Department Press Briefing – October 15, 2024
October 15, 2024
1:17 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. I don’t have any opening comments, so, Matt?
QUESTION: Really? There’s so much going on.
MR MILLER: And I expect your questions will fully cover everything and give me the chance to expound on all of those things.
QUESTION: And you have – all right. Well, let’s start with – let’s start with this warning to the Israelis about improving humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza. What can you tell us about this?
MR MILLER: A few things. So first, the Secretary did write along with his – along with Secretary of Defense Austin to the Defense Minister of Israel Yoav Gallant and the Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer on Sunday to make clear our concerns about the levels of humanitarian assistance that have been making it into Gaza. This was a letter we considered to be a private diplomatic communication that we did not intend to make public from our side, but now that it is public, I am happy to confirm it and speak to it to some extent.
I think you have to put this letter in the context of our ongoing and long-lasting communications and concerns about the levels of humanitarian assistance that have made it to Palestinian civilians. If you go back to April, the Secretary wrote at the time to Minister Gallant to make clear that we had seen the levels of humanitarian assistance plateau, and then after they plateaued start to decline, and made clear that – at the time – that the levels were unacceptable, and that we needed to see Israel implement changes.
They did make changes. The changes that they made caused humanitarian assistance to increase. We got up to somewhere between 300 to 400 trucks going in on some days to Gaza. But the thing that the Secretary also made clear at the time is that the increase couldn’t be a one-off; that it needed to be sustained. And what we have seen over the past few months is that the level of humanitarian assistance has not been sustained. In fact, it has fallen by over 50 percent from where it was at its peak.
So the Secretary, along with Secretary Austin, thought it was appropriate to make clear to the Government of Israel that there are changes that they need to make again to see that the level of assistance making it into Gaza comes back up from the very, very low levels that it is at today.
QUESTION: And the consequence if they don’t do that is what?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that today. Obviously, we made clear when we released our report that was mandated under National Security Memorandum 20 that there are provisions under U.S. law that require us to make certain certifications, and to make those certifications we have to see that Israel is not arbitrarily denying humanitarian assistance making it into Gaza. When the Secretary made his conclusions under that report in April, he did so based on the changes that we had seen them put into place and the increased levels of humanitarian assistance. But of course, that – those levels of humanitarian assistance have to be sustained.
QUESTION: Yeah, but – but what’s – what’s the consequence?
MR MILLER: There are implications under U.S. law, under policy, that I’m not going to speak to here – largely because we hope that Israel makes the changes that the Secretary outlined in the letter. We have seen Israel make changes before, and when they make changes, humanitarian assistance can increase. And we have seen Israel just in the past few months work with humanitarian organizations to implement a polio vaccination campaign inside Gaza. So we know that it’s possible to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. We know it can be done. We know that the various logistical and bureaucratic obstacles can be surmounted, and so it is incumbent upon the Government of Israel to surmount those challenges and get assistance in.
QUESTION: When you say that there are implications to it, obviously under U.S. law that’s assistance. Is there specific assistance that have come under scrutiny over this?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to deal with any hypotheticals. You are right that it’s just a – it’s just a plain reading of U.S. law, if you look at the provisions of U.S. law, that we are required to conduct assessments and find that recipients of U.S. military assistance do not arbitrarily deny or impede the provisioning of U.S. humanitarian assistance. That’s just the law. And we of course will follow the law.
But our hope is that Israel will make the changes that we have outlined and that we have recommended, and that the result of those changes will be a dramatic increase in humanitarian assistance. Ultimately we are focused on the bottom line here, it’s just it.
QUESTION: I just want to —
MR MILLER: Humanitarian – I was going to say humanitarian assistance had been low, the changes that we had recommended had gotten it up, and those levels have not been sustained, and so we need to see further changes on – by the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: I mean, obviously the timing of this – I know you don’t explicitly do politics, but there’s an election coming up here. To what extent is that a factor? I mean, 30 days from now would be after the U.S. election. It’s been a year since the conflict has been ongoing. The President has repeatedly warned Israel about assistance, about civilian casualties with at best mixed results sometimes. This is happening just 30 days before the election. To what extent was the election a factor in this?
MR MILLER: It’s not a factor at all. The bottom line is we felt it was appropriate, if we are making clear to the Government of Israel that there are these changes that need to be implemented, that we give them an appropriate period of time to implement it – implement them. We didn’t think it was appropriate to send a letter and just say this has to happen overnight; we gave them a – made clear there’s a short window in which we want to see changes, because the humanitarian situation is so dire on the ground. But it is appropriate to give them some time to work through the different issues and find ways to get the level of trucks, get the level of food, water, medicine back up to acceptable levels.
Yeah, Humeyra.
QUESTION: Hi, Matt. So the 620I Foreign Assistance Act actually doesn’t have the word “arbitrarily.” You say it’s the law, but the NSM-20, which is a memorandum, has the word “arbitrarily.” So the Foreign Assistance Act says, “When made known to the President that the government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.” It does not have “arbitrarily.” So given you are already saying humanitarian assistance is very low and putting in front of Israel a bunch of concrete measures on how to improve it, why are you waiting for another 30 days to implement the law?
MR MILLER: Because we believe it’s appropriate to give them a chance to cure the problem. And international humanitarian law does make exceptions for certain – I’ll give you an example. Dual-use items is a good example. If there are dual-use items that legitimately could use – could be used as a military purpose, of course governments aren’t required to let those dual-use items in, which is not to say that they can use that exception as a blanket restriction on anything that could be used as a dual-use item. For example, if there are military movements happening in a certain period of time, governments can restrict the provision of humanitarian aid during that period because obviously you wouldn’t want to put humanitarian workers at jeopardy.
So it is – it’s not – it is not accurate to say that there are – can be no restrictions. It’s that those restrictions ultimately can’t block civilians from getting the humanitarian access that they need. And that is what we are focused on doing, and so we think it’s appropriate ultimately – let me just say, ultimately what we want to see here is results. This isn’t about making a rhetorical statement. It’s not about making any kind of threats. It’s about seeing the situation reversed, and so that the civilians in Gaza who are not getting adequate access to food and medicine and other humanitarian goods today actually see as a result of our efforts a change in their daily lives. And that’s what we’re focused on achieving, and that’s what we are trying to achieve through this letter.
