Department Press Briefing – October 17, 2024
October 17, 2024
2:48 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start with some opening remarks. Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas who was killed in an Israeli military operation in Gaza yesterday, was a brutal, vicious terrorist responsible for the death of American citizens, Israelis, and civilians from more than 30 countries across the world.
His decision – and it was very much his decision – to launch the terrorist attacks of October 7th unleashed a year of tragedy in the Middle East: 1,200 people murdered on October 7th, 254 hostages kidnapped and hauled into Gaza – including children, infants, elderly, and men and women of all ages – more than 40,000 people dead in Gaza, many of them civilians.
That is the blood-soaked legacy that Yahya Sinwar leaves behind. He didn’t just launch this conflict, but for the past year has refused the efforts of the United States and our partners to end it; refused to return home the hostages who have been separated from their families for more than a year; refused to agree to a ceasefire proposal endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world; and who in recent weeks refused to even negotiate at all on a ceasefire and an end to the war.
There are 101 hostages who remain in Gaza, including seven Americans. And of course, there are 2 million Palestinians who continue to suffer the consequences of Sinwar’s decision to endanger their lives.
The path that Sinwar wanted for the region – death, destruction, instability, chaos – is a path that we know the people of the region reject. The horrors of the past year cannot be the future, and they do not need to be the future. It is time to chart a different path.
So, over the days ahead, the United States will redouble our efforts to return the hostages home, to bring an end to this war, to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, and to allow the people of Gaza to begin to rebuild their lives.
And with that, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. I’ll start with this, obviously, but please don’t close the briefing without allowing me or someone else to ask about the other very big story of the day, which is, of course, the new UN partition proposal for Western Sahara.
MR MILLER: Okay.
QUESTION: So, when you say that over the course of the – over the coming – over the days ahead the U.S. will redouble your efforts, how exactly is that going to happen?
MR MILLER: So, a few things about that. First of all, as you know, we’ve been trying to achieve a ceasefire that returns the hostages home, alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ends the war for many months now. And the chief obstacle to reaching that ceasefire and bringing an end to the war has been Sinwar, who has refused to negotiate at all in recent weeks and has said no time and time again. That obstacle has obviously been removed. Can’t predict that that means that whoever replaces Hamas will agree to a ceasefire, but it does remove what has been in recent months the chief obstacle to getting one. So,we’re going to continue to work with our partners to try to find an end to the war. The Secretary already today while on Air Force One with the President flying to Berlin called the prime minister of Qatar, who has been one of our two mediators – other mediators – working to reach an end to the war. He called the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia to talk about the path forward, and he will be having additional contacts in the days ahead.
QUESTION: Right. But what exactly does redouble your efforts mean?
MR MILLER: So, it means redoubling our efforts to try and get an agreement —
QUESTION: No, no. I get —
MR MILLER: — that would bring the hostages home – look – I’m not – so —
QUESTION: I’m asking you for the logistics. I understand what you want.
MR MILLER: The – so —
QUESTION: I want to know what that actually means, “redouble.” Does it mean that you’re going to be making twice as many calls as you were —
MR MILLER: So, you know the proposal that has been on the table for some time.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: We’re going to be trying to push that proposal forward. We now have a different – well, we don’t know who will be on the other end of the negotiating table now, but it certainly won’t be Sinwar. So, there is a different – it is a very different situation. Now, I don’t want to predict too much what our efforts will look like over the course of the days because we are just hours after what is a seismic event that changes the nature of this conflict. But we believe it is an opportunity to try and bring an end to this war, and we’re determined to try and seize that opportunity.
QUESTION: Okay. But – so you – but in —
MR MILLER: So I – the only reason – the only reason I —
QUESTION: Are we – are you going back to a place where you were two or three – two months ago? Because I just don’t – the redoubling suggests that you are going to —
MR MILLER: We are into – we are – from a – from a policy perspective and what we – a strategic objectives perspective of what we want to achieve, we are in the same place, and we are going to continue to try to push forward the same proposals we have done with our mediators.
QUESTION: The same proposals. So – okay. So, redoubling does not include changes to —
MR MILLER: The – now, there may – the – so it – so here’s the difference. Over the past few weeks, there have been no negotiations for an end to the war because Sinwar has refused to negotiate. There’s been no path to ending this war because Sinwar has refused to talk about releasing the hostages or coming to a ceasefire. We now see an opportunity with him being removed from the battlefield, being removed from the leadership of Hamas, and we want to seize that opportunity.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MR MILLER: Gillian.
QUESTION: A couple of things. Can you confirm that Sinwar died yesterday?
MR MILLER: He was – so I assume that he died yesterday. So, I will leave the Israelis to speak to the exact results, but it was as the result of an operation that they conducted yesterday. I don’t believe that he lay where he was brought down for hours and died later, but the Israelis can speak to that. They will be the ones that conduct any testing and can provide any results.
QUESTION: So, no – no confirmation, but that’s your belief or understanding?
MR MILLER: The operation they carried out was yesterday. I assume that he died instantly or fairly shortly thereafter, but the Israelis can speak to that.
QUESTION: Does Qatar – does the leadership in Qatar after the Secretary spoke to them – do you suspect or do you know if they know who Hamas’s chosen successor is going to be?
MR MILLER: I don’t think anyone can say with any certainty. Hamas has a process that they go through in these situations. We saw them go through that process after the death of Haniyeh. I could only expect that they will go through that process again. I don’t think anyone can predict. People can always speculate, of course, about who the next leader of Hamas will be, but I don’t think anyone can predict with any degree of certainty.
