AL YAHYA EXPORTS P/C SUPREME AQUATIC PRODUCTS LIMI

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. I don’t have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to kick us off.

QUESTION: Yes, please, thank you. Before we get into what I’m sure will be Middle East-related things, I just want to check on the state of transition. Has there been any contact between the Secretary and nominee Senator Rubio?

MR PATEL: There has not. We of course congratulate Senator Rubio on this announcement. To date, the incoming administration, President-elect Trump’s team, our understanding is that they have yet to sign the memorandum of understanding as it relates to some of the transition endeavors both with the White House and the GSA. I will let them and the GSA speak to that process. And as it relates to the transition between administrations, transition between secretaries, we stand ready to support that process, stand ready to assist. I have no doubt that in the weeks and time ahead there will be appropriate engagement between the Secretary, Senator Rubio, engagement between the teams, but of course the first step would be for that MOU to be signed, which —

QUESTION: So in other words, that hasn’t —

MR PATEL: Correct, yeah. That’s right.

QUESTION: Yeah. Unless anyone else wants to ask about that, I want to go to the Middle East.

MR PATEL: I think – unless – I don’t think your question’s on the transition, Ksenia. It is? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Exactly that, my question. What foreign policy changes do you expect and hope to avoid once Rubio becomes secretary of state?

QUESTION: I mean, is there anything Secretary Blinken would want him to stay the course on?

MR PATEL: Ksenia, I’m just going to jump in right there and just be – echo what you have heard the Secretary, the President, Matt, and others say: There is one president at a time; there is one secretary of state at the time. The kinds of foreign policy and national security objectives the incoming administration may or may not pursue, you certainly can speak to them, and to the extent that they continue to hold daily press briefings, you can certainly ask them about it after 12:00 p.m. on January 20th. Till then, President Biden is President, Secretary Blinken is Secretary, Matt and I are the ones up here doing the daily press briefings, and we’re happy to talk to you about the things that we’re continuing to pursue over these final days in the administration which we have talked about at great length.

Anything else on the transition? Otherwise, I imagine Matt and others want to get back to news of the day.

QUESTION: Yeah. I just want to – so I wanted to ask you about the latest after our exchanges on – I guess it was Tuesday – about the aid situation and this new UN commission report that is very harsh, harshly critical of Israel. One, since Tuesday, have you seen anything that would make you think that they are now more in compliance with the criteria that were laid out in the letter? And number two, what do you think of this UN commission’s —

MR PATEL: So let me get to the second part of your question first. As it relates to the UN commission, I’ve seen some of that reporting, and we’ve seen some language coming out of that indicative of their belief that some of the actions could be constituted as – and this is their phrasing – “genocide.” That is something we would unequivocally disagree with. Again, we think that that kind of phrasing and those kinds of accusations are certainly unfounded.

As it relates to the humanitarian situation, I laid out on Tuesday some of the steps that we have seen taken. We expect some additional steps to take place as well over the course of this week. Particularly, we anticipate that the IDF and COGAT may make some adjustments to the list of items, the dual-use items, that would be allowed in – allowed to be categorized within humanitarian aid. Certainly progress in that space would build on the many things that I outlined the other day on Tuesday. And all in all, what we want to see is all of these things in their totality continue to contribute to an improvement in the humanitarian circumstances on the ground.

QUESTION: But they haven’t done that yet?

MR PATEL: We expect a decision to be made on that sometime this week.

QUESTION: And there’s still been no meeting of this civilian harm reduction group?

MR PATEL: That is my understanding, but again, this – these items were —

QUESTION: And the deadline for that was October 31st, even before the last – the deadline on Tuesday.

MR PATEL: Certainly. Our hope and our expectation is such an engagement happens as soon as possible. But ultimately, Matt – look, we talked a little bit about this the other day. We want to make sure that these kinds of efforts are sustained over an extended period of time. You and I and many others have – had a fairly extensive back-and-forth on Tuesday about the contents of the original letter that Secretaries Blinken and Austin sent in October, but also the results that we’re seeing on the ground. Obviously, colleagues in the humanitarian space had some perspectives and points of view on this and will.

And I say all this to say that at the end of the day we welcome criticism of the United States record. Certainly we even welcome criticism of Israel’s record when it’s warranted, but certainly it ultimately, at the end of the day, needs to be grounded in facts, and the facts are this – is that on many of the items that were outlined in this letter that was sent by the Secretaries, we have seen progress and steps in the appropriate direction. What we need to see now is these kinds of events sustained over a significant period of time, and our hope is that through the significant progress steps that we’ve seen, that the operational space has been created to see an additional inflow of trucks, see an additional inflow of humanitarian aid, that all in all contributing will hopefully help address the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

QUESTION: All right. Well, you – I mean, you keep using the word hope and the words hope and expectation. At this point, it kind of sounds like thoughts and prayers being offered for victims of tragedies, which – are you saying that all accusations against Israel are unfounded?

MR PATEL: No. What I am saying is the accusation of genocide specifically in that – in that UN commission —

MR PATEL: — those accusations are unfounded. Also, in the point that I was making about criticism of Israel needing to be grounded in facts, our viewpoint is that some of the metrics that were outlined by some of these humanitarian groups in their scorecard released the other day are inconsistent with what we’re seeing on the ground. And just some examples of that. That scorecard said that humanitarian aid had been cut off in the north. That is not accurate, not accurate from our reporting and not accurate from our engagements with people in the region. Food and supplies had been delivered to Gaza City for weeks now, and last week we also saw some progress in Jabalia and some of the surrounding areas. That scorecard had said the Masawi humanitarian zone had not been expanded – also not true. We have seen the humanitarian zone in Masawi expanded.

So there are just some simple things like this that we think are inconsistent with the facts on the ground. That does not mean to say that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is perfect. It’s not, as I said on Tuesday. But any criticism of the United States or Israel and our humanitarian undertaking absolutely needs to be grounded in the truth on the ground. And some of those metrics are inconsistent with what our colleagues and those who have been engaged on this deeply are seeing directly.

QUESTION: Well, I’m kind of surprised you want to get into metrics that are contained in the NGO report since you refused to – absolutely refused to – get into your own metrics when you were asked about it numerous times on Tuesday. So —

MR PATEL: We certainly were – we – there was no resistance to get into some of those metrics.

QUESTION: So let’s – so let’s get into – let’s get into the most – the most basic metric, which was the number of trucks of aid going in every day. You said 350 was the bare minimum. What is it?

MR PATEL: That certainly was the metric that was outlined in the letter. And as I said on Tuesday, the metric that we had as it related to between November 1st and November 9th – let me just pull up my notes, and I unfortunately don’t have a more updated figure for you at this time – but the metric that we had seen between November 1st and November 9th was 404 trucks. Again, I don’t make this – I don’t say this to say that we are satisfied with that number. We certainly are not. And some of the changes that I outlined on Tuesday – the opening of new gates, the waiving of the customs requirement through the Jordanian corridor, some other measures – the hope is that the Government of Israel, the UN, and other regional partners can utilize those changes to see an influx of trucks go in. That is what the United States certainly expects, and it’s what we’re going to continue to push for as well.

QUESTION: Thank you. Human Rights Watch said today that Israeli authorities have caused forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza to an extent that constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity. Have you seen anything that would make you agree with that assessment?

MR PATEL: We have not. Certainly forced displacement is something that continues to be inconsistent with the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo. And again, I will let our partners in the IDF speak to the specific military tactics and operations. But it is wholly consistent and acceptable to ask civilians to evacuate a certain area while they are conducting certain military operations, and then for them to be able to go home. We have not seen any kind of specific forced displacement, but as you’ve heard us say consistently, this is something that we’re going to pay incredibly close attention to, and if we see kind of – if we see actions that are not just inconsistent with that but inconsistent with what is expected of our partners and expected of how we effect U.S. law, we’ll take appropriate action as well.

QUESTION: So you don’t agree that there’s been forced displacement to the extent that constitutes war crimes or —

MR PATEL: We have not made such an assessment.

QUESTION: And how can you say that you’ve not seen crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, anything like that if there’s still assessments that are going on within the State Department?

MR PATEL: What we have said is that these assessments are ongoing, and we’ve been very specific. We have not closed the door on necessarily coming to that conclusion; what we are talking about is that these are ongoing assessments, and we are going to continue to pay attention to the kinds of actions and behavior that we’re seeing.

QUESTION: And can I ask on Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Sure, yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. Israel launched airstrikes on Beirut’s Hizballah-controlled southern suburbs today, keeping up its unusually intensive bombardment of the area for a third consecutive day. Lebanon’s health ministry said Israeli attacks killed 21 yesterday. Do you have any concerns about these airstrikes? Does this hinder ceasefire efforts?

MR PATEL: We certainly – we would have concerns. Look, you’ve heard us say, time and time again, that we do not want to see these kinds of consistent operations in Beirut, especially as it relates to densely populated areas. This is something that we’re going to continue to stress with our partners in Israel.

Ultimately here, Daphne, why we have been pressing so aggressively for a diplomatic resolution is because we want to see the conditions created that allow for civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to be able to return home. And we also want to see 1701 – sorry, UN Security Council 1701 – effectively implemented, which would require Hizballah to disarm and withdraw to north of the Litani River. Certainly, we have not seen that yet.

QUESTION: And just on that, a senior Lebanese official signaled that Hizballah is ready to pull its forces away from the Lebanon-Israel border in any ceasefire, while rejecting Israel’s demand for freedom to act against Hizballah in Lebanon in the future. What do you make of this? How much of a sticking point is it at this point, and how can you resolve it?

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of the negotiations, Daphne. But consistent with 1701, of course, is that Israel is also required to withdraw to a certain point as well. But beyond that, let’s not lose sight of the fact or forget that Hizballah is a terrorist group, a terrorist actor, and certainly, we would need to see some significant progress in the implementation of 1701 as part of this.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that.

QUESTION: The Human Rights Watch report.

QUESTION: In addition to, or as part of this, they’re pointing out that large parts of Gaza are now completely uninhabitable because of the Israeli military campaigns. Does the State Department take issue with the facts behind that, that the military operation has done that?

MR PATEL: Shaun, I’m certainly not going to stand up here and dispute the fact that there are – of course, there has been damage done to civilian infrastructure and numerous civilian facilities across Gaza and have certainly made some of them inhabitable. Ultimately, though, that is why one of the things that Secretary Blinken and others have been so deeply engaged on is finding an end to this conflict and ultimately pivoting to a conversation that is related to what happens the day after. And at the crux of that is what steps are we going to undertake to make sure that Gaza can rebuild, that it is no longer a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people, that it is no longer under the control of Hamas. All of those things we think are vital.

QUESTION: And the – I mean, you mentioned that there was, of course, damage done – you, the State Department acknowledges that – to civilian infrastructure. How is that distinct from what Human Rights Watch is talking about, their conclusion being that this amounts to crimes against humanity and, in their view, ethnic cleansing? Why do you dispute that (inaudible)?

MR PATEL: So look, I’m not going to get into the specifics of this – of the report specifically. I haven’t had the chance to read it in detail. Simply was asking – Daphne’s question – if we agree with the conclusions that we’ve seen some kind of forced displacement, which we have not. That being said, that certainly would be a red line for the Secretary and certainly would be a red line for us, which is something that we laid out pretty clearly in Tokyo almost a year ago. And those principles that the Secretary laid out in that speech continue to be the pillar of how we view the ongoing conflict, but ultimately what we want to see – what we want the building blocks of the day after to look like.

Yeah. Go ahead, Said.

MR PATEL: Unless, Shaun – unless you had anything else, Shaun.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR PATEL: We’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: On the letter itself, I mean, two days after the deadline or whatever it is, do you consider the letter to be nullified, canceled, or fulfilled, the content of the letter? I mean, what is the status of the letter today?

MR PATEL: Said, none of the above. I hope you were paying attention to the very extensive —

QUESTION: I was. I was. I was struck —

MR PATEL: — back-and-forth we had on this on Tuesday.

QUESTION: I asked the question. Yeah.

MR PATEL: The point of what we said was that these are issues that we’re going to continue to pay close attention to. We’re going to continue to make assessments on them. And should we see things that we believe are inconsistent of how we expect a major partner like Israel to conduct itself, we’ll appropriately raise those things and we’ll appropriately enforce and take action as it relates to U.S. law. Our intense focus and our close looking and our assessments of the humanitarian situation in Gaza did not start when the Secretary sent that letter.

MR PATEL: It did not end after that 30-day period. This is something that we have been intensely focused on, certainly in the context —

MR PATEL: — of this conflict since October 7th. But even more broadly, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is something that, of course, the United States has been deeply engaged on for many time before that.

QUESTION: I’m not asking a humanitarian question; I’m asking a technical question. The letter had a time limit. I mean, it had very specific things. That part of it, is that nullified? Is that over? Is that canceled? Is that shelfed? What is it? The 30-day period, is it extended?

MR PATEL: Said, the letter was designed to inject a strong sense of urgency and produce action, and we believe it has done that.

MR PATEL: We are now going to continue to stay – remain engaged on this. And if we see actions that we think are detracting from these steps of progress – if we see actions that are inconsistent with the kinds of things that we want to see – we, of course, will appropriately make the relevant assessments that we need to make within U.S. law. The letter is not void; it is not null; it is not canceled.

MR PATEL: The letter was a – it is one piece of the puzzle as it relates to how we are approaching the issue relating to the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

QUESTION: Just one last on —

QUESTION: — the issue of the letter. But the part that expired on the 12th of this month – is that over?

MR PATEL: What part are you talking about, Said?

QUESTION: The part – it was – it had a definite time limit (inaudible).

MR PATEL: Said, there was the —

QUESTION: So that – I mean, I understand it can be renewable.

MR PATEL: It laid out – it laid out – I think you’re focusing a little too intensely on the letter. It laid out some specific steps that —

QUESTION: Well, you – yeah. And it was the government that did it, not me.

MR PATEL: Let me finish. Let me finish. It laid out some specific steps that we wanted to see. It laid out some progress areas that we wanted to see. We believe that we have seen some progress in some of those areas. We’re going to continue to assess and see what happens. And if we see a detraction or steps backward as it relates to that progress, we’ll take appropriate action. It’s as simple as that.

QUESTION: Okay. So let me ask you about the number of trucks. You said 404 trucks entered since – between November 1 and November 9. That is like 43, 44 trucks a day. That’s way, way below —

MR PATEL: And in talking to Matt – I will echo what I said again – that number is incredibly and deeply unsatisfactory and certainly inconsistent with the goals that we’ve set out. But with the changes that have been made, the operational changes – some additional border crossings, some routes that have been opened up and repaired within Gaza; some changes that have been made to the Jordanian corridor; the work that is ongoing with our partners in Egypt and our partners in Israel relating to throughput and capacity issues at Kerem Shalom – our goal and our hope is that we will be able to reach that number. And that’s what we’re going to continue to press for.

QUESTION: And you said that you disagree with the term “genocide” to describe what’s going on in Gaza. I mean, you’ve done – you guys have done that time and again now. We know that there are 44,000 dead, as of now, at least what the ministry of health says from Gaza. The Lancet Group says maybe 186,000; there are 10,000 under the rubble, presumed dead and so on. Do you have a definition for what genocide is? Can you tell me what is the definition of the Government of the United States of America in describing genocide?

MR PATEL: Said, I’m not going – I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not going to offer a legal definition for you.

MR PATEL: What I can say and what I’ll reiterate again is that the allegations of genocide we continue to believe are unfounded, in the context of the ongoing conflict. Now, that certainly does not minimize the moral and strategic imperative and responsibility that our partners in Israel have to conduct their operations and conduct their activities with civilian protections in mind and taking possible – every possible effort to minimize the impacts on civilians.

And certainly, it also calls into question Hamas’s role in this, because time and time again we have found that Hamas has been a – resistant to this war coming to a close. They’ve been resistant to a ceasefire deal or proposal. They have yet to – a number of hostages continue to remain in Gaza, including American citizens. And so certainly that is a component of this as well.

QUESTION: But let me understand you correctly. I mean, I’m not disputing any of what you’re saying. I’m saying that the Government of the United States does have a definition as to what genocide is. And we’ve seen that in the ‘90s.

MR PATEL: It certainly does. It certainly does.

QUESTION: We’ve seen that in many places since. So you do have —

MR PATEL: I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have it – I don’t have it for you. But —

QUESTION: I understand. But you —

MR PATEL: But what – but again, what – we would find those allegations to be unfounded.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you please give us a definition of the United States Government —

MR PATEL: I’m happy to. I’m happy to.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me – I have a couple more questions, if you’ll allow me.

QUESTION: And if my colleagues indulge me. I want to ask you about the West Bank.

QUESTION: There are growing restrictions, Israeli restrictions, that trap Palestinians not only in Hebron but in many other places. In fact, there are communities now that literally get locked in. I know you guys get offended at the term “apartheid,” but that’s – when you lock people in and allow them out to go to school or work or anything like this, according to your own calendar, what do you call that? What is that? When you trap people literally, you disallow them from, let’s say, cultivating their olive trees, going to work, building their – whatever. I mean, they are literally locked in. What do you – how do you describe that?

MR PATEL: So, Said, first of all, it is not lost on this department and this administration how vital economic activity is to the West Bank being able to be viable and certainly being able to be sustained on its own. And things like the olive harvest and other economic endeavors no doubt are integral to that.

In specific reports as it relates to some of what you said relating to communities and villages, we’re aware of those reports, and we’re asking our partners in Israel to – for more information. We are very concerned about these kinds of reportings and certainly are concerned about what that could mean for maintaining stability in the West Bank. We’re going to continue to urge Israel to take all feasible measures to protect civilian lives in the West Bank, but not just protect civilian lives, allow for what is required so basic economic functions like you described are able to go about and happen unimpeded. We also recognize that there are very real security challenges that Israel faces, and it has a legitimate right to defend its people and its territory.

QUESTION: And finally, on UNRWA, now, mister – the director of UNRWA said that basically it is catastrophic. I mean, the agency is facing catastrophic end or consequences. I want to ask you, because I remember this from way back in the ‘90s when Congress imposed a – the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem. The president the United States would go every six months and have actually a waiver. So why cannot the President the United States, in his last two months in office, I guess, issue an executive action that would actually do the same thing for UNRWA, that would continue aid and allow it to function and help – although there is a congressional legislation?

MR PATEL: So Said, I am not going to engage in hypotheticals, and I certainly don’t have any new policy or endeavor to announce. What we have stated before is that we continue to be deeply troubled by the passage of these bills in the Knesset, and we’re going to continue, along with other members of the international community, to press upon the Israelis the ramifications of this bill being implemented. UNRWA has played a critical role in providing millions of Palestinians access to basic health care, basic education, food, and other essential services, and it’s essential that there be no disruption to those services.

As you heard me say on Tuesday, there continues to be about two months before that bill, we believe, is required to be implemented. So we’re going to continue to press and raise this with our partners in the region, and it continues to be a top priority for us.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Doc. Harper. Doc Harper, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: I know you said on numerous occasions that UNRWA is an essential humanitarian organization that puts their lives on the line delivering food, water, medicine to Palestinians. My question is to you is how could UNRWA be an essential humanitarian organization when they indoctrinate children in their schools to kill Jews and aid and abet Hamas to terrorize Israel? And a couple quick follow-ups?

MR PATEL: So I just don’t think that characterization is true, Doctor. Certainly we share concerns that Israel and others have that a small number of UNRWA’s personnel were involved in the October 7th attacks, and that – those may or may not have had ties to Hamas and other armed groups. We’re also concerned that UNRWA’s facilities may or may not have been, some of them, compromised by Hamas, which also we believe to be unacceptable. But let me be clear: The vast majority of the group and the vast majority of the people working within the organization, they play a critical role to providing lifesaving aid to millions who need it.

QUESTION: Okay, then two quick – two follow-ups?

MR PATEL: I’ve – we’ve got to move. Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant – I’m sorry – Vedant.

MR PATEL: All good. People get my name wrong all the time. You’d be – still, still. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. A question on the Ukraine and North Korea and Russia. Secretary Blinken during visit to NATO, he said the North Korean troops are participating in the battle and that the U.S. will respond sternly. What are the specific response measures, and does it include restriction on the use of long-range weapons?

MR PATEL: So as it relates to our Ukrainian partners and any security assistance we may or may not provide additionally, I just don’t have any policy changes to share. But in the context of DPRK troops in the region, you’ve heard me talk a little bit about this on Tuesday, Janne. And in terms of what our action will be, at the center of this will be dealing with it in close coordination with our allies and partners.

Secretary Blinken’s comments, you have to remember, were at NATO, so of course we’re going to be talking about this in our – with our partners at NATO. But also the DPRK’s involvement in such thing, no doubt, causes great concern and consternation for the Indo-Pacific region. And so part of this is working on this collaboratively with our partners in Japan and the Republic of Korea as well.

QUESTION: Is Ukraine winning the current war? What is the current status in the Ukraine? Because they winning, or Russia winning this war? What – what happens if —

MR PATEL: Janne, you – what you – you have to look back at the totality of this picture. And since February of 2022, we have seen immense bravery from our partners in Ukraine, from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. We’ve seen immense bravery from President Zelenskyy and his team in leading the people of Ukraine, in leading the country, utilizing with great vigor and utilizing with great – with great strategy the kinds of security assistance that the United States and its allies and partners are helping provide over the course of this great conflict.

And ultimately, at the end of the day, what President Biden is committed to – and Secretary Blinken reiterated this yesterday in Brussels – is that we are committed to making sure that every dollar that we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th. That is one of the things he discussed with NATO leaders, and we want to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to continue to effectively engage on this in 2025 or negotiate from a place of strength. Ultimately, that is up to our Ukrainian partners to decide. And we’re also going to be counting on our partners in Europe and others to strongly support Ukraine’s mobilization with additional artillery, air defenses, munitions, and other kinds of training for Kyiv’s forces.

QUESTION: Quick, quick – lastly.

MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead. And then we’re going to – yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea – I mean, it was reported that North Korean troops dispatched to Russia are mercenary and the salary they received from Russia in return will be used by Kim Jong-un to fund the development of nuclear weapons and WMD. I mean —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any reaction to offer to that, Janne, beyond the closening of —

QUESTION: Are you concerned?

MR PATEL: What we’re concerned about is the closening of relations between the DPRK and Russia, and we continue to see these kinds of actions which are of great concern.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So IAEA Director General Grossi is in Iran.

QUESTION: And he had a press conference. I hope you followed a part of it. So he also said that he’s going to visit Fordow nuclear facility and Natanz. This it the first time happening. What is your take? Is it a sign of Iran changing behavior?

MR PATEL: I think we’re hesitant to interpret anything as signs of whether Iran is wiling to change their behavior or not, because ultimately what we want to see from Iran is actual behavior change and action, not just signs of something or indications of something.

And as it relates to Director Grossi’s comments, we agree with the IAEA director general. The time is of the essence in ensuring Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA to resolve the longstanding issues of concern. The President and the Secretary have been clear about this. We want to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, and we’re going to continue to use a variety of tools to pursue that goal, and all of our options remain on the table.

But given that we have seen Iran’s escalation across the board – including its nuclear escalations, its track record of a failure to cooperate with the IAEA on longstanding issues – we think that it is appropriate that Director Grossi undertake this.

QUESTION: So E3 also, in the next weeks, IAEA Board of Governors, are going to push for a resolution against Iran. Is the U.S. on board given that some Iranian officials are indicating that they would reciprocate by getting out of NPT?

MR PATEL: Well, we’re tightly coordinated with our E3 partners in advance of this Board of Governors meeting, and we strongly support these kinds of efforts to hold Iran accountable. And I will just leave it at that. We’re going to continue to work with fellow IAEA board governors to ensure Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA.

Goyal, and then I’ll come back to you guys. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. My question is on India, U.S.-India relations. How do you rate today U.S.-India relations and under the new administration and Indian-American communities’ interest is after U.S.-India relations immigration? Because hundreds of thousands, maybe thousands of them are still waiting in India. They are not getting appointments for immigrant visas after the consulate affairs moved from New Delhi to Mumbai, Bombay, and that’s a major concern. And two, three, four years, their husbands and wives are still waiting in India. They’re not getting appointment but especially from the Mumbai consulate.

MR PATEL: Yeah, let me say a couple things. First, what the incoming administration may or may not pursue as it relates to their relationship with India, again, I’m going to let them speak to that. I am not a spokesperson for the incoming administration.

President Biden and Secretary Blinken continue to view India as a vital partner. There are a number of areas which, over the course of the past four years, you have seen tangible ways in which we have deepened that cooperation – whether that be trade issues, whether that be security cooperation. India continues to be an important, vital partner when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to global regional stability, and we are very thankful to have been able to deepen that cooperation over President Biden’s four years in office.

And look, on the topic of immigration, certainly fully recognize how important this is to so many people around the world, whether it be visitor visas, whether it be formal legal immigration channels. And this is something that we take incredibly seriously, and certainly as it relates to the State Department’s remit on this, we’ll continue to work and find ways in which we can improve processes.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Gina Raimondo at the Department of Commerce talked about ways in which they have been able to streamline processes for tourist visa processing. We recognize how vital that is to the U.S. economy, and we look forward to continuing to build on that.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. We’re reporting from sources that the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon submitted a draft truce proposal to Lebanon’s speaker of parliament today. Do you – can you confirm this?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything to offer on that from up here, beyond just saying what we continue to remain deeply engaged and focused on is wanting to see a diplomatic resolution, one that will ultimately allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to be able to return home.

QUESTION: And has Israel given its okay on this proposal?

MR PATEL: Again, I just don’t have anything to offer as it relates to this proposal.

QUESTION: On the region?

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: Sure. Could I ask about COP29?

QUESTION: Sort of a plot twist in climate negotiations. President Aliyev was attacking the Dutch and the French over their foreign policy. It has caused a bit of a ruckus there. Does the U.S. have anything to say about this, sort of how this affects negotiations going forward?

MR PATEL: So the specific engagement you might be describing I’m not fully familiar with, but what I can say is that we do have a robust delegation at COP29 led by Senior Advisor John Podesta. That team is working to mobilize issues surrounding climate finance and building on vulnerable communities’ resilience to climate impacts. There’s a lot of important work that’s been done over the four years under President Biden that we think that we can continue to build on in the time ahead, and so that’s what we’re focused on. As it relates to this specific kerfuffle, as you described it, I’ll have to check and we’ll get back to you, see if we have anything else to offer.

QUESTION: Sure. And an obvious question – I know you can’t speak for the incoming administration.

QUESTION: But climate, to put it mildly, is one issue where there’s a lot of disagreement between the Biden administration and what we expect from the Trump administration. How can the U.S. – I mean, I realize that Podesta has spoken himself.

QUESTION: But from the State Department’s perspective, how could the U.S. engage in this meaningfully when everything could be torn up?

MR PATEL: Well, I think, Shaun, what you have to – there’s two points here. First, U.S. climate leadership over the past four years has delivered some clear results. There – it has created more than 300,000 clean energy jobs. We have seen more than 450 billion new private sector clean energy investments. It is a tool that we think is helping hardworking families save on money, on energy, on transportation costs.

The other thing, Shaun, is – something that people don’t think about is that when addressing things like the climate crisis, when you are investing in tackling that challenge, there is a physicality to it when – whether it be in the United States or whether that be in countries around the world, when countries invest in clean energy sources, when countries invest in alternative fuel sources and things like that, there is a physicality to that infrastructure that is hard to just undo with the wave of the pen.

So again, I cannot predict or preview what a future administration may or may not do, but the EV chargers and offshore wind infrastructure and things like that that we have seen built up under this administration – and not just in the United States, but in areas around the world – there is a physicality to that, and we know that that is going to persist and continue, and that it’s going to continue to play a role in addressing the climate crisis.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. Thirty-five people were killed and many others injured in a bomb blast at a railway station in Pakistan, Balochistan Province. A terrorist organization, BLA, claimed responsibility, targeting military officers. What are your thoughts on the recent surge in deadly terrorist attacks in Pakistan?

MR PATEL: So firstly, we strongly condemn the BLA Majeed Brigade’s November 9th bombing at a railway station, and we extend our deepest condolences to the victims and their families. We have a shared interest in combating these kinds of threats with Pakistan. We have a shared commitment to regional security. The U.S. itself has designated the BLA as a specially designated global terrorist organization. We did that back in 2019. And at the end of the day, we’re going to continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

QUESTION: The day after Donald Trump won the elections, Afghanistan Taliban offered congratulations to the American people for not handing leadership of their great country to a woman. Taliban leaders expressed optimism that Trump election would enable a new chapter in the history of U.S.-Taliban relations. What is your response on this statement?

MR PATEL: Well, I can’t imagine that the Taliban are experts when it comes to leadership, under a woman or not. Look, I’m not going to preview – I’m not going to – it’s not for me to speak to what an incoming administration chooses to pursue or not pursue at it relates to Afghanistan policy. But the Taliban are hardly credible voices when it comes to the role women play in their society and the role that women leaders play. And what you’ve heard us say time and time again is that for as long as the Taliban continues to essentially hold back 50 percent of its population from fully integrating in society, fully participating in society, it certainly is not going to be able to reach the international recognition that we know that they – that they’re seeking.

QUESTION: The last question, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.

QUESTION: There is a big cricketing event – cricketing in Pakistan – Champions Trophy – Champions Trophy.

MR PATEL: Cricket. Oh, I did not – didn’t have that on my bingo card. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. It’s the biggest event after the Cricket World Cup. And India due to participate in that event, but the Indian Government refused to send Indian cricket team to Pakistan. Last time Indian team was in Pakistan 2008; due to political tensions, India never travel to Pakistan. So, I mean, do you really think that mixing politics with the sport is a good idea? I mean, what is your —

MR PATEL: So look, first, as it relates to relations between India and Pakistan, that is certainly for them to speak to, whether it be through sports or other things. I will let them speak to their own bilateral relationship. Certainly not something for us to get in the middle of, but sports is certainly a potent and connecting force. You have seen this Secretary, this department really prioritize the role that sports diplomacy has in connecting people. It is something that I know is incredibly important to our current Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Lee Satterfield; it’s something that our former Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Liz Allen really championed. And at the end of the day, sports connects so many people, and it’s a great way for those human-to-human and people-to-people ties that this administration has really prioritized.

In the back, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

QUESTION: The question is on Mexico.

QUESTION: The Mexican Government sent yesterday a diplomatic note protesting U.S. Ambassador Salazar’s comments criticizing the former Mexican President López Obrador, particularly on his security policy. Ambassador Salazar said yesterday that the former president rejected U.S. assistance to deal with the cartels. Do you stand with Ambassador Salazar’s assessment? And do you think the protest note is justified?

MR PATEL: So Ambassador Salazar was pretty clear that there is certainly still work and still important work that needs to be done. U.S.-Mexico security cooperation remains a top national security priority for us, and what we are focused on is looking forward to deepening our cooperation with the Sheinbaum administration and to make communities and ultimately people on both sides of the border feel safe. I don’t have anything else to opine on as it relates to the ambassador’s comments.

Go ahead, in the back. Pink tie.

QUESTION: Oh, hey. The one in pink. All right, good.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, good afternoon. Pro-democracy advocate Jimmy Lai – his trial resumes in Hong Kong November 20th, just a week from now. I know President Biden will be speaking with President Xi in a few days in South America. I presume Anthony Blinken will be in the room at that time – not sure, but you can correct me if that’s wrong.

MR PATEL: It’s Antony, just to be clear.

QUESTION: Sorry, Antony. Sorry. My apologies.

MR PATEL: Yeah, all good.

QUESTION: But the question, simply: Will the issue of Jimmy Lai – will President Biden and Antony demand China and President Xi release Jimmy Lai?

MR PATEL: So in every engagement that Secretary Blinken and President Biden have had with Chinese counterparts, whether it be President Xi or the Secretary’s own engagements with Director Wang Yi, certainly human rights and the treatment of political dissident voices has been part of those conversations. I’m not going to preview or get ahead of what may or may not be at the agenda at APEC. Part of that, of course, is going to be talking about ways that we can continue to manageably – responsibly manage competition with the PRC.

QUESTION: So I’m a little – I’m sorry, I’m a little confused. So Jimmy Lai’s name will come up or won’t come up?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not going to speculate or preview what gets discussed in the meeting or not beyond just saying that human rights issues and certainly the treatment of dissidents and the treatment of human rights defenders will certainly be at the crux and part of that conversation.

QUESTION: And then if I – just one more, please. Thank you.

QUESTION: Many have described this trial as a sham trial, this national security trial. If he is convicted, what will the United States do?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals on that.

In the back, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Thanks. Senator Cruz posted on X, “Enough is enough” – never a good sign. “Any State Department employee who had [attended] a therapy session because President Trump won should be fired on day one. Our diplomacy is too important to be left to children.” Do you have a response to that?

MR PATEL: Wow. A couple things. So first, I would hope that the senator is not implying that wanting to take care of your mental health or wanting to care for your mental health or take appropriate efforts to address mental health issues are childish, because that’s certainly not what we believe. And whether it be a domestic election result, whether it be COVID-19, whether it be some of the protests that took place over the summer of 2020, whether it be in the immediate days and weeks and months following October 7th, this department has prided itself on the – one, the resources that we have made available to our workforce in dealing with these very complex, challenging, mentally difficult topics. Part of that is as managers creating the space to engage on some of these challenging topics, creating the space for your employees to share their legitimate feelings about any event. And we would want to make sure that these kinds of resources and spaces are utilized regardless of who was president and regardless of what the election results may or may not have been.

QUESTION: Did State or – offer similar sessions four years ago after the election?

MR PATEL: I’m sure that there were. I’m sure that there were. I did not work here at the time, so I certainly can’t speak to that, but the point that I’m making is that regardless of what the domestic political event was – and we fully recognize that we’re a country of differing voices and people may have different points of view on any event, including election results – certainly no doubt that there are differing viewpoints within the own workforce of who may – should or should not be president. The point is is that we want these kinds of resources and spaces to be available should our employees need them.

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Thank you very much. This British national, Ms. Ellis, recently went to Pakistan to meet the family of Ajab Khan Afridi, who had kept her captive. And she went there just to pay respect the time that she spent there as a captive. I promise that this couple of weeks that you and Matt are here, I will fully respect you as I always have and I’ll treat you with kindness. I just have two questions.

Number one, I’ve never seen a Pakistan leader of opposition in this congress, leader of opposition – congress means in Pakistan national senate – leader of senate, opposition in the senate, leader of Punjab assembly, leader, speaker of the – all of them being arrested in one day. Do you have any comment or —

MR PATEL: So these seem to be largely internal issues for Pakistan. I’m not familiar with this, so I just don’t have anything to offer on it.

QUESTION: And just last one, think. I have also started calling our new DOGE ministry head Mr. Elon Musk. Is he aware that in Pakistan – or would you please at least bring in his notice that in Pakistan, since six months, X is banned? And even the VPN now are under this whole registration process. I know my colleague has brought to you the advertisement —

MR PATEL: So look, on internet freedom issues, which I think is the crux of what you’re asking about, these are the kinds of things that we raise with countries around the world, including, of course, our bilateral relationship with Pakistan. And I am just not going to opine on what Mr. Musk may or may not know. But look, internet freedom is something that we’ll continue to raise around the world.

QUESTION: Wanted to follow up?

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, rather. I guess it’s not morning anymore.

QUESTION: It is if you’re on the west coast.

MR PATEL: Yeah, that’s true. I’m going to move this water.

I don’t have anything off the top. So Matt, we can dive right into questions.

QUESTION: Hi. Yeah, okay. So I think we all saw the readout of the Secretary’s meeting with Minister Dermer yesterday, which didn’t really say a whole lot. So I’m just wondering if you can expand on whether you guys think that – or whether you have made an assessment that Israel is meeting the criteria that was set out in the letter.

MR PATEL: Sure. So I’m sorry that you found it unsatisfactory, but —

QUESTION: No, I didn’t say it was unsatisfactory. I just said it didn’t say a whole lot.

MR PATEL: Let me make a couple points. So over the past 30 days, Israel has taken a number of steps to address the measures laid out in the letter that Secretaries Blinken and Austin sent earlier in October. We continue to be in discussion with our partners in Israel about these steps that they have taken, which they took as a result of U.S. intervention, as well as additional steps that we feel that still need to be taken.

Ultimately, Matt, the U.S. continues to be the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to surge humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza. And ultimately, our view continues to be that the only long-term solution to alleviating the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is bringing this war to an end, and we’re going to continue to work to achieve that. The Secretary raised all this with Minister Dermer yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay. But I didn’t – don’t believe I heard an answer to my question in there.

MR PATEL: Look, Matt —

QUESTION: Are they – have they met – you guys, yourselves, set this 30-day deadline. Today is the deadline. Did they meet it or did they not?

MR PATEL: So I think, first, when it comes to assessing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the region writ large, I think it’s important to remember that we have constant evaluations ongoing and constant assessments ongoing about the circumstances. And first, let me just say specifically before I answer your question that we’ve seen some steps being taken over the past 30 days. Specifically, we have seen the reopening of the Erez crossing. We have seen a new crossing at Kissufim open. As it relates to the Jordanian armed forces corridor, we have seen a waive of – a waivement of certain customs requirement that humanitarian organizations had previously said was an obstacle. We’ve also seen some additional delivery routes open within Gaza, including Bani Suheila Road, expanding the use of the Israeli fence road, as well as repairing the coastal road. We’ve also seen some deliveries resume and restored in the north, first to Gaza City, and in this most recent week to areas surrounding Jabalia. We’ve also seen the expansion of the Mawasi humanitarian zone, and we have seen the institution of periodic operational pauses.

This is all to say, Matt, we at this time have not made an assessment that there – that the Israelis are in violation of U.S. law. But most importantly, we are going to continue to watch how these steps that they’ve taken, how they are being implemented, how that they can be continued to be expanded on. And through that, we’re going to continue to assess their compliance with U.S. law. We’ve seen some progress being made. We would like to see some more changes happen. We believe that had it not been for U.S. intervention these changes may not have ever taken place. But most importantly, we want to see continued progress, and that’s what we’re looking for.

QUESTION: All right. So essentially, there isn’t going to be any consequence for Israel not meeting the —

MR PATEL: I don’t have – I certainly don’t have a change in U.S. policy to announce today, Matt. But as you just heard me say, we are constantly going to assess the circumstances on the ground. We are looking for these – some of these steps that we’ve made, we want to make sure that they are sustained and expanded upon. And certainly, if we don’t see that, if we don’t continue to see steps in the appropriate direction, we certainly are – will enforce U.S. law. There’s no doubt about it.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. But you guys were the ones that gave them the 30-day deadline. It’s hard to see your answers today, such as they are, as anything other than kind of giving them a pass for not meeting the criteria that was laid out in the letter.

MR PATEL: Certainly, Matt, I would not view it as giving them a pass. Because, one, no one is up here – certainly I’m not – saying that the situation in Gaza or their humanitarian circumstances are rosy. It is a very dire circumstance. And what we need to see is we need to see these steps acted on. We need to see them implemented. And the ultimate hope is that through these steps some conditions have been created in which we can see things like additional aid, additional food trucks, additional measures being taken that ultimately will be beneficial to the Palestinian people in Gaza. That’s what we aim to see.

And as you’ve heard me say, and as you’ve heard Matt and the Secretary say previously, if we don’t see steps being taken, we, of course, will appropriately enforce U.S. law. But today —

QUESTION: But – correct me if I’m wrong – isn’t that what you guys said a month ago?

MR PATEL: That is what we said a month ago.

MR PATEL: And that is why we have laid out —

QUESTION: And they have not – and they have not yet met them, because you say that they have made some – taken some steps, but more needs to be made. In other words, they have not —

MR PATEL: That letter —

QUESTION: — met the criteria by the deadline.

QUESTION: And you are giving them a pass. Is that – I don’t – there’s no other way to look at it, from —

MR PATEL: No, I don’t think that is true. That letter was specific about some specific areas where we wanted to see them take some additional steps.

QUESTION: Yes. And have you seen those steps that you wrote out in the letter —

MR PATEL: We have seen some of those steps being taken.

QUESTION: Some. Some.

QUESTION: It didn’t say some. It said all, right?

MR PATEL: Matt, the point is more than any singular step, we outlined a number of steps that we wanted to see taken. What matters most is not just a specific action or a specific item but the totality of the progress that we see.

QUESTION: Well, then I don’t understand why you sent the letter in the first place, but I’ll let others have a crack at this now.

MR PATEL: The point is, Matt, that we want to see the totality of the humanitarian situation improve, and we think some of these steps will allow the conditions for that to continue to progress.

QUESTION: But, I mean, if it’s the totality of the humanitarian situation, we have eight aid groups who came out today and said that the situation has not only not gotten better, it’s gotten worse over the past 30 days. So I just – how do you square that with this assessment that they – you have – or non-assessment that they are in violation?

MR PATEL: Jenny, I can’t speak to the kinds of assessment that these groups made. Certainly have seen that reporting. But to Matt I just laid out some of the metrics that we saw. We saw the reopening of Erez. We saw a new crossing opening.

QUESTION: But this just seems like a box-ticking measure. You’re saying okay, they did this. But we were told – you guys said – it would be based on the results of the ground that have not borne out here. So can you talk us through the deliberation here?

MR PATEL: I am not going to get into the deliberative process, Jenny. But specifically, when we’re talking about specific metrics or specific actions or things on the ground, the hope is that the operational changes that have been made through some of these things – things for example, just the waiving of the customs requirement in the Jordanian corridor or the reopening of certain crossings, the additional internal routes that we’ve seen open up – the hope and the desire is that things like that will make it possible for an additional increase in humanitarian aid and trucks to get to the places where it needs to go.

And, of course, if that doesn’t end up being the case – this is something that we are constantly evaluating and constantly assessing. And if that doesn’t be the case, we, of course, are going to make sure that how they are conducting themselves is in compliance with U.S. law. There is no doubt about that. But we also have seen some steps taken that we think will address things like throughput, that will address things like capacity, that will address things like the flow of aid, and we’d like to see how that plays out.

QUESTION: And how do you make those assessments, though, that these steps would be enough? Who are you consulting, if not for the aid community who is actually working on the ground there?

MR PATEL: We are consulting closely, of course, with the aid community. We are, of course, consulting closely with the United Nations, with the Government of Israel, with the Jordanians, with other partners in the region, with our embassies and consulates in the region that are on the front lines of some of this work. This is a deliberative process that is all-encompassing, that includes a lot of perspectives. And it is also one that did not start when this letter was sent, and it certainly does not stop today, whenever the 30-day mark is up. This is something that we are constantly assessing and evaluating. And should we see something that is inconsistent with U.S. law, we will take appropriate action.

QUESTION: Is it not – this is my last one. Is this not inconsistent with U.S. law that you had to send this letter and lay out this timeline because they had withheld so much aid up to this point?

MR PATEL: Jenny, the point of this letter was to raise some areas of concern and to lay out some steps in which we thought that addressing some of these areas would lead to steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance. We have seen some steps being taken. There need to be some additional steps that are also taken. But most importantly, we need to see this – these kinds of efforts sustained over a long period of time, and that’s what we hope to see.

QUESTION: Vedant, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I think you’re going to get this question a lot. Where I think we’re trying to understand why the administration, Secretary, Matt – I think it was November the 4th he said from this podium we are going to look at the results, and the results so far – that was the little assessment by him that day – are not good enough. And then here you are about a week later, you’re effectively giving Israel a pass on this.

MR PATEL: We are not giving —

QUESTION: Please help us understand.

MR PATEL: We’re not giving Israel a pass. First of all, the efforts and the things that we had seen in place a week ago certainly were not satisfactory, but I am standing here before you with new and additional information. It is up to you to intake it or process it however you like. But when we were talking about this last week, just again, the new crossing at Kissufim, that had not been opened. Erez had not been reopened. This waiving of a customs requirement in the Jordanian corridor had not been in place. These additional routes within Gaza had not been in place. So these are the kinds of resultant steps that we were talking about a week ago. These were the kinds of things we were talking about when out outlined that letter.

There is nobody in this administration saying that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is pristine. It is a humanitarian – it continues to be a crisis, and it continues to be dire circumstances. And the point is we want to see changes like these being made consistently and over an extended period of time. Our hope is – is that things like these have created the operational throughput, they have created the capacity, they have reduced some barriers that will make it so that the aid can get to the places where it needs to go. And if we do not continue to see steps like this in the right direction, then certainly we would find the government out of compliance with U.S. law.

QUESTION: And when —

MR PATEL: But Humeyra, the important thing – and I’m not trying to – I am not trying to harp on this – is that there are things, there are new things that have been done. You can choose –

QUESTION: No, I mean —

MR PATEL: — to disagree with whether it’s enough or not. And humanitarian groups can choose to disagree whether it’s enough. And we certainly are not saying that it is a silver bullet. But there are new progress markers that have been made in terms of trying to be responsive to what is happening in the humanitarian context.

QUESTION: We have seen those steps. But what we’re trying to tell you is that you – the U.S. Government has explicitly said the steps themselves is not going to be enough; we need to see the results on the ground. So you keep telling me they have taken steps, and whether or not I find them satisfactory, I think that’s very – that’s quite irrelevant. The relevance is that – what is the situation on the ground? And you are describing it as dire. That’s why we’re trying to – but I don’t want to stay on this. I —

MR PATEL: We couldn’t agree more, Humeyra. We couldn’t agree that the situation is dire.

QUESTION: I have a – I actually have a question.

QUESTION: You keep talking about ongoing assessment. When do you intend to do this? This administration has less than 70 days in office, and the humanitarian aid situation is a problem that’s been going on over a year. You – I mean, it’s clear that you have – you had trouble convincing Israel to boost measures to improve humanitarian aid. What makes you think that you’re going to achieve that in the remaining time, if at all?

MR PATEL: So first, let me just say assessing the humanitarian situation and assessing steps and ways that we can continue to support that line of effort is not something that starts or stops. So to your question about timing, we were looking at the humanitarian situation in Gaza before October 7th, in the time since, and we’ll continue to be engaged on this.

When it comes to the letter, we were looking at the humanitarian situation in Gaza before this letter was sent, and we will continue to look closely at the humanitarian situation in Gaza after this 30-day period is up. We are constantly assessing and evaluating, and if we do not see consistent progress, if we do not see the results on the ground, then we will of course make appropriate assessments about their compliance with international law, and compliance with U.S. law. And that’ll continue to be the case.

QUESTION: Just a few more things.

QUESTION: What was Legal Bureau’s input in this? Did —

MR PATEL: I am just not going to get into the deliberative process or speak to specifics. What I can say, and what we have said before as it relates to this, these are deliberative processes that include input from not just across the State Department but across the interagency, as well as those individuals who are on the front lines of working on these very serious humanitarian issues.

QUESTION: Right. But given this is an assessment or – on whether or not a country is violating U.S. law, could we assume that State Department’s Legal Bureau concluded that Israel is not violating U.S. law?

MR PATEL: I’m not here to offer an assessment or even a legal assessment on how a particular bureau made or didn’t make a recommendation. What I am here to say and what we have said, again, is that we’ve seen some steps taken. I outlined them in detail to you, to Jenny, to Matt. What we want to see now is that we want to see these steps sustained over time, and we’re going to continue to remain in close touch with our Israeli partners, the United Nations, other partners in the region to make sure that these steps have a lasting impact on the result on the ground.

QUESTION: Final one —

MR PATEL: And if that doesn’t be – if that doesn’t end up being the case, we’ll – the United States will also take appropriate action.

QUESTION: Final one. U.S. Ambassador to UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield last month said U.S. was watching to ensure that Israel’s actions on the ground needs to show that it doesn’t have a policy of starvation. Given that you have had an assessment going on on all of the humanitarian aid measures, can you say that’s the case, that they don’t have a policy of starvation?

MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t have a specific assessment to offer, Humeyra. What I can say is that doesn’t – that there has not been a conclusive finding of that, or at least I don’t have one to offer from this government. What we are hoping is that these steps, and them contributed with the additional steps that we would like to see happen, can again, as I said to Jenny, create the space, these operational changes create the space and the capacity to increase the number of trucks, the types of aid, and to make sure that the product can get where it needs to go. And it is absolutely incumbent upon the Government of Israel and the United Nations and other partners to ensure that it actually does that, and we are going to take our responsibility in this incredibly seriously, and we’ll be making sure to work hard with all the relevant interlocutors to see that happen.

Let me go to Shannon, and then I’ll come to you, Shaun. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Assuming this is on topic.

QUESTION: Yeah, same topic.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just can you – backing up a little bit – explain the logic of setting a 30-day deadline if the end result was going to be that we’re hoping to have these continuous assessments, continuous improvements, even though all of those demands haven’t been met? Why set the 30-day deadline? Because when this letter did surface, there was a lot of speculation that perhaps this was a way to kind of kick the ball back beyond the election.

MR PATEL: So the – look, we make foreign policy and national security decisions because they are in the interest of the United States and the interest of the American people and the interest of the region, not for any electoral, political reason. This letter was sent because the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense had legitimate and serious concern about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This department and the Pentagon had some specific concerns about the lack of progress in some specific areas, and it had some recommendations on what steps we think specifically the IDF, COGAT, the Government of Israel writ large could take to further enhance the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

It’s been 30 days. We have seen some of those steps being taken. Again, I outlined those already. There are a number of steps that we think also additionally could be taken and we’ll continue to remain engaged on those issues. But again, 30 days ago, much of the things that I outlined to Shaun, to Jenny, to Humeyra – those things had not happened yet, and so those are important steps in the right direction. We need to see more, we want to see more, and we’re going to continue to be engaged on making sure that more happens and ultimately, though, that these steps have a tangible result. That’s what this is about.

