Department of State Daily Press Briefing 6/04/24

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Start with some opening comments. Over the past several days, the world has seen broad expressions of support for the proposal that President Biden outlined on Friday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I’d like to run through just a few of the statements that we have seen over the past few days.

(00:28)
The United Arab Emirates said the proposals are constructive, realistic, and achievable, and both sides must seize them as they’re an opportunity to stop the war, prevent further loss of life, stop the escalation, release prisoners and hostages, and alleviate the catastrophic and dangerous situation that civilians are experiencing in Gaza. Morocco said it welcomed the initiative and hopes the various parties concerned will adhere to it and commit to implementing its various phases. Jordan said its supported efforts to reach a deal as quickly as possible. In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the Quint, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt, stress the importance of dealing seriously and positively with a proposal highlighted by the President on May 31st with the aim of agreeing on a deal that ensures a permanent ceasefire and the adequate delivery of aid to all parts of the Gaza Strip in a manner that ends the suffering of the people in Gaza. The European Union member states said that they wholeheartedly agree with President Biden and that the latest proposal is a significant opportunity to move towards an end to war and civilian suffering. Last night, the G7 said it too fully endorses and will stand behind the deal and it called on Hamas to accept it and urged countries with influence over Hamas to help ensure that it does so.

(01:45)
Over the past 24 hours, Secretary Blinken has continued his diplomatic engagements to stress the importance of finalizing this deal. He spoke yesterday with the foreign minister of Morocco and earlier today with the foreign ministers of Algeria and Saudi Arabia, his second conversation with the Saudi foreign minister since Friday. He also met earlier today with United Nations Secretary General Guterres. In all of these conversations, he has continued to echo the broad international view that Hamas must accept this deal, that we must finalize this ceasefire agreement and begin to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. In addition, the secretary has been emphasizing to partners the importance of the security council speaking out to call for implementation of this deal without delay and without further conditions. Yesterday the United States circulated a new draft security council resolution supporting the proposal to end the fighting in Gaza, and we urge all members of the council to support that resolution. The international community must continue to insist that Hamas accept this deal. The proposal on the table is nearly identical to what Hamas said it would accept just a few weeks ago. Israel has said it is ready to implement it. It is time to finalize this agreement, put an end to the violence, and to build a better for both Palestinians and Israelis alike.

(03:01)
Matt? Matt.

So along those lines, the very intense focus, your very intense focus since Friday has been on or appears to be at least from the readouts that you’ve just been outlining, getting Hamas to accept this deal. You keep saying that the Israelis have already … It was their idea or it’s their proposal and they’ve already agreed to it and yet are you really convinced that that’s the case and are you convinced that the focus should be entirely on Hamas?

We are convinced it is the case that Israel is ready to implement this deal. As I said, it’s their proposal, proposal put forward by the government and they have maintained to us they are ready to implement. It doesn’t mean there aren’t voices inside Israel and voices even inside the Israeli government are opposed to it. But the government speaking on behalf of the government has said they support this proposal and ready to stand behind that and we take them at their word. The deal is in front of Hamas. It is to Hamas to accept or reject or come back and say they want to further negotiate the deal. But it is just the facts of it that Israel has agreed to this proposal and it now stands with Hamas.

All right. Other than all these statements of support, what has been the impact that you’ve seen from Hamas?

We haven’t seen any response yet from Hamas, but we do think it is important that the international community, and I think quite importantly countries in the Arab world have spoken out to call on this deal to be finalized and Hamas to accept it. It’s important. You can never say, “The world is speaking with one voice,” because there’s always a dissident country here or there. But when you see the broad support from Europe, from the Arab world, from countries in the Global South, I think it’s a significant statement of the opportunity that we have here and how it’s important that we not miss this opportunity.

Okay. Sorry, which countries from the Global South?

I can get you a list. We have other lists as well. Saudi Arabia is often considered Global South country, signed on the … I know.

It is?

I have seen them considered as a Global South country, yeah, and we have a full list. I have a-

Is the equator no longer the line that …

I share that. It is not-

All right. Well, let’s ask about a country in the Global South, specifically. Brazil.

I have a long list countries in the-

South Africa.

I have a long list countries-

Argentina.

Let me just finish. I have a long list of countries back in my office. I can send you statements of support including a number from the Global South. But specific to those countries, I will tell you our diplomacy continues to try to push-

India is often considered part of the Global South-

… to try to push-

Even though it’s north of the equator.

… to try to push-

Are they on?

There you go, there’s another one north of the equator.

Right, but are they on your list?

I have not seen a statement from India, but look, we continue to push for every country in the world to support this deal.

Okay, so none of the BRICS.

I do not have the whole list in my-

Which is often referred to-

Yeah. They’re not all of the Global South.

No, I know, but they’re often referred to as speaking for, but none of them have?

