Department Press Briefing – September 3, 2024 September 3, 2024 1:25 p.m. EDT

Department Press Briefing – September 3, 2024

September 3, 2024

1:25 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR MILLER: Let’s start with – thank you. I’ll start with some opening comments.

Early Sunday morning in Israel, the parents of Hersh Goldberg-Polin received the devastating news that they would never see their son again after he was murdered by Hamas. Like Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg-Polin, the families of five other hostages also found out on Sunday that they too had lost their loved ones forever. We grieve for all of them, and we demand justice for all of them.

As Secretary Blinken said this weekend, Hersh Goldberg-Polin is an American hero. The Secretary got to know Hersh’s parents over the past 11 months, and, like so many Americans who met them or who saw them in one of their many television appearances advocating for the release of their son, he heard from them time and time again what a special human being Hersh was. Hersh was a young man known by his family and by his friends for his kindness, for being a gentle soul who loved traveling, who loved music. And of course, he was attending a music festival on October 7th when it was attacked by Hamas, and he witnessed the murder of so many citizens not just of Israel but of countries around the world.

The world also knows about the courage that Hersh demonstrated that day: how he took refuge in a shelter with others who were attending the festival, and when Hamas threw grenades into that shelter, he picked up grenade after grenade and threw them back out until eventually one of them blew one of his arms off.

Hersh continued to demonstrate that same courage for the 330 days he spent in Hamas captivity. Tragically, any deal to bring home the hostages will come too late for him. But there are dozens of hostages still remaining in Gaza, still waiting for a deal that will bring them home.

It is time to finalize that deal. The people of Israel cannot afford to wait any longer. The Palestinian people, who are also suffering the terrible effects of this war, cannot afford to wait any longer. The world cannot afford to wait any longer.

Over the coming days, the United States will continue to engage with our partners in the region to push for a final agreement. During talks last week, we made progress on dealing with the obstacles that remain, but ultimately, finalizing an agreement will require both sides to show flexibility. It will require that both sides look for reasons to get to yes, rather than reasons to say no.

In a speech two weeks ago, Jon Polin, the father of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, said, “There is a surplus of agony on all sides of the tragic conflict in the Middle East. And in a competition of pain, there are no winners.”

That pain – for Israelis, for Palestinians, for the region – has gone on for far too long. It’s time to reach a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and that ultimately brings an end to this war. And that’s exactly what we will continue to push to reach.

Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Welcome back from summer.

MR MILLER: Thank you.

QUESTION: So can I just ask extremely – I’ve got two.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But just first, when you say “we demand justice” for his death and the death of the other hostages, can you be a little bit more specific as to what that means?

MR MILLER: Sure. Ultimately, we want to see those responsible for his death brought to justice. That can happen one of several ways. It could be brought to justice through the judicial system, either an Israeli judicial system and – of course, while I can’t speak for the American judicial system, obviously the Justice Department does look to bring – to hold responsible those accountable for the deaths of American citizens. It could also be by bringing terrorists to justice through other means. It could be through terrorists who die on the battlefield in Gaza, including those responsible for his death.

QUESTION: Including but not specifically those responsible for his death, you guys – do you have any hope of finding out who actually was the individual or individuals —

MR MILLER: I don’t know if – so —

QUESTION: — who were actually responsible for them?

MR MILLER: I do not know whether we will find —

QUESTION: Or —

MR MILLER: Yeah, I was – I do not know whether we’ll find out exactly which individuals were responsible, but ultimately, we hold the Hamas leadership responsible for the death of Hersh and the death of the other hostages as we hold them responsible for the deaths on October 7th —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: — as well as, of course, the individual Hamas members who would have been responsible for this particular murder.

QUESTION: Okay. But not the Palestinian people?

MR MILLER: No. No, of course not.

QUESTION: Not Palestinian civilians.

MR MILLER: Of course not.

QUESTION: Okay. Because they are bearing the brunt of what’s going on right now. But in your mind at least, that is not justice for the dead —

MR MILLER: Of course not. Absolutely not.

QUESTION: — for the hostages who were killed?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. On the talks that you just – you mentioned, can you be – I know that you won’t get into the specifics of the talks, but can you be as detailed as possible about where these talks are, who is involved in them? Is there a State Department component or have you guys basically just ceded this to the CIA and NSC?

MR MILLER: So the talks have been held at a number of different levels and a number of different forums. Bill Burns has been the leader in a number of the negotiations. As you know, they’ve been conducted through intelligence channels. Bill Burns has been conducting these negotiations with his partners in the Egyptian intelligence service, in the Israeli intelligence service, and of course in the Qatari as well. The Secretary has participated in negotiations around them at times and of course has also participated in bringing – trying to bring political will to the negotiations at times in his travels in the region. And of course our colleagues at the White House have done so a well. It has been a whole-of-government approach.

In terms of where they are, you’re right, I’m not going to get into the negotiations. But as I said in my opening statement, we did have constructive talks last week in the region to try and reach agreement on the final gaps. I think as you heard the Secretary say when he was in the region several weeks ago, Israel had agreed to the bridging proposal, but that’s not the end of the road. There are a number of important implementing details that require agreement to implement that bridging proposal, and that’s what we’re trying to get agreement on now.

QUESTION: Okay, but at this point on September 3rd at 1:30 in the afternoon – 1:31 Eastern Time in the afternoon, are there talks going on and where are those talks happening?

MR MILLER: I don’t believe there are any talks going on today, not – none that I can speak to on behalf of the State Department. Maybe others in the government can speak to. But even when the parties are not in the – in the same room talking back and forth, there’s still work that’s ongoing. Oftentimes what happens – you’ve covered negotiations for years. You know people get in a room and negotiate and then go back to their countries and work on hammering out the specifics.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Okay. And who from the State Department is involved?

