U.S: Department Press Briefing – October 9, 2024

 

Department Press Briefing – October 9, 2024

October 9, 2024

1:20 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR MILLER: Matt, you ready? I don’t have anything to start with, so —

QUESTION: You got nothing?

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: Okay. Well, first, before we get into Israel and Iran and also Lebanon, I just want to do the daily flight update.

MR MILLER: Sure. On flights from Lebanon?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: So since I last was here yesterday afternoon, we had one flight go last night from Beirut to Istanbul. There’s another flight that left this morning from Beirut en route to Istanbul. These are the U.S.-organized flights I mentioned before. A total of 50 people on the flight this morning; a very small number on the flight last night – I think it was around 13, 14, somewhere around there – to bring the total number of American citizens, legal permanent residents and their family members who have left on these U.S.-organized flights since we started them about a week ago to over 1,100 people.

There have been a total of 3,620 available seats on those flights, and then when you add the number of seats on commercial flights that are – we have been making available, there have been a total of 4,600 seats that we have been able to make available to American citizens, permanent residents, and family members.

QUESTION: So look, demand does not – 13 or 14 people on a flight, on a plane that carries 300 passengers, does not seem like there’s a significant demand. Also 50 people on a flight that carries 300 people also does not. So one, is there any consideration that right now of pulling these flights down, because there’s just not enough demand? And secondly, how much has it cost the U.S. Government taxpayers to organize these flights?

MR MILLER: Yeah. So I don’t have the cost. I can tell you, obviously, the – there’s – there are two ways to look at it. One is the cost of the flight itself. I don’t have the cost. And the number of passengers that ride on the plane would impact the net cost to the federal government. But I don’t know the total number for the cost of the plane to do that kind of subtraction.

QUESTION: Okay. It would be – okay. If someone could look into that, that would be —

MR MILLER: Sure. But then with respect to the broader question – so we’re going to continue the flights for the time being, because we do assess that there is demand. Obviously, we’ve had more turnout for some flights than others. We’ve had some flights go out with around 150 people; then we’ve had these other flights with fewer. But it is going to be an ongoing question we look at, an ongoing assessment that we make. It also partly depends on the number of seats that are available on commercial airlines and whether those flights continue to take place.

I’ll just say we believe we have a duty to do everything we can to help American citizens get out of the country. We have been urging American citizens to leave the country for months, and we know that a lot of people wanted to leave, especially over the past couple of weeks. We had people reach out to us and say that they wanted to leave, and then some of them say that and then don’t ultimately leave, for maybe very good reasons, which is they’re worried about their family members, or they have other considerations. But ultimately, we can’t make people leave, of course. We can make these options available, and we’re going to continue to make them available because the safety and security of American citizens is our top priority.

QUESTION: Okay. Now onto – do – onto the other, the more substantive issue of possible Israeli retaliation against Iran and also what they’re planning on doing in Lebanon. Was the Secretary able to join from the plane – was he able to join the call?

MR MILLER: He did. The call between —

QUESTION: Between the President and – yeah.

MR MILLER: — President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, he did join from the plane on his way to Laos.

QUESTION: Okay. And?

MR MILLER: And I will defer to – as always when it comes to a call involving the President of the United States, I will defer to the White House to speak to the contents of the call.

QUESTION: Well, okay. That’s fine. But do you know —

MR MILLER: I’m sure they’ll have a readout coming. And of course, they have a press briefing, but I’m not going to speak to it from here.

QUESTION: Yeah. But has your – well, from this building’s perspective, has anything – excuse me – has anything changed since the call concluded?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to the call at all. I know the White House will have a readout coming, and I’m sure they’ll speak to it in their press briefing.

QUESTION: I’m sure it will be incredibly detailed.

MR MILLER: I will defer to them on the level of detail, and I will defer to you on your assessment of how detailed that actually is.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

QUESTION: Yeah. I was wondering, you said your duty is to do everything you can to help people to leave Lebanon. And one of the options would be calling for a ceasefire, but you don’t obviously. And yesterday, you said – clearly said this a couple of days – that you support Israeli incursions against Hizballah in Lebanon, but at the same time you support ultimately a diplomatic solution to this. So how do you square that exactly in concrete terms? How do you square supporting escalation and at the same time thinking that that might lead to a diplomatic solution?

MR MILLER: So we have always been very clear that the diplomatic resolution that we want to see is the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. That has been our priority, and it’s what you’ve heard from the United States going back to the immediate days after October 7th when Hizballah began launching rocket attacks against Israel. We ultimately do want to get to a ceasefire, and we do want to get to a diplomatic resolution.

And we want to get to a diplomatic resolution that includes Hizballah finally – after 18 years – fully complying with what that Security Council resolution called on them to do. And those are things that they have not done over the past 18 years, since 1701 was adopted – setting down their arms, withdrawing to north of the Litani River. And it is their refusal to comply with that Security Council resolution that has gotten us to the place that we are today.

So yes, we do see Israel having the right to conduct these limited incursions to degrade Hizballah’s capability to delay – degrade its infrastructure, to inflict loses in terms of the number of militants that it has available to fight against Israel and to launch terrorist attacks on civilians, and ultimately to weaken Hizballah. And we would like to see the outcome of that being Hizballah finally agreeing to do what it said it would do 18 years ago.

