Department Press Briefing – June 3, 2024
Department Press Briefing – June 3, 2024
1:20 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to those of you who were traveling us last – with us last week. Start with some opening comments.
Since the President’s remarks on Friday, Secretary Blinken has been engaging in intense diplomacy with foreign counterparts to urge the completion of an agreement for a ceasefire in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages and set the stage for lasting peace. Over that time, the Secretary has spoken to the foreign ministers of Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Israeli Defense Minister Gallant and war cabinet member Benny Gantz.
In all of his calls, the Secretary has underscored the benefits of this proposal to both Israelis and Palestinians. For Palestinians, a ceasefire would see an end to the daily death toll in Gaza, an end to the destruction that has torn so many families apart, and robbed children, women, men of their lives and their futures. It would allow hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to begin returning to their neighborhoods as the international community surges humanitarian assistance into Gaza and launches a major reconstruction effort.
For Israelis too, this proposal offers a path to a better future. It would bring home the hostages who have now been separated from their loved ones for 240 days. It would unlock the possibility of calm along Israel’s border with Lebanon, where we saw continued terrorist attacks by Hizballah just today, so the tens of thousands of Israelis who have been displaced from their homes for the past eight months could finally return home. And it would set the conditions to finally realize the strategic realignment which Israel has long sought – improved relations with its Arab neighbors and the isolation of Iran and the terrorist groups it funds.
This is the possibility that exists for Israelis and Palestinians today. As the United States said in a joint statement on Saturday with Egypt and Qatar, this proposal will bring immediate relief to both the long-suffering people of Gaza and the long-suffering hostages and their families. It offers a roadmap for a permanent ceasefire and an end to the crisis.
The world should know – the Palestinian people should know – that the only thing standing in the way of an immediate ceasefire today is Hamas. The proposal on the table is nearly identical to what Hamas said it would accept just a few weeks ago, and it is now time for them to act. It is time for them to accept the deal. It is time to finalize this agreement and put an end to the suffering of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
And with that, Matt.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you. And welcome back. Just logistically, all of these calls that – all of – well, if you did say calls, I guess they were all on the phone.
MR MILLER: They were all calls, yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. Because he did see Fidan in Prague. It was the day before —
MR MILLER: He saw Fidan on Thursday. He then talked to – he talked to Fidan and the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Jordan on the plane on the way back. On Friday, he talked to the foreign ministers – the prime minister of Qatar and the foreign minister of Egypt and – foreign ministers of Egypt and UAE on Saturday, and then he talked to Benny Gantz and Yoav Gallant last night.
QUESTION: Okay. So nothing – or nothing today yet?
MR MILLER: Nothing today yet.
QUESTION: Okay. So where do things stand? I mean, I think you tried to make it very clear right now that everything rests with Hamas. But there seems to be a lot of friction, to say the least, inside the Israeli Government about this. Are you confident that the Israelis have, in fact, signed off and are willing to go along with this?
MR MILLER: We are completely confident. It was an Israeli proposal. Obviously it was a proposal that they developed in consultation with the United States and Qatar and Egypt, the three countries that have played the mediating role throughout this process. But this was ultimately an Israeli proposal.
In terms of where it stands, it was submitted to Hamas on Thursday night. We have yet to hear a response. We obviously saw the statement that they put out – I think it was on Friday – but we haven’t gotten a response back from them.
In terms of the – inside the Israeli Government, the President spoke to this in his remarks on Friday, where he said that – fully anticipated that this would be controversial with some members of the Israeli Government, and of course we’ve seen some members of the Israeli Government already come out and oppose it, in fact opposed it over the weekend.
But the case that he made and that we will continue to make is that this is a proposal that is in the long-term security interests of Israel. It’s obviously in the long-term interests of the Palestinian people as well, but this is a chance to not just come to an end in the – to the conflict in Gaza and return the hostages home to their families, but help solve the conflict in the north of Israel, which is displacing tens of thousands of Israelis, and finally bring further integration with the region, which is in Israel’s long-term security interests.
QUESTION: Okay. And then – but then on the other side, where you make the case how it’s great for Israel, what does Hamas get out of it? And I’m not asking because I think or that they should necessarily get something out of it.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But it’s a negotiation, and there’s always give-and-take and concessions. So how – what’s one of the selling points for Hamas do you think?
MR MILLER: So let me talk about the – what the Palestinian people get out of it. I know that’s not the exact question that you asked, but I —
QUESTION: No, it’s not. Because it’s actually – I think it’s a different question.
MR MILLER: It is a different question, but I’ll – but I —
QUESTION: So can you answer the one that I asked?
MR MILLER: I’m going to answer both of them.
QUESTION: All right.
MR MILLER: So the Palestinian – because they ought to be the same. They ought to be the same answer, and it – but it might not be, you’re right. The Palestinian people get an end to the conflict in Gaza, an immediate ceasefire. They get a surge of humanitarian assistance, 600 trucks a day. We are ready with international partners to begin the reconstruction of Gaza. Credible – that they get to return to their homes and their neighborhoods, and those who have lost their homes get the ability to start to rebuild those homes.
Now, as it pertains to Hamas, look, if Sinwar decides that he’s safe in a tunnel and this proposal isn’t in his interest because he feels safe, that’s an assessment he can make. But I think it is very clearly in the interests of the Palestinian people, and we would hope that, given that this proposal is nearly identical to the one that Hamas submitted just several weeks ago, that they would not move the goalposts now and try to walk away from it.