But what I would hope, what we would hope, is that whoever the next leader of Hamas is, he will look at what has happened over the past year, and look at the suffering that Hamas’s actions have brought upon the Palestinian people who they aim to represent – whose cause they aim to advance, and will look and decide that they ought to pursue a different path forward. They ought to pursue a path that isn’t one of death and destruction and chaos, and harm to Israeli civilians and harm to Palestinian civilians, but one that the United States has presented, that Egypt has presented, that Qatar has presented, that other countries in the region and around the world have presented and endorsed. And so that’s what we’ll be pushing for.
QUESTION: Are you communicating that to – indirectly to I guess the remaining leadership there, the – have you – are you communicating that is the United States hope and what you are pushing for?
MR MILLER: We – so I’m not going to speak about any communications that our mediators will have. We always let them speak to those. We are communicating with Qatar. We’ll be communicating with other partners in the region. I think that our position is fairly well known. Now, of course, we don’t know who the person at the other end of the phone is going be, don’t know who will be making decisions for Hamas now. What we do know is that the person who had been the chief obstacle to moving forward with an end of the war is now fortuitously no longer with us.
QUESTION: Last question: And so, I know that you hope this is a big opportunity for ceasefire negotiations and a deal and return of the hostages, but a little more macro, what about for a two-state solution? How do you think this —
MR MILLER: Of course that is the goal that we want to see. That has been our policy for some time. We ultimately want to see a path forward that allows Palestinians in Gaza to rebuild their lives, to rebuild their neighborhoods, to have security; to have Palestinian-led governance that they choose, not that it’s imposed upon them by the outside the world; to live free from the grip of a brutal terrorist organization as opposed to how they have been living in Gaza for the past couple of decades; and ultimately, an independent Palestinian state where Gaza is reunited with the West Bank.
QUESTION: But is that – that’s just like a lot of hope and no chance, or have you seen any, I don’t know, indications that that could – this could create an opening for that?
MR MILLER: Well, I do want to just step back, and this I think will be an answer I give to a lot of questions like that today, which is we are just hours after a very significant event. I think we’re going to have to watch and see how things settle before people can make predictions about how the days, weeks, and months ahead will play out. One thing we do know for certain is that the world is a better place with Sinwar gone from it, and it gives us an opportunity that we didn’t have as long as he still called the shots for Hamas. Now, what that will mean, we’ll have to wait and see in the days ahead.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Could I ask you something – you said that this removes an obstacle. On the Secretary’s last visit to Israel, he said very publicly that Netanyahu was on board with the ceasefire plan as it then stood with a bridging proposal. Does that still – is that still the perception in the United States, that the Israelis are completely on board with what was on the table?
MR MILLER: So, they were – they had accepted the bridging proposal, and if you remember, what else he said at the time is there were still remaining pieces to that deal that needed to be agreed between Hamas and Israel. So we had gone significantly down the road in first getting an agreement on the framework, then getting an agreement on the bridging proposal, but there were still a number of implementing details that needed to be implemented or needed to be agreed to and that Israel was going to face some tough decisions in getting there, and we were going to push Israel to make those tough decisions. But – and so that remains the case.
But what happened in the interim after that visit is that Hamas just walked away from negotiating table. And so, the work that we wanted to do to bridge those final differences we couldn’t do because you didn’t have two partners to talk to.
QUESTION: So – but what I’m getting at, of course, is that there was the issues of the Philadelphi Corridor and all that. Is it the impression of the United States that there needs to be efforts as well with the Israelis right now, maybe push them a little bit harder to get to the place where the U.S. wants them to be?
MR MILLER: So, as I said, of course there will be tough decisions that the Israelis will need to make to get an agreement to end this war, and we have made clear any number of times that we will have very direct, candid conversations with them about the need to make those tough decisions. But we weren’t even in a place to do that, when you have no one at the other end of the table willing to even agree to negotiate. So, you can’t tell the Israelis they have to make tough decisions when Sinwar is sitting on the other side saying I’m not even going to negotiate the end of this at all. We’re now at a different place. What that means going forward, too early to tell, but we do believe it is an opportunity that we want to pursue.
QUESTION: And just pursuing that, I mean, the – obviously, the – we’re talking about Gaza right now, but of course, there’s Lebanon, and there’s – the war has clearly expanded from where we were a few months ago. When we’re saying that – when the Secretary and the President are saying that it’s time to end the conflict, does this also mean in Lebanon? Is that – is it the time also to end the conflict —
MR MILLER: We do want to see ultimately a diplomatic resolution in all. Now, look, you face a different situation in Lebanon. There are still Hizballah forces in close proximity of the Israel border, the border between Israel and Lebanon, who still not only maintain the capability to launch terrorist attacks against Israel, but are still launching terrorist attacks against Israel – continue to rain rockets down on Israel from just across the border. So, it is a different conflict in a different space. We have never thought the two conflicts ought to be linked together, but obviously there are those in the region who have seen the two of them as linked.
So ultimately, we want to see a diplomatic resolution to that conflict. We want to see an end to the fighting there. We want to see it done in a way that guarantees the implementation of 1701, so Hizballah actually withdraws north of the Litani River. I can’t put a timetable on it as it relates to the work that we want to do in Gaza. They’re separate tracks, separate organizations, and we’ll pursue them separately.
QUESTION: And just a final thing. Just logistically, you mentioned the next – in recent days – have there already been talks by the Secretary or by others – you mentioned he was on the phone from Air Force One – with the Israelis specifically since the news came?
MR MILLER: We’ve had a number of conversations with the Israeli Government, both as we were waiting to have this information confirmed – they notified us early this morning that they believed they had killed Sinwar, but they wanted to conduct testing to confirm it, and then we had a number of a conversations, as you might imagine, at several different levels to try and confirm that information. And we’ll have further conversations in the days ahead. I think, as you saw the President say in his statement, he plans to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu in the near future.
