weapons loadouts on particular aircraft. That’s not something we’re going to get into from here, and I will leave it to the IDF to speak to anything that they want to share as it relates to their findings and in an investigation that they have underway.QUESTION: I have a follow-up on this.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Just based on your answer, you don’t – you haven’t seen a major military operation? Or – and you oppose a ground military operation in Rafah. You support Israel in going after Hamas. You’re saying Hamas is embedded within the civilian population. Obviously, this is how the Israeli can go after Hamas. And these consequences would look like what we have seen during the weekend. So just can you say on the record that what’s – you support what’s taking place now, without calling it a major military operation or a target military operation? Just can you give us an answer whether you support what’s happening and what’s taking place, the way it’s taking place now in Rafah?MR PATEL: We support efforts to defeat Hamas, and we have supported those efforts since October 7th. Of course, at every measure we have continued to stress the moral and strategic imperative to make sure that these military operations are conducted in a way that minimize civilian casualties. Obviously, just based on imagery, the events of this past weekend failed to meet that mark. That being said, we do continue to support efforts to take out Hamas terrorists, which our partners in the IDF indicated that they did over the course of the operation this past weekend. So again, we support efforts to take out Hamas; we, of course, also continue to stress that they need to be conducted in ways that do not impede humanitarian aid access, that do not put undue risk at civilians, Palestinian civilians within Gaza.QUESTION: One more question, if I may.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Regarding the tension. Nobody can deny that there is a tension growing between the Israeli and the Egyptians. Now we have a delegation – the White House is sending a delegation. To what extent the State Department, this department, is engaged in at least avoiding this escalation?MR PATEL: So one of the first things that we talked about in the immediate aftermath of the horrific October 7th terrorist attacks was a necessity to ensure that all regional parties had a responsibility to make sure that this conflict didn’t spread and that tensions didn’t rise unnecessarily. As it relates to the Rafah border crossing and the engagements that are ongoing between our partners in Egypt and our partners in Israel, we’ll continue to play a role in that conversation, as we want to continue to see progress made in opening that crossing. We think that it is an important conduit for the overall humanitarian aid situation into Gaza. But I don’t have anything to preview beyond that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Willy, go ahead. Yes.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. I guess quickly, Xi’s called for a peace summit. Do you guys have any reaction to that?MR PATEL: Not really. Look, the United States has a clear mission here on what we think that needs to happen. We have been – we have not been ambiguous about there is – that it is necessary for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages and one that is coupled with additional humanitarian assistance. Time and time again, we have seen Hamas move the goalpost or walk away from legitimate deals that have been on the table. But we also know that this is something that we’re going to continue to work at. It’s one of the things that the Secretary himself is committed to. It’s why he has engaged so directly on this with multiple trips to the region.I will also note that beyond just a ceasefire and the cessation of this immediate conflict in Gaza – you’ve heard me say this before – it is crucial that we also talk about the kind of diplomacy and the kinds of steps that are necessary to get the region out of this endless cycle of violence, one that is, as you’ve heard me say before, will stop Gaza from being a launching pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, one not under the leadership of Hamas, a terrorist group. And so those are the kinds of things that we’ll continue to work on.QUESTION: But we’re eight months on now. These efforts clearly aren’t – they’re not going anywhere at the moment. I mean, why not be open to kind of fresh ideas?MR PATEL: If any country is interested in and thinking that they can play a productive role, they certainly are welcome to. But let’s not forget or lose sight of the fact that this conflict could have ended yesterday if Hamas were to just stop hiding behind civilians, put down its arms, and leave Gaza. And we have yet to see that happen.QUESTION: Leave Gaza? You want them to leave Gaza? These are Gazans. Most of these people that are &#8212;MR PATEL: We’re talking about &#8212;QUESTION: Where do you want them to go?MR PATEL: We are talking about a &#8212;QUESTION: Who would take them?MR PATEL: We’re talking about a terrorist group, Said.QUESTION: Who would take them?MR PATEL: Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Changing of the topic?MR PATEL: Anything else on the Middle East before I – go ahead. Go ahead. I don’t think your question’s on the Middle East, Janne.QUESTION: (Inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. I promise. Go ahead.QUESTION: You never know.MR PATEL: I’ve – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’m – that – okay. (Laughter.) I think I’ve been doing this long enough to know.QUESTION: I do &#8212;MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead. And I promise we’ll get to you, Janne.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thanks, Said*. So you’ve mentioned these transparent investigations and sort of allowing Israel to conduct those investigations. Obviously, you’ve mentioned – or rather, Matt mentioned on Tuesday – that lawyers have been integrated with the IDF to make sure that things are going in a way that’s in accordance with international humanitarian law. Then we’ve also mentioned how images from this past weekend are devastating. And then the NSM-20 report that you put a lot of trust in just now says specifically that the Intelligence Community, quote, “assesses that Israel could do more to avoid civilian harm.” So at what point would the department see a pattern of civilian harm rather than just individual incidences that they allow for investigations to continue?MR PATEL: So let’s take a step back here. I think the – I dispute the premise of your question. There has not been any indication over the course of this conflict of any kind of intentional targeting or harm of civilians. What we’re talking about is a primary belligerent, Hamas, that has a clear track record of co-locating itself among civilians and civilian infrastructure. And so that – thus that has created an incredibly complicated and complex warfare scenario in Gaza right now.That does not, however, minimize the strategic and moral imperative that our partners in Israel have to ensure that when they conduct military operations, that risk and casualties to civilians are minimized as significantly as possible. And over the course of this past weekend, the images and the videos that we’ve seen have been incredibly heartbreaking, and we are trying to get as many answers as we can as to what transpired and how this incident unfolded and how this incident failed to meet even our Israeli partners’ own stated goals of wanting to minimize civilian casualties as often as they can.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thanks very much. A couple of questions. First of all, you say that there are ongoing diplomatic moves to try and get more aid into Gaza. But the U.S. has been talking since November about getting more aid into Gaza. So is the fact that there isn’t more aid getting into Gaza a failure of U.S. diplomacy, or is it just empty rhetoric?MR PATEL: Over the course of this conflict, it is because of U.S. engagement that we have continued to push the ball forward on humanitarian aid. No one has ever stood up here and tried to make the case that the humanitarian aid that we’re seeing has been sufficient, enough, or a silver bullet to address the dire consequences that the Palestinian civilians are facing in Gaza right not. But it is because of American diplomacy and American engagement, specifically by this President and this Secretary of State, that we have continued to see progress on humanitarian aid.No one across this administration has ever made the case that it is enough. I am not saying that today. But it is because of American engagement that we are seeing some small steps in the right direction, and we have. And we will continue to press our partners in Israel when we have seen things that do not meet the mark. As I was answering Said’s question earlier, or it might have been Tom’s, we saw more than 300 trucks enter Gaza on May 29th. I’m not at all saying that that is enough, but that is aid flowing into Gaza.And we are continuing to work around the clock to do what we can to make sure that this pier and the overall maritime corridor can be re-anchored to Gaza as swiftly as possible. Simultaneously, we continue to have warehouses in Cyprus and other components of the maritime corridor that can be used for humanitarian aid commodities, and we are looking into what might be feasible in those aspects as well.QUESTION: And if I can – sorry, a follow-up to Said’s question.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: If Nikki Haley’s comments are made by a private citizen and therefore don’t require any comment from you, why did this administration criticize people who spoke out in favor of those in Palestine demanding a ceasefire and were quite vocal? What’s the difference?MR PATEL: When did we do that?QUESTION: Well, do you want to talk about the number of times that they were described as antisemitic even – any time there was a pro-Palestinian protest, it seemed to be that the administration was quite happy &#8212;MR PATEL: I think you are conflating six different things &#8212;QUESTION: Don’t think I am.MR PATEL: &#8212; and your question is a little bit not on the level. Let’s talk about the facts here. Protests, whether they be on college campuses or elsewhere – they inherently are not antisemitic. There have been, of course, over the course of these protests, been imagery – there have been chants; there have been slogans; they’ve been signage – that has been antisemitic. Also, what we are talking about in those circumstances is protesters, who – in some instances – have broken the law. Taking over buildings, occupying certain areas within specific municipalities – those are not expressions of free speech. That is illegal in some places. So these are very – two different things, and I really don’t appreciate you conflating them.QUESTION: Well, one more point on this.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: The fact is you have said that a lot of the things said by the likes of Nikki Haley and others are simply rhetoric. Yet when you call for the destruction – annihilation of people, that’s against international law. Why is that not being condemned from the platform, from the podium?MR PATEL: That is not the kind of rhetoric that we, certainly, support from this administration, and it’s not ones that we’ve been using. But Ambassador Haley is a private citizen. She doesn’t speak for the United States.QUESTION: It’s breaking the law. It’s against international law.MR PATEL: She doesn’t speak for the United States. She doesn’t speak for this administration.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Said. I’m sorry. Thanks, Vedant. Sorry. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: Said can come up here if – if you like. If you guys want a daily press briefing from Said – (laughter).QUESTION: If you need my help, I’ll do my (inaudible). (Laughter.)MR PATEL: I think I’m okay.QUESTION: (Laughter.) Anyhow.QUESTION: Yeah. How much of the Indo-Pacific priorities have been affected by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Security analysts say leaving Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines to deal with China’s grey zone tactics may lead to failed deterrence. Do you agree with that assessment?MR PATEL: We don’t at all. Let me just be very clear about this. We have not taken our eye off the ball when it comes to our efforts and our focus on the Indo-Pacific and the Asia region broadly. Let’s not forget that in the past year alone, you have seen this President convene a historic trilateral summit at Camp David between Japan and the Republic of Korea. You saw him hold a historic summit in Woodside, California with the president of the People’s Republic of China. Secretary Blinken himself in the past 12 months has been to China twice, as have other members of this administration. You saw this administration hold a historic trilateral summit between our Japanese partners and our partners in the Philippines. So when it comes to our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, we continue to put points on the board, and that’s something we’re going to remain focused on. And now a perfect segue to Janne. Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, (inaudible) Vedant &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you so much.MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Thank you so much. About the North Koreans (inaudible) – I mean, balloons, about – North Korea distributed about 260 garbage balloons across South Korea. They are also attacking GPS, radio waves, and have launched about 10 ballistic missiles into the East Sea. What can you say about North Korea continuing it provocation in various ways?MR PATEL: We continue to call on the DPRK to refrain from provocative actions and return to diplomacy. We condemn the DPRK’s May 29th ballistic missile launch, and these launches, like other ballistic missiles, are in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security and undermine the global and security – the global nonproliferation regime. We’ll continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea, Japan, and other allies and partners on how to best engage with the DPRK.QUESTION: How does the United States view China’s failure to play its role despite North Korea continuous provocations?MR PATEL: Well, you’ve heard me say this before, Janne. We continue to believe that there are countries who have a relationship with the DPRK and have influence with the DPRK that have a responsibility to rein in and influence some of the malign and bad behavior that we are seeing, especially a country like the People’s Republic of China, which sits on the UN Security Council. When we’re talking about launches that are in violation of certain UN Security Council resolutions, it’s of course incredibly concerning.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, two questions, Vedant.QUESTION: Wait. On the topic that we &#8212;MR PATEL: Sorry.QUESTION: On the same topic too. Go ahead.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Nick.QUESTION: You – I mean, you condemned the ballistic missile launch, but you didn’t say anything about the balloons with the fecal matter. And do you have any comment on that?MR PATEL: Nick, any kind of aerial object, certainly, we would find destabilizing and provocative, and we continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan against these kinds of malign and destabilizing behaviors.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, two questions. One, do you have any reaction to Russia foreign minister’s statement that Russia will react to the deployment of any U.S. missiles in the Indo-Pacific region?MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports, Michel, and let me just say that the U.S. does not assess returning nuclear weapons to the Indo-Pacific as necessary at this time, and the U.S. has no plans to forward deploy nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula. But let’s not forget that it is the Russian Federation that time and time again, dating back to the early days of its aggression into Ukraine, that it has recklessly participated in nuclear saber-rattling, talking about the use and deployment of nuclear weapons, and going so far as to withdraw from New START. So I think it’s important to have some context here.QUESTION: And another one on the region.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: To what extent the USAID Administrator Samantha Power reflects the views of the administration when she said that the conditions in Gaza are worse now than ever before?MR PATEL: So look, Michel, it is not hyperbole to say that the situation in Gaza is dire. You’ve heard us say time and time again that there is immense concern of the onset of famine. That is why we are doing everything we can to ensure that more humanitarian aid can flow into Gaza. We’re working tirelessly to open as many crossings as we can for that to take place.Daphne.QUESTION: Is it your view as the views that Samantha Power expressed?MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I don’t have any reaction to her specific comments, but you’ve heard us say this before. The situation in Gaza is dire, it is incredibly concerning, and that is why all appropriate interlocutors need to do everything they can to get more additional humanitarian aid into Gaza.Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Just back on China.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: How was Deputy Secretary Campbell’s meeting with China’s executive vice foreign minister this morning, and what was the focus of that?MR PATEL: So I think we’ll have a more formal readout coming later today, Daphne, but to confirm, Deputy Secretary Campbell did meet today with the PRC executive vice foreign minister. This visit follows, as you know, Secretary Blinken’s recent trip to Shanghai and Beijing, and it builds on the intensive diplomacy that has happened with the PRC over the last year to responsibly manage competition in the relationship, even in areas where we disagree. And as you heard us say, I would say on the margins of the President’s historic summit in Woodside, we expect there to be continued engagement at senior levels from both sides of the Pacific, and I expect we’ll have a more formal readout later today.QUESTION: Campbell yesterday placed blame on Chinese leadership for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. Is the U.S. considering sanctions against Chinese leadership?MR PATEL: We certainly would not preview sanctions from up here. You know that by now, Daphne. But this is something that we have talked about pretty clearly before, that the – this is a point of view that’s not just held by the United States but also held by the G7, the EU, and NATO countries as well, is that PRC support and the reconstitution of the Russian defense industrial base, it not only threatens Ukrainian security, it threatens European security, and we’ve made that clear in our engagements. The Secretary did when he was in the region, and if China does not curtail its support for Russia’s defense industrial base, the U.S. will be prepared to take further steps. But I’m not going to get into that from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Another?QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Oh, do you have one more?QUESTION: I’ve got a question on Sudan. I don’t know &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you on that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Couple of days ago, hundreds of protesters in Pakistan’s Punjab province attacked a Christian community over blasphemy charges. We have seen some horrifying images, and this is not the first time Christians in Pakistan facing such kind of attacks. Do you have any comments on that?MR PATEL: So we are aware of recent media reports of mob violence and blasphemy charges against a Christian man over alleged desecration of the Qu’ran, and as we’ve previously stated, we are always concerned by incidents of religiously motivated violence. Violence or the threat of violence is never a acceptable form of expression, and the U.S. uniformly opposes blasphemy laws everywhere in the world, including in Pakistan.QUESTION: Five Pakistani soldiers were killed in a gun battle with terrorists at the Pak-Afghan border region, and these terrorists who are regrouping in Afghanistan are not only targeting Pakistani security forces but also targeting girls’ schools and those who are trying to maintain peace in the tribal belt.Pakistan and U.S. recently held counterterrorism dialogue where Pakistan is seeking for more American weapons from U.S. Do you have anything to say?MR PATEL: So we are aware of reports concerning the deaths of Pakistani soldiers that were conducting operations along the Afghan border. And you are right; we are in regular communication with Pakistani leaders as part of our counterterrorism issues, and we’re going to continue to discuss regional security in detail, including through high-level engagements, working-level engagements, and other extensive bilateral consultations as well.QUESTION: One last one, if I may?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Czech Republic is working on the extradition of Nikhil Gupta to the U.S. Gupta, as you know, accused of involvement in the plot to kill Khalistani leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York. He was named in an indictment by the U.S. prosecutors. Do you have any details on that?MR PATEL: So I would just refer you to the Department of Justice, who can speak to that. We’re not going to comment on pending extradition matters.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Only two. Matt Miller had called milestone to this chief minister of Punjab. She just introduced these laws which are condemned by the International Federation of Journalists and almost every single media union in Pakistan. Do you condemn that, or do you want to take maybe that milestone statement back from her?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the specific policy, Jalil, so I would have to get back to you on that. Our comments that day were about the trailblazing candidacy of herself and her profile and background and what it has contributed to her getting that position. It was not a reflection of any specific policy, which, like I said, I am not aware of these. I’m not seeing these similar reports, but we’re happy to look into it.QUESTION: Just – just one more.MR PATEL: Yes.QUESTION: Yes, please do look into it &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; because she was &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; convicted in supreme court.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just second one is last two years I have been raising this not because I have some personal interest Pakistan’s issue and I compare it with Afghanistan. So when the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, the currency in Afghanistan was 70, now it’s 77. Pakistan rupee was 125, now it’s 270. Last week, Dubai leaks happened where $12 billion of Pakistan – the businessmen, they send it to Dubai to purchase property. Where at the same time Pakistan is begging for one billion, 12 billion went. And you have a prime minister who is openly insulting serving chief justices &#8212;MR PATEL: Is there a question here?QUESTION: Yes. Do you – are you at all worried about Pakistan? Like these facts that I am presenting, these are facts, like not Imran Khan related.MR PATEL: So again, you’ve heard me say this before. We have a deep relationship with Pakistan over a number of key areas, and we’ll look for ways in which we can continue to deepen cooperation, particularly in the areas of the economy and security as well.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much, Vedant.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Guita.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today the UN General Assembly program in honor of the Iranian president who was killed last week, it seems like it didn’t go as planned. It was much shorter. The U.S. didn’t participate. Many European allies didn’t participate. I was wondering what your take is of this low turnout in view of the fact that this was planned well in advance and everybody knew about it.MR PATEL: I imagine that the low turnout is a reflection of the Islamic Republic’s standing in the world and its track record as the largest exporter of terrorism and its continued role in provocative and malign and destabilizing activities, not just in its immediate region but also more broadly as well.QUESTION: Last week, a mosque in Maryland – right here in the suburbs of D.C. – held a ceremony for Raisi. A group of Iranian dissidents went there to protest. An individual, an Iranian individual who was – who is clearly a supporter of the Islamic Republic, showed a throat-cut gesture to one – to the organizer of that protest. I was wondering – now the individual who was threatened has taken this to court. The court is going to be dealing with it. But I was wondering what – if you have any comments on that.MR PATEL: So I think it goes without saying that threatening anybody on U.S. soil is intolerable and something that we have taken very seriously throughout this administration, and we will continue to work across the government to respond to any threats on U.S. soil. Representatives of authoritarian regimes cannot openly threaten or attack citizens without facing consequences. And citizens and civil society groups here in the United States are protected in their rights of expression and their rights of free speech without facing any consequences.Nick, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant.QUESTION: Haiti.MR PATEL: Anything else on Iran?QUESTION: On Iran.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead, Abbie.QUESTION: Germany and other EU countries have been pushing for the larger EU to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. What is the U.S. position on this? Are you urging your European partners to take this step?MR PATEL: Well, let me just say unequivocally that the IRGC is a menace to the world. We absolutely support efforts to designate the IRGC a terrorist organization, and we support those efforts worldwide. As you know, this is something that the United States has done, already designating the IRGC, and it is a terrible purveyor of terrorism that we believe affects the entire world.QUESTION: One more.MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead.QUESTION: It’s been 18 months since a resolution was passed at the IAEA against Iran for their failure to comply with their investigation into their undeclared nuclear sites. Given the rapid development of their program since then, is the U.S. in support of pursing another resolution against Iran for their failure to comply? And if not, why not?MR PATEL: We’re continuing to remain tightly coordinated on this with our E3 partners. No decisions have been taken with respect to any particular upcoming Board of Governors meetings, but I will just say is that we, the United States, are actively increasing pressure on Iran through a combination of sanctions, deterrence, and international isolation. We’ll continue to pursue those lines of efforts also.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: And then Nick, I’ll come to you and we can try and wrap up.QUESTION: I have two questions.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One on the Kurds and the other one on Rojava. As you were closely engaged with the Kurdish political parties and also the Kurds about the election, recently the Iraqi high commission – electoral commission requested the Kurdistan Region president to reschedule the election to September 5th. How do you view this request and how do you view the IKR election overall?MR PATEL: So we understand that the high commission requires a delay in order to implement some recent changes to the allotment of seats in the Iraqi Kurdistan parliament, and we urge the parties to reach an agreement quickly to schedule free, fair, and transparent elections as soon as feasible.QUESTION: And secondly, a question on election but this time on Rojava, the autonomous administration of northwest Syria which have – they are going to have election on June 11th. Does the U.S. (inaudible) to Syria monitoring this election, and how do you view the process of that election in Rojava?MR PATEL: So you’ve heard us say this before that any elections that occur in Syria should be free, fair, transparent, and inclusive, as is called for in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and we don’t think that the conditions for such elections are in place in northeast Syria in present time. And we’ve conveyed this to a range of actors in northeast Syria.Nick, go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: On Haiti.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Can you confirm reports that U.S. officials had negotiated with gang leaders in Haiti for the recovery of the two U.S. missionaries’ bodies who were killed? And then also, do you know if those bodies have been repatriated?MR PATEL: What I can say, Nick, is that those bodies have been repatriated. They are in the United States now. I’m not going to get into the deliberations beyond that. I will just echo what you heard the department say over the weekend, which is that we extend our deepest condolences to the families of these two American citizens on behalf of the President. Our ambassador in Haiti has been in touch with the families. This department has been in touch with the families. And we know that they are experiencing unimaginable grief. I can also add that today was when those repatriations happened in line with the families’ wishes, and so our officials in Port-au-Prince worked with the families to make arrangements for those transports back to the United States.Daphne.QUESTION: On Sudan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So Sudan’s army yesterday rejected a call to return to peace talks with the RSF following a conversation between Burhan and Blinken. Burhan’s number two, on the country’s Transitional Sovereign Council said the army would not go to Jeddah and, quote “whoever wants us to should kill us in our country and take our bodies there,” end quote. Do you have concerns about this messaging, and what was Blinken’s message in the call with Burhan about the Jeddah talks?MR PATEL: So broadly, Daphne, I can just say is that we’re engaged in intensive diplomacy to end this war and to mitigate the humanitarian crisis and to prevent future atrocities. As you noted, the Secretary spoke with General Burhan earlier this week, and the point of that conversation was to press him to end the conflict in Sudan and to resume negotiations under the Jeddah Platform and enable unhindered humanitarian access, including cross-border and cross-line to alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people.All right. Thanks everybody.QUESTION: You said you’d get back to me, Vedant. You said you’d &#8212;MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 2:19 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Czech Republic																								Haiti																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Sudan																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 28, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; May 28, 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 28, 2024																																																					May 28, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Raise this a little bit. I am going to start with comments on a couple things before going to your questions.First all – off – as it relates to Georgia, earlier today the Georgian parliament voted to override the Georgian president’s veto of an anti-democratic foreign influence bill that fails to conform to European norms, effectively turning the bill into law. The United States condemns this action. In passing this law, the ruling Georgian Dream Party moved the country farther away from the European integration path and ignored the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the Georgian people who have taken to the streets for weeks to oppose this law. The Georgian Dream has disregarded the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission legal assessment and that of Georgia’s closest partners, who made clear their concerns that the law would stigmatize civil society and media and limit fundamental freedoms. The ruling parties actions and anti-Western rhetoric threaten Georgia’s democratic trajectory, future economic security, EU membership, and also put the U.S.