Yeah, Simon.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just on that 1701 point, but – so you’re calling for – you’re now – I think in the last sort of two weeks you’ve started using 1701 talking – as a sort of a repeated talking point. But in the actual three-week ceasefire that you were proposing two weeks ago, that was sort of a temporary ceasefire that would hopefully lead to a resolution, but no longer do you want an immediate cessation of violation to move to a diplomatic —

MR MILLER: We do want to ultimately get to a ceasefire. As I said, we ultimately want to get to a diplomatic resolution. The situation on the ground has changed from where we are two weeks ago, and we hope that this change in situation on the ground will change Hizballah’s calculation, ultimately. Because even when we were putting forward that ceasefire proposal and trying to get to the full implementation of 1701, I can tell you there were a lot of people – and you see people publicly commenting on this – quite skeptical of whether Hizballah even at the end of a 21-day ceasefire was going to fully agree to go back to the Litani River, given the fact that they have refused to do that for the past 18 years. Maybe their calculation will be different in the days and weeks ahead. That’s the proposition that will be tested.

QUESTION: Right. But now there’s a – there are – there’s a ground incursion. So the Israelis are also in breach of what would need to happen to be in that. So are they willing to move back over the border if – in the event of a temporary cessation of fighting, not necessarily going all the way to the terms of 1701, but what you were calling for before? It seems that you – so you’re no longer calling for that, right?

MR MILLER: So the Israeli Government will have to speak to what they will and are not willing to do. But to be clear, when we say that we want to see 1701 implemented that includes all the provisions of 1701. It doesn’t just mean the provisions that apply to Hizballah. It means Israel withdrawing south of the Blue Line as well. We want to see very provision implemented, and that includes the provisions, as I just said, for Israel.

QUESTION: And yesterday we spoke a bit about this, on the back of this video that Prime Minister Netanyahu put out, where he’s basically calling for Lebanese people to rid their country of the scourge of Hizballah. So you seem to be backing this campaign. That’s the Prime Minister of Israel talking about these broader aims. You’ve come out in support of this campaign, but you seem to be basically supporting the – an effort to change the politics of Lebanon by force.

MR MILLER: So we want the Lebanese people to decide who their leaders ought to be, bottom line, and that has been our position. That continues to be a position. We don’t want to see any other government in the region dictate to the people of Lebanon who their leader is. We certainly don’t want to dictate to the people of Lebanon who their leader is, and we’re not going to. We want the Lebanese people to be able to do it, but we want them to be able to do it absent a terrorist organization putting a gun to their head, which is the situation that Lebanon has been in for decades now.

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: And so we are hopeful that the stalemate that has existed in Lebanese politics for some time, that for the past two years has kept them from electing a president – because of Hizballah’s influence, because the way Hizballah uses force to make its influence known by threat inside Lebanese politics – we hope that the Lebanese political system can break that deadlock. And ultimately, we hope that Hizballah is degraded enough that they are less of a force in Lebanese politics and that they agree to withdraw back up above the Litani River so 1701 can be implemented.

QUESTION: Right. But whether you like it or not, Hizballah is part of the Lebanese political landscape, right? So you are – you’re trying – you’re – what the Israelis are doing is trying to change their landscape through force, and you’re supporting that. So this seems to be a very different approach to calling for restraint and trying to get everyone on board with diplomatic agreements. In the last two weeks, we’ve gone from that to oh, maybe we could change the Government of Lebanon through a ground invasion.

MR MILLER: So we have always, always made clear that we think a terrorist organization should play no role in the government of any country, and especially a terrorist organization that has shown over decades that it is willing to use force and threaten force against the Lebanese people to accomplish its aims and to hold the people of Lebanon hostage. That is not a new position of the United States. That has been our position going back decades. It will always be our position that Hizballah should not be able to – or should be allowed to use force against the Lebanese people to accomplish political aims. That hasn’t changed. It’s not going to change.

QUESTION: And now these sort of broader aims raises a question. Your – what you’ve come out in support of – a limited, I guess short-term incursion, as you won’t say how short-term, but how long can you – can this operation continue with the goal of basically ridding Lebanese politics of Hizballah?

MR MILLER: So we are in conversation with the Israeli Government about exactly those questions. The goal that Israel is trying to accomplish is to push them back away from the border. I think it’s a separate —

QUESTION: Is that the goal, though?

MR MILLER: What’s that?

QUESTION: I mean, is that the goal? They seem to have that goal and other goals

MR MILLER: That is their goal. I would say it is our goal to ultimately see the Lebanese people elect their own political representatives. When it comes to Israel’s military goals, I’m not going to make any forecasts. We’re going to continue to have conversations with them about it.

Kylie.

QUESTION: Do you believe that Israel’s military operations are being effective in such that they are bringing Lebanon closer to the place where it could politically – rid its political system of Hizballah?

MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to make any type of assessment today. We have seen so far on the ground limited ground incursions. But as you heard me say previous times at this podium, we are also cognizant of the long history of Israel starting with limited ground operations in Lebanon, turning those into full – more full-scale ground operations, turning those into occupation – somewhere that we are very clear we are opposed to, we are against. And so we’re going to continue to have the conversations with the Government of Israel about that because I think it’s quite obvious that there is a point at which what they are doing now turns into something different and that has obviously – obvious political effects inside Lebanon as well as humanitarian effects on the Lebanese people.

QUESTION: And what is the U.S. definition of limited incursions?

MR MILLER: So what we have seen to date have been limited ground incursions —

QUESTION: I’m asking you that —

MR MILLER: — which is the Israeli troops going a short distance across the border, conducting operations, not pushing deep inside Lebanon. I’m not going to offer an expansive definition other than to say we will watch what they’re doing and make assessments based on the facts on the ground.