MR MILLER: The Secretary has been involved, and then —

QUESTION: No, no, no, no, in the actual nuts-and-bolts discussions on the ground. Who is it?

MR MILLER: So the Secretary has been involved, members of NEA have been – Near East Affairs Bureau have been involved.

QUESTION: Who?

MR MILLER: And then – I’m not going to get into details – and representatives from our embassy – our embassies, I should say, in Doha, in Cairo, and in Jerusalem —

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — have all – have all been involved at various levels.

QUESTION: Last – last one. And when do you expect this new proposal, which I presume is not that much different than the last bridging proposal, but correct me if I’m wrong – when do you expect that to be presented to the Israelis and to Hamas?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to set a timetable here. It’s something —

QUESTION: Well, like, this week, next week? Because you keep saying now, now, now.

MR MILLER: Let me just say it is – we are working with our partners, Egypt and Qatar, who have – the other mediators in these negotiations, to try and hammer out agreement on some of these issues that we think or that we hope would get the parties to yes, and we will present it to them as soon as we think we have something that we think can get there, or that we hope will get there.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Humeyra.

QUESTION: Matt, on that proposal, why do you guys keep calling it final? Does that mean that if this proposal fails that U.S. is just going to walk away from these talks?

MR MILLER: I – so I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals. We don’t want a proposal to fail. We want a proposal to go forward, and I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals about —

QUESTION: But it’s not a hypothetical.

MR MILLER: Hold on, I —

QUESTION: You guys are calling it final, which makes everybody think that —

MR MILLER: This – just let me – just let me finish. I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals of what would happen if this proposal wasn’t going to get accepted. Ultimately, let me just step back and say often we get questions about our involvement in this and why we’re pushing to get a deal, and I made clear at the outset why we think a deal is so urgent: because there are Palestinians who are suffering, innocent Palestinians who have died since the beginning of this conflict and who continue to die through no fault of their own; and of course there are hostages who are held and their families who are grieving, and every day the conflict goes on it adds instability to the region.

But ultimately, the United States cannot commit to an agreement on this. We are not a party to this conflict. It requires Israel and it requires Hamas to make difficult decisions to reach an agreement. And what we will continue to do on behalf of the United States, and what we believe Qatar and Egypt will continue to do, is to impress upon those parties why an interest is – why an agreement is in their interest and why an agreement is in the interest of the region. But ultimately, we’re not the ones that can make that decision.

QUESTION: So are you saying that if for whatever reason they don’t sort of show the flexibility and they don’t actually take the deal that there is a chance the United States – okay, let me ask this way: Can you rule out that U.S. will stop efforts to achieve a ceasefire and bring the hostages back?

MR MILLER: So I just don’t want – I know where you’re trying to go with this, and I do respect it, Humeyra. I’m not trying to play games with it. I want to take this one step at a time. We are working day and night to try to get an agreement over the line, because we believe an agreement is manifestly in the interests of all the parties involved. We are going to continue to try and get an agreement over the line, and we’re going to work to put a proposal together with Egypt and with Qatar that we believe both parties should accept, and I will leave it at that for now.

QUESTION: In light of what the President said over the weekend, does the U.S. Government believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu also share the same level of urgency that you guys have?

MR MILLER: I will let the prime minister speak for himself. We obviously believe this is an urgent matter. One of the things that you heard the Secretary say last time when he was in the region was every day that we – every day that goes by without an agreement, there are risks. Obviously one of the risks is region-wide conflict that we’ve worked to try and avoid. Another risk is the continued loss of innocent Palestinian lives. But one of them – and he mentioned this explicitly; you were – I know you were on the trip – is that hostages could die. And so that’s why we continue to push for this urgency, or why we continue to push for this deal with such urgency, and we do hope that all the parties to an agreement will share the same urgency.

QUESTION: Okay. One final thing. Netanyahu last night reiterated again that Israel won’t withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor, which is now the biggest sticking point in this, and it’s also 100 percent at odds with what the Secretary has been saying for months about no reoccupation of Gaza. I’m particularly interested in how you guys are planning to reconcile that.

MR MILLER: So we’ve made it very clear, as you point out, what our principles are when it comes to an ongoing Israeli presence in Israel. We’ve also made clear in the proposal that the —

QUESTION: Wait, wait.

MR MILLER: I’m going —

QUESTION: There’s an ongoing presence in —

MR MILLER: In – sorry, excuse me.

QUESTION: Israeli presence in Israel?

MR MILLER: Yeah, in – thank you, Matt. An Israeli presence in —

QUESTION: They are allowed to keep troops (inaudible)?

MR MILLER: It’s a – it’s a – it’s the first – of course. First day. First day at the podium in a few weeks. (Laughter.) So yes, an ongoing Israeli – we’re – well, actually we have made clear what our opinion is on an ongoing Israeli presence in Israel. We’re for it. (Laughter.) Just so – so it wasn’t technically wrong. We’ve made very clear what we believe about the possibility of an ongoing Israeli presence in Gaza, and that’s that we are opposed to it.