QUESTION: You just said that the Israelis notified U.S. early this morning that they believed Sinwar was killed. Can you just give us a little bit more detail? Was that notification – did it come through this building, or did it go to the White House, or the Pentagon? Do you know where that channel was –
MR MILLER: It came in multiple channels. There were people in this building who were notified; there were people in our embassy who were notified. I certainly would expect that people in the Pentagon and people in the White House were notified as well. As you know, we have multiple channels of communication with the Government of Israel, and we were told over multiple channels early this morning.
QUESTION: And you also – you and other U.S. officials in the last hour have been saying now is the time to bring an end to this war between Hamas and Israel. But we’ve been watching as Israel’s been conducting these counterterrorism operations in Gaza, because they say Hamas is reconstituting. If the time is now to bring an end to this conflict, should they stop those counterterrorism operations?
MR MILLER: So, Israel achieved an incredibly important strategic objective today, but their other strategic objectives remain – first and foremost among them the return of the hostages, including the seven Americans who remain held hostage. So, we want to see those hostages returned home. I know Israel wants to see those hostages return home, and it’s important that they continue to work to return those hostages home.
But ultimately, we want to make sure that they take the strategic objectives that they have accomplished – and today was a significant one, but they’ve accomplished other strategic objectives over the past year in degrading Hamas’s military capabilities to the extent that in no sense could they launch an attack today that looked anything like the attack of last October 7th. They’re in no way a functioning military force the way that they were on October 7th, though they, of course, still maintain significant ability to wreak havoc and launch terror – terrorist attacks.
So, what we want to see from them – and this is what we’ll be discussing with them – is how they take those strategic objectives that they have met, and turn that into an enduring strategic victory. And from our perspective, that means a path forward in Gaza that isn’t just a military path forward for degrading Hamas, and continuing to fight Hamas fighters over and over, and seeing a hundred fighters killed and a hundred new fighters join over the course of a day or a month, and being in this perpetual cycle of continuing to fight on the ground there.
What we want to see is a path forward that brings the hostages home and sets the conditions for the day after, where you have reconstruction in Gaza. You have actual security in Gaza. And you have a political path forward for the people in Gaza that is determined by the people in Gaza. And so those are the conversations we are going to have with the Government of Israel, as well as with our other partners in the days ahead. Those are the conversations the Secretary started already today with his counterparts in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: But I guess – you didn’t answer the question as to how the counterterrorism operations that are ongoing fit into that. If you want them to drive forth an enduring victory, you said – should they stop those counterterrorism operations because Hamas has already been dismantled to such a significant degree?
MR MILLER: Look, Hamas still does pose a threat, and Israel still has a right to take on that threat. And they still have a right to try and put pressure on Hamas, and try and free the hostages that remain there. But ultimately, we think the path forward is not just to continue military operations that they will have to repeat over and over again. Because in our judgment and in the judgment of our partners in the region and our partners around the world, a path forward that doesn’t include the reconstruction and security and rebuilding and a political path forward in Gaza is not a path that will actually provide an end to the war. And that’s what we want to see ultimately, is an end to the war.
Now, I can’t tell you that that’s something that we’ll have agreement on with the Israeli Government tomorrow or next week, or with partners in the region. But it’s something that we’re going to continue to pursue.
QUESTION: And then do you have an early assessment as to where – given you said you’ve been in regular contact with Israeli officials over the last few hours, we saw the speech from Prime Minister Netanyahu – do you have an initial assessment as to where Netanyahu stands on this right now, if he’s going to be in lockstep with the United States in driving forth an end to this conflict —
MR MILLER: So – sorry.
QUESTION: — after Sinwar’s death?
MR MILLER: So, the President’s going to talk to the prime minister in the coming days. I think it’s appropriate to wait for that conversation before we offer any kind of assessment.
QUESTION: And then just last question. Yeah, that makes sense. The day-after plan – there have been many conversations in this building about when you guys are going to release that. That has been long worked on in this building. Is the time now?
MR MILLER: So, I don’t want to preview any announcements, but obviously we want to seize the opportunity created by the death of Sinwar, and that means an opportunity to end the war. And it means an opportunity to get to the day after. And so, we have been working on this for months, and it’s not just happening inside this building, but – as you know, happening in conversations with our partners first and foremost in the region, but also our partners in other countries around the world. And we do want to look to push those plans forward in the days ahead.
I’m not going to preview any specific announcements or give any specific timing. Again, we’re only hours after what is a fairly seismic event. But, certainly, it’s something that we want to pursue aggressively in the days ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Daphne.
QUESTION: Thank you. To follow up on Shaun’s questions about Lebanon, Jake Sullivan just said nothing in the Middle East is unrelated. So how can you delink the ceasefire in Gaza from the fighting in Lebanon and pursue these separately?
MR MILLER: So that’s the point I just made, which is we have never believed that the two conflicts ought to be linked together. And just when you look at – you’re pursuing separate diplomatic resolutions with the state of Lebanon, and trying to find a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. So of course, Hizballah linked the two conflicts, even when we didn’t think they were linked, and Hizballah has continued to link the conflicts.
What we have always believed is stability brings about stability. So, if you could bring an end to the conflict in Gaza, that heightens the chances of reaching a diplomatic resolution to the fight across the Blue Line. And that remains our assessment.
QUESTION: And then Netanyahu said today that their task is not complete, that they will continue full force until the hostages return, and that the war is still not over. What’s your reaction to those comments? Do you see them at odds at all with Biden’s statement, which mentioned ending the war and the administration’s aim of trying to push forward the ceasefire proposal?