QUESTION: But limited refers to the amount of land that they are going into in Lebanon, not the number of troops that they are deploying.

MR MILLER: Yes, at this point, it’s the amount of land. And so – and that’s a great question because I think there was public reporting over the past few days that they were deploying additional troops to Lebanon. If you look at what they were doing, they were deploying additional troops to widen their operations across a longer stretch of the border, not to deepen their push inside Lebanon. Those are two, obviously, very different things.

QUESTION: Just one quick question. We’re seeing Israel’s military operations in Gaza ramp up again this week. Does the U.S. support these renewed military operations in Gaza that are being conducted?

MR MILLER: We will always support their right to go after terrorist organizations, and that in course – of course includes Hamas and that includes Hamas in Gaza. But we continue to have concerns that without a political plan, a plan for the day after in Gaza that includes a political path for the Palestinian people to realize their legitimate hopes and dreams and aspirations, Israel is going to be bogged down conducting these types of operations for some time to come with obviously – obvious terrible humanitarian effects for the Palestinian people and with real security problems for the Israeli people as well. We do not think a plan to just continue conducting operations in Gaza in perpetuity is one that either benefits the Palestinian people or secures Israel’s long-term interest.

QUESTION: But do you see any indication that that isn’t their plan as of now?

MR MILLER: So we continue – we’re in conversation with them. We would like to get back to the point of getting to a ceasefire, which would set the stages for an end to the war and would help answer this question about what the future looks like and what the day after looks like for the situation in Gaza. As I’ve said over the past few weeks, Sinwar has been unwilling to engage in any meaningful way in the ceasefire talks. And I think it is probably reasonable to conclude he’s watching what is happening in north, he’s watching Iran’s attacks against Israel, and looking and thinking maybe he’s about to get what he’s always wanted, which is a full-scale regional war, and that may have changed his calculation. But either way, he ought to return to the talks because it is manifestly in the interest of the Palestinian people to get to a ceasefire in Gaza.

QUESTION: And just one more question on Gaza —

QUESTION: And one more on your —

QUESTION: — if you don’t mind responding to the reports of Palestinians being shot as they were fleeing northern Gaza.

MR MILLER: So we have seen those reports. I can’t speak to the details of them, but obviously that would be unacceptable. If they were Palestinian civilians that were fleeing that were being shot by Israeli forces, that would be unacceptable. We would expect the Government of Israel to investigate it, and if appropriate, we’d expect them to hold people fully accountable.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. investigating it?

MR MILLER: We are not conducting our own investigations. As a matter of first course, it’s appropriate for the – for the Government of Israel to conduct investigations. We have intervened with them in the past about this type of incident, and they have told us they have hundreds and hundreds of ongoing investigations into potential violations of the IDF rules of conduct, and we expect them to conduct those investigations. And as I said, if they show wrongdoing, to hold people accountable.

QUESTION: Have you told them to —

QUESTION: Matt?

QUESTION: — conduct investigations specifically into these incidents that have occurred this week?

MR MILLER: I’m not aware of any specific contact with them about this incident per se, but this is the type of thing that we often communicate with them about, and it’s the type of thing we expect them to take action on.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on —

QUESTION: Just one very quick —

MR MILLER: Go ahead. Go ahead, and then I’ll go to Michelle next.

QUESTION: You’ve said Israel has the right to conduct these limited incursions. Can you just explain to us if this administration supports the bombing of Beirut?

MR MILLER: So when it comes to Hizballah militants who are in Beirut, Israel has the right to go after the Hizballah leadership, go after Hizballah militants who are directing a campaign of terror against Israel and have been directing a campaign of terror against Israel for some time.

Now, that said, we want to see them do so in a way that minimizes civilian harm, that prevents civilian casualties and properly takes into account the risks of going after militants who are operating in a dense urban environment.

QUESTION: And this is part of the ongoing discussions you’re having with them?

MR MILLER: Yes, all aspects of Israel’s military campaign are part of the discussions we are having with them.

QUESTION: Okay. And I know you keep being asked this; I’m going to ask again. Do you have any reason to believe that the Israelis intend to bomb the airport?

MR MILLER: I have no reason to believe that they do. I will let them speak to their intent, and we have made clear to them that we want to see the airports stay open and we want to see the roads to the airport stay open.

Michelle.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I’d like to go back to north Gaza quickly. The World Food Programme says that the – there has been no food entering that part of Gaza since October 1st. Are you worried that the Israelis are laying siege on that part of —

MR MILLER: We are incredibly concerned about the humanitarian situation in all of Gaza, and particularly concerned about the humanitarian situation in north Gaza. And I can tell you it has been the subject of some very urgent discussions between our two governments. We have been making clear to the Government of Israel that they have an obligation under international humanitarian law to allow food and water and other needed humanitarian assistance to make it into all parts of Gaza, and we fully expect them to comply with those obligations.

QUESTION: Can I —

MR MILLER: Michel.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: Michel 2. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The – first Israel has ordered the residents of Lebanese towns in the south to evacuate to the north of Awali River. It’s further than – it’s further north than Litani River. How do you view this order?

MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to this order. We want to see them conduct – we want to see them limit their operations to what we have seen to date: these limited incursions. I can’t speak to what this order means, but certainly we want to see these incursions be limited and ultimately we want to get back to implementation of 1701, which means the Government of Israel withdrawing back behind the border.