I will also say that in the bridging proposal that we put forward, that the Government of Israel agreed to, it did include the removal of the IDF from densely populated areas. That includes the Philadelphi Corridor. Now, there – as I said, there are a number of details that require further negotiation to conclude how the parties will live up to their commitments under the agreement. I’m not going to negotiate on those in public, but that’s what we continue to discuss with the parties.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just clarify one thing, Matt? When – earlier today, the White House denied that it was using the word “final” to describe any sort of proposal forthcoming from the United States. Are you taking issue with that word? Or are you characterizing that —

MR MILLER: I did – it was not my word; it was Humeyra’s word. And I – well, I’m usually reluctant to take issue with Humeyra. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I mean –

MR MILLER: It was – it was –

QUESTION: That’s a very smart (inaudible).

MR MILLER: I’m aware. It was certainly not a term I used. Put it that way.

QUESTION: Okay. So you wouldn’t characterize whatever is forthcoming as a final, or take-it-or-leave-it sort of preposition?

MR MILLER: I said we’re going to take this one day at a time, or one step at a time.

QUESTION: Okay. On the hang-ups, it’s been well reported that virtually the entire Israeli national security establishment disagrees with the prime minister that maintaining a presence in the Philadelphi Corridor is necessary in order to forestall a resurgence of Hamas fighters. What is the U.S. position on that? Does the U.S. believe that a military presence, permanent, is necessary to forestall that? Or does it agree with the defense minister and others in the national security space?

MR MILLER: So let me say a few things, which I think you’ll probably find unsatisfying. Number one is that it – sorry to – maybe I’ll be wrong. Number one, we absolutely believe that it is in the interest of Israel, and it’s in the interest of Palestinians in Gaza as well, that Hamas not be able to smuggle arms in across the Philadelphi Corridor. That is absolutely in the interests of both parties. But we are opposed to the long-term presence of IDF troops in Gaza. We’ve made clear that we are opposed to the reoccupation of Gaza.

That said, when it comes to the actual details, I’m not going to get into them here – I think you can understand – because this remains the subject of negotiation, how we would get from the proposal that the President put on the table, that the President made public, and through the final stages that we hope that we are in now. It just wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss those details publicly.

QUESTION: I don’t mean it as a political question; I just mean it empirically. Like, do you believe the job can be done in the way that the national security establishment in Israel does?

MR MILLER: I fully understand the question. I just don’t think it’s – it is wise or helpful for me to get into those details publicly now.

QUESTION: Okay. To follow up on Matt’s line of questioning about Hamas leaders being brought to justice, I mean, the President said that Hamas leaders will pay for their crimes. You’ve walked through what that might look like. But when might that happen, considering you need Hamas’s leadership sign-off on a potential hostage and ceasefire deal in the near term? So when do you expect this justice and its payment for crimes to be delivered?

MR MILLER: I’m – I am not going to put a timetable on it. But I think the United States has shown that we have a long memory when it comes to bringing to justice those responsible for the death of American citizens.

QUESTION: Okay. Has the U.S. entertained in any serious way a unilateral agreement with Hamas in order to secure the release of American hostages still being held —

MR MILLER: Our entire focus has been on securing an agreement to get home all the hostages. That, of course, includes the American hostages. Our first priority is always the safety and security of American citizens overseas. That’s true when it comes to these hostage negotiations as well, and we are focused on a deal that would bring them home, along with all the other American hostages.

QUESTION: So there’s no consideration being given to a sort of unilateral channel?

MR MILLER: We are working on a deal to get all of them home.

QUESTION: Okay. I have one more question on the UK’s decision to suspend some arm shipments —

MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: — to Israel. Has that —

MR MILLER: You can have eight questions.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) I’m sorry.

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) It’s fine.

QUESTION: You’ve – we’ve all been gone for a while; we have everything tomorrow.

MR MILLER: Fair.

QUESTION: Has that informed, changed the U.S.’s position on whether international humanitarian rights have been violated in Israel? Is the U.S. rethinking any of its arms exports?

MR MILLER: No. This is a decision that the United Kingdom made based on its assessment under its own laws. We have our assessments that are ongoing when it comes to looking at possible violations of international humanitarian law, and those continue to be ongoing.

QUESTION: Okay. The last we heard of those publicly was in April with the national security memorandum. There has been no update since April about the U.S.’s visibility into use of U.S. weapons?

MR MILLER: No. It – there continue to be a number of cases that are under review. As you know, it’s an ongoing conflict. Oftentimes when you – when it comes to looking at specific cases, there are differing accounts that we have to sift through to try to gather information about actually what happened. There are, as I said, a number of incidents that are under review, and those remain under review. I don’t have any update on them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Sean.

QUESTION: Maybe I’ll give another line of questioning. When it comes to the UK decision, has the U.S. had discussions with the UK before they came to this decision? And what was the U.S. standpoint on that?

MR MILLER: We did. They notified us of the decision, and that was basically the extent of the conversation.

QUESTION: How does the U.S. feel about it? Is it – as you said, it’s –

MR MILLER: It’s a – the United Kingdom’s a sovereign country. It’s a decision for them to make, ultimately.

QUESTION: I mean, obviously in Israel they’ve criticized this. I mean, how do you – do you see this as part of the international pressure and some sort of message to the Israelis?

MR MILLER: I don’t. I take the foreign minister, someone with whom we – the Secretary has a long relationship and works – has worked with every closely at his word. And he said this was – this was a legal decision. They had a legal framework that they needed to apply, they applied that legal framework, and it led them to this decision. And it’s of course appropriate for them to make their own legal judgments, based on their system and their laws.

QUESTION: But again, I mean, does this indicate that there could be – you say it’s their own independent decision, but could they be on to something? I mean, is this something that could inform potentially what – how the U.S. would think in the future?

MR MILLER: No, I think you have to remember that these are different countries with different laws, different systems, and so —

QUESTION: But a same situation.

