U.S. Department Press Briefing – September 30, 2024

 

Department Press Briefing – September 30, 2024

September 30, 2024

1:18 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER:  Okay, before we move to questions, just a couple of brief opening comments.  

The Secretary and other senior officials in the department and across the government were engaged through the weekend in monitoring and responding to unfolding events in the Middle East.  The Secretary spoke yesterday to the French foreign minister about ongoing diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region.  He is speaking to other counterparts today, both in person, on the sidelines of the D-ISIS ministerial that’s happening in our building, as well as by phone.  And we’ll have readouts of those conversations as the day goes on.

I want to make a few points clear.  Number one, we support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, and that includes by bringing brutal terrorists such as Hassan Nasrallah to justice.  At the same time, we ultimately want to see a diplomatic resolution to conflict in the Middle East that provides long-term security to – for the people of Israel, the people of Lebanon, and the Palestinian people, as well as the broader region.  And we will continue to work to advance efforts along those fronts.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION:  Right.  Okay, well, just first, do you – can you give us an idea of who he plans to talk to –

MR MILLER:  He was on the phone when I walked down here with the UK foreign minister.

QUESTION:  I know the Kuwaiti – sorry, who?

MR MILLER:  He was on the phone with the UK foreign minister, and we’ll have a readout of that later today, as well as others.  I don’t have a full list.  But he’s doing some of our conversations on the margins of the ministerial today, and then others will be phone calls.

QUESTION:  Right.  But those go beyond the – what was on the schedule, which was, like, Kuwait and –

MR MILLER:  The ones that are on the public schedule, and then I wouldn’t foreclose others that are just opportunistic as he sees people here in the building.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Is he going to be speaking with any Israeli officials?

MR MILLER:  He has been speaking with Israeli officials dating back to last week, met with –

QUESTION:  No, no, I’m talking about today.

MR MILLER:  — and will continue to.  Some of those conversations we read out; some we do not.

QUESTION:  So he has had – is it accurate to say that he has had conversations today with Israeli officials?

MR MILLER:  I don’t know that he has had any yet today, but he will continue to engage with Israeli officials.

QUESTION:  All right.  And then just – so what is your understanding of what Israel is planning to do or not to do?

MR MILLER:  So I will let – I’m going to assume you’re – I’m going to assume you’re referring to the reports of —

QUESTION:  I don’t want you to tell me what Israel is going to do.

MR MILLER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  I’m asking you what they have told you they are going to do or not do.

MR MILLER:  So I think you’re – I shouldn’t presume.  I’ll answer the question.  But I think — 

QUESTION:  And I apologize for my voice.  It’s –

MR MILLER:  That’s okay.  I know there was an important Buffalo Bills game last night that I assume you were watching.  

QUESTION:  You know what?  I thought I said that we were not going to talk about that.

MR MILLER:  (Laughter.)  I apologize for bringing it up.  Fair point.

QUESTION:  It was not a good evening.

MR MILLER:  Fair point.  So look, I’ll let Israel speak to its own military operations.  We have been engaged in conversations with them about those operations, but the timing, purpose, tempo of those, I’ll let them speak to.

QUESTION:  So they haven’t told you anything about what’s going on?

MR MILLER:  They have been – we have been in conversations.  They have been informing us about a number of operations.  I know I’ve seen reports about ground operations.  We’ve had some conversations with them about that.  They have at this time told us that those are limited operations focused on Hizballah infrastructure near the border, but we’re in continuous conversations with them about it.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR MILLER:  Humeyra.

QUESTION:  Matt, on – so on those conversations, and you said they told us those are limited operations, has the – does the U.S. have some sort of a red line or an ideal description of success for Israel’s operations that it’s sort of talking with Israel?  Like, this comes across as, like, pretty open-ended.  I’m trying to understand whether U.S. is trying to limit it to – I mean, how will you know that these are limited incursions?  How will you ensure it doesn’t sort of escalate further?

MR MILLER:  So I’m going to keep our conversations with the Government of Israel private.  These are conversations that we have – that we have had with them going back months, where we have been clear about what we believe is the best way to ensure that Israeli citizens can return to their homes and that the citizens of Lebanon can return to their homes.

But as I said at the top, there are a few things that are true here.  Number one, Israel has a right to defend itself against Hizballah.  If you look at how this conflict across Israel’s northern border started, it was Hizballah that started launching attacks on Israel on October 8th.  And those attacks continued and have continued and are continuing.  If you look at what the acting leader of Hizballah said just today, it’s that their attacks on Israel will continue.  So Israel has a right to defend itself against those attacks.  That includes in targeting terrorist infrastructure inside Lebanon.

At the same time, we want to ultimately see a diplomatic resolution to this conflict – one that allows citizens on both sides of the border to return to their homes.

QUESTION:  So it’s interesting that now you’re saying we want to ultimately see a diplomatic resolution to this, as opposed to last week when United States and France called for a ceasefire in Lebanon.  So the United States at this point is no longer calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon?

MR MILLER:  Not at all.  You heard the President say today that we continue to support a ceasefire.  We do, of course, continue to support a –

QUESTION:  You said that — 

MR MILLER:  Hold on, let me finish.  We of course continue to support a ceasefire.  But I think sometimes people either misinterpret or have their own version of what a ceasefire is.  A ceasefire is not one side in a conflict unilaterally putting down its arms and stopping the conflict.  It is an agreement for both sides to stop the conflict.  

