State Department Press Briefing on 10/07/24

Good afternoon everyone. Today marks the tragic anniversary of the October 7th, 2023 attacks against Israel, where 1200 men, women and children, including 46 Americans and citizens of more than 30 countries were slaughtered by Hamas. October 7th, 2023 was of course also the day when Hamas took 254 people hostage, including 12 Americans. An estimated 101 of those hostages still remain in Gaza, including seven Americans, Itay Chen, Judith Weinstein, Gadi Haggai, Edan Alexander, Keith Siegel, Sagui Dekel-Chen, and Omer Neutra. Hamas should release every one of these hostages immediately, and the United States will not rest until they’re returned to their families.

(01:05)
Hamas attacks on October 7th launched a war that continues today with tragic consequences for the Palestinian people. As the secretary said in his statement this morning, the United States mourns the death of every innocent who died on October 7th and in the year since, and we are determined to continue to work for a ceasefire agreement that brings the hostages home, alleviates the suffering of the Israeli and Palestinian people, and ultimately brings an end to this war. In his speech just days before his son, Hersh Goldberg-Polin was murdered by Hamas, his father, Jonathan Polin, said, “There is a surplus of agony on all sides of the tragic conflict in the Middle East. In a competition of pain, there are no winners. It’s far time to end this conflict and to begin the work for a common future for Israelis and Palestinians with equal measures of security, dignity, opportunity, and freedom.” With that, Matt.

Okay, before we get back into Gaza, which I’m sure we will, can I just get you… Do you have an update on the flights out of Lebanon for Americans?

I do. So the flights that we launched last week, the U.S.- organized flights continued over the weekend. There was another flight that left today from Beirut to Istanbul. That flight had approximately 150 passengers on it, American citizens, legal permanent residents, and their family members. That brings to a total of 900, approximately 900 American citizens, legal permanent residents and their family members who have left on U.S.-organized flights since we launched them last week. In addition, as we said, we have been able to block seats on commercial flights that are leaving. That has continued over the weekend as well. We have now blocked 868 total seats on commercial flights.

(02:52)
We don’t know exactly how many of those have been filled because we don’t get an exact number, but we know that a significant proportion of those 868 seats have been filled. So in addition to the 900 Americans and their family members that have left on the U.S.-organized flights, we know there have been hundreds more that have left on these commercial flights where we’ve been able to block seats. And of course there are other Americans who leave on commercial flights where they make the arrangements on their own, not through seats that we provide.

Right. And then just to put a fine point and make sure the commercial flights you’re talking about are Middle East-

Middle East. Yes, correct.

Okay. And in terms of the U.S.-contracted flights, then my understanding, and you guys have been putting this out every day, that these flights have a capacity of 300 people.

Yeah.

And there have been how many? Eight?

There have been around 900 people. Sorry, eight flights.

No, eight flights.

Eight flights. So eight flights, capacity of 300 on each, for a total of 2,400 available seats on the U.S.-organized flights. So far, we have had 900 people fill those seats and continue to stay in contact with Americans.

That’s far less than half, so-

Correct.

And you’ve also said that about 6,000 people have asked for information, not necessarily saying that they’re going to leave or they want help in leaving, but there… Can you explain why it is that or do you have any idea why it is that 1500 people who could have left or there were seats have not?

So first, let me update the 6,000 number. We have now been in contact with approximately 8,500 people inside Lebanon who have asked for more information. But as we always make clear, and as I know you did in the question, that does not mean that all of them intend to leave. A lot of people are making daily assessments about their situation and they reach out to us for information. They want to know if they can join a flight, even if they haven’t yet decided to join a flight and to leave Lebanon. So look, I think that is ultimately the reason why some of these seats remain unfilled, is because you do have people who are making what are very tough decisions to leave.

(04:57)
You have people in many cases who have lived in Lebanon for a long time who have family members, not just immediate family members, but extended family members who they don’t want to leave. And so they decide, “Not going to leave today, maybe I’ll leave tomorrow, maybe I won’t leave at all.” And it is up to them, of course, to make those decisions. We advise them to leave and we have been making these seats available, and we’ll continue to make them available as long as there is demand and long as the security situation demands it.

Okay. So the number who have left and 150 today, that you think constitutes, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t, but I just want to make sure that constitutes demand to you, even if it’s 150 people today on a plane that carries 300 people, that’s half full. So does that mean that you still think there is demand?

Yes, we do still think there is demand, and there are probably other people who, for whatever reason, can’t make it to the airport, but still, yes, we do-

That’s fine. I just make sure that I understand.

We do believe there is still demand, and so we plan to continue organizing these flights.

Last one on this and that, I know you can’t to the fares that Middle East Airlines charges, but is it still correct that the maximum fare on your contracted flights is 200-

$283.

$283, that’s correct?

It’s $283, that’s correct, on the flights that we organize. And then I have seen these reports about what people are being charged to fly on Middle East Airways. I’ll tell you, we have not always seen information that backs up some of those claims, and I’ll note that on the seats that we make available or that are made available to us, held and reserved for American citizens, the price for those seats on Middle East Airways has been far, far less than you see as the thousand, somewhere less than $400, so far, far less than the price that you’ve seen quoted sometimes for people. I suppose maybe they’re looking to books separately from Middle East Airways. I can’t speak to individual people’s situations, but when it comes to the seats that are made available to us that we are making available to American citizens, legal permanent residents and their family members on Middle East Airways, they’re less than $400.