QUESTION: Talking about the operational changes, so far in the month of November, only 624 trucks have entered into Gaza according to COGAT, and the letter calls for 350 a day. So are these operational changes that you’ve seen – can you reasonably assess that going forward in two days the amount of trucks that had been able to enter in almost two weeks will be —

MR PATEL: I’m – so I’m not going to speculate on a specific metric, Shannon. But that is our absolute hope. Our hope is that these kinds of changes will make it possible for these kind of increased metrics to be seen. Now it is inherently incumbent on the Government of Israel, on the United Nations, on other partners to put that into action, and we certainly are ready to stand at the ready to be – continue to engaged on this to get that across the finish line also.

Yeah, Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Could I follow up on a couple points?

QUESTION: You said one thing – you said that where we were last week, that it certainly was not satisfactory a week ago. Should the interpretation be that things in the ensuing week, that it’s now satisfactory? I know you said it’s dire, that it’s not pristine, but are these satisfactory measures, essentially?

MR PATEL: These are steps that we think that are responsive in part to the letter that the Secretaries sent. It addresses some of the specific concerns that that letter raised. Again, I’ll use the Jordan corridor as an example. That letter from Secretary Blinken and Austin expressed some areas of improvement that can be made on the Jordan corridor. One of the steps that I shared with you today was an example of such a metric. There’s also been additional border crossings opened and additional routes opening, so there have been new things that we’re seeing.

The overall humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be – to remain unsatisfactory, but in the context of the letter, it’s not about whether we find something satisfactory or not, it’s that – what are the actions that we’re seeing. These actions that we have seen, we think that these are steps in the right direction. We want to see more steps. We want to see these steps sustained over a significant period of time, and ultimately we want to see these steps have an – a result on the situation on the ground. And that’s what we’re going to continue to be engaged on.

QUESTION: Sure. A number of people have asked you about the 30-day deadline.

QUESTION: How that obviously came after the election and how the administration doesn’t have much time left. I mean, is there a sense that perhaps this is a sign that the leverage is gone that this current administration has? It’s not so long before —

MR PATEL: Again, Shaun, the 30-day time period was not about any particular day on a calendar, and it certainly wasn’t about electoral politics. It’s that things take time. It’s that processes, especially in such a volatile region, sometimes take time to unearth and to move forward. And so today we have seen some progress in that space. We’ve seen some additional crossings, we’ve seen some additional routes within Gaza, we’ve seen the adjustments made to the Jordan corridor. We are – intend to continue to work at this and see more.

QUESTION: And just – just a second. I mean, the – but in terms of – even if it was not part of the electoral calendar, I mean, it’s – but we’re saying – but in terms of if the U.S. isn’t taking action at this point and the clock is ticking anyway, what makes you think that there’d be any leverage that the U.S. has at the end – toward the end of —

MR PATEL: Well, Shaun, I’ll just say that we all know what the election result was and don’t need to point that out to anybody, but here we are about a week and a half after that with some new progress points that we can point to, with some actions that the Israeli Government has taken, that we think would not have happened had it been for U.S. intervention. So we continue to think that our role, our engagement, our diplomacy has a space. It has a role to play. It has a serious role to play. That is at the core of what this Secretary and this President believe, and we’re certainly going to continue to engage and work really hard at this. Ultimately, it’s at the end of the day not up to us, but we think that it was U.S. engagement that led to these progress points being met, and we’re going to continue to work at it.

QUESTION: Could I just do one slightly – (inaudible) ask more specifically on this. Could I just ask you one additional aspect on the conflict?

QUESTION: Qatar. I’m sure you saw over the weekend the statements coming out about Qatar stepping back a little bit from mediation. Is this a disappointment? Does this show that there perhaps are not as many hopes right now for brokering something?

MR PATEL: So first, Shaun, let me say a couple things. We have, going back as far as we all can remember, have been explicitly clear with countries around the world that certainly it can no longer be business as usual with Hamas. As it relates to decisions and things that are being discussed between our Qatari partners and Hamas, I will defer to Qatar to speak to that, and I’m not going to get into those private conversations.

We’re continuing to pursue a number of initiatives to secure the release of hostages. That work is ongoing. We have not given up hope, and it’s critical to us to get a deal done as soon as possible, especially so that we can bring the remaining hostages home to their families. They have now been held in captivity for over a hundred days in what can only be unimaginable conditions. And so ending the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza also is tantamount and we’re going to continue to work at this.

And our view is that if Hamas wants a ceasefire, which they claim they do, they need to engage. And right now, they’re not.

QUESTION: So just a final one from me. I mean, do you – is your interpretation that the – or is it your view that the mediation by Qatar is basically done for the moment? I mean, is it – do you actually see things that are ongoing, or is it —

MR PATEL: So let’s – I mean, let’s not forget, Shaun, that going back to – I want to say even before the summertime, Qatar, the United States, Egypt have played immeasurable mediating roles that I have no doubt will continue the role that they are going to play. I’m not going to speculate on what the potential location of Hamas may or may not mean. Again, that is not something I’m going to speak to. I will let others – I will let the Qatari Government speak to their own decision making and their own engagements.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Going back now to the letter, last week when I asked Matt whether it included a figure, a number of trucks and so on. So do you believe that these trucks were – met the number of the trucks that were stipulated and that were met?

MR PATEL: So I answered this question already, Said.

QUESTION: Well, in the interest —

MR PATEL: I literally answered that question —

QUESTION: Okay. So you feel that it was met?

MR PATEL: — five minutes ago.

QUESTION: Right? It was met?

MR PATEL: That is not what I said.

MR PATEL: What I said was that our hope is that the steps that we have seen taken —

QUESTION: Okay, right.

MR PATEL: — will create the operational conditions to allow such a figure to be able to enter.

QUESTION: Okay, right.

MR PATEL: It is incumbent on the Government of Israel and the United Nations and others to make that we’re doing everything we can to get there. And the United States is going to continue to play a role when it comes to that. It is not about one singular step or one singular metric specifically, Said. This is about all of these actions coming together and what that means for the humanitarian situation on the ground.

QUESTION: But okay —

QUESTION: So the letter really says either/or. I mean, it was very stark, very clear in its approach and so on. So would you say that this element of it, either/or, is no longer operative? It’s null?

QUESTION: So there would be no action taken if Israel – if Israel backed down on the aid and so on?

MR PATEL: That is the opposite of what I just said, Said, in that this is an area that we are going to continue to pay close attention to.

MR PATEL: And if we do not see consistent progress in this space, if we do not see progress that we find to be satisfactory, we, of course, are going to continue to – and we will enforce U.S. law, and we will make sure that we’re doing so appropriately. This is not at all an announcement that the United States finds the humanitarian situation in Gaza satisfactory or that it’s great or significantly improved. That is not the case. That’s not the reality of the ground.

The letter that the two secretaries sent was specifically about areas that we had some specific concern, some suggested steps that – which we outlined that we thought would help address the humanitarian situation. We have seen some of those steps being taken. Some of those steps have not been taken yet, but this is not about a singular step or not. What this is about is that – the totality of actions, including actions that were not included in the letter.

And ultimately, our goal is we want to see all of that, whether it was in the letter or not, whether it was something that the United States suggested or not, we want all of those things to contribute to an increased and a positive humanitarian situation. That continues to not be the case.

QUESTION: Okay. So let me ask you something. This aspect of the letter that says if you don’t do this, we will do this and so on, is it still operative or has it been canceled – or has it been expired, not canceled?

MR PATEL: Said, we will always be effective implementers of U.S. law.

QUESTION: Right, okay.

MR PATEL: Currently, we have not made an assessment that they are in violation of U.S. law. That, of course, can change at any time. We are watching these circumstances closely, and we will make appropriate changes within our own policy, should we need to, if we assess that their compliance with U.S. law has changed. It’s as simple as that.

QUESTION: I wonder if I can get you to comment on what Mr. Smotrich said, the minister of finance, about once the new president is sworn in they’ll be able to annex the West Bank. Do you – do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: This President – President Biden – and Secretary Blinken have reiterated consistently the clear position of the United States in support of a two-state solution as part of a negotiated process that ultimately will provide an independent Palestinian state with appropriate security guarantees for Israel. The comments that were made by this minister certainly are not conducive to building an enduring peace, and they are incredibly inconsistent with the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo last year.

QUESTION: Well, the Kan news agency, an Israeli news agency, also quoted the prime minister himself as saying exactly that in a closed-door meeting. So is it something that you raise with the prime minister or something that – is the President likely to raise as one of his last actions and so on to impress upon this prime minister that the settlements are illegal, that settlements ought to stop, that the West Bank should remain a viable land for a Palestinian state?

MR PATEL: Said, at the corner of our approach to policy when it comes to this region, specifically policy that we think impacts the Israeli people and the Palestinian people – at the center of that is a constant and clear position of the United States commitment to a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: I will let other people speak to their own points of view.

QUESTION: Can I just press you on the trucks? Because I didn’t hear – you said you’ve answered questions about trucks, but how many trucks per day have entered Gaza over the last 30 days?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific number over the past 30 days for you, Tom.

QUESTION: But isn’t that – that was a pretty profound part of the letter, which said surge all forms of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza by enabling a minimum of 350 trucks per day.

MR PATEL: So over the course from November 1st through November 9th – I don’t have an updated metric beyond that, but at least from November 1st to November 9th, we have seen 404 trucks cross into Gaza. Again, Tom, the point is not that this number is satisfactory. We certainly don’t feel it is. But the point here is that some of the steps that we’ve seen taken, it is our hope that those steps have created the operational conditions to allow for an additional influx of trucks, to allow for an additional influx of aid.

QUESTION: But I mean, that’s – it’s not what the letter said. The letter says enable a minimum of 350 trucks per day to enter Gaza, and this is in the context of a letter says you’ve got 30 days to do it and failure to demonstrate commitment to this may have implications under U.S. law. The United Nations says an average of 37 trucks a day have entered in the month of October. That’s one tenth of what you asked for.

MR PATEL: Certainly there needs to be more progress in – when it comes to the metrics for trucks, Tom. But again, the point that I was making – and I’ll reiterate it here – is that we – our hope is that these kinds of changes have allowed for the operational adjustments to see an additional influx of trucks and to see if that metric can be met or not. And if it is not, of course we’re going to press and continue to raise this with our partners in Israel. And ultimately, as you’ve heard me say, the Government of Israel and the United Nations have a responsibility to do everything they can to make sure that that number is met. As you just heard me say at the top of this, we have seen this reopening of Erez, this new crossing at Kissufim. We’ve seen some additional routes open up within Gaza. These things, we think, will help – will hopefully help create the space to allow that to happen.

QUESTION: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I’ve heard that about the measures, but I’m just asking about what you demanded in the letter. So then we had: end the isolation of the north. That was a specific demand in the letter. Have the Israelis ended the isolation of the north?

MR PATEL: We have seen some restoration of deliveries to the north that had been closed for a few weeks – first, as you heard me say, to Gaza City, as well as this week into the area surrounding Jabalia as well.

QUESTION: Yeah, Jabalia as well – Jabalia – well, you said around Jabalia, you didn’t say in Jabalia.

MR PATEL: Areas around Jabalia and first to Gaza City.

QUESTION: Yeah, but not – so that’s not inside Jabalia, which presumably remains under siege.

MR PATEL: Tom, I – I’m not going to get into a specific tit for tat on every item in the letter. The letter was a suggestion of steps that we think that they should take.

QUESTION: It didn’t say it’s —

MR PATEL: We outlined a number of steps that we wanted to see take place. We have seen them take significant actions. Ultimately, what matters is not one specific step but the totality of actions, including actions that, as I said to Said, were not even necessarily laid out in the letter or not, and whether all of those together lead to an increase in humanitarian assistance that will – that’s what we’re looking at and that’s what we’re going to continue to play close attention to.

QUESTION: But it’s important, isn’t it, because there’s 100,000 people trapped in that besieged area, according to the United Nations, where they say there’s been no food, there has been no water, there have been daily and repeated denials of humanitarian convoys by the Israeli authorities, which seems in stark contrast to what you’re suggesting.

On UNRWA, the letter also says that the Israeli authorities should do everything to prevent this legislation that would ban UNRWA and prevent contact with UNRWA. Now they’ve clearly plowed ahead with that and ignored that, too. So are you – are they listening to you in the letter on that point? Have there been any —

MR PATEL: On the UNRWA legislation specifically, Tom, there are over two months to go until the legislation is implemented. We continue to have ongoing conversations about it, and we’re going to continue to discuss the implementation of this law with the Government of Israel and make clear that steps that deny vital assistance to civilians could have implications under our law and policy. I’m not going to speculate on what exactly that may or may not look like, given that, as I said, the law isn’t being implemented yet. There’s still two months to go. But certainly it continues to be an area of concern and one that we’re continuing to raise with the Government of Israel, and we’ll continue to do so.

QUESTION: Just, I mean, isn’t there a profound point of what you were trying to do was end a siege around northern Gaza that was trapping a hundred thousand civilians, to prevent them starving to death? And we’ve heard now Josep Borrell, EU foreign affairs representative, saying the use of hunger as a weapon of war is against international humanitarian law in relation to northern Gaza. We’ve had multiple aid agencies saying that they’re concerned about starvation in the north.

So you may – you set this letter out with a clear objective, which was about the north of Gaza. And all I can see that you said today is an extra crossing has opened up; one-tenth of the trucks that you asked for are entering Gaza, but not getting to the besieged area. So as far as I can see from what you said today, absolutely nothing that you’ve asked for is actually happening.

MR PATEL: Well, first, Tom, I think it’s important to remember that these objectives and our strategic goals don’t start and stop just because these – this 30-day window is up. This is something that we’re going to continue to work at and engage closely with our Israelis on – with our Israeli partners on.

Additionally, it is more than just opening up a number of crossings, though, yes, that is part of this. We have seen the reopening of Erez; we’ve seen a new crossing at Kissufim; we’ve seen this adjustment being made with the Jordanian corridor; we’ve seen some additional delivery routes within Gaza; we’ve seen deliveries restored to northern Gaza and areas surrounding Jabalia; we’ve seen the humanitarian zone in Mawasi expanded; and we have also seen the institution of periodic operational pauses.

There are absolutely more additional steps that we would like to see, and we’ll continue to press and make sure that those are happening as swiftly as possible.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have one question about Gaza, and can we move to Lebanon after that?

QUESTION: I just want to also circle around what my colleagues here said regarding the assessment. You are now saying that your assessment is there is no violation, there is some steps been taken. And I keep going back to what Matt said in earlier, in the few weeks ago in his comments about the results on the ground. But I will go with you, that you are satisfied with the steps that Israel is taking. You’re demanding more. You’re demanding more of aid to come inside Gaza.

But my question: What makes you assess that the current condition in Gaza is not because Israel is preventing aid from coming in? Because you are dismissing what the aid agencies is saying as their own assessment, that you don’t share it. But what is the reason, then, for the situation, especially in northern Gaza, to be this dire if it’s not Israel violating U.S. law or international humanitarian?

MR PATEL: What we can speak to is what we are seeing. And what we’re seeing is some steps being taken. Certainly, the humanitarian situation writ large in Gaza continues to be dire, and we’re going to continue to work at this as aggressively as we can.

The point of the letter was that – the Secretaries laid out that in this letter that, as we’ve made clear in previous engagements with the Israelis, that it is our responsibility to continuously assess Israel’s assurances as it relates to the facilitation of humanitarian aid. We’re going to continue to make those assessments on the actions Israel takes or doesn’t take, as we have done since the beginning of this conflict.

And based on some of the small steps that I have laid out for you today – first, again, I would just stress that this is work that continues and is ongoing, and it does not start or stop. But based on some of those steps, as well as additional steps, we have not made an assessment that they are in violation of U.S. law. We are going to continue to watch this space, though, and pay close attention, and we will effectively implement U.S. law. And if we see actions or steps that are inconsistent with the responsibility and assurances that Israel has to facilitate the delivery of U.S. aid, we of course will appropriately implement U.S. law.

QUESTION: But if they are not in violation – so from November 1st to November 9 there was 404 trucks come in, right? It’s like 45 to 44 trucks a day. This is way beyond, as Tom said, well beyond the —

MR PATEL: Absolutely.

QUESTION: — 350. Why it’s not 350, according to your assessment?

MR PATEL: So, again, I don’t want us to go down a rabbit hole of specific truck numbers. What – our point of view is that some of these operational changes that they have made, that I have outlined in great detail now at this point, we believe that it should be possible to increase the number of trucks that makes it into Gaza every day. It is now incumbent upon the Government of Israel, the United Nations, and others, now that there are these operational changes that we think can help with throughput, can help with delivery within Gaza, that can help with getting the aid where it needs to go – our hope is that with those changes, we can see that number achieved.

QUESTION: Just before we —

QUESTION: Before we move to Lebanon, can I just ask you —

QUESTION: — why did you bother to put in 350 trucks a day, if it doesn’t matter?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the —

QUESTION: I mean, you keep saying you’re not going to speak to specific metrics, but you guys are the ones that made this specific – we didn’t. We didn’t give the Israelis 30 days to do all this stuff. You guys did. And now those 30 days are up. And as you’ve heard from everyone so far – and these aid groups that came out last night – they haven’t met them, and all of a sudden you say that the metrics that you put out don’t matter.

MR PATEL: We have never said – I never said that they don’t matter.

MR PATEL: What I said was —

QUESTION: You just said rabbit hole. I mean, this are metrics exactly like you’ve put out. It’s not a rabbit hole.

MR PATEL: I – meaning I don’t want to take up time getting into a specific tit for tat on, like, truck numbers. But —

QUESTION: Well, but then why did you put them in the letter?

QUESTION: But you can take time. It’s really – you can take time. It’s really important.

MR PATEL: Those metrics – the metrics and the number of – let me just be very clear. The metrics and the number of trucks getting into Gaza every day absolutely matter. It is – I said that to him because I did not want to get into a specific technical conversation on inflows and outflows. I don’t have more updated numbers for you beyond the ones – what I said to Tom. Matt, the metrics absolutely matter. The point that we are making – the two broad points that we made is that, one, on specific truck numbers, we think these operational changes that we’ve made can help get us to that goal. That’s the first point.

The second point is that all of these steps and even the steps that have yet to be taken and even the steps that maybe were not even laid out in the letter – the point is not about specific steps. It is about what the totality of their contribution is to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. That’s what we’re focused on.

QUESTION: But just one more thing.

QUESTION: When you said we’re going to continue to make those assessments, can you point us to one assessment on any kind of IHL violation that the administration has done since the beginning of Gaza war?

MR PATEL: Humeyra, since October 7th, when we have seen certain things take place that are inconsistent with perhaps maybe how we would have gone about such a endeavor or they are inconsistent with international law, we have raised those and addressed those specifically.

QUESTION: Oh, you have seen things that were inconsistent with IHL?

MR PATEL: What – what I am talking about specifically is incidents that could potentially have had components of that.

MR PATEL: An example I would give is the incident involving World Central Kitchen workers. When that incident happened, we were very quick to stress the importance of the need for further deconfliction mechanisms, for greater communication. So when we have seen things, Humeyra, we have raised them directly with our partners in Israel.

QUESTION: Yes, you’ve raised them, Vedant, but you’re saying we’re going to continue to make those assessments, and I’m asking you whether – like I have not seen any of these assessments. So where are those assessments?

MR PATEL: I – we – those processes, Humeyra, are ongoing and they have been ongoing. We’ve spent a great deal talking about the many lines of efforts that the United States has to assess those kinds of processes, and that work will continue.

QUESTION: Just a broad question. Are you at all worried that this will have an impact on U.S. credibility? You have clearly put out a letter, laid out specific criteria, and gave a specific deadline, and right now, you are basically not making an assessment line by – line by line or you’re effectively saying, oh, that deadline was just to encourage them to take some steps. Are you worried at all that this might hurt U.S. credibility because you don’t seem to be following through?

MR PATEL: First, I think you’re putting words in my mouth. I did not say that. Number two, let us not forget and lose sight again – and I spoke a little of this with Shaun – that some of the steps that we are seeing being taken are a direct result of U.S. intervention. Over the course of this entire conflict, we have seen steps that are undertaken because of U.S. intervention and the role and the kinds of engagement that our diplomacy has had. So that – I take that to mean that we are credible voices and we continue to be credible actors in the region, and time and time again, what we have found to be true through our engagement and our diplomacy is that perhaps interlocutors may disagree with the United States on policy, may disagree with our approach, may disagree with a policy that other countries are pursuing. But time and time again, we hear the call for the United States to continue to have a seat at the table and for the United States to continue to engage.

From the immediate onset of October 7th to now, there have been a number of instances in which our engagement has unearthed results – results as it relates to the conflict, results as it relates to humanitarian aid, what have you.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: Can I go to my question on Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Okay. I imagine Michel also wants to go to Lebanon, but go ahead.

QUESTION: There have been reports now circulating in the last couple of days that a deal or some kind of deal in Lebanon could be reached. Lately now by – journalists are quoting the Special Envoy Hochstein that we are very close to reaching a deal of – to cease hostilities in Lebanon. Can you elaborate on that?

MR PATEL: So look, I’m not going to speculate on what’s in the press reporting and not – what I will say is that ultimately, we feel strongly that the only viable path as it relates to Lebanon is a durable peace, is one that has a diplomatic resolution, one that gives a viable path to a durable peace and security in the region, one that – you’ve heard us say this before – creates the conditions for civilians to be able to return home on both sides of the border. But I am not going to get into the specifics of the process and the negotiations beyond that.

QUESTION: My last question —

QUESTION: — is that what has been reported that the Israeli demands is for Hizballah to abide by the 1701, your resolution, and withdraw above the Litani River, disarm, and the Israelis be able to be – to go back to their cities and towns in the north. Hizballah yesterday said that nobody is talking to them regarding any deal coming around. They know that there have been some diplomatic movement around, but nobody’s talking to them, and they will never disarm. Does this give you any hope that —

MR PATEL: Well, that sentiment is exactly why you and I are even having this conversation, because in 2006, 1701 was pretty explicit in what the expectation was. It was to withdraw up past the Litani River and for Hizballah to disarm. We have yet to see that, and that is why we continue to be in this place where we are.

We continue to be engaged on this. It is no secret what the United States, what the Government of Israel, what other multilateral institutions want to see happen as it relates to Lebanon. It certainly should be no secret to Hizballah. We’ve been talking about this pretty consistently for some time. We want to see 1701 effectively implemented. We want to see it in place. And we continue to believe that a diplomatic resolution that is encompassing of that certainly is the only way that we’re going to get to the conditions we need so that, as you noted, civilians can get home.

QUESTION: Vedant, do you see any role that Russia can play in the diplomatic solution in Lebanon, especially that an Israeli official has visited Moscow? And can you rely on Russia to prevent Iran and the Syrian regime from smuggling arms to Hizballah, to Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Look, I will let Minister Dermer speak to any of his travels. As it relates to Moscow, I’m certainly not going to get into that, and additionally I’m not going to speculate on what kind of role Russia may or may not play.

QUESTION: And Israel has started to talk today about the second phase of the war in Lebanon. Are you aware of this phase?

MR PATEL: I will let them speak to their own military operations, but as I was speaking to your colleague, what we want to see is a diplomatic resolution, one that creates the conditions for civilians on both side of the Blue Line to be able to return home.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant.

QUESTION: A few questions on Russia and North Korea.

QUESTION: Russian President Putin rationalized the dispatch of North Korean troops by signing a military treaty between North Korea and Russia, which was ratified by the Russian parliament. He also said joint military exercises would be possible between North Korea and Russia. What is your reaction of this?

MR PATEL: So you’ve heard us talk about this before, Janne. We are incredibly concerned by Russia’s decision to turn to the DPRK to supply soldiers to continue their brutal war against Ukraine. Today I can confirm that over 10,000 DPRK soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to the far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces. Russian forces have trained the DPRK soldiers in artillery, in UAV and basic infantry operations, including trench clearing, which are critical skills for frontline operations. However, Russia’s battlefield success using these DPRK troops will in large part be dictated by how well the Russians can integrate them into their military. Some of the challenges they would need to overcome are interoperability, the language barrier, command and control, and communications.

The United States is consulting closely with our allies and partners and other countries in the region on the implications of this, on these developments. As you so all know, the Secretary of course is on his way to Europe for engagements at NATO and the European Union, where I have no doubt this topic will come up and be discussed, and we’ll continue to consult appropriately in close coordination with allies and partners. And at the direction of President Biden, we’re continuing to surge the security assistance that we are providing to Ukraine as well.

QUESTION: You said that 10,000 troops, but this weekend President Zelenskyy said they were fighting 50,000 Russian troops, including North Korean troops. Can you confirm this?

MR PATEL: So I will let our Ukrainian partners speak to their own assessments that they are offering, but from our end, we can confirm that there are over 10,000 DPRK soldiers that have been sent to eastern Russia.

QUESTION: Lastly, north – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the concept of North Korea’s denuclearization is already a closed issue. How will the United States achieve denuclearization on North Korea?

MR PATEL: That continues to be a – at the cornerstone of our approach to the DPRK. We want to see the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We’re continually going to engage trilaterally on this as well in close coordination with the ROK and Japan, as well as other Indo-Pacific partners on this.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Leah, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: This Thursday, Peru’s massive new Chinese-funded Chancay port will be inaugurated. What security and political concerns will the U.S. have about this port?

MR PATEL: So, look, I will let our Peruvian partners speak to any infrastructure projects that they have. Again, our longstanding belief has been that it is ultimately for countries to choose and to dictate their own foreign policy. What we are focused on in our bilateral relationships with countries around the world, whether it be Peru, whether it be someone else, is the – is what the United States and what a partnership with the United States can bring for not just the people of the United States but also the people of Peru.

The President, the Secretary look forward to heading to Peru later this week for the APEC meetings. It’ll be an important fora to discuss and engage on some really important issues, especially around trade and economic and energy issues, and we’ll let those conversations play out.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. About Bangladesh.

QUESTION: How does the U.S. view the recent action preventing Awami League activists from organizing a political rally in Dhaka on November 10th? What message does the U.S. have for the interim government led by Dr. Yunus? And his supporters have previously advocated for freedom of speech and assembly.

MR PATEL: So we support the freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association for all, including dissenting and opposition voices. These freedoms, in our point of view, are essential elements of any democracy. We routinely communicate that support to all our partners, including the interim government of Bangladesh, and upholding and protecting these freedoms for all Bangladeshis is necessary to ensure a true democratic future for the country.

QUESTION: Recent – thank you so much. A recent report says that they have removed press credential for 184 journalists in Bangladesh, including the bureau chief of Associated Press. What step is the U.S. considering to address this restriction on press freedom to support the rights of safety of journalists in Bangladesh under these circumstances? Just to give you one information that recently the Committee to Protect Journalists already sent a letter to Dr. Yunus. What is your statement on that?

MR PATEL: So I had not seen that reporting. Of course, if it’s true, would be unfortunate. It is our strong point of view that an engaged free press is vital to covering any situation, including, of course, the situation in Bangladesh. Press freedom and media freedom is important to the President, important to the Secretary, and we would encourage and want to ensure that the rights and freedoms of all journalists are being appropriately respected.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Shannon, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Haiti, the FAA has just issued a flight ban for the next 30 days. Do you have concerns about American citizens who might be in the country being able to travel out at this point?

MR PATEL: So Shannon, the best thing that any American citizen who continues to be in Haiti can do is to enroll in our Smart Traveler Program and to stay in touch with the State Department about updates as it relates to how those travel restrictions may or may not change, receive updates about safety and security updates, and make it easier for the U.S. embassy to contact them in emergency.

I also would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to remind that for quite some time, even before the Biden administration, Haiti has been at a Level 4, a Do Not Travel country. We have advised U.S. citizens to not travel there since March 5th of 2020.

QUESTION: Does the State Department still support the work of the transitional council in Haiti?

MR PATEL: We do. So as many of you guys saw, we put out a statement on this earlier today. We welcome the TPC and the new prime minister and their commitment to release a joint action plan outlining their vision to improve the security and governance in Haiti. We look forward to working with the newly appointed prime minister. And the acute needs of the Haitian people, in our point of view, requires the transitional government to prioritize governance over personal and political interests, and we’ll continue to be deeply engaged on this.

Julia, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Vedant, beyond just the travel advisory to Haiti that you just iterated, what is the U.S. response to the fact that two commercial planes – JetBlue, Spirit – were struck by gunfire? And what does that speak to the conditions on the ground in Haiti and around the airport, if you have any update, and the security situation overall?

MR PATEL: So first, Julia, certainly can confirm that operations at Toussaint Louverture Airport are temporarily paused, and I will let specific airlines speak to their cadence of flights up until this restriction goes into place and to what extent they’re available for anyone wishing to depart.

I think broadly, though, we are squarely focused on continuing to do everything we can to support and address the insecurity crisis in Haiti. The MSS mission continues to make headway in refining mission strategy, focusing on interoperability with the Haitian National Police. We intend to provide nearly 628 million in financial and in-kind support to the MSS mission. This would include armored vehicles, radios, night-vision goggles, and drones. We are also pursuing the Government of Haiti’s request to transition the MSS into a UN peacekeeping effort, so the support of the MSS mission is – can ultimately be sustained over a long term. And ultimately, our hope is that it paves the way to security conditions that result in holding free and fair elections.

All right, guys. Thank you. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:33 p.m.)

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

MR MILLER: Don’t let me interrupt you, Janne.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: It’s quite all right. Let me start with some opening comments. Over the past two days, Secretary Blinken has been meeting with people from across the department to discuss the work ahead of us over the next 74 days between now and January 20th. In those meetings, he has emphasized two points:

First, the peaceful transfer of power is an essential element of our democracy that is vital to our nation’s security. That’s why it’s so important for us to conduct a smooth, efficient, and professional transition process. To that end, the Secretary has appointed Ambassador Stephen Mull – a distinguished member of the State Department family – to coordinate these efforts on behalf of the department. Ambassador Mull will work with the President-elect’s team to ensure as successful a transition as possible.

Second, the Secretary has made clear that he intends to use his remaining time in office to make tangible progress on a number of critical issues:

Cementing our working in maintaining a free, open, prosperous Indo-Pacific and ensuring we continue to win the competition we’re engaged in with China while responsibly managing the relationship between our two countries;

Ensuring that Ukraine is in the best position possible for success;

And bringing an end to the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza, while improving the delivery of humanitarian assistance, securing the release of all hostages, and preventing the further spread of the conflict.

We have no shortage of work to do over the next 74 days, and we are determined to make the most of the time left. As the President said today, “let’s make every day count. That’s the responsibility we have to the American people.”

And with that, Matt.

MR MILLER: You’re up.

QUESTION: Okay. So to that end, has Ambassador Mull started work as —

MR MILLER: Ambassador Mull has started his work on behalf of the department. He’s here. He’s been attending meetings, getting ready to coordinate the process. We have not yet had contact made by the Trump transition team. There’s a process that they go through writ large that’s run by the GSA. And then I think as you know, they appoint agency review teams that interface with each agency. They have not yet done that with respect to the State Department. I can’t speak to other agencies. But as soon as they do, we are ready to go in working with them.

QUESTION: Okay. I – because I just – I took a stroll through the transition area, and it was – there was nobody there.

MR MILLER: Maybe he was at lunch. (Laughter.) I don’t know. He’s here. I was in a meeting with —

MR MILLER: I was in a meeting with him this morning, so I can assure you he is here hard at work.

QUESTION: Okay. But what exactly is he doing, if there’s been no contact with the incoming transition team?

MR MILLER: So we have been working on transition activities for some time now, even before he was appointed. What we do before the team is appointed – and we are doing this to get ready for either a Trump transition or a Harris transition – is to put together briefing materials, both on policy and procedures, and to get them ready and to try to anticipate questions that the incoming transition team will have and be ready to answer those as soon as they have an agency review team that comes into the building.

QUESTION: Okay. And – but there’s no deadline for them to show up, is there? I mean, this is not the first time – this is like the seventh transition that I’ve witnessed and —

MR MILLER: There’s not a deadline. I suppose January 20th would be a deadline.

MR MILLER: But they can – we are ready to go.

MR MILLER: They can proceed with the process as soon as they’re ready. And we are —

MR MILLER: That’s up to them. That’s up for them to decide. We’re ready on our end.

QUESTION: But – well, what I’m saying – what I’m saying is that – like I said, I’ve done this, been through this multiple times, so – and it’s been my experience in the past that the incoming transition team never usually shows up this early after an election. And you’re saying that that’s exactly this – was the case.

MR MILLER: Yeah, they have not. I won’t speak to past precedent, but it’s – they haven’t at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. I – I’m sure people have questions about this, but I want to go to the Middle East here.

QUESTION: But I’ll wait until the transition questions —

MR MILLER: Transition stuff before we go? Other transition things? Well, take us – well, go ahead.

QUESTION: How is the State Department and the – I guess, how is the State Department planning to handle conflicting policy goals in the Middle East between the current and the incoming administration? Meaning the incoming president has said that he’s not – he doesn’t necessarily feel that a ceasefire deal in Gaza is the best way to resolve the war. We obviously know Secretary Blinken, President Biden are like a hundred million percent committed to that. Is it something where there’s room for sort of talking about it in negotiations or do you continue a hundred percent on —

MR MILLER: I think it’s very important to remember with respect to our policy in the Middle East and with respect to all of our policies that there is one president at a time. And Joe Biden is the President, and we will continue to pursue the policies that he has set forward. When it comes to the Middle East, we will continue to pursue an end to the war in Gaza, an end to the war in Lebanon, a surge of humanitarian assistance. And that is our duty to pursue those policies right up until noon on January 20th. And when the President-elect takes office and becomes the President of the United States, it is, of course, his right to pursue different policies, but it’s still incumbent upon us that we think – to pursue the policies that we believe are best situated to bring peace and stability to the region and advance the national security interests of the United States, and that’s what we’re going to do.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate on the other side of the equation that the Israelis, the Palestinians, Hamas might change their calculations based on that expectation that we’re about to have an incoming President who might veer 180 degrees on policy from the current administration?

MR MILLER: So I certainly can’t speak for another government or another entity, and I wouldn’t want to speculate about how they might approach this period. Obviously, foreign governments have been through transitions before. We had one four years ago; we had one before that, four years before that; we had one eight years before that. And so they’re used to dealing with transitions and I think they understand that you have one president at a time.

So I won’t try to speculate about how they might deal with the various issues that we have before us. I do believe and the Secretary continues to believe that an end to the conflict in Gaza is not just in the interests of the Palestinian people, but it is in Israel’s interest, and finding a way forward that provides not just short-term security but lasting security for Israelis and Palestinians alike is in the interest of the Government of Israel. And so we will continue to have those conversations with them, but as you have always heard us say, they’re a sovereign country and they will make their own decisions, and that’s true in the transition as it was true before Election Day.

QUESTION: I guess, so how can you – not you personally but the State Department, the Biden administration – continue to reassure allies, particularly Israel, of long-term stability measures when you really only have a say for another however many – eight weeks, whatever we’ve got left?

MR MILLER: We can make clear to them the policies that we will pursue over the time that we have remaining in office, and we can make clear to them what we believe is in the best interests of the United States, what we believe is in the best interests of the countries in the region. But of course an incoming president can make his own policy changes, his own policy decisions. Every president has the right to do that. And I think foreign governments are well aware of that, as the American people are well aware of that.

QUESTION: Yeah, can you give some insight if the Secretary has given any calls or spoken to any of his counterparts around the world as to either reassure them on the transition or how the U.S. policy is going to change or be impacted? Could you give us some – or any information you have on the calls, conversations?

MR MILLER: Yeah, he has had a – he has had a number of calls over the past 24 hours, and without reading out any of those specifically, I will say generally the message he has had to them has been the same message that you’ve heard me deliver just in the past five or 10 minutes, however long I’ve been up here, and that’s that we are going to pursue the policies that we are advancing when it comes to the Middle East, when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to supporting Ukraine, and of course the many other policies when it comes to trying to advance stability in Haiti and trying to reach a ceasefire in Sudan, many of the other hotspots we’re dealing with around the world. And I think they all have heard from us privately what they see publicly, what you saw from the President of the United States today, that we are committed to a peaceful, successful transition. That is a commitment that we take seriously; it’s part of our oath of – it’s part of how we interpret our oath of office; it’s part of how we interpret our duty to the American people.

When it comes to how you framed the question about making reassurances to allies or partners about the policies of a future administration, that’s not something we can do, it’s not something we would do. We would never presume to speak for an incoming administration because the President-elect was elected by the American public; he has the right to make his own decisions; he will make his own decisions. So we will speak on what we believe are the right policies that we have set, and we’ll make clear what we believe is in the long-term interests of the United States. But the incoming president will make his own decisions.

And here’s the thing: As I said in response to the previous question, these countries are used to dealing with the United States. They understand that we have elections every four years and they understand that there are changes in policy that flow as a result of those elections. There were significant changes in policy four years ago when President Biden took office. And without speaking to what those may be – because it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to do that; I couldn’t possibly speak for another administration – I think everyone well understands that’s how democracies work.

QUESTION: Yeah, you don’t care to share any of these particular readouts?

MR MILLER: We may have calls that we read out over the coming —

QUESTION: But I mean the calls —

MR MILLER: We may have calls that we read out over the coming hours through our normal process, but I just meant when I speak to the – this kind of general conversation. I didn’t want to say with respect to any particular foreign minister.

QUESTION: But are we talking – just to have a sense – really working the phones or is it just a couple of calls —

MR MILLER: He’s had a number – a number of calls. I would look for us to be reading out calls over the coming days.

QUESTION: Thanks. On these calls, can you say who the Secretary is now liaising with in terms of who his counterpart is with Israel given that there is a new Israeli defense minister? Does he have any communication yet with Israel Katz? And can you give a bit more details on whether he’s had a conversation with the Israeli defense minister since he switched roles?

MR MILLER: He has not yet spoken with the new defense minister since he assumed his current role two days ago. As you know, the – Israel Katz was the foreign minister; before that he met with the foreign minister on one of our previous trips to Israel. The Secretary has conversations with a – with not a fairly wide range but an extensive range of Israeli counterparts. Of course he meets with the prime minister when we’re in the region, and he talks at times with the minister for strategic affairs. He talked to the previous defense minister; I’m sure he will talk to the current defense minister in the coming days, but he hasn’t in the two days since he took the job.

QUESTION: Okay. And we’re I think a little under a week away from this deadline with Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin’s letter to the Israelis. Can you give any updates, beyond what you’ve already said in previous briefings, on any things that Israel has ticked off that list ahead of next week? And also as well in the letter, can you give an update on the channel that the U.S. is hoping to establish with Israel on the civilian harm?

MR MILLER: Let me take the second question first. With respect to the channel, we have had conversations with them in the past week or so about establishing the first meeting of that channel. The first meeting has not yet taken place, but we’re hoping to land that meeting and have it take place in the coming days, in the next week or two. It’s something that continues to be a priority for us.

When it comes to progress on the other steps that the Secretary laid out in the letter to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance, we have seen Israel take a number of important steps over the past several weeks, including in just the past few days. They reopened Erez Crossing, as you heard me report before, but they have also informed us that in the coming days, in the next few days, they plan to open an additional new crossing at Kissufim. They have approved additional delivery routes inside Gaza, which is something that is critical because, as you know, the problem has not only been getting humanitarian assistance to the crossings but then getting it out the crossings and getting it delivered to the people who need them. So routes such as the Bani Suheila road in southern Gaza, they have approved expanded use the Israeli fence road and are currently repairing the coastal road to get that road operational for the delivery of assistance.

They are now allowing convoys into areas in the north that have been closed for weeks and that you have heard us say needed to be open to allow humanitarian assistance in. The first convoy today went through Jabalia into Beit Hanoun, the first convoy in several weeks. That is something that we have emphasized is critical. The people who have been in those areas have – had not had access to sufficient food and water, and we have made clear that that needed to change, and we saw the first convoy go to Beit Hanoun today.

We have seen them take increased efforts to stop looting. They’ve paved new routes to try and bypass some of the areas where trucks have been looted repeatedly. And we’ve seen some initial expansion of the Mawasi area, which, as you know, is something the Secretary specifically called for in the letter.

So of course, what’s important when you see all of these steps taken is what that means for the results, because it’s not just sufficient to open new roads if more humanitarian assistance isn’t going through those roads. So what we want to see over the coming days and coming weeks is to see these new routes actually have more humanitarian assistance delivered over them.

So we have seen a bit of an uptick in the number of trucks. For example, two days ago we saw 229 enter various crossings and saw 115 of them that were collected, which is a bit of an increase over where we had been.

Now, as always when we give a metric like this, we want to see that number continue to increase. But the most important thing is that – we see an increase is that it be sustained, and that is one of the critical metrics that we are looking at

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry. Just before Simon. goes —

QUESTION: The channel. Remind me, when did you give a deadline for that to be set up?

MR MILLER: We said we wanted to see the first meeting take place by the end of October. It didn’t take place by the end of October, but we’re working to land the meeting and expect it to happen in the coming days or a week or two.

QUESTION: Well, okay. If and when it happens, does that mean that they’re essentially off the hook for not meeting the October 31st deadline?

MR MILLER: So the two things about the – there’s two things about the – I want to say about that. First of all, when you look at the – that portion of the letter, it’s important to note that that was not tied to the humanitarian assistance piece. That was a separate deadline, right? It was a —

MR MILLER: I know you didn’t say it. I’m just making clear because I think a lot of people have kind of conflated the two.

What we made clear in the letter is that we wanted to see that meeting take place. We’ve had a lot of communication with them about the appropriate level at which that —

QUESTION: Yeah, but —

MR MILLER: — hold on – at which that meeting should take place, the appropriate way for that meeting to take place. We asked for a virtual – virtually, and what I think we’re going to land on is an actual in-person meeting and are working on exactly who attends that meeting. And when it happens – and hope to get that finalized in the next few days and be able to announce when it will happen, but we’re not there yet.

QUESTION: I get the – I – understood. But does that mean that they get – they move from a failing grade to a passing grade if and when —

QUESTION: — if and when it comes up?

MR MILLER: That’s not – it’s not —

QUESTION: Which I realize is —

MR MILLER: That isn’t – hold on. That’s not the way we’re looking at it. We said we want to have the meeting. It didn’t happen by when we wanted it to happen. We want to have it happen as soon as possible.

QUESTION: So there’s no penalty for not meeting —

MR MILLER: We want to see the meeting take place. Ultimately, what we care about it getting a result and get that channel established so we can start to get information —

QUESTION: Right. Fair enough. I just want to know because, I mean, if they’re – if you’re going to say oh, it’s okay to blow through this deadline but you still have the meeting but it might not be for another two weeks, but then it’s okay and you don’t regard it as them ignoring your demand?

MR MILLER: We want to see it – we want to see it happen as soon possible. We’re continuing to press for it.

QUESTION: All right. Sorry, Simon.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Simon.

QUESTION: Just following on from that, with the 30-day deadline in the letter it lays out – well, it suggests there will be implications for U.S. policy and law. And given now that this administration is – only has a couple of months left, what is the downside for Israel if they – if they don’t follow your – these demands?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to speculate about what may or may not happen. We have made clear that there are potential legal and policy considerations from failure to improve the humanitarian assistance situation in Gaza and implement a number of the steps that we outlined in the letter. We are in active discussion with them – including in the past several days – about steps that they have taken and what more that they need to do. And we’ll make an assessment when we get to the end of the period. And beyond that, I wouldn’t want to speculate about what may or may not happen.

QUESTION: And in the last, I guess, two days, do you have any sense that your pressure is being taken less seriously as a result of anything that you do in the next few months would be able to be reversed?

MR MILLER: So we have seen them take – so I would just note that what we have seen, including over the last few days, in response to the letter that we sent them – and not just the letter, but in response to the repeated engagements we have had with them both at the Secretary’s level – as you know, he talked to the then-defense minister on Monday, he talked to the minister of strategic affairs on Friday, to make clear that we wanted to see further progress beyond that what we had already seen – and engagements at other levels, including through our ambassador, Jack Lew, and through our special envoy, Lise Grande.

We have continued to press them, and we have seen them – including in the past few days since the election – take additional steps. So I’m not going to try to judge why – I’m not going to try to make a judgment that’s connected to the election one way or the other. We’re just going to look at the facts, and we’re looking at the facts as – we’re looking at the facts as they develop, and we’ll make our assessments based on those facts.

QUESTION: And you mentioned you would – the administration is going to do everything it can to get a ceasefire both in Gaza and Lebanon before – before the end of the administration. Particularly on Gaza, I think you had – there obviously has been months of ceasefire talks, then around Sinwar’s death there was this effort to restart the talks. That hasn’t been successful. What is the state at this moment? Are there talks? Is there any prospect for a ceasefire? Are the sides engaging?

MR MILLER: We continue to talk to the mediators, to our fellow mediators, and continue to talk about whether there may be appropriate formulations that could advance the ball and get us off the kind of stalemate that we’ve been in for some time. And it’s been publicly reported that one of the proposals that we put forward with the other mediators, Hamas rejected last weekend. So that doesn’t mean that we’ll stop. We’re going to continue to try to push to get a ceasefire and find a way to end the war, but it takes the parties being willing to engage on those efforts.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On the – does the letter envision a number of trucks – I mean, I can’t recall – that should go in on any particular day? Does that include any figure?

MR MILLER: It does; I’ll have to go back to the letter.

QUESTION: Okay, all right.

MR MILLER: I’ll refer you back to the letter to look at the details.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. I want to ask you about reports on Beit Lahia that it is being ethnically cleansed. Are you aware of these reports? And are you in a position – this administration, does it have a plan or could it have a plan to prevent this from happening? Do you know?

MR MILLER: So I think that you were referring, again, to the so-called “generals’ plan.”

MR MILLER: And I will just make clear that we have engaged directly with the Government of Israel on this question.

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: The Secretary raised it directly with the prime minister when we were there two weeks ago. The prime minister said that is not our plan, it’s not what we’re implementing. They can speak for themselves; I’m just reporting what they said to us. And the Secretary made clear both privately and publicly that we would firmly reject any such plan. And you have seen us push for expanded humanitarian access into the areas where fighting is going on, including into these restricted areas. And as I just noted a moment ago, today we saw for the first time in several weeks a convoy of humanitarian assistance actually go into Beit Hanoun. And it’s important that that delivery of humanitarian assistance continue to those civilians that are in an – even in an area where fighting is occurring.

QUESTION: So – but you don’t – you don’t observe yourself that what is happening is basically – I mean, I don’t know if you want to term it that way, but it is like ethnic cleansing, it is like driving people out or trying to drive them out.

MR MILLER: So I am not going to characterize. I will – the Government of Israel can speak for itself –

MR MILLER: — what it is doing. What we are making clear to the Government of Israel is we don’t want to see people displaced from their homes. Now, look, if there is fighting in an area, evacuation is an appropriate thing to occur. This has long been the policy of the United States, long been the policy of other governments, that if a government is operating militarily in an area where civilians are sheltering, that you want to see civilians have the ability to evacuate their homes so they can move to safety. At the end of the fighting, however, we want to see them move back to their homes, and want to see them move back to their neighborhoods, and have the ability to rebuild their homes – knowing that, of course, in many of these areas, their homes have been destroyed, their entire neighborhoods have been destroyed.

In the meantime, while people are still in areas where fighting is going on, we want to make sure they get humanitarian access. And that’s what we’re going to continue to push for.

QUESTION: But in this case, they have been moved back and forth many times, and they have been – let me ask you about UNRWA. Now, UNRWA has told the Israelis that replacing UNRWA relief agency would be your responsibility, whatever that means. Now I – we know that the President-elect back in 2018 basically cut off aid to UNRWA, so we know where they stand. I want to ask you: Is there anything that could possibly be done over the next few weeks to make sure that UNRWA stays, that – I don’t mean to be snarky or flippant – to make it Trump-proof in any way, that the organization can continue to —

MR MILLER: So we will continue to make clear that we support the work that UNRWA does. As you know, we are banned by an act of Congress from funding UNRWA. That – that law is not going to change before President Biden leaves office, but we support the work that UNRWA does.

But as to what decisions will be made by the future president, I obviously can’t speak to those. There will be a new president on January 20th. They’ll have their own – well, I assume they’ll have their own – press briefings, and you can show up and ask them the questions about that, Said.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question on the tonnage of bombs dropped on Gaza? It is said that 85,000 tons of bombs has dropped. Do you have a – do you have a figure? Can you confirm that or deny it?

MR MILLER: I don’t have a figure. But I can tell you obviously the destruction of Gaza has been widespread, and the civilian harm that has emanated from that destruction has been widespread. We’ve seen over 40,000 people die, many of them civilians. And Said, it just goes to illustrate again why we are trying to reach an end to this conflict – and not just a temporary end to this conflict, which is always important to emphasize, but an end to this conflict that is durable and won’t just lead to further conflict between Israel and Hamas or Israel and other terrorist groups. We want to see Hamas replaced by a different governing authority in Gaza, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. One of the updates you highlighted in your opening statement was Ukraine. You said we’re going to make sure Ukraine is in the best position for success. Can you give a sense of how you’re going to spend next two months to ensure just – do just that, anything different than you have said?

MR MILLER: So I don’t have any new –

QUESTION: More specifically –

MR MILLER: Sorry, were you still going with the question? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: More specifically – yeah, on foreign assistance funding. Will you be —

MR MILLER: With what?

QUESTION: Funding issues. Will you be working with the Congress on new supplemental? And also do you ensure that seized Russian assets, all of them, are transferred to Ukraine?