And in this case, what we have proposed is a 21-day ceasefire where both sides would stop attacking the other and we would reach a diplomatic resolution.  And we are going to continue to engage with our Israeli counterparts, with Lebanese counterparts, and with other countries around the world to reach that objective.  

But at the same time there are a couple other things that are true as well, which is that, number one, military pressure can at times enable diplomacy.  Of course, military pressure can also lead to miscalculation.  It can lead to unintended consequences.  And we’re in conversations with Israel about all these factors now.

QUESTION:  So is that 21-day ceasefire proposal still on the table with the Israelis? 

MR MILLER:  Of course it is.  You heard the President speak to it today.  But that said, a ceasefire is not a call for one side unilaterally in a conflict to stop defending itself.  It is a conflict – it is a call for a diplomatic resolution that both sides would agree to.  And so yes, Israel continues to engage in this conflict; but as a I said a minute ago, when you heard the new acting leader of Hizballah come out today, what he said is they are going to continue their attacks on Israel.  So I go back to the history of this, that this conflict started because it was Hizballah on the day after October 7th that started launching rocket attacks across the border that had not stopped until this day, and Israel has a right to defend itself against those attacks.

QUESTION:  And can you – can you clarify or can you help us understand what exactly U.S. is doing right now?  If that 21-day ceasefire proposal is still on the table, like, what are you exactly doing to sort of diplomatically end this?  What is the Secretary doing or what is the White House doing?  Because from what it sounds like from what you’re saying is last week, for example, a U.S. official and I believe senior other U.S. officials have said they – they disagreed with Israel’s argument to escalate to de-escalate.  Now you don’t sound like you’re disagreeing with that anymore.  You’re talking about how military pressure could yield to some sort of a diplomatic resolution.  So I just want to understand:  What are you doing diplomatically?   

MR MILLER:  We are engaged in diplomatic conversations with all of the relevant parties, parties in the region, our parties around the world, the parties that were on the call that we put out last week for a diplomatic resolution, and we continue to work to reach one.  But again, if you look at the statement that we put out with the G7, with the EU, with a number of our important Arab partners last week, it was for a ceasefire but it was also for a diplomatic resolution that called for the implementation of UN Security Council 17 – Resolution 1701.  

And what that resolution would require is something that Hizballah has never done and still to this date is not doing, which is to withdraw from the border in a way it was supposed to do years ago.  So we will continue to push for a diplomatic resolution, but we should be clear that the burden of that diplomatic resolution falls not just on Israel but on Hizballah as well.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  On the – on what comes after a diplomatic resolution for the current conflict, are you able to just give us a little bit more about the long-term strategy on what happens with Lebanon now given that there is a bit of a power vacuum in the country?  Is this something that you – that the U.S. has longer-term planning for?  Is this something that has caught the U.S. off guard in terms of having to work with allies to plan now for the future of Lebanon?  Is there something you can give us in terms of, like, understanding the U.S.’s role in this next step for Lebanon?

MR MILLER:  So first of all, I’d say that there has actually been a power vacuum in Lebanon for some time, and there’s been a power vacuum in Lebanon largely because Hizballah has held a veto over the choosing of a new president and Hizballah has prevented the convening of the parliament to choose a new president.  So it is a sad statement of reality that there has been a political vacuum that has prevented that country from moving forward with full political governance and an ability to implement UN Security Council 1701, as well as a number of economic reforms that we have called for and other partners have called for for some time.

So I would say I think with respect to the events of the last few days, it is too early to say – to see how those are going to shake out.  Certainly I think it is an unalloyed good for the people of Lebanon and the people of the broader region that Hassan Nasrallah is no longer walking the face of this Earth.  He is someone who, as I said, held Lebanon’s political governance from moving forward.  He is someone who has attacked the civilians of Lebanese – of Lebanon over the years.  He is someone who’s attacked, obviously, civilians of Israel, he’s attacked American citizens, and he’s attacked civilians in Syria.  

So it is an unalloyed good for the region and the world that he is no longer with us.  But where Lebanon will go from here, I think it is far too early to say.  Obviously, we want to see the people of Lebanon able to choose their future and not be held hostage to a terrorist organization.  

QUESTION:  And on the talks last week in – on the sidelines of New – at the UN General Assembly in New York, was there any – would you describe it as a miscommunication between the Israelis and the U.S. about a ceasefire being something that they would also want to work towards?  Or is that — 

MR MILLER:  So I don’t think I want to characterize it.  We put out the statement that we made with our partners in full coordination with our partners.  We, at the same time, were having conversations with the Government of Israel and with the Government of Lebanon.  They obviously weren’t a party to that statement or they would – you would have seen their name on it.  But it was one that we took in conjunction with our other partners.

And ultimately what we saw Israel do – it took 24 hours, but ultimately what we saw them do is say that they welcomed our efforts and they shared our aims, which is a long-term diplomatic resolution.  Now, what happens between now and getting there I think it’s too early to say, but that is ultimately what we are going to try to bring about.

QUESTION:  And can I just ask a last one on Gaza?  There was reporting in the Israeli press a few days ago about Yahya Sinwar, that there wasn’t any communication with him in the last couple of weeks.  The Secretary also spoke about this last week, saying that Hamas is not engaging right now.  Can you give us any update on the efforts there for talks? 

MR MILLER:  So I don’t – with respect to the first question when it comes to Sinwar, I don’t have any update on his condition at all one way or the other.  When it comes to talks, though, what the Secretary was speaking to is the fact that several weeks ago we were quite public about the fact that we had presented a bridging proposal that tried to get both sides to yes, and there were a number of implementing details that we needed to work out.  And we were in a place where we were looking to present a further proposal that would bridge those remaining differences. 