QUESTION: Right. But – well – but – all right, I’ll let that be. The last one —
MR MILLER: No, I get where you’re going, but look, I mean, I can’t answer for Hamas, but – hold on.
QUESTION: I mean – I know, but – well, you can’t answer —
MR MILLER: I would just say Hamas claims they represent the Palestinian people. This is manifestly in their interest, so – and given the fact that Hamas just a few weeks ago signed off on a virtually identically proposal, they should accept it.
QUESTION: Yes, but you just spoke to the points of why this would be wonderful for Israel, and that there is – the way you’ve approached this so far is that – the way a lot of people have approached it is that Hamas doesn’t care about the Palestinian people, they only care about themselves. And so there are, in a sense, three parties to this: Israel, the Palestinian people – non-Hamas – and Hamas. So – but I think the answer to my question, which is “what’s in it for Hamas?” is essentially nothing for them.
MR MILLER: So again —
QUESTION: Right?
MR MILLER: So they claim to represent – I’m not trying to be cute – they claim to represent the interests of the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: I get it. They claim to. But you don’t believe that, and you’ve made it clear many, many times that you don’t think that they do care about the Palestinian people and they don’t —
MR MILLER: Well, I suppose this proposal puts – I suppose that this proposal puts that question very squarely to Hamas.
QUESTION: But didn’t the last one and the one before that and the one before that?
MR MILLER: And given that this one is nearly identical to the one that Hamas presented —
QUESTION: All right.
MR MILLER: — I think it puts it even more squarely in —
QUESTION: And then my last one – I want to focus on this “nearly identical” – what does that mean? Because a lot of small changes – I’ve seen negotiations break down over the placement of punctuation marks.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Commas, dashes. What do you mean, “nearly identical?”
MR MILLER: And that I can’t get into in detail from here at the podium, but I will say if you look at the major elements of this proposal, they are nearly identical to the major elements of the proposal that Hamas submitted several weeks ago. There are some minor differences. They are differences that we think that can be bridged, and it’s not just the United States that thinks they can be bridged. They are differences that the other mediators, Egypt and Qatar, think that can be – that think can be bridged. I think actually – it’s – this is a serious enough proposal that Hamas should just accept it, but if we – there need to be further negotiations, we think those are all eminently bridgeable if – and this is the if – if Hamas wants a deal.
QUESTION: And if – are there nearly identical – does that apply to the – what the Israelis submitted? Or is this word for word what the Israelis submitted?
MR MILLER: The proposal that went to Hamas? Yeah, it is what the Israelis submitted. Their —
QUESTION: Word for word?
MR MILLER: Yeah, it is – it is the Israeli —
QUESTION: So in other words, they – so in other words, the “nearly identical” does not apply to the Israeli —
MR MILLER: That is a comparison between the Israeli proposal, which is what went to Hamas on Thursday, and the proposal that Hamas submitted several weeks ago.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
QUESTION: Maybe just following up on that – said that this is basically what Israel has proposed or accepted. Of course, there is criticism within Israel as well; it’s not a monolithic country. I mean, are you sure that Israel can follow through on this, that if Hamas says yes, that – considering the coalition politics and the politics within Netanyahu’s cabinet that Israel would definitely go ahead with this?
MR MILLER: So I certainly can’t speak to internal Israeli politics – complicated enough for Israelis to speak to without the United States trying to weigh into them. I would say two things. Number one, this is a proposal from the Israeli Government, so that’s the first thing that’s important. But number two, I think it is important to speak to the benefits of this proposal to all Israelis, and that’s why you saw the President do it on Friday. It’s why you’ve seen the Secretary speak to some of these same themes and issues a number of times, including in Israel.
And I will say the point that the President made in his remarks on Friday, that you’ve seen the Secretary say a few times, is that endless conflict in Gaza in pursuit of some idea of total victory is not going to make Israel safer. We agree with Israel that Hamas cannot run Gaza. We agree with Israel on Israel’s right and Israel’s obligation to pursue Hamas for the terrorist attacks of October 7th. But an endless conflict without a political plan forward is just going to leave Israel bogged down in Gaza and is going to exacerbate the security challenges that they face in the north of Israel. It’s going to exacerbate the security challenges they face in the West Bank. It’s going to exacerbate the security challenges they face against Iran and the proxies that it funds, because it makes it more difficult for Israel to work with its allies and its partners in the neighborhood.
So in addition to the long-term security interests that we think this proposal would help address, in addition to bringing the hostages home, which is obviously in the national interest of Israel, it addresses the very real short, medium security challenges that they face. And that’s why we think it’s in their interest and that’s the case that we will continue to make. But the President was pretty clear about this, that we recognize there are people in Israel – including in the Israeli Government – that oppose it. And we’re going to continue to make that case and we expect that the Government of Israel will too.
QUESTION: Could I just follow up on two things with that? The – first of all, in the proposal itself, I mean, the – sorry, in the President’s remarks, he said that Hamas basically can’t do another October 7th attack. In terms of what’s the assessment for that, what’s the basis for that, is there anything else that needs to be done to ensure that outcome? Basically, would – under this, would Hamas need to more formally lay down some arms? Is there some sort of settlement that would be involved to make sure that that’s the case?