-Georgia relationship at risk.Last week, Secretary Blinken announced that anyone who undermines democratic processes or institutions in Georgia, as well as their immediate family members, may be found ineligible for U.S. visas under a newly announced policy precluding travel to the United States. The United States has also launched a comprehensive review of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Georgia. As Secretary Blinken said last week, we will take Georgia Dream’s actions into account as we decide our own. The United States continues to stand by the Georgian people as they work for a democratic and Western future. It is unfortunate that Georgia’s leaders are choosing to forgo the steps needed to advance Georgia in the Western direction that its people want. Turning to Gaza, we are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life in Rafah over the weekend. Like many of you – I’m sure – I watched the videos that emerged from the fire that broke out in the camp there this weekend. Those images were heartbreaking, and I know the pain that those – those families are suffering through must be unimaginable, especially those who lost children and those who have lost family members for a repeated number of times. As we have said before, Israel has a right to go after the Hamas terrorist responsible for the cold blooded murder of civilians, as appears to have been Israel’s aim here, and Hamas should stop hiding behind civilians in Gaza. But Israel also has the obligation to do everything possible to minimize civilian harm as it carries out its operations. As soon as the United States saw reports of this incident, we reached out to the Government of Israel to express our deep concern over what happened, ask for more information, and urge them to undertake a full investigation.Earlier today, Israel announced the results of a preliminary investigation and said that this strike was carried out using the smallest bomb in their arsenal, targeting terrorists 1.7 kilometers away from the al-Mawasi area where this fire took place. The IDF is continuing to investigate this matter and has promised that its investigation will be swift, comprehensive, and transparent. We will be watching those results closely. And we will continue to emphasize to Israel their obligation to comply fully with international humanitarian law, minimize the impact of their operations on civilians, and maximize the flow of humanitarian assistance to those in need.With that, Ellen, you want to start us off?QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Yeah, thank you. This weekend the death toll in Gaza passed 36,000 Palestinians. There are now 1 million Palestinians displaced by Israeli operations in Rafah and in the north. There hasn’t been much at all of humanitarian aid that can be delivered within Rafah – within – I’m sorry – within Gaza for the past several weeks. We all saw the pictures, as you said, of – this weekend of the civilians on fire in their tents – and the child who had their head blown off, if that was an authentic video. And – and today, numerous witnesses are reporting to news outlets that tanks have moved into the center of Rafah. And today we had a strike – an Israeli strike, according to the Gaza health officials, on a tent that killed 21 civilians in an area that was not an evacuation area, with 13 of the civilians as women who were therefore noncombatants.And none of this obviously has crossed the red lines that President Biden has said or the U.S. has said against – about providing – improving humanitarian conditions or not going into center of Rafah in a way that harms civilians. Can you tell me why it hasn’t crossed those red lines, why the broad humanitarian situation is acceptable and why the situation in Rafah is acceptable right now?MR MILLER: So let me just speak – because there was a lot in the leadup to that question, let me speak to some of the premises. So first of all, with respect to reports of tanks in central Rafah today, it’s not something we have seen or have been able to verify at this point. I’ve obviously seen those reports. What Israel has said is that they are conducting operations along the Philadelphi Corridor and on the outskirts of Rafah, but we will continue to look in that and discuss it with the Israeli Government.With respect to this reported strike in the so-called safer area in the Mawasi camp, I know Israel has come out publicly and said they did not conduct such a strike, so again, it’s something that we will press them for more information to try to find out what exactly, if anything, happened and where these reports are coming from and what the apparent conflict seems to be. With respect to humanitarian assistance, I do want to speak to some potential improvement that we have seen. So first of all to your point about humanitarian assistance not getting into Gaza, there has been a great deal of humanitarian assistance that has been flowing &#8212;QUESTION: (Inaudible.)MR MILLER: Well, there has been a bunch – a great deal that has been delivered into the north of Gaza over the past few weeks, something that happened because of the United States intervention and reversed a situation prior to that intervention where almost no aid was getting into northern Gaza.With respect to southern Gaza, it continues to be a real challenge. There are a number of things that have made that a challenge, one being the closing of Rafah gate, two being obviously the military kinetic operations that are taking place there that make it tough. But that said, we saw a number of commercial trucks going in last week, which are not a replacement for humanitarian assistance but are important for a number of reasons. And then the President was able to secure an agreement with President El-Sisi Friday to allow the UN trucks that had been in Egypt to move to Israel, make it to Kerem Shalom. And we’re going to continue to work to get that aid delivered into Gaza.So to the point of your question, it is important not just that it make it to Kerem Shalom but it make it through and be delivered. So we have seen some of that assistance, but it is – it continues to be an ongoing challenge to try to deliver humanitarian assistance in the wake of military operations. So it’s something that we’re continuing to work through.With respect – having addressed all of those various premises, with respect to the broader question, look, we have made clear what our policy is with respect to Rafah. We do not want to see major military operations take place there in the way that we saw them take place in Khan Younis and in Gaza City. At this point, we have not seen a military operation on the scale of those previous operations. And if you just look at the number of brigades that were in Gaza City, that were in Khan Younis, this so far is a different type of military operation. But that said, it’s something that we are watching very closely, something that we are in touch with the Israeli Government about. And we will continue to press to them the importance of conducting legitimate operations to go after Hamas in a way that minimizes civilian harm.Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Jake Sullivan said recently that the U.S. – United States would be watching very carefully the level of number of deaths, actually, and level of destruction in Rafah specifically. Given the number of deaths and the level of destruction that we are seeing in Rafah – and today you have Israeli tanks that entered the zone – and you have already over 800,000 if not more Palestinians who fled the zone, has Israel crossed the red lines that Biden has – that the President has given?MR MILLER: It is something that we can – when it comes to their military operations in Rafah, as I just said in response to Ellen’s question, it’s something that we continue to look at very closely. And as I just said, it so far is a different operation than we’ve seen in Khan Younis and that we saw in Gaza City, but this is something that we watch every day and something that we engage with the Government of Israel about every day as we talk to them about what their plans are and what U.S. policy might be, and as we talk to them about the need to minimize civilian harm and conduct their strikes in a way that minimizes civilian harm.And I know that the question is not just about the fire that broke out over the weekend that killed upwards of 40 individuals and I know injured many more, but it is about everything. And we look at everything, but I do think it’s important when you look at that strike to find out what the actual cause of the fire is. Israel has said that it might have been that there was a Hamas ammo dump near the area where they took the strike, which, as I said, they claim was 1.7 kilometers outside the area where they had told civilians to move. That’s a very important factual question that needs to be answered when it comes to making these sort of assessments. So what we are pressing the Government of Israel to do is to conduct an investigation, present those facts publicly, so we along with the rest of the world can make the kind of assessments that we need to be able to do.QUESTION: Matt, so I mean, there has been a lot of mistakes like this, correct? I just – first let me establish: Does the United States believe that Israel – what happened over the weekend was a result of a mistake?MR MILLER: So we are going to wait to see the full results of the investigation. We’ve seen, as I said, the preliminary investigation where Israel has claimed, Israel said that they – they used the smallest bomb available to them to go after a very precise target. This wasn’t a 500-pound bomb or a 2000-pound bomb. I think it was like a 37-kilogram or 37-pound – a much smaller weapon designed to hit one site 1.7 kilometers away from the Mawasi area where they have told civilians to move.Now, that said, clearly something happened, and what happened – we’ve seen Israel’s claim that it might have been the results of hitting a Hamas ammo depot. It’s not clear to me that they actually know, but they need to find out. They need to conduct the investigation. And we’re going to eagerly await the investigation and press them to make sure that the results of that investigation are presented openly and transparently to us and to the world.QUESTION: Right. So if we take the initial statements, Netanyahu said it was a tragic mistake. There has been a lot of headlines with that – with those same comments, right. World Central Kitchen killings were also a tragic mistake. There was another one late last year on Maghazi camp that Israel has also called a mistake. Those are the two that comes to mind. There are – I can find numerous other incidents. Is the United States comfortable sending this many weapons to an army that seems to be making a series of mistakes?MR MILLER: So let me say this. We are not comfortable with the loss of civilian – civilian life in any way, shape, or form. And I think we have made that quite clear. Number two, with respect to each of these incidents, it’s important to find out what happened, why it happened, and who was at fault. And so it’s important that this investigation proceed before we make any assessments that will help you answer that question. You’ve seen preliminary results; we want to see the full results.That said – and I’ll say in previous investigations – so example – for example with the World Central Kitchen investigation strike, Israel, did conduct an investigation and presented those findings publicly, and then made changes in response to those findings, which we thought it was very important that they do. This seems to be a very different kind of strike, whereas in the World Central Kitchen they made a mistake about what the target was, and they thought they were targeting Hamas terrorists and they were not. That was a very clear mistake.In this instance, they were targeting what seems to be legitimate targets, and they were successful in taking out those targets, and then, likely as a result, there was this fire that broke out. And it’s not clear how it was ignited, especially – as I said – when it’s over a kilometer and a half from the location of the strike. We need to find out how that happened. And if there are procedures that they need to take – that they need to put in place to prevent it from happening again, we expect them to put those procedures in place.When it comes to our policy, we have made clear that we oppose any full-scale military operation, and that – what the ramifications to our policy would be of them launching such an operation in Rafah. We haven’t seen them do that yet. But as I said, it is something that we are watching every day and are in communication with them every day.QUESTION: Right. Matt, but in – sorry, a couple of more things. In terms of the accountability measures, you say that after the WCK attack, there has been some changes. But if we look at other incidents – the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, for example, and there has been a series of different incidents that involved a large amount of killings of civilians – it doesn’t look like the accountability measures are reprimanding certain forces. Are those really enough for the United States? I mean, we’re talking about, like, the death of actual people here. We’re talking about loss of life. Is the United States comfortable that several soldiers here and there are reprimanded, but what seems to continue to happen is there is a pattern of behavior and that doesn’t get to change in a large scale? Are you okay with that?MR MILLER: So what we expect Israel to do is the same thing that we expect of our own military, and the same thing that we expect of all our democratic allies and partners. We expect when people inside their military make mistakes or when they operate outside of compliance with their rules of engagement, their own rules of engagement, or they operate outside of compliance with international humanitarian law, we expect them to fully investigate what happened; we expect them to make changes to policy, if changes to policy need to be made; and we expect them to hold people accountable if accountability is appropriate.Now, with respect to the premise of your question, we’re still in the middle of a conflict, and they have a number of investigations open, including criminal investigations into people who potentially violated international humanitarian law, or violated Israeli law, or violated the IDF’s code of conduct.So I – no, hold on – I think it’s too early to draw any broad, sweeping assessments about that question. Investigations take time, and it’s important that they run their course, but it’s important that if accountability is merited, that accountability is what takes place. And we will be crystal clear with the Government of Israel about their obligations to meet those standards.QUESTION: I have a million follow-ups to that, but I’m sure my colleagues will do. I have one more final broader question I want to put to you. So since the start of this conflict, but specifically since U.S. response to ICC over the weekend, there’s been a lot of accusation that U.S. is actually eroding the very rules-based order it has long promoted, particularly against China and Russia, because certain truths, they say, are in contradiction to its policies when it comes to the war in Gaza. I’m just wondering, are you not worried that your credibility in the world is on the line here?MR MILLER: We have heard people make the same claim about the United States in the past; I’m sure that they will make it in the future. I can tell you we apply the same standards, the same approach, and require the same set of behaviors out of all our partners anywhere in the world.QUESTION: Can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: For clarification, on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You were saying that on the strike today, it seems like you were saying – no, I’m sorry, the strike on Sunday – you seem to be saying two things: one of them that the Israeli military hit 1.8 miles away, and another &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; point-seven kilometers.QUESTION: Kilometers. And –MR MILLER: That’s – that is what they have said.QUESTION: But another point you said that the civilians were 1.7 kilometers away from where they were supposed to be. Which one is it?MR MILLER: Maybe I misspoke; I don’t remember. But the point I was trying to make is the location of their strike, if you look at what the IDF has said publicly, was 1.7 kilometers away from the al-Mawasi site where they have told civilians to go.QUESTION: So was it the civilians’ fault for being where they are, that they –MR MILLER: No, that is not – that is not the point. That is – I don’t believe that’s – I don’t believe that’s the point I made; it’s certainly not the point I intended. The point was the fire took – broke out in the al-Mawasi camp, where civilians have fled. The strike was 1.7 kilometers away from there. How a strike 1.7 kilometers away ignited a fire that spread to that camp and led to that horrific loss of life is something that needs to be investigated. The IDF has said that they’re – is – they’re investigating it, and we are pressing them for results.QUESTION: Can I just ask you a specific question on that?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Over the weekend it was reported that there was a U.S. official who said that Israel told the U.S. that it used the precision munition to hit the target, but that they believed it was shrapnel from the explosion that ignited a fuel tank nearby and started the fire. I am no military expert, but I don’t understand how shrapnel could have flown 1.7 kilometers in order to ignite that fire.MR MILLER: I am not familiar with that conversation. All I can tell you is what they have said publicly, which is it might have been that there was a Hamas weapons depot located near the strike and that exploded, and that led to the fire. I don’t know if that’s true; I’m not sure if Israel knows that’s true at this point. They’ve only conducted a preliminary investigation. But the point of all of this is that question needs to be answered very much, and we expect them to conduct a full, transparent, open investigation to answer it.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Follow-up.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And then just when it comes to the continuation of Israel using precision-guided munitions in Rafah, at this point the U.S. still supports that?MR MILLER: We have made no change to our policy.QUESTION: So just – is it a yes or a no? I’m not asking &#8212;MR MILLER: We’ve made no change to our policy. We have made clear that if there was a full-scale military operation, there would be some change. But as of yet, it’s not a change. I mean, we do support – as we always have – their ability to go after legitimate Hamas terrorists. And that, of course, includes using American-provided weapons. But we expect them to do so in a way that minimizes civilian harm.QUESTION: And then just a last question. With regard to the reports of the Israeli tanks that are in central Rafah right now – I know you said you don’t – you haven’t verified those reports – has the U.S. asked Israel about those reports and an explanation for why those tanks might be in central Rafah?MR MILLER: We – so we are in constant dialogue with them about their military operations and potential military operations in Rafah. I’m not going to get into any specific conversations, but we are constantly interrogating them about what they are doing and what they are planning to do.QUESTION: So it’s safe to say you’ve interrogated them about this?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to go beyond that.Go ahead. And I’ll come to you next.QUESTION: Just on the numbers of people who fled Rafah in the past few weeks, it’s – one million is the reported number that’s coming from UNRWA. Is the U.S. satisfied with the plan or lack thereof of where these people are going? Obviously there’s the argument that they’re not safe wherever they go, especially since Rafah was a place where they’d gone to be safe. What’s your understanding on – Israel is also saying that they’ve been evacuating people. What level of evacuation are they assisting with? Is that accurate? What’s your understanding of &#8212;MR MILLER: I will let Israel speak to what they are doing. I will say that the humanitarian situation continues to be incredibly challenging – not just in Rafah, but throughout Gaza. And two things about it: One, it’s why we are working so hard to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance and unlock policy barriers and unlock logistical barriers and unlock other barriers, the way the President was able to do on Friday in &#8212;QUESTION: Do you guys have &#8212;MR MILLER: Can I – yeah, but – but that said, there is an additional problem, which is the fighting in Gaza right now is not just confined to Rafah. You’ve seen Israel have to come back in and undertake clearing operations in places that they have already cleared in central and northern Gaza. And it goes to the point that you have heard us make, that while it’s important that Israel have a plan to fully – to the best of their ability eliminate Hamas’s ability to continue to carry out terrorist threats, they also need to have a plan for the day after, and that without a plan for the day after there will be no day after. So when you see Israel conducting military operations in places where it had previously conducted military operations and thought that it was done, it does give us great concern about the sustainability of this conflict.QUESTION: And so but – but just more specifically, does the U.S. have an understanding about where most of these people are going and whether or not where they’re going is &#8212;MR MILLER: My understanding if that they have gone to a number of different places. Some of them have gone back to Khan Yunis; some of them have pushed into western Rafah; some of them have gone to Mawasi. I don&#8217;t think there’s any one answer to that question.QUESTION: And does the United States have an understanding of how much the IDF – the Israelis are assisting them or not assisting &#8212;MR MILLER: I just don’t know.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just want to go – to clarify something about the target that’s 1.5 or 1.7 kilometers away from the camp. Is this your assessment, or were you &#8212;MR MILLER: Again, I thought that I was clear about it, but just to make perfectly clear, that is what the IDF has said publicly. And they announced that today, that it was the result of a preliminary investigation. We are expecting them to complete a full investigation and make that public, and we’ll – we will push them to do that.QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: The U.S. does not have an independent assessment.QUESTION: You don’t have any &#8212;MR MILLER: No.QUESTION: Or if it did even happen in 1.7 or not?MR MILLER: No. This is – as I –QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: Yeah, no.QUESTION: And I just want to go back to the ICJ ruling over the weekend or last Friday, and a lot of the reading in the region now is that this two incidents now in Rafah is an Israeli response to the ICJ, that we’re not going to stop that. What is your assessment?MR MILLER: So we have made clear that we respect the court’s vital role in this area and that we fully expect Israel to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law, and we will keep pressing them to do that. I don&#8217;t know that there’s any reason – any way to draw a connection between the two. The importance to us is that – the important question to us is whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law or not, and that’s something we’re pressing them to do.QUESTION: And so you want Israel to then – to accept this order from the ICJ?MR MILLER: We want them to fully comply with their international humanitarian law obligations. We respect the court’s role. Israel has said that they are complying with the court’s order. My understanding of the way the process works is that assessments of compliance are made by the court at the next step of the process, so we’ll defer to that.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. First, I want to give out a shoutout to my student visitor friend from Gaza, sitting in the back. They came with me today to attend the briefing.MR MILLER: Welcome.QUESTION: So, yeah. I wanted to follow up on Leon and Humeyra’s questions on the red line. Is there actually a red line? I mean, do you have a – like a yardstick by which you measure a red line that Israel may cross or may not cross?MR MILLER: So the &#8212;QUESTION: And what is that red line?MR MILLER: The National Security Advisor to the President spoke to this last week from the White House podium and made clear that there is no mathematical formula that you can apply, but it’s something that we will be watching very closely and discussing with our Israeli counterparts.QUESTION: So in theory, Israel can strike anywhere basically and say there are Hamas operatives? They can do that?MR MILLER: So I’m not – I’m not going to deal with your theories. I’m going to deal with reality. And what we have said is how we will assess their compliance with this question.QUESTION: But that is a plausible hypothesis.MR MILLER: No, it is not.QUESTION: It’s not a plausible – okay.MR MILLER: I’m not going to deal with – I think you know I don’t deal with hypotheses.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR MILLER: I try to deal with facts from this podium.QUESTION: So I just wanted to ask you – the statement that was issued by this administration over Rafah – when you say Israel has a right to pursue Hamas or to go after Hamas, isn’t that implicitly a green light for them to do whatever they want under that pretext?MR MILLER: No. And Said, I think that ignores everything that we have said a number of times. It absolutely it not. It is &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. And &#8212;MR MILLER: It is encouraging them to take out terrorists who launched a brutal attack on the state of Israel and carried out the cold-blooded murder of civilians, and at the same time we expect them to do so in full compliance with international humanitarian law, minimizing the harm to civilians. And I know I’ve pointed this out to you before, Said: Hamas could make this a lot easier by stopping hiding behind civilians.QUESTION: Right, okay. Well, I mean, two weeks ago I remember asking you from here on – and I in fact mentioned the name of those who were killed. Four of them were children and so on. When they – whether they are going to be safer in Mawasi and in Tel al-Sultan where they were headed – where they were asked to leave as at the time seemed like part of a larger plan to move people into a safer zone. But obviously it’s not. I mean, we saw killing 45 people in Rafah. We saw killing another 21. Nobody knows how many and so on just yesterday. So there is – there seems to be no end. Do you guys have any kind of perception on how this thing is going to end and when this horror show stops?MR MILLER: So, Said, as often, there was a lot of premises before you got to the question.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: I will say with respect to the premises, we have been very clear. Of course, Israel should not carry out strikes in the designated safer areas where they have told people to move. They say that’s not what happened here. They are going to conduct a full investigation. We are going to await the outcome of that investigation before passing judgment, as I think is fully appropriate to do. We want to have all the facts at our disposal.When it comes to how this ends, I think we have also been pretty clear that in addition to a military plan, Israel needs to have a political plan for the day after and for presenting an alternative to Hamas. And we have not yet seen such a plan and we’ve been working with our partners in the region to come up with one that we will present to the state of Israel because we think that is just as important as the military campaign they are conducting.QUESTION: Lastly, on the aid, if you guys are unable to influence Israel on allowing aid in, what makes you think that you’re going to be influential with their military operation in Gaza? This is &#8212;MR MILLER: So again, I’m going to reject the premise. We have intervened and seen our interventions been successful throughout the course of this campaign. It was because of U.S. intervention that Rafah was opened in the first place. It was because of our intervention that Kerem Shalom was opened and that Erez crossing was opened and that Zikim crossing was opened and that Ashdod was opened and that trucks are now coming from Jordan, coming through Israel, and making it directly into northern Gaza. And it was because of the intervention of the United States just on Friday that trucks were – UN trucks were allowed to move again through Egypt into Israel, into Kerem Shalom, and then ultimately on to the people who need them. So I fully reject that premise and I don’t think it’s supported by the facts of the history.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have two quick questions. I have to leave within the hour. One, you have called behind this podium many times for the protection of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Can you tell us where are these safe zones? Can you just name them, identify where are safe zones in Gaza that people can go to?MR MILLER: I would leave it to the Government of Israel to speak to those. Obviously, Mawasi is one of them. I know they have designated others. There are maps that are publicly available, but they are – I would leave it to them to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. And second, the co-founder of Human Rights Watch and a Holocaust survivor – he was actually born in Nazi Germany – he said yesterday, and I just wanted to quote him – he said that over a period of time Israel has obstructed delivery of humanitarian assistance. The victims were young children who were starved or badly malnourished that will be affected their ability physically and mentally for the rest of their lives. And on this basis alone he believes that Israel is engaged in act of genocide. So is he wrong whether it’s legally, ethically, or politically? How can you counterargument this for the co-founder of Human Rights Watch and a Holocaust survivor?MR MILLER: So let me first – let me first of all say with respect to the humanitarian situation, it is of course dire and I have no doubt that the long-term impact, especially on the children of Gaza, is going to be severe, and they are going to be paying the price of suffering through this conflict for years and years to come. And that of course is not even to speak of the families who are left without loved ones, including children, who have died over the course of this conflict.It is not our judgment, continues not to be our judgment, that Israel is committing genocide. Nothing they have done meets the legal definition of that, and we have seen them take steps to allow humanitarian assistance in. We have seen them put in place measures to try and minimize civilian harm. As we spoke to when we released the National Security Memo 20 report, there are Israeli lawyers who are integrated into their targeting processes and have the ability to give binding orders to block certain targets from being taken.So all that goes into making that legal determination, and it just – we just fundamentally do not see it that way and don’t think the facts support it at all. That is not to say that there has not been massive human suffering. Of course there has. And a great deal of that is on Hamas, who continues to hide behind civilians, and of course a lot of it is on Israel that needs to take additional steps to minimize civilian harm and minimize civilian suffering, and that’s what we will continue to press them to do.QUESTION: Okay. Can you take a question on the – an investigative reporting by The Guardian and magazine 972, which is basically saying that Israel for the last ten years or nine years have been pressurizing the ICC, spying on them? And what will be the response from the U.S. if you think an ally of yours has been pressuring an international legal entity? They’re trying to try people for crimes against humanity and war crimes.MR MILLER: So I read that report. I think it’s important to say we don’t have – we have not verified that ourselves at this point, and so I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals about what the United States may or may not do. But of course we would oppose threats or intimidation against any public official.