And what’s happened over the past several weeks is that the mediators that discussed these issues with Hamas – so Qatar and Egypt – have not been willing to get them to engage – or, sorry, have not been able to get them to engage at all.  They’re very much – they, Qatar and Egypt, have very much been willing, but have been – have had no party at the other end of the line willing to engage substantively at all on these proposals. 

So the reason you have not seen us put forward this proposal is we can’t get a clear answer from Hamas of what they’re willing to entertain and what they’re not willing to entertain, so that’s why the Secretary made those comments.  We are going to continue to try to work it, but it goes back to the point I made about ceasefires in the context of Hizballah. To get a ceasefire, you need parties on both sides that are willing to discuss the issues with you and ultimately make decisions.  That’s not to say that Israel has fully accepted a ceasefire; obviously, we know  they have tough decisions to make.  But the issue over the last few weeks has been that Hamas has been unwilling to engage. 

QUESTION:  And finally, are the Israelis still at the table if that —  

MR MILLER:  We are still engaged with the Israelis on the question.  And we have been – this process I spoke about, where we were discussing the remaining issues with the mediators we had been doing with Israel, and we had been discussing with Israel how we could get by the various differences and have – had an ongoing back-and-forth that would inform the proposal that we intended to present.  So that process has been ongoing but it has stalled on the other side. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you. 

MR MILLER:  Yeah, go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Can I ask about plans for a NEO?  Is it the State Department’s view that there are still viable commercial options out of Lebanon for American citizens? 

MR MILLER:  There – bless you – there are still commercial options that are available.  They are limited, of course.  We have been in contact with American citizens.  We have urged American citizens to fill out the intake form on our website to receive information.  We’ve heard from a number of American citizens, and we are working with them to provide them updates about commercial flights that are available. 

We are working with airlines to address requests by U.S. citizens to depart Lebanon by providing additional flights with seats for personnel purchase, and we’re exploring other options, as we always do in this – these circumstances.  But I don’t have anything to announce today. 

Yeah. 

QUESTION:  So wait a minute.  So what was the answer to his question? 

MR MILLER:  I said we – that was a full – it was a full answer about the things that we are doing, and we are exploring —  

QUESTION:  Well, no, no.  He asked about a NEO. 

MR MILLER:  We – so we always – let me we are not evacuating – let me just be clear – we are not evacuating American citizens from Lebanon at this time.  We always conduct a prudent planning process.  We have been doing that for some months, going all the way back to October 7th.  But at this time there’s still commercial options available. 

QUESTION:  All right.  And when you talk about how the embassy is working – again, excuse my voice – when you talk about commercial options for flights, in the past, or back in 2006, a large majority of the people who left under your auspices left on ferries.  Is that also —  

MR MILLER:  I don’t want to say what options are or are not under consideration.  At this time there are commercial options available.  We are exploring other options —

QUESTION:  Flights? 

MR MILLER:  Commercial flights available. 

QUESTION:  Yeah. 

MR MILLER:  We are exploring other potential options, should we need to, but it’s not a decision we’ve made as of yet. 

QUESTION:  Thanks. 

MR MILLER:  Sorry.  I said I’d go to Kylie.

QUESTION:  The 21-day ceasefire proposal you say is still on the table.  Is that the – is it – is that the focus of U.S. diplomatic efforts right now, or are you also pursuing other diplomatic solutions to what we’re seeing between Hizballah and Israel? 

MR MILLER:  It is the focus of our efforts, linked of course, as we made clear when we made the proposal in the first place, to a broader diplomatic resolution.  The idea of the ceasefire was not a ceasefire just for a ceasefire’s sake.  It was a ceasefire to give space to pursue a broader diplomatic resolution that would include Hizballah pulling back from the border so Israeli citizens and Lebanese citizens would feel safe to return to their homes. 

QUESTION:  And to be clear, you still have not received a direct Israeli response to that proposal because Netanyahu first threw cold water on it, then his office put out a statement with some openness to a U.S. role in bringing down tensions there but not responding to the proposal.  So we don’t know what Israel’s response still is to that.  Is that right? 

MR MILLER:  We have – we have been engaged in ongoing discussions with them about the proposal. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  And then when we watch what Israel is doing here, they’re saying they’re open to a diplomatic solution, but they continue to forge ahead with these incursions into Lebanon.  Is it the U.S. view that it is productive for them to be continuing to carry out their military campaign against Hizballah while you’re trying to find a diplomatic solution? 

MR MILLER:  So as you heard me say a moment ago, look, we recognize that at times military pressure can enable diplomacy.  That’s true. 

QUESTION:  Is that the case now? 

MR MILLER:  That’s true.  That’s true.  I will say it is also true that military pressure can lead to miscalculation.  It can lead to unintended consequences.  We are in conversation with Israel about all those – all of these factors.  These are decisions that they have to make for themselves.  No one else can make them for them.  What we’re going to continue to communicate to them is that while we support their right to defend themselves against terrorism, we support efforts to ensure that Israeli citizens can return to their homes, ultimately we believe a diplomatic resolution is the best way to accomplish that. 

QUESTION:  And you won’t say if the military pressure that they’re applying now is productive or concerning and unproductive and could lead to a miscalculation? 

MR MILLER:  I’m not going to make an assessment.  No.  

