Department Press Briefing – October 30, 2024

1:18 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. I don’t have any opening comments, and I don’t see Mr. Lee here, so Shaun, I think you’re up.

QUESTION: Okay. I won’t imitate him.

MR MILLER: I’d like to see that, actually. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, maybe not on camera. Don’t think he would like that. Maybe start with the situation in Lebanon. A few things there. First of all, there are evacuation orders that the Israelis ordered – Israelis publicly announced today for Baalbek, a historic city in the east. I wanted to get your sense about that, whether the U.S. is okay with what’s happening there. And then some other aspects on Lebanon I want to ask.

MR MILLER: So we support their right to go after legitimate Hizballah targets. But in doing so, it is critical that they do so in a way that does not threaten the lives of civilians. That’s especially true in densely populated areas like Baalbek. It’s important that they not threaten the lives of journalists, UN peacekeepers, members of the Lebanese armed forces, and it’s also critical that civilian infrastructure and significant cultural heritage sites be protected.

QUESTION: I’ll get to you on that. I mean, do you think this is the case with that? I mean, saying that there’s a mass evacuation order – I mean, is that sort of a more targeted strike? I mean, is there any concern that, particularly after we’ve seen Gaza, that there could be further destruction?

MR MILLER: So a few things. First of all, we have made clear that the campaign they are conducting in Lebanon should not, cannot, must not, look like the campaign that they have conducted in Gaza, and that we do not want to see that type of widespread damage. In terms of what the operation they’re going to conduct, I don’t know what it’s going to be. I’ll refer you to them to talk to that. But of course, when you are conducting a military operation in an area where civilians are operating – and we know that Hizballah does embed itself among civilian targets – you want to actually see civilians evacuate. That’s something our military advises. It’s something the militaries advise around the world, that before you conduct a strike in a densely populated civilian area, a best practice is to urge that civilians evacuate the area so the military operation can be conducted. And then when it’s concluded, civilians can return.

QUESTION: Let me ask you about the diplomatic aspects of that. There’s a new leader of Hizballah, who said today that, I mean, essentially they’re open to – I mean, within many conditions, I’m sure – but they’re open in general to negotiating some sort of ceasefire. It seems that the Israeli cabinet was meeting last night on this. Where do things stand? I mean, does the U.S. in particular have an idea for how this can come to an end? And is the U.S. at this point calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: We do ultimately want to see a ceasefire, and we want to see a diplomatic resolution that allows civilians both in Lebanon and Israel return to their homes. Two White House officials, Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein, are traveling to Israel to engage on issues including a diplomatic resolution in Lebanon as well as how we get to an end to the conflict in Gaza and other regional matters. And one of the things that they are going to discuss is how we can find a diplomatic resolution that fully implements UN Security Council Resolution 1701, something that we have not seen over the past few years.

QUESTION: You just said that Amos and Brett are going to Israel. And I know you’re not going to say in preview what exactly the proposals are, but does this indicate that there’s more momentum and that there’s – the U.S. has more on the – has – believes that there’s more of a chance right now of getting to an end?

MR MILLER: Look, I never want to try and – speculate not the right word; I’m trying to think, when you wager money or – I never want to try —

QUESTION: Predict?

MR MILLER: — to lay odds – I don’t want to lay odds on what that chances are of getting a deal. I can tell you that we have been focused on trying to find a diplomatic resolution. As you know, the Secretary was in Israel and a number of other countries in the region last week, and one of the things that he was working on was finding how we can get to not just any diplomatic resolution, but – this is really important – one that fully implements 1701 and gives civilians on both sides of the border the confidence they need to come to their – that they will be able to go back to their homes and stay there, not that they will go back to their homes, and then a month later or two months later Hizballah forces return to areas along the border and start putting civilians on both sides of the border in jeopardy again. That is what we have been working on trying to achieve, and that’s what they’re going to work on on this trip, and that’s what we’re going to work on in our other diplomatic engagements.

Matt.

QUESTION: Sorry, I was on the phone. I missed the top, so I’ll —

MR MILLER: That’s all right. We can come back to you.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just to put a point – finer point on Shaun’s question, Matt, do you guys believe that Israel has gotten to a point in its offensive against Hizballah that they should accept a diplomatic resolution at this point? Have they achieved their strategic aims, as you guys say, as they have in Gaza?

MR MILLER: I am not going to get into private diplomatic conversations. They have made significant progress in striking Hizballah sites along the border, in clearing out Hizballah infrastructure along the border, in forcing Hizballah forces along the border to pull back. And we will be engaging with them privately about what we see as the path forward.

QUESTION: And do you have any comments on the reports about the contours of this proposal, 60-day ceasefire, that the U.S. is said to have put on the table?

MR MILLER: I don’t. I know there are a number of reports out there, but I don’t want to confirm or comment on them publicly.

QUESTION: And then I have more questions on Gaza. I don’t know if anyone has more on Lebanon?

QUESTION: I just have a few on Lebanon. So on this ceasefire versus diplomatic resolution, the United States is not calling for an immediate ceasefire right now, but would you welcome a ceasefire if one is struck, like, in a few days? I’m just trying to understand.

MR MILLER: We want to get to the point where we have a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution. We are not calling for one right now. What we are trying to do is structure such a diplomatic resolution with all of the relevant parties. That’s the diplomatic work that we have been engaged in.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: We’re not there yet.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: But we’re working to get there.