I have not seen a statement from India. They’ve been in election the last few days, doing that, few other things-

[inaudible 00:06:11]

Any follow-up on India?

I will definitely come to India. I suspect there will be more Middle East questions, so let me … Yeah.

It goes along the lines of what Matt was asking, but the Qataris, of course, who are playing a key role in this, they said basically they don’t see a unified position from Israel. I know you’re saying that the onus is on Hamas, but the fact that you do have dissonant voices within the Israeli government, do you think that complicates things at all in terms of getting a response from Hamas or moving this forward?

Look, I think some of the, when you talk about, let me separate. First of all, there are clearly people inside Israel and inside the Israeli government who are opposed to any kind of ceasefire at all and want the war to continue and have not seemed to make the return of the hostages a priority. But that said, there’s also debate inside Israel about how you get from phase one to phase two. I think it’s fair to say there are people who would support acceptance of the ceasefire that is on the table, and they’re going to have significant things that they want to negotiate in phase two. We fully expect that, that’s natural. We understand that the negotiation to get from phase one to phase two is going to be something that will require a great deal of work.

(07:15)
But here’s the point, you’re not even at that point if we don’t get a phase one. We need to get a ceasefire so we can get to the point where we’re having negotiations about how to bring a durable into the war. Because without a ceasefire, we’re not even at that point. We just have a continued military campaign and continued death and destruction inside Gaza and hostages continue to be held away from their loved ones. Our focus is trying to get Hamas signed up to this deal so we can get phase one underway and then 16 days into phase one, we will begin negotiations about how to take phase one to phase two. We are committed to trying to get it over the line. Qatar and Egypt are committed to trying to get it over the line and Israel has said that, it’s Israel’s proposal. While there will be details that have to be negotiated, we believe Israel’s committed to negotiating that as well.

(08:07)
Yeah.

Matt, US House of Representatives is due to vote on this legislation that would sanction ICC after its prosecutor applied for [inaudible 00:08:16] for Netanyahu and others. The US State Department supports this?

We have made clear that while we oppose the decision taken by the prosecutor of the ICC, we don’t think it was appropriate, especially while there are ongoing investigations inside Israel looking at some of these very same questions. We were willing to work with Congress on what a response might look like. We don’t support sanctions.

Right, and what would that response look like then if you don’t support sanctions?

That is a consultation that we will have with Congress. I’m not going to preview it from here. Those are discussions we need to have with members of Congress, but our position as the administration is that we don’t support sanctions, don’t believe they’re appropriate at this time.

Right. One other thing is this Time interview with President Biden. In there he says, when he was asked if Israeli forces have committed war crimes in Gaza, he says, “It’s uncertain.” The fact that he did not say an outright, “No,” don’t you think that’s something that the State Department should consider launching an atrocity determination on, given that you’ve also said in your NSM report that it is possible that there may have been violations?

We do have processes ongoing to look at whether there have been violations of international humanitarian law.

Is atrocity determination one of them?

I’m not going to speak to that in specific, but that’s why the president says the answer to that question is uncertain is because we don’t know the answer. It’s something that we have an ongoing process to look at and to try to get an answer to. But at this time we don’t know the answer. That’s what we made clear in the National Security Memo 20 report, is that we are looking at those various questions and making those assessments now.

Right. You’re just saying that we don’t know if Israeli forces have committed war crimes in Gaza or not. You said, “We don’t know.”

I would go a bit further and say that we don’t know the definitive answer to it, but the NSM 20 report said it’s reasonable to conclude that they may have, given the sheer number of incidents, but we need to finish these processes to have definitive answers to the question.

Despite these assessments, you think, and there is no change in the US policy, to continue providing arms to Israel.

There is no change in our policy. As you know, we’ve paused one shipment, but we have not changed our overall policy and we will continue to support Israel’s security.

Thank you. Matt. There are reports-

I didn’t mean to call on you if you didn’t have your hand up.

Oh, no, I did.

Just going along the front row.

There are reports that the CIA director and Brett McGurk are heading back to the region in furtherance of potential hostage and ceasefire talks. Do you expect that the secretary will engage in in-person diplomacy in the region as well?

The secretary has been engaged, as I discussed in my opening comments and I discussed yesterday, in a number of phone conversations with partners in the region over the past now four days since Friday’s announcement. He will be traveling to Europe, leaving tonight to join the president for his trip to Normandy and then the bilateral visit with France. I don’t have any further travel to announce beyond that.

Okay. And I know you said that there has been no response received as yet from Hamas. Is it known from either Egyptian or Qatari interlocutors whether the proposal has actually reached [inaudible 00:11:38] for his evaluation, even if a response hasn’t come back?

I don’t know an answer to that question.

Okay. Have we-

I don’t believe we know.