Hiba, go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Matt, last night, Qassem went out and said today that they will not stop attacks.  They will continue.  But the Lebanese prime minister, he said we are ready.  After meeting the speaker, we are ready to implement the 1701.  We are ready to send the army to the borders and elect a new president.  I know there is a lot of things changing —    

MR MILLER:  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  — in Lebanon at this moment, but is there a room to avoid a military operation in Lebanon?  I mean, what are you asking for?  Are you asking now for Hizballah to go and say, we withdraw from the border; we will implement the 1701 so you can put pressure on the Israeli?  Do you think there’s a room with the Israeli Government – this government – to stop, to avoid a ground operation? 

MR MILLER:  We always believe that there is space for diplomacy, and we are not going to give up on diplomacy in this instance, as we never do.  I will say: we, of course, would welcome the full implementation of 1701.  We would welcome the Lebanese armed forces helping to enforce 1701.  We would welcome Hizballah withdrawing from the border, as they said they would do when 1701 was passed and of course never have done.  

So those are all steps that we would welcome.  That would all be steps that would be important for de-escalating tensions and finding a diplomatic way out of this conflict.  And so we’ll engage with Lebanon to see that those steps are implemented, but ultimately those are things that we have heard promised before that ultimately haven’t been – ultimately haven’t proven true.  Certainly we would welcome them if they were in this case.  

QUESTION:  Israeli —  

QUESTION:  So wait, why – why have you then been providing the Lebanese armed forces with hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars if they haven’t been doing what you want them to do?

MR MILLER:  Look, we continue to work to try to increase stability inside Lebanon.  We have not given up on 1701, but it’s just a statement of fact that it has not – never been fully implemented.  

QUESTION:  But you also haven’t given up on the LAF either, right?  

MR MILLER:  No, we have not.  I’m sorry.  Were you finished, Hiba?  

QUESTION:  So just to follow up on this – on that question, if you are not giving up on the LAF and the Israeli are targeting Hizballah, but the how they are targeting them also is questionable, but the thing is – regarding the infrastructure and the institutions in Lebanon, is there a kind of warning from the U.S. Government that they should not target, for example, the airport, the port, the LA?  

MR MILLER:  We absolutely do not want to see civilian infrastructure targeted.  Terrorist infrastructure, Hizballah targets, of course, are legitimate targets for the IDF, just as America and other countries would strike terrorist organizations that targeted them.  But we do not want to see civilians targeted.  We do not want to see civilian infrastructure targeted. 

QUESTION:  And one more question. 

MR MILLER:  Yeah. 

QUESTION:  The Israeli prime minister also said that he wants to change the face of the Middle East, and he was addressing the Iranian people.  So what do you read in this speech?  Because he made this speech before also his operations in Lebanon. 

MR MILLER:  So I have not seen his full remarks.  I saw that he released a video today.  I haven’t watched them in full so I’m a little – a little bit reluctant to comment on them at this time.  

Yeah, Tom.  

QUESTION:  I just wanted to follow up on what you’re saying a moment ago because you’ve spoken a lot about the security issues of both Israel and Lebanon and sort of across the border in a state-on state-sense.  But what about how concerned are you about stability within Lebanon, both politically and socially?  We know that this is a country with a very fragile sectarian makeup.  We’ve now had a huge shock to that, given what the Israelis have done over the last week or two, and which compounds a series of very significant shocks for that country over the last years, from a financial crisis to the Bierut port explosion, and so on.  So what’s your assessment on what all this does to Lebanon internally? 

MR MILLER:  I think it is too early to say.  And I’ll go back to the answer that I gave – I don’t remember whose question it was – the concern over Lebanon’s stability is not something that just started last week.  Right?  Look at the incidents that you spoke to.  Look at the fact that Hizballah has prevented the appointment of a president for I think it’s around two years now.  We have been greatly concerned about the stability of Lebanon.  In terms of what the events of the past week mean, I think it is far too early to say, but the exit of Hassan Nasrallah from the stage, we believe is an unalloyed good for the country and the region.  It’s just a fact, when you have a brutal terrorist with that much civilian blood on his hands no longer operating.  That is a good outcome.  

QUESTION:  And to follow up on the point about – I mean, you were asked a lot about your demands or your calls rather for a ceasefire last week.  But you did more than that because you were calling for restraint repeatedly.  And the U.S. was leading the diplomatic charge at the United Nations on this.  What we have definitely not seen is restraint.  And you talked about a ceasefire involving two sides, but on this we have seen a very sharp escalation by the Israelis.  So your call for restraint has failed, hasn’t it? 

MR MILLER:  So we continue to call for a diplomatic resolution but at the same time, as I said, Hizballah and continued to launch rockets that have kept Israeli civilians from returning to their home, and Israel absolutely, along with any – along with every country in the world, has a right to defend itself from terrorism.  It also has a right to go after legitimate terrorist targets like Hassan Nasrallah, and we support them taking those steps just as we have brought terrorists who target American citizens to justice over time.  But that said, we long-term want to see a diplomatic resolution; that’s what we’re continuing to pursue.

QUESTION:  But if just all those things were true – you’ve seen the Hizballah rocket fire for many, many months.  What we’ve had in the last week or two is the killing of the – more than a thousand people, according to Lebanese officials, in these Israeli strikes; more than a million people displaced, according to the United Nations.  I mean that’s a huge, game-changing escalation, and last week you were calling for restraint.  So I’m just sort of asking the question about whether or not you think you got restraint — 

MR MILLER:  Well — 

QUESTION:  — or your calls were heeded?