QUESTION: Sure, but I guess what I’m trying to get at – and I’ll ask it again – is, like, we’ve been at this for over a year now. You have made these warnings dozens of times, if not more, from this podium; the Secretary has done it; the President of the United States has done it. And yet we’re here. Other outlets have reported that – Reuters has reported all the way back in April that officials from this department have assessed in internal memos that Israel, quote, “is persistently and arbitrarily impeding aid in Gaza.” So if the law is already being, like, I mean – if it’s already doing it, why is the United States waiting?
MR MILLER: So first of all, that has not – so we’ve been over this before, I know, from this podium. There are people that reach that conclusion and there are people inside this building who reach the opposite conclusion. So I think it’s important to state that for the record, that when you have a difficult situation as this, it’s not uncommon for people to reach different assessments.
Ultimately, if you look at the last year and our record of working to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza, what you’ve seen is the U.S. intervening at critical moments going back to October 12th. Let’s not forget that – actually it wasn’t October – it was October 16th. So just a few days after October 7th that the Secretary was negotiating with the Government of Israel until 2:00 in the morning in Tel Aviv to get the first trucks into Gaza. I know you were there. And over the coming months have intervened on multiple occasions when we thought the levels of assistance getting in weren’t sufficient, when there were policies that needed to be changed, when there were new gates that needed to be opened – we have intervened to get that to happen. And you have seen those results. You have seen us go from one crossing being open to four crossings being open. And that is the result of U.S. intervention.
Now, to answer your question, we have always said that this is an ongoing process, and our assessments are ongoing. They’re not static, they’re dynamic. And so when the situation changes, our assessments will change and we’ll act accordingly. And that’s what we’re doing.
QUESTION: And how did the Israelis respond to this letter?
MR MILLER: I – they can speak for themselves. I’m not going to speak for them.
QUESTION: But I mean, have you received any assurances that they will actually take these concrete measures?
MR MILLER: So I’m just not going to speak for them. Those are private diplomatic conversations. They can speak to their reaction.
QUESTION: And one final thing. What is your message to the world when they question U.S. credibility in terms of following through? Because President Biden made a similar threat to cut off or restrict U.S. military aid in April if Israel carried out a major operation in Rafah. Regardless of what you call that operation, Rafah is now like a wasteland, and we have seen one shipment of 2,000-pound bombs being withheld but everything else – billions of dollars’ worth of weapons – have continued. So what do you say to people who question the credibility of the U.S. in terms of following through?
MR MILLER: So – so first of all, I will say without getting into all of the details that not all of the premises of that question are accurate when it comes to the communications between us and the Government of Israel. What I will say is look at our track record of intervening to get humanitarian assistance in, and look at the fact that when we have seen levels – when we have seen Israel not follow through on the steps that they committed to and when we have seen the results not measure up to the standards that we expect, we have intervened with them to turn those around. And that’s what we did in April. And it wasn’t just a letter from the Secretary. It was also the President making this clear directly to the prime minister, Netanyahu, that we needed to see changes and that our policy would be dependent on the changes that they made, and they made those changes.
Now what we also said is that the changes needed to be sustained and the level of humanitarian assistance needed to be sustained. And over time, we’ve seen the level come down, which is why we are going back in and making clear now that it needs to be reversed.
QUESTION: But sorry, one really final point.
MR MILLER: You already said one more. I have to go – go ahead. You can go.
QUESTION: Yes. But at the end of that letter, you also talk about establishing a new channel to raise civilian harm incidents, which sounds in a way incredible because it’s been over a year. So can you elaborate a little bit on that effort – what kind of a channel you want to establish? And are you saying that, like, Israelis basically ignored the U.S. in all of the previous communications when you have raised this concern about civilian harm?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to it beyond the language that’s in the letter other than to say that we continue to see Israel not taking sufficient steps to address civilian harm. And you have to look no further to understand that than the really horrific results over the weekend.
Yeah, Olivia.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does this building see any inconsistency between sending a sternly worded letter with a 30-day lead time about humanitarian conditions in Gaza to the Israelis while near simultaneously deploying an advanced anti-missile system with 100 U.S. troops to man it?
MR MILLER: No, of course not. We have always —
QUESTION: What’s the message being sent there?
MR MILLER: We have always been clear that we are committed to the defense of Israel, and that’s why you saw the President make the decision that he made, which I will let my colleagues at the Pentagon speak to in detail. But we’ve also made clear that there are provisions of U.S. law that we follow, and we will always follow those provisions, and part of that is expecting that the Israeli Government fully comply with the requirements under international humanitarian law to make sure that humanitarian assistance gets into Gaza.
QUESTION: Sure. I mean, and this is retreading territory that Humeyra and Matt just raised with you, but I mean, six months ago it was – there were suspicions that humanitarian law was not being followed by Israeli forces. So why six months on, if the situation is similarly deplorable, do you suspect that situation has meaningfully changed?
MR MILLER: So you’re right, it is a bit of a retread and I hope you will —
QUESTION: All right. That’s fine.
MR MILLER: I hope you will accept my apology for giving the same answer to the same question.
QUESTION: No, that’s fine. We don’t have to retread.
MR MILLER: But no, but I think it is important to be clear that it is because we saw the situation change. That’s the – I mean, I think the premise of the question, the premise of Humeyra’s question, is that the situation has been static all along. It hasn’t been static. When we intervened back in April to make clear that the level of humanitarian assistance getting in wasn’t sufficient, we saw it increase. And we saw that increase sustained for a period of time, but then not long enough and it came back down.
And so we are going to respond to events as they happen. And when humanitarian assistance increases and is at an acceptable level, you won’t see us raising those concerns. But when we see the situation on the ground that we’ve seen over the past few months, when we see the level of humanitarian assistance in September at the lowest it has been in any month since the war began, it’s appropriate for us to intervene in this way.
QUESTION: And to briefly address the flip side, I mean, the Israeli argument is that allowing this aid in provides fuel for Hamas. They run a protection racket, they get money, they get funds. They – essentially, they think that taking this step is effectively choking off Hamas. Does the U.S. dispute that that is a reason why the Israelis are limiting this aid?