MR MILLER: So let me separate two parts of that question, because I think they’re slightly different. One is just a question of capability, and Hamas clearly does not have the capabilities it had on October 7th when it launched that horrific terrorist attack. It has seen its leadership degraded – not all, but significantly degraded. It has seen a great deal of its personnel killed or captured. It has seen a great deal of its military materiel destroyed, and not just the weapons themselves, but the underground factories that they were using to produce more weapons, that they used on October 7th; those have been in many cases destroyed by Israel.
So it is in many ways an incredibly diminished organization from the one that it was on October 7th, and we do not believe could conduct an attack anything like the scale and scope that it did on October 7th. Now, it still poses a threat, absolutely. Hamas launched rockets against Israel just last week, and Israel needs to continue to have the ability to defend itself against that threat. But this goes to the point that we ultimately think you cannot address this threat with just a military solution. This is what I was getting to the other day when I said this idea of pursuing a total victory, which the President spoke to, that just a military campaign in itself, while it will without a doubt continue to kill and capture members of Hamas, is also going to serve as a recruitment device for other potential Hamas members that will come and join and replenish the ranks. And so you have to have not just a military campaign, but a political path forward as well.
And that is – to get around to the second part, or what I deemed is the second part of your question – what the Secretary and other members of the administration have been working on with other partners in the region since – intensively since early January, and that is a political path that provides for the reconstruction of Gaza, a political path forward, the security of Gaza. And so when you look at this proposal, obviously the first phrase is for the immediate release of some hostages and a ceasefire; and then over – during phase one you would negotiate phase two, and in phase two and in phase three we would pursue what we’ve termed the day after. And it’s how you ultimately come up with a different governing authority for the West – for Gaza that is not Hamas.
And I’ll just make clear, in case there is any question, when the Secretary gave a speech in November in Tokyo, he made quite clear that one of the principles that we see for the end of this conflict is that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza – period, full stop.
Sorry for the incredibly long answer.
QUESTION: That’s okay. I do have – can I just proceed?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: There actually just one thing that’s slightly – but just in the proposal, just the language: “major population centers,” that the Israelis will withdraw from them. Is there actually a list of what the major population centers are, or is there some wiggle room? Could this be something that could become a point of contention in the future?
MR MILLER: So it just means what it means, which is major population centers. And partly that is because the population of Gaza has been fluid, or where the population of Gaza is has been fluid over the past months because you’ve seen people move from one place to another. So it means major areas in Gaza where you have people gathered together. And so that’s the point of it. I don’t want to get into it any more from here, but I think the term is fairly obvious.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I just wanted to follow specifically on this assessment of Hamas’s military capability because some of Israeli officials seems to have taken objection to that line in the President’s speech about what they are capable of doing. John Kirby has since said that this stems from U.S. intelligence and military assessments as to what they’re capable of. Are those assessments something that the Israelis share in terms of what Hamas is capable of? And then secondly, is that the same bar for the Israelis? Because it seems to be that that’s at the crux of whether they’re willing to agree to a permanent ceasefire or not.
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to what the Israeli military or intelligence assessment might be. I – as I just said, our assessment is that Hamas in no way could conduct a terrorist attack the size, the scale, the scope of what it launched on October 7th. It has been diminished as a terrorist organization. But that, again, does not mean that the threat has disappeared. It has not. Hamas continues to fight Israeli soldiers in Gaza; it continues to launch rocket attacks in Gaza. And those need to be dealt with.
In terms of – but in terms of where the proposal – where this roadmap would go forward, there are a number of issues that would need to be negotiated as we transition from phase one to phase two, and that’s what I was getting at in my comments a moment ago, that we don’t think this idea of total victory where you pursue a military campaign in perpetuity with really no end in sight is something that’s in the security interests of Israel. It’s obviously not in the interests of the Palestinian people. And so that is the point that we’ll continue to make to them.
QUESTION: Without getting into specifically what the Israelis assess, is there a difference between the U.S. assessment and the Israelis’ assessment?
MR MILLER: Again, I can’t really get in – I can’t answer that question without getting to what their assessment is. I can only speak for the United States.
QUESTION: Okay. So speaking only for the United States, is this a recent assessment? Because presumably Hamas’s capabilities would have been steadily degraded up until this point. Has something changed where they’ve reached a sort of benchmark, in our view?
MR MILLER: I cannot give you a date where we made that assessment, but we have seen their capabilities steadily degraded over the past eight months of this campaign. Obviously, you saw it first in the north, and then in Khan Younis, and then significantly with the destruction of tunnels that housed Hamas’s major weapons manufacturing programs, as IDF made those quite public when they did it. And so when you look at Hamas’s capabilities, I think it – it’s quite clear that while they still pose a terrorist threat, and we will back Israel’s right to deal with that threat, we do not believe they can again launch an attack the size, the scale, of October 7th.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. So there – so the U.S. is unilaterally assessing this. There may still be a difference as to what the Israelis think Hamas is capable of.
MR MILLER: I just can’t speak – it is the U.S. assessment.
QUESTION: You can’t speak to that.