MR MILLER:  Let me just take a few things specifically when it comes to the death of Hassan Nasrallah, which is I think the event that most people have referred to as the most escalatory.  We support bringing him to justice.  We think that ultimately is something that’s good –

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) deaths of civilians —

MR MILLER:  We think that’s ultimately something that’s good for the country.  Now, yes, of course, we do not want to see any civilian harmed in that attack or in any other, but we support them bringing terrorists to justice.  We support attacks on Hizballah, but as I said at the beginning this kind of activity can both enable diplomacy, and it can also lead to miscalculation, it can lead to unintended consequences.  And so we’re going to continue to engage to try to de-escalate tensions, to the best of our ability ensure that it doesn’t lead to miscalculation and unintended consequences.  But ultimately Israel is a sovereign country that is going to make these decisions for itself.

QUESTION:  And just to – on that point about displacement, I mean, I mentioned the UN saying more than a million people in Lebanon — I mean, many have had to flee across the border into Syria.  Are you happy – I’ll rephase the question.  Given the way in which much of this was done, involving warnings delivered by mobile phone from the Israelis for people to leave their homes in the middle of the night, for example, is this process in compliance with international humanitarian law in the way it’s been done?

MR MILLER:  So it’s not the kind of assessment I can offer from here.  Obviously, to make any – to ever reach any of that type of assessment it’s something that officials have to do here looking at the full facts and not something I can offer a quick reaction immediately after the events transpire.  

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION:  Can I just follow up on Lebanon?

MR MILLER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Are you just – how worried in this department about the humanitarian impact of one million people leaving Lebanon at this time?

MR MILLER:  Of course we are worried about the humanitarian impact.  We’re worried about how that can be destabilizing, as we’ve seen before during refugee crises.  And we’re engaged with partners in the region.  We’ll continue to be engaged to try to – to find the best way to deliver humanitarian assistance to those people.  But ultimately the best thing that we can do and that other countries in the world can do is find a diplomatic resolution that allows those people to return to their homes.  

These obviously are not the first people that have had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict.  You’ve had somewhere around 60-, 70,000 Israeli families.  I think I’ve seen estimates somewhere around 40,000 — I should say Israelis, not Israeli families – somewhere around 40- or 50,000 Lebanese who’ve had to flee from their homes.  So this is unfortunately a problem we’ve seen since the outset of this conflict, which is why the ultimate way to bring all of those people home is to reach a diplomatic resolution.

QUESTION:  And is there any near-term prospect of getting them the things that they need as they’re fleeing and leaving their homes?

MR MILLER:  It’s something that we’re working on with humanitarian organizations.  Obviously, we’re in the early days of this humanitarian situation, but we are in contact with our partners in the region and humanitarian organizations at the UN and elsewhere about how to best provide humanitarian assistance to those people.

QUESTION:  And are you worried about pulling resources from those who have been displaced in Gaza as a result of this mounting humanitarian problem?

MR MILLER:  So that would always be a concern, but what we would always, in this type of situation – as happens whenever there is a humanitarian crisis anywhere in the world that you don’t – anywhere in the world – is we’ll look to identify, if necessary, new sources of funding to provide humanitarian assistance to people who need it.

QUESTION:  Thanks.

MR MILLER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  You’d said that Israel has indicated that the ground operations are limited at this time.  That doesn’t preclude a ground invasion, and there are experts inside and outside the U.S. Government that say Israel appears poised for a ground invasion.  Is that not what you see?

MR MILLER:  So I’m just going to speak to what our understanding is of their operations at this time.  I’m not going to speak to what steps they may or may not take in the future.  They’ll have to speak for themselves.

QUESTION:  And if I could follow up on what you were talking about earlier, Netanyahu is actually expanding the war.  So despite U.S. calls for diplomacy – as you mentioned earlier, a ceasefire – he’s expanding it not just into Lebanon but also into Yemen.  Is it safe to say that he’s simply ignoring U.S. concerns?

MR MILLER:  So – so let me take a little issue with the way you framed the question.  Israel did not attack Hizballah first.  Israel did not attack the Houthis first.  In both cases those were responses by the Government of Israel to attacks from terrorist organizations.  So they struck Hizballah after taking months and months of rocket fire – and last week missile fire, drone fire – from Hizballah.  

When it comes to the Houthis, they have been on the receiving end of attacks, including in recent days, from the Houthis that they were responding to.  So they, like every country in the world, have a right to defend themselves from terrorism.  Now, the way they do it matters, ensuring that they do so in a way that doesn’t – that avoids miscalculation and doesn’t needlessly increase tensions.  That is the type of thing we will continue to be in conversation with them about, but I think we ought to just be clear about the facts of what happened.

QUESTION:  Sure.  But I mean, you – you have mentioned that the U.S. has counseled restraint.  I mean, have you seen any restraint?

MR MILLER:  So I am going to just – go back to what I have – spoken to, which is we want to see a diplomatic resolution, but when it comes to restraint, we also support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism.  If the United States was on the receiving end of a terrorist organization launching rockets at us, we would defend ourselves against that terrorist organization.  If that was Hizballah, if that was the Houthis, if that was Hamas, I can guarantee you those are steps that we would take.  Those are steps that just about any country in the world would take.  

Now, the way they do it matters.  The fact that they need to be smart and strategic matters.  And we’re going to continue to talk with them about how best to accomplish those goals, but they absolutely have the right to defend themselves against ongoing attacks from terrorism.

QUESTION:  Understood.