MR MILLER: So there are without a doubt security concerns inside Gaza that make it difficult to deliver aid, that has led to the looting of humanitarian assistance in some cases. But the answer to that is not to stop the flow of food and water that civilians depend on and that little babies and children need to survive. That cannot be the answer to that problem.
The ultimate answer to that problem is to establish a governing authority in Gaza that can provide safety and security for the Palestinian people of Gaza, that can provide safety and security for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, that can provide a long-term political path forward, as we have been making clear for some time. The answer absolutely cannot in any way be penalizing the innocent civilians who depend on this food, water, medicine to live.
QUESTION: Sorry, I don’t want to monopolize time. I have two more. One is: Does the U.S. feel that it has clarity – you don’t have to specify what it is – on the timing and the targets that Israel intends to strike in a – its retaliatory strike on Iran? Does the U.S. feel that it has clarity on the timing and targets that the Israelis intend —
MR MILLER: We have had a number of conversations with them about that. Those conversations are ongoing and I am going to stick with the policy I set out last week, which is I’m not going to speak to those conversations publicly.
QUESTION: Okay, and just one bigger-picture question for clarity. Is it the U.S.’s stance right now that it is calling for a ceasefire in Gaza but not calling for one in northern Israel and southern Lebanon?
MR MILLER: We continue – so a few things. We do continue to want a ceasefire in Gaza, but to be clear what that is, it’s not a unilateral ceasefire. We have called for a ceasefire agreement that includes the release of hostages. I think you know the what – the details of that.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: And when it comes to Lebanon, ultimately we want a diplomatic solution and that policy hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: But there’s no sort of active call for a ceasefire —
MR MILLER: Correct.
QUESTION: — in the same way that there is in Gaza —
MR MILLER: Correct.
QUESTION: — accompanied by hostage deal? Is that because the U.S. sees that there is a legitimate and achievable military objective on the part of Israel in northern Lebanon in a way that does not exist in Gaza?
MR MILLER: So we believe that Israel has a right to attack and degrade the Hizballah battalions that continue to be just over the border from northern Israel. But ultimately, we want to see a diplomatic solution. I would say that the two situations are incredibly different when it comes to Lebanon. There’s United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 that we want to see fully implemented. That resolution has requirements for Hizballah that they have not fulfilled. So it is appropriate for Israel to conduct military operations to degrade Hizballah’s capabilities so maybe they will pull back beyond the Litani River and finally agree to the provisions of 1701 that they have blown through for 18 years now. And that doesn’t change what we want to see in Gaza, which is ultimately a ceasefire agreement; but it’s a ceasefire agreement that has burdens on Hamas as well, not just on Israel.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — on something that you said to my colleagues – look at our track record when it comes to intervention, intervening when humanitarian aid going into Gaza is too low? But my question is around the timing of this letter. I mean, the World Food Program says that there are no trucks that got into Gaza in the month of October, but September and August weren’t great. There were 700 trucks according to the World Food Program in August, only 400 aid trucks in September. So why wait until it gets to zero to actually do something?
MR MILLER: You should not assume that the – this letter is our first and only conversation with the Government of Israel about this problem. We have been having a number of ongoing conversations with them about the very serious decrease in the level of humanitarian assistance. Ultimately, we did not see the – our concerns sufficiently addressed, which is why the two secretaries sent the letter they did today.
QUESTION: Okay. And with regard to —
QUESTION: On Sunday.
MR MILLER: On Sunday. Yeah, I was about to correct myself. They sent – the letter that was made public today —
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — that we – they sent on Sunday.
QUESTION: Right, okay. And then with regard to action that Israel has to take in order to clear this hurdle between you guys and make sure that they aren’t actually not abiding by humanitarian law here, do they have to take every single action that was laid out in the letter in the next 30 days?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into that level of detail beyond what’s in the letter. I think the letter speaks to it pretty clearly. It outlines the steps that we want to see them take. Ultimately, what’s important to us is that the people in Gaza get the food, water, medicine, other humanitarian assistance that they need to survive.
QUESTION: Right. But you’re not going to measure – you’re not going to lay out what that mark of success would look like?
MR MILLER: I think the letter lays it out pretty clearly, and I’m not going to go beyond that.
QUESTION: Well, the letter says, “o reverse this downward humanitarian trajectory and consistent with its assurances to us, Israel must – starting now within 30 days – act on the following concrete measures.” It says “act on the following concrete measures.” So should we assume that’s all of the following concrete measures?
MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to it beyond the – what’s laid out in the letter.
Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Matt. Just a clarification so I can understand. Why the letter? Just to make it more formal, I mean, as opposed to a phone call showing that this is a very urgent situation? You just —
MR MILLER: I think I just – I think I just answered that —
QUESTION: Yeah, okay. Well —
MR MILLER: — in response to Kylie’s question. The – we have not seen sufficient results —
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — over the past few weeks, continue to have concerns, which is why they laid out the changes that we want to see happen in this letter.
QUESTION: And why the 30 days? I mean, so must 400,000 Palestinians wait 30 days? I mean, some of them may starve by then —
MR MILLER: I mean, the letter —
QUESTION: — or be incinerated, as we have seen.
MR MILLER: The letter is quite clear that we want to see changes immediately. And in fact —
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — the Secretary sent that letter on Sunday. We did see humanitarian assistance go in through Erez yesterday, and we very much want to see changes not wait for 30 days but happen immediately. Now, we recognize that some things like, for example, the letter calls for agreements on what actually would be dual-use items. That’s not something that can happen overnight. That requires a negotiation. So some things take a little bit longer, but there are changes that we want to see implemented immediately.
QUESTION: Let me just – I have a couple more on Gaza, then a couple on the West Bank. But the Washington Post reported, I think yesterday, about the strike against al-Aqsa Hospital in the middle of Gaza, striking the tents, burning people alive, and so on. Now, Israel always says that there are militants, yet we never know whether there were or not, but that seems to be a story that is repeated every day. The Gaza people wake up every day to another hundred people dead or something like this. Now, I asked you about this last week, and you said, no, we would never accept this being normalized. But in fact, it is being normalized.
MR MILLER: It’s not. What happened in that strike was horrifying. We understand the very difficult environment in which Israel operates, but the results of that strike were deeply disturbing. We all saw that video and all know that it’s horrifying to see people burn to death. We have made clear our serious concerns about the matter directly to the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: Is it horrifying enough to be considered a war crime?