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead, Tom.QUESTION: Do you have any examples of where an internal Israeli or IDF investigation has led to meaningful accountability?MR MILLER: I know they have a number of ongoing investigations. This is a conflict that is still relatively new, and they have a number of investigations that have led to criminal prosecutions, which of course is a further step. As it relates to the broad scope of Israeli investigations over the years, I know there have been places where people have been held accountable. I know there are places in this conflict, for example, where they disciplined officers who, for example, were filming themselves inside mosques, and I’m happy to follow up with specifics on those incidents.QUESTION: I mean, I ask the question because you’re hanging an awful lot on faith in this process. And for example, in the National Security Memorandum 20 report, you talk about being convinced by Israel’s, quote, “credible and reliable... assurances” over this. I mean, there are two cases in which American citizens who have been killed at the hands of the IDF have had no meaningful accountability. So I think people will perhaps be puzzled by your belief in assurances in that.MR MILLER: So the – what our – what we believe is that they have a process here. We’re not making any lasting judgments yet as to what that process will yield because they’re ongoing.QUESTION: But these are – these are ongoing.MR MILLER: They – but the &#8212;QUESTION: But there have been many in the past that have been ongoing and have reached no conclusion, and they also create a situation where you’re able to get into a holding pattern and say, okay, there’s an investigation going on &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; so we’ll hold judgment. And in the end &#8212;MR MILLER: But the alternative is to short-circuit an investigation and pass judgment in the middle of one, which also &#8212;QUESTION: No, no, I’m asking &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; is not appropriate.QUESTION: I’m not asking to pass judgment on these current incidents. I’m saying, where is the evidence that there was meaningful accountability and the evidence that these things are prevented from happening, which follows up what Humeyra was saying, on the basis of internal Israeli processes? Because a huge amount weighs on this now. The International Criminal Court, it – one of your objections to it is that they have an independent internal process. The ICJ – same thing. NSM-20 – same thing. All of these incidents, you are hanging on a belief in that process being effective, and I’m asking you for the evidence that it is.MR MILLER: So let me just level-set here in that Israel is a democracy that has prosecutors and independent judges who can, in the case of prosecutors, conduct investigations and make their own determinations about what is appropriate. I know you want me to – I &#8212;QUESTION: I don’t want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, I don’t want to – I don’t want to put words in your mouth, because I hate it – let me say I hate it when people do it, so let me take that back. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I know there is often a demand for us to try to jump to the end of an investigation, and I get the point you’re &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not – I’m asking you about – I’m actually asking &#8212;MR MILLER: I get the – I get the point you’re – I get the point you’re making is different, but you &#8212;QUESTION: I’m asking for the evidence that these have been effective. For example, in the case of two American citizens &#8212;MR MILLER: You cannot – you cannot reach an – you cannot reach a conclusion about the results of these investigations in the middle of a conflict when the &#8212;QUESTION: That’s not what I’m asking.MR MILLER: But it is. To have faith in the – to have faith in the process, you have to have faith in – you have to be able to look at what the outcomes it has generated are. And we’re not at a place where you can do that.QUESTION: The conflict is a hundred years old; in its current form it’s probably 40, 50 years old.MR MILLER: And there &#8212;QUESTION: And when the IDF says that – or the internal system says there is a process of internal investigation, I’m asking you for some evidence that that is effective, that it stops it happening again, that it creates accountability.MR MILLER: And so &#8212;QUESTION: For example, in the last two years with two American citizens who have been killed, there has been no meaningful accountability when, at the time, what the Israelis said was there is an investigation, and you have relied on that as well.MR MILLER: So I just cited one case where there were officers who were disciplined for taking actions inside a mosque, and there are a number of those similar cases that have been publicly reported. But I do think that it is impossible to pass a full, lasting judgment on the process while you’re in the middle of it. I get the point that you are making, but we’re just not in a position to declare that all the investigations that Israel are conducting are sham investigations while they’re ongoing. I don’t think it’s fair to do that. We would object if someone did that with respect to our military justice system while the investigations were ongoing.Now, if six months from now or nine months from now or wherever we are at the end of this process or where a reasonable amount of time has passed, and we are able to look at this and say there are investigations that have run their course where we think action was warranted and action has not been taken, we will be the first to say that publicly and we will be first to hold Israel to account. And you have seen us do that in other instances – for example, when it comes to violence in the West Bank, where we don’t think Israel has taken appropriate actions to hold people accountable. We have taken our own actions to hold people accountable, and that’s the standard that we will continue to apply.QUESTION: I mean, what do you think of a military court system that in the cases of Palestinians that appeared before it, there was a 99 percent conviction rate? In the cases of Israelis that are held before, separately, the civilian system because they aren’t in the same territory to appear before the military system, rights groups say that these are whitewashes, that there is – there are virtually no – there is no accountability or investigation.MR MILLER: I think I’m going to wait, as I said, to see the outcome of the investigations that are ongoing before I pass any judgment.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two topics – Ukraine first, then I want to go back to your opening statement on Georgia as well.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: I want to get your comments on the latest – the state of the latest offensive in Kharkiv and attack on the mall over the weekend. And in light of that, we’ve heard very credible voices from allies in terms of lifting all the sanctions on the weapons. NATO secretary general said that it’s time to do that. Baltic states say that it’s time to do that. Poland says that. Britain says that. U.S. Congress says that. Helsinki Commission said that. Are they all wrong?MR MILLER: I will say that we continue to see – first of all, see Russia launch intentional strikes on civilian targets. And unlike other conflicts where I think people will ask me questions about, the Ukrainian military is not embedding itself inside malls and schools and other civilian targets that the Russian military continues to hit. And so we will continue to support Ukraine by flowing weapons to the frontlines. And you’ve already seen a number of drawdowns from the supplemental package. A number of – a great deal that assistance has already reached the frontlines.When it comes to our policy – I’ve spoken – I spoke to this last week and the Secretary has spoken to this. Look, our policy has been that we don’t encourage or enable strikes outside Ukraine’s borders. But if you look at the broad sweep of our policy, we have made clear that Ukraine has no bigger supporter than the United States. And we don’t just say that. We back it up with our military assistance. We back it up with our diplomacy in marshaling a coalition of more than 50 countries around the world to support Ukraine. And we back it up with the measures we’ve taken to hold Russia accountable.QUESTION: Are you open for further consultations on this very topic? The Secretary’s going to meet with NATO secretary general to &#8212;MR MILLER: Look, we always discuss with our allies and partners whatever is on their mind when we have those meetings, but I don’t have anything further to offer.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Back to Georgia. On your opening statement, is it fair for us to expect more than just verbal condemnation? I know you just said we’re going to, but I think &#8212;MR MILLER: (Laughter.) So – so Alex – no, no, hold up – the only reason I’m going to laugh is for weeks &#8212;QUESTION: You said &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, let me just – let me just mention – a rare interruption of the question. For weeks you asked me that question. We announced a policy to impose visa restrictions last Thursday. And then today you’re asking me if we are going to do more than verbal condemnation, when I think if I check the record that’s exactly what we did last Thursday. But – but sorry, go ahead.QUESTION: Just to explain where I am coming from, I mean, we were told for many years in this room that sanctions are meant to be a behavior change, to just encourage behavior change – not for punishment, right? I mean, are you honestly – you said we’re going to take action where we want, but I’m just failing to understand. If you’re going to do it eventually and the sanctions are meant to be to change behavior, why don’t you just hurry up?MR MILLER: So we announced this policy on Thursday – so I know you want us to hurry up. I will also say that when we make further designations, those designations aren’t public. So you won’t necessarily know when we designate people with visa restrictions because they’re confidential under federal law. But the visa restriction policy that we announced on Thursday is not the only thing that we have made clear could change as a result of Georgia’s actions. As the Secretary announced on Thursday, we are conducting a comprehensive review of the relationship between the United States and Georgia.We provide Georgia $390 million dollars of annual assistance every year   for things like military assistance, economic development projects, building institutions, civil society. And we have to reassess all of that if the Georgian Government is going to now regard the United States and other Western partners not as partners anymore but as adversaries.QUESTION: There’s another law that they passed today that overrode the president’s veto, which is called offshore law. Do you have any reaction to that?MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what was that?QUESTION: Offshore law is going to allow the – Georgians &#8212;MR MILLER: Separate and apart from the one – I’ll have to follow up and get – get a reaction to that.QUESTION: Please get it, yeah.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask you about Iran?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: There’s reporting today or yesterday that the U.S. is urging allies, particularly the UK and France, to back off efforts to censure Iran at an upcoming IAEA meeting for fear that it could trigger some sort of reactions from Iran. Is there any accuracy to that reporting?MR MILLER: No, that that report is not true. We have not lobbied any country to vote against or abstain from any resolution in that regard. We are actively increasing pressure on Iran through a combination of sanctions, deterrence, and international isolation to counter their destabilizing behavior and prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. It was reported that North Korea launched a new military reconnaissance satellite shortly after the South Korea-Japan-China summit in Seoul, South Korea, but it exploded in the air. What is your comment on that?MR MILLER: So we condemn the DPRK’s May 27th launch, which incorporated technologies that are virtually identical to those used in its unlawful ballistic missile program. This launch was in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. We have been in close consultation with our ROK and Japanese counterparts regarding the launch, and we urge all countries to condemn the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs, and press the DPRK to engage in serious dialogue, which to date it has refrained from doing.QUESTION: But the common goal of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was not included in the joint declaration of the South Korea-Japan-China summit. It is known that China has no intention of pursuing North Korea on the issue of the denuclearizations. Can it be seen that China is tolerating North Korea’s denuclearization?MR MILLER: So I will just speak for the United States and say that we have made clear, including in our direct engagements with the People’s Republic of China, that we would welcome them playing any kind of productive role in countering the DPRK’s unlawful weapons of mass destruction programs. We will continue to make that clear, and I think I’ll leave it at that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Taiwan, Matt?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: As you’re aware, China conducted military drills around the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan itself. The Taiwanese president has suggested to China to, and I quote, “share the heavy responsibility of regional stability with Taiwan.” Do you think this is a good move on the part of Taiwan, and do you have any general comments on this suggestion?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to that in specific. I will say, with respect to the PRC’s activities, we put out a statement from the Secretary on Saturday where we expressed our deep concern and said that we think the PRC should do everything to maintain stability and refrain from taking actions that increase de-stability across the Taiwan Strait.QUESTION: All right. Do you – somewhat on that, the PRC has argued that its position on the – is based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Lambert’s clarification – he made some clarifications in a recent event where he exposed the PRC’s distortion of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. Is there – what’s the – does the resolution endorse China’s sovereignty – sovereignty claim over Taiwan, and what’s the distortion? Can you tell us?MR MILLER: No, it does not, but in – for any further comments, let me take it back. I haven’t seen Mark’s comments. Let me take it back and talk to him about his full comments.QUESTION: Okay. I have one more, please. Again, China – Taiwan has been banned from attending the World Health Organization meeting this year, whereas in – as of – since 2009 to 2016, it did attend those – the assembly. On Friday, countries including the U.S. and several others issued a joint statement supporting Taiwan’s participation, and Secretary Blinken has issued a statement saying that the U.S. support is in line with Washington’s “one China” policy. Do you have any further comments on that? Can you spell out the difference between Washington’s “one China” policy and Beijing’s “one China” principle.MR MILLER: So I don’t really have any further comment to those two statements that we put out. Our “one China” policy has not – has not changed. And we have made clear repeatedly that we think Taiwan should be able to participate in the WHO session, that we think that when they were a participant they brought meaningful expertise that enriched the discussions there and the debates there, and we want them to be allowed to participate in future sessions.QUESTION: All right. Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Speaking of the reactions to the conflict in Gaza, today Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said in a statement that what Israel is doing in Gaza, they are doing with the support of the U.S. and U.S. President. And he asked the Iraqi Government shutdown the U.S. embassy and expel the U.S. ambassador in Iraq. Do you have any concern or reaction to that statement?MR MILLER: So I’m aware of his comment. I will just say that we value our broad relationships – or broad strategic relationship with Iraq and remain committed to working with the Government of Iraq to expand opportunities for all Iraqis, and support Iraq’s security, stability, and sovereignty.QUESTION: And what’s your reaction to the recent attacks to the U.S. brands in Baghdad – the attack at the KFC and also there were different attacks – which the Iraqi policy says that this is anti-Israel motive behind these attacks?MR MILLER: So we are tracking those reports and obviously condemn the act of violence, and we welcome the statement by Iraqi authorities that they are investigating the attack and want to see them fully do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What is Secretary Blinken’s goals at the NATO foreign ministers meeting?MR MILLER: So we did a call on that last week where we outlined what we intended to cover at the NATO foreign minister meeting. The Assistant Secretary for Europe James O’Brien discussed that, and I will refer you to transcript for a kind of full elucidation of the trip’s goals. But I’ll say in general, this is the – one of the trip – the – it is the last meeting of foreign ministers before the Washington Summit in July, so it will be making the final preparations for the summit, including talking about our broad support for Ukraine.QUESTION: And what consequences could the U.S. impose on Israel for the bombing in Rafah?MR MILLER: I have spoken to that, I believe, at length already in this.QUESTION: And how does the U.S. feel about Israel taking responsibility for the bombing in Rafah? Is it sufficient?MR MILLER: Is it sufficient?QUESTION: Sufficient.MR MILLER: Again, I think I spoke to that at length and to a number of questions already.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. As per a joint investigation by German-based DW and Süddeutsche Zeitung and Sweden-based Netra News revealed that former and current members of the Bangladeshi death squad, Rapid Action Battalion, routinely get deployed as UN peacekeepers. Since the U.S. sanction are as – are maybe for gross violation of human rights, how concerned are you that its officers are being deployed in UN missions that the U.S. funds significantly – around 27 percent fund contributing by the U.S. from the taxpayers’ money?MR MILLER: So we’re aware of these reports. Peacekeeping operations play an essential role in promoting international peace and security, and it is essential that peacekeeping personnel protect human rights. In accordance with the UN Due Diligence Policy, the UN relies on troop and police contributing countries to self-certify that they are not sending troops or police who are implicated in committing human rights violations or violations of international humanitarian law.QUESTION: Following recent revelation of the immediate past police chief’s massive corruption in Bangladesh, who is subject to two U.S. sanctions, could you tell us whether any U.S. agency has found any of his assets test in the U.S. or any other country and whether the U.S. has frozen such assets? Similarly, do you have any findings about corrupt former army chief General Aziz, as you imposed visa restriction recently? Will you take any action against the regime’s top leadership essentially from – why are these individuals are getting a free pass to do anything or everything?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first question, I don’t have anything to announce. With respect to the second, I’m aware of the allegations and the media reports that you referenced. We’ve been quite clear that we believe corruption saps economic growth, hinders development, destabilizes government, and undermines democracy. We have made anti-corruption a core national security interest since the outset of this administration, and our detailed implementation plan for this strategy has been articulated at a number of senior levels, but I don’t have anything new to announce. And as you know, we never preview sanctions or other actions that we might take.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead. And then we’ll come to Ellen, then we’ll wrap. Go ahead.QUESTION: Just a quick one on Gaza. Do you have reports saying &#8212;MR MILLER: On what?QUESTION: On Gaza.MR MILLER: Yeah. Sorry.QUESTION: And specifically humanitarian aid and specifically on the pier. There are reports saying that the pier – the U.S. has suspended aid because the pier broke down or what have – I don’t have the details on &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, so I know that there was – there were some issues with – due to the weather over the weekend. I know the Pentagon has a briefing this afternoon, and I’ll leave it to them to speak to that.Ellen, go ahead. Then we’ll wrap up.QUESTION: One of my questions was his, but I wanted to ask, what’s the situation with the humanitarian groups able to – being able – not being able to access aid from Kerem Shalom? They say it’s too dangerous for them to. Could you discuss the situation in general?MR MILLER: It is something that we continue to work through with the United Nations and with the Government of Israel and with the IDF. It’s related to these questions of deconfliction and coordination that we have been working through, that the Secretary discussed on our last trip.We – there are a number of things at play here. One, we have seen kind of improvements in deconfliction and coordination, but sometimes that’s been tough to communicate down to the unit level, which goes to the question of these groups being able to travel to a checkpoint and then actually make it through a checkpoint and not sit at a checkpoint for hours when you expose yourself to potential harm.But then the other thing I’ll say is that for a number of days we weren’t actually even getting humanitarian assistance to Kerem Shalom because of this issue with it being stopped in Egypt. We’ve now seen it flow, and so we tend to work these things kind of one – we’re always working on all of it, but as you get humanitarian assistance into Kerem Shalom, then have a much greater need to kind of break down those barriers to delivery, which we’re actually working on.Go ahead, then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Can I finish on Turks and Caicos?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: I know this came up a couple of days ago, but some Americans – I believe five – have been arrested there for what they say is mistakenly bringing ammo to the island. They face a 12-year sentence for that. I think one was freed today with a suspended sentence. Some members of Congress are pushing the State Department to change the Travel Advisory. Is that anything that’s under discussion?MR MILLER: So I am never going to preview changes to a Travel Advisory or even talk about whether something is under discussion or not. But I will note that our Travel Advisory to Turks and Caicos does make note that people should be aware of local laws, which would of course prevent people from being – landing themselves in this situation in the first place. So we do encourage all Americans to check our Travel Advisory to Turks and Caicos or any other country that they might be visiting, because it does contain important information that is important to their safety and their well-being.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 p.m.) Over the past two years, we&#8217;ve budgeted approximately $390 million dollars of assistance for Georgia. # # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								China																								Georgia																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Taiwan																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – May 20, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 20, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 20, 2024																																																					May 20, 2024																																																								1:19 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello everyone. Good to be back after some time on the road. I’m going to start on some comments on the announcement from the prosecutor at the ICC today.As the Secretary said in a statement a short time ago, the United States fundamentally rejects the announcement today from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court that he is applying for arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials together with warrants for Hamas terrorists.There should be no equivalence between Israel and Hamas – none. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans.Furthermore, the United States has been clear since well before the current conflict that the ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. The ICC was established by its state parties as a court of limited jurisdiction. These limits are rooted in principles of complementarity, which do not appear to have been applied here amid the prosecutor’s rush to seek these arrest warrants, rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed.In other situations, the prosecutor deferred to national investigations and worked with states to allow them time to investigate. The prosecutor did not afford the same opportunity to Israel in this case, which has ongoing investigations into allegations against its personnel.There are also deeply troubling process questions. Despite not being a member of the court, Israel was prepared to cooperate with the prosecutor and had made that clear. In fact, the prosecutor himself was scheduled to visit Israel as early as next week to discuss the investigation and hear from the Israeli Government. The prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit, and instead, Israel was informed that the prosecutor’s staff didn’t get on their flight around the same time that the prosecutor himself went on television to announce these charges. These circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.Finally, this decision does nothing to help – and could jeopardize – ongoing efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would get hostages out of Gaza and surge humanitarian assistance in. Those are the goals that the United States is pursuing and will continue to pursue despite these actions by the ICC prosecutor.And with that, Matt.QUESTION: That’s it? Nothing else?MR MILLER: That’s it.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Well, let’s start with that since you – since you started with that. Just very briefly, you said that the actions – the announcement on television and cancellation of the flights of the staff – call into question the legitimacy and credibility of the investigation. Do they call into – do they call those into question for the entire court?MR MILLER: We are just referring to the actions the prosecutor has taken. The entire court hasn’t acted; the prosecutor has taken this initial action. We’re going to see what the next step is. But certainly it calls into question the investigation that he has conducted, and the action he has taken when you see him short-circuit a process that was underway to gather facts – which is what you expect any prosecutor, any investigator to do when they’re considering pursuing such a case.QUESTION: Okay. And so are you going to do anything about this, or are you going to wait until the judges actually either approve or deny the applications?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make today. Obviously, we’ve made clear that we reject this action by the prosecutor, we’re reviewing his initial statement, and I don’t have anything further to announce.QUESTION: Okay. And then – (laughter) – but the – I’ll let someone else go. I &#8212;QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR MILLER: Said? Sure.QUESTION: Yeah. You said that this could jeopardize efforts for a ceasefire. Why is that? Why should this jeopardize efforts for implementing a ceasefire?MR MILLER: I don’t think there’s any doubt that this action will embolden Hamas and embolden the leadership of Hamas who have been the principal obstacle to achieving a ceasefire agreement.QUESTION: So, Hamas a couple weeks ago basically agreed to the American points for a ceasefire &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s not – that’s not accurate, Said.QUESTION: &#8212; but that was rejected out of hand.MR MILLER: That’s not accurate, Said.QUESTION: Okay. So let me ask you just one more question – there are many others that would like to ask many other questions. Let me ask you about Rafah. We – according to the UN, we have 900,000 people at city of Rafah – so they just fled. So, you were saying all along that unless Israel has a plan to relocate 1.4 million people, you are not going to agree to – but obviously the assault is full-foot now. There are in the center of Rafah, as you understand it, 900,000 people, which is almost a million people, that is – so – have already fled. So, what is the United States going to do about this, and how does it view it? Is this, in your view, a war crime?MR MILLER: I thought you had a question there, but then when you kept going – you kept going.QUESTION: Okay. Sure. No, go ahead. There’s no question &#8212;MR MILLER: So, with respect to how we view it – so we have made clear that we oppose a major military operation in Rafah. We don’t think that would be productive to Israel’s security either in the short term or the long term, and we think it would have a dramatic impact on the lives of the Palestinian people there and on the ability to get humanitarian assistance in. We have not yet seen Israel launch a major operation. It’s something that we are not only watching very closely, but we were in close communication with them about.That said, we do have great concerns about the ability to care for all of the people who have been evacuated and some that – who have chosen to leave themselves even if they’re not in the areas that – where Israel has ordered people to leave. We have great concerns about the ability to get them – food, water, medicine, humanitarian assistance, shelter, sanitation. And so, we are working with the humanitarian community, the – our international partners on that question, but we are also engaged in conversations with the Government of Israel about this.The National Security Advisor to the President was in Israel this week meeting with the Israeli Government. I will leave it to the White House to speak to that – those meetings largely, but it is our goal to try to prevent a major operation that would have such a deleterious humanitarian impact.QUESTION: Okay. And my final one, on the issue of the crossing at Rafah, I mean, we have not seen any aid trucks go through for a number of days now through Rafah and Karem Abu Salem So, how are you getting – you said that you’re getting the aid through to those that have been forced to flee. So how are you getting it?MR MILLER: So, first of all, you’re right that Rafah is not open. Aid has been going in through Kerem Shalom. There have been some days when the aid has been in the form of commercial trucks – not humanitarian assistance, but it’s still food and water that’s going into Gaza, getting to people who need it. Of course, we’ve just opened the maritime route in the last few days, which will allow the increase of humanitarian assistance, and there has been aid going in through the north.That said, we want to see Rafah open as well, and we have been engaged in discussions with our Israeli counterparts and with the – our Egyptian counterparts about how to effectuate that. And it remains a top priority for us.QUESTION: Is it likely to open in the next day or so?MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: Is it likely to open in the next few days?MR MILLER: I’m just not – you know, Said, I never make predictions here.QUESTION: Well, I was kind of momentarily stunned by your original answers that I forgot my question, but these will be brief. So, are you okay, then, with the application for arrest warrant against Hamas?MR MILLER: We do not believe that they have jurisdiction over either of the parties of this conflict, and that includes Hamas.QUESTION: So, you don’t think that Hamas – you don’t think that Hamas leaders should be prosecuted?MR MILLER: We – we absolutely believe that Hamas should be held accountable. That could be &#8212;QUESTION: Held accountable.MR MILLER: Hold on. Let me – just let me finish.