Okay. On aid, you mentioned yesterday that there were constructive discussions that took place in Cairo. Obviously a number of international aid groups have been raising alarms that the situation is dire and getting worse by the day. So where do efforts to

… reopen Rafah stand, and what is the broader aid picture in terms of what the US is facilitating on a daily basis?

So with respect to the opening of Rafah, there were conversations over the weekend in Cairo between the United States, Israel and the government of Egypt that focused on how to get Rafah open. We found them to be constructive discussions. There were detailed proposals that were put forth by the various parties, and then as often happens in these sorts of negotiations, the negotiators had to go back to their countries, consult with their capitals and continue discussions.

(12:33)
So there are a number of proposals that are on the table that need to be fleshed out there. Different ways you could go about reopening Rafah that we are working through. Separate from that, though, it’s of course related the question of humanitarian assistance. We have continued to work to get humanitarian assistance back flowing through Kerem Shalom after the decision about 10, 11 days or so ago made by Egypt to allow trucks to move through Kerem Shalom. Yesterday, I think it was somewhere around 250 trucks that went in through Kerem Shalom, I’m probably off by a dozen or so because I’m doing this from memory. Other trucks that went in through one of the crossings in the north, the majority of those were humanitarian assistance trucks.

(13:13)
So trucks by the UN and partner agencies, not commercial trucks. Generally over the past few days, we’ve continued to see a mix of commercial trucks and humanitarian assistance. We want to see both. We think it’s important that there be both and we’re looking to maximize as many as possible coming through all the various crossings.

(13:32)
Third thing I’ll say… Maybe third. I’ve lost count, is that the Pentagon continues to work to try to reestablish the maritime option, get that peer up and running so we can flow assistance through there. But then the big question overhanging all of this is the status of the ceasefire proposal, which would alleviate all of these various logistical problems that make it so hard to move humanitarian assistance in through a conflict, would make all of those not 100% go away, but would make them in many cases evaporate or be at least significantly lessened. So the push for a ceasefire deal is inherently related to the push to try to dramatically increase the level of humanitarian assistance that makes it to the people of Gaza.

One more just to tag onto Meyer’s question about President Biden’s remarks in this recent interview. Is the secretary of the view that Prime Minister Netanyahu may be prolonging the conflict in an effort to stay in office?

I don’t think that’s exactly what the president said. I think he said-

It’s a summary.

… that some people could conclude that. Look, the president’s comments speak for themselves. I’m not going to add anything to that, but I will just say we have been engaged with the Prime Minister on this question and the Prime Minister has put forward a proposal on behalf of the Israeli government that would lead to ceasefire and ultimately could lead to the end of the war pending other negotiations. And we’re trying to get that ceasefire overall.

The president said there’s every reason for people to draw that conclusion, that commenting permanently. So just one follow up, I mean, so the proposal is on the table. As a contingency. Have you had any indication that the Israelis are also planning for a day-after scenario as you have urged them to do?

We’ve seen the defense minister come out and make public statements about possible day-after scenarios. You’ve seen obviously statements from Minister Gantz, member of the work cabinet about the need to do day-after planning. We have still not seen the kind of rigorous planning for the end of the conflict that we think is essential. And as you’ve heard us say, this isn’t just about the end of the conflict because in our view, without a plan for the day after, there won’t be a day after. Without a plan for post-conflict governance and some kind of political transition, you’re not going to have an end of the conflict. You’re just going to have a continued insurgency. And Israel being bogged down, fighting against Hamas or Hamas’ successors for years and years to come.

I have another on Ukraine.

Yeah, sorry.

Thank you. Just to follow up on Olivia about the interview in Time Magazine, I thought the president was very clear that it is Mr. Netanyahu’s desire to keep this war going because he sees his political future or the continuation of his political future and the continuation of the war. But also that comes along the statement by the Prime Minister himself who called the proposal incomplete, making remarks that seemed aimed at sabotaging the deal and so on.

(16:29)
I don’t know how that meshing would be with the fact of what you said that Israel would agree if Hamas agrees to this proposal, Israel is going to agree to it. There’s an element of certainty in what you’re saying.

So a good deal of that certainty side comes from the fact that this is Israel’s proposal. It’s not a United States proposal. Just to make that very clear. The President outlined it publicly, but this was a proposal that government of Israel put forward. So look, I understand why some people are cynical or have questions or look for ways that this deal might be completed. It doesn’t change the bottom line right now, which is there is a proposal on the table that Israel put forward that the United States is backing that Egypt is backing, that Qatar is backing, but not just those three countries who are mediators, but also a good number of countries around the world.

(17:18)
And it is only Hamas that is saying no. Now, if you want to talk about how we’d get from phase one to phase two, that is a fair question to ask because there will be a great deal of negotiation that has to go on, but we can’t even get there if Hamas doesn’t say yes.