MR MILLER: So I cannot make that kind of assessment from here. As you know, Said, there’s a process we have to go through to —
QUESTION: Right, but —
MR MILLER: — assess the facts and the law when it comes to any individual determination.
QUESTION: But this – yes, but this seems to be going on every day, day in and day out. And on the ceasefire talks, Haaretz is reporting that Israel is saying no more talks, no more negotiations. Can you comment on that?
MR MILLER: So I am not going to – I cannot confirm what’s reported, I assume, based on anonymous sources. We have continued to engage with the Government of Israel to try and get a ceasefire over the line. As you have heard us say, that requires not just Israel but Hamas making difficult decisions, and it continues to be the case that Hamas is not at the bargaining table in any kind of a serious way to talk about how we get an agreement.
QUESTION: So you are still saying that if Hamas comes back to the table and they come up with reasonable whatever – stance and so on, talks will resume?
MR MILLER: Of course they would. We are committed to a ceasefire agreement, under the terms that the President laid out on May 31st and that was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, absolutely.
QUESTION: Now, Israel is going to seize the UN agency headquarter in Jerusalem – do you have any comment on that – and turn it into some sort of a settlement.
MR MILLER: Yeah. So we have made clear that we have – that – or sorry. We made – have made clear for some time that we believe the Government of Israel’s settlement program to be inconsistent with international law and continue to make that clear to the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: And that brings me to my other question. It seems that the new Israeli tactic to sort of expand the settlements is basically they are creating buffer zones around a settlement, and that’s eating up the land in the West Bank. Are you aware of this tactic? Are you warning the Israelis not to do it?
MR MILLER: So the conversations that we have with Israel when it comes to settlements focused on two tracks – one, that they are inconsistent with international law, but that, two, that they don’t just harm the Palestinians who are affected but that they ultimately don’t resolve the real threats to Israel’s security, and that for Israel’s long-term peace, security, and stability they’re going to have to pursue a very different program in the West Bank than the one that they are pursuing now, not to mention in Gaza.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. So Israel kills at least – or killed at least 21 civilians in strike on Christian town in north Lebanon. I mean, they were like – this place – a family rented this house so they can escape the horrific time where they lived in the south. Is it how Israel defending herself by carrying an attack in north of Lebanon in a Christian town that there’s no existence of Hizballah militias?
MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to the circumstances around that particular strike. But obviously the loss of civilian life is extremely troubling, and we’ve made that clear the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: Okay. There was a call between Secretary Blinken and Speaker of the House Berri. Can you just give us some insight about this call that lasted 40 minutes?
MR MILLER: Sure. So the Secretary spoke to the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, as well as to the prime minister, on Friday to make clear that we want to see a diplomatic resolution to the conflict between Israel and Hizballah; that we want that diplomatic resolution to include the full implementation of 1701; that we continue to support Lebanese institutions, including the Lebanese Armed Forces, which we see as a bulwark for stability in the country; and that we want to see Lebanon choose a new president, and that it’s the Lebanese people and not anyone else that should make that decision. And he urged them to move forward with that process, as we have consistently made clear we want to see the Government of Lebanon do.
QUESTION: Okay. My last question – so there was like a warning from the U.S. embassy to the American living in Lebanon to live – or sorry – to leave soon as possible, and it might not be commercial flights leaving the airport. Is that a message that maybe Israel could attack the airport?
MR MILLER: No, it had nothing to do with that. And it’s not – it wasn’t a question —
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Lebanese people —
MR MILLER: It wasn’t a question – let me just – it wasn’t a question about commercial flights. It was a question about the flights that we have been providing. So we have been providing these flights that the U.S. Government organized for nearly two weeks now. And we have seen, over the past two weeks, a decrease in the number of American citizens and legal permanent residents and eligible family members who have taken those flights.
We’ve now provided 22 of those flights, had somewhere around 1,250 people depart on them. And if you remember last week, I think the last time I came here with an update, Wednesday or so, 1,100 had departed. So in the flights that we’ve had since then only 150 people – Friday through the weekend – got on these flights. So we’ve always said that we would conduct those flights as long as demand was there for it, and what we are making clear to American citizens is that if you want to get on one of the flights, they may not exist forever if the demand isn’t there, so please take one of these flights while they now exist.
At the same time, I should note that we continue to see capacity on Middle East Airways flying out of the country.
QUESTION: Did you ever get an answer to the question of how much you guys are paying?
MR MILLER: I did not. Yeah, I did not. I don’t know.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) a ticket.
QUESTION: No, no. How —
MR MILLER: No, not per ticket, for the cost of the flights. I don’t know. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you re-up that and —
MR MILLER: I will re-up it. Obviously, it varies based on the destination. But yeah, I can re-up it.
QUESTION: Well, right. But how many flights did you say there were total so far?
MR MILLER: Twenty-two. Yeah, and over —
QUESTION: Twenty-two?
MR MILLER: Look, I – it – so we do provide these flights at significant cost to the U.S. Government. If the flights are full, obviously the people on board the flights carry the vast majority, if not all, the costs. But you are right that when we have flights that are going out that are only filled by a handful of people —
QUESTION: With 12 people.
MR MILLER: — it is a significant cost for the U.S. taxpayers, which is why we wouldn’t continue to hold them in – to run —
QUESTION: But that decision has not been made?
MR MILLER: It has not been made.
QUESTION: All right.
MR MILLER: But it’s just – we sent that warning today to make clear that we cannot run the flights in perpetuity if no one is flying on them, and there – this is an important “and” – there continues to be sufficient capacity on commercial airlines, which there is today.
Tom.
QUESTION: Just to go back, you mentioned the video that was – you were asked about people burning in their tents. And you said that we had all seen that. Did the Secretary see that video?
MR MILLER: Yes, he did.
QUESTION: And what was his reaction?
MR MILLER: His reaction was that it was horrifying.
QUESTION: On what’s happening in the north of Gaza – I mean the letter talked about this a lot – what is your assessment of both the tactics the Israelis are using and the impact on civilians?