MR MILLER: Same situation, but you apply the facts based on your own legal systems. They came to this conclusion. We have reviews that are ongoing. I don’t want to prejudge what those reviews will conclude, but we are looking at a number of possible violations of international humanitarian law, and we’ll make our own assessments based on our review of the facts and our own judgments on our laws, as well as international humanitarian law.

QUESTION: Let me just go back to one other thing that you mentioned. You said a couple of times flexibility is necessary in reaching this. Prime Minister Netanyahu, his remarks – beyond just the issue of the Philadelphi Corridor, but he repeatedly said we’re not going – it’s not the time for concessions after what happened, after what Hamas did. I mean, do you think there’s flexibility, that there’s a willingness to flexibility on both sides? I mean, how did you interpret the prime minister’s words?

MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to get into negotiating in public. We are not calling for Israel in any way – and we have never throughout these negotiations called on Israel in any way – to compromise its security. We stand by Israel’s security. We stand by Israel’s right to defend itself. Our commitment to that security is sacrosanct. And we also believe that one of the important steps Israel can take to protect its national security is securing the release of its own citizens and, of course, securing the release of American citizens and securing the release of citizens of other countries. And so we’re going to continue to push them to get to yes in this agreement, as we know Egypt and Qatar are pushing Hamas to get to yes.

QUESTION: Just as a final point – but you’re saying not – of course, the U.S. doesn’t believe it’s compromising Israel’s security, but could there be an issue that they might to compromise sometimes on the logistics of this, whether it’s the Philadelphi Corridor and other things?

MR MILLER: Look, anytime when you’re in a – in this kind of negotiation, both sides are going to have make compromises, right. Israel has already made a number of compromises when it comes to getting to where we are now. When you look at where we started at the beginning of these negotiations, they’ve compromised on a number of issues, as a party always has to do. And obviously when you get to the final stages, some of the toughest decisions are left for the end, and they’re going to have to make tough decisions on those. But we believe there’s a way they can do that that returns hostages home and protects Israel’s security.

QUESTION: Can you put out a list at some point of what compromises Israel has made, specifically what those compromises are?

MR MILLER: I think it’s tough to do in the middle of a negotiation.

QUESTION: No, no. Prior to this.

MR MILLER: Maybe well after the fact —

QUESTION: No, no, no, no.

MR MILLER: No. I —

QUESTION: I mean, I’m talking about over the past 11 months.

MR MILLER: I – so in the context of the negotiations —

QUESTION: Oh, you’re talking about compromises in terms of allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza?

MR MILLER: No, I was talking about in the context of the ceasefire negotiations and a final deal, there are a number of places in which they’ve made compromises.

QUESTION: Oh. All right. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I just expand off of Olivia’s question for one second, with regard to wanting Hamas to pay for the death of the hostages? Can you just help us understand, without getting into specific plans, the sequencing that the U.S. envisions happening here? Do you hope for Hamas to pay first, or do you hope for a deal to come to fruition first?

MR MILLER: So it’s a difficult question to answer. We want to see a deal as soon as possible. But our call for justice for the leaders of Hamas did not start on Saturday. It started on October 7th, right. So we have been calling for the leaders of Hamas and those responsible for the crimes of October 7th to be brought to justice since October 7th. Now we will add to the list of particulars the death of an American citizen, which the world found out about Sunday morning in Israel, Saturday night here. But we have been calling for Hamas leaders and anyone responsible for acts of terrorism be brought to justice since October 7th, and of course, in other cases, well before October 7th.

QUESTION: So essentially you’re pursuing both of those goals and whichever one comes to fruition first is the one you’ll go with?

MR MILLER: They are – I think it’s a mistake to think of them on, like, parallel tracks. We have long called for Hamas to be brought to justice. That continues to be an overwhelming priority of the United States. I think should be an overwhelming priority of the world to see Hamas brought to justice.

QUESTION: Sure. But the U.S. hasn’t put boots on the ground in Gaza —

MR MILLER: At the same – no, let me –

QUESTION: — to go after any of those leaders.

MR MILLER: Let me say it this way. Look, if the leadership of Hamas was not in place you’d have an easier time getting to a ceasefire, I think, if Hamas was not in place at Gaza at all. That’s not the reality we face, so we have to face this reality where we at one – at the same time we want to bring the leaders of Hamas to justice, we are also trying to pursue a ceasefire, because they’re the ones, of course, who are the terrorist organization in Gaza that continues to hold American citizens and others hostages.

QUESTION: So after this weekend though, it just – it is striking that you guys have repeatedly talked about bringing Hamas to justice and making Hamas pay in recent days. Is there any change in the way that you pursue that goal? Would the U.S. consider giving any more resources to Israel to accomplish that goal, or putting any boots on the ground, anything like that?

MR MILLER: No, there’s been no change to our strategy.

QUESTION: Okay. And then to the Philadelphi Corridor just for a second, it’s obviously a central sticking point. Does it have to be part of the next proposal? Is – has Hamas been very clear that without an agreement on the presence in the Philadelphi Corridor nothing can go ahead? Or could you guys consider leaving that out of something?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into that level of detail from the podium.

QUESTION: Okay. Final question from me. U.S. elections coming up – have you seen any indication that either side, Israel or Hamas, are looking to those elections and factoring into the way that they approach these talks?

MR MILLER: Not that I’m aware of, no.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I have a couple quick questions. When Israel called for justice against Hamas leaders, they actually assassinated Ismail Haniyeh. So when you’re calling for justice against Hamas leaders, you’re not calling for assassination of the leaders, because that’s against U.S. policy. I just want to clarify that.