MR MILLER: So I don’t have any new announcements to make today, but I can tell you that the President has already made clear that the funding that Congress has – been made available, we are working to get all of it out of the door, all of the drawdown authority out of the door to Ukraine, before the end of his term. And when it comes to the sovereign assets, we have also made clear that we’re trying to operationalize that money as well before the end of the term. And for the details of that, I’d refer you to the Department of Treasury, which of course is the primary agency for that particular aspect.

QUESTION: Thank you. Sure. In terms of capabilities, you made some change —

QUESTION: Capabilities. In May you changed some capabilities. You allowed them to use your American weapons to hit back inside Russia. That was in response to a Kharkiv operation. And now, given the fact that North Koreans are already fighting in different zone, will you be willing to let them use those weapons in Kursk area?

MR MILLER: We are consulting with our allies and partners about the appropriate response to the deployment of North Korean soldiers inside Kursk to potentially engage in combat with – or I should say against Ukrainian soldiers, but I don’t have any announcements to make today.

QUESTION: I’m just having a hard time to understand what is the —

MR MILLER: I don’t think you are. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, when they train, started training, you said you were concerned.

MR MILLER: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: When they started training North Koreans, you said you were concerned. When they move them to the zone, fighting – deployed to fighting zone, you said you were deeply concerned. At what point you will stop being concerned and act actually?

MR MILLER: So Alex, I appreciate the fact that you ignored the answer that I just gave you, but if you would listen again to the answer I said, we are consulting with our allies and partners about what the response should be right now. And I’m not going to preview what that response will be, because it’s appropriate that we have those conversations with our allies and partners.

I think it’s important to remember that the response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has not been just a United States response. It’s especially important to remember this in the context of some of the other questions I’m getting today. It is a response that we have organized on behalf of more than 50 countries, and so we are going to consult with them about what the appropriate response should be, whether it be from the United States, whether it be from other countries, whether it be a joint response like we have undertaken today.

QUESTION: On that line, Matt, there’s a report —

MR MILLER: One more, and then I’ll go to Janne.

QUESTION: Thanks so much. The report said that the U.S. Government is preventing Sweden from sending badly needed AWACS aircrafts to Ukraine. Why would you do that?

MR MILLER: I haven’t seen that report, Alex. I can’t comment on the veracity of it.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have a few questions on Russia and North Korea and China. Russia recently conducted new strategic nuclear exercises, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un announced that they had – the preparations had been completed at the Punggye-ri nuclear site. Meanwhile, the vice chairman of Russia’s national security council warned that the United States was mistakenly thinking that it would not use nuclear weapons and said that Russia’s use of nuclear weapons was inevitable. What concerns do you have about the nuclear alliance between North Korea and Russia?

MR MILLER: So we continue to have concerns about the deepening security partnership between Russia and North Korea. And with respect to those comments, I’d say the reckless – as always, we would urge Russian Government officials to making – against making such reckless statements.

QUESTION: The North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui met with Russian President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov and pledged to work together until Russia wins the war in Ukraine. Do you think that North Korea’s actual involvement in the Ukraine war will prolong the war?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to speculate. I can tell you that on behalf of the United States, we are going to continue to support Ukraine. We are going to continue to support them on the battlefield, and we are going to continue to work to maintain the alliance that we have put together to back Ukraine, to respond to Russia’s aggression.

QUESTION: — in China, a spokesperson for Chinese foreign minister said that dispatching North Korean troops and the North Korea-Russia military alliance is something North Korea and Russia can do as a sovereign nation. What is your assessment of this?

MR MILLER: You’ve heard us speak to this before. We think that the deepening security partnership between Russia and North Korea – and certainly the deployment of North Korean troops to engage in combat against Ukrainian soldiers – is something that ought to be of concern to everyone in the region. We’ve raised those concerns directly with China, said to them that we believe this should be a concern of theirs, and it’s something that they should raise with both countries.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Following up on Simon’s question on the negotiations post-Sinwar, afterwards the immediate question on the State Department’s mind was is Hamas going to be willing to negotiate in good faith, are they actually interested in reaching a deal. I know you said that they rejected the proposal that was put on the table over the weekend, but have you made a determination on whether they are willing to actually accept any proposal?

MR MILLER: So it’s not an assessment we make sort of across the board. It’s an assessment we make based on their actual responses to proposals that are put on the table. And what we have seen since the death of Sinwar so far is they’re not willing to engage in – on those proposals. Now, that doesn’t mean it won’t change, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go back and work with our allies and partners to try and find a way to bridge the divides and get a ceasefire that would get all of the hostages home and would set the table for a broader end to the conflict. That, of course, is what we’re trying to do. But just when you look at their – just judging on initial actions by the Hamas leadership in the several weeks since Sinwar died, they rejected the first proposal that was put on the table.

QUESTION: So when Secretary Blinken went to the Middle East in the wake of Sinwar’s killing, he said that there was a clear moment and the effort was to try to seize it. Is it fair to say that optimism has dwindled?

MR MILLER: We still believe that that there’s a moment that we ought to capitalize on and that we ought to seize, and we continue to look to try and see if there are other proposals that can get us to yes, and whether there are different ways to put things forward that would, as I said, bridge the divide and kind of break through this logjam that we’ve been in.

We’re not going to give up on this effort because it’s too important to the Palestinian civilians who are suffering. It’s too important to the hostages that are suffering. It’s too important to the long-term peace and stability of the region. So we’re going to continue to push forward, despite the obstacles.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Türkiye, along with 52 countries, submitted a letter to the United Nations urging for a halt arms transfers to Israel. And there are increasing calls on this issue. Is there any possibility that the Biden administration might consider halting weapons shipments to Israel, if Israel does not meet the demands outlined in the letter?

MR MILLER: So we made clear in the letter and I’ve made clear from the podium that there are potential policy and legal ramifications that flow from Israel not being in compliance with U.S. law, and we’re going to follow the law. I won’t – don’t – do not want to speculate about where that’s going to land. We’re going to continue to look at the progress that they have made and make our assessments based on those – on that progress.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate more on what do you mean by following the law?

MR MILLER: It means that we’re going to follow the law. If you look at 620I, which is the – thank you for the laugh, Matt. If you look at – if you look at —

MR MILLER: Well, I —

QUESTION: Follow the law means follow the law.

MR MILLER: It means we’re going to follow the law, and I’m about to elaborate on it.

QUESTION: But I think – oh, you are? I’m sorry.

MR MILLER: If you look at – yeah, if you look at —

QUESTION: I thought that was the extent of your answer.

MR MILLER: If you – no. If you look at 620I, which is the version of the Foreign Assistance Act, it makes clear that countries need to not take any steps to impede the delivery of foreign assistance. That’s the exact statute that the letter references, and so we’re going to look at their compliance with that statute and make the appropriate judgments under it.

QUESTION: Thank you. I don’t know how many briefings you are going to address before the transition, but I just wanted to say we will miss you and Vedant —

QUESTION: — because you guys are – you guys are true image of the values this country stands for, the way you deal with the foreign journalists. I really appreciate that.

MR MILLER: That’s kind of you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: I wish I could believe you spoke for all of your colleagues.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) No, I’m just —

MR MILLER: But – I will miss all of you as well, but I’m —

QUESTION: Just my personal opinion.

MR MILLER: As they say in Monty Python, I’m not dead yet. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So people are celebrating in different parts of the world, like in Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia. The majority of the Pakistani people believe that Trump will get Imran Khan out of prison. I was talking to a Russian diplomat this morning, and he told me that Russia is getting prepared to negotiate ongoing war with the upcoming Trump administration. A lot of Americans also hope that Trump will bring peace in the Middle East. Sir, do you really think that the current foreign policy is one of the issues your administration lost the election?

MR MILLER: I am not in any way going to speculate on the outcome of the elections. It – there are – if you turn on cable news, there are any number of pundits who will give you all sorts of different reasons on how the election was decided, but it’s certainly not appropriate for me to speculate from a U.S. Government podium about what those reasons might have been.

QUESTION: A few media reports claim that White House plans to rush billions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine before President Joe Biden leaves office in January, as Trump has been critical of Biden’s assistance for Ukraine. Is it true, rushing billions of dollars to Ukraine before the transition?

MR MILLER: Yeah, we have been quite open about that. The money that was appropriate in the supplemental – that we intend to do everything in our power to get all of that deployed to Ukraine before the end of the year – I’m sorry, before the end of the term. Excuse me.

Yeah, go ahead. I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. My name is (inaudible). Thank you (inaudible) my question. And I want to ask about the collapse in German Government that we see in the last days. Can you make any remarks about the implications that may have on the U.S. and on U.S. foreign policy? And also let me join the gentlemen to thank you for your cooperation with foreign press.

MR MILLER: Thank you. That’s nice of you. So Germany, of course, is a valued NATO Ally and an indispensable partner of the United States. We have full confidence in the strength of Germany’s democratic process and will continue to work with Germany on our shared priorities.

Go ahead. I’ll come to you next.

QUESTION: Excuse me, Matt, the Knesset just has passed a final law to expand that families of Palestinians who carry out, like, attacks against Israel, and this law is aiming to imprison children as young as 14. Do you support these measures, like, which some – like activists and legal experts consider it as a collective punishment?

MR MILLER: Let me take the question back. Only – I saw just before I came in here that Israel had passed the law, but I want to look into it more. I want to look into it a little deeper before I get you a full answer.

QUESTION: Okay, okay. The second question is, like, do Palestinians have right to full sovereignty in making their own decision without interference from you or Israel? For instance, like, if they choose any group you and Israel doesn’t like to rule their lands and something like that, are you going to impose any sanction on them or not? Because, like, you don’t impose any sanction on Israel when they don’t, like, follow your, like, decision, or like they don’t apply your ideas or something like that. Like —

MR MILLER: So I’m not —

QUESTION: Like, do Palestinian, they have the same rights, the same?

MR MILLER: I’m not – so I’m not sure what you mean by choosing a group to rule their own land. I would say that we – I would say we —

QUESTION: Like 2006 —

MR MILLER: Let me just say we absolutely support the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, to fulfill their legitimate aspirations, and that’s why it has been the policy of the United States and it is one that we have actively pursued to try to establish an independent Palestinian state. And we continue to believe that is in the best interests of the Palestinian people and also in the interests of the Government of Israel, and that is what we are pursuing.

QUESTION: Sure, like for – like concrete example, like Palestinian in 2006, they choose Hamas to rule Gaza in this time. Like, so it means —

MR MILLER: And we see how that has worked out for everyone in the region – quite terribly.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Like this is, like, Palestinian decision. I’m Egyptian, not Palestinian.

QUESTION: But, like, I’m just saying, like, this – still, it’s like an Palestinian issue. Like, we see China, like, hosting them for negotiations, so, like, I mean Palestinian themself is still recognize Hamas about the part of Palestinians, and they go China, go Russia, go Global South, and it seems, like, complicated. Like, how you, say, look at this complicated choosing people – at end of the day, all of them are Palestinian?

MR MILLER: So we reject a terrorist organization controlling any government anywhere in the world – the bottom-line policy of the United States, something that we reject, something that we do not support – and we believe that most Palestinians don’t want to see a terrorist organization govern the Palestinian people. If you look at the results of a terrorist organization governing – Hamas – it has been a war that has wreaked widespread destruction on Gaza and led to the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians. So now —

QUESTION: They told that to —

MR MILLER: Well, no, I’ll just say – but what we want to see is a pathway to two states, the state of Israel and an independent Palestinian state, and that’s what we’re going to continue to try to pursue. There’s just no other way to put it than that.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. A few questions. Number one: Today was actually Yoav Gallant’s final day as defense minister to support that Israeli law. He held a farewell call with Secretary Austin today. Considering he’s one of the addressees on that 30-day letter, did Secretary Blinken hold any last-minute call with Minister Gallant?

MR MILLER: He hasn’t talked to him today. Obviously he’s talked to him a number of times, both in person and over the phone, talked to him as recently as Monday. We saw Yoav Gallant as a valuable partner that we have worked with on a number of issues, and we will continue to work with his replacement as the defense minister. Ultimately, the letter was addressed to him in his capacity as defense minister, not his personal capacity, so the function will carry over to his replacement.

QUESTION: In terms of the talks that are ongoing up until, I would presume, January 20th on a potential hostage and ceasefire deal, President Trump has famously not wanted his political rivals to get any kind of wins, as he called it, or usurp any achievements that he may have. Is there any concern Egypt, Qatar, based on their reliance on the next administration, may lessen their cooperation here down the home stretch with the U.S.?

MR MILLER: I cannot speak for any other government or what they will do or what they might not do. I would just point out that an end to the war in Gaza is not a win for Joe Biden. An end to the war in Gaza is a win for the region and ultimately it is a win for the Israeli and Palestinian people. And I think everyone in the region understands that this is a war we want to bring to an end as soon as possible, and no one should be waiting for 74 days to – and letting this suffering go on any longer than it should have if there’s a path to bringing it to an end before then.

QUESTION: Last question for you. President Obama famously in his final days approved an abstention at the UN Security Council on a key vote involving Israel. Most analysts say it’s as a result of personal animosity between Obama and then-Prime Minister Netanyahu. Are there any promises, any guarantees about these final days at the UN and whether President Biden will continue to support Israel as he has?

MR MILLER: So you should not read this – into this answer I’m about to give anything. You shouldn’t read in one way or the other. I cannot speculate on how we will vote on resolutions that are not yet even before the Security Council. Obviously, we will look at any resolution that comes up before the Security Council and make the – make our judgements based on the interests of the United States, as we always do.

QUESTION: It sounds like – well, in practical terms, what will happen to the incidents that are being investigated and assessed by this building – some 500 incidents about what Israel has done in Gaza? Will any conclusions from those investigations see the light of day before there is a transition? How might that process be impacted? I know there’s CHIRG. I know there’s lawyer’s working this in this building.

QUESTION: Can you say whether there will be any – how do you make sure that this administration’s work on those incidents will see light of day and be part of what you guys have done so that that’s public?

MR MILLER: So I can’t put a timetable on when we will reach a conclusion to any of those investigations, but I can say that the obligation to follow the law is not an obligation that stops when there is a change in government, a change in power. Every administration has the obligation to follow the law and to look into potential misuse of weapons that have been provided by the United States or potential violations of international humanitarian law. That’s just the law.

QUESTION: Are you worried, though that that could be impacted at all? Like, again, like, that’s why I’m asking whether there could be any conclusions. Are there any conclusions that this administration would want to reach on any of those incidents before —

MR MILLER: We want – so we want to reach those conclusions as soon as we can separate and apart from January 20th and separate and apart from any change in government. And that’s true whether Vice President Harris had been elected. It’s true now that Donald Trump has been elected. It’s something that we are working to bring to a conclusion as soon as we can. But any work that is midstream in a change of government, if it’s work that’s required under the law, that’s work that’s supposed to continue.

QUESTION: I want to —

QUESTION: Can I just —

QUESTION: — just come back to your —

MR MILLER: You’re next.

QUESTION: You mentioned on – that you’re going to try to deploy all the appropriated aid for Ukraine before the end of the administration. Is there anything beyond just sort of deploying what’s already been appropriated by Congress that this administration can do to, as you said, put Ukraine in the strongest possible position?

MR MILLER: Nothing that I’m ready to announce today, but we will continue to consult with our allies and partners. We have a number of upcoming multilateral meetings where we will be talking about the issue of Ukraine with the coalition of countries that we have put together, and we’ll be talking about work that we can do and we’ll be talking about work that they can do to continue to ensure Ukraine’s success.

QUESTION: And if the President-elect has spoken about solving the conflict in the first 24 hours in office, obviously, I’m interested in whether in the last two months of the administration, would you facilitate talks on ending the war in Ukraine if both parties sort of express a willingness to start talking towards that?

MR MILLER: So if President Zelenskyy decides that he wants to enter negotiations, of course that’s something that we would support. That has been our policy – our longstanding policy that it is up for President Zelenskyy to decide when it’s time for negotiations. It’s not something that it is appropriate for us or for any other country to push him into. And we would support him in any process to try and ensure a just and lasting peace, but that is ultimately his decision, not ours.

But as always – and you can just look at the statements that he continues to make – we have seen no indication from Vladimir Putin that he is willing to drop his demand to continue to gobble up Ukrainian territory. I’m sure there’s a negotiation that Putin would accept where he gets everything that he wants and Ukraine gets nothing that it is entitled to under the law, but that is not a negotiation that President Zelenskyy has been interested in nor should it be.

QUESTION: Under what law?

MR MILLER: Under – well, under the UN Charter that Ukraine should maintain its own borders and maintain its territorial integrity, sovereignty.

Goyal, and then we’ll wrap for today.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Two questions please. I just came back from a short trip to India, and in India, all India people are talking about that there are attacks going on in Indian American community and also especially Hindus in Bangladesh, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and also a few incidents in the U.S. and also in Canada. My question is now even President-elect Mr. Trump – President Trump also spoke about atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh, and during his campaigning. So what the U.S. is doing as far as this atrocities going on against Hindus in Bangladesh? Because after the departure of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina – and interim prime minister Mr. Muhammad Yunus said if these attacks continues he will resign the post. But the attacks are still going on. He’s still on his post as prime minister.

MR MILLER: So we discussed this in the past. We have, in our discussions with Bangladeshi officials, made clear that we want to see freedom of religion respected, and any attacks, we want to see people held accountable as is appropriate under Bangladeshi law. And that’s true of our position in Bangladesh; it’s true anywhere in the world.

QUESTION: And second, sir —

QUESTION: — as far as this election is concerned, four years of U.S.-India relations under Biden administration, of course Secretary of State has been many times to India and back-and-forth visits. So do we see any changes as far as diplomatic relations, people-to-people relations, visa, or even diplomacy and among others under the new administration, especially people-to-people? Because they are talking in India; all the people are talking about that visa is the main concern between the two countries over there in India.

MR MILLER: So I’ll repeat myself in a way that I’ll probably have to repeat myself a number of times between now and January 20th, in that I can’t speak, of course, for the new administration. But I will say that the strengthening of our ties with India is something that this administration is incredibly proud of, both through our increased alliances through the Quad, through our work on a number of shared priorities. It’s something that we focused on from day one and something that we see as a great success as we prepare to leave office.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR MILLER: And with that, we’ll wrap for today.

MR MILLER: Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR MILLER: Happy Monday. We’ll start with some opening comments.

Earlier today, extremist settlers reportedly set fire to 20 cars owned by Palestinians in Al-Bireh city in the West Bank. When the owners of the vehicles came outside to put out the fires, they report that settlers opened fire on them.

The United States is deeply concerned by these and other recent reports of increasing extremist settler violence in the West Bank, including in Jurat Al Khiel, near Hebron, where Palestinians were attacked by scores of extremist settlers who damaged property, assaulted civilians, and released dogs to attack residents, and in the Palestinian village of Jalud, south of Nablus, where dozens of extremist settlers reportedly killed livestock, attacked homes, and set fire to vehicles. We are also concerned about the increase in reported attacks by extremist settlers that are preventing Palestinians from harvesting their olive crops in the West Bank.

These violent actions cause intense human suffering for Palestinians, they threaten Israel’s security, make the realization of a two-state solution more difficult, and undermine the prospects for peace and stability throughout the region. It is critical that the Government of Israel deter extremist settler violence and take measures to protect all communities from harm, in accordance with its international obligations. This includes intervening, preventing, and stopping such violence.

It is further incumbent upon the relevant authorities to do everything possible to de-escalate tensions and hold all perpetrators of violence against civilians equally accountable – no matter the background of the perpetrator or the victim.

The United States maintains several measures to promote accountability and combat increasing extremist settler violence. Since February of this year, the United States has imposed sanctions on 14 individuals and 13 entities for undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank. As President Biden and Secretary Blinken have emphasized, we will continue to use all tools at our disposal to promote accountability for violence in the West Bank and around the region.

QUESTION: Thank you. So just on that, before we get into other related issues – so is there any immediate action coming from these latest incidents or —

MR MILLER: No sanctions that I can announce today, but it is incidents like this in the past that have led us to impose sanctions; and we certainly will be looking at this one, as we have looked at others, to see first of all if the Government of Israel takes steps to impose accountability, and if they don’t, what we might do on our end to take action.

QUESTION: Okay. And have you – have you made your concerns clear to the Israeli Government, other than you just saying it now?

MR MILLER: We have. Yes, we have.

QUESTION: To whom? And when?

MR MILLER: To the Government of Israel. We had – from our embassy to the government, we made clear our concerns.

QUESTION: From the embassy? Okay. And that was obviously today?

MR MILLER: Earlier today, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just go to the aid situation in – or the humanitarian situation in Gaza with the aid? You’ve seen also that – well, I expect you to have seen that Israel has terminated its agreement with UNRWA today following the passage of the legislation which you opposed early last week. One, what’s your reaction to that? And then two, the situation – the humanitarian situation in Gaza has gotten worse rather than better since the letter that Secretaries Blinken and Austin sent. So how do – how does the end of this agreement with UNRWA affect, in your view, the ability of Israel to meet the conditions laid out in the letter?

MR MILLER: So first of all, we’re reviewing the letter to understand whether there are any immediate implications. We understand that the law doesn’t go into effect for 90 days. If this letter means something happening more immediate than 90 days, which would be – this happened fast a week ago, so something like 83 days from now – that’s something we want to understand and we would want to take into account. But we’re endeavoring now to learn exactly what the implication – if any – of that letter is, separate and apart from the legislation that’s already passed and has a 90-day timetable on it.

We, as you note out, were quite – or as you noted – were quite clear that we oppose that legislation and we have serious concerns about the implications of it being fully implemented, as well as our concerns about the underlying humanitarian situation in Gaza even before Israel passed this legislation that relates to the inability of a sufficient number of trucks to get into Gaza, and the inability of humanitarian workers, for a variety of reasons, to be able to deliver that aid to places inside Gaza to the people that need it.

So we have been engaged with the Government of Israel on this since long before we sent the letter, but really about a number of steps that we think they need to take since the Secretary and Secretary of Defense Austin sent that letter on October 14th. The Secretary talked to the minister of strategic affairs on Friday, Ron Dermer, about the – where we stand. I expect that he will talk to further Israeli officials later today about what steps they have already taken, what more they can do. They have told us at various stages that there are a number of steps that they have in process that they haven’t completed yet. We’re paying close attention to that, and we’ll pay close attention to that over the coming days.

QUESTION: All right. Well, on a scale of one to 10, or on any scale that you would like, how has – how have they complied or not complied —

QUESTION: — with the requests – or demands, frankly – that were in the letter?

MR MILLER: Let me – let me do it on a pass/fail instead of trying to give a grade, and that on a pass/fail basis they have —

QUESTION: Well, that is a grade. Pass/fail is a grade.

MR MILLER: — I mean a letter grade, a percentage grade, a pass/fail – and that as of today, the situation has not significantly turned around. We have seen an increase in some —

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — measurements. We’ve seen an increase in the number of crossings that are open. But just if you look at the stipulated recommendations in the letter, those have not been met at this point.

QUESTION: So that’s a fail?

MR MILLER: We are not at the end of the period yet. They have not – they have not – if you look at the – what we ultimately judge —

MR MILLER: Let me – what we ultimately judge on, which is the results on the ground, the results are not good enough today.

QUESTION: Right, so that’s a fail, right?

MR MILLER: They certainly – they certainly do not have a passing grade. They have failed – I said they have failed to implement all of the things that we recommended in that letter. Now, that said, we are not at the end of the 30-day period and we are – we are in —

QUESTION: Okay, so it’s a fail but you’re not ready to give them an F.

MR MILLER: It’s not the end – it’s not the end of the semester. (Laughter.) You don’t give out – you don’t hand out grades in the middle – in the middle.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I suspect that the levity is a little bit inappropriate.

MR MILLER: No, you’re – well, you’re – I mean —

QUESTION: I mean, it’s – but look, you guys say they haven’t done enough, so it’s a fail at this point.

MR MILLER: We are not – we are not at the end of where we are able to make an assessment. But I can tell you the situation has not been good enough for some time, and the situation has not improved sufficiently in the 21, 22 days, whatever it is since we sent that letter.

MR MILLER: There are – is still a week or so to go until we reach the end of the period, but there is much more that we need to see them do.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks, Matt. I’m not going to grade you, but – (laughter) – is there any scenario that you could see the possibility of distributing aid to Gaza without UNRWA?

MR MILLER: So right now there is no other way to distribute aid in sufficient form, and that’s why the Secretary made clear in the letter that we were opposed to the legislation because UNRWA plays a critical role. Now, there are other humanitarian organizations that operate inside Gaza that are delivering aid; there are other UN agencies that are operating inside Gaza. But we see UNRWA as continuing to play a critical role. And I should note, while for very obvious reasons the focus is on the work that they do in Gaza, they play a critical role in the West Bank; they play a critical role in Lebanon; they play a critical role in other places throughout the region that we don’t want to see end either.

QUESTION: Okay. So you agree that UNRWA plays – and you said it – a crucial role in —

MR MILLER: Absolutely, yeah.

QUESTION: So is there any scenario where you would call upon Israel to not implement this law, I mean firmly calling on them not —

MR MILLER: So we don’t – now, so we do not want to see the law implemented. Now, that said, I don’t know whether that’s possible under Israeli law, right?

MR MILLER: There is a law that has been passed by the Knesset. I can’t give you an opinion about what their legal options are. I know we’ve seen reports that there may be legal challenges to the law that could see its effect being delayed. But as to what options the government has under legal authority, it’s not something I can speak to.

MR MILLER: But certainly we are opposed to the passage of the law in the first place.

QUESTION: Yeah. And so if Israeli law has it that after this 90-day date they don’t have a choice but to forbid working with UNRWA, what happens then?

MR MILLER: Well, they don’t have a choice, but they wouldn’t have a choice – I mean, if that’s true, they wouldn’t have a choice because of a law that they themselves passed.

QUESTION: No, exactly. Yeah.

QUESTION: So where does that leave you? And what —

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to forecast where we’re going to be in the 87 – 83 days or whatever it is until this law is implemented. We’ve made quite clear to them what our concerns are and we’re going to continue to engage with them about those concerns.

QUESTION: Matt, on the letter and what may or may not U.S. would do next week, should we expect action from the U.S. Government if the picture next week is similar or worse on the humanitarian situation on the day that —

MR MILLER: I don’t want to —

QUESTION: — the 30 days?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to forecast in any way what it is that we’ll do at the end of those 30 days.

QUESTION: But, I mean, you just said based on the three weeks, since the three weeks that you sent the letter, things have not significantly turned around, and there is one more week to go – which, by the way, is a time period, is a grace period that you guys have chosen to give to them; there is no grace period in the law.

MR MILLER: It’s not – I would not describe it as a grace period. We’ve talked about this before. There were a number of things that are not light switches, that you cannot —

MR MILLER: — policy recommendations that we have that you cannot make happen overnight. So it’s not a grade period.

QUESTION: Sure. So can the U.S. Government commit to taking action at the end of 30 days if the picture is as dire as today?

MR MILLER: I am not going to tell you – I cannot predict to you what we will or will not do at the end of the 30 days. I do not know what the factual situation that we will face in that period will be. What I can tell you we will do is we will follow the law. The way we have followed the law to date, we will continue to follow the law.

QUESTION: Right. And on what Israel is doing in northern Gaza, they say Hamas has regrouped in this area and that’s why their military and tanks are back there. I’m wondering what is the U.S. assessment. Is that also the U.S. assessment, that this is the case and this is necessary military action?

MR MILLER: I don’t have a military assessment to offer from here. We know that there are Hamas fighters that continue to operate in northern Gaza. The Israelis can speak to what their own assessments are as to what it is that they are targeting in their operations in the north.

QUESTION: Is the kind of military campaign that they’ve been conducting in northern Gaza for the past three to four weeks, is that acceptable to the United States?

MR MILLER: We have concerns about specific actions we’re seen. You saw me speak last week to the concerns we had about a building that they took down in which 25 children were killed and scores of other civilians were killed. We have great concern about the civilian harm that we saw in that strike and the civilian harm that we’ve seen in general in operations in northern Gaza, in the same way we have concerns about the fact that humanitarian assistance is not getting into everywhere in Gaza. We’ve been quite clear with Israel that we believe they have an obligation to get humanitarian assistance in.

Ultimately, what we want to do is see the war end, and that’s what we’re trying to bring about is an end to the war that stops the fighting in northern Gaza, that stops the fighting elsewhere in Gaza, that brings the hostages home, and ultimately lets Palestinians start to rebuild their lives, rebuild their communities.

QUESTION: Right, sure. But that has proven to be very elusive, as you know as well. And in the meantime, this military campaign is still continuing. So I’m wondering, are – is the United States Government telling the Israelis to wrap this up even before a ceasefire negotiation? Because I mean —

QUESTION: — it’s just going to be really difficult to achieve that.

MR MILLER: So we want to see an end to the war. But the part of the question that I’m struggling with, it’s kind of the same thing I struggle a lot of times with when I get this question. There are two sides to a war. Right? It is not just Israel that is fighting a war here. Hamas is also fighting a war. And Hamas – and by the way, you know that Hamas started this war; we’ve been through this history many times. Hamas fighters continue to shoot, continue to target, continue to launch rockets at Israeli forces.

So we want to see the end of the war, but it is not a unilateral decision by one of the parties. We want to see the war end in a way that’s durable, where you have an agreement of both parties to end the conflict.

QUESTION: Right. But I guess the reason that I’m asking you is because the U.S. is providing much of the weaponry to Israel. So I am wondering if this particular military strategy – which seems to be imposing a siege, during which the humanitarian aid has dropped significantly; there has been a lot of civilian casualties – is this military strategy acceptable to the United States? And how long more will you – like, will you let it continue?

MR MILLER: So we have great concerns about the humanitarian toll in northern Gaza. And as to the question of how much longer it will continue, we want to see the war end now. We want to see an end to the war. And that’s what we’re trying to accomplish.

QUESTION: Thank you. You mentioned the building that obviously the United States is very concerned about. Everybody is concerned about that the incident last week. It’s one of many incidents that you say the U.S. flags with Israel. And you also say that Israel can speak to its own actions. And on what you’ve said to Humeyra, when you say Hamas continues to fire rockets and missiles, how do you square that with also saying that Israel has achieved its – has achieved its objective in Gaza? Are you saying it’s now gotten worse, to the point where they haven’t achieved their objective?

QUESTION: And then I have – on the building specifically –

MR MILLER: Let me answer that one first and then go to the second one. So no, absolutely not. What we have said is that they have achieved a number of strategic objectives. And if you look at the way – you’ve heard the Secretary speak to this – and the way the Israeli officials speak to this, one of the overriding strategic objectives was to ensure that Hamas could no longer launch military operations like we saw on October 7th, with that level of scale, that level of harm. And they have taken a tremendous action to degrade Hamas’s military capabilities, to wipe out a number of their commands, to significantly degrade their arsenal, to significantly degrade their fighters. We have never said that Israel would be able to kill or capture every Hamas fighter. That’s an —

QUESTION: So I guess my —

MR MILLER: I have to say that’s an elusive goal and an unachievable goal. So the strategic goal that we have always believed was attainable was to degrade them sufficiently so they couldn’t repeat October 7th.

The other strategic goal that you heard the Secretary speak to, you heard me speak to, and the President as well, of course, is to bring to justice the leader of Hamas who is responsible for the attacks on October 7th. And they, of course, did that as well.

They do have other remaining strategic objectives, the most important remaining one being bring home the hostages. But we have been, I think, pretty open about our concerns that Israel cannot afford, for many reasons – economically, diplomatically, in relation to its standing in the world – to just continue to fight a perpetual conflict in Gaza.

QUESTION: Right. So that was just me specifically mentioning about the rockets, whether – the fact that they can continue to fire rockets. Does that then mean that they’ve basically gone back to not having achieved their strategic goal? But I hear you on the other thing.

MR MILLER: No – yeah, yeah. They’ve their overall strategic goal. We think to get to a point that is a long-term – that’s long term sustainable —

MR MILLER: — you have to have a political path forward.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on the incident of the building collapsing last week, I think in which – I think the number was 20; I don’t know if that number’s changed, but many children were killed. We’ve had sources in Gaza that have told us that they believe that that strike was a retaliation for some IDF soldiers that were killed in Jabalia. I was wondering if you had heard anything to that effect or if that is something you have —

MR MILLER: No. We have been in communication with the Government of Israel about this strike going back to the day on which it occurred. We have not yet received an official explanation for what it is that they were trying to accomplish and what it is that happened. We’ve seen the same reports, I think, some of you have about them possibly trying to target a single militant who was on the roof of that building. I can’t speak to whether that’s accurate or not.

Whatever it was that they were trying to accomplish, something clearly went horribly wrong when they have brought down a building and killed two dozen children and scores of other civilians, especially when you look at where we are in the war, that we are a year in, that we are at a place when they have achieved a number of their strategic objectives. Something is going terribly wrong when you’re continuing to have that level of civilian casualties.

QUESTION: Okay. And also, I know that you’ve – there’s – we’re obviously all concerned about northern Gaza, but also we’ve got sources in Gaza who are saying the situation with food shortages is dire across the strip. There are families that, as we know, are eating bread and olive oil and that’s it. Children aren’t getting milk, eggs, no protein for months already – not just affecting – obviously it’s dire in certain parts of Gaza. But to that point, like, is this something that you are – can you give us an idea on, like, when you’re talking to the Israelis about the daily situation with the food shortage, is this something you’re consistently on their backs about? Because especially for this ––

MR MILLER: So I don’t think I have to read out any private diplomatic conversations —

MR MILLER: — to tell you how concerned we are about the situation and to point you to the fact that we have raised that concern in quite candid terms with them. All you have to do is look at the letter the Secretary sent, where he made clear that the level of humanitarian assistance had gone down to unacceptable levels and needed to change. And that is the consistent message that we deliver in the private conversations. That’s the message that the Secretary delivered in his conversation with Ron Dermer on Friday. It’s the message he’ll deliver to other Israeli officials in the coming hours.

QUESTION: And just lastly because everyone’s asking about whether there’s been improvement since that letter was sent, more specifically, has the U.S. seen any more of a decline in the food situation over the last week or so? Is that something that —

MR MILLER: So I can’t give you an assessment on the food situation. We have seen different routes open, and there were days when an increased number of trucks went in. For the actual number of trucks per day, I don’t have an assessment standing here. It’s all public information; you can look at it from the United Nations and compare the number of trucks that go in one week versus the previous week versus a month ago or two or three months ago.

But again, that is only one of the metrics that’s important here. It’s not just a question of trucks getting to the crossings. The trucks have to then continue to be able to distribute aid to civilians inside Gaza, and there have been significant impediments to that delivery happening as well.

QUESTION: And very quickly on the settler violence. Now, if there are the settlers who committed violence that have U.S. citizenship, could you be able to demand that they be extradited?

MR MILLER: That’s a question you’d have to put to the Department of Justice, Said.

QUESTION: Okay. But as far as, let’s say, whatever tradition and so on —

MR MILLER: That’s a —

QUESTION: — that they’re attacked —

MR MILLER: It’s a Department of Justice question, not a State Department question.

QUESTION: All right, okay, I’ll move on. Now, you also said something about UNRWA. We’ve talked about UNRWA. Well, it seems that the Israelis are gunning after other agencies, like OCHA and others and so on. And they probably target them much like they targeted UNRWA. So it seems that they are —

MR MILLER: I’m not questioning it. I just – I’ve missed whatever report it is you’re referring to.

QUESTION: Well, okay, all right. Well, OCHA is basically – the spokesman for OCHA —

MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah, I know who they are, but I don’t know what report of Israeli targeting you’re referring to.

QUESTION: But it seems like it’s not only UNRWA, but almost any other agency that could possibly provide the Palestinians with what UNRWA was providing, is being targeted. So it’s not just one thing. Do you believe —

MR MILLER: Well, Said, look – Said, before – hold on. Before you go to the question, is there a specific instance you want to reference that I can respond to?

QUESTION: Yes. I mean, just most recently they disallowed the representative of OCHA from visiting the West Bank and other places. So it’s – I mean, that’s what they keep saying. They say OCHA is also meddling in their affairs and so on, they are giving cover to Palestinian activists, and all kinds of things. My question is the following: Would, in the 90 days – they have 90 days before implementing the law against UNRWA – would the United States lean on Israel to rescind its decision?

MR MILLER: Of course we want them – to see them rescind the decision. We wanted them to not pass it in the first place.

MR MILLER: Now, I don’t really have any illusions, if you look at the politics of the Knesset, that that’s a likely step that they’re going to take, if you look at the number of votes by which it passed. But we have great concerns about the passage of the legislation and its implementation.

QUESTION: Okay. But the U.S. does not have any leverage to impose on Israel or to say, look, if you do this we will do this?

MR MILLER: We made – if you —

QUESTION: I mean, it’s just —

MR MILLER: So, Said, I know you were here last week and —

MR MILLER: Hold on – and got my answers to the question about this.

MR MILLER: Where I referred – I pointed out that in the Secretary’s letter, we made clear that there are potential legal and policy implications for the implementation of this legislation.

QUESTION: Yeah, we’re talking about UNRWA because UNRWA has been there for the better part of this conflict and all throughout. And in fact, it was a Western thing, the Americans and Europeans that said we should have this organization. We know that probably 170 countries or even more, any countries, support UNRWA. So you’re telling me that Israelis basically can flaunt the whole world and say, well, we’ll do whatever we want because we have the backing of the United States?

MR MILLER: No, Israel can make decisions that any sovereign country can make, and the United States can do the same, as can other countries.

QUESTION: Okay, let me just ask you a couple more questions on the hospital situation. There was extensive reporting yesterday by Associated Press on the fact that Israeli claims about the hospitals, about many of the hospitals, that they were actually a place where fighters hid and so on, turned about to be false. So hasn’t the time come for the United States to say hospitals – that’s it. Don’t bomb the hospitals, don’t do this to the hospitals, allow some – a modicum of medical care to these Palestinians that need it?

MR MILLER: We absolutely do not want to see hospitals targeted. We also don’t want to see Hamas take refuge inside hospitals. And I will tell you, you have seen us release our own intelligence where we’ve said that we have seen evidence, at least in one hospital, where Hamas was hiding underneath a hospital and was deploying its fighters underneath a hospital. So absolutely we want to see hospitals protected, and one of the ways to ensure they are protected would be for Hamas to stop taking refuge inside them.

QUESTION: All right, but this is a recurring story. I mean, Israel could claim forever that there are Hamas fighters, that there are —

MR MILLER: I’m not – so, Said, just to be clear, I’m not talking about an Israeli claim. We ourselves have seen evidence of Hamas building tunnels under hospitals and hiding inside hospitals.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. So we saw this with the Shifa hospital, and it was an ancient tunnel, but that’s not the point.

MR MILLER: That’s not – that is not – that is not our assessment, Said.

QUESTION: Okay, that’s fine. But I’m saying that has been bombed and bombed and bombed again.

MR MILLER: I’m glad you think it’s fine. I’m telling you that was our assessment as a factual matter.

QUESTION: That’s okay. All right. But this has been – this was bombed and bombed and bombed again. I mean, this could continue. It’s like déjà vu all over again.

MR MILLER: Which is why we are trying to end the war.

MR MILLER: And get to – and get to lasting peace and security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, that – okay, that takes me to my last question. The Israelis are saying that clearing northern Gaza of Hamas fighters will take another six months. Does that mean that this war will go on for another six months and you will actually support that?

MR MILLER: I cannot make any predictions about how this war will proceed, but I can tell you what we are trying to bring about, Said, which is an end to the war as soon as possible.

Go ahead, then I’ll come back – just stay in the region for now.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. On Iran. Over the weekend, the Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei said that Israel and the U.S. should anticipate a crushing blow, and today Wall Street Journal had a story saying that Tehran’s planning a complex response involving more powerful warheads and they’re going to use regular army and IRGC, citing Iranian diplomats. So my question is: What is the U.S. message to the Iranian supreme leader? I mean, are they getting it? And what is the U.S. doing to discourage the Islamic Republic from attacking again? And lastly, what is the U.S. preparation to counter such attack?

MR MILLER: So our message to the supreme leader is the same as the message that you heard us say last week, which is it should not respond further. It should not escalate the situation further. And if it chooses to do so, we will support Israel in defending itself.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can we move to North Korea?

QUESTION: So EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, held talks with his South Korean counterpart on Monday. Would you like to provide a general comment? Does the U.S. usually get a debrief afterwards?

MR MILLER: We often do in these cases. There’s not one that I’m – if we have at this point, it hasn’t made its way to me. I don’t have any comment other than that obviously we support engagement by two of our significant allies.

QUESTION: And can you talk about the upcoming consultation between U.S. and its allies? Is it fair to expect a trilateral between the United States, Japan, and ROK on the sideline of next week’s APEC?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make about scheduling today. The Secretary spoke to his South Korean and Japanese counterparts on Thursday in the wake of North Korea’s most recent ballistic missile launch, and we will continue to consult closely with both of those allies of the United States.

QUESTION: Do you have any new report or new development from the newly established Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team?

MR MILLER: Only that we are making positive progress with our partners, but I don’t have any specific updates to share beyond that today.

QUESTION: And then finally, I’m sure you – I’m not sure if you see the tweets that North Koreans’ foreign minister got a warm welcome with flowers.

MR MILLER: I have to admit, I’m not – I have to admit, I’m not following him on Twitter, but —

QUESTION: But can you comment on the growing romance between the two countries?

MR MILLER: Look, so we continue to be greatly concerned about the partnership between North Korea and Russia. You saw the Secretary speak to the fact on Thursday that North Korea has deployed as many as 10,000 troops to Russia and that we were concerned that they would move to the front lines to enter the fight against Ukraine; as the – the Secretary said on Friday, that as many as 8,000 North Korean troops had made their way to Kursk. We now assess that as many as 10,000 have made their way to Kursk and could enter combat in the coming days.

QUESTION: Are they in Kursk already – I mean are they in combat already?

MR MILLER: So I have seen public reporting that they are. I can’t speak to that definitively, but as we have said, we expected that it was likely that they would enter into combat against Ukrainian forces, and if they did, they would be legitimate military targets.

QUESTION: Just to confirm, Matt – 10,000 are actively right now involved into the fighting?

MR MILLER: In Kursk, yes.

MR MILLER: Yeah, that’s our assessment. It’s our —

QUESTION: Eight thousand to 10,000. Just want to clarify.

MR MILLER: As many as 10,000, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you so much.

MR MILLER: Up from when we spoke Thursday when we said as many as 8,000 were there. Now we can see – we assess that as many as 10,000 have made their way to Kursk.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. The Secretary’s statement on the security aid on Friday that he issued – we have seen some slight change there, and please correct me if I’m reading too much into it.

MR MILLER: Probably. Probably.

QUESTION: He’s not saying anymore that – unlike his July 11 and August and September statements, he’s not saying anymore that we will be sending this as soon as possible. He is also saying we will be allocating from the congressionally approved aid as much as possible by the end of the President’s term. You guys usually say all of it.

MR MILLER: It’s – Alex, we’re in a different situation. You may remember that at the end of the fiscal year, we announced a drawdown of all the remaining authority. We did that under – just through a slightly different procedure than we had done previously because we were coming up to the end of the fiscal year, and so we drew down a large number. I don’t remember – it was – I don’t remember what the exact number was, and now we’re spending against that drawdown in the weeks ahead. So that’s why these announcements, just at a technical level, look different than the ones that happened before September 30th.

QUESTION: But can you assure us that they will be deployed as quickly as —

MR MILLER: You should talk to the Pentagon about the deployment of drawdown authority.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Moving to Georgia, the Georgian Government, they refused to implement international investigation, and the process out there – today, the opposition declared that they will have non-stop process. The only request they have for the U.S. and the West is that they want to make sure you guys are standing with the people of Georgia. Is that —

MR MILLER: That we have what?

QUESTION: Standing with them, you support them.

MR MILLER: Of course we stand with the people of Georgia.

QUESTION: And is there anything you can do to prove that’s the case in terms of —

MR MILLER: We have made clear that we stand with the people of Georgia. We have made clear that we support their EU ambitions. We have made clear that we support their further integration with their Euro and Atlantic partners. We have put, as you know, under review the – a significant amount of assistance that we provide to the Government of Georgia and have suspended $95 million of that assistance because of steps that we have seen them take. And we will continue to look at whether there are additional measures that would be appropriate; and if so, we won’t hesitate to use them.

QUESTION: And despite congressional calls you still refuse to sanction Ivanishvili and others behind —

MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make about what additional sanctions activities we might take.

QUESTION: And finally on Moldova, I know the White House had a statement, but we haven’t heard from Secretary, but he did raise his concerns prior to —

MR MILLER: There will be a statement coming from the Secretary this afternoon.

QUESTION: What is your – can you preview the statement —

MR MILLER: I think he will congratulate President Sandu on her election.

QUESTION: And in terms of Russian involvement —

QUESTION: You don’t think it will be exactly the opposite of what the White House statement was, or what —

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I didn’t want to say that but yeah, I —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Russian involvement – that was Secretary’s concern. He highlighted that in his previous statement. So what new did you learn and how —

MR MILLER: So we – as you heard him say publicly, we did note that Russia did everything in its power to disrupt the election, to undermine Moldova’s democracy, including through illicit financing, including through vote buying, disinformation, and malicious cyber activities. But the people of Moldova came forward and made their voices heard.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt. About Bangladesh, the situation in Bangladesh every moment changing. Let me ask you about the recent decision by the information department of Bangladesh to revoke the press accreditation of 20 journalists, including very senior journalists Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury, Shaban Mahmud, Mozzamel Haque Babu, Shakil Ahmed, and Shyamal Dutt. These actions appears to undermine press freedom and the rights of journalists to operate without government interference. What step will U.S. take to address these violation of press rights?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any specific comment on those reported charges, but we support the free press in Bangladesh, as we do around the world.

QUESTION: Thank you. And one of the largest political parties, the Jatiya Party of Bangladesh, a central office was vandalized yesterday and set fire on by the anti-discrimination student organization supported by the interim government. Following the situation, the government imposed Section 144, banning Jatiya Party protest gathering on November 2nd. How does the U.S. State Department view the current efforts by Bangladesh interim governments to marginalize the political parties, including the Jatiya Party, from the political landscape in Bangladesh?

MR MILLER: So we are monitoring reports of protests in Bangladesh. We support freedom of belief and freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association as essential elements of any democracy and the welfare of all persons in Bangladesh, and as I say, around the world.

QUESTION: And – thank you.

MR MILLER: One more.

QUESTION: Finally, what of your assessment of the sedition charges filed against 19 Hindu leaders, including ISKCON leader Chinmoy Prabhu in Bangladesh, and does it view this charge as impacting religious freedom or minority rights in Bangladesh?

MR MILLER: We are aware of the charges, and we encourage a fair and transparent legal process for all individuals.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Twenty-five years ago, my senior colleague Matt Lee had joined this press briefing room. Mr. Richard Boucher was the press gentleman like you are.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, that’s not – that’s not right.

QUESTION: Richard Boucher was – no. No. Jamie Rubin was the spokesman.

QUESTION: Well, just a few months later, Mr. Richard Boucher came.

QUESTION: And he is my friend still this day, and he —

MR MILLER: Do you want me to step off stage for a minute and you guys can handle this? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I – I don’t know why my name has to come up here.

QUESTION: It’s the last day before election, so let’s make it a little more serious.

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) That’s ironic.

QUESTION: So Mr. Matt – Mr. Matt, last two year – in 25 years, I’ve skipped journalism only for a year and a half when I was in Virginia Hospital Center. So when I came – then I started, and you have been here since most of the time here. Last week, my six-year-old son also came here to ask you a question. Unfortunately, he was taken out. Other journalists’ children have been allowed. Last week, you – my question is last week you had the audacity to say that your administration had nothing to do with the removal of Imran Khan, while you had told my friend – again, my friend Matt – the word “close-ish” about the removal of Imran Khan. Remember that word?

MR MILLER: No, that is – that is not an accurate representation of what I said.

QUESTION: You had said that we had told them, Imran Khan, that your visit to Russia was a disliking and we are —

MR MILLER: I should leave it alone, but you’re not right.

QUESTION: Okay. Second one: Yesterday, a supreme court judge – supreme court attorney got recovered after a month of abduction in Pakistan. After a month – supreme court attorney. Is that not human rights violations that I personally have been mentioning to you since last two years, and you have not once even said to me that, Jalil —

MR MILLER: I – so I – Jalil, I’m not aware of that report, so I can’t comment on it.

QUESTION: But human rights violations I have not brought into your notice on – parliamentarians, abducted senators, abducted lawyers, abducted —

MR MILLER: We have – is – do you have a question, Jalil?

QUESTION: You do not acknowledge that in two years you have completely ignored these things? And today is the last before your election. I want to show this picture to you, how I feel as a journalist.

MR MILLER: All right. Go ahead, behind. Go ahead.

QUESTION: In two years, the way you have treated me and Karim —

MR MILLER: Go ahead behind, if you have a question.

QUESTION: Matt, the other day I went to the White House.

MR MILLER: You know what, this is – we have —

QUESTION: Guess what, they told me – Secret Service told me that, Jalil —

MR MILLER: We – Jalil – Jalil, this is question time, not argument time, in the briefing room.

QUESTION: I have no idea what’s going on from us. From us you are okay, but —

MR MILLER: Go ahead, behind you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Keep politics on the side. The beauty of this room is the journalists here as well, Matt. You are just (inaudible).

MR MILLER: And I appreciate journalists that show up with questions, not extended arguments. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So respect them (inaudible) I want to tell you the last day of the election.

MR MILLER: Go ahead. You can go ahead with your question.

QUESTION: Respect journalists, please.