QUESTION: If it takes you another month to get there, is the United States okay with Israel bombing and continuing its ground invasion in Lebanon for another month?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into a hypothetical. We’re working on finding a resolution that fully implements 1701.

QUESTION: You – the United States thinks that Israel has – I can’t remember the exact word you used, but Israel has made a lot of achievements in terms of degrading Hizballah in Lebanon. What is Israel telling you in terms of achieving their military objectives?

MR MILLER: Now, I am not —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: I am not going to speak for them. I will let them speak publicly for themselves. And in terms of what they have told us privately, I think it’s obviously appropriate that I keep those comments private.

QUESTION: Would you say you have agreement with the Israeli Government on this, whether or not – how long more this military operation should continue in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: We have ongoing conversations with them about what a diplomatic resolution can look like and what it should look like. We have – and those conversations are ongoing – I should point out – not just with the Government of Israel, but also with the Government of Lebanon. But I’m not going to read those out publicly.

QUESTION: Oh, one more thing.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I have a bunch of – on Gaza, but you can come back to me. When – will this plan that you guys are trying to craft on the implementation of 1701, is that going to include an article or an element that will allow Israel to intervene if it felt its security is threatened?

MR MILLER: I think you know what the answer to that question is going to be, which is that I’m not going to answer about what a specific diplomatic resolution might look like while we are in the process of negotiating that with the relevant parties.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, you know I got to try.

MR MILLER: Yeah, I certainly don’t mind – certainly don’t mind you trying.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I shift to —

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: — a few kilometers away?

MR MILLER: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. So what is the State Department’s assessment of China’s silence and lack of direct commentary on North Korea sending troops to Russia?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on what they have or have not said about that matter. I will note that it is a matter of significant concern for us that North Korea has deployed troops to Russia, and that those troops in Russia are currently receiving training, and that we believe it’s possible they may end up deploying to Kursk to engage in combat. What I will say is that we have engaged directly with officials with the Government of China to make quite clear our concerns about this deepening military relationship between Russia and North Korea, and to make clear that we think this ought to be a source of concern for China as well as other countries in the region. But as to their reaction, I will let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: And this communication, was it done through PRC embassy here in Washington?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak the nature of the communication, but I will tell you we have had very robust conversations with the Government of China about this matter.

QUESTION: And last one: Does the State Department share the assessment that North Korea is prepared to conduct nuclear or missile tests before or after the U.S. presidential election?

MR MILLER: No, I don’t have any comment on that at all. We rarely comment on that type of thing from the podium.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you think this deployment of North Korean troops in Russia further complicates the situation for NATO Allies, not only for U.S.; given in Zelenskyy’s – President Zelenskyy’s victory plan, including being a NATO member. Now, do you think it further complicates all things or, for example, allowing Ukraine to use NATO Ally-supplied weapons, to use those weapons on North Korean forces, for example, if they end up in Kursk or something which —

MR MILLER: I don’t think it —

QUESTION: — further complicates the situation?

MR MILLER: I’m sorry. I don’t think it complicates the issue at all, but I think it raises, certainly, concerns among some – a number of our NATO allies. We’ve heard that directly in our conversations with NATO Allies, that they are every bit as concerned about this development as we are. And so it – in terms of what the response will look like that is something we’re consulting with them on right now. The South Korean foreign minister and the South Korean defense minister, another important ally of ours, will be in town tomorrow to meet with Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin. I can guarantee you that this development will be a significant topic of discussion in those meetings as well.

QUESTION: So if those troops would be ending up in the fronts like in Kursk, for example, will Ukraine be allowed to use weapons provided by U.S. and NATO Allies?

MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into a – I’m not going to get into a hypothetical.

Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I’m struck by your response to Shaun on – you said that you don’t want to see the widespread damage that you’ve seen, but in Gaza, it’s total destruction. So anything short of that total destruction would be acceptable? You don’t want to see something similar?

MR MILLER: Said, we want to see a diplomatic resolution well —

QUESTION: I’m trying to understand your terms.

MR MILLER: Said, let me – if you’re going to ask a question —

QUESTION: No, sure.

MR MILLER: — you deserve to let me respond to the question. We want to see this conflict resolved through a diplomatic resolution that allows people to return to their homes and borders well short of any kind of prolonged campaign like we’ve seen in Gaza.

QUESTION: Right. Now, Israel is striking in the Bekaa Valley – it’s eastern Lebanon and so on – and said – you said that they have the right to go after legitimate Hizballah targets and so on. But really, Israel can say there is a Hizballah target there. No one – nobody is vetting, nobody is looking, saying – can determine, really, whether this was a legitimate Hizballah target, correct? You see it that way?

MR MILLER: So there are – so, Said, I don’t think it is disputed —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: — maybe you’ll dispute it – but I don’t think it is a matter of dispute that there are Hizballah operatives basically deployed in a number of occasions across Lebanon. We talk a lot about southern Lebanon because we see them concentrated there for – in large reason because it’s where they can most readily and easily threaten Israeli troops and Israeli villages and Israeli civilians, but that’s not the only place that they are around Lebanon, and we’ve seen Israel striking Hizballah targets at other places around Lebanon.