Okay. So Hamas is supposed to say something today, I guess. The spokesperson is going to hold a press conference in Beirut or somewhere else and say whatever it is. So if they agree, how do you see what kind of time frame we have to begin the cease fire to start to actually seize the guns from firing?

So I don’t want to get ahead of what Hamas would say, but we would expect a degree to begin as soon as possible. We want to cease fire start. We want to see it start immediately. So that is our goal. That’s what we’re working towards.

Because you also-

It may take time to implement the various provisions because we wanted as soon as possible.

So you also said yesterday that this was very close or identical to the proposal that Hamas signed on May 6th and so on. And now suppose this falls apart or doesn’t come to be, how will that impact your plans for aid?

We will continue to work to try to surge aid into Gaza. We have been doing that when ceasefire negotiations have been going well. We have been doing that when ceasefire negotiations completely broken down because our commitment to trying to get aid to innocent Palestinians has nothing to do with the status of ceasefire negotiations.

Including the reopening of Rafah?

Yes, including the reopening of Rafah. I promise I’ll come to you. [inaudible 00:18:55] Go ahead.

Related to Israel, how do you view the escalation of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel? And do you expect a total war, especially that there are calls from the left and the right in Israel for a full-blown war against Hezbollah?

The situation along the Israeli-Hezbollah border continues to be extremely dangerous. Escalation of that conflict is something that we have been worried about and working to contain since October 7th when… You didn’t have to be a genius to figure out that this was a possible significant area of conflict and of expanded conflict. And so that has been our focus, trying to keep it from moving from shelling across the border and airstrikes across the border to a full-fledged conflagration.

(19:47)
I will say it is our assessment that the acceptance of a ceasefire by Hamas in the beginning of a calm would help us reach calm in Northern Israel and southern Lebanon and would be the thing that would help us reach both temporary calm and potentially a long-term agreement to resolve this situation that would allow Israelis to return to their homes in Northern Israel. There are tens of thousands of Israelis who have been forced to move from their homes because it’s not safe to live there. They could return home. And a number of Lebanese who have been forced to flee their homes in southern Lebanon who would be able to return home too.

(20:23)
So it’s something that we’re pursuing, but it is really difficult to do as long as there is continued fighting in Gaza. So it’s obviously not the sole reason or the main reason we’re pursuing an end to the fighting in Gaza, but it is something that we think would be a significant byproduct of achieving a ceasefire there.

And any comments on the Israeli calls for a full-blown war with Hezbollah?

So we do not support a full war with Hezbollah. We don’t want to see that happen. Now that said, Israel has the right to defend itself from Hezbollah’s attacks. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that is committed to the destruction of Israel and has launched attacks against Israel for years. And so Israel has the right to defend itself and has the right to deal with that threat. You can understand why it is not a tenable situation for Israel to see tens of thousands of its citizens continue to be displaced from their homes and why they would want to do something about it.

(21:13)
But ultimately, we’ve heard Israeli leaders say the solution that they prefer is a diplomatic solution. And obviously that is the solution that we prefer too and that we’re trying to pursue.

And one more, if you don’t mind. The Iran Supreme leader has said in a speech yesterday that October 7th attack came at the right time and the action thwarted the grand plan of the Middle East region. Do you have any comments on that?

So it goes to something you’ve heard the secretary say before, which is there are two paths for this region. One is a path to greater integration, greater peace, greater stability, greater commonality among the peoples of the region. And the other path is continued conflict, and death, and destruction and despair. We obviously support the first path, but it’s also quite clear that the biggest opponents to further integration in the region, further peace in the region, stability are Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the other proxy groups that Iran funds.

(22:20)
So when you look at the possibilities that lie front of the region in the long term, if we can achieve a ceasefire, the possibility of greater integration that would bring peace to Israelis and peace to Palestinians and further stability in the region. It’s why we believe the greatest rebuke to Hamas and its sponsor and the greatest rebuke to those who support the attacks of October 7th would be not just this initial ceasefire, but long-term peace and stability that leaves Israel further integrated with its neighbors.

Thank you.

Shannon.

Thanks. Just quickly circling back to Qatar and the statement from his foreign ministry questioning Israel’s position. Are you fully confident that Qatar is putting as much pressure as it possibly can on Hamas to accept the deal, given that the US and Qatar apparently are on different pages?

We are not on different pages. And I will say that, yes, I am confident that we have had a number of conversations with the government of Qatar about this exact question. Going back without giving away too much to the immediate days right after October 7th, and have always made clear that there can’t be any more business as usual with Hamas for countries in the region. But at the same time, we have valued the role that Qatar has played in being a channel to Hamas, in being able to mediate this potential hostage deal as well as the last pause. There’s a one-week pause that they were able to mediate that happened last November. And so we greatly value the role that Qatar has played, including on sending the appropriate level of messages to Hamas. Yeah.