MR MILLER: Go ahead with your question. I’m going to respect journalism by calling on a journalist in the room.

QUESTION: Yes, I will shut up.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Matt. You know that Mr. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, they are – both are, like, crucial members in the Government of Israel, and one of them is explicitly encourage expanding settlement in West Bank and the other one explicitly and practically arming – is arming the settlers in the West Bank. Last Wednesday, you rejected that Palestinian, like, has a right to defend themselves against these settlers, and you said that it’s matter of law enforcement. Can you give me, like – in this context, can you give me, like, more clarification or, like, more explanation? What type of law enforcement that can encounter this expanding settlements and encountering these settlers who burning Palestinian homes, burning – like happened yesterday – Palestinian cars, steal their lands?

MR MILLER: Sure. So —

QUESTION: So it’s like kind of some game – like, as you supposedly, like, a fair mediator between Palestinian and Israelian, what is your vision for, like, moving this situation, specifically the government itself encouraging these settlers to expand their settlement?

MR MILLER: So it – when it comes to who is responsible for law enforcement operations, it depends in what area of the West Bank it is. I think you – as you well know, in Area A the Palestinian Authority has principal responsibility for law enforcement operations. In Area C, it is the Government of Israel. And so when you saw – when you heard the opening remarks at this briefing today, I made clear that relevant authorities, whether it be in Area A, whether it be in Area C, whether it be anywhere, need to respond to acts of violence no matter the perpetrator and no matter the victim.

Now, when it comes to settlements in Area C, we want to see the Government of Israel do more to prevent settler violence, to crack down on settler violence, and to hold settlers accountable for that violence. And we have also made clear that if we do not see sufficient action from the Government of Israel, we will impose our own actions, as we have on more than two dozen occasions already this year.

QUESTION: Okay. Second question on UNRWA – like, last question on UNRWA. Like, why USA, like, doesn’t voluntarily – like, to take action to, like, send, like, teams or, like, organization or something? Because, like, as Mr. Said said, like, UNRWA is the most strong and, like, well-known about their job, and Israel it seems like not cooperate or, like, not helping for, like, distributing aid, and something like that. Like, why USA doesn’t take an action or, like, doing any practical roles in terms of distributing this aid, specifically in northern Gaza? Because, like, some, like, expertise says it’s, like, kind of fame or kind of like starving. So why USA doesn’t play a real action?

MR MILLER: We have taken significant action to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. Now, when it comes to that last mile, if you will – the distribution role – we don’t have U.S. Government agencies on the ground implementing aid delivery, but we are facilitating a great amount of aid making its way to Gaza. In fact, the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, and we fund a number of the UN agencies who then do that last-mile delivery inside Gaza, and we will continue to do so.

QUESTION: But you don’t fund UNRWA anymore.

MR MILLER: Not UNRWA, but we fund other agencies, is what I was referring to.

With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. I don’t have any opening comments, and I don’t see Mr. Lee here, so Shaun, I think you’re up.

QUESTION: Okay. I won’t imitate him.

MR MILLER: I’d like to see that, actually. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, maybe not on camera. Don’t think he would like that. Maybe start with the situation in Lebanon. A few things there. First of all, there are evacuation orders that the Israelis ordered – Israelis publicly announced today for Baalbek, a historic city in the east. I wanted to get your sense about that, whether the U.S. is okay with what’s happening there. And then some other aspects on Lebanon I want to ask.

MR MILLER: So we support their right to go after legitimate Hizballah targets. But in doing so, it is critical that they do so in a way that does not threaten the lives of civilians. That’s especially true in densely populated areas like Baalbek. It’s important that they not threaten the lives of journalists, UN peacekeepers, members of the Lebanese armed forces, and it’s also critical that civilian infrastructure and significant cultural heritage sites be protected.

QUESTION: I’ll get to you on that. I mean, do you think this is the case with that? I mean, saying that there’s a mass evacuation order – I mean, is that sort of a more targeted strike? I mean, is there any concern that, particularly after we’ve seen Gaza, that there could be further destruction?

MR MILLER: So a few things. First of all, we have made clear that the campaign they are conducting in Lebanon should not, cannot, must not, look like the campaign that they have conducted in Gaza, and that we do not want to see that type of widespread damage. In terms of what the operation they’re going to conduct, I don’t know what it’s going to be. I’ll refer you to them to talk to that. But of course, when you are conducting a military operation in an area where civilians are operating – and we know that Hizballah does embed itself among civilian targets – you want to actually see civilians evacuate. That’s something our military advises. It’s something the militaries advise around the world, that before you conduct a strike in a densely populated civilian area, a best practice is to urge that civilians evacuate the area so the military operation can be conducted. And then when it’s concluded, civilians can return.

QUESTION: Let me ask you about the diplomatic aspects of that. There’s a new leader of Hizballah, who said today that, I mean, essentially they’re open to – I mean, within many conditions, I’m sure – but they’re open in general to negotiating some sort of ceasefire. It seems that the Israeli cabinet was meeting last night on this. Where do things stand? I mean, does the U.S. in particular have an idea for how this can come to an end? And is the U.S. at this point calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: We do ultimately want to see a ceasefire, and we want to see a diplomatic resolution that allows civilians both in Lebanon and Israel return to their homes. Two White House officials, Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein, are traveling to Israel to engage on issues including a diplomatic resolution in Lebanon as well as how we get to an end to the conflict in Gaza and other regional matters. And one of the things that they are going to discuss is how we can find a diplomatic resolution that fully implements UN Security Council Resolution 1701, something that we have not seen over the past few years.

QUESTION: You just said that Amos and Brett are going to Israel. And I know you’re not going to say in preview what exactly the proposals are, but does this indicate that there’s more momentum and that there’s – the U.S. has more on the – has – believes that there’s more of a chance right now of getting to an end?

MR MILLER: Look, I never want to try and – speculate not the right word; I’m trying to think, when you wager money or – I never want to try —

MR MILLER: — to lay odds – I don’t want to lay odds on what that chances are of getting a deal. I can tell you that we have been focused on trying to find a diplomatic resolution. As you know, the Secretary was in Israel and a number of other countries in the region last week, and one of the things that he was working on was finding how we can get to not just any diplomatic resolution, but – this is really important – one that fully implements 1701 and gives civilians on both sides of the border the confidence they need to come to their – that they will be able to go back to their homes and stay there, not that they will go back to their homes, and then a month later or two months later Hizballah forces return to areas along the border and start putting civilians on both sides of the border in jeopardy again. That is what we have been working on trying to achieve, and that’s what they’re going to work on on this trip, and that’s what we’re going to work on in our other diplomatic engagements.

QUESTION: Sorry, I was on the phone. I missed the top, so I’ll —

MR MILLER: That’s all right. We can come back to you.

QUESTION: Just to put a point – finer point on Shaun’s question, Matt, do you guys believe that Israel has gotten to a point in its offensive against Hizballah that they should accept a diplomatic resolution at this point? Have they achieved their strategic aims, as you guys say, as they have in Gaza?

MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations. They have made significant progress in striking Hizballah sites along the border, in clearing out Hizballah infrastructure along the border, in forcing Hizballah forces along the border to pull back. And we will be engaging with them privately about what we see as the path forward.

QUESTION: And do you have any comments on the reports about the contours of this proposal, 60-day ceasefire, that the U.S. is said to have put on the table?

MR MILLER: I don’t. I know there are a number of reports out there, but I don’t want to confirm or comment on them publicly.

QUESTION: And then I have more questions on Gaza. I don’t know if anyone has more on Lebanon?

QUESTION: I just have a few on Lebanon. So on this ceasefire versus diplomatic resolution, the United States is not calling for an immediate ceasefire right now, but would you welcome a ceasefire if one is struck, like, in a few days? I’m just trying to understand.

MR MILLER: We want to get to the point where we have a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution. We are not calling for one right now. What we are trying to do is structure such a diplomatic resolution with all of the relevant parties. That’s the diplomatic work that we have been engaged in.

MR MILLER: We’re not there yet.

MR MILLER: But we’re working to get there.

QUESTION: If it takes you another month to get there, is the United States okay with Israel bombing and continuing its ground invasion in Lebanon for another month?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical. We’re working on finding a resolution that fully implements 1701.

QUESTION: You – the United States thinks that Israel has – I can’t remember the exact word you used, but Israel has made a lot of achievements in terms of degrading Hizballah in Lebanon. What is Israel telling you in terms of achieving their military objectives?

MR MILLER: Now, I am not —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: I am not going to speak for them. I will let them speak publicly for themselves. And in terms of what they have told us privately, I think it’s obviously appropriate that I keep those comments private.

QUESTION: Would you say you have agreement with the Israeli Government on this, whether or not – how long more this military operation should continue in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: We have ongoing conversations with them about what a diplomatic resolution can look like and what it should look like. We have – and those conversations are ongoing – I should point out – not just with the Government of Israel, but also with the Government of Lebanon. But I’m not going to read those out publicly.

QUESTION: Oh, one more thing.

QUESTION: And I have a bunch of – on Gaza, but you can come back to me. When – will this plan that you guys are trying to craft on the implementation of 1701, is that going to include an article or an element that will allow Israel to intervene if it felt its security is threatened?

MR MILLER: I think you know what the answer to that question is going to be, which is that I’m not going to answer about what a specific diplomatic resolution might look like while we are in the process of negotiating that with the relevant parties.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, you know I got to try.

MR MILLER: Yeah, I certainly don’t mind – certainly don’t mind you trying.

QUESTION: Can I shift to —

QUESTION: — a few kilometers away?

QUESTION: Okay. So what is the State Department’s assessment of China’s silence and lack of direct commentary on North Korea sending troops to Russia?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on what they have or have not said about that matter. I will note that it is a matter of significant concern for us that North Korea has deployed troops to Russia, and that those troops in Russia are currently receiving training, and that we believe it’s possible they may end up deploying to Kursk to engage in combat. What I will say is that we have engaged directly with officials with the Government of China to make quite clear our concerns about this deepening military relationship between Russia and North Korea, and to make clear that we think this ought to be a source of concern for China as well as other countries in the region. But as to their reaction, I will let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: And this communication, was it done through PRC embassy here in Washington?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak the nature of the communication, but I will tell you we have had very robust conversations with the Government of China about this matter.

QUESTION: And last one: Does the State Department share the assessment that North Korea is prepared to conduct nuclear or missile tests before or after the U.S. presidential election?

MR MILLER: No, I don’t have any comment on that at all. We rarely comment on that type of thing from the podium.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you think this deployment of North Korean troops in Russia further complicates the situation for NATO Allies, not only for U.S.; given in Zelenskyy’s – President Zelenskyy’s victory plan, including being a NATO member. Now, do you think it further complicates all things or, for example, allowing Ukraine to use NATO Ally-supplied weapons, to use those weapons on North Korean forces, for example, if they end up in Kursk or something which —

MR MILLER: I don’t think it —

QUESTION: — further complicates the situation?

MR MILLER: I’m sorry. I don’t think it complicates the issue at all, but I think it raises, certainly, concerns among some – a number of our NATO allies. We’ve heard that directly in our conversations with NATO Allies, that they are every bit as concerned about this development as we are. And so it – in terms of what the response will look like that is something we’re consulting with them on right now. The South Korean foreign minister and the South Korean defense minister, another important ally of ours, will be in town tomorrow to meet with Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin. I can guarantee you that this development will be a significant topic of discussion in those meetings as well.

QUESTION: So if those troops would be ending up in the fronts like in Kursk, for example, will Ukraine be allowed to use weapons provided by U.S. and NATO Allies?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into a – I’m not going to get into a hypothetical.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m struck by your response to Shaun on – you said that you don’t want to see the widespread damage that you’ve seen, but in Gaza, it’s total destruction. So anything short of that total destruction would be acceptable? You don’t want to see something similar?

MR MILLER: Said, we want to see a diplomatic resolution well —

QUESTION: I’m trying to understand your terms.

MR MILLER: Said, let me – if you’re going to ask a question —

MR MILLER: — you deserve to let me respond to the question. We want to see this conflict resolved through a diplomatic resolution that allows people to return to their homes and borders well short of any kind of prolonged campaign like we’ve seen in Gaza.

QUESTION: Right. Now, Israel is striking in the Bekaa Valley – it’s eastern Lebanon and so on – and said – you said that they have the right to go after legitimate Hizballah targets and so on. But really, Israel can say there is a Hizballah target there. No one – nobody is vetting, nobody is looking, saying – can determine, really, whether this was a legitimate Hizballah target, correct? You see it that way?

MR MILLER: So there are – so, Said, I don’t think it is disputed —

MR MILLER: — maybe you’ll dispute it – but I don’t think it is a matter of dispute that there are Hizballah operatives basically deployed in a number of occasions across Lebanon. We talk a lot about southern Lebanon because we see them concentrated there for – in large reason because it’s where they can most readily and easily threaten Israeli troops and Israeli villages and Israeli civilians, but that’s not the only place that they are around Lebanon, and we’ve seen Israel striking Hizballah targets at other places around Lebanon.

QUESTION: I understand. I’m saying of course Hizballah is probably all over the country. But I’m saying is with – Israel does not have to verify that this was X person Hizballah or that person Hizballah, do they?

MR MILLER: Verify to whom, Said?

QUESTION: Verify to the world. I mean, you keep saying that this is a legitimate – how do we know it’s legitimate? How would we —

MR MILLER: So we have seen a number of examples of – you can see for yourself video of Hizballah rockets that are pulled out of civilian homes, Hizballah rockets and arms caches and other significant military equipment hidden inside civilian homes, hidden under civilian homes. So with respect to each strike it’s always difficult to say what’s happening with each target, but there is ample evidence, Said, of them hiding their troops, hiding their equipment, hiding their arsenals inside civilian homes.

QUESTION: All right. Okay, and one more on Lebanon. So you’re saying that you – for now you’re not calling for a ceasefire. Are there any talks underway of any kind that maybe can achieve a ceasefire that is delinked from Gaza?

MR MILLER: We have always thought that it should be delinked from Gaza. That has been the position of the United States since Hizballah started rockets – firing rockets on October 8th, that the – that Hizballah was putting people’s lives in danger by linking these two conflicts when they didn’t need to be linked. Now, you’ve seen some public indications from Hizballah that they no longer take that position. We’re in talks about how to reach a diplomatic resolution, and we’ll see how they turn out.

QUESTION: Now, on Gaza, the Kamal Adwan Hospital was completely overwhelmed after Israel’s massacre in Beit Lahia. Is the United States doing any – could you do any kind of – could you take any steps that – to alleviate the situation, that can address this urgent condition in this particular case, the Kamal Adwan Hospital?

MR MILLER: So I’ll say that we have raised this issue with the Government of Israel. We have asked that they explain what has happened here not only to us but that they explain it publicly – think it’s important that they do that. I will let them speak to exactly what they’re doing, but I will say with regards to what happens immediately, we continue to make clear that food, water, and medicine need to make it into all areas of northern Gaza, including areas where Israel is currently conducting military operations. But then long term, the way that you fully address this problem is to find an end to the war in Gaza, which is what we’re trying to do.

QUESTION: Okay. So on that point, do you have any update on the future of the talks?

MR MILLER: So the negotiators met in recent days, as I think you know, Said. We’ve talked about that publicly. We’re continuing to talk about what a possible way forward will be, looking at both the proposal that we put on the table several months ago that was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, that was endorsed by countries around the world, as well as other alternatives that might provide for a way forward that would end the conflict and get the hostages home and alleviate the suffering of civilians on the ground in Gaza. But I’m not going to talk about where those talks stand and the specifics of what we’re discussing in them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Did you want to come back? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. So just back on Lebanon, do you have any reason to believe that the Israelis, at least in Baalbek, are going to target significant cultural heritage?

MR MILLER: No, I am not speaking —

QUESTION: Do you have any —

MR MILLER: I’m going – I’m not going to speak at all for what they may or may not do. They should speak to that. But I’m making clear on behalf of the United States that no, of course they should not target significant cultural artifacts.

QUESTION: And they should also not target civilians?

MR MILLER: Of course not.

QUESTION: And yet what have you seen in Gaza and in southern Lebanon?

MR MILLER: So we have seen them targeting Hamas militants, but at great civilian harm, great harm to civilians. Now, of course, the situation is different in Hamas than in – I’m sorry. The situation is different in Gaza than it is in Lebanon, and that in many cases in Gaza it’s very difficult to find places to move to. It’s a much smaller geographic area than Lebanon. So we’re hopeful that what can happen is that people can evacuate, Israel can conduct whatever military operations they are conducting against legitimate Hizballah targets, and then people can return to their homes afterwards.

QUESTION: Well, do you agree with what U.S. officials said even as early as last year, that the civilian death toll – and this is referring to Gaza – was far too high, far too many civilians have —

QUESTION: And do you agree that that’s the same in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: We don’t want to see any civilians killed.

MR MILLER: And yes, there have – there have been – there have been civilians that have been killed in Lebanon, and no – yes, the – when the toll – when there are any civilians killed that is too high a toll, which is why we want to see a resolution and end to the conflict.

QUESTION: Okay. And then yesterday you said that you had asked the Israelis for – maybe someone else asked this already —

QUESTION: — for an explanation of what happened in northern Gaza with this building that was apparently blown up.

MR MILLER: Yeah. We reiterated that call with them today. We do not yet have an explanation. They have said to us what they have said publicly, which is they are investigating the matter, and we are pressing them for an answer.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it just seems like that every day that goes by – and I know this is something that comes up every day in the briefing – every day that goes by, there’s yet another incident like this that you guys have questions about, concerns about. You called it “horrifying” yesterday from the podium.

QUESTION: And yet they continue to happen. And so I’m just wondering, what is it going to take for you guys to make a determination that this kind of thing is a violation of international law?

MR MILLER: So I will make clear, as we’ve said before, they are not doing enough to get us the answers that we have requested. And you saw the Secretary raise this in a letter that he sent a little over two weeks ago and said that they need to do more to set up a channel so when we have answers to these types of questions, that they provide us with those answers. They also need to provide the public with answers to these questions. There are significant questions that you all ask, that other countries have asked, that we believe Israel needs to answer publicly.

I can’t tell you where this is going to go. I can tell you that we are not just pressing them for answers but also conducting our own reviews based on information that we are gathering independent of the Government of Israel, and we will make those determinations when we have completed those reviews. But I can’t put a timetable on it.

QUESTION: Okay. And then in terms of the letter that you just mentioned, the aid – the humanitarian aid, the amount of humanitarian aid that’s getting into Gaza now, you talked about how there’s been a small improvement, some border crossings reopened, a few more trucks getting in. And yet the need seems to be just far, far greater than what is getting in.

QUESTION: And so where – what’s this – do you have any kind of a status update on are they making more progress toward meeting the requirements that you laid – that were laid out in the letter or is it still the same?

MR MILLER: There – it is still roughly the same. There have been little improvements here and there on things like additional routes opening up inside Gaza and work around trying to work through some of the security issues. But the situation still remains not at a level that we find acceptable, and that’s not just about the level of aid that is making it to Gaza but also the distribution inside Gaza.

And we continue to see breakdowns in communication between Israeli forces and UN agencies that is important to being – to ensuring that aid can be delivered safely; sometimes UN agencies not getting the permits that they need, or I should say the permissions – it’s not permits but permissions that they need to travel around Gaza; sometimes getting permissions granted and then yanked or it doesn’t get communicated down to the officer who’s at a particular checkpoint. That needs to change. And so the aid – much of the aid that’s getting to Kerem Shalom or Erez then isn’t – isn’t making its way to people either because of these bureaucratic obstacles or because it’s being looted, in many cases by armed gangs that are operating inside Gaza due to the breakdown in the security situation.

So it continues to be of great concern to us, and we have not seen sufficient improvement since the Secretary sent that letter.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just getting into the weeds of – weeds of that letter, there’s – can you explain the difference between the 30-day deadline that Secretaries Austin and Blinken laid out to the Israelis and the legislation that the Knesset passed the other day on basically banning UNRWA, which would take effect in 90 days unless there’s some kind of a delay in that?

QUESTION: Does the – the 30-day deadline, my understanding – still for your – for the requirements laid out in the letter still remains. Is that (inaudible)?

MR MILLER: The 30-day deadline does still remain. And if you just look at the way the letter is structured, the letter makes clear that there are a number of improvements to the delivery of humanitarian assistance that we want to see happen, some immediately, some by the end of that 30-day period. And it goes through the – a number of specific improvements that we want to see them take. Then, in a different section of the letter, it says “relatedly,” and it raises the issue related to passage of this UNRWA legislation, which of course had not passed when the secretaries sent the letter, and then a couple of other issues as well. So those are not – those were not issues that were related to the 30 days outlined in the letter, but nevertheless they’re issues that we take seriously and that’s why the letter made clear with respect to this – the passage of this legislation that it could have implementations under U.S. law and policy in the same way that failure to – failure —

QUESTION: Could have implications?

MR MILLER: Yeah, implications under U.S. law and policy – in the same way that failure to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance could have implications under U.S. law and policy.

QUESTION: But you – but at the moment, you don’t think that the legislation is going – will affect Israel’s ability to meet the 30-day —

MR MILLER: The legislation is really a separate question than under the 30 days, so no.

QUESTION: I know. I know, but – but —

MR MILLER: It has its own – it has its own implications, but no, the 30-days review that we are conducting relates to those first sections of the letter —

QUESTION: Which rely on UNRWA, but —

MR MILLER: Which very much rely on – but UNRWA – this legislation, if it is implemented, wouldn’t be implemented until 90 days from yesterday or whenever the bill’s signed.

QUESTION: Right, but I guess – I mean —

QUESTION: People are a little bit – including me – are a little bit confused as to – if you have this impending implementation of a ban on what you say is the biggest and most effective organization that’s distributing aid into Gaza, even if it hasn’t yet gone into effect, there are going to be implications or most likely going to be implications for what happens even before that 90-day period runs out.

MR MILLER: For sure.

QUESTION: Is that not0 correct?

MR MILLER: There could be but there may not be, right. The law could be stayed. But I – but maybe the way to think about it, Matt, is while we raised things that we wanted to see change over the next 30 days, it’s not like if Israel implemented every one of those things at the end – and at the end of the 30 days we saw a significant improvement that we just stop assessing these on an ongoing basis. We don’t. So the 30 days is related to these things that we wanted to see happen to change the situation on the ground, but our assessment on all of those things will continue, just as our assessment on the effects of this legislation will continue if and when it is ever implemented.

QUESTION: Matt, just on this Washington Post and Reuters story – they were first – about —

MR MILLER: Who was first?

QUESTION: Post was first.

MR MILLER: Okay. I’m sorry, I thought you were saying you were – I was not trying to rub salt, I was trying – (laughter).

QUESTION: State Department officials have identified nearly 500 potential incidents of civilian harm during Israel’s military operations in Gaza involving U.S.-furnished weapons, but they have not taken action. None of them moved to stage three. So could you explain how it is that officials identify 500 separate incidents that do involve unnecessary civilian harm, possibly using U.S. weapons, but none of them makes it to the stage three under CHIRG process?

MR MILLER: So a few things about that. Number one, I think it’s always important to reiterate that we have consistently made clear to the Government of Israel our serious concerns about this issue and their need to do more to minimize civilian deaths, and it continues to be something that we engage with them on that we make quite clear. Second thing I want to make clear is that, yes, we are reviewing a number of incidents through the CHIRG and other processes and procedures that we have set up, and I’m not going to get into those ongoing reviews. But as you’ve heard us say, these are complicated issues. They’re complicated factual issues; they’re complicated legal issues.

And so we have not yet gotten to the point with any of them that we have been able to make final determinations, but there are a number of incidents, and that is part of the issue. We have a number of different incidents that we have to look at just based on the nature of this conflict and the scope and extent of this conflict, and the extent of civilian harm. As you heard us say before – you’ve heard us when we released the NSM-20 report. If you just look at the overall scope of the damage and the number of civilian lives that have been lost, we do believe it’s reasonable to assess there are incidents in which Israel did not meet all of its international humanitarian law obligations. But when it comes to specific incidents, those reviews are still ongoing.

QUESTION: But I mean, I’m actually surprised that you, unprompted, flag the NSM-20 report, which exactly, yes, says that. So it’s a – isn’t it a little bit inconceivable that more than a year now – some of these incidents go way back to last October – it’s been more than a year and you guys are still yet to definitively assess that any one single incident violates international humanitarian law?

MR MILLER: So let me just first say the reason I flagged the NSM-20 report specifically is because one of the stories to which you referred had sourced to officials as if it were a revelation that we believe that there very well could be violations of international humanitarian law when that is something that a report ordered by the President, overseen by the Secretary had concluded several months ago. So we have been quite clear – we’ve been quite clear about the fact, and that’s why I – that’s why I thought it was important to mention it.

But no, the – when it comes to these determinations, these are incredibly difficult. It takes gathering facts, it takes gathering information, and it takes, ultimately, making legal judgments about those facts. And oftentimes you have conflicting accounts of what happened, and it is our job to try to sort through that the best we can. And it is a very difficult process where we’re looking at a number of incidents. I can tell you we want to finish that work as soon as possible. We have a number of people working on it, but it’s very difficult work.

QUESTION: Is the – would you say the United States Government is committed to investigating any possible misuse of its weapons by any foreign forces, including Israel?

MR MILLER: Yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: But then how do you square that commitment with your inability to find anything in a year?

MR MILLER: We are – no, we are conducting those investigations, and we are conducting them thoroughly, and we are conducting them aggressively, but we want to get to the right answer. And it’s important that we not jump to a preordained result and that we not skip any of the work that we do, all of the important fact finding that we need to do, before making what is a pretty significant determination, and that’s what we’re doing.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Mr. Matt. You have keep saying that you don’t need to see any, like, Hamas members in Gaza after this war, or not governing this Gaza Strip. But you know that in Gaza, there are many, many military group, or, like, many Palestinian group – like, they fighting – like, not since 7th October, it’s like before October 7th. So, like, the story hasn’t started in October 7th. Like, there is a United Nations resolution, like, that Israel’s border is 4 June 1967. So – and those, they are not like ISIS or al-Qaida; they are not global fighters. All of them are Palestinian in this land, like this – they are exist and their ancestors, like, since, like, hundreds of years.

So you don’t believe that these – like, these group, they have a right in West Bank or in Gaza to fight for their freedom if Israel doesn’t apply the —

QUESTION: — resolution of going back to the border of 4 June 1967? Because you are – insist about 1701 in Lebanon for, like, civilian coming back and stuff. So this is first question.

The second question —

MR MILLER: So let me just answer the first question, because I can be very clear: No. We do not accept the idea that terrorism is an ultimate resolution to the dispute over the establishment of a Palestinian state. We support the creation of an independent Palestinian state. We believe that negotiations between the parties is the way to achieve that. We are pushing to find a way to end the war and bring about an independent Palestinian state, but we absolutely do not accept that terrorism is a legitimate way to achieve that outcome.

QUESTION: Yes, but, like – like, so far, like, the settlement in West Bank, it has been expanding since Oslo 1993. And, like, Palestinian – they don’t have army. They don’t have anything. Like, if Palestinian – like, not in Gaza, in West Bank – decided to defend his land – his land by using a weapon against those settlements? Do they have a legitimate to defend their land, or they don’t have?

MR MILLER: That is something that law enforcement should address. It is something that the security forces should address. And we will work to – along with our allies, our partners around the world – to make clear that we want to see, ultimately, a resolution to this issue, we want to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. But we do not believe that increased violence is the answer. And certainly the kind of terrorism that we saw on October 7th where Hamas fighters came across and killed, murdered, raped women, children – absolutely do not believe that is the answer.

And I will tell you not only is that not the answer for – because of the impact it has on Israeli victims, but just look at what has happened over the past year to the Palestinian people as a result of the terrorism of October 7th. We absolutely reject that course.

QUESTION: Okay. Last question. About the – like, to follow up from my colleague yesterday about the aid in Gaza. If Israel controls everything for, like, fighting, why they don’t control these gang? Like, why they let – if they, like, really care about human being and humanitarian assistance, the control that —

MR MILLER: You should – it’s a question for the Government of Israel you should direct to them.

QUESTION: But they don’t —

MR MILLER: We want to see an increase in the – an improvement in the security situation. But when that’s – that is straight up a question for the Government of Israel.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on a question from yesterday, Matt?

QUESTION: The Knesset passed a law that would bar the establishment of a consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem. Do you guys have a comment on that?

MR MILLER: Yeah. We oppose that legislation.

QUESTION: Have you discussed this with the Israeli Government? Have you raised this?

MR MILLER: We have made clear to them that we oppose the bill. We continue to believe opening a U.S. consulate in Jerusalem would be an important way for our country to engage with and provide support to the Palestinian people. In the meantime, we have a team in Jerusalem in our Office of Palestinian Affairs that manages our relationship with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: And then on Iran, what’s the current assessment of whether Iran will respond to Israel’s response last week to (inaudible) —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to offer an assessment as to what they may or may not do, but we believe that they should not respond. We believe that that was an appropriate response by the Government of Israel to an unprecedented attack by Iran, but that this should be the end of it.

QUESTION: A colleague was told by a source that Iran is planning a, quote, “definitive and painful” response before the U.S. election. Has this been communicated privately to the United States that they intend to do this?

MR MILLER: I’m – so I’m not going to talk about communications between our two governments, real or imagined. But as we have made clear publicly – and I can tell you that Iran knows this message quite clearly – they should not in any way continue to escalate this conflict. This should be the end of it.

QUESTION: And last one. Has there been any communication, direct or indirect, with the Iranians since last week’s Israeli response?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to potential communications, only to say that we do have the ability to communicate to them when it’s our interest. Every once in a while I come here and talk about the nature of some of those communications, but I think they know quite clearly what our opinion on this matter is.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly on your response on the consulate?

QUESTION: What’s your view on whether – on the legality – and you probably don’t want to take legal questions per se, but its legislation there saying that the U.S. can’t establish a consulate. It’s a diplomatic facility. Obviously, Israel has control over the land, et cetera. But can the U.S. – does the U.S. have to abide by this?

MR MILLER: You’re right; it’s a legal question that unfortunately I’m unqualified to answer. I don’t know the answer. We’ve opposed it on policy grounds.

QUESTION: Well, considering the U.S. Government – previous administration – actually closed down the consulate, is it your – it’s your understanding that that was just an – that was a decision by one administration; it’s not binding on you. You want to reopen it; they say no. So if they’re not going to let you reopen it, would you consider requiring Israel to shut down one or more of its consulates in the United States?

MR MILLER: So first of all, you’re right; the previous administration made a policy decision not to – or, I’m sorry, made a policy decision to shut down that embassy.

QUESTION: Consulate.

MR MILLER: Consulate, excuse me. I’m not going to talk about what our potential response – we are not considering any such step at this time, but we’ve made quite clear to the Government of Israel that we oppose the bill.

QUESTION: Well, do – yes, okay. But do you regard this as some kind of an infringement on your – I mean, where the consulate was or the building still is, is in Israel. So it’s not in a Palestinian territory. Would you consider opening a consulate, say, in Ramallah for the Palestinians?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into what we may or may not consider. We want to see —

QUESTION: Or Jericho, or some place —

MR MILLER: We continue to believe it’s important to open a consulate, but I don’t want to get into what we may or may not do.

QUESTION: Well, so —

QUESTION: You oppose the legislation, and yet it is – Israel, it’s their territory.

QUESTION: And I don’t think that the place – that the – where the consulate is located is – it’s not contested. It is in West Jerusalem, I believe; is that right? Yeah, so it’s theirs, and they can tell you whether they want you to have this consulate open there or not. But – and there may be legitimate reasons for not wanting to have a consulate that is dedicated to serving the Palestinians in Israel, right? Yes.

MR MILLER: Well, they can speak for themselves —

QUESTION: So the question is —

MR MILLER: — what their reasons may or may not be. We disagree.

MR MILLER: We disagree with their decision to prevent us from opening one.

QUESTION: Okay. But why – okay, why is it so important, other than the historical nature of this – I mean —

MR MILLER: The historical nature of it is important. That is —

MR MILLER: That’s an – that is an important —

QUESTION: It is a huge —

MR MILLER: That is an important one.

QUESTION: It’s a huge – yes, it is.

QUESTION: But other than that, is there a reason that a consulate couldn’t – for the Palestinians couldn’t be opened someplace else?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into previewing what we may or may not do. I will tell you —

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — as of today, we’ll continue to provide engagement with Palestinians and with the Palestinian Authority through our Office of Palestinian Affairs in Jerusalem.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple questions on Georgia, and different topics. The self-claimed ruling party in Georgia, they seem to have been enjoying congratulating letters from likeminded —

MR MILLER: Enjoying what?

QUESTION: Congratulation letters from likeminded authoritarian leaders – Azerbaijan, Belarus, a few others. And they also – I mean, some – I mean, I – help us understand clearly – misunderstood the White House letter from yesterday. They said that the presidential call on Georgian Government to transparently investigate all election irregularities is quote/unquote “significant recognition of what’s widely believed to be a rigged election.” Please clear up that.

MR MILLER: No, the statement from the President meant exactly what the statement from the President meant, and nothing else.

QUESTION: You mean the President called on —

MR MILLER: An investigation. Yes.

QUESTION: Investigation conducted by who?

MR MILLER: He called for an investigation by Georgian authorities. We’ve also made clear that we’re consulting with our colleagues in the European Union about what other investigations may be appropriate.

QUESTION: But it appears that they did start some investigations, so-called. They’re actually investigating the president, who is disputing the results, rather than investigating those who are violators.

MR MILLER: So I’ll let the president speak for herself, but my understanding is she has said that she has information about irregularities, so hopefully she can provide that information that would be relevant to any investigation, whether it’s conducted by Georgian authorities or anyone else.

QUESTION: Is there anything you can do about it? There are American monitors —

MR MILLER: We have made – we have made clear that our relationship with the Government of Georgia continues under review. We have already suspended $95 million in assistance to the Government of Georgia and other assistance that we provide remains under review.

QUESTION: We have seen, Matt, intimidation campaign against civil society members. Two members even before the election were targeted – they actually work for American institution – and their bank accounts got frozen. Do you have any reaction?

MR MILLER: So look, we – I’m not going to comment on those specific cases, but obviously we want to see people’s fundamental freedoms upheld. We want to see their freedom to protest, their freedom to exercise their fundamental right to expression not infringed upon in any way.

QUESTION: I want to go back to Ukraine and your responses to my colleagues on increasing —

MR MILLER: Last question, Alex, and then I’m going to move on —

QUESTION: Sure, thank you so much.

MR MILLER: — because I’m running near the end of the time.

QUESTION: Increasing Russian threat and how you’re helping Ukraine to fight back. President Zelenskyy today gave an interview, and he said that only 10 percent of what was meant to be delivered in ’24 approved by the Congress has been delivered so far. Why 10 percent, and how do you square that circle?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that percentage. I would defer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon who are in charge of delivering assistance to speak to the exact number that’s been delivered. But if you look at the way that we structured the assistance that we have provided, and you look at what – the way we have just recently approved significant new drawdown authorities, it allows us to deliver assistance to Ukraine in a way that is sustained over time. And for specifics, I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon.

QUESTION: So I asked yesterday about Pakistan’s security services —

QUESTION: — circulating dossiers about American congressmen being under the influence of the, quote, “Jewish lobby.” Any – did you get a chance to check that out?

MR MILLER: I did look at it, and I saw the – some of the social media postings and some of the stories to which you were referring. I can tell you we don’t know who is behind circulating that information ultimately; but that if people have issues that they want to engage with regarding U.S. officials – whether they be Executive Branch officials or officials from the United States Congress – they should engage on the merits of those issues and not by talking about people’s religion or sexual orientation.

QUESTION: And real quickly on Marwan Barghouti. He was beaten allegedly by IDF prison guards. Maybe you addressed this on Monday. I don’t think I was here that day.

MR MILLER: I didn’t.

QUESTION: Any reaction?

MR MILLER: So I will say that we have made clear in a number of conversations with officials from the Government of Israel that they need to ensure that all detainees are treated humanely whoever they may be. And those conversations go back over a course of many months.

QUESTION: And were there specific conversations about this particular —

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into specific conversations, but we have made clear, when we’ve had these conversations with them, that they pertain to every individual that is in Israeli custody.

Go ahead, and I’ll come to you next, Rabia.

QUESTION: Thank you. Senior leader of Imran Khan’s political party, Latif Khosa, claimed that Imran Khan could be released if Donald Trump elected as the new president. He also said that in – if Donald Trump wins, the political landscape can be changed in favor of Imran Khan. He also said that U.S. diplomat Donald Lu was involved in a conspiracy to remove Imran Khan from prime minister office. We know we talked about it, like, many times, I know.

MR MILLER: I think I’ve – I don’t know how many times I can say that that – that’s not true. But go —

QUESTION: Dragging U.S. President and presidential candidates and American diplomats in Pakistani politics a good idea?

MR MILLER: So look, as we’ve said many times, legal proceedings against the former prime minister are matters for the Pakistani courts to decide. The allegations that the U.S. played any role in his removal from office are false. We’ve gone over that any number of times from this podium. And ultimately, Pakistani politics are a matter for the Pakistani people to decide in accordance with their laws and constitution.

QUESTION: Sir, the Canadian Government has alleged that India’s home affairs minister, Amit Shah, Prime Minister Modi’s close associate, was behind a recent series of plots to murder and intimidate six leaders on Canadian soil. Does the U.S. share this understanding?

MR MILLER: So the allegations made by the Government of Canada are concerning, and we will continue to consult with the Canadian Government about those allegations.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On the killing of Turkish American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, it’s been 53 days since she was killed by Israel, and there has been no accountability. Can you update us on what is the U.S. doing regarding this and whether the Secretary has raised this with the Israelis last week?

MR MILLER: So ultimately, this is a – in the first instance – an investigation that’s being conducted by the Government of Israel. We know they are conducting a criminal investigation into this killing. We have made clear how concerned we are about the fact that she was shot while attending a protest, an incident that never should have happened – never should have been killed under these circumstances. You’ve heard us say that publicly. We have also been quite clear with the Government of Israel about that privately. I can tell you that we have engaged with them in recent days about the status of that investigation. We understand that it is still ongoing, and we’re continuing to press for a conclusion of that investigation that provides a thorough answer. And as soon as we have an answer from the Government of Israel, you will certainly hear from us about what we think about it.

QUESTION: And there are increasing calls for an independent investigation into her killing. I understand that it is the Justice Department, not the State Department, is responsible for launching an investigation. But can the State Department at least investigate whether U.S.-supplied weapons were used in her killing?

MR MILLER: So I think as a matter of first principle, it’s important that the criminal investigation that’s ongoing right now proceed. In no way does waiting for the outcome of this ongoing criminal investigation preclude any action by the U.S. Government if we think such action is appropriate, and that includes further reviews on – by the State Department into the use of weapons. It includes any other types of reviews by our government or by any other. So all that is to say we are as impatient for answers about what happened as anyone. We take very seriously the death of an American citizen under circumstances in which she never should have been killed. And we are pressing to get an answer, but an answer that’s thorough, as soon as one is available.

QUESTION: Just one more on that. And Secretary, after her killing, called on the Israeli army to change their rules of engagement. And clearly, there has been no change in this regard. What will happen? What is next? Will there be any consequences?

MR MILLER: I would direct you to the Government of Israel to speak about their rules of engagement. We’ve made clear that this was an unacceptable incident and it shouldn’t happen again, and they should find ways to address it. But as to what they’ve done, that really is a question ultimately for them.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A lot of concerns of the Iranian regime desire for a total extermination of the Jewish state. And by only asking for a ceasefire, is the U.S. State Department preventing the unconditional surrender and defeat of Iran? And I have a follow-up.

MR MILLER: I think we have made clear that we are committed to the defense of Israel against Iran. And if you look at the way we have backed that up, it has been through actively participating in the defense of Israel – and not just participating in the defense of Israel, but taking action to hold Iran’s proxies and Iran itself accountable for its actions. And that includes more than 700 sanctions since the beginning of this administration.

QUESTION: Okay. Does the U.S. stand in way of the IDF attack on the oil and nuclear facilities of Iran?

MR MILLER: We made very clear – you heard from the President – that he did not believe attacks on nuclear facilities or attacks on oil facilities were a wise choice by the state of Israel at this time. And if you look at what could have happened from that nature of attack, it’s easy to – for people to sit on the sidelines and say, oh, it’s a perfectly appropriate attack for the Government of Israel to make, not thinking through what the consequences of such an attack would be, and the fact that Iran would respond, and then Israel would respond, and soon after that we will find ourselves in a full-scale regional war, which is certainly not in Israel’s interest or in the interest of anyone in the region.

QUESTION: But is – the attacks on the oil and other reserves of Iran, wouldn’t that make it more or less likely for dealing with – getting rid of their resources, their —

MR MILLER: We believe there is a better way to address that, which is why you saw the United States impose sanctions on Iranian oil – on the Iranian oil industry, including on its fleet of ghost ships, in just the past few weeks.

And with that, Shaun, go ahead, and then we’ll wrap for today.

QUESTION: Sure. Completely different region – I was wondering if you had any comment on the Venezuela and Brazil. Venezuela has withdrawn its ambassador from Brazil because Brazil put a veto on Venezuela entering the BRICS. I realize the U.S. obviously isn’t in the BRICS, but it’s over the election and whether this was something that was discussed as a pressure tactic.

MR MILLER: I will admit that I’m not tracking that development, so I’ll take it back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Well, let’s stay in that region – well, semi-in that region, and so the vote happened today in the UN on the Cuba embargo. Do you know what the vote was?

MR MILLER: Yeah, it was a predictable vote in line with past votes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Exactly. But just for the record, let’s say, it was 187 to 2 —

QUESTION: — with one abstention.

QUESTION: And the one abstention wasn’t even a Pacific Island nation. It was Moldova.

MR MILLER: Yeah. I’m aware of the – I’m aware of the long history —

MR MILLER: — of UN votes on this matter.

QUESTION: So you – yes, okay. So at what point, though, are you guys going to realize that the entire world, with the exception of you and Israel, thinks that the embargo is a really bad idea and should be stopped?

MR MILLER: Look, I think we are quite clear on the opinion of other countries around the world. And it’s one with which we —

MR MILLER: And it’s one with which we disagree. We take their opinion seriously, but we make our own policy determinations, and —

QUESTION: You do? It’s 32 years in a row with the exception of one year when you guys abstained. That was 2019. And —

MR MILLER: We – look, we take their views quite seriously, but we make our own determinations about these matters.

QUESTION: All right. You know what? Well —

MR MILLER: And we disagree.

QUESTION: Then – you take their views quite seriously? That is not borne out by the facts, that you continue to persist with this.

MR MILLER: We take them seriously, but we make our own decisions on this policy and others. So —

QUESTION: Okay. And are you comfortable, then, with it’s – just once again, it’s just you and Israel standing up.

MR MILLER: Certainly we would welcome other countries sharing our opinion in this. But we’re not blind to the history of countries around the world having a very different view of this matter. It long predates this administration. But as I said, we make our own determinations.

QUESTION: But what about the Obama —

MR MILLER: And with that —

QUESTION: What about the Obama administration disagreement? Were they wrong?

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to comment on previous administration decisions.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

MR MILLER: Good afternoon. Get situated here. Let’s start with some opening remarks.

Over the last week, the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces has carried out a major and brutal attack across eastern part of the al-Gezira state in Sudan, located just to the south of Khartoum. They attacked multiple villages in the area, deliberately targeting civilians. Many of the RSF’s victims have been children and women.

The United States condemns these attacks in the strongest terms and calls on the RSF to halt violence against civilians immediately. The group’s leaders have repeatedly committed to their obligation to civilian protection under international humanitarian law, and they must uphold those commitments. The United States recently imposed sanctions on Algoney Hamdan Daglo Musa for his role in RSF atrocities, and we will continue to impose costs on all those committing and fueling these atrocities.

These heinous attacks are sadly only the latest in a war that has gone on for far too long. Attacks like these exacerbate the severe hunger and displacement crisis that has put more than 25 million Sudanese in need of emergency humanitarian relief and forced more than 14 million people^[1] to flee their homes since the conflict began.

Our support for the Sudanese people is steadfast as they demand a sustainable end to the conflict and work to develop a process to resume the stalled political transition to inclusive, civilian-led, democratic governance. 

QUESTION: Great. Well, not great, but – I mean, not great at all.

MR MILLER: Understood, yeah.

QUESTION: That – sorry.

MR MILLER: Understood.

QUESTION: Before we get into the Middle East, I just wanted to ask you if you got an answer to my question about the Cuba vote, UN.

MR MILLER: I know there’s going to be a vote today. I don’t believe it’s happened yet; it’s occurring this afternoon.

MR MILLER: So what was your question? How we will vote?

MR MILLER: We will vote no, but –

QUESTION: You’ll vote no?

MR MILLER: We will vote no.

QUESTION: And have you lined up anyone to – other –

MR MILLER: As I said – as I previewed yesterday, it was likely.

QUESTION: Have you lined up anyone –

MR MILLER: I didn’t think we were going to vote, I think —

MR MILLER: — for a resolution condemning ourself.

QUESTION: Fine. But —

MR MILLER: And in fact, we will vote no.

QUESTION: But have you lined up anyone to vote with you?

MR MILLER: I think I’ll wait until we see the vote results to talk about the outcome.

QUESTION: So no, you’re not sure if you’ll get one or two others?

MR MILLER: I would not expect an outcome –

QUESTION: Dissimilar to previous –

MR MILLER: — dissimilar – as I was saying, inconsistent – “dissimilar” is a better word – to previous outcomes. This is a resolution –

QUESTION: In other words, it will be another demonstration of the entire – virtually the entire world’s opposition to this, to the embargo. Right?

MR MILLER: I wouldn’t expect a dissimilar result, but we have made our position clear —

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — on it for some time, and we’ll continue in our vote at the UN today.

QUESTION: All right. Two out of the Middle East. Yesterday at the briefing, shortly before the Knesset voted on these two bills that deal with UNRWA, you once again reiterated the U.S. position –

QUESTION: — that they shouldn’t do it, and that they – the law shouldn’t be passed, and that if they were there should be steps taken to mitigate the situation. So now that the laws have both passed, and recognizing that they won’t take effect for another two months or so at least, what is your response? And what are you planning to do, particularly given the emphasis that you guys –

QUESTION: — Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin in particular – have put on improving the aid supply into Gaza?

MR MILLER: Yeah. Let me start by just reiterating that we are deeply troubled by this legislation. It could shutter UNRWA operations in the West Bank, in Gaza, in East Jerusalem. It poses risks for millions of Palestinians who rely on UNRWA for essential services, including health care and primary and secondary education. UNRWA, of course, plays a critical role in providing services to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and throughout the broader – the wider region. And particularly in Gaza they play a role right now that, at least today, cannot be filled by anyone else. They are a key partner in delivering food, water, and other humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza that wouldn’t have anyone else to get it from if UNRWA were to go away.

So we have made clear our concerns over this bill. We have made clear our opposition to this bill. As the Secretary said in his letter and as I reiterated yesterday, there could be consequences under U.S. law and U.S. policy for the implementation of this legislation. We are going to engage with the Government of Israel in the days ahead about how they plan to implement it. We are going to watch and see if there are legal challenges to the law and if there is any impact by those legal challenges, and then we will make our decisions after looking at all of those factors.

QUESTION: All right. I’ll let others go.

QUESTION: Quick follow-up for me.

MR MILLER: Let me just – I can’t let you go without commenting. That is a fantastic shirt –

QUESTION: Oh, thanks. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: — before we get going. It’s great.

QUESTION: Bought from Angola, so anybody who went on this trip —

MR MILLER: I figured you got that on the trip that we were on, so – it’s great.

QUESTION: Well, it’s – Africa is a fashion powerhouse. Can I just – on a serious note, can I ask you about – back on UNRWA – the Norwegian Government today said that it’s going to go to the International Court of Justice to see if Israel has actually legal obligations to let in aid, and specifically in the context of UNRWA. Does the U.S. have any comment on that move by Norwegians and the ICJ?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that move, but they certainly have a legal obligation to allow humanitarian assistance in and not to erect roadblocks to humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza. And we have made that clear since the outset of this conflict, and a great number of our engagements with the Government of Israel have been around ensuring that they do let humanitarian assistance in, and that they do ensure that humanitarian assistance gets to the people that need it. And that is precisely one of our major concerns about this legislation.

I should be clear, by the way: It’s not our only concern about this legislation. We also support the work that UNRWA does outside of Gaza. We support the work they do in the West Bank. We support the work that they do in the broader region to deliver humanitarian services to Palestinians. But the work is absolutely critical and irreplaceable in Gaza right now. And we have made clear – we’ve made clear before the passage of this legislation, and it remains true – that there are policy – potential policy and legal implications to this legislation being implemented, and we’re going to be in conversation with the Government of Israel about that.

QUESTION: Sure. Maybe stepping way from the UNRWA issue for a second, the – I wonder if you have anything to say about the Israeli strike today in Gaza. I think the latest death toll that we’ve reported is nearly 100. By eyewitness accounts, many, if not most, appear to be civilians, children. I know you don’t speak for the Government of Israel, but as Israel’s ally do you have anything to say about this?

MR MILLER: Yeah. We are deeply concerned by the loss of civilian life in this incident. This was a horrifying incident with a horrifying result. I can’t speak to the total death toll, but there are reports of two dozen children killed in this incident. No doubt a number of them are children who have been fleeing the effects of this war for more than a year now. We have reached out to the Government of Israel to ask what happened here. We don’t yet know the underlying circumstances. We have not gotten a full explanation from them about what happened.