QUESTION: And you are supporting the implementation of the UN Security Council 1701, but what about the other Security Council Resolution 1559? Do you support the implementation?

MR MILLER: So obviously we supported the adoption of that resolution when it was passed in the Security Council, and continue to support it. I will note that there have been a number of UN Security Council resolutions that have passed over the past several decades. It is always the most recent one that is the most operative and the one that we look to and the other international community looks to, but of course we look at other Security Council resolutions that were adopted with our support and are binding as well.

QUESTION: And there were reports that the U.S. supports the election of the Lebanese Armed Forces commander, Joseph Auon, as the next president. Is this accurate? And especially that he will be retired by next January.

MR MILLER: Let me be clear about this: We do not take a position one way or the other on who the next president of Lebanon should be. That is a question for the Lebanese people and no one else to decide.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Guita.

QUESTION: Matt, while you’re waiting for Israel to degrade Hizballah’s military capabilities, are you also looking at diplomatic ways, a means to convince Iran to weigh in on its proxies, especially Hizballah, as well as other proxies, to stand down basically, to give in, as the – some Israeli media are reporting that there is a backchannel talk going on?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to any specific communications, but we have long made clear to the Government of Iran, both directly and indirectly, that they should stop funding terrorism in the region; that terrorism only adds to the instability in the region, terrorism only adds to the horrific levels of conflict that we’ve seen across the region. Now, look, Iran obviously has decided that it is in their interest to continue to fund Hamas, to continue to fund Hizballah, to continue to fund the Houthis, who are the – collectively the primary source of instability in the region. And so while we send those messages to the Government of Iran, we also take steps to counter the threats that these terrorist groups that Iran sponsors, funds, arms, pose to everybody in the region.

QUESTION: Sure. The foreign minister is making the rounds in the region. I was wondering if there was anything here being passed on from Washington wherever he’s going: Saudi Arabia, Qatar?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any messages to speak of – to from here.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to go back to northern Gaza. You said in your answer to Michelle that you did some urgent calls with the Israeli side to allow and demand that you – to allow for the entry of humanitarian aid and all that. What was the response?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to the private diplomatic conversations. I’ll just make – reiterate what I said, which is we’ve made very clear, as we have for some time, that they need to allow humanitarian access in. And if you look at the full sweep of the past year, there have been a number of moments when we had to intervene because humanitarian access was stalled for various reasons and made clear that we expected the Government of Israel to push through those roadblocks, whether they be political, whether they be bureaucratic, whether they be logistic, and ensure that food and water and other aid gets to the people who need it. And that’s what we’ve done in recent days as well.

QUESTION: And regarding also the continued or maybe revival of the military operations and fighting in northern Gaza, there is some talks in Israel that this is a revival of the generals’ plan, which is a buffer zone in northern Gaza. I know that you on this podium mentioned so many times that the U.S. position is against any shrinking or occupation of Gaza, but also we know that the Israelis have the habit of testing this American position and apply their own. Do you – do you think that you can stop this from happening if the Israelis want to do it?

MR MILLER: We are going to continue to make absolutely clear that it’s not just the United States that opposes any occupation of Gaza, any reduction of the – in the size of Gaza, but it is the virtual unanimous opinion of the international community. And we’re going to continue to make that clear to them.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on —

MR MILLER: Simon, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: So you mentioned the roadblocks, whether they be bureaucratic or political. Can you detail, like, what is it that’s been holding up aid to northern Gaza?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into it from here. Obviously, I’m speaking generally what you’ve seen over the past years, where you’ve had members of the Israeli cabinet at times that have taken steps – for example, you had members of the Israeli cabinet supporting protests that blocked aid getting in to Kerem Shalom for – through Kerem Shalom for a while. You’ve had bureaucratic hurdles with the Government of Israel not always working as well as it should with the various UN agencies and sometimes logistical hurdles of the same nature.

Our message to the Government of Israel is that it is important for them to surmount these hurdles, and it’s the bottom line that matters, and that’s that the people that need food and water, medicine, and other needs get it.

QUESTION: And to just – I mean, it’s pertinent that you have made an assessment, or the Secretary made an assessment that Israel has not been blocking aid. And that was kind of based on the fact that they were making improvements. Since they’ve gone backward, would you revisit that assessment? It sounds like things have gone backward from that —

MR MILLER: So what we said – and when the Secretary made that assessment, and if you look at the language inside the national security memorandum report, it’s quite clear that this would be an ongoing assessment, and that we expect progress to continue, and that if we see a change in situation it’ll change our policy.

QUESTION: And at the moment, for the purposes of U.S. law, is Israel blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid?

MR MILLER: We have not made that assessment at this time, but that goes to the point that it is urgent that they correct the situation and allow humanitarian aid to get in.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Following up on Kylie’s question, on what is happening in northern Gaza, and the killing and all this stuff – I think over the past 24 hours something like 56 Palestinians were killed, according to the ministry of health in Gaza. I mean, has this become really an accepted kind of daily occurrence, or is – or does it warrant —

MR MILLER: Not —

QUESTION: — or does it warrant some sort of an outrage or a whimper saying you should not be doing this?

MR MILLER: It’s absolutely not acceptable. No civilian dying in this conflict is acceptable, and it is why the United States continues to push and advocate for a ceasefire that would bring an end to this conflict. But as you’ve heard me say before —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — it takes two parties to agree to a ceasefire, not just one.