Okay. And sorry, I know I said that was the last one, but I got one more. It’s just there are eight flights. All but one of them has gone to Istanbul, the other one went to Frankfurt, is that correct?

I’ll have to check. They have been to Istanbul and Frankfurt. I know most of them have been to Istanbul. I don’t remember if it’s seven in one or some other breakdown. Go ahead.

Sure. No, it is indeed a somber day. I wanted to ask you something that you said in your opening statement to this call, and said it many times in administration, this call saying it is far time to end this conflict. Today, obviously this conflict is not only ongoing, but it’s escalating in every direction we look at. The new operations in Gaza, of course bombing in Lebanon, and we’re waiting for the response against Iran’s attacks. So when you say it’s far time to end this conflict, and obviously you have to be two sides to end the conflict, are you saying specifically to Israel, stop the bombing, stop its operations in Gaza, or do you still support those?

So we do not believe that a ceasefire where Israel unilaterally stops the war without an agreement with Hamas to stop attacking Israel, to release Israeli hostages, to release American hostages, to release the hostages of other countries is a just outcome. We want to see a ceasefire, but it needs to be a ceasefire that includes both parties to the conflict, not just one.

A few things, Matt, just a broad question to perhaps reflect a year on. It’s the anniversary of October 7 Hamas attacks. It’s also the anniversary of the start of Gaza war, which has, according to Palestinian House authorities, killed nearly 42,000 people. And everything we’ve lived through, I’m wondering, does the United States believe Israel is safer today than before the start of this, and given the United States has supported Israel throughout this, I’m just wondering if there is any reflection within the administration going back to the early days and sort of looking at the steps that you’ve taken, is there anything that the administration would’ve done differently since then?

So let me answer the last one first. When it comes to any complicated situation, and this of course is one of the most complicated situations on the face of the Earth, of course, we look back all the time and look at the decisions that we made, look at the outcomes and think about how we can do things differently. That’s true when it comes to this conflict. It’s true when it comes to Ukraine. It’s true when it comes to dare say, every situation in the world, and I think that’s normal for anyone facing difficult decisions to look back and do, because you always want to look at the decisions you made and see how you can learn from them and see how you can make the best possible decisions going forward. So of course, we have done that and continue to do that. That’s part of our ongoing work to try and make sure we do make the best possible decisions to advance the national security interest of the United States. Now remind me what the first question was because I answered the second-

Is Israel safer today?

Oh, and that is a complicated, difficult answer to give, and I say it’s complicated because certainly Israel is safer when it comes to the immediate threat that Hamas bears to the Israeli people. Hamas can in no way today launch an attack with the size, scale, and scope of the attack it launched on October 7th. So when it comes to dealing with the threat from Hamas, Israel is safer, at least in the short term. When it comes to the threat faced by Hezbollah, you have seen Israel degrade Hezbollah’s military capabilities over the past 10 days or so. It does not mean they have eliminated, and they certainly have not eliminated them, but they have degraded them.

(11:17)
But to the longer term question, is Israel any more secure? I think that’s a very difficult question to answer, and it goes to the point you have heard the secretary make over and over and over again, which is as long as Israel is mired in conflict in Gaza, as long as it is dealing with an unstable situation on its northern border, as long as it is dealing with unrest and insecurity in the West Bank, ultimately its security is never going to be assured, which is why you have heard us and you have seen us, you’ve been on the trips with the secretary throughout the region where he’s spoken to this and said, the ultimate resolution of these conflicts needs to be one that has a political path forward that answers the aspirations of the Palestinian people. It needs to be a path for governance in Gaza by someone other than Hamas, because as long as you see Hamas continue to govern Gaza either by name or in a de facto sense, you’ll continue to see insecurity for Israel.

(12:18)
And you just have to look at the events of the past few days where Israel is again conducting military operations in Northern Gaza, a part of Gaza where they initially stopped major military operations, I think last January, and they’re back in because Hamas still has control of large parts of Gaza City and Northern Gaza because there has not been a path forward that provides an answer to the security questions and provides an answer to the governance questions and let alone the reconstruction questions that very much need to be answered.

Right. So let me take that to Lebanon then. Are those questions at all answered or being answered, or are the answers being thought about right now, because Israel is conducting an operation in Lebanon? And given that over the weekend, for example, it has targeted some densely populated Beirut suburbs, I’m wondering if the United States still sees this as a limited incursion.

We have seen the ground operations so far continue to be limited. We’ve seen limited incursions on the ground. That is not to offer any kind of forecast about what’s going to happen. It’s just an assessment of what we see on the ground right now. I would just say with respect to the two situations though, they are different. Lebanon is a sovereign state. Gaza is not. Gaza was ruled by a terrorist organization. Lebanon is ruled by a government, an imperfect government in many ways because Hezbollah has a veto on many of the functionings of the state, and the state does not have a monopoly on security. Hezbollah has maintained arms and the ability to thwart state security for many years. So it is a different

… different comparisons. Note that as a bit of a qualification.

Just on the limited incursion though, what is the parameter for us for this to be considered anything beyond limited incursion? What needs to happen?