But step back and look at where we are in this campaign. We are a year into the Government of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and Israel has decimated Hamas’s military capabilities; it has decimated Hamas’s leadership. It has, through its military action, ensured that Hamas does not have the ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th. And all of that, getting to here, came at great cost to civilians in Gaza, which is, of course, often the case when civilians are caught in the crossfire in conflict. And so that tragic cost to civilians continues today, quite notably in this strike, which seems to have claimed significant civilian life, and it is another reminder of why we need to see an end to this war.

QUESTION: And so what I mean to say – I mean, the Secretary himself also said it last week, that he thinks that Israel’s strategic goals have largely been met. I mean, so why actually be – why carry out strikes like this? I mean, what’s the utility at this point?

MR MILLER: So you have to take that question to the Government of Israel.

MR MILLER: So I will say that, as the Secretary said, yes, their strategic goals have largely been met. Now, there is a strategic goal that remains incredibly important, and that is to return all of the hostages. But as you have heard any number of leaders in our government speak to for some time – from the President, to Secretary Blinken, to Secretary of Defense Austin – it is critically important not just to the people of Gaza but to Israelis and to Israel’s own security that Israel be mindful of achieving larger security – or – I’m sorry – that Israel be mindful of achieving a larger strategic success and that they be mindful of finding a way to end this campaign in a way that brings the hostages home and in a way that ensures their security, and not just continuing an endless, perpetual conflict.

QUESTION: Just one more. I mean, this, obviously, has been something you’ve been asked many times and more for the past year —

QUESTION: — but what is the U.S. going to do about it? I mean, the U.S. is obviously the arms supplier to Israel, the major diplomatic supporter of Israel. You said that this incident is – it’s horrifying, and while you’re trying to address and trying to find out more information, what would be the consequences, if any, if it – if the U.S. feels that this was without warrant? It’s hard to say it’s justified in any case, but if the U.S. decides that this was what it was?

MR MILLER: Look, so not to get ahead of things, but you know when it comes to assessing any one individual strike, it’s something that we have to be very deliberate about and take time to assess the underlying circumstances to decide whether there was any particular potential legal violation and what the implications of that would be.

I will say what we are going to do about it, though, is to continue to try and end the war, and continue to impress to the Government of Israel the need to end this war; to continue to work with the other mediators, Egypt and Qatar, to try and find a way forward to end this war; and to continue to work with partners throughout the region and throughout the world to present a plan for what follows the war, which would give Israel the confidence that they don’t need to continue an endless fight, that there would be actual security in Gaza that would provide security for Israel too, and so that they can withdraw their forces from Israel and know that there isn’t an ongoing threat to Israeli civilians and to the state of Israel.

Sorry. Shannon, go ahead. I’ll come to you next.

QUESTION: Going back —

MR MILLER: I’m just going to go down the line. Although then I’ll have to skip Gillian.

QUESTION: You skipped me.

MR MILLER: So now I’ve skipped Gillian. Sorry. Having promised Shannon, Humeyra, I’ll do Shannon, Humeyra, and then Gillian. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Going back to the letter sent by Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin to the Israeli Government, it calls for the creation of a virtual channel to discuss civilian harm incidents and says a first virtual meeting of that channel should take place before the end of October. Has it happened yet, or is it on the books?

MR MILLER: We have had conversations about the establishment of that channel. I don’t have anything definitive yet to report. We continue to have conversations of how to establish that in a way that will be meaningful and will actually produce results.

QUESTION: Does the State Department consider that meeting or its equivalent to have taken place already?

MR MILLER: I don’t have an announcement to make today. We have a few days left in the month.

QUESTION: Matt, so on that letter, I think that was sent about more than two weeks ago. Does the United States have some sort of an interim assessment on how Israel has done so far in terms of fulfilling U.S. requirements, given what’s going in northern Gaza?

MR MILLER: So we have been watching and engaging with them about each of the steps that we called on them to implement in that letter. Now, I’m not, during this 30-day period, going to go through line by line and say which one has been implemented and which one has not, although we are very carefully tracking that and we are engaging with them about specific steps that we want to see them take. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for me, while we’re going through this process, to go through one by one and talk about where they are.

Just speaking largely though, or speaking broadly I should say, we have seen some progress, but we haven’t seen enough. It’s why I said last week – it’s what the Secretary said last week – it continues to be the case that we have seen them take some initial steps, but we need to see them do much more. And we are engaged with them to impress upon them the importance of doing much, much more.

QUESTION: All right. Given it’s another two weeks left, I believe, how confident that – are you that they are actually going to fulfill these?

MR MILLER: I’m – I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to make any predications at this point. We made clear what the steps are we want to see implemented. We put a deadline on it. Let’s wait until we get to the deadline to talk about where things stand.

QUESTION: Right. And about this deadline, there is a lot of commentary out there, and in the law there is no grace period. You are saying at this moment in time that you have not seen enough from Israel. So I just want to ask the question that a lot of people out there are asking: Why not implement the law now?

MR MILLER: We are implementing the law. We have assessed them to be in violation of the law at this point.

QUESTION: But you just —

QUESTION: You were just saying they’re not fulfilling the things that you want from them.

MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.

QUESTION: That, I mean, they are impeding aid into Gaza. You —

MR MILLER: That is not what I said. We have —

QUESTION: They’re not impeding aid?

MR MILLER: They – that is not what I said. They have – they – we have outlined a number of steps that we want to see them take in the letter.

MR MILLER: Now, to your answer your – the reason why we didn’t set an immediate deadline or you have to implement all these steps five minutes after you get the letter or you have to implement all these steps seven days after the letter is because there are some of the steps that we understand take actual time to implement. If you look at some of the —

QUESTION: Sure, but it’s been two weeks.

MR MILLER: Hold on. Just wait. Yeah, but we thought that 30 days was an appropriate measure, not two weeks, or we would have put two weeks in the letter. There were some things that we wanted to see happen immediately, and we saw some of those happen immediately. We saw Erez reopen immediately. We saw the Jordan route reopen immediately. And the letter made clear, some things we want to see happen immediately, and then we need to see other things happen within 30 days. We’re not yet at 30 days. I promise you we will have an extensive conversation about this at the end of that 30-day period, but we’re in that window now.

QUESTION: I just – okay. But I’m just having trouble understanding how the two things add up, and that is the Secretary has said, you’ve said whatever Israel was doing to ensure more aid goes into Gaza, that has fallen off significantly. There hasn’t been a sustained effort and they have not been doing enough for a sustained period of time. How is – how does that not mean that they are impeding – they’re not impeding aid? Like how can those two things be true at the same time?

MR MILLER: We do not – because we have not judged them to have —

QUESTION: So despite the fact that they’re not doing enough —

MR MILLER: Hold on. Hold on.

QUESTION: — they haven’t been impeding aid?

MR MILLER: We have not – so we thought it was appropriate that when we – saw the decrease – look, there are a lot of reasons that aid cannot make it in. Some of them can be intentional. Some of them can be unintentional. Some of them can be bureaucratic, either inside Israel’s system or inside the UN system. Some can be the effect of criminal looters, who obviously the Government of Israel does not control and is not responsible for. And so given all of those different factors that can go into the result that we saw, and the result that we saw was aid coming down 50 – more than 50 percent from its peak, we made clear that, look, on the things that you can control, on the things that the Government of Israel can control – recognizing that you don’t control everything – we want to see steps. And at the end of those steps, we will come back and talk about what the results have been.

QUESTION: Just one final thing on northern Gaza. When you were answering I think Shannon, you talked about this endless cycle that the Israel military seems to be in right now. So is the U.S. calling for – is the U.S. calling the Israeli military to wrap up, to finish what it’s doing in northern Gaza now?

MR MILLER: We want to find a durable end to the war, and I’d say a durable end to the war is an important way to think about it. We have not called on Israel to just withdraw from Gaza and leave a vacuum there, because a vacuum actually doesn’t help the Palestinian people who would be once again living pretty immediately under Hamas’s tyranny and would be potentially subject to the same jeopardy that Hamas has put them in for the past year by launching terrorist attacks against Israel, and it certainly wouldn’t solve Israel’s security problem. It would potentially land us back in the same place months or a few years down the road. And so that’s why we are working to restart talks, which happened over the weekend, to try to find a durable end to the war. It’s why we’re working on the plans for what follows the war with our partners.

QUESTION: Actually just really the final one, on this special channel or, like, mechanism to talk about civilian harm incidents, you said you are still talking. Can you explain, like, why it hasn’t been set up? Do you have —

MR MILLER: I don’t have any more to read out today. It’s an ongoing discussion between us and the Government of Israel, and I just don’t have anything further I can say.

QUESTION: So when you say that you raised it with them, you raised this particular incident of today with the children killed?

QUESTION: You raised it with the U.S. —

MR MILLER: We – the United States raised it directly with the Government of Israel.

QUESTION: It was the ambassador?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into who, but it was conversations from our government to theirs.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

MR MILLER: Now, sorry to have —

QUESTION: Can I ask a quick off-topic question?

QUESTION: On China, foreign influence operations. We’ve talked about Russia and Iran kind of ramping up foreign influence operations ahead of the election. Friday, Saturday, there’s new reporting that the Chinese or Chinese-linked – Chinese Government-linked officials managed to hack the audio of a senior Trump campaign advisor’s cellphone. That was preceded by a general reporting that they were trying to get access to data for the former President and Senator Vance and unnamed folks on the Kamala Harris campaign. Is – I guess is this something that you are tracking with regards to China especially? And are you addressing it diplomatically at all or are you just leaving it all up to the FBI to investigate?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to this specific incident because it is appropriate for the FBI and the Intelligence Community to speak to any specific incidents when it comes to such influence operations or such potential espionage operations across any wide – wide variety of incidents. I will say that we have raised consistently with the Government of China – at the Secretary’s level and at other levels – the fact that we are watching very closely any attempts to hack U.S. systems, U.S. equipment, U.S. personnel to interfere in U.S. elections or other U.S. entities or events and that we would certainly hold them accountable for any such actions.

QUESTION: Beyond just the hacking portion of it, is it fair to say that you’ve seen an increase in Chinese influence operations here generally in recent months?

MR MILLER: I – yeah, I would defer to the Intelligence Community to speak to that. As you know, the State Department has the mandate from Congress to track influence operations conducted by foreign governments overseas, but when it comes to influence operations that foreign governments conduct inside the United States, it’s a matter for the Intelligence Community and the FBI, and so I would defer to them.

QUESTION: At one – and I’d have to go back and look at previous transcripts. I don’t remember off the top of my head, but at one point you had said or kind of indicated that —

MR MILLER: Now you’re hoping I can remember what I said.

QUESTION: No, I don’t think you have to. Basically I just want to know if this – at one point, you had indicated that Chinese influence efforts targeting U.S. officials – not even related to the election, just in general – were sort of – I don’t know if they were more sophisticated, but they surpassed the efforts of the other countries. Would you still – like they were more aggressive. Would you still describe that as the status quo?

MR MILLER: I don’t remember that comment, although I’m not disputing it. I just don’t remember that at all. But I would – I do, again, think it’d be more appropriate for me to defer to the Intelligence Communities and to law enforcement to speak to that.

QUESTION: So it’s not – is it fair —

MR MILLER: Oh, sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry. It’s fair to say you don’t really address that on a diplomatic —

MR MILLER: It’s just not – yeah, it’s not the – on the, look, so when it comes to making assessments about what’s happening inside the United States and monitoring what’s happening inside the United States, the Intelligence Community and law enforcement does that work. Now, when there is something that rises to a level of concern that needs to be addressed directly with the Chinese Government, we do address it directly with the Chinese Government, and we have over many number of months made clear directly to Chinese officials our concerns about this type of behavior and the potential for this type of behavior and the fact that we would take it very seriously.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Just back to Israel and the Palestinian territories, the – there’s another deadline coming up for Israel’s finance minister to sign off on whether the Palestinian, Israeli banks can engage in correspondence. There’s concern from the U.S. and also the G7 members, and apparently a letter was sent to Netanyahu expressing concern that this – that Smotrich won’t sign off on extending that cooperation and that it could potentially collapse the Palestinian economy. How real is this concern from the U.S.? And can you give us guidance on what the U.S. would do if he decided not to go ahead and extend that?

MR MILLER: We have been extremely concerned about this. You will recall, of course, that this is not the first time we’ve faced this possibility. Several months ago, there were – that particular minister made threats that he would not extend this particular provision, and we made clear to the Government of Israel that there – that such an action would have severe consequences for the Palestinian economy. It would have severe consequences for Israel’s security. It would potentially cause enormous disruption in the West Bank, and that’s not in the Palestinians’ interest and it’s not in Israel’s interest. And we were able to impress upon the Government of Israel the incredible – incredibly harmful nature of such an action the last time they got up to such a deadline and convinced them to extend it, and we’re continuing to impress upon them the same thing this time.

I don’t want to deal with a hypothetical about what would happen if they didn’t extend this provision. It’s important that they do.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Going back to UNRWA, I mean, I went to UNRWA schools for a while. My wife went to UNRWA schools all her life, and she depended on UNRWA rations. It is a major part of sustaining the Palestinians in every way, and trying to sort of Satanize and – UNRWA and say that it’s done some evil things and so on goes back before this war. It goes back to 2017 when they stopped the funds. My question to you: You said that you are deeply troubled by the decision. You also said that you engaged the Israelis. What steps will the United States take to ensure that UNRWA continues to operate?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to preview anything from here today, Said. If you look at the letter that the Secretary sent —

QUESTION: I understand.

MR MILLER: — he made clear that we are – we’re opposed to the passage of this legislation, and he made clear that there could be legal and policy implications to the implementation of that legislation. That remains true.

QUESTION: Okay, but you see – because you said then we want to see that aid is properly allowed into the Palestinian areas and so on. We’re not talking about UNRWA. UNRWA is basically – if UNRWA is compromised, the whole aid for the Palestinians, and in fact their whole direct connection with what’s going on in the world community, it stops. It’s totally compromised. I’m saying that – would you, let’s say, agree to if UNHCR, for instance takes over the aid to the Palestinians?

MR MILLER: Said, I can’t get into a hypothetical about what would happen.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple more questions, if you’ll allow me. Now, you said that – at one point I think you said that if there is a vacuum, then Hamas would return and the Palestinians will be under the tyranny of Hamas again. So is the war – the purpose of the war is really to free the Palestinians from Hamas tyranny?

MR MILLER: The purpose of the war from Israel’s perspective – and I’m just going to say what they have said publicly —

MR MILLER: — that the purpose of the war was to ensure that Israel – I’m sorry, to ensure that Hamas could not repeat this attack again, to hold its leadership accountable – they have done both of those things – and to return the hostages. They have completed two pretty significant objectives. They’ve also decimated the Hamas – Hamas’s military capabilities. And so what the Secretary impressed upon them last week was that it is time to find a way to bring this war to an end.

Now, we have also made clear – and this is – well, I’ll say we have also made clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza the way it did before October 7th, because you saw the result of Hamas governance of Gaza, and that is horrific consequences for the Israeli people and horrific consequences for the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: But seeing what – I don’t know. I mean, some – they call it a war. It’s not a war; there is no opposing army. It is really a slaughter that we have every day.

MR MILLER: So, Said —

QUESTION: And I don’t want to enter into polemics and so on.

MR MILLER: Said, is the stipulation that there are no Hamas fighters left in – left in —

QUESTION: There are Hamas fighters.

MR MILLER: — who are still shooting at the IDF soldiers? Because —

QUESTION: Yes, of course there are Hamas fighters. Obviously they are fighting.

MR MILLER: Well, so, okay. So that’s —

QUESTION: But this is – this is not a —

MR MILLER: Before you rename – before you rename the conflict or —

QUESTION: Okay. Fine. But it’s really – what we – what we see —

MR MILLER: Let’s have – let’s just establish facts about what is actually happening.

QUESTION: I understand. What we see day after day is a slaughter; it is a slaughter. I think there will come a time when you guys have to call it exactly what it is, because every day – and I asked this question several weeks back about Palestinians get up every day for another hundred dead, for another hundred – and this keeps going on. There is no end in sight. It doesn’t seem that Israel has any incentive to basically indulge even in serious talks about a ceasefire.

MR MILLER: So, Said – Said, the horrific consequences of this war are exactly why we are trying to end it. The very things you just went through – and I would add to the suffering that’s going on, the suffering of the hostages and the hostages’ families.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MR MILLER: It’s for all those reasons that we’re trying to end the war and trying to end the war in a way that ensures peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians in the future.

QUESTION: Okay. One last question on the aid. Now, the letter was sent out, I guess, around October 15th, so the deadline is November 15th?

MR MILLER: I think it was sent —

QUESTION: Are we going to say on November 13th —

MR MILLER: It was sent October 14th. It was 30 days.

QUESTION: Oh, October 14th. Sorry. I missed it by a day.

MR MILLER: There’s 31 days in October, so that might be November 13th. I don’t know when you start the count. But there will be a lawyer somewhere in our building who could tell you the answer, the exact – the precise answer to that question.

QUESTION: So on November 15th, we are going to say the deadline has passed and you have not done —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to —

QUESTION: — you have not met our standard?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to predict what we’re going to do, but we made clear in the letter what the deadline was for implementing changes.

QUESTION: Maybe you could bring that lawyer down to answer some questions from the podium, particularly about how you guys have not been able to come to any conclusion about whether what Israel is doing amounts to violations of international law.

MR MILLER: Well, there are any number of lawyers in this building who are working on that question.

QUESTION: Well, I know.

MR MILLER: But for better or for worse, it’s my —

QUESTION: You could just bring one of them —

MR MILLER: I’d say for better or for —

QUESTION: Just bring one of them down to —

MR MILLER: For better or for worse, it’s my job to stand before you all and take questions every day.

QUESTION: Sorry, when you say there are a number of lawyers in this building who are working on that question —

QUESTION: — the State Department lawyers are working on the question of whether or not Israeli military has violated international humanitarian law in Gaza or not? There are State Department lawyers —

MR MILLER: Of course —

QUESTION: — working on that?

MR MILLER: Of course there are. That’s something we’ve said a number of times, that there are a number of – a number of incident —

QUESTION: Within what process exactly?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – so, Humeyra, you know the answer to this question because you —

QUESTION: No, but isn’t, like —

MR MILLER: No, hold on, just let me – just let me – let me —

QUESTION: Is this like a —

MR MILLER: Humeyra, let me – let me finish before – you know the answer to this question because you’ve asked it to me before, and I’ve answered it before. We have a number of ongoing processes to look at the facts of a number of incidents and to make specific assessments about those incidents.

QUESTION: Yes, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mention State Department lawyers are looking at it.

MR MILLER: Of – of course there are State – the – so —

QUESTION: Like, you’ve said we have ongoing processes. So the L Bureau is involved in —

MR MILLER: So of course there are lawyers that – Humeyra, first let me back up and say there is very little that we do here that doesn’t involve lawyers in one way or the other, but of course when it comes to making judgments —

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

MR MILLER: — about international humanitarian law, of course there are lawyers involved. They’re not the only people involved, but yeah, of course there are.

QUESTION: And is this part of an atrocity determination process?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get in – I’m not going to get into the processes that we have underway.

QUESTION: Can you say you don’t have an atrocity determination process?

MR MILLER: No, as I have said to you before, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about the underlying processes that we have underway while they’re ongoing.

QUESTION: Still on Israel?

MR MILLER: Tom. Oh, can I go to – can I go to Michelle and then come back to Tom? Because I’ve seen you come in and out a few times – I have a feeling you need to file. So —

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry – sorry if I missed this.

QUESTION: But the Knesset passed a bill today to bar the U.S. from reopening the consulate for Palestinians, and I wonder what you make of that.

MR MILLER: So I was not aware of the passage of that bill. I apologize. I’ll have to take that back and get – and get an answer. So, apologize.

QUESTION: Maybe you could ask that same lawyer who you say (inaudible).

MR MILLER: I’m not sure – that’s a policy question, not a legal one, so – (laughter).

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. It seems like a legal question. I’m not sure that the Israeli parliament can decide whether or not you guys are going to open a consulate —

MR MILLER: Well, maybe that will be a legal question. I’ll have to – yeah.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on Said’s very first point there about UNRWA, because we understand the immediate critique that you have of the attempts to shutter it, about the critical urgency of aid into Gaza and the effects on the West Bank and so on. But there is a deeper motivation for a lot of Israeli politicians, especially nationalists, who want to break the link – the historical link between Palestinian registered refugees of today and the historical dispossession in . Because that breaks the link between when three-quarters of a million Palestinians fled their – fled or were forced from their homes in what is now Israel in ’48, and the conflict today. So that’s really important. And I just want to get a sense from you, because I don’t know if we’ve heard an answer to this question: Do you support those Palestinians continuing to have registered refugee status?

MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to that today. I can tell you what we’re focused on when it comes to UNRWA’s work are the critical services that they provide. And they provide those services, as I said, in Gaza, in the West Bank, across the region, and it’s critical that work continue.

Now, as to the broader question, I can take that back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, it’s just important because you said —

MR MILLER: Not here – I said I’ll take it back and get an answer.

QUESTION: Okay, okay, fine. On your own letter of the 13th of October, you warned in there about the effects of legislation to ban UNRWA, and you said to Gallant and Dermer: We ask that you take all possible steps, whether with lawmakers or using the authorities of the prime minister’s office, to ensure this doesn’t come to pass. I mean, that part it seems they’ve already clearly ignored because the vote has passed. So they’ve had two weeks to work with lawmakers to stop it. Are they – they’re not listening to you?

MR MILLER: The bill has passed, so —

QUESTION: But you – you asked them to work with lawmakers to ensure this doesn’t come to pass. So that part, you’ve already lost on.

MR MILLER: The – so as I said before, the bill has passed and we made quite clear our concerns, and we will make our decisions in – based on the next steps, based on the implementation of this law, and based on any potential legal challenge. As I said, there’s always, when you have controversial laws that – like this that pass, the potential for challenges that delay their implementation. I don’t know if that will happen, but we’re going to watch over the next few days to see.

QUESTION: But I ask the question because – does it give you any sense of how closely or how seriously they take your letter? Because they’ve already ignored that part.

MR MILLER: Well, we’re going to see, right. Look, I’ll tell you, we’ve heard the Secretary speak to this – we’ve seen them already take a number of steps that we called for, and others they haven’t taken yet. So we’re going to make – we’re going to look at the end of the 30 days and go through and see what they’ve implemented and what they haven’t.

QUESTION: So that – sorry, just let me go on this point, because that’s your letter. In the March 28th ICJ order on the South Africa genocide case, in Order 51(2)(a), I think it is, they say that Israel must “Take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision” to allow aid to get into Gaza. I mean, in full cooperation with the United Nations, for the country in question to then ban the primary UN agency that is responsible for that does not seem like full cooperation.

MR MILLER: So you are – I will admit that I’m – do not – I read that order when it came down. I do not have it in front of me and do not have the provision that you’re looking at to study, but we have made clear – I will say we’ve made clear, kind of in keeping with that order, precisely how important it is that UNWRA be allowed to continue. And even if you step back from UNRWA – how important it is that Israel cooperate with all of the UN agencies that are operating on the ground inside Gaza to deliver food, water, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance – and it continues to be critical that they take those steps.

QUESTION: But do you – I mean, you talked about its importance, but this is a key organ of international humanitarian law that has made this order this year in the midst of this crisis. I mean, do you back that, the call by the ICJ?

MR MILLER: We want – we absolutely want to see humanitarian assistance get in. We want to see it get in through the other UN partners, and we want to see it get in through UNRWA.

QUESTION: And just finally, on this airstrike in Beit Lahia you referenced, you talked about this – the war’s gone on for a year. Getting here came at great cost to civilians in Gaza, often the case when civilians are caught in the crossfire of conflict. And I – you’ve used that phrase many times before. Is that a specific reference to this airstrike? Do you see this as crossfire?

MR MILLER: As I – I also said, as you noted, if you would note my full quote, said we don’t know what happened in this strike, we don’t know the particular circumstance. So no, it was about the broader conflict.

When it comers to this particular strike, we have reached out to the Government of Israel for information, made clear we want to know exactly what happened, how you could have a result that produces, according to reports, dozens of children dead. And we don’t yet know the answer to that question.

QUESTION: I just raise it because it is an expression you’ve used and the Secretary has used many times about crossfire, including when there have been many civilian casualties in airstrikes. I mean, the Palestinians do not have air defenses, so I’m just sort of puzzled about this use of the phrase “crossfire.”

MR MILLER: So I think it should be pretty clear. First of all, when – I made clear was about the broader conflict. And in —

QUESTION: Absolutely. But I’m saying it has been used about airstrikes.

MR MILLER: Hold on, just – in the broader conflict you do have Hamas leadership, Hamas battalions who locate themselves under civilian buildings and fire at Israeli forces from civilian buildings. Now —

MR MILLER: Just – no, just to say there are some – and now, that’s crossfire, right? You have times when there are airstrikes that Israel carries out because they know that Hamas is located there. There are times they carry out airstrikes because they have IDF soldiers on the ground who are coming under fire from a particular location – and this is a standard military practice, obviously – and they call in an airstrike to take out that location because they have soldiers who are under from there. That’s the definition of crossfire, I think.

QUESTION: But just isn’t a bit disingenuous, though? Because crossfire would be understood to mean – if civilians are caught in crossfire you would understand it usually to be an accident on the ground because people are literally caught in crossfire. But using it to describe airstrikes when many, many civilians are killed feels misleading.

MR MILLER: I think crossfire means civilians caught between one military striking a terrorist organization or another military, or a terrorist organization striking a military, and that is what is happening in these incidents.

QUESTION: Matt, you said earlier – and this is a hypothetical but I’m starting with your own hypothetical. If this UNRWA legislation was implemented – so —

MR MILLER: A hypothetical on a hypothetical.

QUESTION: Well, following on yours. If this UNRWA legislation is implemented – just digging down on that – you’ve described them as irreplaceable, that there’s no alternative. So at that point, would you assess that Israel is directly or indirectly impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid?

MR MILLER: I really can’t predict what kind of an assessment we will make in the future. I made clear our concerns over it, and I made clear we’re going to watch over the coming days what happens with the implementation of this law. But where we will land, I am not going to forecast today.

QUESTION: And then there are some reports from earlier this week that the IDF detained medical staff within one of the largest hospitals in northern Gaza. The UN said yesterday that they left two doctors to take care of hundreds of patients. Is the U.S. asking Israel about what led them to detain those medical staff, and are you satisfied with their answer?

MR MILLER: We are asking. I don’t have an answer yet.

QUESTION: Are you concerned about —

MR MILLER: Certainly, we would be concerned about the reports of doctors being detained, if it prevented doctors from – if there was no reasonable basis for that detention and it was preventing them from carrying out critical, lifesaving work. Absolutely we would be concerned about that. But as always, we want to establish the actual facts, and we’re looking into it and asking the Government of Israel for more information.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Russia and North Korea, and I will follow up if I may. North Korea’s foreign minister went to Russia to discuss additional dispatch of North Korean troops, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that the dispatch of North Korean troops was legally justified under the Russia and North Korea mutual military treaty. Do you think that the dispatch of North Korean troops to help Russia’s illegal war is a violation of international law?

MR MILLER: We do. We believe that Russia’s training of DPRK soldiers involving arms or related material is a direct violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2270. And DPRK soldiers providing or receiving any training or other assistance related to the use of ballistic missiles or other arms would violate Resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2070^[2], in addition to Russia and the DPRK’s ongoing UN arms embargo violations.

QUESTION: And one more. The UN Security Council meeting on the North Korea’s military deployment will be held tomorrow. As you know, sanctions in the Security Council will be difficult, due to opposition from China and Russia. Recently, the United States and South Korea and Japan and their allies have established a mutual – I mean, multilateral sanctions system against the North Korea. Can sanctions on military cooperation between Russia and North Korea be implemented through this system?

MR MILLER: So the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team is a mechanism for examination, analysis, and public reporting on the implementation of UN sanctions measures against the DPRK. It’s not a sanctions-imposing mechanism itself, but of course we do maintain the ability to impose sanctions on both Russia and North Korea. We’ve shown we’re willing to use those abilities and authorities in the past, and we will continue to do so when appropriate.

QUESTION: Does the United States delegation to visit Ukraine because of South Korea related visited to the NATO and Ukraine?

MR MILLER: So we have —

QUESTION: Do you have any —

MR MILLER: We have U.S. delegations who are traveling to Ukraine virtually every week. I don’t have one to announce today, but it is quite regular for – or to see U.S. officials visiting Ukraine. The Secretary of Defense was there last week, Secretary Blinken was there last month, and we have a number of important visits coming in the coming days. The chief of staff to Ukraine’s president is here today, meeting with Secretary Blinken and others from the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So there are multiple reports saying that the new appointed head of Hizballah is in Iran. Given that Israelis started as soon as the announcement came officially about this appointment that they’re going to take him out, is U.S. concerned that Israeli taking him out in Iran will intensify the situation in the region, especially with the Iranians saying that they are preparing for attack on Israel?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to comment on a hypothetical action in any way.

QUESTION: Okay. And I have another one regarding comments by Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield today. She said that “the United States made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that one year into [the] conflict, Israel must address catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The United States rejects any Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians in Jabalia, [or elsewhere]. And that Israel’s word must be matched by action on the ground. Right now, that is not happening. This must change immediately.”

So can we take this to mean that the U.S. is acknowledging that there are Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians, and how should we take – see this in the context of the mid-October letter sent by Secretaries Austin and Blinken?

MR MILLER: I don’t think that’s the way you should take it. I think you should take it to be consistent with the letter that the Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin sent, where they made quite clear that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation. You heard me address yesterday we are particularly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Jabalia, where food isn’t getting in right now and water isn’t getting in right now, and that does need to change. And that’s what Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield was making clear in those remarks.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Lebanon for – just for a second?

QUESTION: I mean, there are multiple reports coming out of both Beirut and out of Israel that the U.S. has proposed some kind of a ceasefire plan for Lebanon that would call for full implementation of UNSCR 1701 with withdrawals by both Hizballah and Israel within two months. Is that at all your understanding of where things stand?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the private diplomatic conversations that we are having, including about what any potential timetables might be. But we have been making clear in those conversations that we want to see, as part of a diplomatic resolution, the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and that means Hizballah withdrawing north of Litani River, it means Israel ultimately withdrawing south of the Blue Line, and it means peace and stability. And what we’re working on to get to that point are ways to bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces to ensure that they can provide security and they can provide stability in southern Lebanon.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very quickly on Iran, then I want to move back to Ukraine again. The case of Jamshid Sharmahd, you tweeted about Iran murdering a U.S. person, California resident. Some of us have been covering his case, and you told us for months that you will be judging the Islamic Republic by their action. Well, this is their action.

MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think we’ve made quite clear what we think about this action, as we made quite clear what we think about previous actions that the Iranian Government has taken. And you’ve seen us, since the outset of this administration, impose more than 700 sanctions on Iran and Iran entities for a number of actions, including their human rights violations against their own people. We condemn the execution of German-Iranian dual citizen Jamshid Sharmahd, which reminds us once again of the brutal – brutality and repression that characterizes the Iranian regime. We offer our sincere condolences to his loved ones. We have been in touch with them to express those condolences directly. This is the latest abhorrent act by Iran following the transnational repression it committed when it abducted him. It also underscores the record pace of unjust executions that Iran continues unabated, despite Iran’s attempts to put a gentler face to the international community.

So we are in touch with the German Government, we are in touch with the European Union and our other allies, and we will continue to stand with them in holding the Iranian regime accountable for its brutal human rights abuses.

QUESTION: You told us in the past that you believe that Iranian supreme leader is in charge of the decision-making process. So by refusing to sanction him in the past in Mahsa case and other cases, do you think you actually are creating an atmosphere in which he’s acting in —

MR MILLER: Alex, we – I just went through the litany of sanctions that we have imposed on Iran, and I remind you that we have worked with other entities around the world to impose sanctions on Iran. If you look at what happened in just the last month, you saw our European allies step up for the first time and impose sanctions on Iran Air, which will have real implications for that airline’s ability to operate flights between Iran and European destinations. So I will make no apologies for our efforts to hold Iran accountable for its behavior.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Ukraine, you spoke about your (inaudible) meeting. I know – I understand you might not get – want to get ahead of a meeting. But —

MR MILLER: But here’s a question about it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Two questions, actually, if you –

MR MILLER: Here’s a question, to get ahead of the meeting.

QUESTION: If you’ll indulge me, there are reports that –

QUESTION: The White House has already put out a statement about his meeting with Jake.

MR MILLER: He met with Jake earlier; he’s meeting with the Secretary. That meeting – meeting the Secretary –

QUESTION: The White House statement’s already out.

MR MILLER: Right. Well, I apologize for not putting out a statement about a meeting that hasn’t happened yet here at the department. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: How much of the issue of North Korea supplying the troops for Russia to fight in Ukraine will be a subject of the discussion?

MR MILLER: Certainly that will be one of the topics that they cover.

QUESTION: And there are reports that the U.S. will not impose restrictions in future if that is the case. Can you confirm that this is actually –

MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on those reports. Let me –

QUESTION: And one more – on last topic if I may.

MR MILLER: Alex, that was, like – that was four or five; I’ve got to move on.

QUESTION: Thank you. A couple of weeks ago, the Department of Justice indicted an Indian agent for a murder plot against a Sikh human rights lawyer in New York. You told us that U.S. wants to see meaningful accountability by the Modi government. But that agent still has not been arrested. So what are the next steps? Is U.S. seeking his extradition?

MR MILLER: So that’s a matter I would refer you to the Justice Department on. When it comes to a question of extradition, that, of course, is a legal matter; we always defer to DOJ to speak to extradition. But I will tell you that we have been in dialogue with the Government of India about this matter. Of course, they sent a delegation here two weeks ago to directly brief U.S. Government officials on the status of their investigation, and we briefed them on the status of our investigation, and we made clear in that meeting what we will continue to make clear: that it is important there be real accountability.

QUESTION: So after killing a Sikh leader, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, in Canada by Indian agents, Canadian authorities expelled all Indian agents serving in the Indian high commission. And there are some unconfirmed reports that same action took place here in Washington, D.C. Would you confirm or deny State Department expel the Indian agents serving in high commission here in D.C., or –

MR MILLER: That we – what – I’m not –

QUESTION: The Canadian authorities —

MR MILLER: I’m not – I’m not familiar with this report. That we expelled Indian diplomats?

QUESTION: Indian agents who are serving here in the commission.

MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any such expulsion, no.

QUESTION: Can I stay on India or —

MR MILLER: Yeah, and then we’ll go to Ryan.

QUESTION: Sure. Just I had a —

MR MILLER: Sorry, Ryan.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) just briefly – I know it was a few days ago, but India and China. I don’t know if the State Department has commented on that. India and China said that they’re working to resolve their border problem through – and potentially through joint patrols, as reached in – during the BRICS summit. Do the U.S. have any comment on it, or has the U.S. had any indirect engagement on this?

MR MILLER: So we’re closely following the developments. We understand that both countries have taken initial steps to withdraw troops from friction points along the Line of Actual Control. We welcome any reduction in tensions along the border.

QUESTION: And does the U.S. – has the U.S. played any role in – either indirectly or —

MR MILLER: No. We have talked to our Indian partners and been briefed on it, but we did not play any role in this resolution.

QUESTION: Thank you. So you commented earlier on how the letter that you guys sent in mid October to Israel mentions – suggests that they not pass the UNRWA ban. Right above that in that same letter – this is bullet point three of the three bullet points – says that Israel should also “End isolation of northern Gaza by: reaffirming that there will be no Israeli Government policy of forced evacuation of civilians from northern to southern Gaza; ensuring humanitarian organizations have continuous access to northern Gaza through northern crossings and from southern Gaza.” Obviously, the 30 days isn’t up, but two weeks ago the situation in northern Gaza was bad; like, today it’s utterly dystopian. The opposite of making progress has happened there. Somebody mentioned the 109 civilians killed in this residential building as part of this forced evacuation.

So it seems like neither of those two things have happened, and in fact, they’ve gone the opposite direction. Do you need the 30 days to make an assessment on at least that bullet?

MR MILLER: So we have made clear that the situation in northern Gaza, which is what that bullet refers to, needs to change. And Secretary Blinken made clear directly to the prime minister last week that the situation in northern Gaza needs to change, that we need to see everyone in northern Gaza, every civilian in northern Gaza have access to food and water and other humanitarian assistance, and we’re going to continue to make that clear.

QUESTION: You started with the RSF and the most recent war crimes.

QUESTION: UAE is one of the strongest backers of the RSF. You guys are very tight with the UAE. Like, why can’t the U.S. pressure the UAE to put a stop to this? It’s just —

MR MILLER: So we have made —

QUESTION: How long is this going to —

MR MILLER: We have made clear to every country in the region and every country around the world that no country should do anything to prolong this conflict, including providing arms to either of the warring parties.

QUESTION: It just seems like countries in that region just aren’t interested – like, maybe they listen, but they just don’t follow the advice that we’re —

MR MILLER: Look, every country – every country makes its own decisions on a host of foreign policy issues, but I can tell you that the thing that the Secretary heard time and time again as we were in the region last week is that partner after partner welcomed our engagement because we are the only ones who could play this critical role of trying to end conflicts in Gaza, trying to end conflicts in Sudan. They’re difficult. They’re parties with intensely competing interests and their own politics and their own situations, but we heard over and over again that countries welcome the role that we play. Now, it doesn’t mean they – every country follows exactly the course that we prescribe, but we continue to try and play the leadership role that we think this – the moment demands, trying to bring countries together to find an end to these wars.

QUESTION: And just real quickly on Pakistan.

QUESTION: I know you commented yesterday on the letter from 62 members of Congress. The Pakistan media is reporting that Pakistan security services responded to that letter by putting out dossiers of the members of Congress who signed that letter and flagging a particular number of them that were Jewish, and a particular number of them that were supporters of LGBT rights, in an effort to undermine the strength of that letter. Is there any level of kind of embarrassing conduct from that – from the ISI or from the Pakistan military that would cause the U.S. to kind of rethink its relationship with —

MR MILLER: So let me just say obviously that’s something that would be concerning to us, but I haven’t seen —

MR MILLER: — that report yet. So before I offer a substantive comment on it, I want to take a look at the report myself and be able to weigh in on it. We’ll get – we’ll either get you a written answer, or I’m happy to come back and address it tomorrow from the podium.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Thursday’s phone call between Secretary Blinken and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, can you please give me more details on what was discussed about – specifically about Türkiye’s fight against terror given that call came immediately after Türkiye was hit by a terror attack?

MR MILLER: Yeah, so there were a number of things that the Secretary and the foreign minster covered on the call. First of all, the Secretary expressed the United States condolences for that attack and expressed our solidarity with the Turkish people in the face of a terrorist attack. But then they also on the call addressed the work that the Secretary had been doing in the region to bring the war in Gaza to an end, to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Lebanon, to work to prevent the situation between Israel and Iran from further escalating; made that call – the Secretary made that call while we were traveling from the region to London. So in addition to offering his condolences for the terrorist attack, he was updating the foreign minister on all the work that we did on all of these fronts on which we see Türkiye as a critical partner.

One more, and then we’ll wrap for the day.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two quick questions for you. First on UNRWA, you mentioned the U.S. playing the indispensable role of trying to end conflicts. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield brought up today that Israel and the UN need to talk to each other, not at each other. There’s this 90-day window now before the implementation. Does the U.S., while it’s pressuring Israel, go to the UN and say listen, you’re not faultless here either; UNRWA has infiltrated – been infiltrated by Hamas; it’s time not for these cosmetic, whitewash report changes, but something really, really big here, and try to meet halfway? Is there an opening for that?

MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear that – or excuse me – we have made clear that UNRWA needs to undertake reforms. We have made quite clear that they need to investigate any allegations brought to them of misconduct by their employees. And we have seen them conduct investigations, and we have seen them dismiss a number of employees. Now, when you look at what is – look at further into this matter, you see that UNRWA has said – and if the Government of Israel wants to dispute this, they should dispute it publicly. UNRWA has said that with respect to a number of the allegations that Israel has made against UNRWA employees, when UNRWA has asked for the information from the Government of Israel that they would need to investigate those claims, the Government of Israel has refused to provide it.

So, yes, UNRWA absolutely needs to take allegations seriously. They need to investigate them. If there is anyone on their payroll who is involved in the terrorist attacks of October 7th who is connected to Hamas, who is involved in terrorism in any way, those people need to be dismissed and UNRWA needs to look at reforms to ensure that such people are never hired again in the future. But the Government of Israel also needs to provide information to UNRWA so it can carry out those investigations.

QUESTION: The secretary-general mourned the loss of what he called a colleague, a colleague who carried out the massacre in southern Israel. It’s one of those things that Israel kind of looks at and says something is not computing here. But I want to get to the second question – I know we’re short. Special rapporteur for Palestinian rights Francesca Albanese is in the U.S. She’s going to give a presentation to the UN, do a little speaking tour. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, Ambassador Taylor of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Lipstadt have all deemed the special rapporteur in words or some phrase a purveyor of antisemitism. I know you can’t comment on individual visa issues, but in a broader perspective, we’ve seen countries deny entry to those who have made – have a history of antisemitic comments. Is that taken into account at all in a broader perspective by the State Department when it issues visas?

MR MILLER: So I will just say that we have an obligation as the host country for the United Nations. We take that obligation very seriously. And one of those obligations is to grant visas to any number of individuals with views with which we do not agree. The Russian foreign minister travels to New York to participate in United Nations meetings. That is our obligation as the host of the United Nations, and it’s one that we take seriously.

And with that, we’ll wrap for the day.

QUESTION: Wait. Wait. Hold on.

QUESTION: Matt, a follow-up?

MR MILLER: Yeah, you have one more?

QUESTION: I wanted to go to my two separate individual people issues, the first on Iran. Do you have more to say about the execution yesterday of the U.S. resident?

MR MILLER: I did. I did just a moment ago in response to —

MR MILLER: Yeah, in – yeah, I did.

QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry. I completely missed that. Must have —

QUESTION: Okay. And then in Cambodia —

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I was trying to think of a – I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: So – I’m sorry. I don’t know what happened. I guess I just —

QUESTION: — tuned out for a second. On Cambodia, the – a journalist, Mech —

MR MILLER: I tune out to some of your questions, too, Matt.

MR MILLER: So – (laughter) – offense not taken.

QUESTION: You can tell by the answers. The – (laughter) – Cambodian journalist Mech Dara was released on bail last week, but there are calls – the charges against him are – remain in place, and I’m just wondering if you guys have anything to say about whether or not you think those charges are valid or should be dropped.

MR MILLER: So let me just say that this – I think this is the first time we’ve had a chance to address this at the podium since he was released. So I’ll say that, first of all, we welcome that Mech Dara was released and is able to reunite with his family, and we will continue to monitor his case closely. We raised his case at multiple levels in Cambodia and in Washington. We were one of many voices among governments, journalists, civil society representatives who expressed concern for his arrest and advocated for his release. And we will continue to monitor his case closely and call on Cambodian authorities to support a positive resolution for that case, ensuring that all of his rights are respected.

Now, I know what the follow-up is going to be, so I’m just going to stop there and say sometimes, when it comes to sensitive diplomatic matters like this, we have found that it is better to say less and work harder privately. And that’s – this is one of those cases.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: So – and with that – with that, I’m going to wrap. With that, I’m going to wrap for today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:23 p.m.)

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

MR MILLER:  Good afternoon, everyone.

QUESTION:  Good afternoon.

MR MILLER:  It doesn’t feel as cold in here today as usual.  I’ll have to talk to the authorities about that.

Let’s start with some opening remarks.  The Georgian people went to the polls on Saturday in an election environment shaped by the ruling party’s policies, including misuse of public resources, vote buying, and voter intimidation.  This contributed to an uneven playing field and undermined public and international trust in the possibility of a fair outcome.  We join calls from international and local observers for a full investigation of all reports of election-related violations, and urge respect for the fundamental freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.

We encourage Georgia’s governing officials to consider the relationship they want with the Euro-Atlantic community, rather than strengthening policies that are praised by authoritarians.  More than 80 percent of the Georgian people want to see the country integrated into the EU and NATO.  The constitution of Georgia – proposed and backed by the current governing party – stipulates the pursuit of these membership – of membership in these Euro-Atlantic institutions.  All parties campaigned in support of this goal, but the governing party has adopted measures inconsistent with that course.

The Georgian Government can recommit to its democratic Euro-Atlantic trajectory by respecting the rule of law, addressing deficiencies in its electoral process, withdrawing and repealing anti-democratic legislation, and undertaking significant effort on outstanding EU accession reform recommendations.

We have consistently urged the Georgian Government this year to walk back its anti-democratic actions and return to its Euro-Atlantic path.  We do not rule out further consequences if the Georgian Government’s direction does not change.  

QUESTION:  Okay, thanks. So, you’re not a big fan of how it turned out, or the process?

MR MILLER:  We want to see the process investigated.  We’ve noted the irregularities and the calls from local and international officials to see a full investigation, and we join those calls.

QUESTION:  Does that mean that you take issue with the results?

MR MILLER:  We are not – don’t have a final —

QUESTION:  As they have been —

MR MILLER:  So we don’t have a final assessment on the results now.  We want to see —

QUESTION:  Right, as they have been characterized —

MR MILLER:  We want to see an investigation.  We want to see —

QUESTION:  — as they have been characterized by various people, including non-Georgians.

MR MILLER:  We want to see an investigation take place.  

QUESTION:  All right.  Before going to the Middle East, can I just ask you very briefly if you guys have any response to the Iranian – Iran’s execution of a California resident?

MR MILLER:  So, I saw those reports just before I walked in here.  I don’t have a specific reaction to that report.  I want to be able to find out more about it.  But we have long made clear that we oppose the way Iran carries out executions, often for – often in a way that fundamentally violates human rights, in a way – in response to actions that are fundamental human freedoms.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Unless someone has something more on that, I want to go to the Middle East.

QUESTION:  Okay.  So, the Secretary got back on Friday.  As he was flying back, Israel was beginning its retaliation, or began and finished its retaliation of – maybe finished its retaliation against Iran.  I’m wondering what you can say, one, about that; and then two, about your efforts, such as they are, to try to get ceasefires for both Gaza and Lebanon.

MR MILLER:  Yeah, sure.  On the first, so as you heard us made clear, starting on October 1^st, when Iran launched its unprecedented ballistic missile attack, 200 ballistic missiles launched from Iran at the state of Israel, Israel had a right to respond to that attack.  We supported their right to do so.  They responded on Friday night, and we believe this should be the end of that – of the matter.  

As you know, because we talked about it quite publicly, we were communicating with them for nearly four weeks about the nature of their response and making sure that their response should be one that would be proportionate and would not in any way lead to further escalation.  We believe that was the nature of the response and that Iran should not respond in any way.  And that if Iran does not respond in any way – or I’m sorry, if Iran does respond in any way, we will continue to defend Israel.

When it comes to the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, so as you know, negotiators met over the weekend to discuss how we can capitalize on the opportunity presented by Yahya Sinwar’s death to try to move forward negotiations and get to an end of the war.  I’m not going to get into the substance of the negotiations.  But as the Secretary said last week, we wanted to see whether there are new formulations, new permutations of the deals that have been on the table, to see if there’s a way to break the logjam that we’ve been at and move forward and finally get an end to the war.  And we will continue to pursue that. 

And then when it relates to the conflict in Lebanon, I don’t have any new updates from what the Secretary said last week.

QUESTION:  Okay.  On the Iran retaliation, are you satisfied with – that the Israelis listened to your advice and counsel?

MR MILLER:  We do believe that the – well, let me say first of all, so you heard the President say publicly a couple of things that he thought should not be included in the response.  And if you look at the response that Israel launched, it did not include nuclear-related targets or attacks on economic sites.  The response from Israel was limited to military sites, which was entirely appropriate given the nature of the attack by Iran.  

So, we do think it was a proportionate response that should not lead to further escalation by Iran, and we certainly hope that Iran will not further escalate the conflict.

MR MILLER:  Yeah, Shannon.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Over the past week, a lot of the discussion about post-Sinwar conflict in Gaza has been about figuring out whether Hamas is serious about cutting any kind of hostage deal.  Now it’s been about a week and a half since Sinwar was confirmed to be dead.  Is the time that has elapsed indicative that Hamas is not serious?

MR MILLER:  I think it is too early to say, to be perfectly honest.  So, Hamas has a process it goes through to select a new – new leadership.  It appears to be going through that process now.  We obviously don’t have a great deal of insight into Hamas’s internal decision making, but based on our conversations in the region our understanding is that Hamas is being run by a council now.  And at some point, will go through a process to select a new leader.  And I think the results over the next few weeks will determine whether there has been a change in their posture.

What we know is that the barrier we faced before his death was that Sinwar had ruled out negotiating further on any matter.  The proposal that he had submitted in July was his final offer, and he wasn’t willing to negotiate any further, and he had the ability to make that decision.  He was the clear leader of Hamas.

Whether the new leadership will have a new position, based on either their own assessments of the situation or based on the changing facts since then, we don’t know.  But we believe there is an opportunity to pursue a deal, and that’s what we’re going to try to do.

QUESTION:  Is the State Department confident that if Hamas is either unwilling or unable to hand over the remaining hostages that it will be able to bring this conflict to a resolution?

MR MILLER:  Look, so Israel has – I know you were with us, and you heard the Secretary speak to this.  Israel has achieved a number of really critically important strategic objectives.  One of them, of course, has been to thoroughly degrade Hamas’s military capabilities to the point that they could no longer launch anything like the attacks that they launched a year ago.  They still maintain a threat.  They still can launch terrorist activities, but their military wing has been really degraded in its capacities.  

