State Department Press Briefing on 9/30/24

He is speaking to other counterparts today, both in person on the sidelines of the de ISIS ministerial that’s happening in our building, as well as by phone, and we’ll have readouts of those conversations as the day goes on. I want to make a few points clear. Number one, we support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism. That includes by bringing brutal terrorists such as Hassan Nasrallah to justice. At the same time, we ultimately want to see a diplomatic resolution to conflict in the Middle East that provides long-term security for the people of Israel, the people of Lebanon, and the Palestinian people, as well as the broader region. And we will continue to work to advance efforts along those fronts. With that, Matt.

Right. Okay. Well just first, can you give us an idea of who he plans to talk to?

He was on the phone when I walked down here with the UK Foreign Minister. He was on the phone with the UK Foreign Minister. We’ll have a readout of that later today as well as others. I don’t have a full list, but he’s doing some of our conversations on the margins of the ministerial today. And then others will be phone calls.

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

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

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

He has been speaking with Israeli officials dating back to last week, and will continue to. Some of those conversations we read out, some we do not.

So he has had… Is it accurate to say that he has had conversations today with Israeli officials?

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

And then, so what is your understanding of what Israel is planning to do or not to do?

So I will let… I’m going to assume you’re referring to the reports.

I don’t want you to tell me what Israel is going to do, I’m asking you what they have told you they are going to do or not do.

So I think you’re… I shouldn’t presume, I’ll answer the question, but I think-

And I apologize for my voice.

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

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

I apologize for bringing it up.

It was not a good evening.

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

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

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

Thank you

Kamir?

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

So I’m going to keep our conversations with the Governor of Israel private. These are conversations that we have had with them going back months where we have been clear about what we believe is the best way to ensure that Israeli citizens can return to their homes and that the citizens of Lebanon can return to their homes. But as I said at the top, there are a few things that are true here. Number one, Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah. If you look at how this conflict across Israel’s northern border started, it was Hezbollah that started launching attacks on Israel on October 8th. And those attacks continued and have continued and are continuing. If you look at what the acting leader of Hezbollah said just today, it’s that their attacks on Israel will continue. So Israel has a right to defend itself against those attacks. So that includes in targeting terrorist infrastructure inside Lebanon. At the same time, we want to ultimately see a diplomatic resolution to this conflict, one that allows citizens on both sides of the border to return to their homes.

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

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

It’s-

Hold on. We of course continue to support a ceasefire, but I think sometimes people either misinterpret or have their own version of what a ceasefire is. A ceasefire is not one side in a conflict unilaterally putting down its arms and stopping the conflict. It is an agreement for both sides to stop the conflict. And in this case, what we have proposed is a 21-day ceasefire where both sides would stop attacking the other and we would reach a diplomatic resolution. And we are going to continue to engage with our Israeli counterparts, with Lebanese counterparts, and with other countries around the world to reach that objective. But at the same time, there are a couple other things that are true as well, which is that number one, military pressure can at times enable diplomacy. Of course, military pressure can also lead to miscalculation, it can lead to unintended consequences. And we’re in conversation with Israel about all these factors now.

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

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

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

We are engaged in diplomatic conversations with all of the relevant parties, parties in the region, our parties around the world, the parties that were on the call that we put out last week for a diplomatic resolution, and we continue to work to reach one. But again, if you look at the statement that we put out with the G7, with the EU, with a number of our important Arab partners last week, it was for a ceasefire, but it was also for a diplomatic resolution that called for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And what that resolution would require is something that Hezbollah has never done and still to this date is not doing, which is to withdraw from the border in a way it was supposed to do years ago. So we will continue to push for a diplomatic resolution, but we should be clear that the burden of that diplomatic resolution falls not just on Israel, but on Hezbollah as well.

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

So first of all, I’d say that there has actually been a power vacuum in Lebanon for some time. And there’s been a power vacuum in Lebanon, largely because Hezbollah has held a veto over the choosing of a new president, and Hezbollah has prevented the convening of the Parliament to choose a new president. So it is a sad statement of reality that there has been a political vacuum that has prevented that country from moving forward with full political governance and an ability to implement UN Security Council 1701 as well as the number of economic reforms that we have called for and other partners have called for for some time. So, I would say I think with respect to the events of the last few days, it is too early to see how those are going to shake out. Certainly, I think it is an unalloyed good for the people of Lebanon and the people of the broader region that Hassan Nasrallah is no longer walking the face of this earth.