MR MILLER: So, as I said a moment ago in response to another question, they have a very real, very legitimate strategic objective that they need to continue to pursue, which is the return of all the hostages. And we have a very real interest in that objective as well, because seven of those 101 hostages are Americans, and we want to see them returned. So, we’re going to be in conversation with them about the best way to achieve that objective in the days ahead.
But as you know, we’ve long been clear that we think reaching a ceasefire that brings those hostages home and sets the conditions for an end of the war is the right path forward. And we’ve had longstanding conversations with Israel about that, and we hope we have an opportunity now.
QUESTION: Is continued fighting a viable path for the return of hostages at all? Or is it a ceasefire?
MR MILLER: So, as I just said, long term, no, we don’t believe it is. We don’t believe that – it’s not just that – whether it’s a path for the return of hostages. You could see how you would – you might return some hostages in one-off operations here and there. But no, you’re not going to return all the hostages through fighting, nor are you going to achieve a durable, lasting end to the war just by fighting on the battlefield. Because you kill one terrorist and see that terrorist replaced by someone else.
And so ultimately, you need to find not just – you need to achieve not just military objectives but also political objectives, and you need to create a pathway forward for the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: Are there specific steps that you want to see Israel take in the coming days and weeks toward a ceasefire?
MR MILLER: We’re going to have those conversations privately with them before we talk about it publicly. Again, as I predicated I would say this in response to another question, we are just hours after this event. I think it’s appropriate to let the President have a conversation with the prime minister, appropriate for the Secretary to have conversations with his counterparts, before we prescribe too much of that from this podium.
QUESTION: And sorry, last one. On the conversations that you mentioned Blinken has had today, has he specifically discussed post-war Gaza?
MR MILLER: He has.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just going back to your opening remarks and the statement that we heard from the VP Harris and the statement issued by President Biden, Sullivan at the White House, as well, all considering killing Sinwar is a renewed opportunity to end the war in Gaza. And as you said, your priority is first to release the hostages, stop the fighting, and allow the Palestinians to rebuild their homes.
But maybe there’s also the question now arise that – something that used to bother you when you – when we asked you before, that this didn’t start on October 7. It started long ago. And if not solving those roots in the future, October 7 will keep happening again. And my question is, yes, you helped Israel to – with weapons and weapons shipments and also political cover to achieve the military objective of eliminating the threats in Gaza, and now the ongoing operation in southern Lebanon, but what are you going to do after the war to push Israel more toward the solution that you see fit for this conflict, especially that advising them is not – seems to be enough?
MR MILLER: So, it’s not just the United States making clear our views on this question, but it is countries in the region and countries around the world who have made clear their views on this question. And in some cases, it’s not just their views – it’s their policies. So, you’ll recall that on a trip the Secretary made earlier this year, he went to Israel and made clear that what he had heard from countries in the region is that they were ready for a new path forward with Israel as well. There are countries in the region that were ready to put aside decades-long disputes, and normalize relations with Israel, and present a new alliance of countries inside the region that would isolate Iran.
So, there are enormous benefits for Israel’s security, for Israel’s economic development, for Israel’s relations with its neighbors and its standing in the world, to finding a political path forward that allows the Palestinian people to realize their aspirations.
Now, I get the tension inherent in your question, which is we cannot make that choice for the Government of Israel or for the people of Israel. All we can do is lay out to them the upside of ultimately moving forward with a path to a reunited Gaza and the West Bank and a political path forward for the Palestinian people. And we can lay out the risks of not pursuing that path – and the risks are well-known. But it is Israel that has to make that decision in the same way that other countries in the decision have to – in the region have to make their own decisions about the types of relationships that they want to have with Israel.
QUESTION: Then, Matt, I mean, you must know that the world doesn’t work this way. A country – if one country doesn’t adhere to UN Security Council resolutions – and in fact there will always be ways to force them toward it, whether if by UN sanctions, American sanctions, more pressure on the government to abide by the international law. And the international law states that the West Bank is an occupied land, and the two-state solutions is the way forward. But I’m asking you – I know that other countries in the international community agrees with you. But you are blocking the international agencies like the UN and others from taking any action toward Israel to force it into making this decision. And at the same time, you as a most powerful Israel ally will not take the steps as well. You are just getting – you are – what are you doing – as I heard many – several times here in this briefing, you advise them, and whatever they want to do, they’re going to do.
MR MILLER: Because we believe that, ultimately, this is a pathway forward that needs to be negotiated among the parties, not imposed upon them. And that has been the longstanding position of the United States. It will continue to be our position. But without making any predictions of what will happen in the future, the two paths that I just laid out are very stark. And they’re very different paths for the state of Israel and they’re very different paths for the region. And so, we and other countries in the region will continue to make clear to Israel the risks of continued instability and the real rewards of a path forward for the Palestinian people, and they will have to make their decisions, just as other countries do.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah, Olivia.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does the U.S. believe right now that the hostages who are still in Gaza are at greater risk, in greater danger? What’s the message to families who are seriously concerned about their safety at what might be a critical period?
MR MILLER: Look, I don’t have any assessment to make on that – make from here. Obviously, again, we are just in the early hours after. I would make clear to anyone who is considering harming any hostage – American or otherwise – that they will be held accountable. They should be held accountable in the same way that Yahya Sinwar was held accountable for murdering civilians and taking them hostages.
In – as it pertains to any communication to the families of hostages and to their loved ones, we will give those communications privately. As you know, we have been in close touch with the families of the seven Americans who continue to be held, and we’ll continue to be in close touch with them about the status and the well-being of their loved ones.
QUESTION: Okay. And so apart from reinvigorating ceasefire and hostage talks, there are no specific steps being taken right now vis-à-vis American or other hostages?