QUESTION: Right, yeah. All right, but what we see, Israel is in control of the area. I mean, they keep going back and (inaudible). They have asked the hospitals to evacuate or to leave and so on. It just keeps getting repeated and so on. And obviously, going to Ahmed’s question on the generals’ plan and so on, maybe the plan is to make northern Gaza a buffer zone; maybe not to allow any kind of medical care, to force people out. Well, there is 400,000 people trapped in that area.

MR MILLER: That would be absolutely unacceptable.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. All right. Well, okay, let me ask you a couple of other questions. The secretary-general of the United Nations yesterday, in terms of aid, he said that UNRWA – and those were his words – is indispensable; that you cannot do without UNRWA. There is absolutely no way to distribute aid without UNRWA. And he says that he reached out, sent a letter to the Israeli prime minister, telling him that whatever law they pass would be disastrous, would bring about catastrophe. Do you agree with the secretary-general that UNRWA is essential for the distribution of aid?

MR MILLER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, that’s very good. Thanks, Matt.

My last question, Matt, is: There is talk of – that the Arab states reportedly are putting together a region-wide ceasefire, a region-wide solution, that you cannot do it piecemeal, that you have to do it all – all together. And that they reached out to the U.S. Can you share with us – if there is such a plan, or such a broad proposal, can you share with us some information?

MR MILLER: So there isn’t such a plan or proposal to my awareness. I obviously can’t speak to what other countries may or may not be developing on their own, which is not to say that it’s happening, but certainly no one has reached out to the United States about such a proposal, and we’re not in talks with any countries about such a proposal.

QUESTION: Do you agree with the logic or the principle that you must have a region-wide ceasefire or resolution, rather than —

MR MILLER: So we have always wanted to see a ceasefire in Gaza that would get us to the day after the conflict, and allow us to rebuild Gaza and reconstruct Gaza and have a political path forward for the Palestinian people. We want to get to a diplomatic resolution in the north. Now, when you talk about region-wide ceasefires – look, that would require Iran to stop its support for terrorist organizations. Obviously, we would welcome Iran stopping its terrorist organizations. Haven’t seen any indication at all that that’s a step they’re willing to consider. In fact, quite the contrary, given their record of doing it for years and years and years.

QUESTION: All right, but the logic is – you agree with the logic that if you have a region-wide agreement or ceasefire, that it would be more enduring?

MR MILLER: So I cannot speak to a hypothetical proposal that I’m not even sure actually exists in reality, Said.

QUESTION: Well, I – I – I think that —

MR MILLER: Obviously we want to see – we would welcome the end of conflict across the region, and we would welcome peace and stability and security across the region. It’s a complicated region. It has been for some time. That would require a number of actors in the region to stop the actions that they have been taking not just in the past year but for decades.

QUESTION: I think they are – countries are suggesting that we should have ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon together and then the other becomes like a —

MR MILLER: I don’t know if they are or not. I know there’s a news story about it that’s different than actual diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah. Ryan, go ahead.

QUESTION: So you said earlier that Israel has a right to attack Hizballah as a terrorist organization. I wanted to ask if you had seen the Israeli prime minister’s video that he put out in English to the people of Lebanon last night. He had a couple lines in there. He said, “You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza. I say to you, the people of Lebanon: Free your country from Hizballah so that this war can end.” That seems like a blanket threat against the civilian population. Is that terrorism?

MR MILLER: So, first of all, let me say we cannot and must not see the situation in Lebanon turn into anything like the situation in Gaza. That would, of course, not be acceptable. And ultimately it is the – as I said in a response to an earlier question, it is up to the Lebanese people, not anybody else, to decide on who their government is. I said in response to your earlier question no country in the region should dictate to the Lebanese people who their leaders are – not Israel, not the United States, not any of the other countries in the region. And that should continue to —

QUESTION: But Israel is dictating that.

MR MILLER: — to be the case. No, they’re conducting operations going after a terrorist organization. That’s a different thing than dictating what civilian government should be. That’s a question for the Lebanese people to decide. So —

QUESTION: But if they decide against Israeli’s wishes, Israel is threatening Gaza-like annihilation of the people of Lebanon.

MR MILLER: And I’m making very clear that there should be no kind of military action in Lebanon that looks anything like Gaza and leads to result in anything like Gaza.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. As the Iraqi Government is working tirelessly to shield Iraq from the consequences of this war, in the next 10 days the Kurdistan region is going to have an election, an election that the U.S. Government was so encouraging the Kurdish political parties to have it even sooner than this time. So how do you see the process of this election and the campaign process overall?

MR MILLER: So elections are a vital element of the democratic process. We support all efforts to ensure they are free, fair, and transparent, and occur without further disruption or delay. And we commend the active participation of civil society and the media for supporting political discourse and raising awareness around issues of importance to Iraqi Kurdistan region residents in the lead-up to these elections.

QUESTION: And does the U.S. Government monitor this election closely, or will there be any U.S. agencies on the ground on the election day to monitor the process?

MR MILLER: So we are in close contact with Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission as well as the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, as they ensure that election preparation meets key milestones, and staff volunteers from U.S. mission Iraq will participate in observing the elections at polling sites across the IKR. That’s something we’re doing in coordination with the United Nations, international election experts, and other like-minded diplomatic missions.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I just want to clear up the name of that person I mentioned yesterday in the press meeting was – the UNRWA Teachers’ Association in Lebanon is actually Fatah Sharif Abu Al-Amin. That’s to sort of get it off the top —

MR MILLER: Okay.

QUESTION: — and apologize for getting that name wrong. But when it – a couple of questions regarding Israel —

MR MILLER: No need to apologize. I get things wrong up here all the time.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Hmm?