Could I follow-up slightly on Iran?

Yeah.

Actually, I know this is slightly off segue, the IEA, could you explain what’s going on there? The European powers have talked about a reprimand Accenture, Iran of course is the impact of this. What’s the US position? It’s been widely reported that the US doesn’t think that’s the right time for Accenture.

So I’m not going to preview any actions that we might take at the IEA Board of Governors. I’ll just say that we have taken significant actions at the IEA in the past. We are prepared to do so again in the future, and we continue to talk with our partners, including the E3, about exactly what those might look like.

And Accenture, do you think it’s not productive at this time? What do you think?

Again, I’m going to keep those conversations private for now. There are conversations that are ongoing as part of the Board of Governor’s meetings, but as I’ve said, we’ve taken significant actions in the past and are prepared to do so in the future.

I don’t think he’s asking you for the details of the actual conversations. He’s asking you what the administration’s position is. Correct?

He is. And those are positions, as I said, it’s an issue-

I don’t think has anything to do with your conversations with anybody else.

It does have something to do with our conversations with the private… The content nature of resolution at potential resolution is absolutely something that we’ll be talking about with our partners.

Right. But what’s your position on Accenture?

Should there be a resolution, you will see the United States position when that resolution comes forward, but I think you should not expect us to be acting in any sort of disharmony with our E3 partners. We’ve prized our unity with them and I expect that to continue.

I have another on Iran, sort of separate. Does the US have clarity on these Israeli airstrikes in Syria that appear to have killed an Iranian General? As for information as to their target and intent of this?

We do not. I’ve seen the reports, but don’t have any further information on it.

Have you consulted with the Israeli government as to their purpose?

I just don’t have any information other than that we’ve seen the reports.

Given the background of it rising to a almost global configuration when this happened last time in April. Shouldn’t it top the list?

I may have something to say later, but as I said for now, just reports that we’ve seen, don’t have anything further.

Thanks.

Go ahead.

Thanks Matt. I have my own questions, but before that let me follow up on the Secretary’s schedule. You said he’s leaving tonight. Can you elaborate more on his schedule and the [inaudible 00:26:16] in Normandy? And when is the time he’s hoping to show up in Switzerland?

What was the last part?

In Switzerland?

So with respect to the initial part of this trip, he’s traveling with the President. He’s going to be in Normandy and then in Paris. His schedule will largely follow the President’s schedule. If we have any separate programming, meetings or such to announce, we will make those public in the coming days. With respect to dates beyond that, a week beyond that, I don’t have anything further to announce.

Couple of questions on the EU elections. There are reports about increasing Russian disinformation campaign and in university level concerned about those reports.

So we have been incredibly concerned about Russian disinformation. This was a significant subject of conversation at the NATO foreign ministers meeting last week in Prague. Something that the Secretary raised and not only raised but then heard significant concern about from our European partners. We have seen the Russian government use disinformation against its own people. We have seen the Russian government use disinformation to spread lies and rumors across Europe and across the world. And we continue to consult with our partners about the best way to respond to that.

Kremlin is also echoing Georgian government’s propaganda. Today we heard from Deputy Foreign Minister saying that the US is planning to implement a new [inaudible 00:27:40] in October in Georgia. Do you have any response to that?

Look, I think the answer I just gave about disinformation that you see from the Kremlin probably applies here pretty well. What you have seen in Georgia is over the past few weeks is the Georgian people’s expression of their will and their opposition to this Kremlin backed law that the Georgian government has passed. It has nothing to do with the United States. It has to do with the people of Georgia expressing their own views.

Thank you. And finally, on Ukraine. We have seen a letter came from the House Foreign Affairs Committee urging the Secretary, both Secretary of State and Treasury, to speed up in terms of implementing a rapport act. Where are you at this and what is the delay?

So the Secretary has made quite clear that we have been given those authorities and we plan to use them, but it’s also important that we use them in concert with our European and other allies. As I think you know, the vast majority of the frozen Russian assets are not held in the United States, they’re held in European countries. So for this action to be as effective as possible, it’s important that we act in concert with our allies, and we are in consultation with our European allies about the best way to do that possible. But we are committed to ensuring that Russian’s frozen assets remain immobilized and that they’re put to use for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you. I wanted to ask you about India’s elections. After three months, the people of India have voted, election results are out now. Prime move ruling coalition has crossed the halfway mark. How do you see the election results from the elections?