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: That could be either through the prosecution of the war effort by Israel. It could be through &#8212;QUESTION: In other words, them being killed?MR MILLER: Hold on – let me – it could by being killed. It could by – it could by being brought to justice in an Israeli court. We do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction over either of the parties in this case because the Palestinian people do not represent a state, and that includes the leaders of Hamas.QUESTION: Okay. But obviously the administration is also troubled by actions that Israel has taken post-October 7th. So where – where is the accountability for that? Where do the Palestinians go? This is a question I asked Matt – I mean, Ned, a long time ago, over and over and over again. Where do the Palestinians go to seek redress?MR MILLER: So let me answer this a couple of different ways. First of all, in the short term, with respect to questions of war crimes, Israel does have open investigations – a number of open investigations – we made this public when we released our report on National Security Memo 20, including some investigations that have become criminal investigations into conduct by members of the IDF. That is the first instance for judging whether someone has committed a war crime are a violation of IDF code of conduct.That’s one of the reasons why we have concerns about the ICC. The ICC is set up to be a court of last resort. If a country isn’t properly holding itself and its personnel accountable, that’s when the ICC comes in – not in the middle of the process, as they have done here. That said, ultimately – and you know this, Matt, because we’ve spoken about it a lot – we believe that there should be the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and an independent Palestinian state would have the ability to join the Rome Statute and become a member of the International Criminal Court, as every state in the world has the right to do. But that’s &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: But that’s – but that is not &#8212;QUESTION: But until then, they’re SOL? Any &#8212;MR MILLER: No. That – there &#8212;QUESTION: So where do they go in the meantime?MR MILLER: They are not SOL. I said first of all, the – Israel has its own investigation. Second, we have accountability mechanisms here. We have processes that are ongoing to look at Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. So, there are places to look at these questions. It’s just, in our view, fundamentally not a role of the ICC. And I should say – but remember, we have a jurisdictional complaint here in that we don’t believe the ICC has jurisdiction.But if you looked at the statement the Secretary made that I echoed in my opening remarks, that isn’t our only problem with the action the prosecutor has taken. We also have a problem that he has short-circuited an investigation and brought this action without waiting to see where these Israeli investigations end up, without completing the trip that he had planned to come to Israel to look into these questions. So it’s not just a question of jurisdiction. It’s also a question of the way the investigation has been concluded.QUESTION: Okay. So who – who – all right, well, so let’s just focus on jurisdiction for a second. Who does have jurisdiction here?MR MILLER: So the Government of Israel has jurisdiction over &#8212;QUESTION: Over the occupied &#8212;MR MILLER: We have – we have jurisdiction &#8212;QUESTION: Over Gaza, which is not entirely occupied.MR MILLER: They have jurisdiction into looking at the actions by their military personnel.QUESTION: Okay, but Palestinians that have a complaint, they have to bring it to Israeli courts?MR MILLER: We – we have jurisdiction and we &#8212;QUESTION: You have jurisdiction?MR MILLER: With the use of our equipment &#8212;QUESTION: I’m sorry, how do you have jurisdiction?MR MILLER: With the use of our military equipment that we have provided.QUESTION: Matt, how do you have jurisdiction?MR MILLER: If you look at the Leahy Law, if you look at &#8212;QUESTION: No, that’s – that’s not jurisdiction in a criminal process. That’s jurisdiction in a &#8212;MR MILLER: Not in a criminal process, but it has to do with the determinations that we make and the policies that flow from it.QUESTION: Yeah, but that’s not jurisdiction.MR MILLER: So but Matt, long term, you are right that we want to see &#8212;QUESTION: You used work for DOJ, Matt. Come on.MR MILLER: You &#8212; it is &#8212;QUESTION: There is no &#8212; the U.S. does not have jurisdiction here.MR MILLER: There are different – I wasn’t referring to criminal jurisdiction, Matt. There are different ways to look at this. Long term, we agree with you that the Palestinian people should be a state that has the – and have the ability to make these determinations. But that’s not where we are today. That’s what we’re trying to get to.QUESTION: You were fine with the ICC going after Russia (inaudible).MR MILLER: Go ahead – go ahead, Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, so what about the merits of the arrest warrant. You talked about – you pushed back on the jurisdiction and the process. Does the United States – is it able to challenge the substance of the arrest warrant? I mean, some of the things that the prosecutor says – evidence his office collected showed Israel has systematically deprived civilians of objects indispensable to human survival, including restricting food, water, medicine, and energy. Is the State Department able to challenge the arrest warrant application on those basis?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to all the details of the prosecutors’ arrest warrant because there will be a process for getting into that at the ICC, and people will be able to challenge that. But I’ll say we have spoken to the provision of humanitarian assistance – for example, recently when we issued the report on NSM-20, where we laid out where we have seen Israel not taking all the steps that we thought they ought to take but we saw an improvement and a turnaround and an increase in the ability to get humanitarian assistance in.QUESTION: But I don’t understand why you can’t address this right now, because when &#8212;MR MILLER: Because I’m not a lawyer in court going point by point by this arrest warrant.QUESTION: Yeah, then when South Africa brought the case in ICJ, U.S. called it meritless. And right now, can you call the substance of the arrest warrant applications meritless?MR MILLER: So, we took a – so I will say we believe it is fully unfounded, should not have been brought. Now, with respect to the underlying allegations, we’ll have time to look at that. This is an arrest warrant that was issued today. We’ll have time to look at it, to digest it, and perhaps issue a more complete response.But as I said, we shouldn’t be where we are today,because there are processes ongoing to look at some of these questions that we think should have been allowed to play out. And as I said, when you look at the fact that the prosecutor was scheduled to go to Israel, and his staff was scheduled to go there today, we’re puzzled to understand why he would yank those trips and go on television to make an announcement, something that also is very strange. As Matt pointed out, I used to work at DOJ; it’s not usually how prosecutors announce their – their &#8212;QUESTION: No, I – now wait a second. I did not say that it was strange that he went on TV to do it.MR MILLER: No, no. No, you pointed out – you – no, no – you pointed out I used to work at DOJ is what I was referring to. It’s a strange thing for a prosecutor to make an initial arrest announcement on television, not in a formal document. So, we look at all of these circumstances and have real concerns about it.QUESTION: Right. In terms of accountability, though &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry to put words in your mouth. I was &#8212;QUESTION: Well, fine, but &#8212;MR MILLER: The part that I meant you were – I was attesting to you was what followed, not &#8212;QUESTION: Are you saying – did you mean Eric Holder never did a TV interview in your time as spokesman?MR MILLER: Not to – not to announce an arrest warrant before we had issued any actual charging documents, no.QUESTION: Okay. So, you’re just angry at his &#8212;MR MILLER: And I think – and – no, and I will say &#8212;QUESTION: You’re angry at the process that he used.MR MILLER: I will say the process itself calls into question the underlying substance.QUESTION: Right. In terms of accountability, though, you talk about the fact that Israel has open investigations. So, what kind of timeline did Israel provide you to conclude those investigations?MR MILLER: So, we have made clear to Israel that those investigations ought to proceed expeditiously. They ought to reach conclusions as soon as possible.QUESTION: And have they provided you a timeline?MR MILLER: I’m not – I’m not going to – I’m not going to speak to our internal discussions or speak for the Israeli Government. But everyone – it is very difficult always to put a timeline on any kind of investigation, certainly on a criminal investigation, and I wouldn’t want to do that on behalf of the foreign government other than to say our expectation on behalf of the United States is that they should proceed and finish as soon as possible – but not at the expense of thoroughness. And that is always the balance when you look at an investigation is expediency versus thoroughness. You want to be quick, but you want to be thorough. That’s more important.QUESTION: And my final one is does the ICC arrest warrant – I understand you challenge it from a jurisdiction and process point of view. But I suspect the U.S. still recognizes the ICC, right?MR MILLER: We do, yeah.QUESTION: Right. So, the fact that the prosecutor has applied for an arrest warrant and talking about crimes against humanity, does that give the State Department a pause or, like, give you second thoughts about the – the conclusions of the NSM report? I mean, you have raised certain concerns there, but then you did find Israel’s assurances credible. Is that something that would make you rethink that conclusion?MR MILLER: No. In – if we saw new evidence, we would always look at that and be willing to – we’re always willing to look at our assessments if they are changed by new evidence that comes in the door. But we had conducted a thorough review in writing that report, and there’s nothing that we saw in the charges announced today that changes our fundamental conclusions.Yeah.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Matt’s first question – or second question – to you and you saying that you have nothing to announce today in terms of action that the U.S. might take. Can you just help us understand: Is the administration considering taking action against the ICC because of this?MR MILLER: You should not read into my statement to Matt that we are either considering anything or not considering anything. It’s just to reflect the fact that this is an announcement that was just made this morning. We are reviewing the document the prosecutor put forward. And I don’t have any announcements to make about what our upcoming steps might be.QUESTION: Is there any way that the U.S. is able to stand in the way of these arrest warrants actually coming to fruition, like logistically?MR MILLER: That’s a – that is a question that is beyond my remit as someone who’s not an international lawyer to answer. So, I’m happy to look at that question and get back, but ultimately I think that’s a legal question for the ICC more than us.QUESTION: And you said that the U.S. still supports the ICC as a legitimate body. But does this undermine the ICC as a whole? I mean, like, how do you – how do we think about those two things? You guys are still supporting the ICC investigation in Ukraine, yet here you’re saying you don’t think they have jurisdiction. But how does that not make an impact on your view of the ICC writ large?MR MILLER: So, the ICC has done important work over the years to hold people accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and we have supported that work. And that’s not changed by the announcement today. But I will say that we do have great concerns about the prosecutor and the steps that he took. And I – and like I said, it’s not just because of the jurisdictional question. It would be one thing if we were just looking at a jurisdictional dispute here, where the prosecutor believed that he had legitimate jurisdiction, and we believe that he fundamentally didn’t. That is a – that is a legal question that lawyers can argue, as they often do. But ultimately, we look at the way the investigation itself has been conducted, and that gives us added concerns about the actions that he took.Yeah.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. The – you mentioned that the U.S. thinks this is fully unfounded. Did you just mean like coming to the conclusion of these arrest warrants being sought, or did you mean the whole process?MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to – so I mean the entire process. I’m not going to do a factual point by point of each of the charges. But the process &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. I just wanted to check that before I &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; the process itself, the equation of Israel with Hamas – a brutal terrorist group with a democracy that, for all its faults, does – like any democracy, does have its own existing accountability mechanisms that are underway – we find that process and the outcome that it has generated deeply flawed.QUESTION: But the ICC coming to this conclusion, presumably they’re looking at pretty similar material to what the U.S. looks at when they’re – when you’re doing your own process and assessment of the actions that the U.S. – that Israel, sorry – has taken. So, if they are looking at open source evidence and that kind of thing, are you – is the U.S. – can you say whether you’re confident in the process that the ICC uses to get to its conclusion, or not everything is (inaudible)?MR MILLER: So, I don’t have any confidence in the process that they used to get to a conclusion in this case – in fact, quite the opposite – and I don’t know where they got their information. This goes to the point I made in my opening statement about calling off a visit to Israel where they could have interacted with the Israeli Government. They of course are not in the ground – on the ground in Gaza to collect information firsthand. Whether they’ve been able to collect evidence otherwise, I don’t know. I presume we would see it that – as the case goes forward.QUESTION: But what do you mean you don’t where they got their information from? A lot of it’s open source.MR MILLER: That’s – so my point is &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, do they have to go to – do they have to go to Israel to find – to figure out what public comments from Israeli officials are saying?MR MILLER: It is not just – so whenever you’re conducting a case, it is not just a question of public comments. I would think if you were going to bring a case of this nature, you might want to go to the Israeli Government, say, okay, we have concerns &#8212;QUESTION: And &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, let me just – we have concerns – we have concerns about &#8212;QUESTION: And they didn’t? You’re sure that they – you’re sure that they didn’t?MR MILLER: We have concerns about the following things; why don’t you brief us on your ongoing investigations and tell us &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. And you know that they didn’t?MR MILLER: I know they have not conducted a full, complete process to that regard. There was a trip that was scheduled to go through some of these questions.QUESTION: But before now &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on – that trip isn’t it. Whether they’ve conducted some limited review, I will let the Israeli Government speak to that. I know that they have not – that the Israeli Government was prepared to cooperate in much more extensive detail, and that process was ended by the action of the prosecutor today.QUESTION: All right, let’s turn it around. What about Hamas?MR MILLER: I don’t think Hamas was going to cooperate with an investigation, no, if that is – if that’s the question.QUESTION: All right. Okay. So they don’t need to go to Gaza and talk to Sinwar and – who’s the other guy, I can’t remember &#8212;QUESTION: Deif.QUESTION: Deif. And they don’t need to go to Doha, but they do need to go to Israel?MR MILLER: So we don’t even get to the question, because there’s a jurisdictional issue. We don’t believe they have jurisdiction over the leaders of Hamas who are in Gaza.QUESTION:  Now you&#8217;re – but now you&#8217;re – but Matt – (laughter) – you&#8217;re &#8212;MR MILLER: We have more than one concern about this case.QUESTION: I get that, but &#8212;MR MILLER: So, I would say – but I would say if you – like, also &#8212;QUESTION: But if they don’t have jurisdiction, then why are you saying that they should’ve gone to Israel?MR MILLER: Because we have &#8212;QUESTION: Because Israel’s not a member of the court because you’re – and you are not a member of the court. So why should they go to Israel?MR MILLER: We have more than one concern. As we said in the statement, despite Israel – we made it clear in the statement – despite Israel not being a member of the court, they were willing to cooperate. With respect to Hamas, however, I would say it is – you can conclude, looking what – what happened on October 7th, that Hamas intended to kill civilians.QUESTION: No doubt.MR MILLER: That is – that is without doubt. Absent the jurisdictional questions, it would absolutely be a war crime and a crime against humanity.QUESTION: I’m just wondering why it’s a problem for you guys &#8212;MR MILLER: That – this – you can’t – hold on – you cannot say the same about the state of Israel.QUESTION: Well, okay. I’m just wondering why it’s a problem for you guys for the ICC to go after Israeli officials and doesn’t seem to be a problem for them to go after Hamas.MR MILLER: That’s not what I said. I made clear already we don’t think they have jurisdiction to go over Hamas – to go after Hamas.QUESTION: But – so should Hamas be held accountable for what they did?MR MILLER: I answered that question a little while ago. I said yes, they should absolutely be accountable.QUESTION: And who is going to hold them – and who – oh, right, the Israeli Government?MR MILLER: The Israeli Government should hold them accountable on the battlefield, and if not a battlefield, in a court of law.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Could you clarify something you said to Camilla? Sorry, Matt. You said that the fact that they were combined together, the two indictments – if they were separate indictments, if they were separate orders of arrest and so on, would that be acceptable? If, let’s say &#8212;MR MILLER: It doesn’t change the jurisdictional objection that we have.QUESTION: There’s not – yeah, but you would accept – just so I can understand – I know &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I just said the opposite: we have a jurisdictional objection, so no.QUESTION: So – yeah, if there were just an indictment of Hamas by itself and of Israel by itself, you can say, we take the indictment against Hamas but not against Israel? Is that – I’m trying to understand.MR MILLER: Said, no – then – I thought I was clear. We do not believe they have jurisdiction to either of the parties in this conflict.QUESTION: Okay.QUESTION: Follow-up.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. So, you said Israel does have open investigations. Are you satisfied with the way Israel conducts these investigations?MR MILLER: I’m not ready to offer an assessment on that at this point, because the investigations are ongoing. I think it’s appropriate to wait for their conclusion. If there is – if there are investigations that conclude that we don’t think have been conducted appropriately, and we don’t think there has been justice when there ought to be justice, and we have the ability to make that assessment ourself, we will absolutely stand up and say it. But the investigations are ongoing right now. We can’t offer that kind of conclusion at this point.QUESTION: Will there be any consequences if you find out that’s why the &#8212;MR MILLER: So, I’m – that gets into a hypothetical that’s several steps down the road. We haven’t even found – gotten to the point of that sort of finding yet, so I’m not going to engage with that.QUESTION: Just one more on this accusations. The ICC accuses of Netanyahu and Gallant of causing extermination, starvation of civilians, as a method of war, deliberately targeting civilians. Do you think those things are not happening in Gaza?MR MILLER: We don’t. We have made clear that there have been steps that we wanted Israel to take to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance that for a time they weren’t taking. Now, they often will come up and present objections and say they are trying to prevent, for example, military items from getting in or dual-use items that can be used for the military to get in, and they will say that they have restricted movements in certain areas because it is an area where the military is operating; they don’t want to put humanitarian actors at harm’s way. Whatever the case may be, there have been a number of times we have made clear that their actions weren’t good enough and we need to see improvements.And you’ve heard the President say that. You’ve heard the Secretary say that, and more importantly, you’ve seen the President and the Secretary get involved to bring about a change in behavior on behalf of the Israeli Government, and we have seen that change.So, the fundamental, bottom-line reality is that we have seen food get in, water get in, medicine get in – not enough, but we have &#8212;QUESTION: You have seen this change, but are you &#8212;MR MILLER: But we have seen a trend line where it has improved.QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza?MR MILLER: We have seen an improvement. But until people in Gaza are not hungry, till they have enough to eat, enough to drink, medicine, shelter, we will not be satisfied, and we won’t stop pushing for more, absolutely.Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Is it okay to move on to Iran?MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Can we still in Israel?MR MILLER: Let me – yeah, go ahead and then we’ll come back to you for – I’ll come back to you next, Shannon.QUESTION: Okay. Second question, in addition to everybody else asked, is you said that Israel is not a member of the ICC, which is true. But also, and I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but Israel has supported the candidacy of Mr. Khan when he was elected in 2021, and they wanted him to be there. So, the fact that they actually endorsed him, they know there are some consequences, otherwise they won’t have bothered in the first place. So, this is just to – I don’t agree – to agree or disagree.MR MILLER: It doesn’t change the underlying &#8212;QUESTION: It doesn’t change anything.MR MILLER: &#8212; the underlying jurisdictional question.QUESTION: Okay. So that my question is lawmakers agreed with you. They said the same. They repeated the same statement they issued in the White House. But they went further, and they said actually the decision is antisemitic. Do you agree that this decision is antisemitic as well?MR MILLER: That’s not an assessment that we have made or a conclusion we have drawn.QUESTION: Okay, and one last thing is on the issue itself, many international lawyers, very well known, different background, they said they found a reasonable ground that actually Israel has committed crime against humanity and crimes – war crimes. Does the White – sorry, the State Department lawyers have a different conclusion, or did the – you have not reached this conclusion, or do you disagree with them? What exactly the difference between the lawyers who works at State Department and international lawyers who found different conclusion?MR MILLER: So let me try to separate the ICC and answer this in two ways. One, when it comes to the ICC, we have a jurisdictional issue and then we have an issue with how this investigation was conducted. But to answer your underlying question about making that sort of determination, it is a question that we are looking at here. We have ongoing processes to look at Israel’s use of U.S.-provided weapons, and those processes are ongoing. We have not yet reached final determinations.Shannon, go ahead now.QUESTION: Thank you. I know you extended official condolences of the U.S. for the death of Iran’s president and foreign minister over the weekend. The U.S. also participated in a moment of silence for President Raisi at the UN Security Council, and it sparked some controversy on Twitter. Does the State Department view that as appropriate, taking part in that kind of observance?MR MILLER: Let me say a few things. One, we have been quite clear that Ebrahim Raisi was a brutal participant in the repression of the Iranian people for nearly four decades. He was involved in numerous horrific human rights abuses, including playing a key role in the extrajudicial killing of thousands of political prisoners in 1988. Some of the worst human rights abuses occurred during his tenure as president, especially the human rights abuses against the women and girls of Iran.That said, we regret any loss of life. We don’t want to see anyone die in a helicopter crash. But that doesn’t change the reality of his record both as a judge and as the president of Iran and the fact that he has blood on his hands. So, I think, most importantly, our fundamental approach to Iran has not changed and will not change. We will continue to support the people of Iran, to defend their human rights, their aspirations to an open, free society and democratic participation. And we will continue to confront the Iranian regime’s support for terrorism, its proliferation of dangerous weapons, and its advancement of nuclear – its nuclear program in ways that have no credible civilian purpose.QUESTION: And just a quick follow. In the aftermath of that crash, did the U.S. help in recovery efforts in any way, or was it asked to assist?MR MILLER: We were asked for assistance by the Iranian Government. We did make clear to them that we would offer assistance, as we would do in response to any request by a foreign government in this sort of situation. And ultimately, we were not able to provide that assistance.QUESTION: You were asked?MR MILLER: We were asked.QUESTION: Where?QUESTION: And for what exactly?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into – I’m not – I’m not going to get into the details, but we were asked by the Iranian Government for assistance. We said that we would be willing to assist. It’s something that we would do with respect to any government in this situation. Ultimately, largely for logistical reasons, we weren’t able to provide that assistance.QUESTION: All right. And then can I just ask you about the statement? What exactly is official condolences?MR MILLER: It’s the condolences on behalf of the United States Government.QUESTION: Well, then why doesn’t it say that? This is like official condolences means absolutely nothing, and I’m not even sure why you’re offering condolences if this guy was as bad as you say he was.MR MILLER: Look &#8212;QUESTION: Why? I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: Because we regret any loss of life. We don’t want to see people die in helicopter crashes. It doesn’t change our view of him, our view of the regime. But I’ll say that there are – there are &#8212;QUESTION: Really? There is not one person that you can think of that the United States didn’t want to see in an air accident, ever? Really, none?MR MILLER: There were people onboard that aircraft who have families. We thought that’s an appropriate step to take. It’s a step that the United States Government has taken when any number of foreign leaders with whom we had vehement disagreements have died. But we also made clear in that statement that we continue to support the Iranian people in their fundamental struggle for freedom.QUESTION: Really? Well, I would just point out to you that when the former – one of the former presidents of Cuba died – this would be Fidel Castro – your – one of your predecessors did not offer any condolences.MR MILLER: We &#8212;QUESTION: And, basically, said good riddance.MR MILLER: So, I will &#8212;QUESTION: And if you really think that Raisi was as bad as what you have laid out at the beginning, I’m just a little bit curious as to why you would put a statement out – no matter how short it is, but with the line “official condolences” in it. I don’t get it.MR MILLER: So, as long as we’re addressing the historical record, the United States offered condolences when Hugo Chavez died, when Joseph Stalin died – people with whom we had great disagreements. So that is &#8212;QUESTION: Joseph Stalin was also an ally of the United States all through – and we talked about this earlier – all through World War II.MR MILLER: He did not die during World War II.QUESTION: No, he did not.MR MILLER: He died afterwards. The disagreements with him were quite clear and quite plain and quite well articulated by the United States Government. It is a step that the United States takes, recognizing that people have families, and in no way – in no way at all undermining our fundamental view of the Iranian regime and its crimes against its own people and our support for the Iranian people.QUESTION: Can I follow on that?QUESTION: Matt, on Matt’s &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. I think Matt’s – well, he did make it clear that his point is on the word “official.” You mentioned a few condolences that you sent to other countries, but you did not use this word “official.” That aside, I’m sure you’ve seen – you’ve probably seen the – that the people inside of Iran are – some of them are celebrating this incident. I was wondering what you make of that.MR MILLER: So, I can certainly understand why people inside Iran would feel that way when you look at the brutal repression that happened under President Raisi’s tenure. As I said in a comment a moment ago, especially when you look at his abuse of women and girls, I can see why people in Iran would feel that way in response to his death. But I obviously can’t speak for them.QUESTION: But with the condolences and then support for Iranian people, aren’t you sending contradictory messages?MR MILLER: Absolutely not. If you just listen – if you listen to the statement, I just made a moment ago, I think we have been quite clear about how we viewed his tenure. And you don’t just have to look at what I said today. I don’t think there’s any country in the world that has been more clear-eyed about the Iranian regime and more clear-eyed about this president’s repression of the Iranian people than the United States of America. We have made that quite clear.QUESTION: Not even Israel?MR MILLER: So that would be a close one and two, I think. We have been quite clear. And that has not just been with the words that you have heard from the seniormost leaders in our government, but it has been the actions that we have taken, including imposing more than 500 sanctions on the Iranian Government and Iranian entities for their destabilizing actions in the region and for the repression of their own people.QUESTION: A follow-up on this, please?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: First, what is the U.S. Government’s official message to those Iranians who have been killed, murdered, attacked, wounded by this guy?MR MILLER: The official message is that we stand with them as we have stood by them, and our policy of holding the Iranian regime responsible for those abuses has not changed and will not change, period.QUESTION: And more broadly, can you tell us anything about the origin of the crash, its outcome, and also potential implications for the wider region, please?MR MILLER: So, I have seen the statements made on Iranian state television that it was the result of a technical failure. I don’t have any independent assessment to offer, and I wouldn’t want – hold on, hold on. Just and I wouldn’t want to offer any assessments about what the impact might be.QUESTION: I have more on Ukraine.QUESTION: On Iran? Gaza?MR MILLER: Maybe also on Iran. Iran? No?QUESTION: Yeah.QUESTION: Iran.QUESTION: Yes, yes, yes.MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: I know you were quite clear, but it still is very difficult for me to understand or even report on the statement that you just put out, the official condolences. Everything you are talking about is about supporting Iranian people, human rights.MR MILLER: As was the statement that we issued.QUESTION: Exactly. And then there was another statement following your statement. Why there was a second statement? Why I think that you felt that you have to do more explanation? And why was the second &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I think you’re referring to all this was in about a half-an-hour period before I came to the podium &#8212;QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: &#8212; so it’s not like there was a long lag in time here.QUESTION: So how should we – as Iranian journalist, how can I report on your officials’ condolences when you are all the time talking about supporting Iranian people? How can we tell Iranian people who – exactly how Guita was talking about? They were very happy on social media, if you check it. How are we going to report on the official &#8212;MR MILLER: So &#8212;QUESTION: You don’t have any diplomatic &#8212; diplomatic tie with Iranian Government.MR MILLER: So, first of all, I would never presume to tell anyone how to report anything. But I would say that you can look at not just the statements I have made today, but the repeated statements over nearly three and a half years by the President of the United States and by the Secretary of State and other members of the administration about our views of the Iranian regime, and more importantly, our actions to hold them accountable and our support for the Iranian people in their struggle against that brutal regime. Those have not changed. Those will not change.QUESTION: Does this have to do anything with the indirect talks you have in Oman?MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to speak to any talks, real or imagined, but I will say that the actions – but I would not draw any such conclusions.QUESTION: And Matt, about Ali Bagheri Kani, how do you feel about him?MR MILLER: About – I’m sorry?QUESTION: Mr. Bagheri Kani, who is going to be the acting foreign minister, is going to be – he was deputy of Mr. Amir-Abdollahian. How do you feel about him? Do you have any comments?MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment to offer today. Maybe in the coming days, but not today.Josh, did you have one?QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I just wanted to follow up on what – the condolences question. Seems like you’re taking kind of an “ask not for whom the bell tolls” approach to this.MR MILLER: A what approach?QUESTION: The John Donne poem. Never mind.MR MILLER: No, no, no, I just didn’t hear it.QUESTION: “Ask not for whom the boll tolls, it tolls for thee.”MR MILLER: Oh, yes.QUESTION: Anyway.MR MILLER: My favorite author, so I would – had I heard the reference, I would have liked to think I would have caught it.QUESTION: Hemingway is your favorite author? Really? Well, then perhaps let’s shorten the sentences. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Well done, Matt. I will – I will do my best. I have a lot to get through up here. Maybe if my questions weren’t interrupted so often. (Laughter.)Go ahead. I have to get it all out or I know – if I pause for one breath you jump in. Go ahead, sorry.QUESTION: Sorry, it’s actually John Donne, not Hemingway, but anyway. So, but in all seriousness, Masih Alinejad says that these condolences are a slap in the face to Iranian women and salt in the wound of people who the Iranian – who the regime has oppressed. I listen to what you say today, and I’m wondering, like, who’s the target audience for this statement? What effect are you hoping it will have? I mean, I can’t believe you expect that the Raisi family will take some – find some consolation in the U.S. Government’s statement here. Is it a courtesy to the Iranian Government? I mean, the – we didn’t hear this kind of statement when Yevgeny Prigozhin family famously went – died in a plane crash.MR MILLER: Not a head of state.QUESTION: Neither is Raisi, but &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah. Not a official government leader.QUESTION: I mean, just what – what are you trying to accomplish here, and how do you balance it against those other &#8212;MR MILLER: It is – it is this &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; these other costs?MR MILLER: It is the type of statement the United States Government typically makes in these situations, as I went through, including with some quite objectionable people, as we have done throughout our history. But it doesn’t change at all our view of him, our view of the regime, or the policy that we will carry out with respect to that regime.QUESTION: (Inaudible) this some with Putin, but you didn’t acknowledge his re-election and you didn’t say anything about that, but now you’re expressing official condolences.MR MILLER: Different – different circumstances.QUESTION: Could I just get you &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; to be a little more detailed on the – like, I’m – and I’m not trying to – even trying to jam you up here. I’m just wondering, like, what are you trying to accomplish by saying this gesture?MR MILLER: We thought it was –QUESTION: Is it supposed to have a – is it supposed to have some sort of humanitarian effect on the families of the people who died? Is it a diplomatic thing that you hope will be reciprocated? Like, just talk us through –MR MILLER: It has nothing to do with hopes of anything that will transpire. It is the appropriate step, we think, for the United States Government to take in this instance, while also being very clear about what our policy is and what our view is of the Iranian regime.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, just on this help that you said Iran has sought from U.S.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: This was – just to confirm, it’s pretty incredible – this was in the aftermath of the crash, and they needed help with the rescue efforts?MR MILLER: It was in the aftermath of the crash. They did offer – or ask for assistance. I’m not going to get into what the details of that &#8212;QUESTION: To find the &#8212;MR MILLER: Of the – I’m &#8212;QUESTION: To find the president?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into the details. That is essentially right, but I’m not going to get into details from here. Ultimately, we weren’t able to offer that assistance.QUESTION: Can you say, like, through the usual indirect channels, this – this help was &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to get into the channels at all.QUESTION: And did you suggest Türkiye instead?MR MILLER: I am just not going to get into those conversations.Go ahead.QUESTION: So, regarding those reports that there were celebrations in Iran from opposition groups following the death, there have also, according to the BBC, been reports of supporters of the regime threatening those celebrators, telling them that there would be consequences if they came forward. Does the United States have any opinion on that, or words to Iran on that?MR MILLER: So, one of the points we made in the statement that we put out – the short, two-sentence statement – was Iran will be selecting a new president right now. And as they go through that process, we will be supporting the Iranians’ – the Iranian people’s ability to express their fundamental freedoms.Now, we have seen those freedoms cracked down on again and again, and it’s not just the freedom to exercise their vote. It’s their freedom of speech. It’s other fundamental freedoms. And so, I’m not surprised that you’ve seen initial reaction in that light. We will look at this the same way we have looked at past instances of crackdowns by the regime or by allies of the regime to the Iranian people exercising their fundamental rights. And if there are steps that are appropriate for us to take to hold people accountable for those actions, we will not hesitate to do so.QUESTION: Is there any concern on the part of the U.S. that this could affect regional stability in a region that already is hanging on a knife’s edge?MR MILLER: Look, we – I’m not going to offer any assessment about something that just happened 24 hours ago. But we – in this region, we are always concerned about anything that could cause instability. It’s why you’ve seen the Secretary and other members of the administration so engaged since October 7th to try to keep the conflict in Gaza from escalating further and spiraling out of control, and that will continue to be our overriding policy goal, not just – not connected necessarily to this death, but for its own – for its own sake.QUESTION: Matt?MR MILLER: All right. Any more on this topic before we go on?QUESTION: Other? Israel.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Do you have any reactions and comments on the former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as he said that – he claims that the U.S. is one of the main responsible for the Iranian president helicopter crash due to the sanctions?MR MILLER: So, first of all, we are not going to apologize for our sanctions regime at all. The Iranian Government has used its aircraft to transport equipment to support terrorism. So, we will continue to fully enforce our sanctions regime, including our sanctions regimes on aircraft for use by the Iranian Government. Ultimately, it’s the Iranian Government that is responsible for the decision to fly a 45-year-old helicopter in what was described as poor weather conditions, not any other actor.QUESTION: And then do you confirm or reject the indirect talks with Iran in Oman?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to those at all. We have long made clear that we have the ability to send Iran messages when it’s our – in our interest to do so. But I’m not going to comment on those in any way.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions. North Korea launched several ballistic missiles into the east coast last weekend. This was done right after Putin and Xi Jinping announced their support for North Korea at the summit. Do you assess that North Korea, China, and Russia will deepen their solidarity?MR MILLER: So, with respect to that missile launch, the Pentagon put out a statement on that this weekend, and I would refer to you that. But when it comes to the cooperation between Russia and North Korea, we have made clear it’s a trend that should be a great concern of anyone who is interested in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. That should include the PRC.It’s one of the points the Secretary made clear in our last trip to Beijing, as he has in his other interactions with his Chinese counterparts, that we think that’s something that should concern China as well, and China should use its influence to push back on that increasing – that increasing cooperation between the two regimes. It’s not a decision they have made to do so as of yet.QUESTION: But the role of the UN Security Council is weakening, so how can we sanction North Korea’s continued violations?MR MILLER: So, we have been concerned that the Security Council has not spoken with one voice since 2017 on the DPRK’s repeated violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Because there’s not been unity, the DPRK has escalated its ballistic missile launches, each one of which violates multiple UN Security Council resolutions, and we urge Beijing and Moscow to use their influence to encourage DPRK to refrain from that behavior and return to the negotiating table.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Ryan.QUESTION: So, on the – back on the question of jurisdiction &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; with the international – you said that because the Palestinians are not a state actor, they don’t have jurisdiction over their side. But back in 2014 – I just googled this one up – Jen Psaki was up here, your former colleague. The statement was: “Today the  convicted Germain Katanga, the Commander of the  militia, for his responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  ICC’s DRC cases represent a significant step toward delivering justice for victims in the DRC.” She then went on to say, “The United States reiterates its call for the apprehension of Sylvester Mudacumura, another leader of an abusive rebel militia in the DRC, who is subject to an arrest warrant by the ICC... The Department of State continues to offer a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to his arrest.” So. at least in 2014, it was the position of the administration that you could even put out a reward for the arrest of somebody that would then go to the ICC and would have jurisdiction. So, why does not that apply to the current conflict?MR MILLER: So, we have supported the work of the ICC in previous cases. I can’t speak to this case because I don’t know the fundamentals of it, and I don’t know the jurisdictional questions. Ultimately, the main way that the ICC has jurisdiction is if one of the two state parties to a case is a signatory to the Rome Statute and comes in under the ICC’s jurisdiction. That is not the case here. You have Israel, who, of course, is not a signatory to the ICC; the Palestinians, who do not represent a state at this time and so in our view cannot sign the Rome Statute and become – come under the ICC’s jurisdiction. I can’t speak to other cases. I’d have to look into in more detail.QUESTION: And one quick follow-up to what Said had asked about whether or not the U.S. had approved the deal that Hamas said it agreed to. There’s a lot of reporting in the region that CIA Director Burns was involved in that, had approved it. Are you saying that – is that not the case? What was Burns’ involvement there?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to any of the reporting, because I know there’s been – I will just say – because there has been reporting all over the map on this question, some of it right, some of it partially right, some of it completely wrong – I will say that the reporting that Hamas had accepted a proposal that we put on the table was not accurate. They had sent back a response that accepted some of it but offered amendments, some of those amendments significant in nature. And they claimed at the time they had accepted the response. That’s not what – or accepted the proposal. That’s not what had actually happened.QUESTION: Just extremely briefly, would – it’s not just the DRC that you guys have supported ICC investigations into or offered rewards. So, Uganda, the Lord’s Resistance Army, there was a big push made and rewards offered for that. So, I’m glad that you said that it’s not just the DRC. But secondly, when you said that the ICC in this case – at least with Israel – didn’t go to Israel to interview people, they also didn’t go to Gaza or to Doha, correct?MR MILLER: They will have to speak to that. I just don’t know.QUESTION: Okay. And then they – and in other case &#8212;MR MILLER: I know they didn’t go – I know – actually, I know they don’t – didn’t go to Gaza. Whether they went to Doha, I have no idea.QUESTION: Okay. And then another – another ICC case that you have supported or an actual arrest warrant that was issued, not just applied for but was issued, in terms of Russia and Ukraine. Did the ICC prosecutors go to Russia to interview the people who were ultimately given – subject – subjected to these arrest warrants?MR MILLER: So – so the difference between Russia and Israel is that Israel is a democracy with accountability mechanisms and investigations that are underway. That is not the case in Russia. We are not aware of any Russian investigation into war crimes that is underway. So, the &#8212;QUESTION: But the similarity between the two is that neither of them are parties to the Rome Statute, neither of them are members, just like you are not.MR MILLER: But – so Ukraine is, however, in that case, and that’s why they have jurisdiction in that matter. It’s one of the parties to that conflict is a member – is a signatory.QUESTION: So, in other words, then it’s okay if they go to one side but not to the other?MR MILLER: That is the fundamental – that is how jurisdiction is fundamentally applied under the Rome Statute is if one of the parties to the conflict is a signatory to the conflict, and that’s not a case – it’s not &#8212;QUESTION: Yes. So, if you’re not a signatory to a conflict, then it should be – then, apparently, it’s okay if they don’t – the prosecution doesn’t go to that country, in this case Russia.MR MILLER: So, it’s – so it is not &#8212;QUESTION: And then this current case Israel, which is not a signatory to – but you don’t have a problem with it when they didn’t go to Russia.MR MILLER: So, there’s a fundamental &#8212;QUESTION: But you do have a problem when &#8212;MR MILLER: There is a fundamental difference here and it’s that Israel said they were going to cooperate with the investigation. Russia did not. That’s why the trip was so – to Israel was so important. Israel said they were going to cooperate with the investigation, talk to them about the charges that they were preparing to bring. And the ICC short-circuited that cooperation by bringing these charges.QUESTION: Matt, look, come on.MR MILLER: Russia was – Russia was never going to cooperate.QUESTION: For the last – for the last month, Israeli officials have been going off about how horrible it would be and how awful it would be if the ICC comes forward with these arrest warrants, to the point where people in this government were like what are they so – what are they getting so concerned about. Nothing is yet happening. Well, now it has happened, okay? But they have made clear from day one that they don’t think this is a legitimate investigation.MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: What makes you think they were prepared to cooperate?MR MILLER: So, I can only say that they had a trip scheduled for the prosecutor himself where they planned to cooperate. Now, look, if he had made that trip and been stiff-armed, that’d be a different circumstance perhaps. I have a fundamental – I have a fundamental hard time arguing why it was he had to bring these warrants today before he completed that trip. Why not go and see if they’re cooperating and make the assessment afterwards? That’s not what happened.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Three very quick questions. In a recent media interview, Indian Prime Minister Modi revealed how he made an effort to stop Israel’s attack in Gaza during the holy month of Ramadan by sending an envoy to Tel Aviv. Is the State Department aware of this?MR MILLER: So, I am aware of those comments. I don’t have any comment on them.QUESTION: May I draw your attention to a New York Times investigative story titled “Strangers in Their Own Land: Being Muslim in Modi’s India”, which described – describes how the world’s largest Muslim community in India raising their families and children with fear and uncertainty. Have you engaged with the Indian officials in these issues?MR MILLER: So, I won’t speak to private diplomatic conversations, but we are deeply committed to promoting and protecting universal respect for the right to freedom of religion or belief of all around the world. We have engaged many countries, including India, on the importance of equal treatment for members of all religious communities.QUESTION: Is the U.S. considering reinstating the GSP facilities for Bangladeshi product, as Bangladeshi foreign minister told the – on Saturday, Assistant Secretary Donald Lu assured Washington would consider reinstating the GSP facilities for Bangladeshi &#8212;MR MILLER: I just don’t have any announcements to make on that regard.Alex, go ahead, and then we’ll wrap for today.QUESTION: On Ukraine – two questions.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: You were with the Secertary in Kyiv. I want to give you a chance to respond to this latest notion that the U.S. doesn’t want – is afraid of seeing Russia lose &#8212;MR MILLER: That the U.S. what?QUESTION: Doesn’t want to see Russia lose and that – I mean, the statement came from the Ukrainian president. Why wouldn’t you – wouldn’t you want &#8212;MR MILLER: The statement came from the Ukraine president? I don’t believe I saw a statement that – the United States fundamentally wants Ukraine &#8212;QUESTION: Doesn’t want to see Russia lose and that &#8212;MR MILLER: The – so there are two parties in this conflict. One is Russia; the other is Ukraine. We fundamentally want to see Ukraine win this war and have made that clear, including, I think, by providing them with billions of dollars in security assistance. You have also seen the Secretary make an entire speech about the strategic failure that Russia has brought on self by launching this conflict. So, I’m not sure what that refers to.QUESTION: Just to be clear, you want to see Russia lose the war? Is that &#8212;MR MILLER: And we want to see Ukraine win, which, by its very nature, means Russia losing the war.QUESTION: Why can’t you say that we don’t – we want to see &#8212;MR MILLER: We want to see – look, so we would rather see Russia just end of war. So, I think we’re – I’m not sure how we got into this semantic argument about this. But I think our position on who we want to see win this war and who we want to see lose it has been pretty clear for more than two years now.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to get your comments on former Deputy Secretary Toria Nuland’s interview last night, in which she urged the administration to lift all the restrictions, including the use of weapons inside Russia, in which she says, actually, Russia is a beneficiary of our hesitation.MR MILLER: So, I don’t have any comment on that, other than that our policy hasn’t changed. And with that, we’ll end for &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, go.QUESTION: I got two more, completely different, and they’ll be extremely brief.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead – go ahead, and then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: One on Congo. Do you know anything about these American – these three Americans who – one dead and two arrested – who are allegedly involved in this apparent coup attempt?MR MILLER: So, a few things about that. First of all, just as a policy statement, we condemn the armed attacks on the residence of the National Assembly deputy and the national palace, and denounce political violence in all forms. And we are extremely concerned by the reports of involvement by U.S. citizens. We are closely monitoring the situation, and we will cooperate with DRC authorities to the fullest extent possible to investigate.With respect to involvement of U.S. citizens – so first of all, with respect to the individual who has – is deceased, we do not have any record of him being a United States citizen. With respect to the other two who have been reported to be United States citizens, who are reported to be in custody, because of privacy restrictions that you all are well familiar with, I can’t comment on those cases in detail – other than to say that whenever a United States citizen is arrested overseas, we seek consular access, and we would do that in any circumstance.QUESTION: So – but so – but you have sought consular access for these people who are reported to be &#8212;MR MILLER: So, I don’t know if I can say that without violating the privacy rules. In every &#8212;QUESTION: Well, either you have or you haven’t, whether &#8212;MR MILLER: Well, but you – but you know the rule, which &#8212;QUESTION: You’ve been told – I get it, but &#8212;MR MILLER: We have to go get a privacy waiver before we can say that. It’s – I know it’s silly, but it’s apparently the law, so I ought to follow it.QUESTION: You have to go get a Privacy Act waiver even – even before you – have the Congolese notified you &#8212;MR MILLER: Before speaking to &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that there are two American citizens who have been arrested?MR MILLER: So due to these privacy restrictions, there’s not much more I can say today.QUESTION: They have to do it –MR MILLER: Hold on.QUESTION: under the Vienna Convention &#8212;MR MILLER: But I – but I hope to be able to say more, as we often are able to do in these cases &#8212;QUESTION: All right. And then &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; as we work through these issues.QUESTION: And then on the guy who apparently died, what do you mean you don’t have any record of him being a U.S. citizen?MR MILLER: We don’t have a record of him being a U.S. citizen.QUESTION: How about an LPR? How about &#8212;MR MILLER: So often that – oftentimes that’s harder to establish, if someone’s an LPR or not, the different ways to look at the question – we don’t – but I – so – but I can say with respect to citizenship, we do not believe – we do not believe, do not have any record of him being a citizen.QUESTION: Okay. And then on the other question, which is about Syria, do you have anything to say about the death of an American citizen in Syrian – in Syria over the – apparently – or it was just announced over the weekend. Do you &#8212;MR MILLER: So, first of all, we saw the statement the Kamalmaz family put out over the weekend, and our hearts go out to them at this difficult time. I will just say that we have engaged extensively to try to bring Majd Kamalmaz home, and we remain committed to seeking a full – seeking a full accounting of his fate.With that, we’ll wrap &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: One more, yeah, and then we’ll &#8212;QUESTION: Can you just clarify? He – was he – he was never determined wrongfully detained. Can you say what status he was given, if anything?MR MILLER: So, he wasn’t determined to be wrongfully detained. I don’t have a full understanding of it; I know that some of it has to do with not being – not being acknowledged by the Syrian Government. And so, it has to do with a status that he had already been assigned before the Levinson Act passed. Some of this gets into bureaucratic questions, but it did not change our work to try to seek a full accounting for his status, and that work continues.So, with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 p.m.)# # #if one of the parties to the conflict is a signatory of the statute. ↑						Tags																					China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								India																								Iran																								Israel																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Syria																								Ukraine
- Marking 29 Years Since the Panchen Lama’s Disappearance Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson													HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Marking 29 Years Since the Panchen Lama’s Disappearance				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();			}		});	}																										Marking 29 Years Since the Panchen Lama’s Disappearance																																		Press Statement																														May 17, 2024																																							Today marks 29 years since the People’s Republic of China (PRC) abducted the 11th Panchen Lama, one of the most important figures in Tibetan Buddhism, as a six-year-old child.&nbsp; Gedhun Choekyi Nyima remains missing and has not appeared in public since that day.&nbsp; The PRC government is denying members of the Tibetan community access to this important religious figure and instead continues to promote a state-selected proxy.&nbsp;The United States supports Tibetans’ human rights and their exercise of those rights in connection with their distinct religious, cultural, and linguistic identity. Tibetans, like members of all religious communities, should have the ability to select, educate, and venerate their own leaders, like the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, according to their own beliefs and without government interference.&nbsp;We urge PRC authorities to immediately account for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima’s whereabouts and well-being and to allow him to fully exercise his human rights in line with the PRC’s international commitments.&nbsp;&nbsp;						Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								China																																Human Rights																															Office of International Religious Freedom																								Office of the Spokesperson																																Religious Freedom																															Tibet
- Department Press Briefing – May 16, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 16, 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 16, 2024																																																					May 16, 2024																																																								1:04 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Good afternoon, Vedant.MR PATEL: I have one very brief thing at the top, and then I’m happy to dive right into questions. So let’s start with an update to the humanitarian response in Gaza and our efforts to move aid via the humanitarian maritime corridor. The temporary pier is now in place and affixed, and we expect assistance to flow through this route in the coming days. The temporary pier – part of the humanitarian maritime corridor – is additive to the other routes and will assist humanitarian organizations providing lifesaving assistance.Aid is arriving in Cyprus. It will be screened for loading onto ships for delivery to Gaza, where humanitarian organizations, including trusted USAID and U.S. Government partners, will determine how to ensure they reach those in need, accordance to humanitarian principles.Although this is a new mechanism of assistance for Gaza, more, of course, must be done. Humanitarian conditions on the ground continue to deteriorate, and vital border crossings have closed at a time when moving more aid is critical. We are working tirelessly to surge assistance through all available means to address the impacts of this crisis.That’s why the U.S. established a humanitarian maritime corridor – to augment, not replace, ongoing efforts to scale the delivery of humanitarian aid by land. So let me be clear – we continue to press for all border crossings to be open for overland deliveries of aid. But more must be done to address the scale of need.We have and will continue to press Israel and other partners in the region to allow for – to ensure the safety of humanitarian actors and activities, open additional land crossings, and remove impediments to the delivery of humanitarian aid, and do more to make sure that aid can get to the places that it needs to go.So with that, Shaun, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Sure. Let me start with the pier.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: The UN – your counterpart at the UN was saying today that they’re still looking operationally in terms of how to deliver the aid, that there are concerns about safety, about the logistics – I’m paraphrasing – of particularly of the UN workers there in Gaza even if aid comes off the pier. Do you think these can be sorted out? I mean, I know that the pier was anchored today, but are you confident that delivery can actually happen and those issues will be sorted out?MR PATEL: Absolutely. So we intend to work with the totality of the UN family to make sure that aid can get to where it needs to go. Specifically, Shaun, after the commodities are ashore, the UN, through the Logistics Cluster, will receive the aid for humanitarian organizations, including ones that I just said, that are trusted partners of the U.S. Government to distribute aid inside Gaza.QUESTION: But you think they do have those safety assurances, that they’re ready to go as far as the U.S. is concerned?MR PATEL: We’re continuing to have those conversations. From our point of view, we believe that this is ready to go and for aid to start flowing as soon as possible.QUESTION: And on a similar note, Rafah, of course – and I know you – you spoke of opening &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the Rafah crossing, and you spoke about opening further crossings. Prime Minister Netanyahu – I think it was yesterday – had some choice words for Egypt and that Egypt needs to act to open it. Egypt and – also has responded quite forcefully, saying that basically truck drivers don’t really want to go essentially through an Israeli checkpoint to get in. How confident are you that these issues get resolved? Is the U.S. trying to do anything to solve this?MR PATEL: Well, we’re certainly confident that they can be resolved, because they have been resolved at various instances over the course of this conflict. The U.S. supports Israel’s right to defend itself and support taking every feasible measure to protect civilians. We are – continue to be concerned that travel and the flow of fuel, of aid into Gaza via Rafah has come to a complete halt.But we are continuing to work with the Government of Egypt, with the Government of Israel to do everything we can to make sure that this gets open as soon as possible. You’ve heard me talk a little bit about this before, that there are, of course, legitimate security and operational concerns that are legitimate, and we’re continuing to work through those processes.QUESTION: And do you – I mean, basically do you think – do you agree that Egypt should just open it up? Or do you think it’s more complicated than that? Or is there any work that needs to be done?MR PATEL: Obviously, Shaun, it is more complicated than just a simple they should just open it up. But this is something that we’re continuing to work directly with our partners in Egypt and our partners in Israel. There are, obviously, legitimate issues that need to be ironed out. The important thing is – and this is something we know that our partners in Israel and our partners in Egypt understand – Rafah is an important conduit for aid, for fuel. And for every day that it is closed that is aid and fuel not getting in through that conduit.QUESTION: Just one more.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’ll pass it on. But just wondering if you have any reaction to the Arab League emergency meeting, their two main takeaways. One, they want a regional summit or the peace conference on what’s going on now, and also speaking of UN-backed peacekeepers in the Palestinian territories.MR PATEL: So let me say a couple things on that, Shaun. First, in terms of any summit, I don&#8217;t have anything to offer there, beyond saying this is something that we have engaged in regularly with our partners in the Arab world. You all are abreast of the engagements that the Secretary has, both in person as well the engagements he has over the phone. We’ll continue to talk directly with our partners in the Arab world.And as it relates to any security or peacekeeping force, we have, first and foremost, been focused on bringing a conclusion to this conflict. We have been having conversations with partners in the region about a post-conflict Gaza early on in this conflict. We’ve begun those conversations.Many partners, both in and out of the Arab world, share our concerns and share a willingness to play a constructive role when conditions allow. But there is a convergence on – among many of them that we need to see this conflict end, we need to see a ceasefire, we need to see hostages released, we need to see more humanitarian aid getting in, and we need to see the space for the diplomacy to happen to get us on a path for a Palestinian state and see some progress for the Palestinian people. So we’re going to work through that process first.QUESTION: On this, Vedant, if you don’t mind &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, Michel. I’ll come to you after.QUESTION: &#8212; but can you give us a more clearer answer if you support the deployment of UN forces in Gaza until the implementation of the two-state solution that the Arab summit called for today?MR PATEL: So we’ve seen the statement that’s coming out of the Arab summit. I just don’t have a conclusive assessment to offer yet, Michel.QUESTION: In general, do you support such deployment?MR PATEL: So, look, we – this is a – this is something that we know that Israel is focused on in working defeat Hamas. Candidly, the addition of additional security forces could potentially put that mission into compromise. But, again, I don’t want to get ahead of the process here. And we’re just now seeing what the statement that’s come out of this summit.Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Martin Griffiths warned today that famine was an immediate risk in Gaza with food stocks running out, said the humanitarian operation was completely stuck, the relief operation was unplannable, and said that the consequences of an operation in Rafah that everyone warned about are coming true. Do you agree with that assessment?MR PATEL: So we are deeply concerned about the reports indicating worsening conditions and imminent famine in Gaza. Israel needs to do more to urgently provide sustained and unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance to enter both northern and southern Gaza, including facilitating efforts to get the right type of assistance to the most vulnerable.We have been very clear about our position on a major military operation in Rafah. While we, of course, support Israel’s right to defend itself, we believe a major military operation in Rafah would be a mistake. We have not seen that happen yet, but we’re very concerned about an expanded operation in Rafah and what it could do to contributing towards the worsening humanitarian crisis. So we’ve – are going to continue to engage with our partners in Israel on this, discuss with them alternatives and other avenues, and we’ll continue to have that conversation.QUESTION: And do you have an updated number on aid trucks getting into Gaza?MR PATEL: So 228 trucks crossed into Gaza on May 15th, including 136 trucks from Jordan and Israel through Kerem Shalom and 92 trucks through Erez west. Additionally, the World Food Programme collected 55, 56 – sorry – 56 trucks worth of wheat flour at Erez west on May 15th.QUESTION: And then do you have any update on the group of American citizens who are doctors and medical professionals that had been stuck in Gaza since the closing of Rafah?MR PATEL: So we are – continue to be aware of the reports of U.S. citizen doctors currently unable to leave Gaza. We, of course, continue to be concerned about their safety and well-being as we are the safety and well-being of all U.S. citizens in Gaza.As you’ve heard me say, this is a very complex situation. This is not a border crossing – specifically, the Rafah one – it is not one that the United States controls, but we are actively engaged with the relevant authorities to advocate for their safe departure from Gaza. We’re continuing to have those conversations. We’re in direct touch with these doctors and the group that they are apart, as well as their families.Olivia.QUESTION: On the humanitarian front &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; I just want to re-pose this question, given your exchange just now with Daphne. I mean, it was a few days after the World Central Kitchen strike on April 1st. Both the President and the Secretary have said that a change in U.S. policy would come if Israel didn’t improve the humanitarian aid front. So it’s a month and a half later. Are there any consequences being thought about, considered by the administration, specifically in response to the humanitarian aid problem?MR PATEL: Well, Olivia, I think it’s important to remember – and you were here when Ambassador Satterfield came to this briefing. Actually, I’m not sure you were here.QUESTION: I was not here. Wait a minute &#8212;MR PATEL: You were not here. You were in Capri having a blast &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, yeah. Sure. (Laughter.)MR PATEL: &#8212; with the rest of the bullpen. When Ambassador Satterfield was here, he spoke about the progress that we have seen, did see in that time period when it came to sustained humanitarian assistance. There, of course, has been a bit of a regression, given in large part due to some of the kinetic activity that we have seen around Kerem Shalom, kinetic activity that we’ve seen around the Rafah border crossing. And that is understandable.But simultaneously, we continue to press and engage directly with the Egyptians, with the Israelis that we need to do everything we can to turn these border crossings on so that more sustained humanitarian aid can get into Gaza. And should we not see sustained progress, the President and the Secretary were quite clear, and that statement continues to ring true.QUESTION: Okay. I mean, just underscoring the fact that it was a month and a half ago – I understand there were some progress, but there was &#8212;MR PATEL:  There was progress.QUESTION: There was nothing sustained.MR PATEL: There was progress. And, again, it – because of – largely because of kinetic activity from Hamas, in fact, we have seen some of these border crossings unfortunately close. And we are working around the clock with our partners in Israel, with our partners in Egypt as it relates to the Rafah one especially, to do everything we can to turn those back on.QUESTION: But there’s no timeline or deadline that you are working with –MR PATEL: There was not a timeline or a deadline when we spoke – when we spoke about this at the beginning of April. This is a frank and direct –QUESTION: I think the word was “immediate” from &#8212;MR PATEL: This is a frank and direct conversation that we’ll continue to have with our partners in Israel, and we want to continue to see immediate and sustained flow. I obviously was able to provide some metrics here; we are seeing some positive steps in the right direction. The cooperation from a number of regional partners as it relates to the maritime corridor will, of course, be a positive step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more, and we intend to raise that if we don’t.QUESTION: Tangential but related, because the President and Secretary also stressed the importance of establishing a better deconfliction mechanism.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So where do Israel’s efforts on that stand, as you understand them?MR PATEL: So I spoke a little bit about this the other day. This is something we continue to need to see from our partners in Israel. It is critical that a cell is established to improve deconfliction when that is reflective of enabling open and transparent communication channels between the IDF and other humanitarian partners. And that is something that we’re going to continue to press them on.QUESTION: So just to be crystal clear, a deconfliction cell within the IDF does not currently exist?MR PATEL: So &#8212;QUESTION: Because we have pictures of Jack Lew getting a tour of something.MR PATEL: There has been progress in some of those spaces, but we still need to see more. And I’m happy to see if we have a breakdown of what exists currently and what doesn’t. And in fact, the IDF might be better suited to speak to efforts that they have in place versus not.QUESTION: I have one more with your and the press corps’ indulgence, just because the Secretary said yesterday that it was imperative that Israel come up with a clear and credible plan for post-war Gaza. Obviously, you’ve seen comments from the prime minister. In response to those, do you have any indication that the current Israeli Government – apart from the defense minister – is interested in crafting such a plan?MR PATEL: So whether there is a interest in crafting a plan or not, I will let it to our partners in Israel to speak to. What we know and what we feel ardently in the United States is that short of a plan that is reflective of a political process, that is reflective of a Gaza that is no longer under the control of Hamas and reunited under the Palestinian Authority, that is reflective of a Gaza that can no longer be used as a springboard for terrorism on the Israeli people, that we’re going to continue to be caught in this endless cycle of violence.And so that is exactly why Secretary Blinken has continued to engage in direct diplomacy with partners in Israel, with partners in other parts of the world, to get us onto that process to do everything possible to get us a ceasefire so conditions can be created for further diplomacy to happen to get us on a path to a two-state solution. Outside of that – outside of that, we will continue to find ourselves in this endless cycle of violence. Of course, we need military pressure to defeat Hamas, but there also needs to be a political process that is reflective of the broader concerns here.Yeah. Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On China and Russia, regarding the summit meeting between China and Russia, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin said in a statement from the summit that they oppose pressure on North Korea by the U.S. and its allies. How will expectation about influence change as China and Russia defend North Korea?MR PATEL: We’ve long felt that Russia and the PRC have a role to play in helping rein in and engage the DPRK when it comes to their provocative and reckless and malign and destabilizing behavior. We believe that Russia and the PRC have the capabilities and the channels and the relationships with the DPRK to do that directly through their own bilateral relationship, but also through multilateral fora like the Security Council as well.QUESTION: If Putin visit North Korea after his visit to China, the solidarity between North Korea and China and Russia will be further strengthened. How do you assess this?MR PATEL: So I don’t think it’s about the solidarity between the DPRK and the Russia being further strengthened or not. We know that the DPRK has and continues to provide material support to the Russian Federation for their aggression in Ukraine. And so we continue to condemn that kind of action, and we’ll continue to take appropriate action to hold actors accountable.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I just ask a little bit more broadly about that?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: About Putin and Xi?MR PATEL: Yeah, absolutely.QUESTION: What would you think of it? I mean, was there anything new? I mean, obviously they had met right before the war, maybe after. But what do you – do you see anything new about that? And in particular when it comes to Ukraine, President Xi made some talk about they don’t want escalation, et cetera. Do you see anything new there? How do you see this – this coming from &#8212;MR PATEL: So let me say a couple things, Shaun. First is that the People’s Republic of China cannot have its cake and eat it too. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t want to have good, further, stronger, deepened relationships with Europe and other countries while simultaneously continuing to fuel the biggest threat to European security in a long time. And the importance of this is not just a U.S. position; it is one that is shared by our partners in the G7, our partners at NATO, our partners in the EU. Fueling Russia’s defense industrial base, as the People’s Republic of China has, not only threatens Ukrainian security, it threatens European security, and Beijing can’t achieve better relations with Europe while also continuing to support something like that.I will often say that in just coming – coming down I saw something as it relates to what looked like a joint statement or some language coming out of this meeting that talked about, as you mentioned, concerns about de-escalation – sorry, concerns about escalation, wanting some kind of peace process or political solution to the conflict in Ukraine. From our point of view, the solution is simple: The Russian Federation can just leave Ukraine. It can leave the territories that it’s in in Ukraine, it can leave Crimea, and we’ll have our peaceful solution. But time and time and time again, President Putin and the Russian Federation has indicated that they are not interested in doing that.Go ahead, Anne.QUESTION: So if I could back to the aid workers, the medical workers in Gaza.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: You had mentioned that we don’t control the Rafah border crossing; that’s what’s complicated it. But Israel does control Kerem Shalom. Why can these workers not leave Kerem Shalom and Israel allow other aid workers in to replace them? Is the complication on Israel’s side or is it on our side, or &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s – first, it’s a complicated situation writ large.QUESTION: What are the complications?MR PATEL: There are varying factors that go into where foreign nationals can depart from Gaza or not. Kerem Shalom is also not a border crossing that the United States controls. But we are engaging and advocating directly with our partners in Israel, with our partners in Egypt, for their safe departure, and that continues to be around-the-clock effort. And I don’t – I’m not going to speak to it in more specificity – one, for privacy reasons, but also given security sensitivities as well.QUESTION: Okay. But if I could follow up to what Olivia was asking as well, is three weeks ago we had Ambassador Satterfield here saying we need to start doing more than just counting trucks. We’re still counting trucks. What is the consequence for not allowing medical aid workers in, which I would equate with humanitarian aid?MR PATEL: It absolutely is. We have been clear that humanitarian aid workers need to have access to Gaza to do the important work that they’re doing, whether it be medical or otherwise, or whether it be direct humanitarian workers who are directly involved in the flow of humanitarian aid. That continues to be the case here. It’s also important to remember that we are talking about American citizens. We’re also talking about this in the context of a consular issue. And so while it is great that they are humanitarian aid workers doing important work, they are American citizens also; they’re American citizen first. And so we’re talking about a consular issue and doing everything we can to make sure that we can get them to safety. That being said, we continue to believe that those working in this field of humanitarian aid and humanitarian issues need to have unimpeded access to do this important work.Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Following up on these humanitarian aid questions in Gaza, so in the NSM report you say that Israel is not deliberately – deliberately restricting aid, but you also say today, like, you continue to press Israel to allow entry of more humanitarian aid into Gaza. So if Israel is not restricting aid, then what prevents Israel from allowing more aid in to Gaza – to do land crossings, considering that these land crossings are under Israeli control?MR PATEL: So Rabia, there are, of course, legitimate logistical concerns and legitimate security challenges that sometimes need to be worked through. Let’s remember that one of the reasons that the aid was throttled from Kerem Shalom last week was because of kinetic activity from Hamas, Hamas attacking Kerem Shalom and the surrounding region. So there are some of these legitimate security concerns that we need to work through. We – Israel has every right to its security and to ensure that the aid that is flowing within Gaza is flowing in a secure way, in a way that does not compromise their security further. We’re continuing to work with them through these processes. But that being said, we have been explicit that more needs to be done to augment humanitarian aid efforts, especially through these land crossings.QUESTION: So Israel – Israeli is not doing enough, but you still think that they are not deliberately restricting the aid?MR PATEL: So I think I was pretty clear when I think you asked this question just the other day, which is that more absolutely can be done to enhance the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, but we have not seen any restriction or stoppage of humanitarian aid by Israel. Aid is flowing into Gaza. I just gave your colleague some metrics about aid that has – that was flowing yesterday, and we’ll continue to provide updates as frequently as we can.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Sorry for being late.MR PATEL: No, you’re good.QUESTION: Very quickly on the aid – I don’t know, maybe you touched upon it – are you aware that the Israelis or Israeli settlers have destroyed or stopped five trucks from going in?MR PATEL: I’ve seen some of those reports, Said. I don’t – I can’t offer &#8212;QUESTION: That the Jordanians have sent, yeah.MR PATEL: I’ve seen some of those reports, Said. I can’t offer a technical assessment of where those trucks are in their path or their flow to their ultimate end point, or whether that aid was able to be rerouted or not. What I can say, though, is that humanitarian aid must not and cannot be restricted, stopped, or interfered with, and our partners in Israel need to do more to hold actors like this accountable when action is taken that is inconsistent with what we know is important, which is getting more humanitarian aid into Gaza.QUESTION: So what is your position on the Rafah crossing at the present time? The status of the Rafah crossing – what is &#8212;MR PATEL: So we just spent a lot of time talking about Rafah.QUESTION: Apologies.MR PATEL: I know you were tardy.QUESTION: Okay, then &#8212;MR PATEL: But I – if you – I will encapsulate it briefly for you,QUESTION: I’ll look it up. Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; which is that we need – we are working around the clock with our partners in Egypt and Israel to do everything we can to get the Rafah crossing open. Due to it being closed, unfortunately, there has been a stoppage of aid and fuel flowing into Gaza via Rafah. There are some legitimate operational and security concerns and challenges that we’re continuing to work through, but we recognize how dire and how important it is that this crossing open as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And lastly, yesterday marked the 76th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, and of course the Palestinians commemorated it in the shadow of the ongoing war in Gaza, so incredible enough not only that the issue was not resolved over a period of 76 years, but there is a second Nakba ongoing. I mean, there is the movement of people – 600,000 here and 600,000 there and so on – and I remember what the Secretary of State just said before October 7th, that the time has come for the Palestinian to live in a measure of dignity much like the Israelis and so on. So has the time come to really end this Nakba and allow the Palestinian the measure of dignity that the Secretary talked about in their own land and end this occupation?MR PATEL: We’re working around the clock – Said, we’re working around the clock to make it so. We are committed to reaching an immediate ceasefire here that secures the release of hostages and allows the surge of humanitarian aid. In addition to that, we believe that such a ceasefire could create the diplomatic conditions for further serious progress to be made – talking about Israel’s further integration in the Middle East, talking about putting the region on a pathway to a two-state solution – so that Israelis and Palestinians can live those equal measures of justice, dignity, and peace. We have not taken our eyes off the ball here, which is a – ultimately a two-state solution so we can get to that ultimate goal.QUESTION: So you feel that the time has come to end this Palestinian Nakba?MR PATEL: Said, what I can say is that we have long been and continue to be committed to a two-state solution and we’re working around the clock at it.QUESTION: But it’s a simple question.MR PATEL: I’m not – not &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, this is an ongoing catastrophe. Has the time come to end it? It’s very simple.MR PATEL: I do not – Said, I do not dispute the suffering of the Palestinian people and that their current experiences that the Palestinian are facing, not just in Gaza but living under occupation in the West Bank – I’m not trying to dispute that at all. What I am saying is that we are continuing to work around the clock to get us a conclusion of the current hostilities and get us on a path to further diplomacy, get us to a two-state solution. That’s what the Secretary is deeply committed to, as is President Biden.QUESTION: I’m sorry, but the current hostilities are rooted in a catastrophe that has been going on for 60 – 76 years. It’s not &#8212;MR PATEL: The current hostilities – the current hostilities &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not something just happened &#8212;MR PATEL: Respectfully, Said, the current hostilities are rooted in Hamas unleashing a terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; rooted in their vision of ensuring that Israel is eliminated from the face of the planet.QUESTION: It’s not rooted in what happened in 1948?MR PATEL: Hamas has been very clear about what their intentions are.QUESTION: No, I’m talking about Hamas.MR PATEL: I’m going to &#8212;QUESTION: I’m talking about that this issue has gone on for 76 years. I just want you to acknowledge that. The issue has been going for 76 years and not just – it did not begin on October 7th.MR PATEL: I think we’ve exhausted this topic, Said.Go ahead. Yeah, you. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Daniele Compatangelo for the Italian television LA7.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: So if you can talk a little bit more about the meeting with – between Xi Jinping and president – and Mr. Putin, regarding also the sanctions that the U.S. today or yesterday the President announced.MR PATEL: Don’t think they were sanctions.QUESTION: Pardon me?MR PATEL: They were not sanctions.QUESTION: I mean, for import and export to the U.S. is &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah. We call them tariffs.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. If you can talk a little bit more about that, and then I have another question &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure. So where would you like me to start specifically?QUESTION: From the first part about – let’s start from the meeting.MR PATEL: So as it relates to the meeting between President Xi and President Putin, I think I exhausted that topic with Shaun, but I will just say again that in our view, the People’s Republic of China can’t have it both ways. You can’t purport to claim to want to deepen and strengthen your relationships with Europe while continuing to fuel one of the biggest threats to European security in many, many decades.As it relates to the announcement of tariffs earlier this week, you’re seeing the President take action to protect American workers and businesses from what we believe to be China’s unfair trade practices. American workers and businesses can outcompete anybody as long as the competition is fair, but for too long the PRC has been playing by a different set of rules, using unfair and anti-competitive economic practices. So we – what this is is working with our allies to join forces in outcompeting China by building alliances abroad and producing jobs here at home.Go ahead.QUESTION: And if I can do a follow-up question about what you just said?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I don’t know if you are aware of recent – Italy signed some sort of agreement with the Chinese, and the President Xi Jinping was in Europe in last week. And the Chinese &#8212;MR PATEL: Who – who signed an agreement? Sorry.QUESTION: Also Italy – in Italy. In Italy &#8212;MR PATEL: Uh-huh, right. Correct. Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Chinese electric car will be start being imported, I believe next year. So how do – how does the U.S. try to manage – I mean, the Chinese that trying to have business with Europe as a – because they have to, and then also the trying to put their nose in Ukraine, so it looks like they’re trying to &#8212;MR PATEL: So look, let me just say this, and the U.S. – the United States – is not, of course, party to this, but we welcome investment and trade that promotes sustainable and responsible development and growth. But we continue to urge in all cases the need to emphasize transparency, sustainable financing, sustainable practices, and preservation of national and data security to ensure mutual benefit for the United States, Italy, and other partners. And that is something we have not always seen as it relates to investments and trade practices by the People’s Republic of China in countries around the world.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. Just back on the Putin-Xi meeting.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary went to China recently and expressed concerns over its growing cooperation with Russia, and yet this meeting is happening now, and they pledged a new era of partnership. Are you concerned that the trip was an unsuccessful attempt to stem this relationship, and is there anything more you can do to put the brakes on it?MR PATEL: So absolutely not. The trip was not unsuccessful. You have to remember that our engagements with the People’s Republic of China is multifaceted, and one of the key components of this, of the Secretary’s visit, was to build on some of the key deliverables that came out of President Biden and President Xi’s Woodside Summit. We’re talking about enhancing cooperation on fentanyl, additional military-to-military communication, collaboration in other areas. And we think – not we think – we know that focusing on those issues continues to allow us to manage this relationship responsibly, manage competition responsibly, which is what the world expects of international powers.That being said, sure we also believe that the People’s Republic of China’s essential reconstitution of Russia’s defense industrial base is deeply problematic. And we will monitor this space closely and take appropriate actions independently through other multilateral fora should we need. And we continue to say directly and we have – the Secretary has been direct on this with his counterparts that the PRC cannot have it both ways.QUESTION: Sorry, what sort of actions?MR PATEL: I’m saying we stand ready to take additional actions should – necessary as it relates to the PRC and any entities for their further support of Russia and its aggression in Ukraine.QUESTION: So what sort of actions? Can &#8212;MR PATEL: So I think I’m not going to preview actions from up here, Daphne. I think you’ve been covering the department long enough to know that. But the United States has a number of tools at its disposal to hold folks accountable.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On Ukraine, going back to Secretary’s trip, he’s back. I was if you could give us some – sort of his firsthand assessment and his level of concern on the situation in Kharkiv, how – just how serious it has become during the past couple of hours.MR PATEL: So we’ve – we spoke a little bit about this earlier this week, Alex. Obviously the situation is incredibly dire. We know that this is a challenging time, but we are sure that military aid is also going to make a real difference on the battlefield. The Secretary yesterday announced $2 billion in additional assistance in Foreign Military Financing to establish not just the Ukraine defense enterprise program and further enhance Ukraine’s capability to defend against Russia and its continued assault as well.QUESTION: Thank you. A few on Russia, if I may. The case of Gordon Black. There are reports on Russian media that he pleaded guilty. I don’t want to dignify everything they said, but they said he – he accused – he was accused of stealing from his girlfriend, but he admitted that. Is there any development on your end, any consular access &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s – there continues to be a limit to what I can say, Alex, given privacy considerations. This is a circumstance in which the department is continuing to seek consular access. We have not been able to obtain it yet, but when any American citizen is detained abroad, we ensure to do everything possible. We take their security and safety incredibly seriously. And most importantly, we continue to press for consular access, and that &#8212;QUESTION: So Russians have denied by now &#8212;MR PATEL: As I’ve said, we are continuing to seek consular access.QUESTION: On the case of Alsu Kurmasheva &#8212;MR PATEL: Olivia has had her hand up. I’m going to &#8212;QUESTION: Just one more follow-up from me. This &#8212;MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead.QUESTION: Alsu Kurmasheva. This week marks, as you know, seven months since her wrongful detention. Any update on her case?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you specifically, Alex, but we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas. We continue to remain deeply concerned about Alsu’s case, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate and repress journalists and civil society voices.QUESTION: The President of the United States is on the record twice calling Putin to release her. How do you expect her captor – someone like Putin – to take him seriously if his own State Department is slow-walking the process?MR PATEL: I would dispute that premise, Alex. We are certainly not slow-walking the process. There is a deliberative process at play here in terms of any formal wrongful detention designation. But we would echo the President in that she should be released.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one – thank you. A follow-up on Ukraine.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Because while in Kyiv, the Secretary was asked about conditions that this administration has imposed on American weapons being sent to Ukraine, namely that they not be used to strike in Russian territory. The Secretary said that the U.S. had not enabled or encouraged such attacks, but then added that it was up to the Ukrainians to decide how to conduct this war. And to some that sounded like it might have been a loosening of this policy, so I just wanted you to clarify whether there has been any change in how the U.S. is thinking about the weapons that it’s sending to the Ukrainians. Could they be used to strike beyond Ukrainian territory?MR PATEL: So certainly not a policy change. Our policy has not changed, and the Secretary was clear about this. We do not encourage or enable strikes on Russian territory, but repeatedly we’ve also said that Ukraine ultimately makes its own decisions about its military strikes and its operations, and that continues to be the case.QUESTION: Would they face consequences if they used American weapons to strike &#8212;MR PATEL: You know how I feel about hypotheticals, Olivia, so I’m just going to leave it at that.Go ahead. You’ve had your hand up in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Mark Stone from Sky News.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: If I could just take a step back on Gaza &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; how have we got to a place where families, children, are now being displaced multiple times? The borders are hardly open. Heavy bombing and fighting has returned to the north of Gaza and to central Gaza. How have we got here?MR PATEL: Well, we got here in large part because of Hamas’s continued belligerence and their continued choice to use civilians as human shields, and their choice to &#8212;QUESTION: But how long can you – how long – if I can interrupt, how long can you only blame Hamas for this? Because that seems to be what you do an awful lot. Hamas should take a huge amount of blame, of course. What about the other side?MR PATEL: We have been – when – we have been very clear – and I have been clear from this podium, as has the Secretary and has Matt – when Israel or any partner or any ally has done something that we have felt not met the mark or when we have seen actions that are inconsistent with our values or seen actions that are inconsistent with our goal for the region, we have not hesitated to speak to them. So I kind of reject the – your premise there.And as it relates to blaming Hamas, let’s not forget that, again, Hamas is a terrorist organization; they have stated it is their intent to destroy Israel, to erase Israel off the face of the planet. They’ve also said that they would like to conduct an October 7th over and over again if they could. And when we talk about ending this conflict, it is Hamas that has continued to move the goalposts. It is Hamas that has continued to not take the deals that have been on the table that would have allowed for this conflict to reach a ceasefire, that would have allowed for hostages to be released.QUESTION: So if I can follow up, the premise of your answer seems to be – your first answer – seems to be that the Americans have been talking, have been influencing. What are American words worth these days? What is American influence worth?MR PATEL: I think American influence is worth quite a bit, and it is because of American engagement and American leadership and American diplomacy, specifically by this Secretary and by this President, that we have seen things unfold in a certain way. We have seen humanitarian aid be unlocked; we have seen things like this new maritime corridor be accomplished.QUESTION: Yes, but despite all that &#8212;MR PATEL: I am certainly not trying to say that it is enough, but it is a step in the right direction. Let’s not forget that at the beginning of this conflict, there was close to little humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza at all, and it is because of Secretary Blinken and President Biden that we are trending in a different direction.QUESTION: We’re not. And it’s going backwards. The fighting has returned. The borders have shut. People are being displaced repeatedly. Things are plainly going backwards, not forwards.MR PATEL: We have been clear that there needs to be some progress made as it relates to some backwards steps in the past couple of weeks, but there has been a sustained period in which we saw an increase of humanitarian aid, and we’re continuing to work that directly.Nick, go ahead.QUESTION: On Cuba.