MR MILLER: Correct. But I will say U.S. policy – when it comes to U.S. policy, we have long made clear that our first priority when it comes to terrorists is to see terrorists apprehended and brought the United States to stand trial for their crimes. There are times when the U.S. cannot apprehend a terrorist because where they are on a battlefield, we don’t have troops there, we don’t have the ability to apprehend them, and so we do pursue other means to bring a terrorist to justice. That’s true for Israel. It’s true for other countries as well.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I guess that’s the same with bin Ladin, is what – probably what you’re referring to.

MR MILLER: Correct. And many others over the years.

QUESTION: Okay. The Secretary has been to the region nine times. Can you tell us what went wrong in his understanding or in the parties’ understanding of why this agreement will not be reached till we’re talking now on whether we’re using the word “final” or not? What happened?

MR MILLER: So I don’t think there’s anything that happened. As the Secretary said when he was there, Israel had agreed to the bridging proposal. We still need and still need Hamas to agree to the bridging proposal. But as I said, I think in response to Humeyra’s question – maybe it was Matt’s – the bridging proposal wasn’t the end of the road. As he made clear when he was there, there are a number of implementing details that we needed to reach agreement on to ensure that the parties would adhere to their commitments under the bridging proposal. And we continue to work to get agreement on all those and ultimately to put a proposal forward that we hope can bring the parties to agreement.

QUESTION: Hamas spokesman said that they’ve been given instruction that if an Israeli military operation is conducted to release hostages, they’ve been given instructions – so I assume is to kill them. So this is as a result of the operation that the Israeli did in June that resulted in the release of three hostages and the killing of 200 Palestinians. Do you believe, the administration believe, that hostages can be released in any other way but negotiation?

MR MILLER: Sure, hostages can be rescued. Israel has rescued hostage. And the same with the United States has rescued hostages – not in Gaza but in other places around the world, and other hostages have been rescued. So it’s not to rule out the possibility of hostage rescues. They can take place. But we have always been clear that it would not be possible to rescue all of the hostages, both because of Hamas’s depravity and because just the sheer task of trying to find those hostages and successfully rescue them would prove something that would be too much for Israel, for any country. So we have always been clear that the path to bringing those hostages home and reuniting them with their families was at the negotiating table, not just by rescuing them.

I also can’t let the moment to pass – pass just to comment on that reported order from Hamas. Sometimes we talk about the negotiations between Israel and Hamas and talk about them as two, and people think about them as two equal parties. They obviously are the two parties to these negotiations. But I think when you see an order like that, it shows just what a depraved group we are dealing with in Hamas, when they made clear that they will execute innocent human beings rather than let them be rescued – people who in many cases aren’t even citizens of Israel. Recall that there are citizen of other countries who continue to be held, countries with whom Hamas supposedly has no complaint, and Hamas’s position is that it will execute those hostages rather than let them be released. I think that shows what a depraved organization Hamas actually is.

QUESTION: One last final question. Yesterday Netanyahu showed a map when he talked about the Philadelphi Corridor. It has no West Bank. It has nothing on it. Is this kind of normal that he shows a map with just Israel on it? There’s no Palestinian resistance?

MR MILLER: You know I’m not going to comment on the —

QUESTION: I’m just saying, but is that normal for you?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to comment on the prime minister’s press conference. We have been quite clear about our position when it comes to Gaza, when it comes to the West Bank, when it comes ultimately to a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Hey. Rebecca Hartmann with BBC News.

MR MILLER: Welcome.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to go back to the UK’s decision to limit arms sales to Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu says that it will embolden Hamas. I wondered what the U.S.’s position on that was. And also if you could just give a little bit more insight into why the U.S. disagrees with the UK’s position.

MR MILLER: So it’s not that we disagree with the UK position. It’s that the UK makes an assessment based on their legal framework, as is appropriate for them to do. We make an assessment based on our own legal frameworks and looking at, in very – in many cases the same facts, but we have processes that are still ongoing and incidents that still remain under review.

When it comes to assessing the decision, again, I’m not going to comment on what the prime minister says. Both of these countries are allies of the United States. The United Kingdom is an ally of the United States, and we respect the work that they do.

QUESTION: Sorry, just to be clear, you said that – not that we would disagree with UK’s assessment. Did I hear that right? So you don’t disagree with the UK’s assessment?

MR MILLER: My point is they are making an assessment under their law. What I mean is the decision that they made under their law —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: — to suspend arms, that is a decision for them to make based on their assessment of UK law.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: I’m not making a – I’m not discussing —

QUESTION: And —

MR MILLER: Hold on. I’m not discussing the underlying determinations. We have our own reviews that are ongoing. They have to make legal determinations. That’s the determination that they made today. We can’t speak to that. We can’t make an assessment of that. It’s a matter that involves UK law, and it’s appropriate for them to do, not us.

QUESTION: Do you agree with their underlying determination, their – and like the wording? I can read here. Where is it? That it says – I can’t find it anywhere here.

MR MILLER: I’m not —

QUESTION: It talks about a risk that —

MR MILLER: So that – so that determination is subject or is – pertains to a standard under UK law, and the United States is not going to make an assessment under a UK standard. It’s not appropriate for us to do so.

QUESTION: But Matt, I —

MR MILLER: In the same way, we wouldn’t expect the UK to apply a U.S. standard in making their determinations. They have made their determination based on UK law; we will make our determinations based on U.S. law.

QUESTION: You’re trying to, I think, distinguish this saying, like, this is our law, this is their law. But effectively, the battlefield that you’re looking at is the same battlefield, and we’re all trying to get at that.