MR MILLER: So I don’t – what do you mean an assessment on the tactics there? What do you mean by that?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, there’s been quite a bit of reporting that the suspicion among Palestinians, for example, is that this part of the so-called generals’ plan, that this is per some retired Israeli generals, who had proposed the idea of effectively a siege —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — where you force out civilians, and those who are left are effectively treated as militants. And the term they used was surrender or starve. Is that happening in your view?
MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to what the intention of the Government of Israel is in conducting these operations. They will have to do that. I can make clear that the policy of the United States is that there should be no forced relocation of people from Gaza, from northern Gaza, and that there should be no permanent occupation of territory in Gaza. And when it comes to the situation in north Gaza, the effect of not just the military operations of the past few weeks, but the closing of the gates in the north and the restriction on – of movement of aid from the south to the north, the effect has been extremely, extremely dire for people who live in northern Gaza.
When you look at the situation, it’s gotten extremely – extremely difficult all across Gaza, but that impact has been heightened in northern Gaza. We saw yesterday, for the first time in several weeks, Erez gate open to get aid directly into the north. We want to see the route from Jordan that was up and running for some number of months, that was getting aid coming in directly from Jordan delivered directly to the north – we want to see that reopened and sustained, and hope that that will be – that that will happen in the coming days. That’s one of the policy recommendations you that the Secretary lay out in the letter.
QUESTION: Just to challenge a bit on the point that you said, you were asked repeatedly about the timing of the letter, and you said, well, because the situation’s changed. But in a lot of ways, it hasn’t. I mean, you talked about – the letter talks about 1.7 million Palestinians in al-Mawasi who you say are at risk of lethal contagion. That has been a situation that has just been building up. I mean, it hasn’t just happened overnight. And so there will be those who say you had a year to write this letter, to issue such a stark warning to the Israelis. Why has it taken so long?
MR MILLER: So it hasn’t taken – so that – I completely reject the premise of the question. As I think you said – well, you didn’t say – but when you said you were going to push on me, I totally reject the premise of the question. We have intervened on numerous occasions. It’s the point I made to Humeyra’s question. In the days right after October 7th, the Secretary was in Israel having very difficult conversations with the prime minister about the need to let the first trucks come in across the border. And he was successful and got Rafah opened up for trucks to come across the border.
We then had very difficult conversations with Israel about the need to open Kerem Shalom. And those conversations included the President, the Secretary, the National Security Advisor, others across our government. And we saw Kerem Shalom open. We saw, over the course of months, repeated examples of the U.S. – not any other country, but the United States – intervening and getting results. Now what we have seen is a significant degradation in the amount of humanitarian assistance that’s coming in.
The – as I said in response to one of the other questions, you shouldn’t assume that the letter is our first intervention with the Government of Israel about the situation just over the past few months. We have been making it clear to them that we needed to see results, and we haven’t seen the results, and that’s why we sent the letter that the – that we sent on Sunday.
Yeah, Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. May I switch the region, if possible?
MR MILLER: Sure.
QUESTION: Last week, I asked —
MR MILLER: Yeah, I’ll come to you next for —
QUESTION: — you about reports about North Korea sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine on side of Russia. President Zelenskyy raised his concerns about that, and then new reports suggesting that they are actually already a few miles next to the – next to the border. And there’s some numbers circulating around 3,000 to 7,000. Do you have any response, any concern?
MR MILLER: We are concerned by the reports of DPRK soldiers fighting on behalf of Russia. If that’s true, it would mark a significant increase in the relationship between those two countries, the relationship that you have seen develop over the past several months. It would also indicate a new level of desperation by Russia, as it continues to suffer significant casualties on the battlefield.
QUESTION: The EU has signaled sanctions that they’re going to announce tomorrow. Are you guys willing to follow suit?
MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to preview today, but obviously we have imposed a number of sanctions and other measures to hold Russia accountable for its behavior. And we’ll continue to do that.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more, one on Georgia, is possible. Georgian president today announced – well, express some concerns that the ruling party might rig elections. The EU also had similar concerns. Is it your concern that they might rig the elections? And what are you going to do to prevent this from happening?
MR MILLER: So we want to see there be free and fair elections in Georgia, and we’ll be closely monitoring in the days ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. A final one, if I may.
MR MILLER: All right. One more.
QUESTION: Azerbaijan has pushed back on human rights concerns prior to COP. They said back off, we aren’t going to listen to your concerns prior to COP. They also said that there will be no peace agreement. They don’t expect it prior to COP. That’s what the Secretary was hoping for. What was your response? Any reaction?
MR MILLER: So we wanted to see – we never tied the agreement to COP. We wanted to see a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan months ago and have been pushing for a peace agreement, ultimately hoped to get one over the line. But that’s up to the two parties, not the United States.
Michel, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. On Iran first, news report said that Iran recently conveyed a message to the administration through a third country saying that if the Israeli response to the missile attack is limited, Iran will see this round as closed. Can you confirm that?
MR MILLER: No, I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations, real or imagined.
QUESTION: Did you get any guarantees from Israel that they will target only military and not the nuclear or oil targets in Iran?
MR MILLER: So I’m going to follow the practice I laid out last week and I mentioned earlier in the briefing, which is we’re having those conversations with the Government of Israel, but I’m not going to speak to them publicly.
I’ll come to you next.
QUESTION: On Lebanon, do you expect Iran’s influence in Lebanon to be diminished by weakening Hizballah? And how do you view the IRGC taking direct control of Hizballah after the death of Nasrallah?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to make any forecasts from here, but I would note that the influence that Iran has had inside Lebanon for the past years through its support for an armed proxy group has had horrible ramifications for the Lebanese people, and it is certainly our hope that Hizballah’s role in Lebanese society and Lebanese government will be diminished, because it’s the Lebanese people that ought to have a say in their direction – in the future direction of their country, and they should not in any way be held hostage to an armed terrorist organization.
QUESTION: And lastly, did the administration ask Israel not to bomb Beirut? And did you give any guarantees in this regard to the Lebanese prime minister?
MR MILLER: So we have made clear to Israel that we oppose the bombing campaign that they had been launching over recent weeks in Beirut. We have seen strikes diminish in recent days and we’ll continue to watch it very carefully.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks. On Iran, there is reporting over the past couple of days that the administration has relayed to Iran that any assassination attempt on President Trump would be considered a, quote/unquote, “act of war.” The NSC put a statement out. I wanted to see if you had anything on that.