So first of all, our understanding is that the election results have not been finalized. So we will wait for the finalization of those election results before we offer any definitive comment. I’m also not going to comment on winners and losers in election, as is our case around the world. What is important for us and what we have seen over the past six weeks is the largest exercise of democracy in history, as the Indian people came to the polls. And on behalf of the United States, we want to commend the governor of India and voters there for successfully completing and participating such a massive electoral undertaking and we look forward to seeing the final results

During the election campaign, India’s external affairs minister, Jaishankar and Prime Minister also indicated multiple times that there have been attempts to influence the India’s elections from Western side, US and other countries. Two, a statement that came out from this podium about you express concerns about [inaudible 00:30:11], Indian chief minister, and the freezing of [inaudible 00:30:14] the Congress party were also not taken right. How do you see that?

So we always will express our views clearly and openly. We express them with foreign governments privately and when we have things that we are concerned about, we also express them publicly, including from this podium. That’s what I’ve done. But that in no way is attempt to influence an election in India or anywhere else.

Thank you.

One about India, Matt.

Go ahead. Another one on India.

Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, how do you put relations between US, India relations today and tomorrow Modi three? How the relations will be between the two countries?

So I expect a continued close partnership between the United States and India. There is a great partnership both at the government level and at the people to people level, and I fully expect that to continue.

And second, sir. There are a few actors against the United States working these days, including Russia and China, maybe a few others. Who are the worst as far as the US National Securities concerned, Russia or China?

Look, it is clear that it is Russia that has invaded a country right now, is actively trying to overthrow a democratically elected government, and has required the United States to mobilize international coalition to respond to that. But we also have concerns about actions that China has taken. Look, it’s clear that Russia and China are the two countries, both with the size and ability and motivation to offer a different vision of the world than that that is put forward by the United States and a number of our allies. And so we will continue to offer our vision of the world and continue to stand up to either of those countries when we see actions that contradict that.

Thank you sir.

Humera.

One on India election follow up.

Let me just… Humera.

Matt, just excellency this-

Yeah, go ahead.

Can I ask?

Yeah, I called it.

Yes sir. Thank you very much. So 27 members, so far Muslim members have been winning in the elections in India. You really think that India is becoming secular because when President Biden was running for elections, one of the issue was that Prime Minister Modi is turning India into a Hindu state where there are more than 300 Muslims. 27 seats they are so far winning. Modi is winning the election. But you have to admit that under President Biden, a leader is coming who is turning a country into a one religion, a Hindu state basically, right? Would you agree with that?

So I will say that when we have concerns about human rights as we have in India, we express those openly. We express them directly to the government of India. We have done that and we’ll continue to do it as we do with countries all around the world.

Thank you so much. Can I just ask one more?

Yeah.

The Pakistan military 83rd core commander conference met just a couple of days ago and they came up with this term called Digital Terrorism, where they think that official public in the US and Canada and UK mostly through digital platforms, they are spreading terrorism and creating anarchy sort of situation. Do you have any comments about that?

I have not seen that specific report or that allegation, but obviously we oppose terrorism or any attempts to recruit people to terrorism or focus terrorism anywhere.

No, no, sir. Digital terrorism.

I’m saying I haven’t seen that report.

Thank you so much, Matt. Go ahead.

Can I just quickly follow up?

Yeah, go ahead.

India has worlds second-largest number of Muslim population after Indonesia. None other Muslim countries have that much Muslim population as India has. Why do you think India is converting into a Hindu?

I’m just not going to speak to that question. Go ahead, Humera.

Matt, just to go back to Hezbollah ten minutes ago, I just want to make sure I heard right what you said. So you said, US does not support a full-blown war in the border?

It’s not what we want to see. We don’t want to see a full-blown war. We want to see this resolved by a diplomatic resolution.

Sure. So are you saying that US is against the possible offensive that Israel is talking about carrying out?

So we want to see it resolved through diplomatic means and that’s what we have been pursuing. I also said that Israel has a right to defend itself and is not a tenable situation for tens of thousands of people to continue to be displaced from their homes. But what we’ve heard Israel say is that their preferred resolution is a diplomatic one. And we agree with that.

Right. But they’re also saying today, military chief of general staff, Herzi Halevi, is saying Israel is ready for a military offensive along the border and that it was nearing a decision point. So what is your comment for that?

Our comment is that we want to see it resolved by diplomatic means. We want to see a ceasefire agreed to in Gaza that would allow us to pursue a diplomatic resolution in the North. This could all be solved by a ceasefire. And that’s what we’re pursuing.

Sure. Have you told the Israelis in the past couple of days or today specifically about these? Advice not to do it?

I don’t know of any recent conversations with them, but we have had this conversation with them for a long time and Israel has made clear they don’t want a war in the North. A war in the North would tax their resources, which have already been taxed by the conflict in Gaza. This goes to the thing that the Secretary has talked about and I talked about a little bit about yesterday, where we look at all of it and you see the potential of Israel being bogged down in Gaza, fighting a war in the North if you have further instability in the West Bank. And as the President said, that drains them diplomatically, economically, militarily, and it’s not a strategic success for them. So we have heard Israel say, publicly and privately, that their preferred resolution is a diplomatic one. Now, should we not get a ceasefire in Gaza, should they continue to see strikes of the North? I don’t know what will happen, but we will continue to focus on trying to achieve a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. It

It’s not in anyone’s interest to see escalation along the border between Israel and Lebanon.