QUESTION: I understand. I’m saying of course Hizballah is probably all over the country. But I’m saying is with – Israel does not have to verify that this was X person Hizballah or that person Hizballah, do they?

MR MILLER: Verify to whom, Said?

QUESTION: Verify to the world. I mean, you keep saying that this is a legitimate – how do we know it’s legitimate? How would we —

MR MILLER: So we have seen a number of examples of – you can see for yourself video of Hizballah rockets that are pulled out of civilian homes, Hizballah rockets and arms caches and other significant military equipment hidden inside civilian homes, hidden under civilian homes. So with respect to each strike it’s always difficult to say what’s happening with each target, but there is ample evidence, Said, of them hiding their troops, hiding their equipment, hiding their arsenals inside civilian homes.

QUESTION: All right. Okay, and one more on Lebanon. So you’re saying that you – for now you’re not calling for a ceasefire. Are there any talks underway of any kind that maybe can achieve a ceasefire that is delinked from Gaza?

MR MILLER: We have always thought that it should be delinked from Gaza. That has been the position of the United States since Hizballah started rockets – firing rockets on October 8th, that the – that Hizballah was putting people’s lives in danger by linking these two conflicts when they didn’t need to be linked. Now, you’ve seen some public indications from Hizballah that they no longer take that position. We’re in talks about how to reach a diplomatic resolution, and we’ll see how they turn out.

QUESTION: Now, on Gaza, the Kamal Adwan Hospital was completely overwhelmed after Israel’s massacre in Beit Lahia. Is the United States doing any – could you do any kind of – could you take any steps that – to alleviate the situation, that can address this urgent condition in this particular case, the Kamal Adwan Hospital?

MR MILLER: So I’ll say that we have raised this issue with the Government of Israel. We have asked that they explain what has happened here not only to us but that they explain it publicly – think it’s important that they do that. I will let them speak to exactly what they’re doing, but I will say with regards to what happens immediately, we continue to make clear that food, water, and medicine need to make it into all areas of northern Gaza, including areas where Israel is currently conducting military operations. But then long term, the way that you fully address this problem is to find an end to the war in Gaza, which is what we’re trying to do.

QUESTION: Okay. So on that point, do you have any update on the future of the talks?

MR MILLER: So the negotiators met in recent days, as I think you know, Said. We’ve talked about that publicly. We’re continuing to talk about what a possible way forward will be, looking at both the proposal that we put on the table several months ago that was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, that was endorsed by countries around the world, as well as other alternatives that might provide for a way forward that would end the conflict and get the hostages home and alleviate the suffering of civilians on the ground in Gaza. But I’m not going to talk about where those talks stand and the specifics of what we’re discussing in them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Did you want to come back? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. So just back on Lebanon, do you have any reason to believe that the Israelis, at least in Baalbek, are going to target significant cultural heritage?

MR MILLER: No, I am not speaking —

QUESTION: Do you have any —

MR MILLER: I’m going – I’m not going to speak at all for what they may or may not do. They should speak to that. But I’m making clear on behalf of the United States that no, of course they should not target significant cultural artifacts.

QUESTION: And they should also not target civilians?

MR MILLER: Of course not.

QUESTION: And yet what have you seen in Gaza and in southern Lebanon?

MR MILLER: So we have seen them targeting Hamas militants, but at great civilian harm, great harm to civilians. Now, of course, the situation is different in Hamas than in – I’m sorry. The situation is different in Gaza than it is in Lebanon, and that in many cases in Gaza it’s very difficult to find places to move to. It’s a much smaller geographic area than Lebanon. So we’re hopeful that what can happen is that people can evacuate, Israel can conduct whatever military operations they are conducting against legitimate Hizballah targets, and then people can return to their homes afterwards.

QUESTION: Well, do you agree with what U.S. officials said even as early as last year, that the civilian death toll – and this is referring to Gaza – was far too high, far too many civilians have —

MR MILLER: Yes.

QUESTION: And do you agree that that’s the same in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: We don’t want to see any civilians killed.

QUESTION: I know —

MR MILLER: And yes, there have – there have been – there have been civilians that have been killed in Lebanon, and no – yes, the – when the toll – when there are any civilians killed that is too high a toll, which is why we want to see a resolution and end to the conflict.

QUESTION: Okay. And then yesterday you said that you had asked the Israelis for – maybe someone else asked this already —

MR MILLER: No.

QUESTION: — for an explanation of what happened in northern Gaza with this building that was apparently blown up.

MR MILLER: Yeah. We reiterated that call with them today. We do not yet have an explanation. They have said to us what they have said publicly, which is they are investigating the matter, and we are pressing them for an answer.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it just seems like that every day that goes by – and I know this is something that comes up every day in the briefing – every day that goes by, there’s yet another incident like this that you guys have questions about, concerns about. You called it “horrifying” yesterday from the podium.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And yet they continue to happen. And so I’m just wondering, what is it going to take for you guys to make a determination that this kind of thing is a violation of international law?

MR MILLER: So I will make clear, as we’ve said before, they are not doing enough to get us the answers that we have requested. And you saw the Secretary raise this in a letter that he sent a little over two weeks ago and said that they need to do more to set up a channel so when we have answers to these types of questions, that they provide us with those answers. They also need to provide the public with answers to these questions. There are significant questions that you all ask, that other countries have asked, that we believe Israel needs to answer publicly.