And then separately, on the Afghan national accused of plotting a terror attack last week, you said it wasn’t clear if he came here on an SIV, even though the DOJ’s indicated that he had. I wanted to see if you have any more fidelity on that.
MR MILLER: Sure. On that, so it is my understanding he did not enter the United States on an SIV, and I’ll refer to the Department of Homeland Security to speak to further questions about his status.
When it comes to the threats against President Trump, as we have said many times, we have been closely tracking the threats against former President Trump and former administration officials for years, dating back to the last administration. We consider this a national security matter of the highest priority. We strongly condemn the brazen threats and we have made clear that should Iran attack any of our citizens, including those who continue to serve the United States or those who formerly served, that Iran will face severe consequences.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on the Afghan national. The vetting, no matter how he came over, is that done by DHS?
MR MILLER: I would defer – I believe that they conduct the vetting, but I would really defer you to DHS to speak to it. There are different procedures for different programs, so with respect to this particular one, I would defer to them. They’re the lead agency.
Shaun, go ahead.
QUESTION: Could I go back, actually, to a bit of what Alex was talking about, North Korea, but something different? How do you feel about North Korea bombing its own roads and destroying its own —
(Laughter.)
MR MILLER: When you put it that way – we are monitoring the situation in the DPRK in close coordination with our Republic of Korea allies. We continue to urge the DPRK to reduce tensions and cease any actions that would increase the risk of conflict, and we encourage the DPRK to return to dialogue and diplomacy.
QUESTION: So is this a step that raises tensions, bombing their own roads?
MR MILLER: It certainly doesn’t do anything to alleviate them.
QUESTION: Could I switch to a different topic? The —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Could I follow on North Korea, please?
MR MILLER: Up to Shaun if he wants to yield the floor. If not, I’ll —
QUESTION: Just give me —
MR MILLER: Let me go – I’ll come to you next, Janne.
QUESTION: India.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I know you put up a statement yesterday about the Indian inquiry commission having a representative come here. It was exactly at the same time, basically, that you put this out that the allegations came in Canada. Do you have any – first, I mean, do you have any general thoughts on India-Canada round two, about what’s taking place there?
MR MILLER: First of all, I’d say that the timing of those was completely coincidental. When it comes to the Canadian matter, we have made clear that the allegations are extremely seriously – serious, and they need to be taken seriously, and we wanted to see the Government of India cooperate with Canada in its investigation. Obviously, they have not chosen that path.
QUESTION: You say the allegations are extremely serious. Do you mean the longstanding ones?
MR MILLER: Canada, yeah.
QUESTION: The longstanding ones, I mean?
MR MILLER: Canadian, yes. Yes, correct.
QUESTION: So in terms of how India reacted overnight or how they reacted yesterday to this, how do you feel about that? I mean the withdrawal of – I mean, obviously, Canada was kicked out, but how do you feel about India has responded?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. But as we’ve said before, they’re serious allegations and we have wanted to see India take them seriously and cooperate with Canada’s investigation. They have chosen an alternate path.
QUESTION: An alternate path. How does that color perceptions of dealing with India?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further assessment on it.
QUESTION: What can you say about the meeting?
MR MILLER: So I don’t have a readout on the meeting yet. The meeting was here as a follow-up on conversations we have been having with the Government of India at the senior-most levels over the past several months. They have told us that they are taking the allegations seriously, that the activities contained in the DOJ indictment do not represent government policy. So the meeting that happened this week or that is happening today by India’s inquiry was to discuss their active investigation into the matter, for us to update them on our active investigation into the matter, and to continue to share sides about steps that could happen in the days and weeks to come.
QUESTION: All right. And I know you said this, but it’s very hard to believe that the timing of your statement was purely coincidental —
MR MILLER: So I —
QUESTION: — on a day when there is massive
MR MILLER: So I will just tell —
QUESTION: — events going between the Indians and the Canadians.
MR MILLER: I fully understand. I will just tell you that we were planning this – the meeting was planned, and so the statement announcing the meeting was planned early last week, maybe end of the week before, well before we were aware of the actions that Canada was going to take over the past few days. So it is completely coincidental.
QUESTION: May I follow up?
MR MILLER: I promised Janne I would go next, and then I’ll come to you.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Two questions on North Korea.
MR MILLER: I could see her getting angry as I skipped over her, so I’m going to come – I’m going to go next, and then I’ll —
QUESTION: That’s fine. Yeah, that’s fine. Two questions on North Korea.
As you know, North Korea is making an unreasonable claim that South Korea was responsible for the drones infiltration into Pyongyang, and North Korea’s Kim Yo-jong claims that South Korea is the main culprit and that the U.S. should take responsibility. Meanwhile, Russia defended North Korea, saying it violated North Korea’s sovereignty, and warned against using offensive force. What is the United States position, and how can you explain North Korea’s escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula?
MR MILLER: So I would refer to the Republic of Korea to speak to the first part of the question. And when it comes to the actions by the DPRK, we have seen them continue to take steps that raise tensions, and we will encourage – continue to encourage them to take the opposite path, to reduce tensions, and stop any actions that could increase the risk of conflict.
QUESTION: Second question – North Korea eventually blew up the inter-Korean road while insisting on the theory of two country, South and North. How would you comment on this?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further comment beyond what I said in response to Shaun’s question on the same topic a minute ago.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: On India, what makes you believe that – when you arrived at the conclusion that India is not cooperating with the Canadians on investigations?
MR MILLER: So I don’t have any further comment on that beyond what the two countries have said publicly. We have urged them to cooperate, and we’ll continue to urge them to —
QUESTION: But India is saying they have not received any evidence from the Canadians.
MR MILLER: And I will defer to those two countries to speak to the relevant status of the matter.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday said that he has shared with the Americans, U.S. Government, their evidence of their – Indians’ involvement. Have you seen those? What’s your thought?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak publicly to those private conversations.
QUESTION: One more question. The last 24 hours, several Air India flights have received threats, bomb threats, and several of them have been grounded. One of the flights, from Mumbai to Chicago, was – had an emergency landing somewhere in Canada. So fighter jets were scrambled in Singapore for the flights. This comes after months of threats coming from several citizens in the U.S. that blow up the Air India plane from – coming from the U.S. and Canada – Canadian soil. How do you see that?