I don’t want to forecast what’s going to happen, which I think I’d have to do to get into that. What I can tell you is we’re watching this very closely. We support their ability to target militants, to degrade Hezbollah’s infrastructure, to degrade Hezbollah’s capability. But we are very cognizant of the many times in the past where Israel has gone in on what looked like limited operations and has stayed for months or for years. And ultimately that’s not the outcome that we want to see. The outcome that we want to see is the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which would mean Hezbollah forces pushed back from the border UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces coming in. And those security forces, not Israeli security forces, the LAF and UNIFIL taking the place of security forces in Southern Lebanon and providing that buffer zone so Israelis in the north of Israel can return to their homes and Lebanese in the south of Lebanon can return to their homes.

But are there any active conversations about this? Because I mean, at the moment it does appear that the United States is green lighting what Israel is doing in Lebanon so far, and you just talked about how there was no post-war Gaza plan, there was no political pathway and that left us where we are a year on in Gaza, but you don’t seem to have anything concrete for what comes after Israel’s Lebanon operation either. So isn’t that a point of concern for the United States, this risks being an open-ended thing as well?

So I would just reject the first sentence or two sentences of the question. There are very serious ongoing conversations about this with our partners in the region, with the government of Israel, with partners outside the region about what the path forward ought to look like. Just because we don’t make the details of those conversations public, which we are not at this point, doesn’t mean that we are not actively engaged in them. As you know, the Secretary talked to a number of his foreign counterparts over the weekend, the French Foreign Minister, the Qatari foreign Minister, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, he talked to the Foreign Minister of Egypt earlier today. We are very much engaged in those conversations.

Final thing from me, the President has said he doesn’t want Israel to hit Iran nuclear sites and also the oil facilities, but I’m just wondering if Israelis actually have given you an assurances that they won’t do that?

I’m not going to get into those private diplomatic conversations. We continue to discuss with them what their response will look like. And I will leave it at that.

Just to follow up on one bit of what you said to Humeyra, you said the ground incursions continue to be limited, I believe. So does the United States believe that the bombings in the Beirut area are included in that limited character trait that you guys are wishing to see?

I don’t have a characterization of them one way or the other. They have been conducting strikes, they’ve been conducting strikes, targeting Hezbollah militants, and certainly there are more strikes happening this week than there were three weeks ago when they weren’t operating. But in terms of sweeping characterization of them, I don’t have one there.

And so long as the Israelis are going after Hezbollah targets in those Beirut strikes, the US is supportive of them doing that?

We’re supportive of them targeting Hezbollah, but of course we expect them to target Hezbollah in a way that complies with international humanitarian law and that minimizes civilian casualties.

And have they done that so far?

That’s never the question I can answer with a sweeping conclusion here. As you know, it takes an assessment of individual strikes before we can reach any of those kinds of conclusions.

And we know that this department is carrying out that assessment when it comes to is really operations and Gaza. Are you also carrying out that assessment when it comes to Israeli operations in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah?

I don’t have any announcements to make today. We’re in the early stages of this conflict, but that is the type of assessment we regularly conduct all around the world.

Well, why can’t you tell us if you’re looking into it if you say regularly conduct it?

Because we are in the very early days of this conflict, there are a number of assessments, a number of incidents we were having to look at with respect to Gaza. We have, I think as you know, a limited number of people available to perform those assessments, especially when you look at the number of incidents that have been reported in Gaza. So I can’t give you a read out of what we’re doing with respect to strikes in Lebanon, but we take that obligation incredibly seriously.

Okay.

Can I just follow up on that?

Sure.

I apologize, but I mean, okay, you’re doing these evaluations and come out whenever they come out. I mean the President during the Gaza said Israeli operations were over the top, for example. So specifically the ones that are happening now in Lebanon, are they over the top?

I don’t have a sweeping conclusion to offer you at this point. We are watching all of them closely. We make our judgments both when you look at the totality of incidents, and I don’t have an assessment to offer on that. And then there are different questions about individual strikes that we are the types of things that we regularly look at. Were you done, Sarah?

Just one more question. You said in your opening remarks that the Biden administration continues to work towards a ceasefire. You gave readouts, or actually you didn’t give full readouts, but you noted the phone calls that the secretaries had in recent days that are driving towards that outcome. But from the perspective of us, it does seem like that effort is a little bit stalled right now as you guys are waiting to watch what Israel does militarily. Would you reject that conclusion or…

So the thing I would reject about the way you phrase the question is our efforts are not stalled while we wait to see Israel’s military operations, we continue to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. But you have to have the parties come to a table, and it remains the case, as has been the case for some time, that Hamas has been unwilling to engage in a meaningful way with the mediators with Qatar in Egypt. And I will say that that refusal by Hamas to engage in a meaningful way predates the start of Israeli operations in Lebanon. But if you just look at the things that Hamas has publicly said for some time, they have been hoping for a wider regional war. They have been hoping for a wider escalation of this conflict. They’ve wanted to see Hezbollah come into the conflict. They’ve see the other Iranian proxy groups come into the conflict. They’ve wanted to see Iran come into the conflict.

(20:39)
So they would have to speak to why it is they refuse to engage meaningfully on a ceasefire that would, in every way, alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. But I don’t think it’s any secret that they have long wanted to see Israel under attack from other directions as well as just from inside Gaza.