I can’t tell you where this is going to go. I can tell you that we are not just pressing them for answers but also conducting our own reviews based on information that we are gathering independent of the Government of Israel, and we will make those determinations when we have completed those reviews. But I can’t put a timetable on it.

QUESTION: Okay. And then in terms of the letter that you just mentioned, the aid – the humanitarian aid, the amount of humanitarian aid that’s getting into Gaza now, you talked about how there’s been a small improvement, some border crossings reopened, a few more trucks getting in. And yet the need seems to be just far, far greater than what is getting in.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And so where – what’s this – do you have any kind of a status update on are they making more progress toward meeting the requirements that you laid – that were laid out in the letter or is it still the same?

MR MILLER: There – it is still roughly the same. There have been little improvements here and there on things like additional routes opening up inside Gaza and work around trying to work through some of the security issues. But the situation still remains not at a level that we find acceptable, and that’s not just about the level of aid that is making it to Gaza but also the distribution inside Gaza.

And we continue to see breakdowns in communication between Israeli forces and UN agencies that is important to being – to ensuring that aid can be delivered safely; sometimes UN agencies not getting the permits that they need, or I should say the permissions – it’s not permits but permissions that they need to travel around Gaza; sometimes getting permissions granted and then yanked or it doesn’t get communicated down to the officer who’s at a particular checkpoint. That needs to change. And so the aid – much of the aid that’s getting to Kerem Shalom or Erez then isn’t – isn’t making its way to people either because of these bureaucratic obstacles or because it’s being looted, in many cases by armed gangs that are operating inside Gaza due to the breakdown in the security situation.

So it continues to be of great concern to us, and we have not seen sufficient improvement since the Secretary sent that letter.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just getting into the weeds of – weeds of that letter, there’s – can you explain the difference between the 30-day deadline that Secretaries Austin and Blinken laid out to the Israelis and the legislation that the Knesset passed the other day on basically banning UNRWA, which would take effect in 90 days unless there’s some kind of a delay in that?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does the – the 30-day deadline, my understanding – still for your – for the requirements laid out in the letter still remains. Is that (inaudible)?

MR MILLER: The 30-day deadline does still remain. And if you just look at the way the letter is structured, the letter makes clear that there are a number of improvements to the delivery of humanitarian assistance that we want to see happen, some immediately, some by the end of that 30-day period. And it goes through the – a number of specific improvements that we want to see them take. Then, in a different section of the letter, it says “relatedly,” and it raises the issue related to passage of this UNRWA legislation, which of course had not passed when the secretaries sent the letter, and then a couple of other issues as well. So those are not – those were not issues that were related to the 30 days outlined in the letter, but nevertheless they’re issues that we take seriously and that’s why the letter made clear with respect to this – the passage of this legislation that it could have implementations under U.S. law and policy in the same way that failure to – failure —

QUESTION: Could have implications?

MR MILLER: Yeah, implications under U.S. law and policy – in the same way that failure to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance could have implications under U.S. law and policy.

QUESTION: But you – but at the moment, you don’t think that the legislation is going – will affect Israel’s ability to meet the 30-day —

MR MILLER: The legislation is really a separate question than under the 30 days, so no.

QUESTION: I know. I know, but – but —

MR MILLER: It has its own – it has its own implications, but no, the 30-days review that we are conducting relates to those first sections of the letter —

QUESTION: Which rely on UNRWA, but —

MR MILLER: Which very much rely on – but UNRWA – this legislation, if it is implemented, wouldn’t be implemented until 90 days from yesterday or whenever the bill’s signed.

QUESTION: Right, but I guess – I mean —

MR MILLER: And so —

QUESTION: People are a little bit – including me – are a little bit confused as to – if you have this impending implementation of a ban on what you say is the biggest and most effective organization that’s distributing aid into Gaza, even if it hasn’t yet gone into effect, there are going to be implications or most likely going to be implications for what happens even before that 90-day period runs out.

MR MILLER: For sure.

QUESTION: Is that not0 correct?

MR MILLER: There could be but there may not be, right. The law could be stayed. But I – but maybe the way to think about it, Matt, is while we raised things that we wanted to see change over the next 30 days, it’s not like if Israel implemented every one of those things at the end – and at the end of the 30 days we saw a significant improvement that we just stop assessing these on an ongoing basis. We don’t. So the 30 days is related to these things that we wanted to see happen to change the situation on the ground, but our assessment on all of those things will continue, just as our assessment on the effects of this legislation will continue if and when it is ever implemented.

Humeyra.

QUESTION: Matt, just on this Washington Post and Reuters story – they were first – about —

MR MILLER: Who was first?

QUESTION: Post was first.

MR MILLER: Okay. I’m sorry, I thought you were saying you were – I was not trying to rub salt, I was trying – (laughter).

QUESTION: State Department officials have identified nearly 500 potential incidents of civilian harm during Israel’s military operations in Gaza involving U.S.-furnished weapons, but they have not taken action. None of them moved to stage three. So could you explain how it is that officials identify 500 separate incidents that do involve unnecessary civilian harm, possibly using U.S. weapons, but none of them makes it to the stage three under CHIRG process?