QUESTION: Well, I appreciate it. In light of October 7th Israel attack memorials —

MR MILLER: Hold on. I don’t think I can let that snarky comment pass by.

QUESTION: I just said (inaudible).

MR MILLER: (Laughter.) Go.

QUESTION: Well, thank you, Matt. In light of the October 7th recently Israel attack memorials, how is Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the Biden administration’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, address the global false claims that Israel has been committing genocide? And why has the ambassador whose portfolio is to combat Jew hatred been silent about the most virulent Jew hatred? And just a quick follow-up.

MR MILLER: So I think that is a misrepresentation, by far, and a mischaracterization of her work over the year since October 7th and her work since she assumed that position. She speaks out on a regular occasion against antisemitism anywhere it occurs around the world. And you only have to look at her public statements, her public appearances. She has been a vocal advocate against antisemitism.

QUESTION: Okay. Why hasn’t America’s Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt to the United Nations taken up this cause in the United Nations to call on world leaders to dispel this lie, a lie which provokes such anti-Jewish activity and policy? And often I hear statements about – referring to Israel as committing genocide. So this is an important issue to address. So why hasn’t America’s ambassador to the United Nations taken up this cause to the United Nations to dispel this lie?

MR MILLER: We have spoken to it at the United Nations and made clear what our position is.

QUESTION: Sorry —

MR MILLER: That we do not believe that Israel is —

QUESTION: No, no. Yeah, I get that —

MR MILLER: Okay. I thought —

QUESTION: — but again on the names, Deborah Lipstadt is not the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, unless something has happened to

MR MILLER: Correct. I thought he at first was asking why she —

QUESTION: — LTG in the last 20 minutes, but —

MR MILLER: — hasn’t gone to the United Nations and —

QUESTION: Oh.

MR MILLER: — presented, but —

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — it could be either.

QUESTION: Actually, that’s what I was asking was why she hadn’t gone to the United Nations to address —

MR MILLER: Well, we have other individuals inside the State Department who are charged with speaking before the United Nations and making clear our positions. No, most – as a first matter of course, our Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield. She’s made clear our position on numerous occasions.

QUESTION: So you clearly don’t believe that Israel is guilty of committing genocide, which we’ve heard from the International Criminal Court and so many others?

MR MILLER: Correct. We’ve made that quite clear.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A few questions. One is a question our colleagues have had trouble getting answers on, is regarding Amos Hochstein, a key administration envoy to the Middle East who also in the past served in the Israeli military. There’s confusion on his national status. Could you clarify whether he was ever a dual national or an Israeli national before and whether he gave that up?

MR MILLER: I don’t personally know, and Amos Hochstein does not work for the State Department. So any questions about him I would direct to the White House.

QUESTION: Okay. On another note, it’s now been 120 – excuse me.

MR MILLER: But I would also say it’s a – well, never mind. I won’t tangle with the question anymore. Go ahead.

QUESTION: It’s now 254 days since Israeli forces killed Hind Rajab. While the IDF claim – they maintain this claim that they weren’t in the area, our colleagues at Sky News said it’s, quote, “undeniable that they were,” affirming a string of reporting that we’ve seen saying as much. The IDF then disputed that report and also said there’s no misconduct investigation into that incident. So what’s going on here? It’s nearly been nine months of the U.S. saying it’s waiting for Israel to investigate itself, at one point Israel even reportedly lying.

MR MILLER: That’s not what we said with respect to this particular investigation. With respect to this particular incident, we encouraged the Government of Israel to work with parties on the ground that said that they had information. The Government of Israel said to us and it’s said publicly that none of those parties came and gave them the information that they have said publicly.

QUESTION: Right. And then there —

MR MILLER: This – it’s a different matter.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you for clarifying. And then the Red Crescent, they claimed that Israeli forces never reached out to them on the investigation.

MR MILLER: Correct.

QUESTION: But all to say this has been nearly nine months of this. This case is, of course, just illustrative of tens of thousands of kids killed. So how exactly is the U.S. approaching this, if on this case nine months later Israel is now saying there’s no investigation into this incident? And how can the U.S. keep unconditionally sending more weapons if this is how Israel is dealing with investigations of potential violations?

MR MILLER: So let’s separate a couple of different things. This is, as I’ve said, a little bit of a different matter than other investigations into potential violations, which the Government of Israel has said that they are conducting. You should go to them for questions about what they may or may not be doing. And with this one, where they’ve said – and I know the Red Crescent has said something different; we’re not in a position to ultimately adjudicate which bit of information is accurate and which is not. I can tell you what we are doing on behalf of the United States Government, which is conducting our own assessments of a variety of incidents that raise questions about violations of international humanitarian law, and those assessments are ongoing.

QUESTION: Is this one of them?

MR MILLER: I’m not going speak to individual assessments. I’ve always made clear that’s not something I’m going to do. There are number of incidents that are under review and continue to be under review.

QUESTION: So this just gets to one, I guess, broader question. The U.S. and yourself have noted that, of course, this is a complicated conflict. But why, then, has the U.S response over this year been, I mean, in other words, just kind of binary? For example, after the IDF killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, including an American, there were, of course, calls for an investigation, urgings for accountability. The department then said in NSM-20 that they couldn’t reach a conclusion of whether U.S. weapons were used in that attack. The result, more weapons have been sent. After the IDF killed American Aysenur Eygi, there were calls for an investigation. No updates. Just yesterday Representative —

MR MILLER: An investigation that’s ongoing.