And is there any latest ceasefire proposal that you’re waiting for Hamas to respond to right now?

No, that’s not exactly… Pausing only because I went through some of this, but it’s probably not a date that you weren’t here. Where we’ve been-

Sorry.

No, it’s quite all right. So there was a ceasefire proposal that we put forward. There was then a bridging proposal that we put forward. The bridging proposal had a number of implementation agreements that were going to have to be worked out. And we had been engaged in a process where we were talking with the Israelis about what proposals we could put forward that would get them to yes. And the other mediators, Qatar and Egypt had been talking about what proposals they could put forward to Hamas that would get Hamas to the yes. The idea being you look for the Venn diagram between those two parties that would get you an ultimate agreement. And several weeks ago, Hamas just started refusing to engage in any meaningful way about what things they might be willing to accept

And you haven’t heard from them in weeks?

So Egypt and Cutter would have to speak to their communications with Hamas. I can’t speak to whether they’re talking with Hamas officials outside Gaza or not. I’m sure that they have some regular communications that I won’t speak to. But we have not heard from them in any meaningful substantive way when it comes to the ceasefire proposals on the table in weeks. Saeed, go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. And your response to Humeyra, I believe, on if Israel was safer today, you said that Israel has degraded Hamas apparently a great deal and so on. So I want to ask you, why the need to continue to bomb tent places and places where Palestinians are advised to go to for safe havens and so on with F-35s and bombs that are 2000 pound bombs? Why is there a need to continue to do this kind of bombing?

So I’m not going to speak to any particular decision about what kind of strike to use, but they continue to engage with Hamas forces in Gaza because Hamas forces continue to pose a threat. But sight that just goes to the point that I was making that they will never end the conflict in Gaza through a military response as well. It is going to take a political approach, it’s going to take a different governance approach, and it’s going to take an approach that means that something other than Hamas, and it can’t be Israel, it can’t be the IDF, but something other than Hamas is in Gaza governing.

But Israel continues to use these bombs, those huge bombs, in fact, bombing a coffee shop in the West Bank, which is an area they control, they should not be bombing by area bombardment, coffee shops and so on.

(23:41)
But you mentioned a point that takes me to my other point. Israel seems to be cutting off the north of Gaza from the south. They’re basically, what is underway is nothing short of ethnic cleansing. Now you all along have said that, and the President, I think the Secretary said that. I’m not so sure whether the President said that or not. But you don’t want to see Gaza reoccupied, you don’t want to see any parts of Gaza reoccupied. Are you aware of these reports and do you have a response to them?

We have seen these reports. Let me state first very clearly that no, we do not want to see Gaza occupied by Israel. We do not want to see the territory of Gaza shrunk in any way on a permanent basis. And when it comes to these reports, we are engaging with the government of Israel to find out exactly what it is they intend. But I will say just generally speaking, we want to see people in Gaza be able to return to their neighborhoods, not being forced to leave their neighborhoods.

(24:39)
Now, if there are Hamas militants operating underneath an apartment building, before Israel launches a strike on those militants, I think you would want to see the civilians evacuated. That would be something that would be a good thing for those civilians, to see that they are out of harm’s way. But it gets back to this broader point that I made, which is as long as you don’t have a political path forward and you don’t have a solution to the very real governance questions, you can kill Hamas fighters, but Hamas will continue to recruit other fighters and continue to put the Palestinian people in danger and continue to endanger Israeli security as well.

That will give Israel a cause for continuing this war. I mean nobody expected a year ago that this world would be going on at this time, but it is, and it can conceivably go on for many more months, maybe even years and so on. What is the end game? In your view, what is the end game of Israel?

We want to see a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, that allows humanitarian aid to surge into Gaza. We want to see an agreement on a political path forward that that Palestinians can choose their own leaders, and that Hamas does not continue to reign as a terrorist organization over Gaza. And ultimately we want to see Gaza in the West Bank reunited as an independent Palestinian state.

Now let me ask you about the-

So then that means that when you answered Saeed, you say you don’t want to see Gaza reoccupied by Israel. You also don’t want the West Bank occupied by Israel, right?

We want to see establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Israel. Yes, correct.

So you don’t want the Israelis to be occupying the West Bank, right?

We want it to be ultimately its own independent Palestinian state not occupied by Israel or anybody else. No, we want to see it governed by Palestinians.

And then just secondly, and I’ve asked this and I know others have asked this before, but when you talk about how you want a ceasefire in Gaza so that people can return to their neighborhoods and their homes, how many neighborhoods and homes do you think are left for them to return to?

So by various estimates, somewhere around half the buildings, maybe a little over half the buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged.

50%.

There are other buildings obviously that remain, and we want to see people be able to return to their neighborhoods. And if they don’t have homes, we want to see the ability to rebuild them, which is why one of the pieces we have said has to be a priority for the ultimate end of this conflict is reconstruction effort so people can rebuild their neighborhoods and rebuild their homes because the devastation has been absolutely catastrophic across Gaza.

Then who do you think should pay for that?

Ultimately, it would require an international effort with multiple countries contributing. Obviously that’s the kind of thing that would have to be worked out. We’re not at that stage yet, because we’re not even at the end of the conflict, but it’s the-

Okay, fine, but what countries should be included in this?