MR MILLER: So a few things about that. Number one, I think it’s always important to reiterate that we have consistently made clear to the Government of Israel our serious concerns about this issue and their need to do more to minimize civilian deaths, and it continues to be something that we engage with them on that we make quite clear. Second thing I want to make clear is that, yes, we are reviewing a number of incidents through the CHIRG and other processes and procedures that we have set up, and I’m not going to get into those ongoing reviews. But as you’ve heard us say, these are complicated issues. They’re complicated factual issues; they’re complicated legal issues.

And so we have not yet gotten to the point with any of them that we have been able to make final determinations, but there are a number of incidents, and that is part of the issue. We have a number of different incidents that we have to look at just based on the nature of this conflict and the scope and extent of this conflict, and the extent of civilian harm. As you heard us say before – you’ve heard us when we released the NSM-20 report. If you just look at the overall scope of the damage and the number of civilian lives that have been lost, we do believe it’s reasonable to assess there are incidents in which Israel did not meet all of its international humanitarian law obligations. But when it comes to specific incidents, those reviews are still ongoing.

QUESTION: But I mean, I’m actually surprised that you, unprompted, flag the NSM-20 report, which exactly, yes, says that. So it’s a – isn’t it a little bit inconceivable that more than a year now – some of these incidents go way back to last October – it’s been more than a year and you guys are still yet to definitively assess that any one single incident violates international humanitarian law?

MR MILLER: So let me just first say the reason I flagged the NSM-20 report specifically is because one of the stories to which you referred had sourced to officials as if it were a revelation that we believe that there very well could be violations of international humanitarian law when that is something that a report ordered by the President, overseen by the Secretary had concluded several months ago. So we have been quite clear – we’ve been quite clear about the fact, and that’s why I – that’s why I thought it was important to mention it.

But no, the – when it comes to these determinations, these are incredibly difficult. It takes gathering facts, it takes gathering information, and it takes, ultimately, making legal judgments about those facts. And oftentimes you have conflicting accounts of what happened, and it is our job to try to sort through that the best we can. And it is a very difficult process where we’re looking at a number of incidents. I can tell you we want to finish that work as soon as possible. We have a number of people working on it, but it’s very difficult work.

QUESTION: Is the – would you say the United States Government is committed to investigating any possible misuse of its weapons by any foreign forces, including Israel?

MR MILLER: Yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: But then how do you square that commitment with your inability to find anything in a year?

MR MILLER: We are – no, we are conducting those investigations, and we are conducting them thoroughly, and we are conducting them aggressively, but we want to get to the right answer. And it’s important that we not jump to a preordained result and that we not skip any of the work that we do, all of the important fact finding that we need to do, before making what is a pretty significant determination, and that’s what we’re doing.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Mr. Matt. You have keep saying that you don’t need to see any, like, Hamas members in Gaza after this war, or not governing this Gaza Strip. But you know that in Gaza, there are many, many military group, or, like, many Palestinian group – like, they fighting – like, not since 7th October, it’s like before October 7th. So, like, the story hasn’t started in October 7th. Like, there is a United Nations resolution, like, that Israel’s border is 4 June 1967. So – and those, they are not like ISIS or al-Qaida; they are not global fighters. All of them are Palestinian in this land, like this – they are exist and their ancestors, like, since, like, hundreds of years.

So you don’t believe that these – like, these group, they have a right in West Bank or in Gaza to fight for their freedom if Israel doesn’t apply the —

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: — resolution of going back to the border of 4 June 1967? Because you are – insist about 1701 in Lebanon for, like, civilian coming back and stuff. So this is first question.

The second question —

MR MILLER: So let me just answer the first question, because I can be very clear: No. We do not accept the idea that terrorism is an ultimate resolution to the dispute over the establishment of a Palestinian state. We support the creation of an independent Palestinian state. We believe that negotiations between the parties is the way to achieve that. We are pushing to find a way to end the war and bring about an independent Palestinian state, but we absolutely do not accept that terrorism is a legitimate way to achieve that outcome.

QUESTION: Yes, but, like – like, so far, like, the settlement in West Bank, it has been expanding since Oslo 1993. And, like, Palestinian – they don’t have army. They don’t have anything. Like, if Palestinian – like, not in Gaza, in West Bank – decided to defend his land – his land by using a weapon against those settlements? Do they have a legitimate to defend their land, or they don’t have?

MR MILLER: That is something that law enforcement should address. It is something that the security forces should address. And we will work to – along with our allies, our partners around the world – to make clear that we want to see, ultimately, a resolution to this issue, we want to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. But we do not believe that increased violence is the answer. And certainly the kind of terrorism that we saw on October 7th where Hamas fighters came across and killed, murdered, raped women, children – absolutely do not believe that is the answer.

And I will tell you not only is that not the answer for – because of the impact it has on Israeli victims, but just look at what has happened over the past year to the Palestinian people as a result of the terrorism of October 7th. We absolutely reject that course.

QUESTION: Okay. Last question. About the – like, to follow up from my colleague yesterday about the aid in Gaza. If Israel controls everything for, like, fighting, why they don’t control these gang? Like, why they let – if they, like, really care about human being and humanitarian assistance, the control that —

MR MILLER: You should – it’s a question for the Government of Israel you should direct to them.