QUESTION: Right. But yet, just yesterday Representative Pramila Jayapal noted that she sent a letter to the State Department asking for information on what accountability measures are being taken, whether there will be an independent investigation. She hasn’t heard back. And this is past the deadline.

MR MILLER: And we will write back to her. I’m only intervening because, like, sometimes when there are four premises getting up to the question —

QUESTION: No, no. I get it. Yeah, yeah. I appreciate it.

MR MILLER: — it’s kind of hard to remember them all —

QUESTION: Yep. Sure.

MR MILLER: — when we get to the ultimate question. So we will respond to the congresswoman, of course. We have made clear there needs to be full accountability, if merited, when that investigation concludes. And we’ll continue to wait to see the result of the investigation.

QUESTION: Sure.

MODERATOR: So maybe get to the question, maybe.

QUESTION: Yes. No, no, yes. There’s Hind Rajab. There’s all these hundreds of journalists that have been killed, the medical workers. Over and over again, despite the conflict being complicated, the question is to send more weapons or not to send more weapons. There’s no notion of conditioning weapons on just completing investigations, respecting human rights, let alone stopping illegal settlements or the occupation. Why is that the case?

MR MILLER: We continue to make clear that we are committed to the defense of Israel. That is a position that is not going to change. We – they are a country that are under threat from a terrorist organization in Gaza, Hamas, that we saw what horrible brutality they were willing to inflict on October 7th. And they continue to be under threat from a terrorist organization in the north, Hizballah, that has launched rockets for a year targeting Israeli civilians. They continue to be under threat by Iran that has launched ballistic missiles on two separate occasions at the state of Israel. So we’re going to continue to come to their defense. But at the same we come to their defense, we’re going to continue to insist that they conduct their military operations in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt.

MR MILLER: Oh, I’ll come to you next, Simon.

QUESTION: So are there foreign countries sending aid to Florida amid Hurricane Milton? Has State been in touch with countries in coordinating assistance to Florida?

MR MILLER: I’ll have to take that back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Okay. And we learned that – I’m going to butcher this name, sorry – Xu – X-u and then X-i-a-o-l-e-i, a Chinese national and former student at the Berklee College of Music sentenced to nine months in prison for threatening a pro-democracy activist, went back to China as part of an exchange for an American to come back to the States. Can you confirm that?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that.

QUESTION: And then what are America’s red lines when it comes to ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hizballah and Israel and Hamas?

MR MILLER: I – we have made clear we want to see a ceasefire in Gaza. I think we’ve made quite clear what the general outlines of that ceasefire should look like. The President made a speech about it; the Secretary’s spoken to it on any number of occasions. And we want to ultimately see a diplomatic resolution.

QUESTION: But what are the red lines specifically?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to our diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Before we leave the region, I got two really brief ones on Lebanon. One, are you aware of the Lebanese arresting a three – a dual national who also happens to be – is a UK, Israel, and U.S. citizen, and then deporting him?

MR MILLER: So we have seen —

QUESTION: Do you know anything about this, this journalist?

MR MILLER: So we have seen reports on that question. I checked into it just before I came out here. We’re gathering information on what exactly took place at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. But so you —

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything further.

QUESTION: You don’t know if the Lebanese ever informed you about this?

MR MILLER: I don’t have – yeah, I don’t have anything further than what —

QUESTION: And then secondly, can you just – extremely – what is the status of U.S. assistance to the LAF?

MR MILLER: I’ll have to go back and check. I know that we have provided assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces over a number of years. That’s been ongoing. I don’t know the current assistance. But we very much support the mission that they —

QUESTION: All right. Can someone find it?

MR MILLER: Yeah. Let me check on that. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Matt?

MR MILLER: Simon.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on something you said earlier about these ongoing assessments in response to the question about Hind Rajab. Can you tell us, like, what kind – what are these assessments? Are these under the CHIRG process that you’ve mentioned before? There’s obviously Leahy. What are we talking about with those?

MR MILLER: We have a whole variety of assessments that are underway, but I’m just not going to speak to them publicly.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you – is there any timeline or these can just go on indefinitely?

MR MILLER: We want to get them concluded as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Okay. The other thing, just to follow up on something that came up yesterday with this question of the amount of money that the U.S. has sent to Israel during the course of this conflict. You said that the number produced by Brown University was incorrect. Do you have a number that you can give yet?

MR MILLER: Yeah, I did go back and dig into this, and the answer I think shows why it’s such a complicated question. So since October 7th, we – the department has provided $6.8 billion in Foreign Military Financing to the Government of Israel. That’s financing that we provided them that they then used to purchase U.S. weapons. 3.3 billion of that was in the memorandum of understanding between our two countries that was signed somewhere around a decade ago and that continues to be in effect. And then there was an additional $3.5 billion to the – that was included in the supplemental. So that is money that we have provided to Israel to purchase U.S. weapons. It’s not the same as the amount of weapons that have – Israel has actually purchased and have been delivered in the past year, which gets to why this is a difficult question.

So we have approved $5 billion in actual government-to-government sales. Most of that $5 billion would be included – would come out of that $6.8 billion. But not all of it would be from that $6.8 billion because some of it would have been money that was provided to Israel in previous years that they had not yet spent down. So that gets you to why it’s a – like, why it’s a bit of a tricky question to answer, whether you’re looking at it as money that we have provided to Israel for weapons purchases or actual purchases that they have made. And then there’s another $500 million that’s a separate pot of money that the State Department doesn’t administer, but it’s for missile defense; it’s administered out of the Pentagon that is also contained in the memorandum of understanding that we’ve provided as well.