It’s the type of thing that’ll be the subject of many diplomatic conversations.

Can I get to the very specific point here? Do you think Israel should contribute to this?

I think we are a long way from the reconstruction of Gaza, and I am not going to make any pronouncements from the podium about who should pay for the reconstruction before we get into what would be a-

I’m not asking if someone should pay for everything, but who should contribute? Would the US willing to contribute?

It’s not something we can speak to because these are conversations that will happen well down the road.

Let me just continue with a couple of questions. Although it was Israel that dropped close to 50,000 tons of bombs on Gaza rendering where it is now. So maybe they ought to pay for it.

In response to a war that Hamas started-

Yeah, that’s okay but-

Maybe Hamas should pay to rebuild Gaza. I mean it’s a complicated question is the point.

Let me ask you about a report in Drop Site and it says that Secretary Blinken approved a policy to bomb aid trucks. That’s what an Israeli cabinet member said. Are you aware this report and do you have any comment on it?

I am aware of the report. I’m glad you asked me about it. Look, the suggestion that we in any way signed off on bombing humanitarian convoys is absurd. It’s just not true. Of course, Israel has the right to target Hamas militants. That has always been the case. And so look, if you had a situation where Hamas commandeered convoy and Hamas militants were operating a convoy, of course Israel would have the right to strike those militants.

(29:11)
That’s not been the situation that we’ve seen over the past year, except in some very limited circumstances. There have been a few reports here and there of Hamas commandeering convoys, in most cases returned quickly to the humanitarian organizations. There’s not been any widespread evidence that we have seen of Hamas actually taking convoys and commandeering them, which is I think, the proposition to this scenario presumes.

(29:40)
So the strikes that Israel has conducted on humanitarian convoys have been times when they have had failures in their deconfliction processes where they have had intelligence failures and when they’ve just made basic mistakes. And the thing that we have made clear about those is that those mistakes are unacceptable and that humanitarian workers need to be protected and humanitarian aid needs to be protected. So the idea that anyone in this department signed off on bombing humanitarian convoys is just absolutely ridiculous.

My final one, the president today issued a statement and he talks about the anniversary. He talks about 1200 Jews were killed, which is the highest number since the Holocaust and so on. But he did not mention the genocide that the Palestinians are subject to. He did not mention the fact that 42,000 people were killed. In fact, a group of American doctors are saying 119,000 have been killed. Is that negligence on his part or is he not showing the kind of sensitivity that he ought to show?

So Saeed, he didn’t use the-

Or empathy?

He didn’t use the terms that you used because we don’t agree with those terms. But if you look at the president’s statement, if you look at the statement from the vice president, if you look at the statement from the secretary, every one of them made clear that the consequences of this war for the Palestinian people have been catastrophic and that’s why we’re ultimately working to end the war.

Thank you.

Hiba?

Yes. The UNIFIL, the United Nations in Lebanon put out a statement on Friday, I think. They said they are deeply concerned by recent activities by the IDF immediately operating from a closed position around them. Did you see that statement?

We did see the statement.

Do you have any comment?

Obviously we don’t want to see UNIFIL forces put in danger in any way. UNIFIL forces play an important role in establishing security in Lebanon and ultimately, we want to see them able to do their job implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Do you still see what’s happening in South Lebanon a limited operation?

We do. Sorry, it was when you were out [inaudible 00:31:52] my answer this question earlier. Yes. At the time, and that is an assessment made today and we’ll make our assessments on an ongoing basis and if and when they change we’ll have a different assessment to offer.

Okay. You have confirmed several times that you are in contact with the Lebanese and you are working behind the scenes. But the prime minister yesterday he had an interview and he said not a US officials reached out to them since he saw Amos Hochstein in New York before the assassination of Hezbollah’s secretary general.

(32:22)
Today even there was a statement by a bloc of opposition asking for the implementation of the Resolution 1701, even 1559. And also some of them went far not from the opposition. One of the Druze leaders, Walid Jumblatt, he asked to go back to the 1949 Druze with Israel. But there’s no US engagement. It’s like you are giving the Israeli time to finish the military operation. Why you are not engaging? And if you are engaging who is engaging with them from this department or from the White House? What are you doing?

So we have had ongoing diplomatic engagements with Lebanese leaders. I can’t give you the who and the time here, but we have had it going on for some time. And I should say just as importantly, we have had a number of diplomatic contacts over the weekend, some of which I mentioned earlier and going back all through last week, with partners in the region who are engaged with the Lebanese government.

(33:24)
But I should make very clear, the solution to the political crisis inside Lebanon is not one that can be or should be dictated by the United States. Those are decisions that Lebanon has to make. And look, we have made clear for some time we want to see the Lebanese Parliament elect a new president. We want to see the Lebanese government break the deadlock that Hezbollah has imposed on it. But these are not the kind of solutions that the United States can come in from the outside and impose.

But the Iranian foreign minister visited there and two days ago. You know in Lebanon the situation, it’s not a domestic situation, it’s a regional situation.

Of course, of course.

And that’s why-

And we had been engaged, I said both with Lebanese actors and with actors in the region, making clear the importance of the ultimate implementation of 1701. Making clear the importance of Lebanon breaking the deadlock that has existed, that has prevented them from electing a president. But at least with respect to that last one, that is a question that Lebanon has to work through. We can offer our support, we can offer assistance, but those are the decisions for the Lebanese to make for themselves. Michel?