And then bringing Yahya Sinwar to death was another significant objective, but we absolutely need to see all of the hostages brought home.  We sometimes – we talk a lot about the hostage negotiations and the path to ending the war through hostage negotiations.  Hamas should just release the hostages now.  They never should have taken these hostages in the first place.  They continue to hold civilians hostage.  There is no justification for them to do that, and they should just release them.

But we will – but obviously, it seems an unlikely prospect given the fact they’ve held them for a year now, so we’re going to continue to try to bring them home.  That is an important strategic objective for Israel, and it is an important strategic objective for the United States.  Let’s not lose sight of the fact that there are seven Americans to continue to be held by Hamas.  

QUESTION:  Yeah, just to come back to the ceasefire – to the Egyptian proposal of the two-day ceasefire.  Are you specifically in favor of that in considering the situation right now?  Is that what is actually on the table that you’re negotiating with?

MR MILLER:  So, I’m not – I don’t want to speak to any specific proposals from the podium.  I don’t think it’s helpful to get into them publicly.  We have long made clear, as a general matter, that we were open to other scenarios.  And you know that we pursued pauses back in November to pause the conflict for a short period of time in exchange for a number of hostages being released.  Those pauses expired when Hamas restarted the conflict.

So, we have always made clear that we are open to different types of arrangements, and we want to look at different types of arrangements and see if there are any possible.  But ultimately, we have two major overriding goals here.  One is to bring the hostages home, and the other is to end the war.  And those are the two things we are trying to pursue in our negotiations and in our conversations with other officials in the region.  

QUESTION:  May I have a follow-up?

QUESTION:  And it’s not related to the ceasefire.  

QUESTION:  The Knesset is examining a legislation that would ban UNRWA in work – that it be able to work in Israel and in East Jerusalem.  What are your thoughts on that?

MR MILLER:  So, we have made quite clear to the Government of Israel that we are deeply concerned by this proposed legislation.  The Secretary raised this in the letter that he sent with Secretary of Defense – the Secretary of Defense to Minister of Defense Gallant and Minister of Strategic Affairs Dermer a little over two weeks ago.  As he made clear in that letter, the passage of this legislation could have implications under U.S. law and U.S. policy.  That remains the case.

Look, UNRWA plays a critical, important role in delivering humanitarian assistance to civilians that need it in Gaza.  That’s not the only role they play.  They play an important role providing services to Palestinians in the West Bank and throughout the region as well.  But they really play an irreplaceable role right now in Gaza, where they are on the front lines getting humanitarian assistance to the people that need it.  There’s nobody that can replace them right now in the middle of the crisis. 

So, we continue to urge the Government of Israel to pause the implementation of this legislation.  We urge them not to pass it at all.  And we will consider next steps based on what happens in the days ahead.

QUESTION:  Can I follow up? 

MR MILLER:  Let me stick up here first.  Go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  So, an Iran and Iraq, a related question.  Do you think holding a session in United Nations Security Council merits Iran’s complaining to the UN for – against Israel?  And also, Iraq lodged a complaint.  Do you think it’s a valid complaint that Israel violated its airspace? 

MR MILLER:  The Iraq – the complaint from – you said from Iraq, that —

QUESTION:  First about Iran and then about —

MR MILLER:  Yeah, yeah, about Iraq.  Yeah.  I meant the second part of the question.  So, look, when it comes to the second part of the question, it’s not something that I’ll speak to from here.  The U.S. did not participate in this attack in any way.

With respect to the first part of the question, look, our ambassador to the United Nations will speak to this at the United Nations Security Council later today.  I would just make very clear that it is Iran that launched 200 ballistic missiles at Israel that put civilians in danger; that was incredibly reckless and that threatened to really escalate this conflict beyond control.  Israel had a right to respond to that attack.  And it did so in a way that was proportionate, and we believe that should be the end of the matter.

I’m going to – I’m going to skip to you just to – let’s say in the region before we come to you, Janne.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  On northern Gaza, Matt, I know last week it was said the Israeli Government told you guys they are instituting the so-called generals’ plan.  But what is the U.S. assessment of whether Israel is intentionally carrying out a policy of starvation and displacement in northern Gaza?

MR MILLER:  So, I’ll just say what the Secretary said.  He raised this directly with the prime minister and other members of the Israeli Government.  They said to us that they are not carrying out the so-called generals’ plan.  I will just say that they should speak to what they’re carrying out.  We would clearly reject any effort to create a siege, to starve civilians, to wall northern Gaza off from the rest of Gaza.  We would fundamentally reject that in every way.  And we’ve made clear to them that we want to see humanitarians – humanitarian assistance make it to civilians.  We want to see civilians protected.  And – as you know, the Secretary sent a letter to the Government of Israel several weeks ago, laying out a number of specific steps that we want to see them take to get humanitarian assistance to the hands of people that need it. 

QUESTION:  But the U.S. does not assess that this policy is being carried out in the north right now? 

QUESTION:  You do not have your own assessment here? 

MR MILLER:  I do – I do – I’m not going to make an assessment one way or the other.  I’m going to tell you that the Government of Israel can speak for itself about what they’re trying to do.  We are watching very closely.  And we are making clear to them that they need to let – they need to let civilians get access to humanitarian assistance.

QUESTION:  And you said there has been some progress but not enough.  What progress have you actually seen in recent weeks, given that we have seen this catastrophic humanitarian situation only deepen?

MR MILLER:  So, we have seen more trucks get into Gaza.  One of the – one day last week there were something like 280 trucks that got into Gaza, which is obviously a significant expansion from the very low levels that we had been in September and earlier in October.  We have seen some additional routes opened up for delivery of humanitarian assistance inside Gaza.  We started to see them take some other steps, when it comes to dealing with the humanitarian agencies.  But they have not been enough.  They haven’t done all the things that we outlined in the letter.

The Secretary had a very detailed conversation with several Government of Israel officials last week about the kind of granular actions that that letter calls for them to take.  And he was very clear that we expect you to take these actions.  And we’re willing to engage in dialogue with you about how best to do that, and we have been engaging in dialogue with them about how best to do that, both through our embassy and through Lise Grande, our special representative, and we’ll continue to do that.  But the bottom line ultimately is results, and we need to see better results than we see today. 

QUESTION:  And then last question.  Do you have any specific comment on the Israeli military operations in the Kamal Adwan Hospital that we saw over the weekend? 

MR MILLER:  I don’t.  I’ve seen the reports.  Obviously, we don’t want – we want to see hospitals protected.  But we do continue to see, without respect to this specific hospital because I don’t have an assessment to offer – we do continue to see Hamas hiding in civilian infrastructure, which is also something that’s unacceptable. 

QUESTION:  You said that you don’t want to make an assessment either way.  But how long will it take you?  When will you be able to make an assessment on this operation in northern Gaza?  It’s been going on for about three weeks now.  There’s reports of hundred thousand civilians marooned in these – in a few small areas, supplies unable to get in.  I’m not sure if they can get out, but a lot of people probably don’t want to leave their homes because they – because they’re worried about not being able to go back in.  So, what do you need to see to be able to say one way or the other whether the U.S. supports the conduct of this operation? 

MR MILLER:  Well, I will tell you quite clearly right now what we’re seeing is humanitarian assistance not getting into the people in Jabalia who need it, and we don’t accept that. 

MR MILLER:  So, if you ask about what we see on the ground, that’s one of our assessments, is that the food and water and medicine that needs to get people – to people in Jabalia, they aren’t getting it right now, and we want to see that change. 

QUESTION:  All right.  And that means, based on what’s in the letter, one of the key points of the letter from a few weeks ago is end the isolation of northern Gaza.  Right? 

QUESTION:  So, what you seem to be saying right now is as of now, which is – we’re a couple of weeks into a 30-day deadline.  Israel is not meeting the U.S. conditions that were put out – set out in that letter. 

MR MILLER:  So, without getting into any one of the conditions – obviously, at this point they’re not meeting all of the conditions of the letter.  We made clear there were some things that need to change immediately, other things that would take more time.  They have not fully implemented all of the changes that we called for in that letter, and we’re going to wait until the – before we offer a final assessment, we’re going to wait till the expiration of the 30 days.  It’s obviously fair to do that.  But we want to see them continue to make changes along the way. 

QUESTION:  And I know you’ve been asked this before, but so if it does show – turn out that they haven’t met these conditions, which it’s not just this kind of passive element of there being bureaucratic hurdles, aid not getting in – this is an active operation that’s taking place that’s causing the conditions that you’re talking about.  What is the – what is the leverage here?  What is the threat? 

MR MILLER:  So, the letter mentioned that there are various U.S. laws and policies that are implicated by a failure to allow humanitarian assistance to get people – to people who need it, and I think I’ll leave it at that. 

Yeah, Hiba, go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Yes, Matt.  Last Friday the Israeli targeted a compound where the journalists used to sleep in northern – in southern Lebanon, Hasbaya.  It’s – it was very known that it was – they were hosting journalists, only journalists.  It was 4:00 a.m., in the morning, and the journalists were asleep.  I asked the State Department, and I had a general response.  How are you approaching that, and that you are urging the Israeli to enable free and independent press?  But can you please speak:  Do you support these kinds of strikes? 

MR MILLER:  We do not support strikes on journalists.  Absolutely not.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  My second question – did you raise that with the Israeli? 

MR MILLER:  So, we were in Israel before Friday, so obviously we couldn’t have raised with some – raised with them on Wednesday something that happened on Friday.  Whether we’ve discussed this specific strike since then I’ll have to take back and check. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  And one more question on the talks with the Lebanese leaders because you usually – you used to say when it comes to Gaza, for example, the onus is on Hamas or on Israel.  When it comes to Lebanon, where things are stopping?  Who is the obstacle?

MR MILLER:  So, we did have a number of important conversations with partners in the region last week over the course of the Secretary’s trip.  Incredibly relevant to this is the conversation he had with the prime minister of Lebanon on Friday, where we discussed the fact that we want to see full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.  And what we mean by full implementation, we don’t want to go back to where we were before October 7^th – and not just the year before October 7th, which is with a number of – for a number of years before October 7th, where you had Hizballah ignoring the obligations imposed on it by that Security Council resolution, obligations with which Hizballah said it would comply: to put down its arms and withdraw north of the Litani River.  

So, what we have been in conversation with the Government of Lebanon and other partners in the region is how we can see 1701 actually enforced, and how we can see it monitored and how we can see it enforced, in a way that means Hizballah actually does not pose a threat to the – to civilians in northern Israel.  Those are the conversations that we have been having over the course of the last week and obviously predating the Secretary’s trip as well. 

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

QUESTION:  Different topic, different region.  

MR MILLER:  Sure, go ahead.  I’m sure we have some people to come back to on this but go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Thanks.  So, over the weekend and on Friday, there was reporting that Chinese hackers had successfully targeted the phones of U.S. politicians – President Trump, vice presidential nominee Vance, but also Senator Schumer and Vice President Harris staffers.  I know this is an interagency thing.  But from the State perspective, has there been any conversations with PRC counterparts about this?  And bigger picture, what does this say about deterrence efforts for election meddling? 

MR MILLER:  So, when it comes to this specific incident, I’m going to defer to my colleagues in the Intelligence Community and in law enforcement to speak to it.  That’s obviously appropriate for them to be the ones to comment on any specific incident.  I will tell you, when it comes to Chinese hacking and Chinese interference in our election, the Secretary has made quite clear, as recently as September when he met Wang Yi on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, that any attempt to interfere in our election is something that the United States would take with the utmost seriousness.  

QUESTION:  Going back to the Jabalia Hospital incident. 

QUESTION:  Hospitals are protected under international law.  Is it permissible under international law, even if Hamas is using these sites, to raid them, to attack them?  And why wouldn’t that trigger a U.S. red line where the U.S. would withdraw aid to Israel? 

MR MILLER:  So, I’m not able to get into the full complexities of international law from here.  I’m not an attorney.  But it is a simple fact of law that hospitals do, in some circumstances, lose their protected status when they are being used to launch military attacks.  That’s just a fact of international law that has been true for some time.  It’s not an assessment with regard to this operation or any other which I obviously can’t do from here.  What we have made clear is that we want to see humanitarian sites protected – that includes hospitals; it includes schools; it includes other facilities – but we continue to see, as we have seen from the beginning of this conflict, Hamas embedding its fighters inside humanitarian sites, Hamas firing at Israeli soldiers from inside humanitarian sites, and that’s an acceptable practice that puts the people of Gaza at risk.

QUESTION:  And if I could follow up, is it fair to say that the U.S. election is impacting the timing of a potential ceasefire there because the parties won’t necessarily know who they’ll be dealing with? 

MR MILLER:  I cannot speak for any other party than the United States, and I can tell you that it has no bearing at all on our focus on trying to bring an end to the war.  

QUESTION:  Just to follow up on the – on Jabalia and this idea of the generals’ plan, as it’s reported.  I mean, you said just now you’re not assessing one or the other, it’s up to the Israeli Government to speak to it.  But you then said you’re not seeing supplies go in, basically, which – and that is an absolutely fundamental part of this entire idea is a siege, as it’s been presented, and that would make it sound like there is a siege.  So, you are making an assessment.  

MR MILLER:  No, I’m telling you we’re not seeing food and water and medicine get in to people who need it there, and we want to see that change. 

QUESTION:  And if I could follow up.  I mean, I asked the Secretary this directly and it was – I mean, part of the question was answered in that – and you said again you reject fundamentally that the generals’ plan —   

MR MILLER:  Was this in – was this in Doha?  

QUESTION:  This was in Doha.  

MR MILLER:  Yeah.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  Yeah.  I try and be a bit more concise.  I mean, that plan, as it’s presented, clearly would involve war crimes.  So, a question is, again:  if Israeli soldiers are being instructed to carry out any part of this plan, should they refuse? 

MR MILLER:  I’m not going to get into a hypothetical.  The Government of Israel has said that it’s not their plan.  Obviously, if any – if any soldier of – in Israel or any other country is instructed to carry out a war crime, they should refuse to implement it.  

QUESTION:  I’d asked the question – I mean, Eran Etzion, who is the former deputy head of the National Security Council of Israel – served under four prime ministers – has said that they may be committing war crimes, and if they’re instructed to do so, they simply must refuse in this specific case – I mean, you’ve talked generally, but in this specific case.  

MR MILLER:  Again, anyone that’s instructed to carry out a war crime should refuse to do that.  I think that’s a fairly inarguable statement.  When it comes to the specific plan, the Government of Israel has said that that’s not their policy, and you should take any – further questions about that up with them.  

Let me try to stay in the region, and then we’ll come back to others in the front.  Go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you, Matt.  

MR MILLER:  I meant (inaudible), but that’s okay. 

QUESTION:  According to an AP report last Thursday, France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced at the Paris Conference for Lebanon of 1 billion in pledges for humanitarian and military support to Lebanon.  My question to you is with Hizballah integrating – integrated into Lebanon’s government and perhaps the military, and with Lebanon’s military unwilling to remove or stop Hizballah, what measures are the State Department taking to ensure there are appropriate safeguards to prevent this 1 billion, all apart, from benefiting Hizballah?  And a follow-up.  

MR MILLER:  So, I would say, first of all, I think the question unfairly implicates a number of actors inside Lebanon who are just as opposed to Hizballah’s influence in the country and are just as opposed to Hizballah’s crimes and human rights abuses inside Lebanon as the Government of the United States is.  

MR MILLER:  And the Government of the United States, along with other countries continues, to support humanitarian assistance to the people of Lebanon who have done nothing wrong, who have done nothing to bring this conflict upon them.  And we continue to support important institutions in Lebanon, like the Lebanese Armed Forces, which we actually believe can be a bulwark for stability against Hizballah’s terrorism and other crimes.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  In a State Department report October 25th of this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced from Doha, Qatar 135 million more in assistance to the Palestinians.  My question to you is:  In light of concerns that this money may be misappropriated for terrorism, what exactly will this money be used for while Hamas is unchecked by the Palestinian Authority —   

QUESTION:  — in Judea and Samaria, and why isn’t the State Department demanding Abbas’s – Abbas forces’ arrest and disarm Hamas, especially Palestinian Islamic Jihad and his own pay-to-play program?

MR MILLER:  So let me just take the first part of the question.  The money that the Secretary announced is being spent through the World Health Organization and through UNICEF, an organization that exists to provide humanitarian assistance to children.  So, the suggestion that money spent through the World Health Organization and UNICEF is somehow being used to further terrorism, I think, is belied by decades of history.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  Why isn’t the State Department demanding Abbas’s force —  

MR MILLER:  Go ahead.  I’m going to go ahead behind – behind you.  I’m going to – let me just move on to one more.  Go ahead.  Behind you. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Going back to this proposed bill to ban UNRWA, what do you think about this whole – direction of this whole Israel-versus-UN situation going – like Israel attacking UNIFIL in Lebanon, Israel wanting to – discussing to ban UNRWA in Gaza, and also Israel – and now it’s Israeli foreign minister multiple times criticizing UN secretary-general for asking ceasefire or uninterrupted humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza, which is repeatedly asked by U.S. as well? 

MR MILLER:  Look, I think in a number of important ways, the relationship between Israel and the United Nations is not one that’s productive and is not one that serves the citizens of Israel well.  It certainly doesn’t serve the Palestinian people well.  And so, in a number of different contexts, we have urged the Government of Israel to work more cooperatively with the United Nations, particularly to work more cooperatively with the United Nations humanitarian organizations that are delivering humanitarian assistance to people inside Gaza.  And we’ll continue to make that clear to them that that ought to be the case.  

QUESTION:  And – I don’t know, is that something that you would confirm to us, but U.S. ambassador to Israel being – there were reports about that, that he was being in touch with Israel opposition leaders about this legislation not to move forward, so that Israeli MPs who were actually backing that bill kind of felt under pressure by so-called U.S. interference.  Could you — 

MR MILLER:  So, I’m not going to speak to particular conversations with the Government of Israel, but we made quite clear in a letter from the Secretary from himself and from this podium that we are opposed to the implementation of the that legislation and that there could be consequences under U.S. law and U.S. policy for the implementation of that legislation.  So, I don’t think we could have been any more clear about our position when it comes to this bill. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  

MR MILLER:  All right, Janne, go ahead.  

QUESTION:  Thank you, Matt.  On Russia and North Korea, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that there would be a miserable price to pay if South Korea provide weapons to Ukraine and interfered with the dispatch of North Korean troops.  Meanwhile, North Korean Kim Jong – Kim Yo-jong threatened that if the U.S. and South Korea joint military exercises put pressure on them, an uncontrollable situation would arise on the Korean Peninsula and that the U.S. would be responsible for it.  How will you react to (inaudible)? 

MR MILLER:  I would say that, as usual, Russia should stop making provocative statements against its neighbors and others in the region.  

QUESTION:  And one more.  The Russian house of representatives ratified Russia and North Korea Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty.  This treaty allow mutual military assistance between Russia and North Korea.  How do you assess the legitimacy of military cooperation between North Korea and Russia in the future? 

MR MILLER:  We continue to be greatly concerned about the growing security partnership between Russia and North Korea?

QUESTION:  You have anything upgrade about the information on the North Korean troops – 5,000 troops headed to Kursk?  

MR MILLER:  So, we believe that Russia – I’m sorry, we believe that North Korea has sent around 10,000 total soldiers to train in eastern Russia.  That will probably augment Russian forces near Ukraine.  Over the past several weeks, we have already seen a portion of those soldiers move closer to Ukraine, and we are increasingly concerned that Russia intends to use these soldiers in combat or to support combat operations against Ukrainian forces in Kursk near the border with Ukraine.  

QUESTION:  How close have they moved? 

MR MILLER:  I don’t have any further assessment to offer from here today.  As you know, when — 

QUESTION:  Okay, well, I mean — 

QUESTION:  Russia is a pretty large land area.  

QUESTION:  So, moving from Vladivostok to Yekaterinburg is not necessarily getting close to Ukraine.  It is closer to the west of Russia, but — 

MR MILLER:  As you know, when – when we declassify intelligence information and make it public, we oftentimes are extremely limited in what we can say about that declassification, and that’s the assessment I can offer today.  But we are watching it very closely, and when we see further movements and have further updates to offer, we will certainly make those public. 

QUESTION:  All right, well – but they’re not – they’re not in Kursk.  

MR MILLER:  I don’t have any further assessment to offer today.  

QUESTION:  All right, well, can you be at least, like – are they halfway there?

MR MILLER:  (Laughter.)  I’m not going to do a percentage, Matt.  Sorry.  

QUESTION:  Well, I mean, a mile?  Are they a mile away from where they – where they started? Or are they — 

MR MILLER:  A good bit – a good bit more than a mile.  (Laughter.)  

QUESTION:  All right.  

QUESTION:  Follow-up on North Korea —  

MR MILLER:  Yeah, yeah.  Sorry, Nike.  Go ahead.  

QUESTION:  So just to clarify, you mentioned 10,000 troops.  Are they in Kursk or – the Kursk region or another region?  And then can – is that your U.S. assessment that those North Korean troops were deployed to fight for Russia’s war in Ukraine and not just for training purposes?  

MR MILLER:  So, I don’t have anything further to say than what I said a minute ago.  We have seen 10,000 troops move to eastern Ukraine.  Some portion of those 10,000 – I’m not 

QUESTION:  Eastern Ukraine?  

MR MILLER:  I’m sorry.  Excuse me.  Thank you for the correction.  We have seen – we have seen around 10,000 total North Korean troops move to eastern Russia.  We have over the last few days seen a portion of those 10,000 groups move west, closer to Ukraine, near to Ukraine.  In terms of an assessment, we’re concerned that they intend to use them to fight or to support combat operations against Ukrainian forces in Kursk.  

QUESTION:  And can you talk about the consultation and coordination with your South Korean counterparts and what will be the high agendas on the 2+2 meetings on Thursday? 

MR MILLER:  So obviously we have a number of matters we want to talk about with our South Korean counterparts when their foreign minister and their defense minister are here.  North Korea – North Korea’s expanding relationship with Russia, including this deployment of troops to Russia, will be one of the things, as will a variety of other provocative actions by North Korea over the past few months, as well as our broader commitment to a – to Indo-Pacific security.  And we’ll have – obviously have more to say as we get closer and at the conclusion of that ministerial.

QUESTION:  Finally, Kirby recently mentioned that the U.S. will communicate with China or Chinese officials on their take about the deepening ties between North Korea and Russia.  What is – do you have any diplomatic communication between U.S. and China on this matter?  And then what is their take?

MR MILLER:  Yeah, we have.  We have communicated with the PRC about this matter to make clear that we are concerned about it, and that they ought to be concerned about this destabilizing action by two – by two of its neighbors, Russia and North Korea.  I’ll let them speak for themselves, but we have made – been making clear to China for some time that they have an influential voice in the region.  And they should be concerned about steps that Russia has taken to undermine stability.  They should be concerned about steps that North Korea has taken to undermine stability and security.  And we’ll continue to make that clear to them.

QUESTION:  Thanks, Matt.  On this topic, you finally came to the conclusion where Ukraine has been two weeks ago.  Does this require any joint action?  Have you – have you been consulting with the Ukrainians —

MR MILLER:  We have been consulting with the Ukrainians, we have been consulting with our allies and partners about appropriate next steps, and I’ll keep those conversations private.

QUESTION:  But right now, you are not at the level where you – it requires action from you, not just reaction?  Is that —

MR MILLER:  So, we are consulting with our partners.  I’m not going to speak to reactions publicly.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Want to go back to Georgia, if I may.  You called on Georgian officials to investigate the violations, but we have the president – last democratically elected official in the country – who said that it’s illegitimate and it’s part of the Russian operation.  Is there any reason to why this is not reflected in your and the Secretary’s statement yesterday?

MR MILLER:  So, we made clear that we want to see an investigation.  And to be clear, Alex, I didn’t specify that – in my statement that it should be Georgian officials that should conduct that investigation.  We are consulting with our European partners about what an appropriate body to conduct such an investigation might be.

QUESTION:  But you don’t expect GD, which actually is – rigged – accused of rigging the elections, you don’t expect them to investigate —

MR MILLER:  As you – you just heard my answer to this question, Alex, which is we are consulting with our partners about what an appropriate other body to conduct an investigation might be.

QUESTION:  And are you considering any punitive action?

MR MILLER:  I’m not going to get beyond what I said in my opening statement, which is – always, Georgia’s actions will determine our responses.  We have had our relationship with Georgia under review for some months now.  You have seen us already suspend $95 billion in – excuse me, $95 million in assistance to the Government of Georgia.  We have other assistance that remains under review.

QUESTION:  And final one, just – right as we speak there are tens of thousands of people in Tbilisi outside.  They’re protesting.  They believe that they have been abandoned by the United States.  Do you have any message to them?

MR MILLER:  So, we obviously support everyone’s right to peacefully protest, and we urge authorities to fully respect Georgians’ right to peacefully assemble.  And we want to see a full investigation of the alleged irregularities in the election.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  May I have a follow-up?

QUESTION:  On Georgia?  In the statement from the Secretary last night, and yours is today, one word is not there:  Russia.  Do you consider that they interfered in the election in Georgia?

MR MILLER:  I don’t have an assessment to offer at this point.  Now, look, we saw – even outside the claims of Russian interference, we saw the ruling party take steps that would restrict Georgians’ right to participate in a fully free and fair election.  We saw vote-buying, we saw crackdowns, and – now, of course, that’s a separate question from Russian interference.  I will say that we have seen Russia interfere with a number of its neighbors’ elections over the past several years.  We’ve seen them interfere in our own election.  We continue to be vigorous in watching, but I don’t have an assessment to offer with respect to this election that was just conducted over the —

QUESTION:  So, you don’t want to go as far as to say that —

MR MILLER:  I don’t have any further assessment to offer that question today.

QUESTION:  On Georgia.

QUESTION:  Do you have any reaction to Viktor Orbán going to Georgia immediately after these elections?

MR MILLER:  I don’t.  I don’t.

QUESTION:  Over to Russia.  There are reports that the U.S. soldier detained in the country, Gordon Black, met with a U.S. delegation recently.  Can you confirm or deny that?  And if they did meet, was there any additional consideration given to whether he should be considered wrongfully detained?

MR MILLER:  I can’t confirm that.  Let me take that back and get you a response.  And when it comes to a wrongful detention determination, nothing further I can speak to.

QUESTION:  Also on Russia, there was a report in TASS today that the Russians extracted what they called a U.S. asset from Donetsk, an American who they say was working with them there.  Do you have any information?

MR MILLER:  I don’t.  We saw those reports, we’re looking into them, but I don’t have any further information.

QUESTION:  Thank you so much, Matt.  Reports suggest 252 police sub-inspector in Bangladesh were dismissed from final recruitment, allegedly excluding all Hindu officers.  Does the State Department have any response regarding the religious discrimination in Bangladesh law enforcement hiring process?

MR MILLER:  So, I haven’t seen that report, but obviously we believe that the – well, let me say obviously we would oppose any religious discrimination in any process in Bangladesh or anywhere in the world.

QUESTION:  How the State Department working with Bangladesh authority to support inclusive and non-discriminatory hiring practice in public service in Bangladesh?

MR MILLER:  I don’t have anything to add to what I just said.  

QUESTION:  Would such cases of alleged discrimination impact U.S.-Bangladesh relationship?

MR MILLER:  So, you’re asking me to deal with a hypothetical about a report that I have not seen, and I’m going to decline to do so.

QUESTION:  Thank you so much.  In light of recent report that the Bangladesh police are using the Anti-Terrorism Act to arrest individuals associated with the student league, Chhatra League,  for participating in demonstration – they recently banned these organizations – how does the U.S. view the impact of these actions on democratic freedom and political expression in Bangladesh?  What steps might the U.S. consider to support fair political process and civil liberties in the country?

MR MILLER:  We believe that the people of Bangladesh should be able to exercise their fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly.  We believe that is the case no matter who the ruling party is in Bangladesh, and we have made that clear a number of times from this podium as well in our bilateral engagements.

QUESTION:  And thank you.  Lastly — 

MR MILLER:  But, wait, I’m just — 

QUESTION:  I just want to — 

MR MILLER:  Because we’re running short and you’ve had three, I’m going to move on.  

QUESTION:  Thank you.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  Thank you, Matt.  A couple of questions.  Bangladesh’s foreign secretary visited U.S. in the last week of this month.  He had exchange with the Deputy Secretary Verma, Under Secretary John Bass, and the Assistant Secretary Donald Lu, also NSC and the global anti-corruption commission.  Do you have any insight to share about these important meetings and how you are reassessing relationship with Bangladesh?

MR MILLER:  I don’t have any further readouts to offer.

QUESTION:  And one more on – according to Financial Times, the Bangladesh central bank governor has accused tycoons linked to the former administration of Sheikh Hasina of siphoning 17 billion from the banking sector during her rule.  This is being called the largest bank robbery case in the history.  How can you help recover this money and hold those responsible accountable for a global perspectives? 

And by the way, today is my last day in this briefing room as I – the Bangladesh interim government offered an ambassador role and I accepted it, and after the paperwork the foreign ministry will post me in somewhere.  So, I am thankful to you and all of my colleagues during my last 10 years’ journey in this briefing room as correspondent.  Thank you.  

MR MILLER:  Thank you.  And with respect to the question, I can’t speak to the veracity of that report let alone what any implications of it might be.  But congratulations.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Thank you, Matt.  Last week more than 60 member of Congress sent a letter to President Biden urging him to secure some guarantees from Pakistani Government for the safety of Imran Khan in prison.  Do you have any position on that letter?

MR MILLER:  Only that we’ve received it and will respond in due course to the members.  

QUESTION:  After – the day after this letter, the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy and Human Rights Monica Jacobsen met with the federal secretary of Pakistan on human rights, Allah Dino Khowajalad, in Islamabad to discuss human rights.  And I don’t know if it’s a consequence of what; next day after that meeting Imran Khan’s sisters and his wife were released from the prison.  And Imran Khan supporters claim that it is because of Biden administration.  Did this administration play any role in the release of political prisoners in Pakistan?

MR MILLER:  So, all I will say about that is that the deputy assistant secretary in that meeting emphasized the important role of human rights, support for a vibrant civil society, and strong democratic institutions play in our comprehensive U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

QUESTION:  But no role played?

MR MILLER:  I’m not going to —

QUESTION:  Thank you, Matt.  On Iraq, per an agreement with Washington, Iraqi airspace is protected by the United States.  So, while Iraq is filing an official letter of complaint to the United Nations Security Council for breaching its airspace, do you take Iraq’s concern to consideration?

MR MILLER:  So, first of all, I’d say that that’s not an accurate representation of the system.  Iraq is a sovereign country.  It controls its own airspace.  The United States does not control Iraqi airspace.  The U.S. Strategic Framework Agreement outlines our bilateral relationship with the Government of Iraq, and it does not address any questions of airspace, which are left to the Government of Iraq to determine.  

QUESTION:  And lastly, did your force in Iraq and Kurdistan Region have any role whether for logistics or for consultation?

MR MILLER:  The U.S. did not participate in this attack.

MR MILLER:  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  Thank you, Matt.  

MR MILLER:  Next.  Sorry, sorry.  No, go ahead.

QUESTION:  Try and get back in the Middle East for a couple minutes.  You mentioned Hamas trying to regroup in Gaza, establish its leadership.  I mean, its head sits in Qatar, Khaled Mashal.  Is there no pressure being brought to bear on Qatar, as a major U.S. ally to push Mashal into a deal?

MR MILLER:  Let me tell you about our conversations with the Government of Qatar because we had one just last week on Thursday, Wednesday – it was Thursday – in Doha, where the Secretary met with the amir and the Secretary met with the prime minister, who has been a lead mediator in trying to get a deal to bring home the hostages and end the war over the finish line. 

What we have seen from the Government of Qatar since the immediate aftermath of October 7th is an intense focus on doing everything it can to reach an agreement that would get the hostages home, and ultimately end the war.  And it continued to stay incredibly focused on that, and the prime minister especially has spent hours and hours and hours, tireless efforts trying to get that deal over the line, and we appreciate them continuing to do that.

They have a channel with Hamas that is productive for trying to reach this agreement.  The fact is it’s Hamas that holds the hostages, and so it’s Hamas with whom they have to negotiate, and I can tell you the role that the Government of Qatar has played is one that we have found extremely appropriate and extremely helpful to the situation.

QUESTION:  But if someone’s sitting in your home, doesn’t it make it easier, or at least give you more leverage, to negotiate with them?

MR MILLER:  So, we have made clear that they – that that is an important channel that exists to communicate with Hamas, to try to get these hostages home.  But as you heard the Secretary say in the immediate aftermath, there can be no more business as usual with Hamas.  But it is important that this channel continue to exist, because we have hostages – including American hostages, seven American hostages – who remain in Gaza that we want to try to get home.

QUESTION:  Last question on UNRWA; I’m just trying to gain some clarity.  The Biden administration, when it learned of the allegations against the UNRWA staffers, cut off funding.  It never resumed it.  It may have – you can maybe clarify that – but it never did.  Then Congress, by huge bipartisan margin, cut off funding through at least March of next year.  So, you have two branches of the U.S. Government who determine that UNRWA was not credible enough, trustworthy enough to continue to receive funding because of the allegations against it.  How do you now pressure the Israeli Government to facilitate UNRWA’s work, when the U.S. Government in two branches doesn’t really trust it?

MR MILLER:  So that’s – that’s not exactly what we determined.  We determined that we needed to suspend funding while an investigation was underway to look into those allegations.  And while that investigation was ongoing, Congress acted to block further funding.  You have seen us in recent months come forward and say we want to see that ban on funding be lifted, and we want the ability to continue to fund UNRWA precisely because of the important work it does.  

Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t important reforms that UNRWA needs to undertake; we believe there are.  We believe that the Government of Israel should supply UNRWA with the information it alleges to hold against UNRWA employees.  We’ve seen UNRWA launch investigations under its own regard to look at allegations against employees and gather information, but as far as we’re aware to this date the Government of Israel hasn’t supplied any evidence to UNRWA, which they should.  If they have allegations and they want UNRWA to take action, they should supply the evidence.  I think that’s a fairly obvious thing to do if they want UNRWA to take action in the way that any organization should take action if any of its employees are involved in a terrorist attack.

All that to be said, there is an important role that UNRWA plays that no one else on the ground can play right now.  And if UNRWA goes away, you will see civilians – including children, including babies – not be able to get access to food and water and medicine that they need to live, and we find that, frankly, unacceptable.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Just a quick question on Lebanon.  Israeli air strikes today hit historic city of Tyre in southern Lebanon, with footage of it going viral.  Have you seen the video?  And I wondered if you had any reaction.

MR MILLER:  I have only seen the video; I can’t offer any type of assessment on it.  I don’t know any of the underlying circumstances.

QUESTION:  But have you seen the destruction?  I mean, is that acceptable for you?

MR MILLER:  So, I can’t speak to the underlying circumstances of that attack, what it is that they were targeting.  I’m happy to, as we get more information over the coming days, speak to it, but I’m not in a position to do so today.

In the back.  Yeah.  In the almost back, I should say.

MR MILLER:  Next-to-last row.

QUESTION:  Yesterday, Japan’s ruling parties – the LDP and Komeito – lost the majority in parliament for the first time in 15 years.  Now the future of Prime Minister Ishiba’s government is uncertain.  Do you have any comment on this?

MR MILLER:  So, the U.S.-Japan alliance has been the cornerstone of peace, security, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and across the world for over seven decades.  It has never been stronger, and I do not see that changing because of the outcome of any election either in the United States or in Japan.  And so, we look forward to continuing our work with the Government of Japan, a steadfast ally of ours, across our broad agenda of regional and global issues, including regional stability, our defense alliance, and U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral relations.

QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Thank you very much, Matt.  A great U.S. POW, well respected Vietnam war POW, Mr. James Bond Stockdale, also ran for the U.S. presidential elections.  He was my teacher for ethics.  This question is regarding – dedicated to him.  So, elections are in the swing.  Yesterday the —

MR MILLER:  I don’t think I’ve ever heard a question dedicated to someone before.  (Laughter.)  But go —

QUESTION:  Well, it’s your last —

MR MILLER:  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  It’s your last week before the election, so I want to make it a little more fun for you.

MR MILLER:  Okay.  Do I have to dedicate my answer to somebody?  (Laughter.)

MR MILLER:  This answer is dedicated to Matt Lee.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  Actually, I was dedicating it to him too.

MR MILLER:  Fair enough.

QUESTION:  So yesterday in Michigan state, a poll was conducted where 60 percent of the Muslims are voting for President Trump.  For last many decades’ U.S. elections, Muslim population have mostly voted for Democrats.  Is it – would you say it is because of the poor policies, especially with regard to Gaza, that the Muslim population is going to play a —

MR MILLER:  So let me just – let me just stop you there.

MR MILLER:  I’m not going to dedicate the answer to anyone, because it’s not a question I can answer.  I think you well know —

QUESTION:  You are proud of your Gaza policy?

MR MILLER:  I think you well know when it comes to U.S. elections, and what happens in U.S. elections, that is not something that we ever comment to from the State Department.

QUESTION:  Okay, just one more question.  Your donut answer was very popular in Pakistan; millions of people viewed that answer of yours about the donuts.  So, two days ago in front of the supreme court, there was a monument constructed with the former chief justice, regarding whom the donut question was dedicated to, was built.  Now, that monument is being called as a graveyard by several leading journalists in Pakistan.  Some of them are calling the monuments as human rights graveyard, some of them journalist graveyard, some of them parliamentarian graveyard.  And they are wondering if you would be willing to create something in honor of Justice Ruth, who was a Supreme Court judge of the U.S., in whose memory buildings are painted.  Would you dedicate a donut monument in that graveyard just to raise and — 

MR MILLER:  I think we have escaped the grasp of reality here, and I don’t know – (laughter) – how to bring us back with an answer that is any way in my bailiwick as the State Department spokesperson. 

QUESTION:  But, basically, what I’m trying is – all the – all the pillars of Pakistan has been ruined, destroyed in the last two years while you have been the spokesman, but some of the questions have gotten really great attention, and donut was one of that — 

MR MILLER:  Yeah.  I try to – I try to give serious policy answers, not be an engagement factory. 

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

MR MILLER:  If you have one more, we’ll take it.  If not, I’ll wrap. 

QUESTION:  Yes, please.  My last one is about this Baloch very popular activist in Pakistan and the Baloch senators who were kidnapped and coerced into voting.  So, Ms. Mahrang Baloch has said that the way Mr. Akhtar Mengal and the BNP senators were treated and coerced into voting for the 26th constitutional amendment, and are now being frame into fake police cases, clearly shows that there is no space for parliamentary politics of peaceful activism in Pakistan.  Just if you can say anything about that — 

MR MILLER:  So, we want to see democracy upheld in Pakistan, including everyone’s fundamental right to participate in democracy and exercise their fundamental human freedoms.

And with that, that — 

QUESTION:  I’ve got one more. 

QUESTION:  Tomorrow, as you may know, is the annual vote in the UN General Assembly condemning the U.S. embargo on Cuba.  You were aware of that? 

MR MILLER:  I was not tracking this on my bingo card, so go right ahead. 

QUESTION:  I’m just wondering how the U.S. is going to vote this year. 

MR MILLER:  I doubt we’ll be voting to condemn ourselves, so — 

QUESTION:  Well, you abstained one year.  The last year of Obama’s presidency, you guys abstained on it and it caused a bit of a ripple.  But as you probably know, it’s basically the entire world votes to condemn it, and you and Israel – and in some cases, Palau or another Pacific Island nation joins in voting against.  This year it’s most likely just going to be U.S. and Israel.  So do you have anything to say about this — 

MR MILLER:  I don’t —

QUESTION:  — yearly display of isolation on the international stage —

MR MILLER:  I don’t. 

QUESTION:  — at least in terms of this one policy? 

MR MILLER:  I’m sure I will tomorrow – I’m sure I will tomorrow if the vote takes place, but no, not today.  So — 

QUESTION:  Yeah?  Okay.  Thank you. 

MR MILLER:  Thanks, everyone.  

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

(The briefing was concluded at 3:08 p.m.)

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Vedant.

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything off the top. So, Leon, would you like to kick us off?

QUESTION: Sure. Well, for a change let me start with North Korea, if I may.

QUESTION: Yesterday you said that you were not in a position to confirm reports or the accuracy of reports of North Korean troops in Russia, mobilizing potentially for the war in Ukraine. North Korea has denied it. Do you have any new information on that, a new assessment today to give us?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything new to offer on that, Leon. We are continuing to look into the reports that the DPRK has sent soldiers to fight alongside Russia. If it’s true that DPRK soldiers are joining Putin’s war against Ukraine, it certainly would mark a dangerous and highly concerning development.

As it relates to this, we are, of course, going to continue to consult with our allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move. Certainly, if true, it would be another reckless and dangerous action both on the side of Russia, but of course on the side of the DPRK as well. But I don’t – I’m not in a place to offer any formal assessment or confirmation from the United States today.

QUESTION: Okay, but just to cover the – obviously, the South Koreans have been pretty specific on this, with numbers and a lot of information. I’m sure they’ve shared that information with you. Do you not have yet confidence in the South Korean intel?

MR PATEL: So, Leon, it’s not at all about confidence at all. Of course, we have a close and important partnership and relationship with our ROK partners. It is important, of course, that there – these are – there are deliberative processes as it relates to these kinds of things when we are speaking on behalf of the United States. And certainly, when I’m up here as a U.S. official speaking on these things, we want to make sure to have the most up-to-date and accurate assessment to offer you. And what I can say right now is, echoing what I said yesterday, is that we are continuing to look into those reports.

The most important thing, though, is that we are going to continue to consult with our allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move, but I don’t have any new, updated information to offer on that.

QUESTION: Can I follow up, please?

QUESTION: Vedant, may I?

MR PATEL: Nike, go ahead. I will get to you guys. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Follow on Leon’s questions.

QUESTION: So South Korea said it will consider providing Ukraine with weapons for defense and attack. Would you like to comment?

MR PATEL: So look, I would defer to the Republic of Korea to speak to its own issues regarding its security assistance to Ukraine. We, of course, welcome any country supporting our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

If you recall, Nike, since the onset of Russia’s aggression we have rallied a coalition of more than 50 countries to Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s brutal aggression, and we’ll continue to work with our allies and partners to strengthen Ukrainian defense, as well as build its institutions and support Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

The other thing that I want to note, Nike, since you’ve given me the opportunity, is that this is just another example of how Russia’s actions, Russia’s dangerous actions, are not just a threat to Ukrainian security or European security; they are, of course, a threat to global security. When you are seeing countries in the Indo-Pacific and Asia region also making a sovereign choice to support Ukraine in its defense, the takeaway from that, Nike, is that the whole world, not just Europe, not just NATO Allies, see the threat and the dangerousness and the recklessness from Russian action.

QUESTION: Yeah, South Korea.

QUESTION: Sorry. South Korea Government also said —

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: — it will consider sending military intelligence personnel to Ukraine to help assess the battlefield tactics and also —

MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t have anything to offer on that. I would let the ROK speak to that. And of course, these are, ultimately, sovereign decisions for them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Same topic, and North Korea’s military troops. The House Intelligence Committee chairman, Mike Turner, sent a letter to President Biden requesting a briefing on the North Korean military deployment. He also said that the United States and the NATO Allies should respond immediately as the situation is serious. What is the State Department’s response to this?

MR PATEL: So first of all, I certainly am not going to get into the weeds on congressional correspondence. What I can say is that on – in both chambers, both the House and Senate, we have an important and close working relationship. And we, of course, will continue to consult and engage with them appropriately.

And in the context of these reportings, as we’re – as Leon asked about reports of DPRK soldiers being sent to fight alongside Russian forces, we are continuing to look into that, continuing to assess what’s happening. And we’re, most importantly, going to continue to consult with allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move. And I have no doubt that when we say “consulting with allies and partners,” part of that, of course, means consulting with NATO Allies.

QUESTION: Secondly, the South Korean Government has summoned the Russian ambassador to South Korea and requested the immediate withdrawal of North Korean troops from Russia. It also announced that it would respond together with the international community. How does the United States agree to this, and what are the U.S.’s own countermeasures?

MR PATEL: So look, this is ultimately the – I will let the Republic of Korea speak to its own diplomatic engagements and the engagements that it might have with countries in which it has a bilateral relationship. But I think what we are seeing in practice and what we’re seeing as action is countries making it very clear that it can no longer be business as usual with the Russian Federation, and that we are seeing time and time again them taking reckless and destabilizing actions, them infringing on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, which, as I just said to Nike, is of course not just a threat to Ukrainian security and European security, but it is of course increasingly of concern to countries in other parts of the world as well, and in this example the Republic of Korea.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just to press you a little bit more on —

QUESTION: — the last question. The British Government, your Eye Five ally, yesterday said that it’s “highly likely,” quote/unquote, that they are – that North Korea is sending troops for Russia to take part in Ukraine. Are you telling us that they know something that you might – don’t – you might not know?

MR PATEL: Alex, I am saying that there is a process in place, and there are – it is – the United States, we want to be incredibly intentional and deliberate about how we talk about things publicly, and when we’re able to be in a place to talk about things confidently and with a certain assertation. I won’t speak to what processes and – other countries have in place. In the case of the United Kingdom, we noted and saw their statement during the UNSCR session on Ukraine, and I’d refer you to his majesty’s government for the UK’s assessment.

But as I said yesterday and just now, we are going to continue to consult with allies and partners on the implications of this, and whether this is – ends up being accurate. And we, of course, will continue to make our own assessments and look into this as well.

QUESTION: In the meantime, we just had some progress in your definition of this. You said “dangerous” yesterday, and today you used “reckless action.” Would that be an escalation, if true?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to categorize it one way or the other, Alex. What we have seen, of course, is Russia’s increasingly collaboration with a variety of malign actors. We have seen it earlier in this conflict in the closening of relationships that we have seen as it relates to Russia and Iran. And if these, of course, reports are true, it would indicate a dangerous and reckless and a closening of relationships between Russia and the DPRK, something that would certainly not be what I would call a stabilizing factor for the immediate Indo-Pacific region, but also broader global security as well.

QUESTION: And just come back to me later on, please.

MR PATEL: Sure. Nick, go ahead.

QUESTION: Different topic.

MR PATEL: Of course.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about the intel leak on the potential Israeli response plans to Iran. Some Republicans yesterday and today are criticizing administration officials for saying they’re deeply concerned, but otherwise not taking this seriously enough. What’s your response to that?

And yesterday you said this topic didn’t come up in any of the Secretary’s bilats. Now that he’s in the region and having bilats today, is that still the case?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything to read out on the Secretary’s government-to-government engagements today beyond some of the readouts that we’ve already made public, and so I would refer you back to there.

Look, as it relates to the issues surrounding the unauthorized disclosure, I think many of you have seen the statement from the FBI, who have indicated that they are investigating this. They’ve announced that, and I will defer to them to speak to it. Certainly, we would take any unauthorized disclosure – it’s something that we take very seriously and it is, of course, incredibly concerning. There are appropriate entities of the U.S. Government that are the appropriate authorities for these kinds of things, and we, of course, will defer to them when these things happen.

QUESTION: Can we come to Lebanon?

QUESTION: France is hosting a conference to try to make some progress on the issue. What – does the U.S. sort of support the French initiative to hold this conference, and what are you hoping will be agreed there?

MR PATEL: Well, look, we of course are always eager and – to engage with partners on important issues, including what is currently happening in Lebanon. We will have representation at this conference. We’ll hopefully be in a place to announce that in the next day or so, so stay tuned on that.

But look, when it comes to the Middle East, France has been a vital partner in continuing to marshal support for – in the context of Gaza, of course, trying to get us to a ceasefire. And similarly, we know that they share our goal as it relates to Lebanon for creating the conditions that will allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return to their homes, and we know that they also would like to see 1701 effectively implemented. I have no doubt that a lot of these things will be talked about, as well as ways in which participant countries in this conference can continue to support humanitarian efforts in Lebanon as well. I expect all of this to be discussed, but I don’t want to get ahead of the conference.

QUESTION: You mentioned the U.S. participation, but it’s not – it hasn’t been announced as part of the Secretary’s travel. So do you expect –

MR PATEL: I don’t have any announcements to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s travel. The Secretary, we expect, will be in the Middle East region, as we’ve been talking about this whole week, but we will have participation at a senior level —

MR PATEL: — at the conference.

QUESTION: Okay. So if you don’t send the Secretary, doesn’t that sort of signal some lesser support for this initiative?

MR PATEL: Not at all. We will have senior-level representation, and I will say that this is something that the Secretary himself will continue to be personally engaged on. He’s certainly talking about the issues surrounding Lebanon while he is on his travel. He is talking about it with important counterparts and interlocutors. And whatever our representation ends up being – looking like in Paris, we, of course, will be very latched up with the totality of the department.

And again, I think we kind of get into this back and forth of whether just simply present somewhere indicates any kind of prioritization, and that certainly is not the case. This is a priority for the Secretary. The Secretary is on travel in other parts of the world right now, but this is a vital issue to him. And we will make sure that there is senior-level representation from the United States at it.

QUESTION: And if the other countries there – specifically France – would like to see a ceasefire, your position, as most recently, seems to be that you don’t – you’re not calling for an immediate ceasefire. So do – is this administration out of line with European allies particularly but allies who would like to see this conflict come to an end?