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: State removed Cuba from the list of countries not fully cooperating against terrorism.MR PATEL: That’s right.QUESTION: Can you explain a little of that rationale? And also, is this a prelude to Cuba no longer being considered a state sponsor of terror?MR PATEL: Let me start with that second part first. So the designation of a state sponsor of terrorism is a totally separate process from an NFCC certification. There have been countries certified as NFCCs without being designated as state sponsors of terrorism, and vice versa. U.S. law establishes specific statutory criteria for rescinding any state sponsor of terrorism designation, and any review of Cuba’s status on this would need to be based on the law and the criteria established by Congress.So to take a step back on this NFCC progress, the – process, sorry – the department determined that the circumstances for Cuba’s certifications as not fully cooperating country have changed from 2022 to 2023. First, Cuba’s refusal to engage with Colombia on extradition requests for National Liberation Army members supported Cuba’s NFCC certification for 2022. In August of 2022, pursuant to an order from Colombian President Petro, Colombia’s attorney general announced that arrest warrant would be suspended against 17 ELN commanders, including those whose extradition Colombia had previously requested from Cuba. Moreover, the U.S. and Cuba resumed law enforcement cooperation in 2023, including on counterterrorism. Therefore, we’ve determined that Cuba’s continued certification as a not fully cooperating country was no longer appropriate. I will also tell you that just since you’ve given me the opportunity, Nick, sales of defense articles to Cuba will continue to be restricted under Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act given Cuba’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, Cuba remains subject to a incredibly comprehensive embargo still.QUESTION: Can I just follow up that?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: I mean, Pompeo when he added Cuba back to the list, he explicitly raised the ELN issue as a reason that it was being added to the state sponsor of terror. I realize there’s a different process for that, but the Cubans have said that this is a political decision to keep them as a state sponsor. I mean, are – is it? I mean, is it? How can they still be considered a state sponsor of terrorism if they are cooperating on counterterrorism, as this report says?MR PATEL: So you can still – you can be a cooperator on counterterrorism, but we still believe that there are actions that they are undertaking that of the support of terrorist activities. I’m not going to get into those specifically from up here. But again, Shaun, should any statutory criteria change on rescinding the SST designation, we would work on that based on the law and the criteria established by Congress.QUESTION: Can you just say is there anything specifically you need them to do to remove that state sponsor of terrorism?MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to the deliberative process on that from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. No, no – him. Yes, you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Vedant. Thank you. After the meeting with the visiting Assistant Secretary Donald Lu, Bangladesh’s ruling prime minister advisor told the reporters that White House and the State Departments are very much willing to remove the sanctions as U.S. imposed sanction on RAB, Rapid Action Battalion, for the extreme violation of human rights and extrajudicial killing. So he said that the State Department and White House working to remove the sanctions, but &#8212;MR PATEL: Those claims are false. The U.S. is not withdrawing sanctions against the RAB. Those claims are false. Sanctions are intended to change behavior and promote accountability.Jackson.QUESTION: And one more. He said that &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to work the – I have a hard out so I’m trying to get to as many people I can.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: So first, can you confirm that the administration has notified Congress of a $1 billion arms package for Israel?MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to arms transfers that have not been formally notified to Congress. I wouldn’t speak to those from up here.QUESTION: And when will aid begin going through the pier?MR PATEL: You missed my topper, Jackson. You were late.QUESTION: Yeah, and I – and I apologize for being late.MR PATEL: Yeah. So I – what I had said at the beginning was we hope that aid will begin flowing very soon. It will be prescreened in Cyprus and then on its way to Gaza.QUESTION: And finally, what’s your reaction to South Africa telling the ICJ that Israel’s, quote, “genocide has continued at pace and has reached a new and horrific stage,” end quote?MR PATEL: We have been pretty clear about the fact that we do not believe that what is happening in Gaza is genocide, and we continue to believe that those claims are unwarranted and false.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Two questions on Türkiye.MR PATEL: Okay.QUESTION: Today, a Turkish court convicted former leading officials from the pro-Kurdish HDP Party, including the jailed Kurdish leader, Selahattin Demirtas, to more than 40 years in prison for instigating the 2014 protest triggered by an Islamic State attack on the Syrian-Kurdish town of Kobani. I was wondering if the State Department has any comments on this verdict.MR PATEL: So we’re continuing to monitor that situation, Guita, but let me check with the team and see if we have anything more specific for you.QUESTION: Okay. One just follow-up, Michel.QUESTION: Yeah.QUESTION: It was just on the HDP.MR PATEL: We&#8217;ve got a little dynamic duo here. (Laughter.)QUESTION: It was included – it was included in the State Department’s 2023 Annual Human Rights Country Report in Section 3, Freedom to Participate in the Political Process. Do you think the verdict today is a violation of human rights?MR PATEL: So let me just say we will raise and discuss human rights with all of our partners bilaterally. That, of course, continues to include Türkiye. But again, on this specific situation, I’m going to check with the team before I offer anything more specific.Michel.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I have two questions.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Saudi conference has met today with the Syrian president in Bahrain. Are you okay with your allies normalizing their relations with the Assad regime or with President Assad?MR PATEL: We have been – our position is clear on this: we will not normalize relations with the Assad regime until there is meaningful progress towards a political solution consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We engage consistently with Arab League members, encouraging them to press and push the Assad regime to make meaningful change. We are, of course, skeptical for obvious reasons of the Assad regime’s willingness to take steps of what is necessary to resolve the serious crisis and take steps that are in the interest of the Syrian people, but we are aligned with our Arab partners on the ultimate objective here.QUESTION: And second, The Guardian has reported that the U.S. gave a greenlight to Saudi Arabia to revive a peace deal with the Houthis despite their ongoing attacks on commercial ships. Can you confirm that report?MR PATEL: That is completely inaccurate and reflective of Houthi propaganda. We’ve been clear and consistent: the U.S. supports peace in Yemen, but a peace agreement can only proceed after the Houthis stop their reckless attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and surrounding waterways. All of our partners are united around the need for Houthi attacks to cease before an agreement can be signed.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Go ahead in the blue.QUESTION: Thank you so much, Vedant. Igor Naimushin, RIA news agency. So regarding Ukraine and Russia, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his last visit to Kyiv stated that United States is set to use the power given by Congress to seize frozen Russian assets to Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. May I kindly ask you to clarify when the U.S. is up to start using assets? In what particular way? And what is the current status of discussions with other G7 members?MR PATEL: So I am certainly not going to assign a timeline to that. What I can say is that we’re continuing to consult closely with not just Congress but other G7 and European partners, ensuring that we’re looking at processes that are consistent with their legal system as well as consistent with ours, and I’m just going to leave it at that for now.Diyar, and then we’ve probably got to wrap today. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s visit to &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; Baghdad and Erbil. He was in Baghdad yesterday and met with the Iraqi prime minister and discussed the Iraqi energy independence from Iran. So are you satisfied with the Iraqi Government’s steps in this regard, and do you believe Iraq could achieve this energy independent from Iran soon?MR PATEL: So Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s visit reflects the important strides that we believe Iraq has made to secure its energy independence, and these efforts are important for Iraq and – for Iraq to end Iranian natural gas imports and to meet its climate commitments. Assistant Secretary Pyatt is also encouraging the federal government to better integrate the IKR’s gas resources into its overall energy independence plans. We believe that Iraq is making progress, and over the past decade Iraq has doubled its electricity generation. In March Iraq activated its electricity interconnection with Jordan. Gas capture projects are coming online this year. That will also significantly reduce Iraq’s need to import Iranian gas.QUESTION: Yeah. And it’s been a year that you are working on encouraging Iraq to resume the IKR oil exports to ITP. And what you announced in your statement – it said, “to offset decreases in Russian oil export... to Europe.” So why this hasn’t happened? Why you couldn’t convince the Iraqi Government to resume that oil export &#8212;MR PATEL: Look, we &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; as it matter to the energy supply, it’s matter to American companies, it’s matter to KRG.MR PATEL: We continue to engage directly – with officials in Baghdad, officials in Ankara, officials in Erbil, as well as with U.S. companies that are affected by the stoppage – on reopening the ITP pipeline, developing multiple routes for Iraqi energy to flow into global markets. It’s a common interest of ours.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Vedant, a follow-up?QUESTION: Can I also follow up?MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 1:54 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								China																								Cuba																								Egypt																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								South Africa																								Syria																								Ukraine																								Yemen
- Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; May 14, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; May 14, 2024																																																					May 14, 2024																																																								1:16 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: That was great; in unison again. I love it.I have one very brief thing off the top, and then happy to dive into your questions.So as many of you are tracking, Secretary Blinken is in Kyiv today. He just completed delivering remarks at Kyiv’s Sikorsky Polytechnic University. There he shared a very clear message to our partners in Ukraine, that they are not alone. In fact, the United States has been by Ukraine’s side from day one, and we will remain by Ukraine’s side until its security, sovereignty, and ability to choose its own path is guaranteed.About one year ago, the Secretary spoke in Helsinki – and I know some of you were on that trip – about how Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has proven to be a strategic failure for Russia. Today he is back in Kyiv, and spoke about Ukraine’s strategic success. The Secretary outlined how we are working together with Ukraine and a wide network of partners.First he talked about the recent passage of the $60 billion supplemental bill, and how it demonstrates what we’re doing – what we’re doing to help ensure Ukraine has the military it needs to succeed on the battlefield, and the military it needs to secure a just and lasting peace and deter future aggression. Second, he talked about what we’re doing to ensure Ukraine’s economy not only survives but thrives. And finally, he discussed how we’re helping the Ukrainian people realize their democratic aspirations.For decades, Putin has caused unspeakable grief for the people of Ukraine. And for the past 811 days, Ukrainians have denied Putin his goal of erasing Ukraine from the map and subjugating its people. The Secretary is in Kyiv to reaffirm what President Biden has said, which is that we want Ukraine to win, and we’re committing – committed to helping Ukraine to do just that. And with the support of the United States, our partners and allies, the Ukrainian people can and will achieve their vision for the future: a free, prosperous, and secure democracy, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community and fully in control of its own destiny.So with that, Shaun, do you want to kick us off today?QUESTION: Sure. First of all, you’re exactly on time starting us off, which is quite &#8212;MR PATEL: Try – I try to be – I try to be punctual, so yeah.QUESTION: Sure. I’m sure there are lots of things we want to ask about. Can I actually start on Georgia?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: The – I know there have been lots of statements over the – over recent days about what is happening there. But the parliament is actually – has actually pushed through the foreign entities law despite the mass protests and the warnings from the U.S. and the EU. Do you have any comment on that and how this would affect the relationship with the United States?MR PATEL: So we are aware of the status of this legislation. We’re continuing to watch closely about further developments in Georgia. Assistant Secretary Jim O’Brien is Tbilisi; he spent the day meeting with Georgian officials. And I imagine he’ll have more to say after the conclusion of his engagements.But you heard me talk a little bit about this yesterday: More than 80 percent of the Georgian people want EU membership, and we support that aspiration. We also know that the Georgian Government has said it wants to join the EU and have a relationship with a transatlantic organization such as NATO. This is something that is consistent with Georgia’s own constitution. But things like this legislation, they are inconsistent with that stated goal.So we value our relationship that – and partnership we have with Georgia, one that has existed for more than 30 years, and we would like to continue to deepen that collaboration. And there is still time to work collaboratively, but it’s our point of view that the Georgian Government needs to change course from the one that it’s on. But again, I imagine Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others will have more to talk about about their engagements.QUESTION: Okay. And just to clarify, “needs to change course” – that means on this law specifically and more broadly as well?MR PATEL: Right. So we have been clear that as it relates to this legislation, it is indicative of the kinds of things that we see in the Kremlin and elsewhere – legislation that targets civil society, legislation that targets media organizations, legislation that targets nonprofits. All of these things are not just inconsistent with the values that we have with the United States, but they’re also inconsistent with the aspirations of the Georgian people.QUESTION: Just to follow up very quickly.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: The briefing just ended in Tbilisi; James O’Brien just finished a briefing. And I don’t think the purpose of his visit in Tbilisi was achieved, based on what he said. He said again – he reiterated himself that if this law moves forward against the European standards and norms, the relationship between Washington and Tbilisi will be under review. So I don’t think the reason he was there was reached. He met with a member of the – the officials, he met the prime minister, he met the head of the parliament. When it comes to the actual internal mechanisms, there are no other mechanisms. The law is already passed at the parliament. So when you say that – do you really think that there is still room available for – they are not backing. They want to achieve the law.MR PATEL: So one of the things – one of the things Assistant Secretary O’Brien talked about was that if the law was revised, we have the opportunity to strengthen our partnership. So we continue to believe there are mechanisms and avenues that they can produce to make this law less inconsistent with the aspirations and values that they themselves are saying that they’re committed to through their constitution and through their own public posturing.QUESTION: How much is the Secretary monitoring, how much is he aware of what’s going on in Georgia? Has he been briefed?MR PATEL: He is absolutely staying in close touch with the team in Tbilisi, as well as in close touch with Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others. Obviously, we can brief and keep in touch with the Secretary as often as we need to.Yeah.QUESTION: And lastly – thank you, Vedant. Maybe lastly, I know you don’t preview any sanctions, any measures.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: But however, can you provide any clarity on what is at stake, what type of mechanisms will be putting forward?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to preview any sanctions or actions that the United States Government might take, but again, we have enjoyed a successful partnership and relationship with Georgia that has existed for more than 30 years, and we want to continue that work. And there is still time, in our opinion, to work collaboratively to do that.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Coming back &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: I’m going to come back. On this topic?QUESTION: Same topic, yes.MR PATEL: All right, Alex. I’m going to hold you to it. If you ask something off topic, I’m going to go somewhere else.QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much. Can you please confirm that oligarch Ivanishvili refused to meet with Assistant Secretary O’Brien, and why?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to the specific scheduling of the assistant secretary. Obviously, when he was on the ground, he met with a number of Georgian officials. I am sure he also engaged appropriately with other entities within Georgia as well as appropriate consultations with our embassy, but I don’t have his schedule more specifically than that.QUESTION: And do you have an update on American citizens that have been arrested yesterday?MR PATEL: I have no updates on that, Alex. We continue to be monitoring the situation. We’re aware of some arrests and detentions of American citizens in light of some of the protests that we’re seeing. Obviously, when an American citizen is detained anywhere, we do our best to request consular assistance and stand ready to provide all appropriate other assistance to the – any affected individuals.QUESTION: Given the fact itself that American citizens have been detained, do you have any call, any, let’s say, warning to American citizens in Georgia that they are in danger?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer as it relates to Travel Advisory warnings as it relates to Georgia, Alex, which would be the mechanism by which we do that.QUESTION: Thank you. Couple more &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to &#8212;QUESTION: Just to clarify a couple more things on the &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m going to – I’ll come back to you, I promise, Alex.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you so much.MR PATEL: I’ll come back to the front row. Shaun, anything else you had before we go to Daphne?QUESTION: I was going to change topics, unless you want to &#8212;QUESTION: I was going to go to Gaza.QUESTION: Gaza. Go ahead, do it &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. You said yesterday that you are aware of reports of U.S. citizens unable to leave Gaza. Do you have an update on how many, and any progress on that?MR PATEL: So I think specifically yesterday we were talking about the question as it relates to a group of American citizens who were doctors and medical professionals that have been stuck in Gaza since the closing of the Rafah border, so we’re continuing to monitor that situation. We’re aware of those reports. As I said yesterday, this isn’t a border crossing that we control, but we are continuing to engage directly and actively with the Governments of Israel, with the Governments of Egypt to advocate for their safe departure from Gaza. We believe that there is more that can be done here, and this is a – just another example of why it is so crucial and important that the Rafah border crossing be open, not just for the appropriate flow of humanitarian aid but also for the safe departure from – for foreign nationals.I will also – just want to use this opportunity to reiterate our advice to U.S. citizens to heed our Level Four Travel Advisory warning as it relates to Gaza. Given the fact that it is a region in armed conflict, the security environment within Gaza is extremely dangerous and volatile.QUESTION: And then on the aid, do you have an updated number on aid trucks getting into Gaza, and how much has Rafah being closed impacted that?MR PATEL: So a couple things. First, I just want to say as it relates to Rafah, the border crossing, we are continuing to do everything we can to ensure that the border crossing can be opened. Specifically, we’re engaging with the Governments of Israel, the Governments of Egypt to do so. When it comes to humanitarian aid, we are also specifically trying to do what we can to ensure that Kerem Shalom and other crossings are being utilized as a maximum throughput for some of this humanitarian aid. As it relates to aid that has been flowing this week, we’ve seen 50 trucks enter Gaza on May 12th. This is not nearly enough. More needs to be done, and it’s another example of why the Rafah border crossing needs to be opened, so we can see further, sustained humanitarian aid flow into Gaza.QUESTION: Okay. And has the Israeli Government been receptive on that? What’s been &#8212;MR PATEL: So I talked a little bit about this yesterday. In order for the Rafah border crossing to reopen, we need to see operational and some security circumstances which would allow it to make it safe to do so, and we’re continuing to have those conversations and engagements to make it so. But we continue to believe that it needs to be reopened as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And then has the U.S. finalized a deal with the UN to distribute the aid from the pier in Gaza? And where in Gaza will the UN take possession of the aid?MR PATEL: So as it relates to any role that the UN might play, I’d let my colleagues at the United Nations speak to that. And on the operational status of the JLOTS or the pier, I will just let the – my Department of Defense colleagues speak to some of the operational updates.QUESTION: So you can’t say if a deal has been reached?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on that.Go back to Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. Back on Gaza, the – still on Gaza, the Qatari prime minister today – I’m sure you saw his comments, but he was quite downbeat on the prospects for further negotiations and was blaming Israeli actions and words going to Rafah. I mean, do you still believe that talks are possible? Do you think – is diplomacy ongoing on this?MR PATEL: So we continue to believe that a hostage deal is the best way to save the lives of the hostages, avoid a full-scale military operation where more than a million people are sheltering. And despite reports of the contrary, talks continue to be ongoing and we’re continuing to do everything we can to focus on getting these conversations done.Look, to take a step back, we’ve long said that a ceasefire that is coupled with a deal to release all hostages, one that is coupled with the additional flow of humanitarian aid, is something that can help create the space for additional diplomacy in the region.QUESTION: And when you say talks are ongoing, does that mean like in virtual form or &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of – yeah.QUESTION: Not – I see. Could I ask you one other thing about Gaza?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: There was some attention – yesterday&#8217;s statement by the deputy secretary regarding Israel. He was speaking in Florida, Kurt Campbell, saying that – that Israelis talk of “sweeping victory in the battlefield, a total victory. I don’t think we believe that is likely or possible.” Another day before, the Secretary, Secretary Blinken, he said on one of the talk shows that it’s perhaps not possible for Israel to eliminate all of Hamas. Are they saying the same thing or – I mean, Kurt – Deputy Secretary Campbell’s remarks might have implied that perhaps there’s not – there’s not a possibility of victory in some form by Israel. Can you clarify what Deputy Secretary Campbell &#8212;MR PATEL: So what Secretary Blinken and also Deputy Secretary Campbell are talking about – to take a bit of a step back, the President and this administration have been clear that the U.S. wants to see Hamas defeated and we want to see justice delivered as it relates to the perpetrators of the October 7th terrorist attacks. There can be no equivocation on that.But while of course military pressure is necessary, it is not the only sufficient thing to fully defeat Hamas. If Israel’s efforts are not accompanied by a political plan for the future of Gaza, for the future of the Palestinian people, the terrorists will keep coming back and Israel will continue to remain under threat and we will continue to find ourselves in this continued cycle of violence.So what the Secretary and the deputy secretary are talking about how Israel has a responsibility to connect their military operation to a clear strategic endgame about a holistic, integrated strategy to ensure the lasting defeat of Hamas and for a better alternative future for Gaza – one that is consistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. We’re talking about things like a Gaza reunited under the Palestinian Authority, a Gaza that is not under the control of Hamas and can no longer be a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people; and we are talking about a region that in our hope has a negotiated two-state solution that is reflective of the will of the Israeli and Palestinian people. And that’s what we’re talking about here.QUESTION: I have some things on other topics, but I imagine they’ll come up &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure, I’ll work the room. Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Here I have a copy of my newspaper exactly 20 years ago, the 13th of May 2004, and in it I have my full interview with the then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in which she says, “Maybe by next May” – 2005 – “we’ll have a Palestinian state.” And the irony is I was probably here that day asking Richard Boucher about it later on. And the irony is had the United States kept – come through on its promises, we would not have October 7th, we would not have any of the dozen wars that the Israelis &#8212;MR PATEL: Said, are you trying to imply that &#8212;QUESTION: Let me finish – that Israel had waged on the Palestinians. And I’m asking you do you ever – guys, do you ever exercise introspection? Do you look back and say all this wreckage, all these problems, all these (inaudible) that you cast, all these rules at the UN, including last Friday, was it wise?MR PATEL: Said, I hope that you are not trying to imply that somehow the United States is responsible for October 7th, because there was only one perpetrator of the October 7th terror attack &#8212;QUESTION: You know quite well that is not exactly my point.MR PATEL: &#8212; and it’s Hamas. That’s &#8212;QUESTION: That is not my point, Vedant.MR PATEL: That’s – that doesn’t sound like the question that you’re asking.QUESTION: No. My question to you is do you ever reflect on all the promises that you guys have made – administration after administration after administration reiterating its commitment to the two-state solution – and you’ve never come through on that. Do you ever – do you ever reflect on that? That is my question.MR PATEL: Said, we are working tirelessly to make it so. It is the for the – this exact reason that the Secretary has been engaging in the shuttle diplomacy that he has, taking an unprecedented seven trips to the region to engage directly with Israeli officials and others in the region on getting a ceasefire, on getting a hostage deal, on getting additional humanitarian aid, so we can get to a place where the conditions are created for some additional diplomacy to happen, to get us to a two-state solution, to get us a region that is reflective of the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo, to get us to a region that is not caught up in this same cycle of violence.QUESTION: Well, let me ask you a couple more questions &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; if you allow me. Yesterday, you talked about human shields and how Hamas embeds itself and so on. Well, there is a report today – or yesterday – on how Hamas used – I mean how Israel, the Israeli occupation army, used Palestinian teenagers as human shields. I wonder if you are aware of the report. I wonder if you have any comment on it.MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports, Said, and we’re looking into these as well as other allegations. And you’ve heard me state repeatedly – and you’ve heard Matt and the Secretary say it also – Israel and any country has an obligation to thoroughly investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. I don’t have any other updates on this specifically, though.QUESTION: Yeah, and lastly, yesterday somebody said something about the number of Palestinians dead and so on, and the United Nations came out and corrected that. I hope that you’re aware of this report.MR PATEL: So I’ve seen that, Said, and I will just echo what you heard me say yesterday, that the bigger issue here is that thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. Any number above zero is heartbreaking, it’s tragic, and it is reflective of more needing to be done to mitigate civilian harm.Nadia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. As we speak now, there is almost 400,000 people forced to leave their homes from Rafah with no shelter, no food, no fuel, and no safe place to go. So how could this be different than the – your insistence, the administration’s insistence that we have to see a viable plan to evacuate people, because you’re doing it incrementally? What’s the difference between moving half a million people as we speak today? We don’t know if they’re going to move more later on. But basically, they’re doing in – on stages. So what difference for – from the position you were till now? I mean, it’s – the consequences are the same, aren’t they?MR PATEL: So Nadia, when we talk about a Rafah operation that we would take issue with, we’re talking about an operation that is major, that is a direct invasion into Rafah, that is targeting and invading into the urban and dense centers. Again, I will leave it to the IDF to speak to their own operation. We have yet to see a major operation into Rafah. But the concerns and criticisms that we have, those continue to persist, and it’s something that we are going to continue to work at with our partners in Israel. These are conversations that are ongoing.And to date, this operation has not happened in large part due to the ongoing conversations that we’ve been having with the Israelis. And again, just absent a credible plan to get civilians out of harm’s way, we’ve been clear that this is not a major military operation we’d support.QUESTION: But isn’t forcing half a million people to move with – forcing them to move out of Rafah to nowhere, where there’s nowhere is safe – isn’t it by itself a violation of international law?MR PATEL: So we have been pretty clear, Nadia, that there can be no forcible relocation of the Palestinian people. That continues &#8212;QUESTION: But if they stay, they’re going to die. I mean, they’re moving because they have to move.MR PATEL: That continues to be a tenet of our approach. But ultimately, we do support efforts to support Israel’s goal of dismantling Hamas. But like I said, we do not want to see a major operation into Rafah, and we have not seen one yet that we would take issue with.QUESTION: Okay &#8212;MR PATEL: We are continuing to have those conversations with our partners in Israel, though.QUESTION: Okay, two quick questions.MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: On the UN worker who was killed yesterday, the UN said that they clearly communicated to Israel where they moving, the exact movement, and yet one UN worker was killed, and that will bring the total to almost 250. Do you still believe that Israel is not targeting aid worker, considering what happened yesterday with a clear communication and what happened with the World Central Kitchen?MR PATEL: So the reports from yesterday evening, Nadia, are incredibly disturbing. And we are very concerned by what we’re seeing of the reported strike on a UN vehicle in Gaza that killed one aid worker and injured another. You’ve heard me say this before, you’ve heard the Secretary say it: UN and humanitarian workers must be protected, and they need to be able to continue their lifesaving work. And we join calls for a full investigation into this incident.I will also say that, in these kinds of circumstances, a viable medical evacuation process for humanitarian staff injured in military operations, accidents, or illness is also essential. I will also say around the specifics of this incident, we continue to be in contact with our partners to understand what transpired and how this happened. We still don’t have the full details, Nadia, but we expect Israel to follow through with the new IDF coordination cell for real-time humanitarian efforts. And we emphasize that there needs to be a focus on safeguarding designated sites, safeguarding aid personnel and civilians. And we urge Israel to expedite the deconfliction cell full operationalization, which we have not seen that yet.QUESTION: Okay, and finally, just to follow up what you told Said, you said that the administration work effortlessly to establish a Palestinian state, and you give example of the Secretary’s visit to the region.MR PATEL: We are working &#8212;QUESTION: You’re working towards it.MR PATEL: This is something we are working towards.QUESTION: Sure, you’re working towards that.MR PATEL: This is something that we remain deeply focused on, and it has been something that I know is a goal of this Secretary’s and a goal of this President’s.QUESTION: Yeah. I haven’t asked you my question yet.