MR MILLER: We are —

QUESTION: We are just trying to wrap our heads around how two countries with pretty similar values, by the way, are looking at the same battlefield and coming with very different conclusions.

MR MILLER: We are looking at the same battlefield. We – I won’t – have not reached conclusions, I think number one, it is important to say. We have reviews that are ongoing and we haven’t made any final determinations or any final conclusions yet. Number two, there is a standard in the UK law. I will butcher it if I try to speak to that standard, but there is a standard that relates to the risk, I think it is. And so —

QUESTION: But there is a standard in the U.S. too —

MR MILLER: Hold on, hold on. I know. And it is a different standard, and so they make their determinations based on the UK – the standard that is written in UK law. We will make our determinations based on the standard based in U.S. law —

QUESTION: But —

MR MILLER: — which I don’t think is that hard to understand.

QUESTION: But no, it’s not. It’s —

MR MILLER: You would not expect the United States to apply the law of any other country.

QUESTION: No, I know. I’m – that’s not what anyone’s suggesting. But you have conventional arms policy. The wording there is like – it said the policy aim’s preventing arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing. And then in the memorandum of White House —

MR MILLER: And there’s a further definition of what risk is and how you define risk. It’s a —

QUESTION: Yeah, it talks about, like, more likely than not.

MR MILLER: Correct.

QUESTION: So that language is very much there.

MR MILLER: Correct. And —

QUESTION: And if you’re not disagreeing with their underlying assessment, then are you —

MR MILLER: That’s not what I was speaking to.

QUESTION: Why are you not – why are you not implementing —

MR MILLER: I was speaking to the legal – I was speaking to their legal assessment of UK law, not the underlying assessment on whether violations of international humanitarian law have been committed. We are making our own assessments on that underlying question, and we’ll do it – and when – so there’s two things here, right? There’s a question of whether violations of international humanitarian law have been committed, and then there’s a question of whether you suspend arm sales if you find that violation. And there is a – there is a standard for when you suspend arms sales in UK law. There is a standard when you suspend arm sales in U.S. law.

QUESTION: But it talks about the risk —

MR MILLER: No, hold on. I know. Exactly. And they are different standards, and we will look and apply the law in based on U.S. code.

QUESTION: Okay. Based on what you just said, one and two, there is the risk of IHL violation, and then when you take action. Let’s talk about the first one. Does the U.S. see the same risk?

MR MILLER: We have – so I can’t speak to the level of risk that —

QUESTION: No, not – we’re not talking about UK. We’re talking about U.S.

MR MILLER: No, hold on, hold on. You said – just let me answer. When you say the same, I assume you mean of the UK. I can’t speak to the level of risk that the UK sees. What I can say is when we released the national security memorandum assessment, we said that it’s reasonable to assess that there have been violations of international humanitarian law committed. We agree with that.

What we are doing is going and looking at specific incidents to make specific judgments on those specific incidents, find if they have been remediated, if the – if Israel has taken – if there were violations of international humanitarian law in specific incidents, what are the actions that Israel took, if any? And you have to answer those two questions before you can make those determinations under United States law. That’s what we’re doing.

QUESTION: Well, can you give us a timeline when those assessments will be concluded?

MR MILLER: We will get them –

QUESTION: Because —

MR MILLER: We will get them completed —

QUESTION: Because we’ve all been asking about these for months.

MR MILLER: We will get them completed as soon as possible.

QUESTION: I’m just —

MR MILLER: Sorry. Sorry, I don’t know why I’m apologizing. You’re the one that interrupted.

QUESTION: No, no, no. Just a just a follow-up. Was there a discussion between the U.S. and the UK, or did the – when – and when did the UK inform you of —

MR MILLER: They did notify us of the decision in advance. I’m not going to get into the exact timing, but they did notify us of the decision.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Two questions on Russia and North Korea. The Russian deputy foreign minister announced a revision to the nuclear doctrine that includes principles for the possible use of nuclear weapons. How would you react to this?

MR MILLER: Let me take that question and get you a response.

QUESTION: Okay. Second one. North Korean Kim Jong Un said he would fully support Russia’s war in Ukraine. What impact do you think this will have on a nuclear-armed North Korea?

MR MILLER: So we’ve already seen the impact for Ukraine of North Korea supporting that war when it comes to transferring weapons that have shown up on the battlefield, and we will continue to take action to hold Russia accountable for its actions in Ukraine and to hold North Korea accountable for its support for that war.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. If I may change subject to Georgia —

MR MILLER: Please.

QUESTION: — I know you discussed foreign agent law of Georgia. Monday is a deadline for organizations to register under Georgia’s foreign agents law, which is often referred to as a Russian law by the public. Do you have any update on that, including U.S. travel bans to certain Georgian officials?

MR MILLER: So the Georgia Government continues to move in a deeply, deeply troubling direction, one that moves the country further away from its Euro-Atlantic trajectory, which the Georgian people, we know, overwhelmingly desire. We are concerned about the enforcement of this legislation for those entities that did not voluntarily register, including critical civil – civic organizations and independent media.

As part of our comprehensive review of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Georgia that the Secretary announced, as you know, we have implemented visa restrictions on dozens of Georgian individuals and their family members, including members of the Georgian Dream Party, members of parliament, law enforcement, and private citizens, and we have paused $95 million in assistance that directly benefited the Government of Georgia. In response to that second part of your question, that review remains ongoing. I would not rule out further actions.

QUESTION: And on U.S. relationship to China, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has returned from last week’s talk in China, and leaders from the two countries are expected to have phone call in coming weeks followed by face-to-face talks. Can you talk about the top items on State Department’s agenda regarding the U.S.-China relationship? And then can you give us an idea of high-level communications between the two country – officials from the two countries look like in September?