MR MILLER: I can’t speak to that. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. And then one last one. I mean, if this, as you guys have put it, is the best possible deal that negotiators to this point have been able to present Hamas, what is the plan if they say no?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. As we’ve made quite clear, there’s no reason they should say no. This is essentially the proposal that they made. Now, if they want to move the goalposts and back away from what is essentially a proposal they put forward several weeks ago, at some point Hamas ought to have to explain to the world why it has rejected this proposal. And that’s what the President was making clear on Friday when – we all get why people criticize Israel. We all get why people criticize the United States for our support for Israel. But this is a proposal to actually reach an immediate ceasefire, to surge humanitarian assistance in, and ultimately set the conditions for an end to the war. Why wouldn’t Hamas accept it?
And so we have welcomed the statements that have come out in the Arab world calling on this deal to be finalized. We have welcomed the statements that we have seen from the G7 and from other leaders calling for this deal to be finalized. Only Hamas can speak to what it will do. But it ought to have – it ought to have to explain that answer if they do reject this proposal that is, as I said, manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: If they do reject it, though, you would expect the Israeli campaign to continue and for the U.S. to continue supporting Israel as it pursues that campaign?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to deal with hypotheticals. But I think the Israelis have made quite clear that the campaign would continue absent a ceasefire.
QUESTION: Okay. I’ll yield.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. I wanted just to try and understand what the space for – we’re talking about going from phase one to phase two in this deal. If you’re saying – you still have the strong line that Hamas can’t run Gaza in the future. But you’re also saying that there is no path to total victory, to total sort of eradication of Hamas.
MR MILLER: By military means alone is what I mean by that.
QUESTION: By – right. So you’re – so what you’re asking is for Hamas to peacefully – the leaders and the members of Hamas to peacefully disarm and sort of just disappear. What is the actual sort of proposal here for someone like Yahya Sinwar, who’s there, he’s a leader? You’re saying him and his cadre of leaders of Hamas have no role in the future of Gaza. So what are – what’s – what are they – where are they going to be in the future?
MR MILLER: So because that is quite clearly an issue that will still need to be negotiated – we haven’t even gotten the acceptance of this proposal yet, but should it be accepted, phase two and all of these related questions are things that will have to be negotiated as part of the process – I am not going to do that negotiation here in public. That said, we have long made clear that we think Hamas should lay down its arms, and that continues to be our position.
QUESTION: But you have kind of moved from earlier in the war, I think, the – you were strongly supporting Israel’s goal of completely eradicating Hamas. Now there seems to be this little space for they can exist in some form in —
MR MILLER: No. That is not at all what our position is. What our position is, is that you cannot eliminate Hamas just through military means, just through a military campaign. And this has been the experience of the United States in counterterrorism activities all around the world, that a military means by itself, without some kind of political path for the population, will ultimately prove ineffective.
And you can take out terrorists and see those terrorists replaced and ultimately find yourself in the same strategic position you did at the start of the campaign. And so that’s why you have to pair a military campaign, which Israel has executed, with a political plan for the people in Gaza. And that is ultimately what we are trying to pursue.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. If the President said that this was an Israeli proposal in essence, why would there be the need to implore the Israelis to accept it? Could you explain that to us?
MR MILLER: We are not – we are imploring others in the Israeli Government to accept this proposal.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: But this is – this is – this is a proposal that was put forward by the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: I think we were – went into this with eyes wide open that there are certain people in the Israeli cabinet, in the Israeli Government, who would probably not look too kindly on this, and of course we’ve seen their statements in the days since. But ultimately, this is an Israeli Government proposal. But Said, to the point, it’s a proposal the Government of Israel made, and we expected that there would be intense debate about it in Israel. There has been. You saw demonstrators out on Saturday night urging that the proposal move forward. And of course you saw several members of the cabinet urging its rejection.
And so what the President’s message was is that Israel should reject those voices at the ends of the spectrum who have said, don’t take a deal to bring the hostages home, don’t take a deal to advance Israel’s long-term security interest.
QUESTION: So knowing that there is a war cabinet and then there is a larger cabinet and so on, where there is a great deal of veto power among certain people in the larger cabinet and so on – so conceivably they could turn it down. What would be your second plan in this case? Because we saw – we heard the President – allow me, if I may – we heard the President say this war must come to an end. And using the most authoritative podium on Earth, which is the White House, to say this, I mean, there seems to be some sort of commitment that this war has to end.
MR MILLER: So the reason I was smiling at the question is I’m interested that the question is about what Israel might do about a proposal that they put forward that is pending with Hamas, and the real question right now is to Hamas, right.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: It is Hamas that has this proposal in front of them and Hamas that is the decisionmaker right now about whether it can go forward or not. Now, that said, we have been quite clear that we will continue to make – speak to the Israeli public, speak to the Israeli Government about why this deal is in their interests and why, should we get a deal, moving from phase one to phase two is in their interests and why further integration with their neighbors is in their interests. But let me be clear: The roadblock right now to a ceasefire is not Israel; the roadblock to a ceasefire is Hamas.
QUESTION: Fair. Fair point. But we know that communication with Hamas, especially in Gaza, is very tenuous, is very difficult. It’s not that easy. So that may take time. So it could be just an issue of time. They may agree and so on. So if they do, that’s it. There is no backing down. Israel will have to sort of abide by this agreement?
MR MILLER: If Hamas agrees to this proposal —
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: — we fully expect it to be implanted.
QUESTION: Right. One – a couple of last points – allow me – on the West Bank – I really want to ask because —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — what we have seen is a situation that is really deteriorating in the West Bank. We see towns like Tulkarm, for instance, were being – it being almost besieged. The land was taken, they erected steel doors and so on, and all these things. And I wonder: What is your position on all this? Can – is this reversible? Is this something that you could sort of pressure the Israelis to sort of pullback from?