MR PATEL: There is a – look, Simon, I will let European allies speak for themselves, but we know that there is a convergence between us and our European allies on what we all want to see, and what we all want to see ultimately is the effective implementation of 1701 but more importantly the conditions created so that civilians can return to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line. And perhaps even broader than that, we want to see the country of Lebanon be able to stand on its own two feet, out of the stranglehold from Hizballah.

I am not going to speculate on what proposals and ideas may come from the conference. I think that’s the purpose of these kinds of engagements, to have these important conversations in multilateral settings, and we’ll let that process move forward.

QUESTION: I want to ask about the Israelis striking a hospital in southern Beirut. Does the U.S. have comment on this strike that killed more than a dozen people and left dozens more injured?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen that reporting, Jenny. I don’t have any specifics that I can offer as it relates to that operation. We, of course, will let the IDF and the Israelis speak to the kinds of operations that were – that they are conducting. But look, we have been as clear as we have been that when it comes to operations that the IDF is undertaking to degrade Hizballah – which we, of course, support – that every possible measure needs to be taken to minimize impact on civilians, to minimize civilian casualties. And that one step beyond that, every possible measure needs to be taken so that civilian infrastructure – whether it be hospitals, schools, anything in that category – that impact on that needs to be minimized as well. We have asked the Israelis for additional information as it relates to this particular strike, but I don’t have anything to offer as it relates to that.

I think let’s also not lose sight on the fact that Hizballah is a terrorist organization that does have deep-rooted infrastructure in various corners of Lebanese society, and part of that has included Hizballah co-locating itself with civilian infrastructure. Again, as it relates to this particular hospital, I don’t have any insight that I can offer from up here, but this is something we’ll continue to engage on directly with the Israelis.

QUESTION: If you could —

QUESTION: Will the U.S. conduct its own investigation into whether every possible measure was taken here to protect civilians?

MR PATEL: Broadly speaking, Jenny, we have measures and levers and processes in place to ensure that international humanitarian law was abided by, that civilian harm was minimized in whatever way possible. I certainly wouldn’t speak to that in these settings, and we would not necessarily open our own investigation at this point.

QUESTION: Has there been any investigations into whether Israeli measures in Lebanon or Gaza have taken every possible measure to protect civilians?

MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t speak to ongoing or —

QUESTION: Can you say whether those have —

MR PATEL: — deliberative processes. We have —

QUESTION: Can you say whether other – any of those have wrapped up?

MR PATEL: We have talked about the tools that the United States has at its disposal to do this work basically since the onset of October 7th. I know this group is quite familiar with them – whether they be CHIRG, whether it be the Leahy Process, whether it be the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and various other things. Those – all of those are active, ongoing things that the United States continue to have at its disposal to assess circumstances around any country in which we have a security relationship with. And that, of course, is going to continue and we’ll always be effective implementors of U.S. law.

Leon, I saw you had your hand up.

QUESTION: I’ll pass.

MR PATEL: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Can I just ask quickly one more?

QUESTION: Did the Secretary get any commitments from the Israeli Government today that they would increase humanitarian aid to northern Gaza after the letter last week?

MR PATEL: Our – the Secretary, in his readout, which I know you all saw, was pretty clear in his readout that there are still many things and many progress markers that we need to see as it relates to the flow of humanitarian aid. I don’t have any specific commitments to outline beyond what was in the readout.

QUESTION: I ask because the Israelis don’t make any mention of it in their own readout of that meeting.

MR PATEL: Well, look, I am not a spokesperson for them. I’m a spokesperson for the U.S. Government, and it is something that the Secretary has placed significance – significant emphasis on, both in the letter from earlier in the month, the letter from April, but also the consistently at – consistency at which this Secretary has raised humanitarian aid. And the Secretary made very clear that there are continued areas where we need to see marked improvement.

Michel, and then I’ll come to you, Said. Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. still consider the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 as the only solution for the war between Israel and Hizballah?

MR PATEL: We certainly do. And when – I know that there’s been a lot of interest in 1701 over the past couple of days and perhaps a little bit of misunderstanding in how – or misinterpretation in how it’s being discussed. So let me just be unequivocally clear. We – what we want to see is the effective implementation of 1701. We think that it is vital, and it can help create the conditions that will ultimately allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return home.

The Secretary has been clear about that. I know, Michel, you always like to ask about what Special Envoy Hochstein has been up to. It’s something he has been very clear about in his travels and in his engagements as well. The Secretary reiterated that with the prime minister, as you saw in the readout that the travel team just put out. And it’s something that we will continue to stress.

Ultimately what we want to see here is conditions that will allow civilians to be able to return home and, beyond that, get the government and country of Lebanon to a place where it is out of the stranglehold of Hizballah and able to stand on its own two feet, be in a place where it can select a new president. All of these things we have been unequivocally consistent and clear about.

QUESTION: But the parties in the past, as Amos Hochstein said in Beirut, failed to implement the 1701. What would make them – or we force them – to implement at this time?

MR PATEL: So I’m just going to speculate, Michel, on what might or might not happen. What I am offering you is what our perspective has been in what we think is a credible and clear solution that is a step in the right direction, and we think that is the effective implementation of 1701.

QUESTION: And finally —

QUESTION: — Congressman LaHood and Issa sent a letter to the President asking them to put pressure and sanctions on the Speaker of the House Nabih Berri to elect a new president. Are you considering such move?

MR PATEL: So certainly would not – first, again, and just would not get into the details of our congressional correspondence. We engage with members at both the House and Senate pretty regularly. And certainly, I’m not in a place to preview or get into what actions we may or may not be considering. But when we talk about what we want to see for the future of Lebanon, selecting a president is, of course, at the top of that list. We want to see a president that is reflective of the will of the Lebanese people; we want to see a government that is free from the stranglehold of Hizballah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: Now Vedant, from this podium we heard some time back that if Sinwar was to depart the scene the war would end. I remember things akin to it will end tomorrow, and so on. But what we have seen —

MR PATEL: I don’t think we’ve ever –

MR PATEL: Said, I’m – so I always – I’m always happy to give you the space to ask whatever it is, whatever questions that you want to ask. But I am going to just jump in and say that no one has ever said that.

QUESTION: Okay. Fine.

MR PATEL: What we were talking about was that Mr. Sinwar had a choice to make as it relates to the ceasefire proposal that had been on the table and that he, time and time again, chose not to accept what has been on the proposal. We never said that if he were to die or be killed that that all the sudden would mean that the conflict would end.

What this means – and what we said on Thursday and what the Secretary stressed in his meetings with Israeli counterparts today – is that this is a new opportunity. His death is a new opportunity to reinvigorate that conversation and work to get a ceasefire proposal, one that allows an influx of humanitarian aid into Gaza, one that brings the remaining hostages home, including the seven Americans, and get us on a path to diplomacy that we hope will help get this region out of the endless cycles of violence. That’s what this is about.

QUESTION: Fair enough. Now what we have seen since Sinwar’s death is really an intensification of this assault. As a matter of fact, it probably surpasses other times. Israel has always greeted American officials, Secretary Blinken, with increased assaults on Palestinians and so on. But we have seen really, I mean, a spike in killing dozens, hundreds of Palestinians since last Thursday when they announced the killing of Sinwar, even with some people calling for resettlement in Gaza and so on. So my question to you: Is Israel committing the so-called generals’ plan that aims to depopulate Gaza and resettle it by Israeli settlers?

MR PATEL: What I can say, Said, is that, first, the rhetoric that you’re referring to about resettling Gaza or however it was phrased, we certainly – that’s the kind of rhetoric that we unequivocally reject. We have been clear numerous times that what we are working towards and what we want to see is Palestinian-led governance in Gaza and a Gaza that is unified with the West Bank under what we hope is a revitalized Palestinian Authority.

The Secretary was clear about this in the immediate months after October 7th in a speech that he made in Tokyo that fall, where he laid out that there can be no long-term displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. We don’t want to see any territorial reduction in Gaza, and we certainly don’t want to see any reoccupation of Gaza after this crisis ends. What we want to work on and what we want to see are affirmative elements that will get us to a sustained peace. And that in our view needs to include the Palestinians people’s voices, their aspirations, and that needs to be at the center of post-crisis governance in Gaza. The United States would not and will not support anything less than that.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. I also appreciate every time you call on me. I love it and thank you. I wanted to ask you about Palestinians have been accusing the Israeli military of using detainees as human shields in Gaza. I wonder if you are aware of this report and if you are doing anything about it, about investigating this issue.

MR PATEL: So we’ve spoken to this a little bit before, Said. These reports are incredibly disturbing. And if they are true, they are completely unacceptable. We’re still gathering information. But as we have said before, civilians need to be protected and Israel has a responsibility to investigate credible allegations of violations whenever they arise.

QUESTION: And how will you determine if its true or not?

MR PATEL: We will continue to engage with our partners in Israel on this, Said. Of course, as you – we’ve talked about before, the United States does not have boots on the ground in Gaza. We will continue to assess these through the limited means that we have. But the ultimate thing here is that we want to see Israel appropriately investigate credible allegations or violations whenever they arise. We have, of course, seen them do that in certain incidents and we want to make sure that that is consistently applied to anywhere that these issues arise.

QUESTION: Could we have an update on the delivery of aid? From what —

MR PATEL: Sure, I’m happy to. I’m happy to offer some updated information on that. Look, I think first let me just say – and Jenny asked this a little bit – that this is something that the Secretary stressed and reiterated with the prime minister earlier today that we want to continue to see progress made. We are continuing to press Israel that there is a responsibility to maximize and streamline the existing crossings and open more crossings for more increased levels of aid into Gaza.

A hundred and fourteen trucks crossed yesterday. That included trucks from Kerem Shalom and the Erez west crossing. Certainly, I don’t say that to try and make the point that that is satisfactory or enough, but we want to continue to see a steady influx of trucks and humanitarian assistance into Gaza, Said. Especially as the region heads into the winter months, we want to make sure that appropriate foodstuffs and winterization supplies are appropriately surged.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: I want to go to BRICS gathering in Kazan.

QUESTION: But before that, what do you make of the fact that UN secretary-general refused to attend Ukraine’s peace summit which is about defending the UN Charter, chose to somehow attend this Putin summit which is about defying the UN Charter?

MR PATEL: So Alex, I will let the secretary-general and his team speak to whatever scheduling decisions they have or have not made. I just want to be clear, though, Secretary-General Guterres I think has – the UN system in itself has been an incredible partner when we are talking about holding the Russian Federation accountable and making – in almost as unison as one can be in the UN system making it clear that there is a strong collection of countries that are standing up against Russian aggression, Russians’ territorial – its infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity, its infringement on Ukrainian sovereignty. So let me just first address that as it relates to the secretary-general.

On the BRICS summit broadly, Alex, we believe all countries are sovereign countries and they have their own choice and make their own choices about the countries and groupings in which that they associate. What the United States is focused on and the approach that we bring to all of the foreign policy and the diplomacy that we conduct is that we are focused on working with partners around the world to build the broadest and deepest coalitions possible to help achieve our shared goals.

We want to enhance the value proposition of what the United States can bring to the table, and we want to work with countries through investments in the kinds of things that we know these kinds of countries are looking for, and we are looking to sharpen and deepen and broaden our partnerships in that way. And of course, the multilateral institutions, whether it be the UN, G20, groups – groupings like APEC or ASEAN, are, of course, important and vital avenues for us to do that, and that’s why you have seen the Secretary place an emphasis on continuing to engage with those countries.

And look, as it relates to the specific makeup of BRICS, we’re going to continue to work and have a strong, positive relationship with Brazil, with South Africa, with India. We work bilaterally with those countries in a number of key areas, a number of key areas that we frankly think are going to continue to define the 21st century.

When it comes to China, our goal and our intent is to continue to manage that relationship and manage that relationship responsibly, manage our competition with China responsibly. That is what we know that the rest of the world expects of superpowers.

And lastly, as it relates to Russia, we will continue to push back on Russian aggression and make clear to any country on the planet that it can no longer be business as usual with the Russian Federation.

QUESTION: As you know, there’s some newcomers in the room. Azerbaijan is one of them. Kazakhstan was punished for not joining. But Türkiye – Turkish president is among the participants. Does the department have any view of the NATO partner’s BRICS membership bid?

MR PATEL: No. This is a – this is a – this is an issue for our Turkish partners to speak to. Türkiye is an important and vital NATO Ally, and as I said at the beginning, we believe that countries are able to chart their own foreign policy and choose whatever countries and groupings in which they associate.

QUESTION: And final one for me, Vedant. Speaking of Türkiye, Turkish parliament today – the government has reintroduced a law called, quote/unquote, “agent of influence,” which is another copycat of Russian foreign influence law, foreign agent law. Do you have any position on it?

MR PATEL: I’m not very familiar with that, Alex, but I’m happy to check with the team and see if we can get something back for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has made an appeal to President Biden for the release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who is in U.S. prison for attempting to kill American officials in Afghanistan. How would you respond to that request?

MR PATEL: So first, I certainly wouldn’t get into private diplomatic communications. And on the case itself, I would refer to the Department of Justice to speak to any inquiries regarding Dr. Siddiqui’s incarceration.

QUESTION: Sir, police in southern Pakistan have shot at a doctor accused of blasphemy, and it’s not just killing. After he was killed, a violent mob dragged out his dead body from a car and burned it to death in front of his family. How much are you concerned about the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan?

MR PATEL: We uniformly oppose blasphemy laws everywhere in the world, and that, of course, includes in Pakistan. We believe that these laws jeopardize the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion or belief. We regularly raise these concerns with countries around the world, including, of course, Pakistan.

QUESTION: Sir, last question. Media reports suggest that United States has communicated to the Indian Government that it seeks meaningful accountability regarding the alleged murder plot of a Sikh activist in New York. Could you confirm? If that kind of message was sent to India, what was their response?

MR PATEL: So to take a step back, there was valuable engagement with India’s inquiry committee last week, and information was exchanged between our two governments to further our respective investigations. We understand that the Indian inquiry committee will continue its investigation, and we expect to see further steps based on last week’s conversations.

We continue to expect and want to see accountability based on the results of that investigation, and certainly the United States won’t be fully satisfied until there is meaningful accountability resulting from that investigation. Beyond that, I’m just not going to address this in further detail given that this is an issue that is active and remains under investigation and ongoing under both of our countries.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Just two questions, sir. Today, this one senator resigned from Pakistan senate. He was on dialysis, and he said that while he was picked up by the powerful – usually by “the powerful” they mean the establishment, the military of Pakistan. He said while he was picked up, he was given dialysis even twice during that five, six days’ time. Do you have anything to say? Are you even aware about it?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware and I really don’t have anything to offer on that.

QUESTION: Just one more question.

QUESTION: Just one more —

MR PATEL: I’m going to – you got two yesterday. Go ahead, Jackson.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks. Thanks, Vedant. There’s a report that Ariane Tabatabai was the leaker of the documents purporting to show Israel’s plans to retaliate against Iran. Can you confirm?

MR PATEL: I certainly wouldn’t speak to that from here. As I said in a response to Nick’s question earlier, the FBI has announced that they are actively investigating the unauthorized disclosure, and I will ultimately defer to them to speak to that further.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss the leaks during his visit to Israel?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything else to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagements beyond what was in the readout.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you. When it comes to intel analysis, South Korea and the United States have been very in lockstep, in very close coordination, especially about North Korea’s military activities, and this time there seems to be some difference, and you said it’s not about confidence in South Korean intelligence. Then are you rejecting the notion that there is a discrepancy in intel analysis between Seoul and Washington about North Korean deployment?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speak to the process, the intelligence processes that we have in place. Let me just be unequivocal about this: When it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to our priorities around the world, our relationship with the Republic of Korea is one of the most vital and one of our most consequential and important relationships. They are a partner in a number of key areas. Especially when it comes to our broader and ultimate goal of seeing peace and stability across the Indo-Pacific, our partners in Korea are integral to that goal.

Separate from that, the reporting that we have seen as it relates to soldiers from the DPRK who – the suggestion that they have been sent to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine – should that be true, that would be incredibly concerning. It would be dangerous and certainly it would be reckless. The United States has its own processes in place and our own assessments that we need to make before, certainly, we can publicly say that we are seeing anything as it relates to a particular policy area. It is not at all a reflection of any country, whether it be the ROK or otherwise. It’s not a reflection of that at all.

QUESTION: Any discussions underway as to what to do in terms of, like, sanctioning North Korea or any steps to take, if it’s true?

MR PATEL: Look, I – at the center – at the center of this, if these developments are true, they would certainly be incredibly dangerous, and that is why, at the core of this, is continuing to consult with our allies and partners, of which ROK would certainly be a part of that. But I’m not going to preview any – preview any actions we may or may not take from up here.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you know how many aid trucks arrived in northern Gaza over the weekend up until today?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific breakdown for you on transit intra Gaza. What I can say is what I asked – answered to Said’s question, is that there were – and I will pull up the number again just to be precise – it was on October 21st 114 trucks that we saw enter Gaza, which, again, I’m not at all – don’t make that – offer that statistic to say that that is satisfactory, but that is the updated metric that we have. And simultaneously, we of course are stressing with partners in Israel that more needs to be done to enhance the flow of humanitarian aid.

QUESTION: I ask because a journalist yesterday on the ground in northern Gaza yesterday told me that an UNRWA facility in Gaza City had received seven trucks containing flour and canned goods, but which have yet to be distributed, but received no water. I don’t know what you do with flour without water, but they’re having a hard time even distributing these because of the ongoing onslaught there. So —

MR PATEL: So I’m just going to stop you right there. We are not at all saying that the situation has improved or that the situation is satisfactory – far from it. We have – in the immediate days following the letter that Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin sent, we saw some important steps in the right direction as it relates to particular border crossings. Those were good, positive signs. I can say that on October 21st 114 trucks made its way into Gaza. But of course, we are continuing to see challenges as it relates to ensuring that aid is getting to where it needs to go within Gaza. That’s something that we are continuing to work closely on with partners in Israel, NGO partners, and international organizations, and that’s something we’ll continue to stress.

All right, everyone, we’re going to wrap there. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:43 p.m.)

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

MR PATEL: Sorry for making you all wait a little bit more than two minutes. I have just one very brief thing off the top, and then I’m happy to dive right into your questions.

So the Secretary will be wheels up later this afternoon, heading to Israel and other countries in the Middle East. In Israel, the Secretary will reaffirm the United States ironclad commitment to Israel’s security and emphasize advancing enduring peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Throughout the region, Secretary Blinken will discuss the importance of bringing the war in Gaza to an end, securing the release of all hostages, and alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people. He will continue discussions with counterparts on post-conflict period planning and emphasize the need to chart a new path forward that enables Palestinians to rebuild their lives and realize their aspirations free from Hamas’s tyranny.

The Secretary will also underscore that additional food, medicine, and other urgently needed humanitarian aid must be delivered to civilians in Gaza.

He will also discuss the need to reach a diplomatic resolution in the conflict between Israel and Hizballah that fully implements UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and allows civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return to their homes.

And lastly, he will reaffirm the U.S. commitment to work with partners across the region to de-escalate tensions and providing lasting stability.

So with that, Matt, you want to kick us off?

QUESTION: Sure. Just on the trip real —

QUESTION: — briefly, what other countries is he going to?

MR PATEL: So Matt, I will let the travel team announce other stops as it relates to this schedule as the trip progresses. At this point, we’ll – we can certainly share that he will be going to Israel, but additional stops are to be announced.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on this whole leaked document thing on the intelligence assessment of Israel’s preparations for – is that going to – does that play any – is that a problem for him on this current trip? Is that an issue of concern?

MR PATEL: So I can’t say that it has come up in any of the bilateral or diplomatic conversations that we’ve had. What I can say is that we have seen these reports as well. And as the President said earlier this morning, we’re certainly concerned about them. But in terms of the specifics as it relates to this incident, I will let the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and DOJ speak to it. And I certainly don’t expect it to have any bearing as it relates to the Secretary’s – not only his travels, but the objectives that the Secretary is bringing to this trip.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Great. Simon, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. So with the Secretary on his way following last week’s death of Yahya Sinwar, would the – after his death, the administration came out very quickly saying we see an opportunity to bring an end to this war; we want to get a ceasefire deal. But in the intervening time, the Israelis seem to have sort of doubled down on their approach. There’s been a lot of death in northern Gaza. They’re also bombing Beirut. Do you feel like that message, that this is a time to take advantage of this moment to end the war, has been heard from the Israeli side?

MR PATEL: Well, Simon, that’s exactly why he is going to the region to have these very important conversations with partners in Israel and counterparts in other countries as well. Let’s not forget where we were just a couple of months prior, in which the Government of Israel had indicated that it had supported the bridging proposal that was in line with the contours of what President Biden had announced earlier in the spring when we were talking about what was needed to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. And Sinwar continued to be an obstacle.

Obviously, we certainly are not going to speculate on the leadership of Hamas or what form that takes. And certainly the same decision that was in front of Mr. Sinwar, the – that same decision is in front of Hamas in whatever it’s leadership will be, in that whether they want to end the suffering of the Palestinian people, if they want to end the suffering that has been brought about them.

So we expect the Secretary to talk about all of these issues. We feel strongly that there is an opportunity to move the ball forward as it relates to getting a ceasefire accomplished. I’m not going to speculate on any immediate end product or outcome, but we feel that it is important to engage, not just with the Israelis but also other partners in the region to continue to have these important conversations for all the reasons that you mentioned. There continues to be a need to address the humanitarian situation. We obviously want to ultimately see the violence to stop as well. So these are all things that we’ll continue to discuss.

QUESTION: And at this point, just to – so we understand where we are, there isn’t – like there isn’t anyone who has emerged in Hamas who you are now negotiating with through the intermediary?

MR PATEL: Not to my knowledge. Of course, I will let our mediators speak for themselves and let them speak to what kind of engagements they may or may not have with Hamas. But Matt spoke a little bit about this on Thursday. In the aftermath of Haniyeh’s death, you saw there was some sort of semi-public process in which Hamas had indicated who its new leadership was. I have no reason to think that a similar process would not take place in the ensuing time ahead.

QUESTION: And you mentioned the humanitarian situation. It seems like things have only got worse in northern Gaza. You had this 30-day ultimatum that you’ve given to the Israelis. I wonder if you can give us an update on – have they made any progress towards the – what the – what was laid out in the letter?

MR PATEL: So as we talked about last week, we have seen some progress on some of these things. We – as we saw, we saw the – last week, the reopening of the route from Jordan. We also saw the Erez crossing in the north reopen, talking about some of the efforts that we saw last week.

Look, certainly nobody in the U.S. Government is going to stand in front of you and say that we are satisfied or find the humanitarian situation in any part of Gaza satisfactory. And these are one of the things that we expect the Secretary to raise directly and discuss, not just with partners in Israel but other counterpart countries on what more can be done to get humanitarian aid into Gaza.

A number of border crossings, to answer your question specifically, Simon, are open. We are seeing truckloads enter the Gaza strip, and we’ll continue to press for more. Absolutely more is needed – more food, more water, more humanitarian aid overall.

QUESTION: Just on the situation in northern Gaza, I mean, it doesn’t seem like the humanitarian situation has improved dramatically, and there’s been an increase of bombings, lots of deaths reported, and lots of airstrikes. I wonder if the people of Gaza, especially those in northern Gaza, based on your rhetoric after the death of Sinwar might have thought that this spelled positive news, but then the weekend probably hasn’t left them with that feeling. So what would you say to those people who are saying: Well, why aren’t we getting humanitarian aid in? Why are we still being hit with these airstrikes?

MR PATEL: Well, a couple of things. A couple of things, Simon. First, as it relates to the letter that Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin sent to Israeli counterparts, it had a 30-day stipulation, and there were a number of factors in that letter, of course, in which that we have not seen the totality of progress achieved. That being said, we have seen some positive steps in the right direction from last week, and we have seen some of that continue broadly speaking. Of course, more needs to be done.

But the broader point here, Simon, is that entities in the region are faced with a choice now. Whatever the leadership of Hamas looks like – and Hamas as a whole, they have a choice on whether they want to engage meaningfully in continuing the conversations that had taken place earlier in the year, when we were talking about achieving a ceasefire in Gaza. We think that continues to be the best path forward in which we’ll alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinian people but also allow the remaining hostages – of which there continue to remain seven American citizens are able to return home. And that continues to be an enduring priority for us, and I know it is for others in the region as well.

QUESTION: Yeah, I understand the Secretary feels important to continue to engage in the region, as we you were saying. What do you think his leverage or the U.S. in general leverage is two weeks ahead of the elections going back to the region? Are his hands tied? Or is going to be listened to? Can anything happen or change?

MR PATEL: Leon, I kind of respectfully disagree with the premise of the question, and I’m going to invoke what many of you have heard Secretary Blinken say pretty regularly, is that in this department, in his role as Secretary of State, and I would say that extends to all of us that work for him, we don’t do or engage in politics. We are engaged in policy. And what I can say unequivocally is that pursuing a ceasefire, as it relates to Gaza – pursuing a ceasefire in Gaza is in the interest of, of course, the Palestinian people, because it will allow an additional influx of humanitarian aid, create the conditions hopefully for further conversations to happen so that we can see a independent Palestinian state and a Gaza Strip that is no longer a springboard for terrorism on the Israeli people, and a Gaza Strip that is hopefully unified with the West Bank as an independent state.

It is in the interest of the Israeli people because, again, for far too many years they have been living under the threat of terrorism and proxy groups and malign actors in the region. It is of course in the interest of the United States and it’s in the interest of the – of American citizens. First, the Middle East region is a region in which there are a number of American citizens who live there and call it home. But beyond that, the United States, the American people, it is in their interest to see a region pull itself out of these endless cycles of violence that we have seen for far too many years, that date back further than October 7th.

So it’s not about leverage, Leon. It is what do we want to see that is the best thing that can happen for the region, that is in the interests of the American people. And pursuing a ceasefire in Gaza, continuing to have conversations with counterparts of what a post-conflict period can look like – all of these things are in the United States interest, and all of these things are in the interest of the American people. And that is true irregardless of whatever may come when it comes to our elections.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not so sure about that. But just to move on very quickly, Lebanon. Do you condone strikes against financial institutions that strike the affiliates to Hizballah? And there’s now considerable, considerable damage in southern Beirut.

QUESTION: Is it going to become another Gaza?

MR PATEL: Look, Leon, we have been pretty clear and consistent about the fact that we do not want to see regular and daily strikes into Beirut. As it relates to these specific financial institutions that you’re asking about, Leon, I’ve seen those reports, and I’d let the IDF speak to its current operations. I from up here could not offer any analysis on what kind of role they may or may not have had as it relates to Hizballah’s broader infrastructure, whether it be financial or otherwise. I’m not saying that they did or didn’t. I’m just saying I can’t offer that assessment from up here.

Broadly, though, our call continues to be the same, that Israel needs to do everything it can to not target civilian infrastructure and abide by international humanitarian law, and in all of its operations needs to take every possible measure to minimize impacts on civilians and civilian infrastructure. This is something that Secretary Blinken has raised consistently with engagements that he’s had with counterparts, but it’s also something that President Biden raised with the prime minister earlier in the year as well.

QUESTION: There’s new reporting that the State Department is investigating an IDF unit for alleged sexual assault of Palestinian detainees. Is that true? And if so, what additional detail can you provide on that?

And then separately, just wanted to ask if the State Department is still facilitating flights out of Lebanon.

MR PATEL: So on your first question, Nick, I just wouldn’t speak to deliberative processes in detail. What I can say is that in any country where we have a security relationship, we of course have processes in place to assess and look at things when certain facts are raised or facts are brought to the United States. In all these places, it’s our obligations to do so. But I – what I can say is that I have no news to share or anything to announce in the context of any sort of policy designation with respect to Israel, and as I said, we wouldn’t speak to deliberative and ongoing processes.

And on Lebanon, so I appreciate your question. A couple of updates on that. So our most recent U.S. Government-offered flight was on Thursday of this past week, on Thursday, October 17th, to Doha, and we expect another flight to take place on October 23rd, this coming Wednesday. As many of you who have been following this issue closely, we will continue to organize flights based on demand. Obviously, with the next flight being on Wednesday, we have moved away from a daily cadence, but we will continue to look at what demand is and make adjustments to the contract as we need in either direction, and we’ll continue to assist U.S. citizens with seats on commercial flights, which are available daily to a range of destinations.

QUESTION: Thanks. Biden’s envoy, Amos Hochstein, is in Lebanon. He had said that UN Resolution 1701 is not enough and that Israel and Lebanon need to be working on a formula that brings an end to this conflict once and for all. Can you give any more details on what he was referring to, whether that’s on-the-ground forces? Obviously, we know he’s talking to political figures, and the goal for the U.S. is to get a political resolution. But is he talking more about the immediate terms in terms of troops, on-the-ground forces?

MR PATEL: So I think, if you look back at Special Envoy Hochstein’s statement specifically, what he said is both sides simply committing to 1701 is not enough, and certainly we would agree with that. What we want to see ultimately in any diplomatic engagement is action, and then of course in the context of northern Israel and southern Lebanon, what we want to see is the effective implementation of 1701. Of course, a commitment to such a thing would of course not nearly be enough. What we want to see is something in action.

But that being said, we are continuing to work with the Government of Lebanon, the state of Lebanon, as well as the Government of Israel to get a formula that brings this conflict to an end for once and for all. We are ultimately seeking out a diplomatic resolution. Our North Star and our goal here continues to be creating the conditions that will allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return home.

QUESTION: And can I ask about this Axios reporting earlier today? There was – it’s reporting that the – that Israel gave a U.S. document – gave the U.S. a document saying what its demands are for ending the conflict with Lebanon, and part of that document was effectively saying that it can enforce, i.e. target, anywhere in the country as part of enforcing what it wants for ending the war. Do you have any —

MR PATEL: So I’ve not seen that reporting, and I certainly am not sure what that document is referring to. Again, in the context of Lebanon, we have been very consistent for many, many days and weeks now of what it is that we exactly want to see. We, of course, are not being naive about Hizballah, and they are in fact a terrorist organization, and they have had a stranglehold on much of Lebanon for quite some time now. And so we of course support efforts to degrade them, degrade their infrastructure. We want to make sure, though, that civilians are protected. We certainly don’t want to see any daily, regular strikes of Beirut, and we want to see every possible measure taken to protect civilians.

But beyond that, we ultimately want to see a diplomatic resolution – of course, one that is in line with 1701, that we believe will allow civilians to return home. That continues to be our focus.

QUESTION: But the U.S. would not be okay with Israel being able to strike Lebanon?

MR PATEL: I just don’t want to speculate around the context of this purported document because I truly have no idea what this reporting is referring to. What I can say now in the context of the ongoing kinetic activity is that we certainly don’t want to see any kind of daily strikes or action into Beirut, certainly one that – ones that have the potential to impact civilians and civilian infrastructure on a regular basis.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: Now, you keep insisting that Israel has accepted the proposal suggested by the President on May 31 and in fact adopted in a UN – a UN resolution, a Security Council resolution, on June 10. So can we expect that during the Secretary’s visit this time around that the Israelis will – the Israeli prime minister will say he adheres to the proposal as was submitted and adopted by the United Nations?

MR PATEL: Said, that is a question for the Israeli prime minister’s office and the Government of Israel. And certainly we are not the spokespeople for them, and I will let them speak to whatever it is their approach is now in the – after – immediate afterdays of Mr. Sinwar’s death. What I can speak to is what the United States approaches, and that, Said – and you heard me speak to Leon and Simon a little bit – in that for many, many, many months now, Mr. Sinwar had been the major obstacle to getting to a yes. Of course, time has passed since then, and there need to be continuing conversations that need to be had. Details as it relates to the proposal continue to need to be ironed out. And ultimately, this is a decision that only the Israelis can make and the Israeli prime minister can make.

But what the Secretary – the message that the Secretary will be bringing is that a ceasefire in Gaza, one that ends the conflict, one that allows an additional influx of humanitarian aid, one that creates the conditions for the remaining hostages – including the remaining seven American citizens – to return home – that is in the interest of the Israeli people, the Palestinian people. It is certainly in the interest of the United States and the American people. And that is what we will work collectively to pursue, but also in close coordination with partners in the region because the day-after period is also vitally important as well to make sure that we keep the region on track so it stops getting out of these endless cycles of violence.

QUESTION: Yes, but since it was an Israeli proposal to begin with, do you expect that the Israeli Government will come out and say, this is the proposal we accept?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to – Said, I’m not going to —

QUESTION: I’m just asking you.

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on any announcements that may or may not come out of this trip.

QUESTION: All right. All right.

MR PATEL: I of course have no doubt that you’ll be paying attention to the Secretary’s trip closely, and I will let him and/or the Government of Israel speak directly.

QUESTION: Well, let me ask you about a massacre that took place on Saturday in Beit Lahia – a hundred people were killed, maybe more – many more injured. It was mainly civilians. I know Israel like to say under the pretext that there were fighters there, but we have seen the irrefutable evidence that Hamas fighters fight in twos and threes, as we have seen when their leader was fighting in twos and threes and so on, because it is more effective and it’s safer for them. So why is it so difficult for the United States of America – that has always adopted and espoused high standards on human rights and so on – why is it so difficult to condemn the massacre of civilians in this very case?

MR PATEL: Said, when we have seen action that has impacted civilians, when we have seen actions that have impacted civilians in a disproportionate way, we certainly have spoken to it. And of course, in the context of Gaza, we have not – we have not been unambiguous about the concerns that we continue to have that – about its impact on civilians, both in the death toll but also in the humanitarian impacts. And these are one of the things that we expect the Secretary to raise and continue to engage on on his travels.

QUESTION: But you do condemn the deliberate and wanton killing of civilians, don’t you?

MR PATEL: Of course we do, Said.

QUESTION: All right. Let me – let me just follow up on this very issue. Your ally, one of your strongest ally, is Jordan, and this is what Ayman Safadi said yesterday. He said, “The horror Israel is bringing on the entire population of northern Gaza [isn’t human]. It is pure evil and a war crime that humanity should not tolerate.” Do you agree with the foreign minister of Jordan, your good ally?

MR PATEL: So I’ve not – I’ve not – I’ve not seen Mr. Safadi’s comments, Said, and certainly am not going to get into a public discussion or speak to private diplomatic conversations up here. What I can say is that we know that the – that Jordan shares the United States’s commitment of what we want to see for the region, which is ultimately, of course, regional stability and as well protections for civilians. We all have a strong interest in trying to create an environment in which people involved in this conflict can return to their homes and live safely and securely. Certainly that includes the Palestinian people, and that is something that we are going to continue to work towards and it’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards in close coordination with our Jordanian partners as well.

QUESTION: Last thing – last thing I have – on aid, please.

QUESTION: Yeah, now just to follow up on what —

QUESTION: — Simon asked.

QUESTION: Now, your 30-day thing – I mean, Israel banned six organizations from getting aid into Gaza. Do you feel that Israel feels that it has this 30 days to do whatever it wants, that it can take whatever comfort that it can continue to prevent aid from going in? In the meantime —

QUESTION: — you have 400,000 people that are being starved to death and now burnt to death.

MR PATEL: Said, I couldn’t speak to what Israel thinks or doesn’t think. What I can speak to is the approach that the United States is taking, which is that we want to see the humanitarian situation in Gaza significantly improved, and that of course – that 30-day thing that you’re referring to was a letter from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense laying out very clearly what expectations we had and what changes that we want to see. And I’ll add it is simply just a reflection of U.S. policy. We are always going to appropriately enforce the laws that we are bound by, which is of course that in – when we have countries in which we have security relationships with, when we have humanitarian conditions as such, there are certain expectations and metrics that we need to see. And we will continue to push them to see those, and I have no doubt that the Secretary will raise this directly.

Alex, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. A couple questions, just switching topic. Moldova.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you have anything to add to what White House told us about the elections, if there’s any lesson that you guys have learned about Russian meddling, tactics of Russian meddling, and any response, any punishment, any reaction from the West we should expect in the coming days and —

MR PATEL: So I – certainly, Alex, I would not preview any actions from up here. But we would commend the Moldovan people for their participation in the October 20th election and referendum. And as we approach the second round of presidential elections on November 3rd, we’ll continue to support Moldova’s commitment to ensuring a credible and democratic process.

As it relates to the second part of your question, we and other international election observers noted some reports of malicious cyber activity, disinformation, and other things that are consistent with what we’ve seen the Kremlin do elsewhere and what the Kremlin has supported in its intent to undermine Moldova’s sovereignty. But in terms of the results as it relates to the referendum, Alex, we also congratulate Moldova for the passage of the referendum, ensuring the EU path in their constitution. Our viewpoint continues to be that Moldova’s future is in Europe. As it relates to these allegations, we certainly would want them to be investigated and resolved through appropriate transparent legal processes, but I’m not going to speculate any more on that.

QUESTION: Thank you. Moving to Ukraine.

QUESTION: I know my colleagues have asked about North Korea, but North Korea is sending troops into Russia to fight in Ukraine. White House told us this morning that you are still investigating that, but the topic came up two weeks ago in this room, and I’m just having trouble understanding: Why does it take this long? Is it an intelligence failure or is it lack of trust in your allies? There’s Ukrainian intelligence, South Korea put it out there as public. Why is it taking this long?

MR PATEL: So, Alex, I’m certainly not going to get into or speak to ongoing processes that may exist to verify or ascertain certain information. But specifically to – as it relates to the question you asked, we have seen reports that the DPRK has sent soldiers to fight alongside Russian security services. We’re unable to confirm whether these reports are accurate, but if true, it would mark for a dangerous and highly concerning development in Russia’s war against Ukraine. And we’ll continue to consult with allies and partners on the implications of such a dramatic move.

But – and I want to be very clear about something, Alex. If this is accurate, it would also demonstrate what we would view as Russia’s growing desperation in its ongoing war of aggression. It is not hyperbole to say that Russia is suffering extraordinary casualties on the battlefield every day due to the effectiveness of the Ukrainian military. And if Russia is indeed being forced to turn to the DPRK for manpower, this would be a – certainly a sign of desperation on the part of the Kremlin.

QUESTION: I mean, I’ve heard that line before. I mean, in fact, this is a line we have been hearing for two weeks now. Why do you guys want us to care about what it would mean, other than where it actually will happen or take and how to respond to it?

MR PATEL: Well, Alex, we’re just not at a place to confirm whether these reports are accurate. I’m sorry that’s not a swift enough process for you, but we try to work and act deliberately in the United States, and I would just point you back to all the other times that we have offered updates and assessments about Russia’s operation into Ukraine and Russia’s potential closening of the relationship with a – with an adversary. When we have been able to ascertain some of those facts and we’re in a place to share them, we can and we will. I’m certainly not going to get ahead of the process on this one.

QUESTION: I have a last topic if – please indulge me – on the – on Azerbaijan.

MR PATEL: I’m going to let – Janne’s patiently had her hand up.

QUESTION: Please come back to me later.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Janne. Yeah.

MR PATEL: Thank you very much, Vedant. A couple of questions on Ukraine and North Korea. Ukraine President Zelenskyy and South Korea’s National Intelligence Service released clear evidence, including a video of North Korean troops being dispatched to Russia, and it was revealed 12,000 soldiers in the special forces are training at the Sergeevsky training camp disguised in Russian military uniform and ID card. But why has the United States not yet confirmed whether this is true or not?

MR PATEL: So, Janne, look, I – just to echo again what I said to Alex, we’re not yet at a point where we’re able to confirm those reports and whether they are accurate. But I just want to echo again that if they are true, it’s two things. One, it is a show of the desperation that the Kremlin has found themselves in, but it would also be a dangerous and highly concerning development in Russia’s war against Ukraine. It also would be another example of the closening of relations that we see between Russia and the DPRK. But again, at this point, I don’t have a assessment to offer from the United States in terms of whether these reports are accurate or not.

QUESTION: Follow-up: If the dispatch of North Korean troops to Russia is true and confirmed, will there be a change – change in support from the United States, EU, and NATO?

MR PATEL: Well, I’m not going to speculate at all, Janne. Look, when we have seen the Russian Federation closen relations with another country or rely on another country for its efforts in Ukraine – and an example that I can think of is the closening of relations that we have seen between Russia and Iran – you certainly have seen the United States take appropriate action, and we will certainly not waver when it comes to the support that we’ll continue to provide our Ukrainian partners.

QUESTION: Quick last one.

MR PATEL: Okay. Go ahead. Then I’ve got to work the room.

QUESTION: Although the Middle East – although the Middle East issue is considered important, the Korean Peninsula issue is also important. What impact do you think the North Korean military’s dispatch of troops to Russia will have on the Korean Peninsula in the future?

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to speculate on what impact it could have on the Korean Peninsula beyond just saying, again, if these reports are true, it certainly would be another example of a reckless and destabilizing action that we are seeing the DPRK participate in. But again, I don’t want to – don’t want to speculate.

Rabia, you’ve had your hand up patiently. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have a question on Türkiye.

QUESTION: Fethullah Gulen, the leader of FETO, whom Türkiye has long sought to extradite for orchestrating the 2016 failed coup, died yesterday. Have you seen the reports, and does the U.S. have any comment on this considering this issue has been a major sticking point between those countries?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports but I have nothing to offer. I wouldn’t comment on matters involving a – private individuals living in the United States. So I have seen those reports but don’t have anything to offer.

MR PATEL: Oh, on the same topic?

QUESTION: The same topic.

MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you, Diyar. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Has Türkiye reached out for his body?

MR PATEL: I – again, we’re talking about what would be a private individual living in the United States, so I just wouldn’t get into that for privacy considerations. So I will leave it at that.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: Yesterday the Kurdistan Region held election and you observed this election very closely. So what’s your comment on this process? Was it free, fair, and transparent election as you urged the political parties for that?

MR PATEL: Well, let me say a couple of things, Diyar. First, promoting democratic values is a key priority for the U.S. Government as it fosters global stability and it strengthens alliances. These are things that we think are integral to what our interests are in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and beyond. We certainly applaud the role that civil society and the media had in this election in fostering political dialogue and amplifying the voices of Iraqi Kurdistan Region residents ahead of the election.

What we saw is high voter turnout and an election that proceeded without major security incidents. We saw some reporting of some logistical challenges at various polling stations, but overall from our viewpoint the process went forward fairly orderly. And our focus now, Diyar, is that we are strongly urging political parties to engage in a prompt and sustained dialogue to swiftly form a stable and representative government without delay. We think that is the next appropriate step.

QUESTION: Yeah. Vedant, forming a government without delay, this is what you are calling for. But as you may know, none of the political parties won enough seats to form that government. So will there be any U.S. engagement with the political parties to come together and form a government without delay?

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to preview any specific engagement, Diyar, but we call on Kurdish leaders to find a way to move past their differences and form a government. Our view is that there is more that unites Iraqi Kurdistan leaders than divides them, and its interest in the – it’s in the interest of the people to move forward in an inclusive process and form a government as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Let me go to Prem. He’s had his hand up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: One follow-up on Simon and Said’s questions.

QUESTION: Last week, the U.S. sent that letter urging Israel to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza and heed international law. In that time, the Israeli military has targeted a child and then bombed him and the people trying to help him, banned aid organizations, repeatedly bombed a refugee camp, attacked the remaining hospitals in northern Gaza, killed four engineers fixing water systems, rounded up people, tied them, blindfolded them, bombed an UNRWA shelter, and killed a 59-year-old woman as she harvested olives on her land in the West Bank.

What does it mean if the Israeli Government responds to U.S. requests to follow international law by committing possible violations of international law?

MR PATEL: So first, Prem, I just want to be very clear that as it relates to the specifics of some of these operations, I will let the Government of Israel and the IDF speak to that.

The point of the letter also was to provide a timeline of which – in which we wanted to see certain factors as it relates to the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and addressing humanitarian concerns addressed. The timeline for that is not – we are not at the end of that process, and so I am certainly not going to speculate or draw conclusions or assessments on that when we are still within that timeframe.

What I can say unequivocally is that we want to see the humanitarian situation in Gaza addressed. We – as Matt spoke about last week, we saw a couple of benchmarks move forward, specifically the opening of some crossings. That is of course a positive step in the right direction, not at all conclusive and certainly not as – not at all satisfactory to a lot of the things that we’ve laid out in the letter. There was also a couple of other things that we wanted to see, particularly as it relates to how evacuations are undertook and a couple of other efforts. That work certainly still remains and certainly there is still a lot of work that needs to be done as it relates to addressing the humanitarian situation. And I expect these are some of the specific things I expect the Secretary to raise.

And on top of that, we have been unequivocal that as these operations are conducted that every possible efforts needs to be taken to minimize impacts on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

And if you’ll just allow me to address your last point about the woman who was harvesting olives in the West Bank, these reports are incredibly concerning. We understand that the IDF has taken some additional – initial steps, that the officer was suspended. The IDF has released a statement that an investigation has been opened by the military police, the commander has been suspended from her position until this investigation concludes. And our expectation is that Israel investigate this thoroughly, swiftly, transparently, and it seeks accountability in this instant as well.

And I will just note that we – it is not lost on our – on us that the annual olive harvest is major economic activity to Palestinian people and to the Palestinian economy, and we believe that Palestinians need to have access to their land to conduct these kinds of harvests when appropriate.

QUESTION: So that reminds me. After the killing of Aysenur Egyi about a month and a half, two months ago, the department mentioned how this shows that it seems that the Israeli military needs to really consider and reconsider its rules of engagement. What does it say that not only – and I know you mentioned that there’s been accountability for the soldier, allegedly, who killed the 59-year-old woman. But there’s that case – there’s specifically this case of a child being targeted, and as he calls for help, as people descend upon him to help him, they get bombed. I know you said you won’t comment on all of these operations, but is that an operation? That just seems like a killing.

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to, again, speak to these incidents in specificity. But I can say, Prem, that what we said before continues to be the case. And it continues to be that we want to see some changes when it comes to military engagement and the rules of engagement, particularly as it relates to the West Bank. That continues to be something that we want to see.

QUESTION: Okay. And then finally, just a —

QUESTION: — finer point. The department last week said the reason the U.S. gave Israel 30 days to improve the situation in Gaza was to give them enough time to cure the problem. You just said that this letter was also about affirming existing U.S. policy. So what exactly happens if the Israeli Government doesn’t heed U.S. policy? Twenty-three days from now, if these bombings continue, these capturings, these killings, continue – as they have for the past 380 days – what specifically will the U.S. do?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to – just I’m not going to speculate on what may or may not happen, Prem. I can say – and you had heard Matt say this last week as well – we, of course, will appropriately enforce what U.S. law is. We are bound by the laws that govern our government, and of course govern the security relationships that we have with any particular country. I’m not going to speculate what that process is. There is still quite some time before we’re at that point.

QUESTION: Why (inaudible) —

MR PATEL: We hope that we want to – we hope that we don’t have to get there.

MR PATEL: Our hope is that see some effective remediation in efforts surrounding humanitarian access and humanitarian aid. And we hope that we don’t have to get to that point. So I will continue to let that process play out. I know that this is something that is important to the Secretary, and he’ll be raising it with counterparts on this trip.

Go ahead, in the back.

QUESTION: Why hasn’t it been (inaudible) up to this point?

MR PATEL: Go – yeah.

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier that, with regard to humanitarian aid, you’ve seen some positive steps over the past week. Is this a consequence of the timeline set by the U.S. in terms of improving humanitarian supplies?

MR PATEL: You’ll have to speak to the Israelis and members of their government involved in the provision of humanitarian aid whether it is a byproduct of the letter or not. What I can say is that outside of, of course, the letter, which – as Matt spoke about – was intending to stay private, we have talked about humanitarian aid and the importance of it through relevant counterpart-to-counterpart and diplomatic channels. And so this is a round-the-clock effort, not solely just through this letter.

And so we consistently have raised concerns around humanitarian issues when we have seen things happen, whether it be crossings close or certain access points not be as easily accessible. We’ve raised those directly, and we’ll continue to do so. So I’m not going to speculate on where those changes came from. It obviously was a positive step in the right direction. But as I said in speaking to Prem, we want to see additional steps taken.

QUESTION: If I can just – on another issue.

QUESTION: There are several reports that the U.S. is investigating the actions of an Israeli unit, unit 100, which guards detainees from Gaza. Can you comment on that at all? Is there an investigation?

MR PATEL: This is what happens when you come to the briefing a little tardy. I spoke to this question already, so I will just – I’ll point you back to the transcript, but just say broadly that we certainly would not speak to any kind of ongoing efforts that we may have or have not in place as it relates to any country in which we have security relationships with. We just wouldn’t speak to that.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Thank you very much. First, a quick thank you to the State Department for finally giving me a hard pass. I got it after 10 years, so thank you. (Laughter and applause.)

MR PATEL: Buckle up, everybody.

QUESTION: And a quick compliment to you and Matt, that these last two weeks before elections are left, and you guys are doing a wonderful job, so I just want to salute you on that.

MR PATEL: Thanks, I guess.

QUESTION: Quick three questions, sir. Number one, in Pakistan one of our journalists – Hamid Mir is like Anderson Cooper in Pakistan – he had reported many years ago that a big news media owner and a journalist writer himself had paid this much about – I think in those years it was like $4-5 million – to buy these member of parliaments, like horse trading was done. That gentleman was my father, by the way, that he was writing about.

During this weekend, a similar incident happened. But this time, the congressman, the female even congressman, whose video I had shared with your colleague – their kids were kidnapped. Even their handicapped kids were kidnapped. While they were standing in the senate, they were shivering.

QUESTION: Is this the democracy that you are – is this the democracy that you want to see in Pakistan?

MR PATEL: So Jalil, I have – I don’t have anything to offer as it relates to what you laid out. If – of course, for anything – for any kind of kidnapping, that – certainly we would defer to local law enforcements. If that is true or not, I wouldn’t get into from up here.