QUESTION: But they don’t —

MR MILLER: We want to see an increase in the – an improvement in the security situation. But when that’s – that is straight up a question for the Government of Israel.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on a question from yesterday, Matt?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Knesset passed a law that would bar the establishment of a consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem. Do you guys have a comment on that?

MR MILLER: Yeah. We oppose that legislation.

QUESTION: Have you discussed this with the Israeli Government? Have you raised this?

MR MILLER: We have made clear to them that we oppose the bill. We continue to believe opening a U.S. consulate in Jerusalem would be an important way for our country to engage with and provide support to the Palestinian people. In the meantime, we have a team in Jerusalem in our Office of Palestinian Affairs that manages our relationship with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: And then on Iran, what’s the current assessment of whether Iran will respond to Israel’s response last week to (inaudible) —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to offer an assessment as to what they may or may not do, but we believe that they should not respond. We believe that that was an appropriate response by the Government of Israel to an unprecedented attack by Iran, but that this should be the end of it.

QUESTION: A colleague was told by a source that Iran is planning a, quote, “definitive and painful” response before the U.S. election. Has this been communicated privately to the United States that they intend to do this?

MR MILLER: I’m – so I’m not going to talk about communications between our two governments, real or imagined. But as we have made clear publicly – and I can tell you that Iran knows this message quite clearly – they should not in any way continue to escalate this conflict. This should be the end of it.

QUESTION: And last one. Has there been any communication, direct or indirect, with the Iranians since last week’s Israeli response?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to potential communications, only to say that we do have the ability to communicate to them when it’s our interest. Every once in a while I come here and talk about the nature of some of those communications, but I think they know quite clearly what our opinion on this matter is.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly on your response on the consulate?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s your view on whether – on the legality – and you probably don’t want to take legal questions per se, but its legislation there saying that the U.S. can’t establish a consulate. It’s a diplomatic facility. Obviously, Israel has control over the land, et cetera. But can the U.S. – does the U.S. have to abide by this?

MR MILLER: You’re right; it’s a legal question that unfortunately I’m unqualified to answer. I don’t know the answer. We’ve opposed it on policy grounds.

QUESTION: Well, considering the U.S. Government – previous administration – actually closed down the consulate, is it your – it’s your understanding that that was just an – that was a decision by one administration; it’s not binding on you. You want to reopen it; they say no. So if they’re not going to let you reopen it, would you consider requiring Israel to shut down one or more of its consulates in the United States?

MR MILLER: So first of all, you’re right; the previous administration made a policy decision not to – or, I’m sorry, made a policy decision to shut down that embassy.

QUESTION: Consulate.

MR MILLER: Consulate, excuse me. I’m not going to talk about what our potential response – we are not considering any such step at this time, but we’ve made quite clear to the Government of Israel that we oppose the bill.

QUESTION: Well, do – yes, okay. But do you regard this as some kind of an infringement on your – I mean, where the consulate was or the building still is, is in Israel. So it’s not in a Palestinian territory. Would you consider opening a consulate, say, in Ramallah for the Palestinians?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into what we may or may not consider. We want to see —

QUESTION: Or Jericho, or some place —

MR MILLER: We continue to believe it’s important to open a consulate, but I don’t want to get into what we may or may not do.

QUESTION: Well, so —

MR MILLER: I —

QUESTION: You oppose the legislation, and yet it is – Israel, it’s their territory.

MR MILLER: Right.

QUESTION: And I don’t think that the place – that the – where the consulate is located is – it’s not contested. It is in West Jerusalem, I believe; is that right? Yeah, so it’s theirs, and they can tell you whether they want you to have this consulate open there or not. But – and there may be legitimate reasons for not wanting to have a consulate that is dedicated to serving the Palestinians in Israel, right? Yes.

MR MILLER: Well, they can speak for themselves —

QUESTION: So the question is —

MR MILLER: — what their reasons may or may not be. We disagree.

QUESTION: So the —

MR MILLER: We disagree with their decision to prevent us from opening one.

QUESTION: Okay. But why – okay, why is it so important, other than the historical nature of this – I mean —

MR MILLER: The historical nature of it is important. That is —

QUESTION: Yes. Yes.

MR MILLER: That’s an – that is an important —

QUESTION: It is a huge —

MR MILLER: That is an important one.

QUESTION: It’s a huge – yes, it is.

MR MILLER: But —

QUESTION: But other than that, is there a reason that a consulate couldn’t – for the Palestinians couldn’t be opened someplace else?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into previewing what we may or may not do. I will tell you —

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: — as of today, we’ll continue to provide engagement with Palestinians and with the Palestinian Authority through our Office of Palestinian Affairs in Jerusalem.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple questions on Georgia, and different topics. The self-claimed ruling party in Georgia, they seem to have been enjoying congratulating letters from likeminded —

MR MILLER: Enjoying what?

QUESTION: Congratulation letters from likeminded authoritarian leaders – Azerbaijan, Belarus, a few others. And they also – I mean, some – I mean, I – help us understand clearly – misunderstood the White House letter from yesterday. They said that the presidential call on Georgian Government to transparently investigate all election irregularities is quote/unquote “significant recognition of what’s widely believed to be a rigged election.” Please clear up that.

MR MILLER: No, the statement from the President meant exactly what the statement from the President meant, and nothing else.