MR MILLER: So the violence that we have seen in the West Bank is unacceptable. It must stop. Civilians are never legitimate targets of violence; they must be protected. We urge Israel to do everything its power to prevent these attacks in the first place and – when they’re not prevented – to hold those responsible accountable. We urge them to work with the Palestinian Authority to that end, and we have also made clear that we are willing to take our own actions to hold people accountable. You’ve seen us impose visa restrictions and economic sanctions on individuals and entities who perpetrate or support violence in the West Bank, and we will not hesitate to continue to do so.
QUESTION: And finally, Samantha Power – the Israeli – I mean, I’m sorry, the – Samantha Power said that Israel is the chief impediment to Gaza aid. How do you assess what she said?
MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to her comments. I’ll let my USAID colleagues speak to them. I think if you look at her – the full substance, she was speaking to the conflict ongoing being the chief impediment to getting aid in. And that is – that is manifestly the case. You can get aid – even when you get – can get aid to Kerem Shalom, it’s often difficult to get it distributed inside Gaza because people are moving to new places and there’s ongoing conflict. That’s been a challenge throughout that we will continue to work through.
But two things with – in that regard. Number one, so there were just officials from the U.S. Government who met in Cairo yesterday with officials from Egypt and from Israel to try and work on a solution to reopen Rafah gate. They were constructive discussions, professional, and we’ll continue to pursue them in the coming days because we want to see Rafah open, because that would be another gate to allow humanitarian assistance in. And then second – back to the bigger point – if we could get a ceasefire, if Hamas would agree to this ceasefire proposal, we could get 600 trucks a day coming in – and not just coming in, but it would be much, much easier for them to move safely around Gaza and get humanitarian aid into the hands of the people that we need – who need it.
Nadia.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Prime Minister Netanyahu said neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will play a role in the day after in Gaza. Do you agree that the Palestinian Authority should be —
QUESTION: Excluded.
QUESTION: — excluded from playing any role?
MR MILLER: No, we do not. We have made quite clear we see a role for the Palestinian Authority in the governance of Gaza after this conflict.
QUESTION: So do you see this as a point of – that might be not acceptable for Israel in terms of this proposal that the President put forward?
MR MILLER: So when it comes to all of those issues about who would govern Gaza at the end of the – this conflict, I’ll say two things. One, it is something that we have been, as you know well, discussing with Arab partners in the region. It’s been a good subject of the work that we have done and as well as the work that we have done to encourage the Palestinian Authority to take steps to reform itself – so not just Israelis could have faith in the Palestinian Authority, but so the Palestinian people could have faith in the Palestinian Authority governing as a non-corrupt, faithful actor in the interest of the Palestinian people. So that’s the first thing I would say.
The second thing is – I would say is that we are going to continue to engage with the Israeli Government about this, and there are a diversity of views inside the Israeli Government about the Palestinian Authority and the role that they ought to play and the future that they ought to play in governance in Gaza. And we’re going to continue to make clear to them that we think a revitalized, reformed, fully functional Palestinian Authority is in the best interest of the Palestinian people, it’s in the best interest of Israel, and it’s especially in the best interest of Israel’s security.
QUESTION: Okay. I want to have another go at the previous questions on Hamas. The President said that Hamas capabilities had been degraded to the degree that they don’t pose a threat equivalent to the October 7th. Would you entertain or accept some kind of political presence for Hamas, or do you think that is going to be a situation analogous to the de-Baathification that we have seen in Iraq after the war, which is de-Hamasization, if – I don’t know if the term applies. But basically, that nobody will be allowed to take part in any kind of shape or form of civil authority, of local authority, whatever. We’re not talking about a demolition brigade.
MR MILLER: Yeah. So I’m not going to get into any level of detail because we’re just not that – at that point in the process. But I will say at a high level, it is the strongly held view of the United States that we will continue to push that Hamas can play no role in the governance of Gaza. It has lost any legitimate claim it ever had – and we didn’t think it had one to begin with, but it’s lost any legitimate claim to participate in the governance of Gaza by virtue of launching a brutal massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7th.
QUESTION: And finally, Saudis and Qataris has condemned an Israeli Knesset attempt for a bill, actually, to label UNRWA as a terrorist organization. Do you condemn this attempt by the Israeli Knesset to do that?
MR MILLER: So I am not – I was not aware of that vote. Obviously we do not believe UNRWA is a terrorist organization. We – there were members of UNRWA who UNRWA provided evidence had participated in some way in the attacks of October 7th, but that is not the —
QUESTION: I want —
MR MILLER: No, but hold – but that is not – that is not actions by UNRWA the body itself. So that’s our general position, but I can’t speak to a specific vote because I’m not – I’m not familiar with the specifics.
QUESTION: Sure, but I just want – but if – I want you to clarify this: UNRWA has provided evidence that some members were a part – took part in the —
MR MILLER: Yeah – well, so I should say provide – they briefed us on evidence that they found. Yeah, at the beginning of this – I’ve gone through this a few times – at the beginning of this entire issue with regard to UNRWA, a lot of people think it was – we took the action that we took to suspend UNRWA’s funding because of something the Israeli Government told us, and that’s not the case. It was UNRWA that came to us and said they were aware of these allegations. They had looked into them, found evidence that certain members of UNRWA had participated in the attacks of October 7th, and so had suspended and fired 13, 14 – I don’t remember the exact number now. And that’s why we took the action we did.