QUESTION:  Can I just ask for a bit of a clarification here?  Are the Houthis currently a designated FTO?

MR MILLER:  They are not a designated FTO, but they — 

QUESTION:  Okay.  Well, then – well, why don’t — 

MR MILLER:  We – we — 

QUESTION:  Isn’t one of the first things this administration did when it came into office to remove the Houthis from the FTO list?  

MR MILLER:  If you recall, we have designated them under another – another designation that — 

QUESTION:  Yes, I know, but they — 

MR MILLER:  And continue —

QUESTION:  But you’re —

MR MILLER:  And continue under this other designation to refer to them and treat them as a terrorist organization.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  All right, I just want to make the point that — 

MR MILLER:  Yeah.  Yeah.  

QUESTION:  — they are not an FTO at the moment.  Sorry.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  One follow-up on Lebanon, and I will have one more question on the region.  You said Israelis told you that this is a limited operation.  Can you elaborate more on that?  Like, what is – what – how do you define a limited operation, and how do you define a major operation?

MR MILLER:  So I am – this is not a U.S. definition.  This is what they have informed us that they are currently conducting, which are limited operations targeting Hizballah infrastructure near the border.  I will let them speak for themselves about what the operations actually are.  

QUESTION:  And — 

QUESTION:  So – sorry, these are limited ground operations?  

MR MILLER:  That is our understanding.  But again, they should speak to that, not us.

Yeah.  

QUESTION:  And today marks the fourth week since the killing of Turkish American activist, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, by Israeli forces in the West Bank.  Do you have any updates on the investigation?

MR MILLER:  So the – we were engaged in recent days with the Government of Israel about exactly this question and were informed that the full criminal investigation is still ongoing.

QUESTION:  And have they given you any timeline or — 

MR MILLER:  I’m not aware of any timeline.  It’s possible they’ve given it to other officials.  I’m not aware of one, no.  

QUESTION:  And one more on this:  103 U.S. Congress members have sent – they said they sent a letter to Secretary Blinken and President Biden and the Justice Department calling for an independent investigation into the killing of Aysenur.  Can you confirm if you received this letter, and do you have any response to them?

MR MILLER:  So I – I’m sure we have received the letter.  I’m not aware, but I’m sure we have, and we will respond to them in due time through our normal process, as we always do.  But when it comes to whether there needs to be a subsequent investigation, we’ve made clear we want to see the full criminal investigation play out first before we make any other decisions.  

QUESTION:  Just — 

MR MILLER:  Yeah.  Yeah.  

QUESTION:  I want to follow up on the limited ground operation.  You don’t want to define it, but what you are against?  I mean, are you against the Israelis staying in south Lebanon? Are you against another occupation?  I know you don’t want to define the limited — 

MR MILLER:  We – want to see a diplomatic resolution, period.  I’m going to leave it at that.  

Yeah, go ahead.  

QUESTION:  Thank you, Matt.  Switching to Ukraine, if I may, you guys put out a joint statement on Ukraine – Russia’s annexation of a portion of Ukrainian regions.  Some of them, Zaporizhzhia included, was under constant attack, daily attack, over the region.  I want to give you a chance to expand on that.  And don’t you think that Ukraine actually could be able to prevent those weekend attacks if it had permission to strike back?

MR MILLER:  So I don’t have anything to expand on the statement that we put out.  But of course, Ukraine – first of all, Ukraine does not need our permission to strike back against Russian targets.  They are a sovereign country and can use the weapons that they build on their own, of which are many, if you look at the programs that they have put in place over the last year.  And then when you look at the weapons that we have provided to them, we’ve made clear that they can use them to strike back against Russian targets across the border that are launching attacks.  

So Ukraine does have an enormous amount of material to defend itself.  We always look at whether there are additional tools that we can provide them.  If you notice the announcement that the President made on Thursday, we are providing them with an additional $8 billion in security assistance, and we will continue to support them.  

QUESTION:  If you are okay with Ukraine’s striking back, then why not letting them strike back with your weapons?  

MR MILLER:  So Alex, first of all, I’m just going to say again that you and I have had this conversation before about other weapon systems that – or tactics that you presented to me as the one magic capability that would change the face of the conflict.  And I think I have always made clear that that is not how we see it, that we look at all of the capabilities and all the tactics and all the support that we provide Ukraine in totality, and look at how – when we approve any new weapon system or any new tactic, we look at how it’s going to affect the entire battlefield and Ukraine’s entire strategy.  And that’s what we’ll continue to do.  

QUESTION:  Thank you.  And following last week’s – just to follow up —

MR MILLER:  Let me – I’m going to – let me – Prem, go ahead.  

QUESTION:  Thank you, Matt.  What we’re seeing in Lebanon, we saw a similar pattern with regards to Rafah.  First, the UF saying – U.S. – excuse me – saying that they wouldn’t want to see Israel conducting major operations, then Israel going ahead with what they called limited operations, and then this continued tolerance of sort of day-to-day attacks.  That has led to over 44 percent of all buildings in Rafah being either destroyed or damaged, according to satellite photos, which is to say that there might not have been a major operation in Rafah but there was cumulative attacks that led to a good deal of destruction.  So how does this precedent of Rafah portend for Lebanon?

MR MILLER:  So every conflict is different, but if you look at what we continue to engage with Israel about when it comes to Lebanon, it is ensuring that they have the ability to attack terrorist targets, terrorist infrastructure, a terrorist organization.  But ultimately we want to see a diplomatic resolution.  