MR MILLER: Yeah, so in terms of issues that we’ll make progress on, one, there is one overarching issue, and that is ensuring that the relationship between the United States and China, which is probably the most consequential relationship in the world, does not veer from competition into conflict. And that’s why the diplomacy that we have been conducting under the President’s leadership has been so critical to making sure that where there are areas of differences we openly discuss those differences and make sure we at least understand where the other one’s coming from even if we can’t reach agreement.

But then there are other areas in which we hope to make progress, and those are the areas in which the – President Biden and President Xi agreed to work together at Woodside in November. So cooperation on counternarcotics, on sustaining military-to-military communications, on talks on AI risk and safety, and strengthening people-to-people exchanges – we look to continue to make progress with China on all of those issues.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Related.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Given what you just said about U.S.-China relations, over the weekend the Pacific Islands Forum removed a version of its communique that referred to Taiwan as a developing partner, which was based on a 1992 agreement allowing Taiwan to play a role in the – in that entity’s leaders’ meeting. Now, under pressure from China, that line reference to Taiwan as a developing partner was removed from their communique and a new one has been reposted. I was wondering if the State Department has any – if you have any comments on that.

MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to the decision – to that decision, but of course our “one China” policy has not changed.

QUESTION: Are you aware if National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan brought this up in his meeting with – last week in China?

MR MILLER: So, as always, I will let the White House speak to meetings that the National Security Advisor had.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you. Welcome back. Going back to Ukraine, White House shared some reaction to today’s Poltava strike, which is one of a number of strikes throughout past week. Yesterday the President told us that he has been clear about the boundaries of U.S. support to Ukraine – what we can do, what we cannot do. Can you please speak to why you can’t do what you can’t do?

MR MILLER: So first of all, let me speak to what we have done, Alex, because I think sometimes people get lost at – lose that in the debate when it comes to the particular question that is being presented to us at one time. That is that it’s the United States that have – has supported Ukraine from the beginning of this war, that has marshaled an international coalition to supply weapons and ammunition to Russia – to repel Russian forces on the battlefield and to hold Russia accountable and the same – in the same way that we have marshaled an international coalition to impose sanctions and export controls and other measures on Russia.

Now, we have adapted our policy over time based on changes in the battlefield. We continue to remain flexible and look at changes in the battlefield and adapt and adjust our policy when necessary, something the Secretary has spoken to, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

QUESTION: I mean, if you put yourself in Ukrainian shoes, you will witness that the Russian bombers are better protected than Ukrainian civilians, and they wonder why is it that Russia still has free hand to strike in Ukraine.

MR MILLER: Russia does not have a free hand. We continue to supply —

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: Hold on. We continue to supply Ukraine with air-defense systems. If – you might recall the question that you were asking me a number of times over the summer, why don’t you do more to provide Ukraine with air-defense systems, and then at the NATO summit we announced the provision of a number of air systems that have been – air-defense systems that have been put in place to defend Kyiv and other cities across Ukraine. We continue to supply Ukraine with other equipment that it can use to push back on Russian military assaults, and that’ll continue to be our policy.

QUESTION: On that line, Matt, there is also concern about the PDA, Presidential Drawdown Authorization, which will I think expire by the end of this month if the Secretary doesn’t take further steps to allocate those 6.2 billion for Ukraine. Is the department considering any way to expedite?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to – I’m not going to preview any actions before we take them, but I think one thing that you have consistently seen from this administration is a steady provisioning of lethal equipment to Ukraine throughout this war, and that will continue.

QUESTION: But last week you did let 1.75 billion to expire. Are you —

MR MILLER: And as I said, I’m not going to —

QUESTION: — assuring us it’s not going to be the case this time?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to any decision. If you look at the totality of our assistance, the billions and billions of dollars that we have provided in security assistance, including in the time period which you discussed, I think it’s pretty hard to question our commitment, Alex.

QUESTION: Okay. One more from me, if I may, on Mongolia’s failing to execute the ICC arrest warrant for Putin. What does it tell about the international rule of order and international criminal justice system?

MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, as we have said, we don’t believe any country should give Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression against Ukraine. We do expect Mongolia to adhere to its commitment and its support for the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty and territorial integrity, and convey that those principles must be upheld around the world. We understand the position that Mongolia is in, sandwiched between two much larger neighbors, but we do think it’s important that they continue to support the rule of law around the world.

Yeah. Oh yeah, Shaun.

QUESTION: I mean, do you – were you disappointed they didn’t – they haven’t arrested him to this —

MR MILLER: As I said, we do very much understand the difficult position that Mongolia is in. It’s a much smaller country between two neighbors. We look to continue to support Mongolia, but we do think it’s important that they uphold their international obligations. And it’s important that if they do communicate with Russia that they make clear that they support Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

QUESTION: It’s not that small.

MR MILLER: Population-wise – I just mean in comparison – I just mean in comparison to —

QUESTION: It certainly is smaller than Russia —

MR MILLER: I mean in comparison to Russia and to China.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Matt. Türkiye this year so far has conducted about more than thousand attacks in northern Iraq in Kurdistan region. And today they killed a shepherd and also they put the civilians into danger. So do you have any assessment, any comments on the Turkish military incursion in Kurdistan region of Iraq that puts civilians into danger?

MR MILLER: So I wasn’t aware of that specific incident so let me take it back and get you a comment.

QUESTION: On Türkiye, please. (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead, behind.