Thank you. I have several questions too. You said earlier that we are in early days of this conflict. How long do you expect it to last?

I don’t have any assessments to offer. Obviously we ultimately want to see a diplomatic resolution.

Second, are you planning to keep asking the Israelis to keep the airport open?

We think it’s very important that not only the airport be open, but that the roads to the airport be open so that American citizens who want to leave, they can get out. But also citizens of other countries who want to leave, be able to leave, can get out. So yes, we want to see the airport stay open and we want to see the roads to the airport be open.

And in your readout regarding the call between the secretary and the Saudi foreign minister, you said that they discussed ongoing efforts to fund and support the Lebanese armed forces and the importance of international support for UNIFIL. Are there any specific steps that you are considering to support?

Nothing that I’m ready to announce today, but when I referred to ongoing diplomatic conversations in response to Hiba’s question, that conversation with the Saudi foreign minister about a way forward is very much the type of engagements we’ve been engaged in the last [inaudible 00:35:55] days.

And lastly, do you have any information regarding the IRGC Quds Force commander, Qaani?

I don’t. I’ve seen the reports of his possible demise as well as reports that conflict that information. We don’t have any independent information of our own to offer.

Thank you.

Alex. And then we’ll go to [inaudible 00:36:11].

Some of your line of [inaudible 00:36:11] and others. Going back to last year, both the president and secretary advised Israel not to make a mistake of 9/11, so our response to 9/11. Is it your assessment that this is in fact what Israel has been doing the past year?

Certainly they have made a number of mistakes along the way. There are a number of things that we think that they could have done differently and that they should have done differently. And we’ve offered advice to them at times. But ultimately, they are a sovereign country that has to make its own decisions.

Thank you. On Iran and its proxies, you made clear last week that Iran had not notified you prior to its latest attack. It happens [inaudible 00:36:49] there are reports that it did notify Russia prior to it. Any concern in terms of involvement of Iran’s friends, allies into this war, Russia, China, given their collaboration in other front in Ukraine?

So certainly we see the deepening ties between Iran and Russia as something that’s incredibly destabilizing for the region. It’s incredibly destabilizing for the world and that applies to the Middle East. It applies to everywhere that Iran and Russia operate.

On that line, there are reports that Viktor Bout was released last year as part of a hostage deal is back in business and is apparently a part of a potential arm deal with Houthis. Any reaction [inaudible 00:37:27]?

Yeah, look. So as we made clear when that arrangement was announced and as we’ve made clear at other times when we’ve made arrangements to bring American citizens home, these are always very difficult decisions with trade-offs involved. And we have to make the tough decisions to bring American citizens home.

(37:47)
And what we have decided time and again, is that we’re willing to make those decisions because the safety and security of the American people is our first priority and that’s how we’ve gotten more than 50 wrongfully detained and other Americans returned home over the course of this administration. It’s because we are willing to make those choices.

(38:05)
And I think when you look at the Americans that we have brought home versus the people in Russia’s case, that they have been able to get home, it says something about the type of individuals that our societies value. Now when it comes to Viktor Bout specifically, there are any number of actors that Russia has engaged over years, not just Viktor Bout but others to engage in destabilizing behavior, including making arms available. There has been no shortage of people both inside the government and outside in the government in Russia willing to fulfill that role. And what we do is monitor those very closely take steps to counteract them and ultimately take actions to hold Russia accountable.

I think I have two more on Ukraine and Georgia if you have time to come back to them later.

So are you doing anything in this case?

I don’t have anything to announce.

Do you even know if it’s true?

So I don’t have anything to announce today, but I’ll tell you that we watch these things very closely and you’ve seen us impose any number of sanctions on Russian individuals for engaging in this type of behavior.

Yeah. A lot of them. But you don’t know if this specific report is true that he’s now trying to come up with [inaudible 00:39:09]?

I don’t have anything to speak to.

Okay. And then in response to Michel’s question, you said you want the airport in Beirut to stay open and you want access to the airport. Does that mean that you have complained to the Israelis about this apparent bombing of one of the roads to the airport?

We have made clear to them that we want to see those roads continue to be operational.

Yeah. I’m sorry. So did you say that, hey, you shouldn’t have done that?

I’m not going to speak to that strike. But we may have made clear to them even-

Why not?

Just going back before that specific strike, we have made clear that we want to see those roads to the airport open so American citizens and others can get out.

And how effective do you think that that was?

So we have seen 900-

I just saw pictures of the road in flames.

And we saw around 150 American citizens able to get to the airport today and able to leave.

But you said that there was-

And we have other flights that are planned. Look, it is an ongoing situation, but we want to see the roads open.

All right. Last thing and I’ll stop. In response to, I think it was Hiba’s question about UNIFIL. So what is it that you want UNIFIL to do? Nothing? Just stand there and watch?

So we want to ultimately see UNIFIL fulfill its security role. The question about what they do in the immediate days is a question for UNIFIL to make, not the United States, but we want to see them not be put in harm’s way.

Sure. Yeah, but they’re a peacekeeping force.

Correct. They’re a peacekeeping force there to push Hezbollah back from the border.