QUESTION: You mean the President called on —

MR MILLER: An investigation. Yes.

QUESTION: Investigation conducted by who?

MR MILLER: He called for an investigation by Georgian authorities. We’ve also made clear that we’re consulting with our colleagues in the European Union about what other investigations may be appropriate.

QUESTION: But it appears that they did start some investigations, so-called. They’re actually investigating the president, who is disputing the results, rather than investigating those who are violators.

MR MILLER: So I’ll let the president speak for herself, but my understanding is she has said that she has information about irregularities, so hopefully she can provide that information that would be relevant to any investigation, whether it’s conducted by Georgian authorities or anyone else.

QUESTION: Is there anything you can do about it? There are American monitors —

MR MILLER: We have made – we have made clear that our relationship with the Government of Georgia continues under review. We have already suspended $95 million in assistance to the Government of Georgia and other assistance that we provide remains under review.

QUESTION: We have seen, Matt, intimidation campaign against civil society members. Two members even before the election were targeted – they actually work for American institution – and their bank accounts got frozen. Do you have any reaction?

MR MILLER: So look, we – I’m not going to comment on those specific cases, but obviously we want to see people’s fundamental freedoms upheld. We want to see their freedom to protest, their freedom to exercise their fundamental right to expression not infringed upon in any way.

QUESTION: I want to go back to Ukraine and your responses to my colleagues on increasing —

MR MILLER: Last question, Alex, and then I’m going to move on —

QUESTION: Sure, thank you so much.

MR MILLER: — because I’m running near the end of the time.

QUESTION: Increasing Russian threat and how you’re helping Ukraine to fight back. President Zelenskyy today gave an interview, and he said that only 10 percent of what was meant to be delivered in ’24 approved by the Congress has been delivered so far. Why 10 percent, and how do you square that circle?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that percentage. I would defer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon who are in charge of delivering assistance to speak to the exact number that’s been delivered. But if you look at the way that we structured the assistance that we have provided, and you look at what – the way we have just recently approved significant new drawdown authorities, it allows us to deliver assistance to Ukraine in a way that is sustained over time. And for specifics, I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon.

Ryan, go ahead.

QUESTION: So I asked yesterday about Pakistan’s security services —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — circulating dossiers about American congressmen being under the influence of the, quote, “Jewish lobby.” Any – did you get a chance to check that out?

MR MILLER: I did look at it, and I saw the – some of the social media postings and some of the stories to which you were referring. I can tell you we don’t know who is behind circulating that information ultimately; but that if people have issues that they want to engage with regarding U.S. officials – whether they be Executive Branch officials or officials from the United States Congress – they should engage on the merits of those issues and not by talking about people’s religion or sexual orientation.

QUESTION: And real quickly on Marwan Barghouti. He was beaten allegedly by IDF prison guards. Maybe you addressed this on Monday. I don’t think I was here that day.

MR MILLER: I didn’t.

QUESTION: Any reaction?

MR MILLER: So I will say that we have made clear in a number of conversations with officials from the Government of Israel that they need to ensure that all detainees are treated humanely whoever they may be. And those conversations go back over a course of many months.

QUESTION: And were there specific conversations about this particular —

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into specific conversations, but we have made clear, when we’ve had these conversations with them, that they pertain to every individual that is in Israeli custody.

Go ahead, and I’ll come to you next, Rabia.

QUESTION: Thank you. Senior leader of Imran Khan’s political party, Latif Khosa, claimed that Imran Khan could be released if Donald Trump elected as the new president. He also said that in – if Donald Trump wins, the political landscape can be changed in favor of Imran Khan. He also said that U.S. diplomat Donald Lu was involved in a conspiracy to remove Imran Khan from prime minister office. We know we talked about it, like, many times, I know.

MR MILLER: I think I’ve – I don’t know how many times I can say that that – that’s not true. But go —

QUESTION: Dragging U.S. President and presidential candidates and American diplomats in Pakistani politics a good idea?

MR MILLER: So look, as we’ve said many times, legal proceedings against the former prime minister are matters for the Pakistani courts to decide. The allegations that the U.S. played any role in his removal from office are false. We’ve gone over that any number of times from this podium. And ultimately, Pakistani politics are a matter for the Pakistani people to decide in accordance with their laws and constitution.

QUESTION: Sir, the Canadian Government has alleged that India’s home affairs minister, Amit Shah, Prime Minister Modi’s close associate, was behind a recent series of plots to murder and intimidate six leaders on Canadian soil. Does the U.S. share this understanding?

MR MILLER: So the allegations made by the Government of Canada are concerning, and we will continue to consult with the Canadian Government about those allegations.

Rabia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. On the killing of Turkish American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, it’s been 53 days since she was killed by Israel, and there has been no accountability. Can you update us on what is the U.S. doing regarding this and whether the Secretary has raised this with the Israelis last week?

MR MILLER: So ultimately, this is a – in the first instance – an investigation that’s being conducted by the Government of Israel. We know they are conducting a criminal investigation into this killing. We have made clear how concerned we are about the fact that she was shot while attending a protest, an incident that never should have happened – never should have been killed under these circumstances. You’ve heard us say that publicly. We have also been quite clear with the Government of Israel about that privately. I can tell you that we have engaged with them in recent days about the status of that investigation. We understand that it is still ongoing, and we’re continuing to press for a conclusion of that investigation that provides a thorough answer. And as soon as we have an answer from the Government of Israel, you will certainly hear from us about what we think about it.