QUESTION:  Well, was that the case with Rafah, for instance?  Not just in Rafah, but —

MR MILLER:  We’ve – we’ve never – hold on.  We’ve never wanted to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas.

QUESTION:  Well, okay.  Well, what about the ceasefire negotiation?  

MR MILLER:  We wanted to see a ceasefire, but we have always — 

QUESTION:  Does that not involve diplomacy?

MR MILLER:  We have always been committed to the destruction of Hamas.  We did want to see a ceasefire, but we have always made clear that we wanted to see a different authority moving forward in governance of Gaza.  

QUESTION:  Okay, but so, for instance, other UN satellite image shows that 66 percent of Gaza structures have been damaged, and you earlier today said that the U.S. supports the targeting of terrorist infrastructure, not civilian infrastructure.  Does the US believe 66 percent of Gaza’s buildings are terrorist infrastructure? 

MR MILLER:  Absolutely not – absolutely not, which is why we have been engaged to try to reach a ceasefire to end that conflict, which is why we have been pushing for a ceasefire for months.  And I wish that Hamas would come to the table and work with us on a ceasefire.  As you saw – as you heard me saying earlier, Hamas has been absent for weeks, won’t even respond to the mediators putting forward ideas asking whether they would agree to a ceasefire or not.  

Look, you can talk about Israel and the culpability that has – that Israel has and the tough decisions that Israel needs to make.  And it’s absolutely true that Israel needs to make tough decisions to get to a ceasefire, but the way out of this conflict is a ceasefire, and it is Hamas that is missing in action right now, that won’t come to the table to talk about one.  

QUESTION:  And then finally, a few weeks ago, the U.S. ambassador to the UN said, quote, “I do not believe the Palestinians as they exist right now have all of the elements to give it statehood.”  What do you think – which elements are Palestinians missing?  And do you think the U.S. continual, unconditional support to bomb Gaza and Palestine supports achieving those elements?  

MR MILLER:  Well, I’ll give you one of the elements that is missing, which is Palestinian Authority governance of Gaza.  You’ve seen Hamas in charge of Gaza going back months – or going back years.  We have tried to reach – or we have put forward ideas for Palestinian Authority governance of Gaza and ultimately a unified Gaza and the West Bank that’s – as something that would be a prerequisite to a state.  That’s something that’s obviously not happening right now but something that we’ll continue to push for.  

QUESTION:  And then one final thing, I’m sorry.  

MR MILLER:  Yeah, one more.

QUESTION:  Thank you guys.  I’m sorry.  Last week, the Israeli minister of education, Yoav Kisch, said that Lebanon will be annihilated and there is, quote, “no difference between Lebanon and Hizballah.”  What’s your response to a person tasked with educating Israelis saying such a thing?  

MR MILLER:  Well, obviously that statement is not true and those comments are completely inappropriate.

Go ahead.  

QUESTION:  So can I just — 

MR MILLER:  Yeah.  

QUESTION:  On – you said the Palestinian Authority – one of the defects or shortcomings is the PA doesn’t have control over Gaza.  Do you think that the PA has effective governing control over the West Bank?  

MR MILLER:  It has effective governing control over parts of the West Bank, certainly not all of it.  

QUESTION:  Some of it?  

MR MILLER:  Yeah, some of it.  

QUESTION:  Which parts?  

MR MILLER:  The parts that it is in control of, and then there are other parts where Israeli maintains security control.  So it certainly does with parts of the West Bank.

Go ahead.  

QUESTION:  Thank you.  I want to follow up regarding the civilian casualties in Lebanon.  During the past week, Israel targeted many residential buildings in heavy airstrikes.  In one of them, 33 people were killed in Bekaa.  Israel always is claiming that there are Hizballah members there.  How is the U.S. not condemning or finding it normal that a whole building can be targeted only for one person, even if kids are being torn to pieces?  

MR MILLER:  We do not — 

QUESTION:  And sometimes we don’t see a Hizballah member after – in that building after it was, like, hit by an air strike.  

MR MILLER:  So we don’t want to see a single civilian casualty in Lebanon.  

QUESTION:  But we are seeing it.  

MR MILLER:  Yeah, we are seeing them, as we see them in other conflicts, and it is a tragedy, and it is why we are trying to pursue a diplomatic resolution to this conflict.  This conflict never would have started – again, if we want to talk about culpability – if Hizballah, on October 8th, hadn’t started attacking Israel.  

QUESTION:  But escalated last week?   

MR MILLER:  No, I know, but it’s important to understand why Israel is defending itself against these attacks.  It’s because Hizballah started a war, started a conflict with Israel on October 8th.  Had nothing to do with Gaza, nothing at all to do with Gaza.  They started the conflict, and Israel has a right to defend itself against that terrorism.  

Now, that doesn’t mean that every civilian death isn’t a tragedy.  Of course it is, and Israel needs to do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties.  

QUESTION:  But they’re not doing it (inaudible) —   

MR MILLER:  But the reason why this conflict – let me – just let me – before you interrupt, just let me finish.  The reason why this conflict is happening in the first place is because for 12 months Hizballah has been attacking Israel – 12 months – and has been unwilling to cease those attacks.  And that’s why Israel’s defending itself.  

QUESTION:  Yeah, but they’re not doing – they’re – they are not doing a better job.  We saw it in Gaza and we’re seeing it again in Lebanon.  There’s always a lot of civilian casualties.  There are always kids that are being targeted, aid workers being targeted.  So they’re not doing their best job.  