MR MILLER: The specific step that is being undertaken, which – I don’t mean to suggest – sound like you were downplaying in the premise to the question – that’s the step that we need to take to try and get them home. It’s – in our judgment, the most fruitful path to bringing them home is to get an agreement that gets them out. As I said, it’s long been our position that just the way the situation on the ground, the way the situation on the ground works, is you are not going to return all those hostages home through military action. You may see operations here and there that can return some hostages, but that ultimately, to bring all of them home safely, you need to reach an agreement that helps bring about an end to the war.
QUESTION: Obviously today’s development comes against the backdrop of what had been heightened tensions and expected Israeli retaliatory strike on Iran for its earlier ballistic missile attack on October 1st. What is the U.S.’s understanding as to whether that may go forward?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to read those conversations out publicly, as I have, I think, scrupulously declined to do over the past few weeks.
QUESTION: Okay. Iranian media is referring to Sinwar’s death as a martyrdom, saying he was killed while battling Israeli forces on the battlefield. What is the risk, how significant is the risk, that his death, rather than subduing militant groups in the region, emboldens them at this point?
MR MILLER: I am sure that Hamas and other terrorist groups will try to present Sinwar as some kind of hero for the Palestinian cause, but I think it’s important that everyone remember the actual facts, which is that Sinwar was a brutal terrorist that didn’t just terrorize the Israeli people but that ruled Gaza with an iron fist before October 7th, that brutalized Palestinians in Gaza, that tortured Palestinians in Gaza, and then unleashed a conflict that has been responsible for the death of more than 40,000 Palestinians.
So, I would hope that anyone that’s considering thinking of him in any favorable light at all will look on the actual consequences of his life and the decisions that he made that wreaked such havoc for the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: Last one for me. The Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his remarks today, paraphrasing, basically said that Israel had resisted all kinds of pressure – he didn’t name the provenance of the pressure – but all kinds of international pressure to stop the war, stop the fighting, and not enter Rafah. With today’s developments, in hindsight – and I know it’s early – but does it seem like the U.S.’s calls to not enter Rafah, to try to broker a ceasefire, were preemptive or at least never going to meet with Israeli approval or acceptance?
MR MILLER: No, I will say that we always made clear that we supported Israel conducting counterterrorism operations to target the leaders of Hamas and to target Hamas militants. And not only did we make clear we supported it, but we provided active intelligence support for those operations. And I think I’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: Matt?
MR MILLER: I think, Tom.
QUESTION: I mean, the ceasefire hostage release deal that has been on the table and I think was last discussed in person with the Israelis by the Secretary – it was the last trip we were on, the ninth trip, I think, out of the 10 – and that’s, I’m assuming, although it’s – there hasn’t been any meaningful discussions, but it’s still on the table, that?
MR MILLER: Correct.
QUESTION: And so I’m trying to understand from the Israeli perspective, given the death of Sinwar, if you couldn’t get that past Benjamin Netanyahu, and I think during that time it was when a senior official said that Mr. Netanyahu is making maximalist statements and it wasn’t conductive to getting the ceasefire deal done – I’m just trying to understand why now there’s any more reason than there was then for him to accept such a deal?
MR MILLER: Because he’s not the only party to this arrangement, and the other party to this arrangement is the one who had refused to negotiate at all. We did have important decisions we were going to need the prime minister and the Government of Israel to make, but we had seen them make concessions already, and it was our assessment we could get to a deal. And in the middle of that, Sinwar walked away from the table.
So, without making any predictions, and – about what will happen – and I’ll just refer you to what I said at the beginning of this briefing, which is: without a doubt, there are tough decisions for Israel to make to get to an ultimate agreement. Without a doubt. We’ll be the first to say that, and we’re the first – we are the people engaging with them to try and convince them to make those tough decisions. But you had on the other side a roadblock, an absolute stonewall “no,” and that person is removed – that, we think, presents an opportunity.
QUESTION: Absolutely, but at that point, the deal that is on the table was still not strong enough, was not – there wasn’t enough incentive for Netanyahu to accept it either.
MR MILLER: But —
QUESTION: And what’s happened now is he’s put himself in a far stronger position —
MR MILLER: So —
QUESTION: — because what’s happened on the ground.
MR MILLER: So, what that leaves out is that we were negotiating with him, and we were negotiating with Hamas over how to get to yes. And we believed that we could get to an agreement. And then Sinwar ended the negotiations while we were in the process of trying to get there. That’s what – that is the difference in what was happening in the way that you presented the question.
QUESTION: Okay, it’s just I think – and this is to develop Olivia’s point – is that from Mr. Netanyahu perspective now, you have a situation where – and he said in the speech there, he’s saying – he’s calling for surrender. He’s calling for Hamas, people who have – are holding hostages to come out, lay down their arms, release hostages. There’s nothing that I can see in what he’s saying about getting the hostages released and an end to the war via discussion, diplomacy, ceasefire talks. This is all about military pressure, which he is suggesting he has vindicated – he is vindicated by, against, as he said, all the pressures. And I assume he means, subtly, American pressure, particularly with Rafah. So, he’s – as far as I can see, he’s saying military – a military solution to this is vindicated, keep going and try and get hostages released via surrender or whatever. But that doesn’t —
MR MILLER: No offense, Tom, but is there a question coming? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah, sorry. No, sorry. I’m just – well, I’m saying: How are you going to incentivize him now? Because this to him is a military vindication and a way in which to keep going and not as you want, which is a future – a viable Palestinian future in the Gaza Strip. He wants Israeli control effectively with a minimal sort of level of Palestinian —
MR MILLER: All right, so let me just get to this.