QUESTION: And you can update us on the investigation because it’s been what a few months now?
MR MILLER: I can’t because it’s not a U.S. Government investigation. It’s the United Nations investigation. I would refer you to them to speak to that.
QUESTION: Matt, could I have —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — a clarification on your engagement with the PA? Are you engaged with the Palestinian Authority right now?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, what —
MR MILLER: We have conversations with the —
QUESTION: What are the whereabouts of Mr. Hady Amr, for instance? Is he engaged?
MR MILLER: He has been – he travels back and forth between here and the region quite regularly. I don’t know if he’s here or in the region today. But yeah, he engages regularly with the Palestinian Authority, as do officials in our embassy in Jerusalem.
Stay in the region.
QUESTION: On this subject.
MR MILLER: Anymore – yeah, yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Matt, did you hear back from the Israeli regarding the investigation on the strike in – last weekend?
MR MILLER: We have not —
QUESTION: Because —
MR MILLER: We have not – well, number one, I don’t know if the investigation has concluded. But in any event, we haven’t been briefed at this point.
QUESTION: And on this proposed deal, the President – also the Secretary yesterday in his call with Gantz, he mentioned that this proposed deal will unlock a calm on the northern borders. Do you have something substantial? Did you – is there a progress made here with Hizballah?
MR MILLER: So we’ve had ongoing conversations for some time to try to reach a political solution to the cross-border strikes between Israel and Hizballah. And we have made progress in those conversations, but ultimately, it is our assessment that it’s very difficult to reach a solution to that problem without calm in Gaza. Ultimately, all of these problems are interconnected, and as long as there is intense fighting in Gaza, it’s very difficult to reach a solution in the north. And it – that intense fighting also poses other security challenges for Israel. And so we do believe that, should we get a ceasefire in Gaza, especially if we can make that a durable ceasefire that ends the war, that that is a challenge that we can resolve.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: On this, Matt.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Did you discuss such a deal or diplomatic resolution for the conflict between Israel and Hizballah with Hizballah and Iran?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into any conversations. We don’t have direct communications with Hizballah, obviously. But we have been pursuing diplomatic – a diplomatic resolution to this issue for some time.
QUESTION: And one more on Iran. Iran’s acting foreign minister said today that the process of negotiations between U.S. and Iran are currently underway, and exchange of messages and consultations continue. Can you confirm that?
MR MILLER: I cannot. I will just say that we have always made clear we have the ability to get messages to Iran when it is in our interest to do so, but I’m not going to confirm or readout any specific conversations.
QUESTION: Did you mean that his statement is not accurate?
MR MILLER: No, I mean exactly what I said.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just question on the framework that’s currently on the table.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you say if it’s the U.S. expectation that during phase two and three of the deal, if it’s implemented, if Israel would still be able to carry out specific targeted military strikes should a threat emanate from within Gaza?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to – I don’t want to speak to that in terms of tying it to phase two and phase three, because those are things that are going to have to be negotiated in the exact – the exact parameters of that negotiation. We’re not – we don’t even have a deal for phase one yet, so I should refrain from commenting on that. But the President made clear we will always back Israel’s right to defend itself, and that remains true.
All right. Go ahead, Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I have two questions. I want to follow up again on the last North Korean garbage balloon question. Last time China sent spy balloons to the United States, but North Korea’s send over thousands garbage balloons to South Korea over the past few days. These garbage balloons contain all kinds of unsanitary germs. There could also be damage to U.S. troops in – stationed in South Korea. What measures do you think the U.S. and South Korea to take in this regard?
MR MILLER: So I will just say that it’s obviously quite a disgusting tactic – irresponsible, childish – and it should come to an end. And I’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: So you’re not condemning?
MR MILLER: Of course I condemn it. Absolutely.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you – yeah.
MR MILLER: Any country that sends trash to its – floats trash over in a balloon to its neighbors. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: How about shipping it there?
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: You guys – you guys do a lot of that.
MR MILLER: (Laughter.) If it is an agreement between two countries, that is a very different thing. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. Do you think that the – yeah, one more. Do you think that this is a violation of the UN Security Council?
MR MILLER: I would have to consult with people here whether trash-carrying balloons – I’m not trying to be flippant. I just have to consult with some people here about whether that’s the case.
QUESTION: Also, do you think this action has anything to do with China – China involvement —
MR MILLER: The – the trash balloons do?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR MILLER: I have not seen any assessment that it does, no.
QUESTION: All right, thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead, Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very quick on Ukraine, then I’ll move to Georgia.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary intending to accompany the Vice President in Switzerland at the summit?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any scheduling announcements to make with that peace summit. I – you heard the Secretary say a number of times over the past few weeks, you heard us say that we would be well represented at that summit, and that’s – clearly saw that today with the announcement that the Vice President would be attending.
QUESTION: Right. President Zelenskyy called out China for sabotaging that event. Do you share his concerns?