MR MILLER:  And they absolutely need to do more to minimize civilian casualties, and ultimately it’s why we want to see a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, is because not just the destabilizing effects on the region but the terrible toll that this war produces for civilians in Lebanon, that’s produced for civilians in Gaza, and of course that it produced on October 7th for civilians inside Israel.  

Yeah, go ahead.  

QUESTION:  Thank you very much, Matt.  In Pakistan, this donut shop has become very popular by the name of Crusteez because its employee had called the chief justice of the supreme court of Pakistan that – shame on you.  My question is – do you hear these things? I mean, spokesperson, you’ve seen globally – do you see countries where the chief justices are called shame on you?  

MR MILLER:  I am not fully tracking donut shop – the latest donut shop news from Pakistan, I will admit.  So – (laughter).  

QUESTION:  Okay.  

QUESTION:  No, but you are in Northern Virginia — 

MR MILLER:  Not tracking – I’m not tracking —

QUESTION:  — and Capitol Hill.    

MR MILLER:  I’m not tracking Northern Virginia donut news either, but I’m happy to be educated.  

QUESTION:  Do you like — 

MR MILLER:  I love donuts.  So – sour cream donuts especially.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  So — 

MR MILLER:  If anyone wants to bring them to the briefing room.  

QUESTION:  After the three pillars of the states are gone in Pakistan, that’s why I was asking about it.  But KP, the province which I belong to and have the newspaper since 40 years, its chief minister in a statement yesterday said to the federal government of Shehbaz Sharif, after their protest was interrupted and stuff, that if next time you shoot us with one bullet, we’re going to shoot you with 10 bullets.  Does these kind of statements worry the U.S. at all about the situation in Pakistan? 

MR MILLER:  So I wasn’t aware of that statement until you brought it to my attention.  I’d want to see it in its full context before I commented.  

QUESTION:  Just last – one last — 

MR MILLER:  Let me – let me go ahead, because I’m – we’re running out of time.  Let me go to your colleague.  

QUESTION:  Okay.  

QUESTION:  Thank you so much, Matt.  I have three short question on Bangladesh issue.  Given Nobel Laureate and chief advisor to the Bangladesh Government, Muhammad Yunus, recent acknowledgement of meticulously designed conspiracy leading to political change in Bangladesh – as he said at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, it’s amazingly meticulously designed thing, nothing happened by chance.  My question is:  What shall be the U.S. Government stand on whom to hold responsible for killing of hundreds of people in Bangladesh from human rights perspective? 

MR MILLER:  We think there need to be full investigations into the civilians who lost their life during the protests and the crackdown on the protests in recent months, and there needs to be full accountability for anyone responsible. 

QUESTION:  Thank you so much.  And there are reports of violence involving the use of armed forces against worker in Ashulia area near Dhaka.  These casualties reported also.  Given reference in 2014, chairman of U.S. state committee on foreign relation, Robert Menendez, said on the first anniversary of the Rana Plaza tragedy that Western countries would not buy clothes that are stained with the blood of Bangladeshi workers.  Given the U.S. launched – advocacy for labor rights and peaceful protest, does the State Department have any comments and concern regarding this? 

MR MILLER:  Let me take that one back and get you an answer. 

QUESTION:  And the last question on press on Bangladesh.  Several prominent journalist in Bangladesh – including Shakil Ahmed, Farzana Rupa, Mozammel Babu, Shyamal Dutta, and Mahbubur Rahman – are reportedly being held in custody without bail.  Given the importance of press freedom as a pillar of democracy, does the State Department have any concern on comments regarding the current situation in Bangladesh? 

MR MILLER:  We want to see press freedoms upheld in Bangladesh and of course across the world. 

In the back. 

QUESTION:  Hi.  Following up — 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  

QUESTION:  Speaking of press freedom — 

MR MILLER:  Yeah.  

QUESTION:  — in Asia, did you get an answer to the question I posed to you earlier —

MR MILLER:  No.  I’ll have to follow up with you on it. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you. 

QUESTION:  Over the last few hours, Israel has been striking not only in Dahieh suburbs, but also in Kola, which is inside Beirut, for the first time.  It’s an area, Kola, that – it’s a connection point to the airport where there is many foreigners, not just Lebanese people, people from many sects.  So it’s not just Hizballah.  Are you concerned about this more recent strike?  And is it time to ask – are you coordination with Israel about whether – what is a red line, what is a direct line, where to strike and bomb?  Because there is U.S. citizens in Lebanon, and that’s an area definitely —

MR MILLER:  So I’ve seen reports of that strike.  I don’t have any further information about it, so I wouldn’t want to comment in detail.  But as I said earlier, of course we do not want to see any civilian targets, any civilian infrastructure targeted in any way. 

Let me go to Nick and then we’ll wrap for the day. 

QUESTION:  There’s reporting the U.S. will not seek another term on the UN Human Rights Council.  Is that accurate, and if so, why? 

MR MILLER:  It is accurate.  We decided not to seek another Human Rights Council – another spot on the Human Rights Council this time just because we were engaged with our allies about the best way to move forward.  There are three seats available, four countries that were interested.  We looked at the other countries that were running for this spot – Spain, Iceland, Switzerland.  All of them are countries with a very strong record of support for human rights.  We thought they could carry the flag forward.  But we will engage – we will continue to remain engaged on human rights issues and are currently slated to run again in 2028. 

And with that, we’ll wrap for today.  

QUESTION:  Thank you.  

(The briefing was concluded at 2:04 p.m.)