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So can you tell us before October 7, what exactly the administration did to make sure that the two-state solution is viable and they’re working on it?MR PATEL: Nadia, I’m happy to follow up with a clear list and – of actions that we’ve taken. But if you just want to look at the focus on this before October 7th – you’ve heard the Secretary talk about this previously before – before the October 7th terrorist attacks, many of you are aware the Secretary was intending to go to the region. He had a trip scheduled to visit Israel, to visit the West Bank, to visit Saudi Arabia and some other countries, to talk about these very issues, to talk about the issue of normalization, to talk about the issue of Israel’s further integration in the region, one that we hoped could be coupled with a two-state solution, one that could be coupled with serious progress for the Palestinian people.Obviously, this brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on the Israeli people derailed some of those efforts in the immediate term, but that is something we continue to remain focused on. And that is why you saw the Secretary, almost six months ago in Tokyo, lay out some clear principles of what the day after this conflict needs to look like and what we expect to see from our partners in Israel, from our partners in the Palestinian Authority, and other partners in the region.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Diyar. Actually, hold on, Diyar, real quick, because I &#8212;QUESTION: Switching to &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, anything else on Gaza before we go away?QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah.MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Would you – would the United States consider an all-out attack on Rafah as being a strategic error by Israel?MR PATEL: We would. We would. We would. We – we have not been – we have not parsed our words on the fact that a major ground operation into Rafah, one that does not address serious concerns of humanitarian aid, the serious concerns of more than a million people seeking refuge – and now we are seeing it – potential complications of the safe departure of foreign nationals – a plan that does not address these things we would take serious concern with.QUESTION: Do you have a &#8212;MR PATEL: We have yet to see any kind of major operation into Rafah.QUESTION: And we have Israeli politicians saying that they want to see Gaza being erased off the map. We have Israeli politicians saying that they are going to move back in and recolonize Gaza with the people of Gaza or not. Do you hear any echoes on that from language that you’ve used about other conflicts from that platform?MR PATEL: So we have been pretty clear that that kind of rhetoric has really no place in the discourse as we talk about this region of the world. I will also say that some of those things, they are inconsistent with what our viewpoints and beliefs are for the day after this conflict. We are not for a reoccupation of Gaza by Israel.Ultimately, what we want to see is a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority, a Gaza where Hamas is no longer a threat to the Israeli people, and a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard for terrorism. And that is what we are working towards.Rhetoric is simply that – it’s rhetoric. It’s a distraction, and sometimes the language and the verbiage and the word choice that is used is incredibly problematic. But that is not what we’re focused on. We’re focused on the facts and we’re focused on doing whatever we can to bring a conclusion to this conflict.QUESTION: Vedant?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. In light of President Biden’s decision last week to halt aid and munitions to Israel, what are President Biden’s reasons for criticizing Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East, for their use of munitions in their war with Hamas in Gaza but not criticizing Ukraine for their use of munitions in their war with Russia? And a couple of quick follow-ups.MR PATEL: I’m sorry. I didn’t fully understand that. What exactly are you asking?QUESTION: Well, the issue is dealing with Hamas and Iran as a greatest threat, and I just was wanting to know about the concern that many people have about the criticism of Israel versus the criticism with Ukraine.MR PATEL: So it is fully legitimate for the United States to be concerned about the use of certain security assets of ours in an urban and dense setting. It’s as simple as that. That does not mean we do not support efforts to defeat Hamas. That does not mean we don’t want to see Hamas being held accountable. But in the midst of all that, we also believe strongly that every step possible needs to be taken to minimize civilian casualties. And it is fully reasonable for the United States to feel strongly – and you heard me talk about this before; you heard the National Security Advisor say it yesterday – have concerns about certain security systems being used in dense and urban settings.And I will just say, again, that there is no comparison between Hamas and the security forces of Ukraine, and to even try and make that comparison is unacceptable. I will also just say that the Government of Ukraine, the security forces of Ukraine, did not commit or unleash a terrorist attack on Russian forces.QUESTION: Okay. A couple of quick follow-ups. Does President Biden believe that halting munitions to Israel will make it more likely for Hamas to stay in power in Gaza? And what is President Biden’s response to the exaggerated Gaza death statistics provided by Hamas?MR PATEL: So first, we have been pretty clear that we believe a major operation into Rafah will not – is not beneficial towards Israel’s security and it is not beneficial towards the ultimate goal of defeating Hamas. The Secretary was pretty clear about that this past weekend. We support efforts to defeat Hamas, but we continue to be in consultations with our partners in Israel about alternative ways to do that, including into Rafah.And I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your second one.QUESTION: What about President Biden’s response to the exaggerated Gaza death statistics provided by Hamas? I know that earlier you had made a comment here about there is a question about Hamas inflating their statistics.MR PATEL: Let me just be pretty clear about this – this has come up a couple times today – that the facts on the ground are pretty clear. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives, and any number above zero is tragic, problematic, heartbreaking, and indicative of the fact that more needs to be done to protect civilians in Gaza. It is also true that we are dealing with a belligerent, Hamas, that has a track record of co-locating itself and embedding itself within civilian infrastructure.Anything else on Gaza before we close out this topic?QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yes. Yes.QUESTION: Sorry, but on this one, can you clarify something?MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Is the number exaggerated or is the UN number – it’s based on the people they can prove &#8212;QUESTION: Identify.QUESTION: &#8212; actually that they have identified with – with the birth certificate, with ID, while others &#8212;MR PATEL: So I will &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; that’s added to the (inaudible) this number has not been identified.MR PATEL: Yeah. Nadia, I will leave it to the UN and OCHA to clarify any discrepancy that have &#8212;QUESTION: They did. They did that.QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s misleading from here to say it’s exaggerated.QUESTION: They did.MR PATEL: I’m not saying it’s exaggerated.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: Your colleague is. And you’re – frankly, that’s the way that this works. You all get to say whatever you want and then I have to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. Good. Just want to clarify that.MR PATEL: &#8212; I have a response. I – we have not – what I’m – what I am simply saying is that I will leave it to the UN and OCHA to offer any clarification on – I know that there has been some interest in how they’ve outlaid those numbers. I’ll let them speak to that.What I can say – and will just use this opportunity to reiterate it again – is that we’ve seen tens of thousands of civilians lose their lives, and that is unacceptable, that any number above zero is heartbreaking. We’re talking about women; we’re talking about children. And even those that – who have not lost their lives, many are starving, living in impoverished conditions. It’s unacceptable.Victor, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. You said we’re working on the two-state solution. Can you elaborate? In another word, do you have a plan for it? Or do you intend to introduce a plan? If not, why not?MR PATEL: This is something that we’re working around the clock. We, first and foremost, are trying to get a conclusion to this conflict. We’re trying to get a ceasefire, one that is rooted in the release of hostages and one that is rooted in the increase of additional humanitarian assistance, one that we hope can create the condition for further diplomacy. We’re also continuing to have conversations about other things, like the integration of Israel, the further integration of Israel in the Middle East, that we think can help and further contribute to our ultimate goal of the two-state solution. But I’m not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: You mean your plan? You’re working on your plan or their plan?MR PATEL: I am – we are working on a plan with the parties.QUESTION: With the party?MR PATEL: With the parties, to help us get to that end goal. This is not something new, Victor. This is something we have talking about pretty consistently. We have long believed that a two-state solution is necessary to get us out of this cycle of violence.QUESTION: But also &#8212;MR PATEL: And what October 7th showed us – and what October 7th showed us is that it can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, and that is why we also reiterated that Hamas can no longer be a springboard for terrorism; it can no longer be under – the leading entity within Gaza. And we need to see a Gaza that is reunited with the Palestinian Authority.Any &#8212;QUESTION: But also experience &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Quickly on – one more quick question on Georgia. I want to move to Ukraine, if I may.MR PATEL: Okay.QUESTION: Message to protesters. We have heard from European allies. They have all said – multiple statements actually came out and said that we hear you, we stand with you. Is there anything that prevents you from saying the same thing?MR PATEL: So Alex, again, when it comes to protests, we certainly believe in people’s ability to – their ability and their right to free speech and their right to self-expression. As it relates to this particular scenario – again, there’s a limit to what I can say, given privacy considerations. We’re aware of the media reports of some U.S. citizens being detained in Tbilisi, but that’s all I have for you.QUESTION: But the protesters, do they have your backing? Can they &#8212;MR PATEL: I don&#8217;t have any – again, Alex, I’m not going to get into the specifics of detentions. I understand that this is something you are quite passionate about. But we’re talking about a consular issue at the end of the day, and so there is a limit to what I can get into, given privacy concerns.QUESTION: Fair enough. On Ukraine, thank you for the readout on Secretary’s trip, with the caveat that still – the trip still continues.MR PATEL: Right.QUESTION: Is it fair to expect any announcement from the Secretary when it comes to material support?MR PATEL: Well &#8212;QUESTION: I mean, don’t get me wrong. The speech was powerful. He spoke about everything, about the past tense, future tense. But President Zelenskyy actually said that Kharkiv urgently needs two Patriots to protect its citizens. Did the Secretary go all the way there emptyhanded?MR PATEL: So I think, as you so noted, Alex, the trip is not concluded yet. And so I’m just not going to get ahead of the Secretary or the process here.QUESTION: And I have one more, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: You can take it for me, if you want. It’s about Kakhovka Dam. The Secretary made a speech and he mentioned Russia that as – caused the damage. I remember we have discussed that since last year, and it is the largest manmade disaster that’s – I think you guys had your own investigation. The fact the Secretary finally mentioned that Russia made this damage, is it a conclusion of the investigation? Or how can we &#8212;MR PATEL: I would not interpret the Secretary’s comments as offering an assessment on the investigatory process. I mean, what we’re talking about here, Alex, is the fact that Russia has infringed on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, that much of this – all of this – is Russia’s doing. Their sheer existence and presence in Ukraine is the cause of so much of this heartbreaking damage and destruction that we’re seeing. But continuing to support our partners in Ukraine, including to support some of these kinds of critical infrastructure projects, we believe are – feed into some of these key tenets that the Secretary talked about, ensuring that we can support and revitalize not just Ukraine’s economy but also support it democratically as well.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: I’m asking because the European Parliament has – just to clarify.MR PATEL: I’ve gotten you, like, four questions. Go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Just one final &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Diyar. Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Today my question is a bit long, but I’ll try to give you a clear image.MR PATEL: Today it’s a bit long? (Laughter.)QUESTION: The question is – (laughter) – a bit long, yeah. A question on Rojava, northern Syria. After years of occupation of Afrin by Türkiye and Turkish-backed Syrian National Army, SNA, factions, the human rights situation in Afrin is deteriorating further. And a new report published today and submitted to the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria by Ceasefire Centre and YASA Kurdish Centre – the reports finds that the continuation of cutting down olive trees and burning all of the fields, illegal settlement and demographic change, destruction of cultural heritage, violation of housing, land, and property rights, kidnapping for ransom, and last but not least, in Afrin, much of the civilians’ population, the Kurdish population in particular, lives in a constant state of fear due to the threat of the violence. My question is that: What’s the U.S. State Department reaction to these violations and demographic change? And what actions this building has taken to make those groups responsible for their actions and atrocities?MR PATEL: So we believe that the rights of all Syrians should be respected, and we urge continued respect for international law, applicable legal protections, and the protection of vulnerable communities. We also encourage all parties to act in a manner that promotes peaceful coexistence and respect for human rights, and we’ll continue to shine light on human rights violations and abuses throughout Syria. We also want to promote accountability for those responsible.QUESTION: And have you ever reached to your Turkish partners on that issue?MR PATEL: Our partners in Türkiye are important, key NATO Allies, and we talk to them about varying issues all the time.QUESTION: Including this issue?MR PATEL: I’m not going to get more specific than that.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you so much. It’s a whole different region – it’s Mexico.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: The Mexican Government has opened a criminal case against one of Mexico’s most important anti-corruption crusaders. Her name is María Amparo Casar. Her organization has received several U.S. Government grants to fight impunity in Mexico. Most critics have denounced the case against Mrs. Casar as a move to scare independent watchdogs in Mexico, but wanted to see if you have a comment about this case.MR PATEL: I don’t. I’d just defer to the Mexican judiciary system to speak to this.QUESTION: But she is a recipient of U.S. grants. Should the U.S. Government stand by her?MR PATEL: That’s – that’s nice that she is a recipient of U.S. grants. I just don’t know anything about this case, and so I will defer to Mexican judiciary system to speak to this.QUESTION: Can we follow up? Because it’s something that should be (inaudible) of the U.S.MR PATEL: I ultimately will defer to the Mexican Government on this.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. The Christian Alliance has filed a lawsuit with the federal court of Iraq. The lawsuit aims to address demands for the recognition and inclusion of these communities, including their right to special seats under the quota system in the upcoming Kurdistan Region parliamentary elections. My question is: Does the State Department support the participation of all parties in the forthcoming local elections in the Kurdistan?MR PATEL: So we continue to support holding free, transparent, and timely elections. As a matter of principle, we encourage broad participation in democratic processes reflective of the region’s diverse communities.Saw some hands over here. Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, back on Gaza again. (Inaudible) and also Jake Sullivan said that yesterday – have been saying Gaza is not genocide. Let me read United Nations genocide definition in Geneva genocide convention: “Genocide is a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part.” According to definition of UN genocide and report happenings, seems as a genocide. How could United Nations reports and international society convince you about genocide? Because until the now, 15,000 babies and children killed in Gaza.MR PATEL: So I will echo what the Secretary, myself, Matt, National Security Advisor Sullivan has – says: We continue to believe that we are not seeing genocide in Gaza. And I talked a little bit about this on Monday as it relates to the national security memorandum, so I will echo again: We have not seen any direct indication of Israel intentionally targeting civilians. What we are talking about, though, is more steps can be done to further mitigate civilian harm. And as I said on Monday, there – it’s reasonable to assess that there have been instances in which Israel has not met its obligation of international humanitarian law, and more needs to be done there. And we will continue to assess those matters through the tools that we have at our disposal. But we have not seen efforts or any indication of intentionally targeting civilians.QUESTION: I have a follow up, because you says you’ll wait international law decision. But there is a different example, two years ago – this is CNN news – the Biden called genocide for Russia after two months of start of the war. What is differences?MR PATEL: I talked a little bit about &#8212;QUESTION: Do you think this is contradictions for United States?MR PATEL: It’s not a contradiction. We’re talking about two very different circumstances; we’re talking about very different entities and interlocutors in this. Let’s just – I spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but I’m happy to reiterate it again.First, let’s talk about our partners in Ukraine. Ukraine did not launch a terrorist attack onto the Russian Federation. Separately, it is apparent that the Russian Federation has committed atrocities. We’ve seen that in a number of lines of effort, most specifically in the forced relocation of Ukrainian children. Also, the Russian Federation has not – in this conflict – has not ever proven to be an entity in which it has the ability to police itself and to hold itself accountable.Let’s talk about Israel for a second. Israel was the victim of a major terrorist attack on October 7th and is undertaking an operation to defend itself and to bring those terrorists to justice. Also, it is a country that has lines of effort within its own system to hold perpetrators and violators of international humanitarian law accountable. And it is doing so, and we made that clear in our national security memorandum.So these are some of the key differences. I recognize that it is easy to draw a comparison to the conflict in Ukraine, but respectfully, it is just not on the level.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. Pakistani and U.S. officials have held their latest talks in Washington on how to expand cooperation in tackling the threat of terrorism posed to regional security. Can you provide some details of these meetings?MR PATEL: So the – we confirmed with Pakistan today our bilateral intention to increase our capacity to meet emerging threats, specifically to increase communication on terrorism – specifically terrorism trends and movements of concern – in a way that is not just actionable within Pakistan but also an area that is actionable between our two countries. We also agreed about preventing and deterring terrorist groups and the work that can be done in that place, such as counter-IED investigations, technical assistance at Pakistan’s western border, and other issues.QUESTION: Sir, yesterday a missile fired by a drone struck a house in a former stronghold of the Pakistani Taliban along the Afghan border. Would you confirm or deny the drone strike &#8212;MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything for you on that. I’d defer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon.QUESTION: Sir, one last question.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Iranian traders smuggled more than $1 billion worth of fuel into neighboring Pakistan annually. Is it a concern that how black market earning billions of dollars in the region?MR PATEL: So all Iran sanctions remain in effect, and we advise anyone considering business deals with Iran to be aware of the potential risks.You’ve had your hand up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. (Inaudible.) Can you confirm that the State Department did not have any personnel on the ground in Gaza for the development of the NSM20 report? And then, as a follow-up, if that’s the case, can you name what NGOs, government entities were actually collecting the – the information that the administration made their assessment off of and what the confidence level is in them?MR PATEL: So we do not have personnel on the ground in Gaza. I can certainly confirm that. I don’t have a list for you of the NGOs and media organizations and civil society actors that feed into this process, but those are the kinds of entities that do when it comes to assessing and looking into these kinds of things through the various processes that – and tools that we have, whether it be the national security memorandum, whether it be Leahy, whether it be CHIRG, whether it be the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, end use monitoring. All of those things we work collaboratively with our embassies, our consulates in countries where we have consulates as well, civil society, media organizations – all of those things feed into that process.QUESTION: So a follow-up, if I can. Since you don’t have personnel on the ground in Gaza, then, are you at all or is the administration at all concerned about the dissonance between the NGOs that are actually providing the information, saying that these things are in crisis and do violate law, versus what the report has concluded?MR PATEL: So the fact that we don’t have people on the ground in Gaza is one of the reasons why – that coupled with the fact that we are dealing with a very dense and complex warfare setting and a belligerent that has co-located itself with civilians and civilian infrastructure is why we have not made a conclusive assessment in the national security memorandum and rather just believe it to be reasonable that there have been instances in which Israel’s obligation for international humanitarian law has not been met.QUESTION: So confidence in those sources is low, then?MR PATEL: The confidence in those sources is adjudicated through those processes, and those processes then output into the various tools that we have. I’m not going to paint a broad brushstroke about whether every single source is accurate or confident or not. That’s certainly not the case, but that is why we have a process for these things, for people to report, input things that they see, that they have concern, and then we have these various processes, including this newly national security memorandum to look into these various issues.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. The new president of North Macedonia refuses to honor the Prespa Agreement and to use the new name of the country. As you know, President Biden has signed an executive order which lists the obstruction of the Prespa Agreement as a sanctionable offense. Can you please clarify whether the rhetoric of elected officials who refuse to use the proper name of the country meets the threshold for the sanctions that are listed in this executive order?MR PATEL: So we’re firmly committed to the Prespa Agreement and North Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration. A new government is formed and a prime minister selected – as a new government is formed and a prime minister is selected, we will continue to reinforce the importance of adherence to international agreements and the benefits of full membership in the European Union.Shaun, I saw your hand go up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sure. Can I go to Africa?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Two things. Niger.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The junta’s prime minister gave an interview to The Washington Post in which he blamed a visit by Assistant Secretary Phee for the decision to boot out U.S. troops, saying that she made threats about Niger’s relationship with Iran and Russia and called it unacceptable. Do you dispute the characterization of this? Do you have any comment on &#8212;MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic, deliberative conversations, Shaun, but what I can say is that the CNSP was presented with a choice based on mutual interest about whether it wished to continue its security partnership with us, a choice that was rooted in our belief of democratic principles and what was in our national security interest. And this message that was conveyed – it was a coordinated U.S. Government position and it was in response to very valid concerns about an unfolding – the unfolding situation in Niger. And after discussions with the CNSP about our concerns and its own, we have not been able to come to an understanding that would allow the United States to maintain its military presence in Niger, and we’re currently working with the CNSP to withdraw U.S. forces in an orderly and responsible fashion.QUESTION: Do you have a timeline for that? Or are there any U.S. visits – any U.S. visits &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t have any visits to preview at this time, but I imagine these conversations are going to be ongoing.QUESTION: Okay. Unless anybody else has more on Niger, could I ask about Tunisia?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: There’s been a crackdown on lawyers and the bar association in response – some see this as a further crushing of dissent under President Saied.Does the U.S. have any comment on the – on what’s happening with the lawyers in Tunisia?MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports that Tunisian Government entities have entered the office of the Tunisian Bar Association and arrested a number of prominent media figures and detained civil society representatives in recent days. We’re engaging directly with the Tunisian Government at all levels in support of human rights, including the freedom of expression.I will say that this kind of action is inconsistent with what we think are universal rights that are explicitly guaranteed in the Tunisian constitution, and we’ve been clear about that at all levels.Go ahead in the back, yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, can I just clarify? Given what the ICJ has said and a number of international organizations have said about genocide referring to the question earlier, is it the U.S. position that Israel can’t be committing genocide because of what happened on October the 7th?MR PATEL: That is not what I have said or any official in the U.S. Government has said. What I am saying is that we have not assessed the situation in Gaza to be genocide.Go ahead.QUESTION: Russia President Putin visits China later this week. It will be his first foreign trip as new term as the president. So what do you expect? Are you concerned China-Russia tie will be much closer, or not?MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports. And if China purports to want good relations with Europe and other countries, it cannot continue to fuel the biggest threat to European security, and that is Russia’s aggression on Ukraine. The importance of this is not just a U.S. position, but it’s also been clearly communicated from our partners in the G7 to our partners in NATO and to – from the EU. If the PRC were to end its support for Russia, Russia would struggle to sustain its war efforts against Ukraine, and no country should give Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression against Ukraine. We cannot return to business as usual or turn a blind eye to the clear violations of international law that Russia has committed.All right. Thanks, everybody.(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								Israel																								Niger																								North Macedonia																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Syria																								Tunisia																								Ukraine