And from US point of view, would it be unacceptable for Israel to start this offensive in the event of a ceasefire in Gaza?

I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. As I said, we don’t believe it is in their interests.

They’re saying they’re ready for it.

That is different than launching. They have said it is not something they want to pursue either if they can pursue a diplomatic resolution. At the same time, the situation we do understand is untenable, so it does give urgency to the diplomatic negotiations to resolve that problem and, connected to that, for Hamas to reach a ceasefire.

Matt, one follow-up please.

Yeah.

Are you confident that you will be able to find a diplomatic solution for the fighting and for the crisis between Hezbollah and Israel?

Look, obviously we can’t make any predictions about what would happen. That would involve, of course, Hezbollah being willing to agree to a resolution as well. But we do believe that if we can get calm in Gaza, that it dramatically increases our chance. It unlocks the real possibility of calming the situation in the north, which does not need to be at the level it is today. It wasn’t at this level before October 7th. There’s always been obviously tension along that border and strikes and even wars that have been fought over that border, but we have seen an increase in strikes across the border after October 7th. And should we reach a ceasefire in Gaza, we think it’s something we have a good chance of resolving. Yeah, go ahead.

Oh, thank you, Matthew. I’m really confused by this proposal that the president said Israel put forth. There seems to be a misunderstanding between the sides and there are conflicting reports. Israel says its objectives have not changed, yet this deal would not result in elimination of Hamas. Prime Minister Netanyahu said some of what President Biden said in his speech on Friday is inaccurate. Can you please clarify?

I think some of this goes to what has to be negotiated in getting to phase one and phase two. Israel has agreed to the proposal. That includes all of the elements of the proposal, phase one, phase two, phase three. But as the president said in his remarks, the details of how you get to phase two are going to have to be negotiated, and that’s what we were prepared to do.

But it doesn’t require Hamas to be gone, right?

So we have made clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza. We also don’t believe that you can eliminate Hamas just with a military campaign, that a military campaign can kill fighters, can detain fighters, but those fighters in many cases will be replaced by other recruits. So we need a political path forward and that’s what we want to try to negotiate.

But the proposal doesn’t require Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza, correct?

Again, these are all details that have to be negotiated as we get from phase one to phase two, and as we implement phase three.

It’s up for negotiation if Hamas stay in charge in Gaza?

It is our position, it is Israel’s position, that Hamas cannot stay in charge of Gaza. And as we-

But it’s still up for negotiation?

To get from phase one to phase two, you have to negotiate what the end of the conflict looks like.

And do you think that Hamas will agree to a deal-

You know what?

… in which they cease to exist?

We just need to get a ceasefire. And I will say, I think the broad interest of the Palestinian people, if you look at what has happened over the past eight months because of the campaign that Hamas launched, is to see Hamas replaced as the leaders of Gaza. And so when you see the US position, Israeli position, the position of Arabs in the Arab countries in the region, that’s what we’re going to try to achieve.

So that’s just a [inaudible 00:39:45] clarification around this.

No. No, you can’t interrupt it, Colin. Go ahead.

Sorry.

One more and then I’ll move on.

Oh, sorry. So just to-

Let him finish. Go ahead.

Oh, okay. Thank you, Amanda. So just to clarify, so this is just a framework that has to be modified through negotiations, correct?

So if you look at the president’s statement, he outlined this pretty clear, what is in phase one, what is in phase two, and the negotiation that has to get to phase two, which includes how to achieve an enduring end to the war.

Thank you.

Go ahead. I’m going to come to you next. Hold on because I got to leave in a few minutes because the president’s starting to speak, so I’m going to try to get to everyone in the room. Go ahead.

Okay, thanks Matt. I’ll just be very quick and I’ll pick up on my colleague here beside me. So when you mentioned the president’s remarks, which included the idea that as long as Hamas lives up to its commitment, there could be, and I quote, “the cessation of hostilities permanently.” And you say that is an Israeli proposal. So the government of the state of Israel is signed up to a proposal that there could be a permanent end to hostilities and Hamas still in existence in a meaningful way.

No. They are signed up to an agreement that leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities, but with a number of provisions that have to be negotiated to get there at the end of the [inaudible 00:41:01].

But the provision-

I’m not going to negotiate all those provisions in public. I’ve talked about this a good deal yesterday, about the fact that one of the principles the secretary outlined in Tokyo in November is that there cannot be continued rule of Hamas in Gaza after the end of this conflict, and that’s what we’re committed to.