QUESTION: My arithmetic is not that great. Could you —

MR MILLER: It’s probably better than mine. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could you just tell me what are the various —

MR MILLER: I was a government and English major, so if you’re going to ask me to do math here at the podium, I – we’re in for trouble.

QUESTION: I mean, I have a sociology degree, so —

MR MILLER: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The – but if you add those numbers together, all the different programs, the number comes out – what is the number? You’re —

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: You’re setting your own parameters here.

MR MILLER: So the – so I mean, that’s what I mean. It – that’s why it’s – it depends what you’re looking at. So if you take the 6.8 that we provided them in Foreign Military Financing, there’s 6.8 – and another 500 million in missile – that would be 7.3. But not all that money has been spent in the past year, right? That’s money that’s been provided to them. It’s a different question than what has actually been delivered. Even if you look at that $5 billion that they have spent, not all of those weapons were delivered in the past year. So they spent that money – some of those won’t be delivered for years to come.

Then there’s the entire separate question of sales that we notify to Congress. This sometimes gets – draws public attention. So we notify Congress of a potential sale to Israel, Congress signs off on that sale, and it gets reported that we’ve approved, say, $2 billion in sales. This is money that Israel does not yet have, that they expect to get under future tranches of money under the memorandum of understanding, and will spend in future years. So oftentimes when you see reports about money that we have provided them for the delivery, say, of F-16s, that’s money that’s not going to be spent by Israel for years and years to come.

That gets at why – I’m not trying to overstate it, but it’s a tricky question to answer.

QUESTION: I guess with – there’s been various U.S. Government statements on support for Ukraine that have been able to come up with numbers, right?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Often when you’re – because for the purposes of trying to emphasize how much support you’ve given, right? So is there – is there not just a number that we can say, all right, since October —

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: — we’ve – this amount has been newly approved?

MR MILLER: So that is – it is an entirely fair question, and the answer is because the Ukraine money is exercised under a completely different program – it’s exercised under the drawdown, and the drawdown we are able to say exactly what we are providing and how much that money costs. Because that is money – that is equipment that is in our stocks right now, and whenever we make those announcements we are able to look and see we are providing them with these specific items and they cost this amount of money. It’s very different than looking at an overall relationship that is much more complex, that is much more longstanding, in which Israel exercise authority – it’s under different programs. Those are the programs I was just going through, Foreign Military Financing being the chief-most way in which we provide them with support.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But, Matt, can you not just tell us how much of that 6.8 billion FMF over the last year has actually turned into delivered weaponry to Israel?

MR MILLER: So it —

QUESTION: I mean —

MR MILLER: I can’t because it gets to this question: $5 billion – first of all, not all the 6.8 will be spent this year, right?

QUESTION: I understand.

MR MILLER: $5 billion has been spent by the Government of Israel for these FMF sales over the past year. Some of that 5 billion is from the 6.8; some of it is left over FMF from previous years. Some of that has been delivered in this year. But there are other things that will have been delivered that Israel would have purchased before October 7th but the deliveries don’t happen until later. So that’s why it’s a tricky question. We don’t have – we don’t do an accounting based on delivery dates, right? We do an accounting based on when the government purchases something from us. And so I don’t have an accounting of, like, let’s say there was something that they purchased in 2018 and it was delivered in March of this year. That wouldn’t be contained in this number. It’s part of our long-term security arrangement and it wouldn’t – it’s not – it’s not – we don’t track it that way. We track it based on the amount of money that we’ve provided to them in any given year. And I’m trying to give you the best information I have on that.

QUESTION: Can I just move away from the Middle East for something on the domestic front, about —

MR MILLER: If you will let me move away from math, you can go to whatever you want to talk about. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: There’s also nothing wrong with sociology degrees, but anyway. (Laughter.) I am – I just wanted to ask about this – the charges that were announced by the Department of Justice yesterday against an Afghan citizen. His name is Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, and he’s been charged for conspiring to commit a terrorist attack on Election Day, U.S. Election Day. Do you have any information about whether he came to the U.S. as an SIV? We gather that it was after the fall of Kabul but not necessarily related to the fall of Kabul. If you there’s anything you have on that.

MR MILLER: I don’t at this time. We are looking into it. I know the Department of Justice said in the indictment that he came on an SIV. It’s not clear that that’s actually accurate. I know we are talking to other government agencies about it. Ultimately, I would refer to the Department of Homeland Security for that question about someone’s status.

I would say, of course – and you’ve heard us talk about this, we’ve testified to Congress about it – we have extensive vetting procedures in place for the SIV program. It’s a program that has wide bipartisan support, because it’s a program we use to bring to America Afghan nationals who assisted the United States military, assisted the United States Government, sometimes at great personal peril and great personal risk during the years that we were in Afghanistan. It’s been an incredibly successful program.

Now, that said, when it comes to threats against the homeland, there of course continues to be a threat against – a terrorist threat against the United States. We’ve seen terrorist threats from immigrants, and we’ve also seen terrorist threats over the years from American citizens. And when it comes to a terrorist threat by anyone, we – the United States, through our Intelligence Community and our law enforcement community, takes those incredibly seriously. We monitor them, we disrupt them, as you saw the FBI do with this plot that was announced yesterday.

And with that, we’ll wrap for today.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR MILLER: Thanks. We’re going to wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:12 p.m.)