QUESTION: Yes. According to reports, Türkiye will be the first NATO member-country to request membership of the BRICS, the economic bloc that the leaders are Mr. Putin and the President of China. I wanted to know if you have any comment on this.

MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on what our – on those reports other than to say that Türkiye continues to be an important ally to the United States that we work – with whom we work on a number of issues.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Donald Blome met with the foreign minister Ishaq Dar, and the focus of their discussion were the – was Afghanistan and region security. We heard that – recently we have seen deadliest terrorist attacks – more than 70 people were killed. And we heard that in that meeting Pakistan asked for U.S. help to defeat these terror networks. Any comments?

MR MILLER: So the United States strongly condemns last week’s deadly attacks that targeted security officials and civilians, including the murder of 23 innocent civilians in Musakhail. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremist terrorists and our hearts go out to the families and loved ones of those killed. The United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combatting threats to regional security, and we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan in its fight against terrorism.

QUESTION: So Iran has warned Pakistan of the final notice to complete the gas pipeline project or possibly face $18 billion in fines. Despite its domestic energy needs, Pakistan is also under pressure from the U.S. to not move forward with that project or face sanctions. But Pakistan has been seeking this sanctions waiver to finish this project. Any comments on that?

MR MILLER: So what I’ll say is that we will continue to enforce our sanctions against Iran. And as a matter of course, we also advise anyone considering business deals with Iran to be aware of the potential ramifications of those deals. At the same time, helping Pakistan address its energy shortage is a priority for the United States, and we continue to discuss energy security with the Government of Pakistan.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Also on Iran, UN experts are expressing alarm about a sharp rise in executions in Iran. The month of August saw twice as many executions of individuals as occurred in July. Is the U.S. concerned about this trend? Do you have any further comment on the report?

MR MILLER: We do remain concerned about the number of executions in Iran and most importantly how those executions are carried out. I mean, that’s the end of a judicial process that can in no way be described as providing fair trials. It can in no way be described as independent. It’s one of a number of violations of human rights that we see Iran continue to take, and it’s why we continue to enforce our sanctions to hold Iran accountable for those actions.

QUESTION: Israel?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Could I switch topics to Venezuela? I know that – that Kirby had some interaction earlier on the arrest warrant for the presidential candidate, for González Urrutia. I wanted to ask you about it, but I also wanted to ask you about the seizure of President Maduro’s airplane in the Dominican Republic. I’m sure that’s a Department of Justice issue, but how do you see that in the current context of what’s happening in Venezuela? Do you see this as a – an aspect of pressure at all? How do you expect – how do you expect Maduro to respond to this? And what are you looking for?

MR MILLER: Yeah, so first with respect to the first question, so we do condemn the arrest warrant for Edmundo González for allegedly inciting violence. And I would note that it’s not just the United States that’s condemning this arrest warrant. It’s countries in the region – Argentina, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay – who have all condemned this unjustified arrest warrant. The arbitrary and politically motivated action demonstrates the extraordinary lengths to which Nicolás Maduro will go to try and maintain power following his attempt to steal the July 28th presidential election.

And when it comes to the seizure of the plane, so what I would say is that the United States enforces its sanctions, and we’re always going to enforce our sanctions. And so I would look at this more – less related to the election itself and more about the consequences that Maduro needs to continue to feel for his illegitimate and repressive anti-democratic actions. So those are actions for which he has been sanctioned. I’m not talking about with respect to the election; that we have sanctioned him over the years. So we have imposed sanctions on Maduro and his regime for their anti-democratic actions. Those long pre-date his most recent anti-democratic action, and we will continue to enforce those – those sanctions.

QUESTION: I know one of the lines that the State Department – the Treasury Department always have – “the sanctions need not be permanent.” I mean, in this case what – if he wants his plane back, I mean, what —

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I’ll let —

QUESTION: Can —

MR MILLER: I’ll let the Treasury Department and the Justice Department speak to the specifics (inaudible).

QUESTION: Okay. But more seriously, I mean, in terms of this – if it is an aspect of pressure, if it’s specifically for the election or not, I mean, what does he – what are you looking for him to do? I mean, is there – are there actions he can take to —

MR MILLER: So I will say, when it comes to the – there’s two ways to answer the question. One is to look at all of the various actions over the years for which we have sanctioned the Maduro regime and Maduro himself, and we would look to see him reverse those actions. But when you look at the most acute issue, obviously, it’s his attempt to steal the presidential election.

So there are a number of things that we have called on him to do: to stop cracking down on dissent, to release the actual tally sheets – which he still has not done – and to get Venezuela back on its democratic path, something we have called for him to do. He has not shown a willingness to do so. And so in coordination with our partners, we are considering a range of options to demonstrate to Maduro and his representatives that their illegitimate and repressive actions in Venezuela have consequences.

QUESTION: Sure. Just very briefly, I don’t know if you’ll have anything on this because it happened quite recently, but in Uganda, the opposition leader – Bobi Wine – says he was shot and that – he’s saying the Museveni government is to blame. Do you have any commentary whether you think this is accurate, or any comment —

MR MILLER: So I did see those reports just before I came out here, a few minutes before. We are concerned that violence against opposition voices means the democratic space continues to shrink in Uganda. Respect for freedom of peaceful assembly and allowing political parties to operate freely are fundamental values of democratic societies. There is no place for harassment of opposition voices. The harassment of opposition voices and continued human rights abuses damage prospects for Ugandan progress and its partnership with the international community.

And with that, we’ll wrap for the day, everyone.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) one more question? (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: All right. Sorry, (inaudible) went a little long today. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:15 p.m.)