MR MILLER: So I will just say that when it comes to the peace summit – I’m going to speak for the United States – that we support the peace summit. We want it to be successful, and that’s why you see the Vice President of the United States attending that summit. We support Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts. That said, we have always been clear that China could play a useful diplomatic role in helping resolve this conflict if it wanted to. But that said, right now it’s hard to see how they could play that role given the actions that we’ve seen China take over recent months to rebuild, reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. So we are going to continue to make clear to China that we object to those actions, that we will hold entities responsible for those actions, and we’ve heard our Russian – sorry, our European counterparts say the same thing.
QUESTION: Thank you. Let’s head to Georgia, if I may, where the Kremlin-inspired draft already became law of the land. The speaker who signed it today was quoted as saying that the Western foundations – I’m quoting him – are financing organizations that are financing terror, violence, et cetera. There are other officials who are talking about clearly shutting down the civil society organizations – clear departure from what they told us intention – their original intention was. Moving forward, how do you expect them to apply the law?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to that. I will say we have been quite concerned about exactly the point you raise, which is that this law moves Georgia away from its democratic trajectory and could stigmatize civil society and stifle the freedoms of association and expression, and that the actions fundamentally alter the U.S. relationship with Georgia. And so that’s why we have launched a review of our relationship and will consider our response to the actions that the Government of Georgia has taken.
QUESTION: More on that point, the mayor of Tbilisi is quoted as saying that we have, quote/unquote, done nothing to be sanctioned. Is he mistaken?
MR MILLER: We’ve announced a new sanctions policy. We have not yet announced individual sanctions. And I’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: But —
MR MILLER: We – but we have made clear that we would not hesitate to impose them.
QUESTION: Fair enough. Given what’s at stake here, why did the Secretary make no mention of Georgia during his Eastern European trip?
MR MILLER: The Secretary just put out a statement announcing an entire comprehensive review of our policy with respect to Georgia that could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance that we provide to Georgia, and as well announced a new visa restriction policy that you should fully expect to see the United States take action on. I think I’ll leave it at that. His commitment to this issue has been quite clear.
QUESTION: And one more, if I may.
MR MILLER: Let me – let me go ahead to Shaun.
QUESTION: Different topic.
MR MILLER: That was – that was like three or four. Shaun, go ahead.
QUESTION: Six. Six.
MR MILLER: Go ahead. I’m sorry, I thought you had your hand up before. If you —
QUESTION: No, I did. I did. Yeah.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry. Getting back slightly to the Middle East but staying in Europe.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I don’t know how many times you get asked about Slovenia. The – so the parliament is debating recognition of a Palestinian state, of the state of Palestine. It’s been put on hold by the opposition. I know in the previous three cases of European countries, the reaction – you had a reaction coming out. But as it’s actually in process, does the U.S. want to tip the scales one way or another? Do you have a position on whether Slovenia should go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state?
MR MILLER: So look, ultimately, we see those steps as not helpful or productive at this time. We have been quite clear that we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state – the Secretary has been working on actual paths to get us there through diplomacy in the region – but that ultimately that is a step that needs to come not through unilateral recognition but through direct negotiations between the two parties.
QUESTION: Okay. And Slovenia in particular, is it —
MR MILLER: That —
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — comment applies to everyone. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I just ask you briefly about two elections? I know you issued statements on them already, but two major countries: Mexico and South Africa. I know that there have been statements issued in both, but particularly the case of South Africa, it seems the ANC for the first time since the end of Apartheid is going to lose a majority. The U.S. has a relationship with South Africa, but obviously there have been some ups and downs recently with regard to Russia, with regard to – with regard to the issues in The Hague. Does the United States anticipate any changes to the relationship with South Africa coming out of this, anything more to the U.S.’s liking potentially?
MR MILLER: So I’d say that we remain committed to deepening our cooperation with South Africa. We cooperate with South Africa on a number of – a number of areas, even places where we have differences. There are other areas – such as expanding economic prosperity, fighting the climate crisis, ensuring that democracy delivers – where we work quite closely with South Africa, and we would fully expect to do that with the new government.
And I do also want to take a note to congratulate the South African people on successful national and political elections, and this won’t – maybe won’t have resonance for everyone in the room, for the younger crowd in the room, but for some of us older folks, this is now three decades of South Africans having the opportunity to exercise the fundamental right to vote. Something that seemed difficult and far beyond reach when I was a kid has been achieved and now has – we have seen entrenched for three decades, and it’s I think important to highlight that positive development.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR MILLER: Continued positive development.
QUESTION: And on Mexico, again, I know there was a statement issued, but with AMLO there are quite a few arrangements on migration that have taken place. Is it the understanding that these will continue on with the new administration? Do you think – do you anticipate any type of shakeup in terms of the migration protocols with —
MR MILLER: So I think we’ll let the new president, the president-elect, take office before we start talking about specific policies. But we do expect to continue our close working relationship with the Government of Mexico. We value the special relationship we have with them and remain committed to working together to advance our mutual economic and security interests.
Ryan.
QUESTION: So back in February the White House announced sanctions on people undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank. I’m not sure if you saw, but Senator Chris Van Hollen just suggested that those sanctions ought to apply to Smotrich, who you mentioned earlier today as an obstacle to the peace deal. Is that something that the State Department would consider?
MR MILLER: So I’m never – I make this a rule never to make sanctions announcements or talk about what we’re considering before we impose any sanction, and before anyone reads anything into that comment, you shouldn’t read that one way or the other. It’s just our blanket rule in not talking about possible sanctions.