QUESTION: So, I’m asking what incentives you are laying out.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR MILLER: Yeah, I was going to say it still took a while to get to the question.
Look, we believe the incentives are the return of the 101 hostages, and we believe the incentive is a path forward that provides increased security for Israel. And we had gotten agreement from them – if you go back and remember that even before we got to this position in July and August where we were arguing overt the implementation details, we had an agreement that Israel had accepted that Hamas refused. So, it’s just not accurate to say that Israel had never agreed to – and you didn’t say that. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Israel had agreed to a ceasefire proposal that we put on the table, and Hamas didn’t accept it. They came back with provisions that they wanted to change and negotiated, and then we had to bridge differences between the two parties, and Hamas walked away.
So, I can’t tell you what the Government of Israel is going to do. Direct those questions to them. We believe it is in their interest to ultimately find an agreement to the end of the war. We’ve seen them previously be willing to engage in those conversations. We’ve seen that there are proposals that they accepted. We hope now that there is a party on the other side that’s willing to engage in conversations.
QUESTION: And on that, just on the – what you – the discussion with the Qataris today, is there anything you can read out about that?
MR MILLER: The discussions with?
QUESTION: With the leadership of Qatar.
MR MILLER: Oh, the Qataris? No, nothing further on it. They had a discussion about it. But we have a lot of work to do in the days ahead, and we intend to pursue that work.
Said.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m struck by how you describe the killing of Sinwar as a seismic event. Really, you believe that it was a seismic event at the level of, let’s say, something like a nuclear bomb or something like this? Really? I mean, it’s —
MR MILLER: It is absolutely a seismic event in the Middle East. When you look at who he was and what he was responsible for, he was someone who made the decision – and it was – as I said at the beginning, it was his decision to launch the terrorist attacks, someone who after the death of Haniyeh didn’t just have military control of Hamas but had political control of Hamas as well. And he is the person who has been the prime obstacle to ending the war and stopping the suffering of the Palestinian people. So, absolutely it is an important event.
QUESTION: I understand the event itself it was a firefight. He had two other people with him. I mean, there’s —
MR MILLER: I suppose we disagree about the relative importance of the death of Sinwar. I think it’s a pretty important event.
QUESTION: Okay, whatever. That’s what the – that’s what the Israelis are saying, not me. I don’t know. Now let me ask you a couple of things. Now, you keep saying that Hamas absolutely refused the – as far as all these people that were involved in negotiations from the Arab side – the Qataris, the Egyptians, and so on – they all say that Hamas agreed 100 percent to your proposal.
MR MILLER: No, they didn’t.
QUESTION: It was the Israelis that rejected it.
MR MILLER: They don’t, Said.
QUESTION: And they went on —
MR MILLER: They don’t, Said, and that’s not what happened.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: And you and I have been through this before.
QUESTION: Well, that’s – that’s fine. I’m just trying to – I’m asking the question.
MR MILLER: I know, but you and I have been through this before.
QUESTION: Right, okay.
MR MILLER: They came back with a counterproposal, which is not an acceptance of the proposal that was put forward and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. If I give you a proposal, Said, and you come back and say I agreed to seven of the things you propose and on these three others I have major changes, that is not an acceptance of my proposal.
QUESTION: Okay. But the answer – the Israeli answer was to go ahead and kill the chief negotiator, right? Who was not carrying a gun, was sleeping actually in a guest house. Wasn’t it?
MR MILLER: Is there is a question, Said?
QUESTION: Well, and I’m just saying at this point. Okay, yes, I do have a couple of questions. You also said that whoever comes next – Hamas – they would look back and reassess what happened in the last year and so on.
MR MILLER: I didn’t say they would. I said I hoped they would.
QUESTION: You hope they would. Yes, I said that you hope that they would. Does that mean that you will be – you would be willing to negotiate with Hamas directly if someone —
MR MILLER: No, no.
QUESTION: If someone —
MR MILLER: No. Hamas is a terrorist organization. The United States does not engage with terrorist organizations. But of course, we will engage with our mediators who engage with them.
QUESTION: Right, okay. So, what would be the incentive for those – I mean, it seems now that no one is having command and control over Hamas. I mean, probably it’s everyone is running their own —
MR MILLER: What would be the incentive, Said? How about an end to the war?
QUESTION: No, I understand.
MR MILLER: How about stopping the death of Palestinian civilians?
QUESTION: Yes. Well, maybe —
MR MILLER: What more incentive should a leader of Hamas need than that?
QUESTION: Right, okay. But I’m saying that if someone like Sinwar who exerted a great deal of power and control and so on was unable to basically negotiate or do something like this or make sure that he could deliver Hamas, what makes you think that others can?
MR MILLER: Said, I don’t – I don’t think you should make excuses for Sinwar.
QUESTION: No, no. I’m not making —
MR MILLER: He was not unable to negotiate. He was unwilling to negotiate.
QUESTION: I’m taking your word. You’re saying that he was —
MR MILLER: Let’s be clear about it. He had every ability to negotiate an end to this war, and he refused to. There’s a big difference.
QUESTION: Okay. I’m saying now. Now that he is gone, probably there is no structure. I don’t know. I mean, so we don’t know who’s in control. Maybe like – maybe the hostages are in more peril.
Let me ask you another question on —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Yeah. Let me – okay. All right, let me ask you a question on —
MR MILLER: I didn’t think that was a question, so I wasn’t responding to it. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Let me ask you a question on a proposal that is being suggested that – that Secretary Blinken is going to consider proposing right after the election about that the Israelis and the Emiratis and so on are coming up with some sort of the day after. Can you share with us? Is there something to that report or to this suggestion, or would we hear something from the Secretary?