So what? Peacekeeping forces don’t go into places like, they don’t go into resort communities and expect there to be nothing except for beach and cocktails.

We don’t want to see them attacked by Israel, we don’t want to see them return fire by Israel. We do not want to see any kind of conflict.

But if they’re not preventing anything from happening, I mean, I guess do you want them to prevent, to keep the peace or do you want them just to sit there and do, and watch?

Ultimately we want to see their role as one that prevents Hezbollah from occupying the space in southern Lebanon that Hezbollah has continued to occupy for years and from where they have launched attacks against Israel, that’s what they were put in there to do. And that’s the role that we want to see them play. What’s happening right now, is Israel is conducting operations to push Hezbollah back. We hope those operations are successful and if they do push them back, we want UNIFIL and the LAF to fill that security vacuum.

So you don’t see UNIFIL as having any role in terms of Israelis going into Lebanon?

Their role is there to Hezbollah back. Now, for a variety of reasons, UNIFIL and the LAF have not been able-

Peacekeeping involves, you’re keeping the peace, not between one side.

I’m aware, but for a variety of reasons, UNIFIL and LAF have not been able to prevent Hezbollah from sitting in those areas just over the border from Israel and

… and launching rocket strikes and other attacks against Israel. So Israel is taking steps.

Okay, but see-

At the end of that, we want to see UNIFIL play that role.

But see, this isn’t an anti-Israel question, and I’m not suggesting that UNIFIL should be taking action against Israel, but they haven’t been able to do it, so why do you think they’re going to be effective now? I mean in terms of Hezbollah.

I’m not going to make any predictions about what will happen. What we have seen is Hezbollah’s forces degraded. I can’t tell you if it’s going to be degraded enough that they’re willing-

Not by UNIFIL.

No, I know. But-

And they haven’t been pushed back by UNIFIL.

Hold on. I’m talking about what’s happened by the last 10 days. I can’t tell you whether they’re going to have been degraded enough that UNIFIL is strong enough to come in and fill that security vacuum. But that is the open question that is being presented by the current operations in Southern Lebanon. Yeah.

[inaudible 00:42:42]

No, go… Sayyid, I’m [inaudible 00:42:44] behind you just because we’re 40 minutes in, I’ve got a lot of other people to get to.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Thank you. In his statement on the anniversary of October 7th today, Secretary Blinken specifically mentioned the names of Americans killed by Hamas, but he did not mention Americans who were killed by Israel since October 7th, like Tawfiq Ajaq, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. Why were these Americans not mentioned in the statement, and does that indicate a different standard for Americans based on who killed them?

No, absolutely not. And if you’ve seen our public statements, we have spoken out forcibly about American citizens who have been killed today or have been killed on both sides of this conflict. The statement the secretary put out today, though, was about the anniversary of October 7th-

But it-

Hold on. And the people that died in the attacks on October 7th, and the American citizens who were taken hostage on October 7th. You have seen us on other occasions speak out, and we will continue to speak out forcefully about other American citizens who die anywhere across the world. But the statement today was about October 7th, and in no way is a statement about the anniversary of October 7th going to cover the entire sweep of this conflict. But we thought it was important on this anniversary of the horrific attacks to memorialize the people who were killed as part of those attacks.

And do you have any update on the investigation into the killing of Aysenur?

It continues to be underway. I don’t have any further update. Yeah.

Thank you Matt. Last week, Iranian-backed groups in Iraq attacked Golan Heights. They killed two IDF members and injured two dozens. This attacks and other attacks have bring Iraq to the brink of this conflict. Have you ever talked to the Iraqi government about these militia groups to stop attacking Israel and making these destabilized actions, and why the Iraqi government so far couldn’t rein these groups?

You should address questions for the Iraqi government to the Iraqi government. I will say that of course, we continue to be concerned about the presence of Iran-backed militias inside Iraq. They continue to destabilize Iraq’s security situation. They continue to risk Iraq being dragged into a conflict that the Iraqi people want nothing to do with. That’s why we’ve designated these organizations as terrorist organizations, just as we have other Iranian-sponsored militia groups such as Hezbollah, such as Hamas. And we continue to talk with the Iraqi government about the importance of preventing attacks from within Iraq’s borders, preventing attacks on US personnel, US interests inside Iraq, and the importance of holding people accountable.

So far Israel has not responded to these groups inside Iraq, but it may one day. So have you ever requested or advised Israel to not attack these groups inside Iraq, in order to prevent the war not spill over to Iraq, and shield the Iraqi territory from that [inaudible 00:45:58]

I’m not going to get into private diplomatic discussions, but we have said before that Iraq deserves the chance to move beyond decades of conflict, and it’s why the presence of these Iranian-backed groups inside Iraq are so troubling, because they ultimately destabilize Iraq and they destabilize the region.

Thank you.

Yeah. Gita.

I’m going to go back to your conversation about US talking to Israel about its retaliation against Iran’s attack. Has the administration even tried to dissuade Israel from retaliating?