QUESTION: Quick Pakistan question. I’m not sure if you saw Imran Khan was acquitted of his previous conviction on the cipher case, so the only case that he’s currently jailed for is what’s known as this un-Islamic marriage charge. So the most popular politician in Pakistan is currently in jail because the Pakistani court says that there were not enough menstrual cycles between his wife’s divorce and his marriage. So you talked earlier about the Georgia law and that that was undermining Georgian democracy. Why does the – why is the State Department willing to weigh in on a law passed through the Georgian legislature, but for something insane like this, that’s a matter for the Pakistani courts?
MR MILLER: So I just don’t have any further comment on the case. We look at – when we look at different countries, we take into account appropriate context, circumstances in making our judgments. We’ve addressed the question of Imran Khan many times. The legal proceedings against him are something for the Pakistani courts to decide in – I’d say in accordance with their laws and constitution.
QUESTION: Could that really be – yeah. But could that really be a matter for the Pakistani courts? Is – could that possibly be the State Department’s position?
MR MILLER: It is our position that it – when you come to these laws in Pakistan and this court case, it is something for the Pakistani courts to decide. And you just saw, to this question, charges against him thrown out by the courts, so —
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. Regarding the trilateral deal between United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel that included a defense deal between United States and Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia and Israel normalization, we have seen that Secretary Blinken in a Senate hearing mentioned that United States and Saudi Arabia are very near to a defense deal. It seemed like U.S. is prioritizing its defense deal with Saudi Arabia but not the ties with the Israel, the basic offer that U.S. led from – for the mediation between Saudi Arabia and Israel. So with this testimony in the Senate hearing, is it, like, understood that it will be a bilateral deal only with the defense deal between Saudi Arabi and United States and the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia sidelined?
MR MILLER: No, the arrangement that we have contemplated, that we have been working on, is a agreement that encompasses three parties: the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. There are bilateral pieces between the United States and Saudi Arabia that would be part of that deal, and that’s what we have been working on, and then there are other components that are – that ultimately involve a path towards a Palestinian state.
But I will just say as all of – as part of all of this, you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. There are two – there is one thing that has to happen – two things. One I just referred to, that – the path to a Palestinian state. But the other thing that has to happen before any such arrangement can go forward is calm in Gaza. We don’t have calm in Gaza today. We’re trying to get to calm in Gaza through this ceasefire proposal, and you heard the President speak to normalization with Saudi Arabia being one of the benefits that it ultimately could unlock.
QUESTION: Secondly, from the second time in 21 years, United States allowed a jailed Pakistani lady who is facing 86 years of, like, sentence in a Texas jail with the allegations of alleged attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan – that is Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. So former Pakistani caretaker government official in a private conversation told – he revealed that U.S. sent Pakistan a very closed deal, a possible deal between United States and Pakistan that might be a swap deal, basically. So you have any information on that? Is there something behind U.S. and Pakistan are considering that?
MR MILLER: So let me take the question. I’m just not familiar with the full details of the case that you mentioned.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A question on Türkiye. Today Türkiye interior ministry, they removed a recently elected pro-Kurdish party and mayor of Hakkari and replaced him with a trustee. Do you have any reaction or comment on that?
MR MILLER: So the – our position on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party is well known; it hasn’t changed. The PKK was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State in 1997. And regarding the specific case you mentioned, I would refer you to the Government of Türkiye for comment on that.
QUESTION: And did you say that he was linked with the PKK?
MR MILLER: I’m sorry. What was that?
QUESTION: Do you say that he was linked with the PKK?
MR MILLER: I’m just speaking to our assessment of the PKK problem.
QUESTION: And what’s your assessment on that case?
MR MILLER: As I said, I don’t have any specific comment on it.
QUESTION: And what’s your approach to the Kurdish issue in Türkiye? I mean, it’s been a long time —
MR MILLER: The approach —
QUESTION: The Kurdish issue in Türkiye – what’s the U.S. approach on —
MR MILLER: We have made clear our longstanding position on that many times. I don’t have anything to add today. Go ahead here, and then we’re going to have wrap for today.
QUESTION: You said that you would hope that the Israeli law enforcement would follow through in curtailing violence from settlers in the West Bank. However, on Thursday – last Thursday – the Israeli military raided a vegetable market in Ramallah, in al-Bireh, to be specific, but one of the largest vegetable markets in the West Bank, and which lit on fire. And who’s going to hold Israel accountable and the Israeli military in this sense? Which law enforcement authority should —
MR MILLER: So a few things. First, I can’t speak to that specific raid. Obviously, Israel has the right to conduct legitimate antiterrorism activities in the West Bank. We have seen them do so, but those need to be legitimate; they need to comply with international humanitarian law. But as regards to this particular incident, I can’t speak to it at all.
But that said, when it comes to holding people accountable, we have seen the Israeli Government take some actions to police settler violence in the West Bank. We’ve seen them make arrests; we’ve seen them hold people accountable. But in our assessment, it hasn’t been enough, and so that’s why —
QUESTION: But this wasn’t settler.
MR MILLER: But – I know. That’s why I’m separating out the two. I can’t – because I can’t speak to this one without knowing the details. But when it comes to what I was speaking to, settler violence, they need to do more. And if they don’t, we will. It’s that clear.
And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)
# # #
from Collected Department Releases – United States Department of State https://ift.tt/tJvFp98