MR MILLER: So, I spoke to this yesterday. We have been in discussions with —
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — our Emirati partners, with Israeli partners, with other countries in the region as well. That’s been the subject of a number of trips that the Secretary has conducted and has been the subject of ongoing diplomatic conversations. And I’m not going to predict from here when we might put forward some type of proposal, but we are very much seized with agreeing with our partners in the region on a proposal to provide actual security and governance and a political path forward for the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: But it seems that the Israelis are – they want to see a diminished role for the PA and Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO apparently. Would you agree with something like this?
MR MILLER: So, we have always made clear that one of the principles to which we adhere is unified West Bank and Gaza under the Palestinian – under Palestinian Authority control, where the people of the West Bank and Gaza can choose their leadership, not anyone else.
QUESTION: Can I —
MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel.
QUESTION: Can we move to Lebanon —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — if you don’t mind? First, how can the United States help the Lebanese people to move the political process forward when the U.S. close friend, Speaker of the House Berri and Hizballah as his partner have been blocking the election of a new president? Is the U.S. ready to pressure on Speaker Berri to convene the parliament and elect a new president?
MR MILLER: So, it’s not a question of the United States putting pressure on the Lebanese political decision makers. Those are decisions that they have to make for themselves. But we are engaged with multiple members of the Lebanese Government, and we are engaged with our partners in in the region, who we also know have been engaged with the leaders of the Lebanese Government. And we have all had a singular message, which is it is time for the parliament to move forward with electing a president finally.
Now, what else we can do? We can work to strengthen Lebanese institutions, primarily the Lebanese Armed Forces, which we see as a bulwark for security and stability inside Lebanon and we have supported with direct financial assistance over the past couple of decades – and we will continue to support, because we think the role that they can play in providing stability and as one of the most respected institutions in the country is an incredibly important one and it has to be maintained.
QUESTION: Did you ask Speaker Berri to convene the parliament to elect a new president?
MR MILLER: We made very clear to the speaker and to the prime minister that we think it is important that the parliament elect a new president in the days and weeks ahead – specific steps I’m not going to get into.
QUESTION: On the Israel incursion, did you get any sense from Israel for how long will this military operation last in the south?
MR MILLER: I think I should let them speak to their timetables. It’s not something I should do from here.
QUESTION: And will the U.S. attend the ministerial meeting on Lebanon in Paris?
MR MILLER: I expect that we will be represented there. I don’t have any announcements to make about who.
QUESTION: Should we expect any financial aid or political announcement?
MR MILLER: So, the conference is still a week away. I think stay tuned until next week before – to look for any kind of announcements coming out of it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about how much the U.S. are involved with Israel in this killing?
MR MILLER: This was an Israeli operation exclusively.
QUESTION: And what about intelligence from you guys?
MR MILLER: So, we have provided them intelligence since the beginning of this conflict to help them locate and fight, and bring to justice the leaders of Hamas. And I do think that that intelligence has been successful in increasing the pressure on those leaders. But when it comes to this specific operation, this was an Israeli operation, and I’ll let them speak to the details of it.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR MILLER: Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Based on everything you have said so far on this subject, is it your assessment today we are one day closer to the end of the conflict or one day away from the this at the end?
MR MILLER: So, I just don’t want to make any predictions, other than to say that a major obstacle to the end of the conflict has been removed, and we think that provides an opportunity. But I’m not going to make any predictions about what’s going to come in the days ahead.
QUESTION: Different conflict. Sanctions were announced today on Chinese drone companies. The language that you guys have used suggested – it suggests that China has been apparently producing and sending weapons to Russia to use in Ukraine. This is the first time. That’s a departure from its promises to the U.S. Is that a fair assessment of this?
MR MILLER: So, we have seen for some time Chinese companies providing components to Russian companies that Russian companies then use to turn into machinery, weapons, other components that Russia could use in its war. This was the first – and we have imposed sanctions on a number of those companies. This was the first time we actually saw a Chinese company manufacturing a weapon itself that then was used on the battlefield by Russia, was sent to Russia and then used on the battlefield. And that’s why we imposed the sanctions that we did today, and that is why we continue to work with our allies and partners around the world to make clear to China that this practice is unacceptable, and they need to take steps to counter it.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Tuesday, you expressed your concerns about reports on North Korea supplying troops to – for Russia to use in Ukraine. Two days passed; the Secretary had a phone call with his counterpart in Ukraine, and the President spoke with President Zelenskyy. Do you have any new intelligence they do have? Did they hand to you any details? And if you have them?
MR MILLER: I don’t have anything further I can offer today.
QUESTION: And one more. China, North Korea, now Iran – if you ask average Ukrainians, they’re going to tell you how do you expect us to fight against all these powers, all alone?
MR MILLER: Because they have on their side the United States of America, a number of countries in Europe, a number of countries around the world. Remember, we have marshalled a coalition of 50 countries – more than 50 countries – who support Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and have continued to provide support in a number of ways – military support, economic support, diplomatic support – over the past two years and will continue to provide support.
QUESTION: I guess my question is, like, does it – do these all – these new facts change the calculus on – in terms of —
MR MILLER: No.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Sorry to interrupt.
MR MILLER: No, I was moving on.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. When you speak about ending the war, does that include full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza? You have repeated this, that you oppose the reoccupation of Gaza. Does that position still stand?
MR MILLER: Of course. Of course.
QUESTION: An Israeli opposition leader and former war cabinet minister, Benny Gantz, just said on Twitter that the IDF will continue to operate in Gaza for years to come. Would that be acceptable for you?
MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to respond to a statement that I have not – I think it sounds like that came out while I was at the podium. I haven’t seen its full context. But I will just say, as a matter of fact, we ultimately want to see Israel fully withdrawn from Gaza. Now, they have a right to – as any country does – to address terrorist threats against its people. But what we want to see as an end to this war is the terrorist threat from Gaza eliminated, and we want to see ultimately a political path that establishes a Palestinian state that is not hostile to Israel. And so, of course, you wouldn’t want to see and wouldn’t need to see the IDF operating in that environment.
QUESTION: Yeah. When the war ends, maybe we’ll never see IDF operating in Gaza anymore, right? Like, complete withdrawal.
MR MILLER: I’m sorry, what was the —
QUESTION: Like, complete withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza.
MR MILLER: Yes, that’s what we want to see, is them – is a complete withdrawal. That’s what we meant when the Secretary laid out almost a year ago several – a number of principles that we wanted to see for the end of the conflict, and one of them was no occupation of Gaza.
Prem.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Our colleagues at Politico reported that a U.S. envoy told aid groups that the U.S. would not consider withholding weapons to Israel for blocking food and medicine, that essentially the rules don’t apply to Israel. Given —
MR MILLER: It’s not – no, forget what the – that is not at all accurate representation of her comments.
QUESTION: That’s – oh, sorry, sorry. That’s what the source of the story was —
MR MILLER: Not all of which were accurately presented in that article. I would say – should note, as always with these, you have what becomes a secondhand presentation put into an article. Not all of those comments were in any way accurate.
QUESTION: Sure. But was the basic characterization of her describing U.S. policy —
MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to a private meeting, but we have always made clear that we are committed to the defense of Israel. We will continue to support the defense of Israel, but we also are going to enforce U.S. law.
QUESTION: So, you will enforce U.S. law, including potentially blocking weapons aid —
MR MILLER: If you look at the letter that the Secretary – if you look at the letter the Secretary sent the other day, he said that there are a number of U.S. laws and policies that are implemented by Israel not taking steps to allow humanitarian assistance to get in, and we will enforce U.S. law. But we’re going – we want to see Israel take increased steps. We’ve seen them take some increased steps over the last few days, but we need to see much more.
QUESTION: I guess there have been previous instances for which, like, this threat has been sort of floated, whether it’s in the wake of the seven World Central Kitchen workers that were killed, whether it was in – before any sort of major operation in Rafah. Of course, the administration maintains there wasn’t a major operation, but nevertheless, there have been instances for which this threat has been offered, and yet there hasn’t been any actualization of it.
MR MILLER: So, I know that your objective is to see the end of U.S. support to Israel. Our objective is to see Israel take steps to increase humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza. We have other steps as well, but that’s irrelevant to the conversation we’re having now. And so, our engagement with them on this question has been to push them to take steps, and at times we’ve seen them take really important steps. When we had this last major engagement with them in April, we saw them take a number of steps to open new crossings and it got trucks up to 300, to 400 on some days. Now, we saw significant first stagnation and then backsliding over the last few months, which is why the Secretary felt it was important to sent that letter this Sunday.
QUESTION: To be clear, my objective is not to – my objective is to ask the U.S. enforcing its laws.
MR MILLER: Shaun, go ahead. I’m almost – I’m – I understand. Shaun.
QUESTION: It’s not to do that.
QUESTION: Can we actually go to Western Sahara?
QUESTION: Wait a second. I thought I had dibs on —
MR MILLER: You – either one, but I’m going to disappoint you with my answer, so go ahead.
QUESTION: What?
MR MILLER: I’m going to disappoint you with my answer – go ahead – I shouldn’t —
QUESTION: I’ll let Shaun do it.
MR MILLER: I should let you live through the disappoint whether – rather than preview it, so Shaun, go ahead with the question. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m predicting the answer now, but does the U.S. support a partition of Western Sahara?
MR MILLER: I’m going to need to take that question back, only because, as you might imagine, I was entirely focused on the events in Gaza yesterday.
QUESTION: Yes, but you’ve been – you’ve spent decades as a scholar of Western Sahara diplomacy in the Polisario.
MR MILLER: Haven’t reviewed the action at all or discussed it with any of my colleagues, so let me take it back and get you an answer.
QUESTION: So just to be clear, there is no action, per se; it’s just the UN envoy’s proposal?
QUESTION: Which is the same proposal that former Secretary of State James Baker made when he was in that same envoy position, which is to partition Western Sahara between Morocco and the Polisario. And so, the question is –
MR MILLER: So only because –
QUESTION: I realize you can’t answer it now, so can you take the question?
MR MILLER: — the extent I know about the proposal is that the – one was made today, and I didn’t have any chance to look at it all or talk to my colleagues, I do want to take that question back and get you an answer.
QUESTION: Can the U.S. still stand by supporting Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara like the previous administration?
MR MILLER: There has been no change in our policy.
QUESTION: Could I just ask you a separate question, slightly different? The Taliban – you might have seen this – they issued rules today – not today, this week – about banning publication of living beings, images of living beings, so I guess they wouldn’t be watching this briefing. But do you have any reaction on —
MR MILLER: (Laughter.) I’m going to have to plead ignorance on this one too. I’m not aware – I’ll take the question back and get you an answer.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR MILLER: Go ahead, Daphne, then we’ll wrap for the day.
QUESTION: Thank you. Venezuela’s interior minister said today that three more Americans have been detained for alleged terrorist activities. Do you have any reaction to this? And do you know when they were arrested?
MR MILLER: So, we’ve seen the reports. We’re monitoring them and gathering more information. Obviously, the safety and security of American citizens anywhere around the world is our first priority, and we’re going to gather more information about this in the hours ahead.
And with that, wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:42 p.m.)
# # #
replaces Sinwar ↑
No comments:
Post a Comment