MR MILLER: Obviously —
QUESTION: Will you be taking action against —
MR MILLER: Sorry.
QUESTION: — those individuals who have been threatening for blowing up Air India planes?
MR MILLER: So obviously any kind of threats against commercial aviation are inappropriate and matters that are dealt with extremely seriously by our own law enforcement agencies, and I would refer to those law enforcement agencies to speak for their —
QUESTION: Will you take steps that such a threat doesn’t come from the U.S. and —
MR MILLER: Again, I will – I think this is a matter for law enforcement agencies, predominantly the Department of Justice, to speak to as a first instance.
QUESTION: How these investigations are going to impact India-U.S. relationship?
MR MILLER: Which investigations?
QUESTION: The one that has come today.
MR MILLER: The U.S. – I didn’t know if you were referring to these other questions or to the first one.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR MILLER: So look, India continues to be an incredibly strong partner of the United States. We work with them on a number of matters, including our shared vision for a free, open, prosperous Indo-Pacific. And when we have concerns, we have the kind of relationship where we can take those concerns to them and have very frank, candid conversations about those concerns. And that’s what we’ve been doing.
QUESTION: And one final question. Is India cooperating with the U.S. in (inaudible) investigation?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the matter publicly. That’s a question that, again, when it comes to an investigation itself, ought to be handled by law enforcement. So I’d refer you to the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, I’m just curious about one thing you said earlier: “We have made clear to Israel that we oppose the bombing campaign Beirut.” Last week you actually wouldn’t characterize the U.S. position on those bombings. So can you explain to us what’s changed over the course of the last week?
MR MILLER: So there are specific strikes that it would be appropriate for Israel to carry out, but when it comes to the scope and nature of the bombing campaign that we saw in Beirut over the past few weeks, it’s something that we made clear to the Government of Israel we had concerns with and we are opposed to.
QUESTION: So if they return to that bombing campaign with an appropriate scope, which I assume you’re not going to define —
MR MILLER: No, I’m not – I’m not going to speak to a hypothetical here. We —
QUESTION: — then that would be fine?
MR MILLER: We had – so we’ve had concerns about the nature of that campaign and we’ve expressed those privately to the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: And you said that they have been halted for now, which you’re welcoming.
MR MILLER: So we’ve seen them come down over the past few days, which is not a prediction about what will happen in the future, but we have seen them come down.
QUESTION: Will there be implications for Israel if they don’t continue to stay at the levels they’re at?
MR MILLER: I just don’t want to speak to hypotheticals.
QUESTION: But just on that, Matt, so are you telling them not to bomb Beirut at all?
MR MILLER: We have made clear that we are opposed to the campaign the way we’ve seen it conducted over the past weeks, few weeks. Now, they do have a right to go after legitimate terrorist targets. We see Hizballah continue to operate across Lebanon, and Israel does have a right to defend itself against those terrorists who pose a threat to the state of Israel. But we’ve had real concerns about the nature of the campaign that we saw roll out across Beirut over the past few weeks, and we made those concerns publicly. I’m not going to speak to it in any detail from here, but we have had quite detailed conversations with the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: But can you elaborate on that nature? Is it the number of high civilian deaths? Is it them seemingly targeting, like, civilian infrastructure? What is it?
MR MILLER: It is largely – it is largely the civilian toll.
QUESTION: It’s the civilian toll.
MR MILLER: Yeah, the civilian toll.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.
MR MILLER: And I’ll come to you next, Ryan.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. George Galloway, former parliamentarian in UK, and Jemima Goldsmith have said that these might be the last few days to save Imran Khan’s life, because since last almost 10 days nobody has met him. Just today they allowed – according to one political leader there, allowed him. Are you aware of these reports that there are threats to his life and health?
MR MILLER: I’ve seen the reports, and obviously we want to see the human rights of every individual in Pakistan be respected.
QUESTION: Okay. A couple of days ago there was a grand jirga in my hometown, Peshawar, by this political party that just recently got banned as well. It’s called Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Basically it started from the tribal areas where I belong. Zalmay Khalilzad tweeted about it as well. Thousands of people gathered – I mean, hundreds of thousands.
One of the demands that they made was that both the Pakistan military and the TTP should leave the tribal – the formal tribal areas, which are now part of the Peshawar, the Imran Khan government. So they have given them two months to either leave the area to both of them. Your thoughts on this scenario?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.
Ryan.
QUESTION: Just one last – just one last thing, please.
MR MILLER: Let me just – let me move on, just because we’re running short.
Ryan, go ahead. And I’ve got a few more people I want to get to. Ryan.
QUESTION: Real quick Israel, then one non-Israel question.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: To follow up on what she was asking, when you say that Israel has a right to strike terrorist targets in Beirut but have to be concerned about the civilian casualties – the entire city is densely populated. Like, what is – how could they attack terrorist targets in Beirut without there being civilian casualties?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into prescribing the nature of a military campaign from here. It is a principle that’s true for every country, that they have a right to defend themselves against terrorism, but we’ve had real concerns about the way we saw the bombing campaign in Beirut roll out over the last few weeks.
QUESTION: But Matt, respectfully –
MR MILLER: Let me just – hold – just – Ryan said he had another question, so before you interrupt –
QUESTION: Well, it – I mean, maybe to her point, it goes to 20 years ago when Ariel Sharon attacked a Hamas commander in Gaza. The Bush administration – I’m sure you’ve seen this quote going around – the Bush administration said this is outrageous; eight civilians were killed, this is an unacceptable civilian toll. When dozens or hundreds of civilians are killed in attacks on Hizballah leadership, there isn’t even a statement accompanying it saying, “We regret the civilian toll.” Like, what changed?
MR MILLER: I just – nothing changed. I just made very clear, as I made clear last week, as I made – we made clear since the beginning, that we were concerned about the loss of civilian life. We’re always concerned about the loss of civilian life, and that continues to be the case.
QUESTION: The non-Israel question.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Ecuador. Could you clarify your statement that you put out a couple days ago about Rafael Correa and Jorge Glas being barred from travel? I think the statement said that it was for “accepting bribes, including through political contributions, in exchange for granting favorable government contracts.” So can you elaborate on what they’re being accused of there?