QUESTION: And there are increasing calls for an independent investigation into her killing. I understand that it is the Justice Department, not the State Department, is responsible for launching an investigation. But can the State Department at least investigate whether U.S.-supplied weapons were used in her killing?

MR MILLER: So I think as a matter of first principle, it’s important that the criminal investigation that’s ongoing right now proceed. In no way does waiting for the outcome of this ongoing criminal investigation preclude any action by the U.S. Government if we think such action is appropriate, and that includes further reviews on – by the State Department into the use of weapons. It includes any other types of reviews by our government or by any other. So all that is to say we are as impatient for answers about what happened as anyone. We take very seriously the death of an American citizen under circumstances in which she never should have been killed. And we are pressing to get an answer, but an answer that’s thorough, as soon as one is available.

QUESTION: Just one more on that. And Secretary, after her killing, called on the Israeli army to change their rules of engagement. And clearly, there has been no change in this regard. What will happen? What is next? Will there be any consequences?

MR MILLER: I would direct you to the Government of Israel to speak about their rules of engagement. We’ve made clear that this was an unacceptable incident and it shouldn’t happen again, and they should find ways to address it. But as to what they’ve done, that really is a question ultimately for them.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A lot of concerns of the Iranian regime desire for a total extermination of the Jewish state. And by only asking for a ceasefire, is the U.S. State Department preventing the unconditional surrender and defeat of Iran? And I have a follow-up.

MR MILLER: I think we have made clear that we are committed to the defense of Israel against Iran. And if you look at the way we have backed that up, it has been through actively participating in the defense of Israel – and not just participating in the defense of Israel, but taking action to hold Iran’s proxies and Iran itself accountable for its actions. And that includes more than 700 sanctions since the beginning of this administration.

QUESTION: Okay. Does the U.S. stand in way of the IDF attack on the oil and nuclear facilities of Iran?

MR MILLER: We made very clear – you heard from the President – that he did not believe attacks on nuclear facilities or attacks on oil facilities were a wise choice by the state of Israel at this time. And if you look at what could have happened from that nature of attack, it’s easy to – for people to sit on the sidelines and say, oh, it’s a perfectly appropriate attack for the Government of Israel to make, not thinking through what the consequences of such an attack would be, and the fact that Iran would respond, and then Israel would respond, and soon after that we will find ourselves in a full-scale regional war, which is certainly not in Israel’s interest or in the interest of anyone in the region.

QUESTION: But is – the attacks on the oil and other reserves of Iran, wouldn’t that make it more or less likely for dealing with – getting rid of their resources, their —

MR MILLER: We believe there is a better way to address that, which is why you saw the United States impose sanctions on Iranian oil – on the Iranian oil industry, including on its fleet of ghost ships, in just the past few weeks.

And with that, Shaun, go ahead, and then we’ll wrap for today.

QUESTION: Sure. Completely different region – I was wondering if you had any comment on the Venezuela and Brazil. Venezuela has withdrawn its ambassador from Brazil because Brazil put a veto on Venezuela entering the BRICS. I realize the U.S. obviously isn’t in the BRICS, but it’s over the election and whether this was something that was discussed as a pressure tactic.

MR MILLER: I will admit that I’m not tracking that development, so I’ll take it back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Well, let’s stay in that region – well, semi-in that region, and so the vote happened today in the UN on the Cuba embargo. Do you know what the vote was?

MR MILLER: Yeah, it was a predictable vote in line with past votes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Exactly. But just for the record, let’s say, it was 187 to 2 —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — with one abstention.

MR MILLER: I am —

QUESTION: And the one abstention wasn’t even a Pacific Island nation. It was Moldova.

MR MILLER: Yeah. I’m aware of the – I’m aware of the long history —

QUESTION: So two.

MR MILLER: — of UN votes on this matter.

QUESTION: So you – yes, okay. So at what point, though, are you guys going to realize that the entire world, with the exception of you and Israel, thinks that the embargo is a really bad idea and should be stopped?

MR MILLER: Look, I think we are quite clear on the opinion of other countries around the world. And it’s one with which we —

QUESTION: So that —

MR MILLER: And it’s one with which we disagree. We take their opinion seriously, but we make our own policy determinations, and —

QUESTION: You do? It’s 32 years in a row with the exception of one year when you guys abstained. That was 2019. And —

MR MILLER: We – look, we take their views quite seriously, but we make our own determinations about these matters.

QUESTION: All right. You know what? Well —

MR MILLER: And we disagree.

QUESTION: Then – you take their views quite seriously? That is not borne out by the facts, that you continue to persist with this.

MR MILLER: We take them seriously, but we make our own decisions on this policy and others. So —

QUESTION: Okay. And are you comfortable, then, with it’s – just once again, it’s just you and Israel standing up.

MR MILLER: Certainly we would welcome other countries sharing our opinion in this. But we’re not blind to the history of countries around the world having a very different view of this matter. It long predates this administration. But as I said, we make our own determinations.

QUESTION: But what about the Obama —

MR MILLER: And with that —

QUESTION: What about the Obama administration disagreement? Were they wrong?

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to comment on previous administration decisions.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)

# # #