No, but I understand that. But if the provisions required would be the dissolution of Hamas, why would Hamas sign up to get that ball rolling?

Because they don’t want to see continued conflict, continued Palestinian people dying. They don’t want to see war in Gaza. They want to see reconstruction of Gaza. Now look, I will grant you one thing. I said this to Matt yesterday. It may be that Sinwar decides that he’s safe in a tunnel and his interests have diverged from the people of Gaza, and so he’s not willing to agree to a ceasefire and he’s not willing to look at this proposal and say it requires good faith negotiations to get from phase one to phase two. So I’m not going to accept it because I’m safe and I don’t have any interest in the Palestinian people who continue to suffer the ravages of war.

(42:01)
But I will say if you look at the deal that’s on the table, it is manifestly in the interest of the Palestinian people, it’s manifestly in the interest of the Israeli people, it’s manifestly in the interest of the world, and so that’s why we’ll continue to push for it. And if Hamas really does represent the interest of the Palestinian people, as they say over and over, it’s without a doubt that they’ll take this deal.

Thank you very much, Matt. Will we hear more from the US administration about Netanyahu, which sounds like there may be a frustration? For example, recently a follow-up to my colleague’s question about President Biden’s comment, which you clarified that President Biden said that Netanyahu may be prolonging the war on Gaza for political reasons. And last week-

It’s not what the president said.

Actually-

Go ahead, but it’s not his quote.

Yeah. Last week, also President Biden implied that there’s a risk for Israel to be isolated from the world. So given these statements by President Biden and the amount of Palestinians killed by the Israeli attacks in Gaza and the destruction in Gaza, is it fair to say that the US administration frustrating about Netanyahu?

We’ve been over this a number of times in this room. There are things with which we agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu and things with which we disagree and that’s true with other members of the Israeli government. It’s true with a lot of our partners around the world and our allies around the world. We have at times had very frank, direct, candid conversations with the Prime Minister and there are policy things where those disagreements are well known. We’ve been quite clear that we support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and I think his view on that matter has been pretty clear as well. We will continue to work to try to achieve policies that are in the interest of the United States, that are in the interest of our partners in the region, including the Israeli people. And sometimes that means we’re going to disagree about the specifics and what we are committed to do is continue to call it like we see it. Go ahead and then we’ll wrap for the day.

Thank you, Matt. Bangladesh ruling Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina recently claimed a white man offered her that she can stay in power without any pressure if she allows a foreign country to establish an air base. She also mentioned that there is a conspiracy to turn Bangladesh into another East Timor and make a Christian country, taking a part of Bangladesh and Myanmar, forming a base in the Bay of Bengal. Is Sheikh Hasina shooting too many arrows towards the US as you are asking for free, fair and credible election and rule of law and anti-corruption?

I’m not exactly sure who those comments refer to, but if it is in fact the United States, I’ll just say that they’re not accurate. With that-

Nobel laureate-

… [inaudible 00:44:40]. Yeah. Sorry.

Thank you, Matt. Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus on Sunday entered the dark and iron cage and [inaudible 00:44:50] of the accused inside the courtroom and said he was at the worst point of his cursed life. Similarly, millions of Bangladeshis are at the worst point of their cursed lives due to the absence of democracy, the rule of law, and massive corruption. We have seen you impose some sanction and visa restriction immediate past army chief and police chief. Do you think this is enough to hold the regime accountable after the sham election held on January 7th last year, or will you consider more actions to show solidarity with the democracy loving people of Bangladesh as you promised before?

We continue to closely monitor developments in the case against Dr. Yunus. We have expressed our concern that these cases may represent a misuse of Bangladesh’s labor laws to harass and intimidate Dr. Yunus. We also worry that the perceived misuse of labor and anti-corruption laws could raise questions about rule of law and dissuade foreign direct investment. We will continue to encourage the Bangladeshi government to ensure a fair and transparent legal process for Dr. Yunus as the appeals process continues, but I don’t have any actions for you. Go ahead.

Thanks, Matt. Today’s the anniversary of suppression of the demonstrators in Beijing’s Tienanmen Square. I was wondering if you have any comments.

The Secretary issued a statement on that about two hours, two and a half hours ago. I refer you to that for detailed comment. And with that-

Can I ask one briefly?

Yeah. I hope the president’s not… It’s a bad [inaudible 00:46:13]-

I’ll just be very brief. Indonesia, Prabowo, the incoming president, he says that Indonesia’s willing to send peacekeepers to Gaza to monitor any potential truce. Is that something the US has been in discussions with or do you have any comment on that?

I don’t have any specific comment on that. Obviously we’ve been engaged in a broad conversation with countries around the world about what the security situation could look like at the end of the conflict, but I don’t want to comment on that specific idea. Thanks, everyone.