And separately, Jorge Glas was dragged out of the Mexican embassy after being given asylum by Mexico. He’s now in a maximum security prison. So barring him from traveling to the United States doesn’t have much functional or practical consequence, other than to satisfy Ecuador’s side of the argument that they were actually – it was actually okay for them to drag him out of the Mexican embassy. As you know, the Mexicans are still furious about that. They’re trying to get Ecuador kicked out of the UN for it.
MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a response. I admit I’m not fully aware of the underlying details.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: Hiba, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, Matt. First, do you still see the Israeli conducting a limited operation in Lebanon?
MR MILLER: So with respect to their ground operations in the north, they continue to operate limited incursions, and we continue to watch it very closely.
QUESTION: Okay. I want to follow up on the question about the airport. Because the message that U.S. Embassy in Beirut put out yesterday created a panic in Lebanon, because people are afraid, and they are trying to leave. You said that you made it clear to the Israeli that you oppose bombing Beirut. But what about the airport? Did you make it clear that –
MR MILLER: Oh yeah. We – and I’ve spoken to that before. I spoke to that previously. We have made clear to the Government of Israel that the airport needs to stay open, that we wanted the airport to stay open, that we want the roads to the airport to stay open. The message – I hope people didn’t misinterpret it, so let me make clear if they did – the message that we sent out was for American citizens and lawful permanent residents and their eligible family members, making clear that we may not be able to continue these flights that we have organized in perpetuity. It wasn’t about the status of the airport. It was because we have not seen sufficient demand for those flights. We’ve had flights going out with 12 people on them. And so we want to see people know that these options exist, and that they should take them.
QUESTION: Moving to the politics, the speaker had a call with Macron, and he make – the Lebanese speaker, Nabih Berri —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — and —
MR MILLER: I assumed you didn’t mean Mike Johnson.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) So – no, but obviously when we saw the readout or the leaks in the media, you are not aligned with the French when it comes to the outcome in Lebanon. They are calling for an immediate ceasefire, as per the Lebanese politicians. So are you aligned with them?
MR MILLER: So we have not called for an immediate ceasefire, but we are aligned in that we want to see ultimately a diplomatic resolution.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary going to participate in the conference?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any travel announcements to make today.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Go ahead. And then we’ll –
QUESTION: You just talked about the Indian delegation, meetings with the Indian delegation. What kind of message conveyed to them by the State Department regarding the involvement of Indian agents’ international crimes?
MR MILLER: The same message that we have made clear for some time, which is that it’s a matter we take incredibly seriously, and we want to see it fully investigated.
QUESTION: So Pakistan is hosting Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting in Islamabad. More than 10 countries are joining in. After 15 years, Indian foreign minister is there, and there is an opportunity for the Pakistani-India peace talks. What are your thoughts on that?
MR MILLER: So the United States respects each country’s sovereign right to associate in groupings of its own choosing. We would encourage every country to ensure that its participation in multilateral fora upholds and respects international law, and reaffirms the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of all nations.
QUESTION: So there are a number of incidents in India in the last few months involving the theft and illegal sale of nuclear materials. At the United Nations, Pakistani ambassador called for the investigation of these incidents. Is this a concern from the U.S.?
MR MILLER: So we are aware of Pakistan’s request to the UN Security Council. We are committed to tracking, developing, and implementing effective policy responses to proliferation threats, and we will continue to work with our partners to shape the international security environment.
QUESTION: Sir, one last question: Outgoing Russian ambassador issues kind of a warning. He said that America will face a head-on collision with a nuclear power if it allows Ukraine to fire U.S. long-range missiles into Russia.
MR MILLER: If it allows – if it allows – oh, Ukraine. Sorry, go ahead. I didn’t mean to interrupt.
QUESTION: Yes, sir. Yes. Sir, what is your response on his statement?
MR MILLER: So I think it’s inappropriate for Russia to continue to make these kind of statements, as we’ve said for some time.
Prem.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. One of the people the world saw burned alive by the bombing of the Gaza hospital was Sha’ban al-Dalou, a 19-year-old engineering student who was still attached to an IV drip, recovering from a previous bombing. And his story kind of speaks to how this isn’t just about one attack. A 19-year-old having to provide for his family, repeatedly displaced, brought to hunger, bombed twice in a matter of days – this is a year in. This isn’t out of nowhere. So how many more patients burned alive by U.S. (inaudible) is enough?
MR MILLER: We don’t want to see any. None. We don’t want to see any.
QUESTION: Well, I guess the U.S. has said again and again that no civilian loss is acceptable 10,000 deaths ago, 20,000 deaths ago, and yet it’s continued. So how does this answer mean anything without a policy shift?
MR MILLER: So it is an incredibly difficult environment that Israel operates in. And I’ll just make clear the thing that that question leaves out, as often happens – and I understand why – is the burden that Hamas bears, and not just the burden that Hamas bears by hiding behind humans and using humans as civilian shields, but the burden that Hamas bears in not coming back to the table to try to get to a ceasefire. So Israel needs to do more to minimize civilian harm. Hamas needs to stop hiding behind human shields. Both of those things can be true. Both of those things are true. And ultimately, the horrific human toll over the past year is why we continue to push to get to a ceasefire and why we want to see both sides agree to a ceasefire.
QUESTION: If Hamas is an idea as much as a military force, how is continuing to kill tens of thousands of people – already suffering from pre-existing apartheid – going to defeat that idea?
MR MILLER: We have always made clear that you cannot defeat an idea through a military campaign. You can defeat Hamas’s military wing. You can degrade Hamas’s capabilities, but there has to be a political path forward for a future in Gaza without Hamas, and we have made that clear for the past year.
QUESTION: And then just on Humeyra’s question earlier on the U.S. asking Israel for a new channel of communication about civilian harm, how has the U.S. and Israel been discussing civilian harm incidents up to this point, and why has it taken a year and at least 42,000 people killed for the U.S. to consider that its approach for relying on Israel to stop hurting civilians is just insufficient?
MR MILLER: We have long made clear that we want to see changes in their behavior. We haven’t seen sufficient changes, and – which is why we continue to press them.
And with that, going to wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:14 p.m.)
# # #Tags
No comments:
Post a Comment