We have had a number of conversations with them. You’ve heard us say before, they have a right to respond. This was an attack of 200 ballistic missiles that Iran launched on Israel, and of course they have a right to respond to a state-on-state attack like that. I’m not going to get into the nature of those conversations. You’ve heard the president speak publicly to some of them, but the conversations are ongoing and I’m not going to characterize them further. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. In Bangladesh, this is Durga Puja time, you know. The Hindu community is preparing to celebrate their largest festival, Durga Puja, amid multiple security concern in Bangladesh. Meanwhile, neighboring country India has also placed message to Bangladesh government for ensuring peaceful religious event for the Hindu community in Bangladesh. In this given scenario, do the US government place any communication with Bangladeshi authority to protect the rights of minorities? [inaudible 00:47:43]

Of course we want to see the rights of minorities protected in Bangladesh, as is true all around the world.

Thank you so much. And then what specific measure will the US take in response to the urgent call from French-based human rights organization and human rights watch JMBF regarding the rising incident of mob violence and lynching in Bangladesh? And how will it ensure accountability for human rights violation in Bangladesh in light, also, of the growing concern surrounding the increasing number of legal cases being filed against innocent individual like such a person of Taufiq Rahman from Gopalganj and hundreds of others? How does US government view the protection of human rights in Bangladesh Right now?

I can’t speak to these individual cases that you mentioned-

[inaudible 00:48:39]

… but I can tell you that the secretary met with the prime minister of Bangladesh just two weeks ago at the UN General Assembly in New York-

Chief advisor, you went to meet.

What’s that?

Chief advisor of Bangladesh. Right now we do not have any prime minister.

Correct. Acting Prime Minister, I think his title is.

Yes.

And made clear that we want to see human rights protected, and that ultimately those responsible for violations of the human rights of the Bangladeshi people over the past few months need to be held accountable.

Thank you. Can I ask about China?

Sure.

One last one. The recently concluded Quad summit has used strong language against Chinese aggressive dominance in the South China Sea. What can we expect to see in intense diplomacy to continue their aggression?

We will continue to work with our allies and partners in the region to advance our vision of a free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific.

Thank you so much.

Ali, do you have one? Then Humair, then [inaudible 00:49:34]

[inaudible 00:49:34] quickly.

Yeah.

With the Moscow court sentencing an American to 10 years in prison for allegedly fighting as a mercenary for Ukraine, what’s the State Department’s response to that? Do you think that these charges are legitimate?

We have limited information available about this case because Russia has refused to grant consular access. I’ll say a couple things about the case, though. The individual is 72 years old. He’s been held in prison for two years. He was arrested in Ukraine, not in Russia. Russia should grant consular access to him for the United States, as they should any time they detain an American citizen, and we are looking at the case very closely and considering our next steps.

Do you know why they’re not granting consular access, or are they just refusing?

They’re just refusing. They’re just refusing to do it. We’re disappointed, as we often are, when they refuse to grant consular access. They have an obligation to provide it, and we’re going to continue to press for it.

And one quick question while we’re on-

They just said no?

Yeah.

Or did they give an explanation like, “We don’t think he’s an American citizen,” or, “You don’t deserve consular access”?

If there’s any further information, I don’t have it here. There’s certainly no dispute of his American citizenship.

Okay.

And just one more question on Russia. There were some reports in recent days that North Koreans were reportedly killed on the front lines of the Ukraine war. Did you guys see those reports? Does the US have any assessment as to if North Koreans are fighting for Russia? [inaudible 00:51:03]

Let me take that one back and get you an answer. And then Humair and we’ll wrap for the day.

Just something that you said at the beginning, I think it was a briefing to Kylie. She was asking specifically about potential IHL violations in terms of Israel’s strikes in Lebanon. And you said with respect to Gaza… I mean, she asked about that later, but before you said, you know, a limited number of people available to perform those assessments, especially when you look at the number of incidents that’s been reported in Gaza. So we’ll ask you about these potential IHL violations of Israeli offensive since the beginning of Gaza war. Are you suggesting that US hasn’t been able to conclude these assessments because you’re short of personnel?

No, not in any way. Only that it takes us longer to conclude those assessments because of the number of personnel that we have available to conduct them, and the very high number of incidents that we’re having to look at. If you look at the National Security Memorandum, which we released, I think it was in April, it made clear there that we were looking at a very high number of incidents. And it is an extremely intensive process to look at incidents to try and gather facts and apply those facts versus the law, and we have a lot of them to look at, and Congress doesn’t give us any additional funding to look at those. We of course welcome it. But no, only that we have a lot of incidents, so it takes time to work through all of them.

Right. And in terms of the process we’re talking about, are we talking about an atrocity determination? What kind of process are we talking about?

I’m not going to get into it. We’ve said a number of times, and it remains true, that we have a number of different assessments underway looking at potential individual violations of international humanitarian law. But I’m not going to get into [inaudible 00:52:42]

Do you think you’re going to be able to conclude them either way before the administration hands over to the next administration?

I’ve made this clear before. There have been some that we have concluded already, because you can always… You know how it is, think about any kind of investigative process. You get some incidents, and right away the ones that clearly don’t rise to the level of meriting further investigation, you can close those out and move along, and we have been able to look at a number of things and close those out and move along. That’s been true going back months, and I’ve made that clear before. With respect to the other ones, I can’t give you a timetable other than to say that we want to finish the work as soon as possible.

Are you at all able to say at least how many you haven’t been able to close off and move on?

I’m not. I’m not. And with that, wrap for today. Thanks everyone.