MR PATEL: Simon, go.

QUESTION: So – just one question, please? One more?

QUESTION: Sorry, two more, but one more —

MR PATEL: You can do one more. And then Simon’s had his hand up pretty patiently for a while now. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. An Oxford graduate running the biggest charity cancer hospital, running one of the biggest charity university in the country, for last one month his treatment has been – his two sisters are arrested; his wife is arrested; his nephew is arrested.

MR PATEL: Again, is there a question, Jalil?

QUESTION: Are there any human rights that your ambassador tells you that if on such level human rights are violated – do you know what is happening on like normal guys level?

MR PATEL: Jalil, we engage on human rights regularly and with all countries with which we have relationships with. That is at the forefront of our engagements. And in the context of Pakistan, of course, it is something that we raise directly through our ambassador and through others as well. I don’t have any specifics to offer.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? A small one on that.

MR PATEL: I – Simon’s had his hand up for a while now.

QUESTION: Just a small one on that. Come on.

QUESTION: I wanted to come back to one of your answers to Leon earlier —

QUESTION: — on the Hizballah financing. So this bank organization Al-Qard Al-Hassan has been under OFAC sanctions. Just – I just wanted to kind of go back to your answer to Leon though. Do – you talked about sort of civilian infrastructure should be avoided, but if the – Israel is like specifically saying they’re going to go after this financial institution. Is that okay under the sort of terms that you guys have set out about this bombing campaign?

MR PATEL: So Simon, if there are, of course, Hizballah fighters or Hizballah infrastructure operating from such a facility, that would, of course – we’d support the degradation of Hizballah and the degradation of Hizballah infrastructure. The point that I was raising to Leon is the specifics in which how this institution may or may not ladder up or feed into Hizballah’s financial network, I’m not an expert in that, wouldn’t be able to speak to that from here. Perhaps OFAC might be a place to speak to.

But the broader point that I was making is that even when those kinds of operations are being undertook and those kinds of Hizballah infrastructures are being targeted that every possible measure needs to be taken to minimize its impact on civilians.

QUESTION: But when you talk about targeting Hizballah, does that include this financial infrastructure which also serves civilian purposes? It’s kind of – it’s straddling a line between a militant group and doing services for the public. So I guess you’ve given them sanctions for aiding Hizballah, which you consider a terrorist organization, but does that mean that banks that deal with funding for terrorism are now legitimate targets for airstrikes?

MR PATEL: So the – look, the – ultimately, Israel is a sovereign country and will make its own targeting decisions. Whether they’re in any facility, in any – and this consistent – it’s been our consistent approach is that in any facility or institution, whether it is – when there are civilians, every possible measure needs to be taken to protect and minimize civilians and the impact on civilians. However, much like Hamas, Hizballah is a terrorist group that operates within civilian infrastructure, has co-located itself within civilian infrastructure. And when that happens, civilian infrastructure can, unfortunately, becomes targets.

We want every possible thing to happen so that doesn’t – isn’t the case. And that is why we keep coming back to – one of the things we keep coming back to rather is 1701, because in that agreement in 2006, Hizballah was supposed to lay down its arms. And had they done so, we would not even be in this situation right now.

So again, I am not – don’t have any specific thoughts to offer as it relates to this particular institution. Israel will ultimately make its own targeting decisions. But even when there are terrorist actors at or embedded within civilian infrastructure, appropriate measures need to and should be taken to minimize its impacts on civilians.

QUESTION: Right. They make their own targeting decisions, but they’re using your weapons so you do have some legal requirements to have some influence on that. But just to be clear, what you – you mentioned Hamas as a kind of parallel to this. I think it’s pretty clear that Israel’s approach to Hamas has been every official – whether they’re a militant, whether they’ve ever picked up a weapon, if they’re part of an organization called Hamas is a legitimate target, right? That’s been their policy in Gaza basically.

MR PATEL: I’ll let them clarify their approach, Simon.

QUESTION: But if that’s their —

MR PATEL: It’s not for me to speak to.

QUESTION: If that’s their policy in Lebanon, Hizballah is a slightly different organization. Hizballah has political representations. I’m not – I’m just – hypothetically, there could be people working for this financial organization who have no connection to militancy, in that they’ve never committed a violent act. But are you —

QUESTION: Your position seems to be that it’s okay for them to be targeted?

MR PATEL: Simon, Hizballah ultimately is a terrorist organization. Hizballah is a terrorist organization that has American blood on their hands, it has Israeli blood on their hands, it has Lebanese civilians’ blood on their hands. And we, of course, support efforts to hold them accountable, to degrade, to degrade their infrastructure. While that – those operations are being conducted, we, of course, want to see every measure taken so that impacts on civilians are minimized.

I’m just not going to —

QUESTION: Seems to be a kind of meaningless distinction.

MR PATEL: I am just not going to – I don’t have any other assessment to offer on this beyond that.

Jackson, go ahead. And then we’ll probably wrap.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Is there any comment on reports of Israeli forces demolishing a watchtower and perimeter fence at a UNIFIL outpost in Lebanon yesterday?

MR PATEL: We’ve seen those reports, and we’ve asked our colleagues in the IDF for additional information, and I will let the Israeli ministry of defense answer any questions about those operations. But we have been clear with all parties that their needs to be protections of UNIFIL personnel and facilities. UNIFIL operates in Lebanon under a mandate from the UN Security Council, and these facilities and these individuals must not be armed.

QUESTION: And does the department have any comment about the arrest of U.S. citizen, journalist Jeremy Loffredo in Israel earlier this month? Last we heard, a district court ordered Mr. Loffredo to remain in Israel into October 20th for police questioning. What’s his current status?

MR PATEL: My understanding is that Mr. Loffredo has left Israel.

MR PATEL: Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. The Commerce Department today removed the technology company Sandvine from its entity list, citing changes in the company’s – that the company made to its corporate governance —

QUESTION: — and practices. Now, the company was added earlier this year to the list after evidence surfaced that Sandvine technology was used to conduct mass web monitoring targeting human rights activists. Now, I was wondering whether the State Department shares the Department of Commerce’s view that Sandvine’s remediations were significant enough for this action?

MR PATEL: So we strongly supported the original Commerce action to add Sandvine to the Entity List in February of this year. That’s consistent with this administration’s approach to countering the misuse of surveillance and other technologies as it relates to human right abuses. And we worked alongside Commerce over the past several months to closely monitor the reforms that Sandvine has undertaken in response to its entity listing, and we agree with Commerce that these significant remedial steps to its corporate governance and business practices were effective enough for the designation to be removed.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:01 p.m.)

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start with some opening remarks. Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas who was killed in an Israeli military operation in Gaza yesterday, was a brutal, vicious terrorist responsible for the death of American citizens, Israelis, and civilians from more than 30 countries across the world.

His decision – and it was very much his decision – to launch the terrorist attacks of October 7th unleashed a year of tragedy in the Middle East: 1,200 people murdered on October 7th, 254 hostages kidnapped and hauled into Gaza – including children, infants, elderly, and men and women of all ages – more than 40,000 people dead in Gaza, many of them civilians.

That is the blood-soaked legacy that Yahya Sinwar leaves behind. He didn’t just launch this conflict, but for the past year has refused the efforts of the United States and our partners to end it; refused to return home the hostages who have been separated from their families for more than a year; refused to agree to a ceasefire proposal endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world; and who in recent weeks refused to even negotiate at all on a ceasefire and an end to the war.

There are 101 hostages who remain in Gaza, including seven Americans. And of course, there are 2 million Palestinians who continue to suffer the consequences of Sinwar’s decision to endanger their lives.

The path that Sinwar wanted for the region – death, destruction, instability, chaos – is a path that we know the people of the region reject. The horrors of the past year cannot be the future, and they do not need to be the future. It is time to chart a different path.

So, over the days ahead, the United States will redouble our efforts to return the hostages home, to bring an end to this war, to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, and to allow the people of Gaza to begin to rebuild their lives.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. I’ll start with this, obviously, but please don’t close the briefing without allowing me or someone else to ask about the other very big story of the day, which is, of course, the new UN partition proposal for Western Sahara.

QUESTION: So, when you say that over the course of the – over the coming – over the days ahead the U.S. will redouble your efforts, how exactly is that going to happen?

MR MILLER: So, a few things about that. First of all, as you know, we’ve been trying to achieve a ceasefire that returns the hostages home, alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ends the war for many months now. And the chief obstacle to reaching that ceasefire and bringing an end to the war has been Sinwar, who has refused to negotiate at all in recent weeks and has said no time and time again. That obstacle has obviously been removed. Can’t predict that that means that whoever replaces Hamas^[1] will agree to a ceasefire, but it does remove what has been in recent months the chief obstacle to getting one. So,we’re going to continue to work with our partners to try to find an end to the war. The Secretary already today while on Air Force One with the President flying to Berlin called the prime minister of Qatar, who has been one of our two mediators – other mediators – working to reach an end to the war. He called the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia to talk about the path forward, and he will be having additional contacts in the days ahead.

QUESTION: Right. But what exactly does redouble your efforts mean?

MR MILLER: So, it means redoubling our efforts to try and get an agreement —

QUESTION: No, no. I get —

MR MILLER: — that would bring the hostages home – look – I’m not – so —

QUESTION: I’m asking you for the logistics. I understand what you want.

MR MILLER: The – so —

QUESTION: I want to know what that actually means, “redouble.” Does it mean that you’re going to be making twice as many calls as you were —

MR MILLER: So, you know the proposal that has been on the table for some time.

MR MILLER: We’re going to be trying to push that proposal forward. We now have a different – well, we don’t know who will be on the other end of the negotiating table now, but it certainly won’t be Sinwar. So, there is a different – it is a very different situation. Now, I don’t want to predict too much what our efforts will look like over the course of the days because we are just hours after what is a seismic event that changes the nature of this conflict. But we believe it is an opportunity to try and bring an end to this war, and we’re determined to try and seize that opportunity.

QUESTION: Okay. But – so you – but in —

MR MILLER: So I – the only reason – the only reason I —

QUESTION: Are we – are you going back to a place where you were two or three – two months ago? Because I just don’t – the redoubling suggests that you are going to —

MR MILLER: We are into – we are – from a – from a policy perspective and what we – a strategic objectives perspective of what we want to achieve, we are in the same place, and we are going to continue to try to push forward the same proposals we have done with our mediators.

QUESTION: The same proposals. So – okay. So, redoubling does not include changes to —

MR MILLER: The – now, there may – the – so it – so here’s the difference. Over the past few weeks, there have been no negotiations for an end to the war because Sinwar has refused to negotiate. There’s been no path to ending this war because Sinwar has refused to talk about releasing the hostages or coming to a ceasefire. We now see an opportunity with him being removed from the battlefield, being removed from the leadership of Hamas, and we want to seize that opportunity.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

QUESTION: A couple of things. Can you confirm that Sinwar died yesterday?

MR MILLER: He was – so I assume that he died yesterday. So, I will leave the Israelis to speak to the exact results, but it was as the result of an operation that they conducted yesterday. I don’t believe that he lay where he was brought down for hours and died later, but the Israelis can speak to that. They will be the ones that conduct any testing and can provide any results.

QUESTION: So, no – no confirmation, but that’s your belief or understanding?

MR MILLER: The operation they carried out was yesterday. I assume that he died instantly or fairly shortly thereafter, but the Israelis can speak to that.

QUESTION: Does Qatar – does the leadership in Qatar after the Secretary spoke to them – do you suspect or do you know if they know who Hamas’s chosen successor is going to be?

MR MILLER: I don’t think anyone can say with any certainty. Hamas has a process that they go through in these situations. We saw them go through that process after the death of Haniyeh. I could only expect that they will go through that process again. I don’t think anyone can predict. People can always speculate, of course, about who the next leader of Hamas will be, but I don’t think anyone can predict with any degree of certainty.

But what I would hope, what we would hope, is that whoever the next leader of Hamas is, he will look at what has happened over the past year, and look at the suffering that Hamas’s actions have brought upon the Palestinian people who they aim to represent – whose cause they aim to advance, and will look and decide that they ought to pursue a different path forward. They ought to pursue a path that isn’t one of death and destruction and chaos, and harm to Israeli civilians and harm to Palestinian civilians, but one that the United States has presented, that Egypt has presented, that Qatar has presented, that other countries in the region and around the world have presented and endorsed. And so that’s what we’ll be pushing for.

QUESTION: Are you communicating that to – indirectly to I guess the remaining leadership there, the – have you – are you communicating that is the United States hope and what you are pushing for?

MR MILLER: We – so I’m not going to speak about any communications that our mediators will have. We always let them speak to those. We are communicating with Qatar. We’ll be communicating with other partners in the region. I think that our position is fairly well known. Now, of course, we don’t know who the person at the other end of the phone is going be, don’t know who will be making decisions for Hamas now. What we do know is that the person who had been the chief obstacle to moving forward with an end of the war is now fortuitously no longer with us.

QUESTION: Last question: And so, I know that you hope this is a big opportunity for ceasefire negotiations and a deal and return of the hostages, but a little more macro, what about for a two-state solution? How do you think this —

MR MILLER: Of course that is the goal that we want to see. That has been our policy for some time. We ultimately want to see a path forward that allows Palestinians in Gaza to rebuild their lives, to rebuild their neighborhoods, to have security; to have Palestinian-led governance that they choose, not that it’s imposed upon them by the outside the world; to live free from the grip of a brutal terrorist organization as opposed to how they have been living in Gaza for the past couple of decades; and ultimately, an independent Palestinian state where Gaza is reunited with the West Bank.

QUESTION: But is that – that’s just like a lot of hope and no chance, or have you seen any, I don’t know, indications that that could – this could create an opening for that?

MR MILLER: Well, I do want to just step back, and this I think will be an answer I give to a lot of questions like that today, which is we are just hours after a very significant event. I think we’re going to have to watch and see how things settle before people can make predictions about how the days, weeks, and months ahead will play out. One thing we do know for certain is that the world is a better place with Sinwar gone from it, and it gives us an opportunity that we didn’t have as long as he still called the shots for Hamas. Now, what that will mean, we’ll have to wait and see in the days ahead.

QUESTION: Could I ask you something – you said that this removes an obstacle. On the Secretary’s last visit to Israel, he said very publicly that Netanyahu was on board with the ceasefire plan as it then stood with a bridging proposal. Does that still – is that still the perception in the United States, that the Israelis are completely on board with what was on the table?

MR MILLER: So, they were – they had accepted the bridging proposal, and if you remember, what else he said at the time is there were still remaining pieces to that deal that needed to be agreed between Hamas and Israel. So we had gone significantly down the road in first getting an agreement on the framework, then getting an agreement on the bridging proposal, but there were still a number of implementing details that needed to be implemented or needed to be agreed to and that Israel was going to face some tough decisions in getting there, and we were going to push Israel to make those tough decisions. But – and so that remains the case.

But what happened in the interim after that visit is that Hamas just walked away from negotiating table. And so, the work that we wanted to do to bridge those final differences we couldn’t do because you didn’t have two partners to talk to.

QUESTION: So – but what I’m getting at, of course, is that there was the issues of the Philadelphi Corridor and all that. Is it the impression of the United States that there needs to be efforts as well with the Israelis right now, maybe push them a little bit harder to get to the place where the U.S. wants them to be?

MR MILLER: So, as I said, of course there will be tough decisions that the Israelis will need to make to get an agreement to end this war, and we have made clear any number of times that we will have very direct, candid conversations with them about the need to make those tough decisions. But we weren’t even in a place to do that, when you have no one at the other end of the table willing to even agree to negotiate. So, you can’t tell the Israelis they have to make tough decisions when Sinwar is sitting on the other side saying I’m not even going to negotiate the end of this at all. We’re now at a different place. What that means going forward, too early to tell, but we do believe it is an opportunity that we want to pursue.

QUESTION: And just pursuing that, I mean, the – obviously, the – we’re talking about Gaza right now, but of course, there’s Lebanon, and there’s – the war has clearly expanded from where we were a few months ago. When we’re saying that – when the Secretary and the President are saying that it’s time to end the conflict, does this also mean in Lebanon? Is that – is it the time also to end the conflict —

MR MILLER: We do want to see ultimately a diplomatic resolution in all. Now, look, you face a different situation in Lebanon. There are still Hizballah forces in close proximity of the Israel border, the border between Israel and Lebanon, who still not only maintain the capability to launch terrorist attacks against Israel, but are still launching terrorist attacks against Israel – continue to rain rockets down on Israel from just across the border. So, it is a different conflict in a different space. We have never thought the two conflicts ought to be linked together, but obviously there are those in the region who have seen the two of them as linked.

So ultimately, we want to see a diplomatic resolution to that conflict. We want to see an end to the fighting there. We want to see it done in a way that guarantees the implementation of 1701, so Hizballah actually withdraws north of the Litani River. I can’t put a timetable on it as it relates to the work that we want to do in Gaza. They’re separate tracks, separate organizations, and we’ll pursue them separately.

QUESTION: And just a final thing. Just logistically, you mentioned the next – in recent days – have there already been talks by the Secretary or by others – you mentioned he was on the phone from Air Force One – with the Israelis specifically since the news came?

MR MILLER: We’ve had a number of conversations with the Israeli Government, both as we were waiting to have this information confirmed – they notified us early this morning that they believed they had killed Sinwar, but they wanted to conduct testing to confirm it, and then we had a number of a conversations, as you might imagine, at several different levels to try and confirm that information. And we’ll have further conversations in the days ahead. I think, as you saw the President say in his statement, he plans to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu in the near future.

QUESTION: You just said that the Israelis notified U.S. early this morning that they believed Sinwar was killed. Can you just give us a little bit more detail? Was that notification – did it come through this building, or did it go to the White House, or the Pentagon? Do you know where that channel was –

MR MILLER: It came in multiple channels. There were people in this building who were notified; there were people in our embassy who were notified. I certainly would expect that people in the Pentagon and people in the White House were notified as well. As you know, we have multiple channels of communication with the Government of Israel, and we were told over multiple channels early this morning.

QUESTION: And you also – you and other U.S. officials in the last hour have been saying now is the time to bring an end to this war between Hamas and Israel. But we’ve been watching as Israel’s been conducting these counterterrorism operations in Gaza, because they say Hamas is reconstituting. If the time is now to bring an end to this conflict, should they stop those counterterrorism operations?

MR MILLER: So, Israel achieved an incredibly important strategic objective today, but their other strategic objectives remain – first and foremost among them the return of the hostages, including the seven Americans who remain held hostage. So, we want to see those hostages returned home. I know Israel wants to see those hostages return home, and it’s important that they continue to work to return those hostages home.

But ultimately, we want to make sure that they take the strategic objectives that they have accomplished – and today was a significant one, but they’ve accomplished other strategic objectives over the past year in degrading Hamas’s military capabilities to the extent that in no sense could they launch an attack today that looked anything like the attack of last October 7th. They’re in no way a functioning military force the way that they were on October 7th, though they, of course, still maintain significant ability to wreak havoc and launch terror – terrorist attacks.

So, what we want to see from them – and this is what we’ll be discussing with them – is how they take those strategic objectives that they have met, and turn that into an enduring strategic victory. And from our perspective, that means a path forward in Gaza that isn’t just a military path forward for degrading Hamas, and continuing to fight Hamas fighters over and over, and seeing a hundred fighters killed and a hundred new fighters join over the course of a day or a month, and being in this perpetual cycle of continuing to fight on the ground there.

What we want to see is a path forward that brings the hostages home and sets the conditions for the day after, where you have reconstruction in Gaza. You have actual security in Gaza. And you have a political path forward for the people in Gaza that is determined by the people in Gaza. And so those are the conversations we are going to have with the Government of Israel, as well as with our other partners in the days ahead. Those are the conversations the Secretary started already today with his counterparts in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: But I guess – you didn’t answer the question as to how the counterterrorism operations that are ongoing fit into that. If you want them to drive forth an enduring victory, you said – should they stop those counterterrorism operations because Hamas has already been dismantled to such a significant degree?

MR MILLER: Look, Hamas still does pose a threat, and Israel still has a right to take on that threat. And they still have a right to try and put pressure on Hamas, and try and free the hostages that remain there. But ultimately, we think the path forward is not just to continue military operations that they will have to repeat over and over again. Because in our judgment and in the judgment of our partners in the region and our partners around the world, a path forward that doesn’t include the reconstruction and security and rebuilding and a political path forward in Gaza is not a path that will actually provide an end to the war. And that’s what we want to see ultimately, is an end to the war.

Now, I can’t tell you that that’s something that we’ll have agreement on with the Israeli Government tomorrow or next week, or with partners in the region. But it’s something that we’re going to continue to pursue.

QUESTION: And then do you have an early assessment as to where – given you said you’ve been in regular contact with Israeli officials over the last few hours, we saw the speech from Prime Minister Netanyahu – do you have an initial assessment as to where Netanyahu stands on this right now, if he’s going to be in lockstep with the United States in driving forth an end to this conflict —

MR MILLER: So – sorry.

QUESTION: — after Sinwar’s death?

MR MILLER: So, the President’s going to talk to the prime minister in the coming days. I think it’s appropriate to wait for that conversation before we offer any kind of assessment.

QUESTION: And then just last question. Yeah, that makes sense. The day-after plan – there have been many conversations in this building about when you guys are going to release that. That has been long worked on in this building. Is the time now?

MR MILLER: So, I don’t want to preview any announcements, but obviously we want to seize the opportunity created by the death of Sinwar, and that means an opportunity to end the war. And it means an opportunity to get to the day after. And so, we have been working on this for months, and it’s not just happening inside this building, but – as you know, happening in conversations with our partners first and foremost in the region, but also our partners in other countries around the world. And we do want to look to push those plans forward in the days ahead.

I’m not going to preview any specific announcements or give any specific timing. Again, we’re only hours after what is a fairly seismic event. But, certainly, it’s something that we want to pursue aggressively in the days ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. To follow up on Shaun’s questions about Lebanon, Jake Sullivan just said nothing in the Middle East is unrelated. So how can you delink the ceasefire in Gaza from the fighting in Lebanon and pursue these separately?

MR MILLER: So that’s the point I just made, which is we have never believed that the two conflicts ought to be linked together. And just when you look at – you’re pursuing separate diplomatic resolutions with the state of Lebanon, and trying to find a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. So of course, Hizballah linked the two conflicts, even when we didn’t think they were linked, and Hizballah has continued to link the conflicts.

What we have always believed is stability brings about stability. So, if you could bring an end to the conflict in Gaza, that heightens the chances of reaching a diplomatic resolution to the fight across the Blue Line. And that remains our assessment.

QUESTION: And then Netanyahu said today that their task is not complete, that they will continue full force until the hostages return, and that the war is still not over. What’s your reaction to those comments? Do you see them at odds at all with Biden’s statement, which mentioned ending the war and the administration’s aim of trying to push forward the ceasefire proposal?

MR MILLER: So, as I said a moment ago in response to another question, they have a very real, very legitimate strategic objective that they need to continue to pursue, which is the return of all the hostages. And we have a very real interest in that objective as well, because seven of those 101 hostages are Americans, and we want to see them returned. So, we’re going to be in conversation with them about the best way to achieve that objective in the days ahead.

But as you know, we’ve long been clear that we think reaching a ceasefire that brings those hostages home and sets the conditions for an end of the war is the right path forward. And we’ve had longstanding conversations with Israel about that, and we hope we have an opportunity now.

QUESTION: Is continued fighting a viable path for the return of hostages at all? Or is it a ceasefire?

MR MILLER: So, as I just said, long term, no, we don’t believe it is. We don’t believe that – it’s not just that – whether it’s a path for the return of hostages. You could see how you would – you might return some hostages in one-off operations here and there. But no, you’re not going to return all the hostages through fighting, nor are you going to achieve a durable, lasting end to the war just by fighting on the battlefield. Because you kill one terrorist and see that terrorist replaced by someone else.

And so ultimately, you need to find not just – you need to achieve not just military objectives but also political objectives, and you need to create a pathway forward for the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: Are there specific steps that you want to see Israel take in the coming days and weeks toward a ceasefire?

MR MILLER: We’re going to have those conversations privately with them before we talk about it publicly. Again, as I predicated I would say this in response to another question, we are just hours after this event. I think it’s appropriate to let the President have a conversation with the prime minister, appropriate for the Secretary to have conversations with his counterparts, before we prescribe too much of that from this podium.

QUESTION: And sorry, last one. On the conversations that you mentioned Blinken has had today, has he specifically discussed post-war Gaza?

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just going back to your opening remarks and the statement that we heard from the VP Harris and the statement issued by President Biden, Sullivan at the White House, as well, all considering killing Sinwar is a renewed opportunity to end the war in Gaza. And as you said, your priority is first to release the hostages, stop the fighting, and allow the Palestinians to rebuild their homes.

But maybe there’s also the question now arise that – something that used to bother you when you – when we asked you before, that this didn’t start on October 7. It started long ago. And if not solving those roots in the future, October 7 will keep happening again. And my question is, yes, you helped Israel to – with weapons and weapons shipments and also political cover to achieve the military objective of eliminating the threats in Gaza, and now the ongoing operation in southern Lebanon, but what are you going to do after the war to push Israel more toward the solution that you see fit for this conflict, especially that advising them is not – seems to be enough?

MR MILLER: So, it’s not just the United States making clear our views on this question, but it is countries in the region and countries around the world who have made clear their views on this question. And in some cases, it’s not just their views – it’s their policies. So, you’ll recall that on a trip the Secretary made earlier this year, he went to Israel and made clear that what he had heard from countries in the region is that they were ready for a new path forward with Israel as well. There are countries in the region that were ready to put aside decades-long disputes, and normalize relations with Israel, and present a new alliance of countries inside the region that would isolate Iran.

So, there are enormous benefits for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economic development, for Israel’s relations with its neighbors and its standing in the world, to finding a political path forward that allows the Palestinian people to realize their aspirations.

Now, I get the tension inherent in your question, which is we cannot make that choice for the Government of Israel or for the people of Israel. All we can do is lay out to them the upside of ultimately moving forward with a path to a reunited Gaza and the West Bank and a political path forward for the Palestinian people. And we can lay out the risks of not pursuing that path – and the risks are well-known. But it is Israel that has to make that decision in the same way that other countries in the decision have to – in the region have to make their own decisions about the types of relationships that they want to have with Israel.

QUESTION: Then, Matt, I mean, you must know that the world doesn’t work this way. A country – if one country doesn’t adhere to UN Security Council resolutions – and in fact there will always be ways to force them toward it, whether if by UN sanctions, American sanctions, more pressure on the government to abide by the international law. And the international law states that the West Bank is an occupied land, and the two-state solutions is the way forward. But I’m asking you – I know that other countries in the international community agrees with you. But you are blocking the international agencies like the UN and others from taking any action toward Israel to force it into making this decision. And at the same time, you as a most powerful Israel ally will not take the steps as well. You are just getting – you are – what are you doing – as I heard many – several times here in this briefing, you advise them, and whatever they want to do, they’re going to do.

MR MILLER: Because we believe that, ultimately, this is a pathway forward that needs to be negotiated among the parties, not imposed upon them. And that has been the longstanding position of the United States. It will continue to be our position. But without making any predictions of what will happen in the future, the two paths that I just laid out are very stark. And they’re very different paths for the state of Israel and they’re very different paths for the region. And so, we and other countries in the region will continue to make clear to Israel the risks of continued instability and the real rewards of a path forward for the Palestinian people, and they will have to make their decisions, just as other countries do.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Olivia.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does the U.S. believe right now that the hostages who are still in Gaza are at greater risk, in greater danger? What’s the message to families who are seriously concerned about their safety at what might be a critical period?

MR MILLER: Look, I don’t have any assessment to make on that – make from here. Obviously, again, we are just in the early hours after. I would make clear to anyone who is considering harming any hostage – American or otherwise – that they will be held accountable. They should be held accountable in the same way that Yahya Sinwar was held accountable for murdering civilians and taking them hostages.

In – as it pertains to any communication to the families of hostages and to their loved ones, we will give those communications privately. As you know, we have been in close touch with the families of the seven Americans who continue to be held, and we’ll continue to be in close touch with them about the status and the well-being of their loved ones.

QUESTION: Okay. And so apart from reinvigorating ceasefire and hostage talks, there are no specific steps being taken right now vis-à-vis American or other hostages?

MR MILLER: The specific step that is being undertaken, which – I don’t mean to suggest – sound like you were downplaying in the premise to the question – that’s the step that we need to take to try and get them home. It’s – in our judgment, the most fruitful path to bringing them home is to get an agreement that gets them out. As I said, it’s long been our position that just the way the situation on the ground, the way the situation on the ground works, is you are not going to return all those hostages home through military action. You may see operations here and there that can return some hostages, but that ultimately, to bring all of them home safely, you need to reach an agreement that helps bring about an end to the war.

QUESTION: Obviously today’s development comes against the backdrop of what had been heightened tensions and expected Israeli retaliatory strike on Iran for its earlier ballistic missile attack on October 1st. What is the U.S.’s understanding as to whether that may go forward?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to read those conversations out publicly, as I have, I think, scrupulously declined to do over the past few weeks.

QUESTION: Okay. Iranian media is referring to Sinwar’s death as a martyrdom, saying he was killed while battling Israeli forces on the battlefield. What is the risk, how significant is the risk, that his death, rather than subduing militant groups in the region, emboldens them at this point?

MR MILLER: I am sure that Hamas and other terrorist groups will try to present Sinwar as some kind of hero for the Palestinian cause, but I think it’s important that everyone remember the actual facts, which is that Sinwar was a brutal terrorist that didn’t just terrorize the Israeli people but that ruled Gaza with an iron fist before October 7th, that brutalized Palestinians in Gaza, that tortured Palestinians in Gaza, and then unleashed a conflict that has been responsible for the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians.

So, I would hope that anyone that’s considering thinking of him in any favorable light at all will look on the actual consequences of his life and the decisions that he made that wreaked such havoc for the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: Last one for me. The Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his remarks today, paraphrasing, basically said that Israel had resisted all kinds of pressure – he didn’t name the provenance of the pressure – but all kinds of international pressure to stop the war, stop the fighting, and not enter Rafah. With today’s developments, in hindsight – and I know it’s early – but does it seem like the U.S.’s calls to not enter Rafah, to try to broker a ceasefire, were preemptive or at least never going to meet with Israeli approval or acceptance?

MR MILLER: No, I will say that we always made clear that we supported Israel conducting counterterrorism operations to target the leaders of Hamas and to target Hamas militants. And not only did we make clear we supported it, but we provided active intelligence support for those operations. And I think I’ll leave it at that.

MR MILLER: I think, Tom.

QUESTION: I mean, the ceasefire hostage release deal that has been on the table and I think was last discussed in person with the Israelis by the Secretary – it was the last trip we were on, the ninth trip, I think, out of the 10 – and that’s, I’m assuming, although it’s – there hasn’t been any meaningful discussions, but it’s still on the table, that?

QUESTION: And so I’m trying to understand from the Israeli perspective, given the death of Sinwar, if you couldn’t get that past Benjamin Netanyahu, and I think during that time it was when a senior official said that Mr. Netanyahu is making maximalist statements and it wasn’t conductive to getting the ceasefire deal done – I’m just trying to understand why now there’s any more reason than there was then for him to accept such a deal?

MR MILLER: Because he’s not the only party to this arrangement, and the other party to this arrangement is the one who had refused to negotiate at all. We did have important decisions we were going to need the prime minister and the Government of Israel to make, but we had seen them make concessions already, and it was our assessment we could get to a deal. And in the middle of that, Sinwar walked away from the table.

So, without making any predictions, and – about what will happen – and I’ll just refer you to what I said at the beginning of this briefing, which is: without a doubt, there are tough decisions for Israel to make to get to an ultimate agreement. Without a doubt. We’ll be the first to say that, and we’re the first – we are the people engaging with them to try and convince them to make those tough decisions. But you had on the other side a roadblock, an absolute stonewall “no,” and that person is removed – that, we think, presents an opportunity.

QUESTION: Absolutely, but at that point, the deal that is on the table was still not strong enough, was not – there wasn’t enough incentive for Netanyahu to accept it either.

QUESTION: And what’s happened now is he’s put himself in a far stronger position —

QUESTION: — because what’s happened on the ground.

MR MILLER: So, what that leaves out is that we were negotiating with him, and we were negotiating with Hamas over how to get to yes. And we believed that we could get to an agreement. And then Sinwar ended the negotiations while we were in the process of trying to get there. That’s what – that is the difference in what was happening in the way that you presented the question.

QUESTION: Okay, it’s just I think – and this is to develop Olivia’s point – is that from Mr. Netanyahu perspective now, you have a situation where – and he said in the speech there, he’s saying – he’s calling for surrender. He’s calling for Hamas, people who have – are holding hostages to come out, lay down their arms, release hostages. There’s nothing that I can see in what he’s saying about getting the hostages released and an end to the war via discussion, diplomacy, ceasefire talks. This is all about military pressure, which he is suggesting he has vindicated – he is vindicated by, against, as he said, all the pressures. And I assume he means, subtly, American pressure, particularly with Rafah. So, he’s – as far as I can see, he’s saying military – a military solution to this is vindicated, keep going and try and get hostages released via surrender or whatever. But that doesn’t —

MR MILLER: No offense, Tom, but is there a question coming? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry. No, sorry. I’m just – well, I’m saying: How are you going to incentivize him now? Because this to him is a military vindication and a way in which to keep going and not as you want, which is a future – a viable Palestinian future in the Gaza Strip. He wants Israeli control effectively with a minimal sort of level of Palestinian —

MR MILLER: All right, so let me just get to this.

QUESTION: So, I’m asking what incentives you are laying out.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Yeah, I was going to say it still took a while to get to the question.

Look, we believe the incentives are the return of the 101 hostages, and we believe the incentive is a path forward that provides increased security for Israel. And we had gotten agreement from them – if you go back and remember that even before we got to this position in July and August where we were arguing overt the implementation details, we had an agreement that Israel had accepted that Hamas refused. So, it’s just not accurate to say that Israel had never agreed to – and you didn’t say that. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Israel had agreed to a ceasefire proposal that we put on the table, and Hamas didn’t accept it. They came back with provisions that they wanted to change and negotiated, and then we had to bridge differences between the two parties, and Hamas walked away.

So, I can’t tell you what the Government of Israel is going to do. Direct those questions to them. We believe it is in their interest to ultimately find an agreement to the end of the war. We’ve seen them previously be willing to engage in those conversations. We’ve seen that there are proposals that they accepted. We hope now that there is a party on the other side that’s willing to engage in conversations.

QUESTION: And on that, just on the – what you – the discussion with the Qataris today, is there anything you can read out about that?

MR MILLER: The discussions with?

QUESTION: With the leadership of Qatar.

MR MILLER: Oh, the Qataris? No, nothing further on it. They had a discussion about it. But we have a lot of work to do in the days ahead, and we intend to pursue that work.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m struck by how you describe the killing of Sinwar as a seismic event. Really, you believe that it was a seismic event at the level of, let’s say, something like a nuclear bomb or something like this? Really? I mean, it’s —

MR MILLER: It is absolutely a seismic event in the Middle East. When you look at who he was and what he was responsible for, he was someone who made the decision – and it was – as I said at the beginning, it was his decision to launch the terrorist attacks, someone who after the death of Haniyeh didn’t just have military control of Hamas but had political control of Hamas as well. And he is the person who has been the prime obstacle to ending the war and stopping the suffering of the Palestinian people. So, absolutely it is an important event.

QUESTION: I understand the event itself it was a firefight. He had two other people with him. I mean, there’s —

MR MILLER: I suppose we disagree about the relative importance of the death of Sinwar. I think it’s a pretty important event.

QUESTION: Okay, whatever. That’s what the – that’s what the Israelis are saying, not me. I don’t know. Now let me ask you a couple of things. Now, you keep saying that Hamas absolutely refused the – as far as all these people that were involved in negotiations from the Arab side – the Qataris, the Egyptians, and so on – they all say that Hamas agreed 100 percent to your proposal.

MR MILLER: No, they didn’t.

QUESTION: It was the Israelis that rejected it.

MR MILLER: They don’t, Said.

QUESTION: And they went on —

MR MILLER: They don’t, Said, and that’s not what happened.

MR MILLER: And you and I have been through this before.

QUESTION: Well, that’s – that’s fine. I’m just trying to – I’m asking the question.

MR MILLER: I know, but you and I have been through this before.

QUESTION: Right, okay.

MR MILLER: They came back with a counterproposal, which is not an acceptance of the proposal that was put forward and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. If I give you a proposal, Said, and you come back and say I agreed to seven of the things you propose and on these three others I have major changes, that is not an acceptance of my proposal.

QUESTION: Okay. But the answer – the Israeli answer was to go ahead and kill the chief negotiator, right? Who was not carrying a gun, was sleeping actually in a guest house. Wasn’t it?

MR MILLER: Is there is a question, Said?

QUESTION: Well, and I’m just saying at this point. Okay, yes, I do have a couple of questions. You also said that whoever comes next – Hamas – they would look back and reassess what happened in the last year and so on.

MR MILLER: I didn’t say they would. I said I hoped they would.

QUESTION: You hope they would. Yes, I said that you hope that they would. Does that mean that you will be – you would be willing to negotiate with Hamas directly if someone —

QUESTION: If someone —

MR MILLER: No. Hamas is a terrorist organization. The United States does not engage with terrorist organizations. But of course, we will engage with our mediators who engage with them.

QUESTION: Right, okay. So, what would be the incentive for those – I mean, it seems now that no one is having command and control over Hamas. I mean, probably it’s everyone is running their own —

MR MILLER: What would be the incentive, Said? How about an end to the war?

QUESTION: No, I understand.

MR MILLER: How about stopping the death of Palestinian civilians?

QUESTION: Yes. Well, maybe —

MR MILLER: What more incentive should a leader of Hamas need than that?

QUESTION: Right, okay. But I’m saying that if someone like Sinwar who exerted a great deal of power and control and so on was unable to basically negotiate or do something like this or make sure that he could deliver Hamas, what makes you think that others can?

MR MILLER: Said, I don’t – I don’t think you should make excuses for Sinwar.

QUESTION: No, no. I’m not making —

MR MILLER: He was not unable to negotiate. He was unwilling to negotiate.

QUESTION: I’m taking your word. You’re saying that he was —

MR MILLER: Let’s be clear about it. He had every ability to negotiate an end to this war, and he refused to. There’s a big difference.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m saying now. Now that he is gone, probably there is no structure. I don’t know. I mean, so we don’t know who’s in control. Maybe like – maybe the hostages are in more peril.

Let me ask you another question on —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Let me – okay. All right, let me ask you a question on —

MR MILLER: I didn’t think that was a question, so I wasn’t responding to it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Let me ask you a question on a proposal that is being suggested that – that Secretary Blinken is going to consider proposing right after the election about that the Israelis and the Emiratis and so on are coming up with some sort of the day after. Can you share with us? Is there something to that report or to this suggestion, or would we hear something from the Secretary?

MR MILLER: So, I spoke to this yesterday. We have been in discussions with —

MR MILLER: — our Emirati partners, with Israeli partners, with other countries in the region as well. That’s been the subject of a number of trips that the Secretary has conducted and has been the subject of ongoing diplomatic conversations. And I’m not going to predict from here when we might put forward some type of proposal, but we are very much seized with agreeing with our partners in the region on a proposal to provide actual security and governance and a political path forward for the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: But it seems that the Israelis are – they want to see a diminished role for the PA and Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO apparently. Would you agree with something like this?

MR MILLER: So, we have always made clear that one of the principles to which we adhere is unified West Bank and Gaza under the Palestinian – under Palestinian Authority control, where the people of the West Bank and Gaza can choose their leadership, not anyone else.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel.

QUESTION: Can we move to Lebanon —

QUESTION: — if you don’t mind? First, how can the United States help the Lebanese people to move the political process forward when the U.S. close friend, Speaker of the House Berri and Hizballah as his partner have been blocking the election of a new president? Is the U.S. ready to pressure on Speaker Berri to convene the parliament and elect a new president?

MR MILLER: So, it’s not a question of the United States putting pressure on the Lebanese political decision makers. Those are decisions that they have to make for themselves. But we are engaged with multiple members of the Lebanese Government, and we are engaged with our partners in in the region, who we also know have been engaged with the leaders of the Lebanese Government. And we have all had a singular message, which is it is time for the parliament to move forward with electing a president finally.

Now, what else we can do? We can work to strengthen Lebanese institutions, primarily the Lebanese Armed Forces, which we see as a bulwark for security and stability inside Lebanon and we have supported with direct financial assistance over the past couple of decades – and we will continue to support, because we think the role that they can play in providing stability and as one of the most respected institutions in the country is an incredibly important one and it has to be maintained.

QUESTION: Did you ask Speaker Berri to convene the parliament to elect a new president?

MR MILLER: We made very clear to the speaker and to the prime minister that we think it is important that the parliament elect a new president in the days and weeks ahead – specific steps I’m not going to get into.

QUESTION: On the Israel incursion, did you get any sense from Israel for how long will this military operation last in the south?

MR MILLER: I think I should let them speak to their timetables. It’s not something I should do from here.

QUESTION: And will the U.S. attend the ministerial meeting on Lebanon in Paris?

MR MILLER: I expect that we will be represented there. I don’t have any announcements to make about who.

QUESTION: Should we expect any financial aid or political announcement?

MR MILLER: So, the conference is still a week away. I think stay tuned until next week before – to look for any kind of announcements coming out of it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about how much the U.S. are involved with Israel in this killing?

MR MILLER: This was an Israeli operation exclusively.

QUESTION: And what about intelligence from you guys?

MR MILLER: So, we have provided them intelligence since the beginning of this conflict to help them locate and fight, and bring to justice the leaders of Hamas. And I do think that that intelligence has been successful in increasing the pressure on those leaders. But when it comes to this specific operation, this was an Israeli operation, and I’ll let them speak to the details of it.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Based on everything you have said so far on this subject, is it your assessment today we are one day closer to the end of the conflict or one day away from the this at the end?

MR MILLER: So, I just don’t want to make any predictions, other than to say that a major obstacle to the end of the conflict has been removed, and we think that provides an opportunity. But I’m not going to make any predictions about what’s going to come in the days ahead.

QUESTION: Different conflict. Sanctions were announced today on Chinese drone companies. The language that you guys have used suggested – it suggests that China has been apparently producing and sending weapons to Russia to use in Ukraine. This is the first time. That’s a departure from its promises to the U.S. Is that a fair assessment of this?

MR MILLER: So, we have seen for some time Chinese companies providing components to Russian companies that Russian companies then use to turn into machinery, weapons, other components that Russia could use in its war. This was the first – and we have imposed sanctions on a number of those companies. This was the first time we actually saw a Chinese company manufacturing a weapon itself that then was used on the battlefield by Russia, was sent to Russia and then used on the battlefield. And that’s why we imposed the sanctions that we did today, and that is why we continue to work with our allies and partners around the world to make clear to China that this practice is unacceptable, and they need to take steps to counter it.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Tuesday, you expressed your concerns about reports on North Korea supplying troops to – for Russia to use in Ukraine. Two days passed; the Secretary had a phone call with his counterpart in Ukraine, and the President spoke with President Zelenskyy. Do you have any new intelligence they do have? Did they hand to you any details? And if you have them?

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything further I can offer today.

QUESTION: And one more. China, North Korea, now Iran – if you ask average Ukrainians, they’re going to tell you how do you expect us to fight against all these powers, all alone?

MR MILLER: Because they have on their side the United States of America, a number of countries in Europe, a number of countries around the world. Remember, we have marshalled a coalition of 50 countries – more than 50 countries – who support Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and have continued to provide support in a number of ways – military support, economic support, diplomatic support – over the past two years and will continue to provide support.

QUESTION: I guess my question is, like, does it – do these all – these new facts change the calculus on – in terms of —

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Sorry to interrupt.

MR MILLER: No, I was moving on.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. When you speak about ending the war, does that include full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza? You have repeated this, that you oppose the reoccupation of Gaza. Does that position still stand?

MR MILLER: Of course. Of course.

QUESTION: An Israeli opposition leader and former war cabinet minister, Benny Gantz, just said on Twitter that the IDF will continue to operate in Gaza for years to come. Would that be acceptable for you?

MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to respond to a statement that I have not – I think it sounds like that came out while I was at the podium. I haven’t seen its full context. But I will just say, as a matter of fact, we ultimately want to see Israel fully withdrawn from Gaza. Now, they have a right to – as any country does – to address terrorist threats against its people. But what we want to see as an end to this war is the terrorist threat from Gaza eliminated, and we want to see ultimately a political path that establishes a Palestinian state that is not hostile to Israel. And so, of course, you wouldn’t want to see and wouldn’t need to see the IDF operating in that environment.

QUESTION: Yeah. When the war ends, maybe we’ll never see IDF operating in Gaza anymore, right? Like, complete withdrawal.

MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what was the —

QUESTION: Like, complete withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza.

MR MILLER: Yes, that’s what we want to see, is them – is a complete withdrawal. That’s what we meant when the Secretary laid out almost a year ago several – a number of principles that we wanted to see for the end of the conflict, and one of them was no occupation of Gaza.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Our colleagues at Politico reported that a U.S. envoy told aid groups that the U.S. would not consider withholding weapons to Israel for blocking food and medicine, that essentially the rules don’t apply to Israel. Given —

MR MILLER: It’s not – no, forget what the – that is not at all accurate representation of her comments.

QUESTION: That’s – oh, sorry, sorry. That’s what the source of the story was —

MR MILLER: Not all of which were accurately presented in that article. I would say – should note, as always with these, you have what becomes a secondhand presentation put into an article. Not all of those comments were in any way accurate.

QUESTION: Sure. But was the basic characterization of her describing U.S. policy —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to a private meeting, but we have always made clear that we are committed to the defense of Israel. We will continue to support the defense of Israel, but we also are going to enforce U.S. law.

QUESTION: So, you will enforce U.S. law, including potentially blocking weapons aid —

MR MILLER: If you look at the letter that the Secretary – if you look at the letter the Secretary sent the other day, he said that there are a number of U.S. laws and policies that are implemented by Israel not taking steps to allow humanitarian assistance to get in, and we will enforce U.S. law. But we’re going – we want to see Israel take increased steps. We’ve seen them take some increased steps over the last few days, but we need to see much more.

QUESTION: I guess there have been previous instances for which, like, this threat has been sort of floated, whether it’s in the wake of the seven World Central Kitchen workers that were killed, whether it was in – before any sort of major operation in Rafah. Of course, the administration maintains there wasn’t a major operation, but nevertheless, there have been instances for which this threat has been offered, and yet there hasn’t been any actualization of it.

MR MILLER: So, I know that your objective is to see the end of U.S. support to Israel. Our objective is to see Israel take steps to increase humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza. We have other steps as well, but that’s irrelevant to the conversation we’re having now. And so, our engagement with them on this question has been to push them to take steps, and at times we’ve seen them take really important steps. When we had this last major engagement with them in April, we saw them take a number of steps to open new crossings and it got trucks up to 300, to 400 on some days. Now, we saw significant first stagnation and then backsliding over the last few months, which is why the Secretary felt it was important to sent that letter this Sunday.

QUESTION: To be clear, my objective is not to – my objective is to ask the U.S. enforcing its laws.

MR MILLER: Shaun, go ahead. I’m almost – I’m – I understand. Shaun.

QUESTION: It’s not to do that.

QUESTION: Can we actually go to Western Sahara?

QUESTION: Wait a second. I thought I had dibs on —

MR MILLER: You – either one, but I’m going to disappoint you with my answer, so go ahead.

MR MILLER: I’m going to disappoint you with my answer – go ahead – I shouldn’t —

QUESTION: I’ll let Shaun do it.

MR MILLER: I should let you live through the disappoint whether – rather than preview it, so Shaun, go ahead with the question. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m predicting the answer now, but does the U.S. support a partition of Western Sahara?

MR MILLER: I’m going to need to take that question back, only because, as you might imagine, I was entirely focused on the events in Gaza yesterday.

QUESTION: Yes, but you’ve been – you’ve spent decades as a scholar of Western Sahara diplomacy in the Polisario.

MR MILLER: Haven’t reviewed the action at all or discussed it with any of my colleagues, so let me take it back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: So just to be clear, there is no action, per se; it’s just the UN envoy’s proposal?

MR MILLER: Proposal, right.

QUESTION: Which is the same proposal that former Secretary of State James Baker made when he was in that same envoy position, which is to partition Western Sahara between Morocco and the Polisario. And so, the question is –

MR MILLER: So only because –

QUESTION: I realize you can’t answer it now, so can you take the question?

MR MILLER: — the extent I know about the proposal is that the – one was made today, and I didn’t have any chance to look at it all or talk to my colleagues, I do want to take that question back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Can the U.S. still stand by supporting Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara like the previous administration?

MR MILLER: There has been no change in our policy.

QUESTION: Could I just ask you a separate question, slightly different? The Taliban – you might have seen this – they issued rules today – not today, this week – about banning publication of living beings, images of living beings, so I guess they wouldn’t be watching this briefing. But do you have any reaction on —

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I’m going to have to plead ignorance on this one too. I’m not aware – I’ll take the question back and get you an answer.

MR MILLER: Go ahead, Daphne, then we’ll wrap for the day.

QUESTION: Thank you. Venezuela’s interior minister said today that three more Americans have been detained for alleged terrorist activities. Do you have any reaction to this? And do you know when they were arrested?

MR MILLER: So, we’ve seen the reports. We’re monitoring them and gathering more information. Obviously, the safety and security of American citizens anywhere around the world is our first priority, and we’re going to gather more information about this in the hours ahead.

And with that, wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.