(09:46)
He’s someone who, as I said, held Lebanon’s political governance from moving forward. He’s someone who has attacked the civilians of Lebanon over the years. He’s someone who has attacked obviously civilians of Israel. He has attacked American citizens and he’s attacked civilians in Syria. So he is an unalloyed good for the region and the world that he is no longer with us. But where Lebanon will go from here, I think it is far too early to say. Obviously, we want to see the people of Lebanon able to choose their future and not be held hostage to a terrorist organization.

And on the talks last week on the sidelines at the UN General Assembly in New York, was there any… Would you describe it as a miscommunication between the Israelis and the US about a ceasefire being something that they would also want to work towards? Or is that-

So I don’t think I want to characterize it. We put out the statement that we made with our partners, in full coordination with our partners. We, at the same time, were having conversations with the government of Israel and with the government of Lebanon. They obviously weren’t a party to that statement or you would’ve seen their name on it, but it was one that we took in conjunction with our other partners. And ultimately what we saw Israel do, took 24 hours, but ultimately what we saw them do is say that they welcomed our efforts and they shared our aims, which is a long-term diplomatic resolution. Now, what happens between now and getting there, I think it’s too early to say, but that is ultimately what we were going to try to bring about.

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

So with respect to the first question, when it comes to Sinwar, I don’t have any update on his condition at all one way or the other. When it comes to talks though, what the secretary was speaking to is the fact that several weeks ago we were quite public about the fact that we had presented a bridging proposal that tried to get both sides to yes, and there were a number of implementing

Many details that we needed to work out, and we were in a place where we were looking to present a further proposal that would bridge those remaining differences. And what’s happened over the past several weeks is that the mediators that discuss these issues with Hamas, so Qatar and Egypt, have not been able to get them to engage at all. They, Qatar and Egypt, have very much been willing but have had no party at the other end of the line willing to engage substantively at all in these proposals. So the reason you have not seen us put forward this proposal is we can’t get a clear answer from Hamas of what they’re willing to entertain and what they’re not willing to entertain.

(12:41)
So that’s why the secretary made those comments. We are going to continue to try to work it, but it goes back to the point I made about ceasefires in the context of Hezbollah: to get a ceasefire, you need parties on both sides that are willing to discuss the issues with you and ultimately make decisions. It’s not to say that Israel has fully accepted a ceasefire. Obviously, we know they have tough decisions to make, but the issue over the last few weeks has been that Hamas has been unwilling to engage.

And finally, are the Israelis still at the table if that [inaudible 00:13:08]?

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

Okay.

Yeah.

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

Bless you. There are still commercial options that are available. They are limited, of course. We have been in contact with American citizens, we have urged American citizens to fill out the intake form on our website to receive information. We’ve heard from a number of American citizens, and we are working with them to provide them updates about commercial flights that are available. We are working with airlines to address requests by US citizens to depart Lebanon by providing additional flights with seats for personnel purchase, and we’re exploring other options as we always do in these circumstances. But I don’t have anything to announce today.

So wait, wait. So, what was the answer to this question?

I said… It was a full answer about the things that we were doing.

Well, no, no we asked about NEO.

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

All right. And when you talk about how the embassy has worked, and again, excuse my voice. When you talk about commercial options for flights, in the past or back in 2006, a large majority of the people who left under your auspices left on ferries. Is that also?

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

Flights.

-Commercial flights available. We are exploring other potential options should we need to, but it’s not a decision we’ve made as of yet.

Thanks.

Sorry. I said to go, Kyle.

The 21-Day ceasefire proposal, you say, is still on the table. Is that the focus of US diplomatic efforts right now, or are you also pursuing other diplomatic solutions to what we’re seeing between Hezbollah and Israel?

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

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

We have been engaged in ongoing discussions with them about the proposal.

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

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

Is that the case now?

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

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

I’m not going to make an assessment. No. Eva, go ahead.

Netanyahu’s went out and said today that they will not stop attacks; they will continue. But the Lebanese prime minister, he said, “We are ready.” After meeting their speaker, “We are ready to implement the 1701. We are ready to send the army to the borders and elect a new president.” I know there’s a lot of things changing in Lebanon at this moment, but is there a room to avoid a military operation in Lebanon? I mean, what are you asking for? Are you asking now for Hezbollah to go and say, “We withdraw from the border; we will implement the 1701, so you can put pressure on the Israelis?” Do you think there’s room with the Israeli government, this government to stop, to avoid a ground operation?

We always believe that there is space for diplomacy, and we are not going to give up on diplomacy in this instance, as we never do. I will say we, of course, would welcome the full implementation of 1701. We would welcome the Lebanese Armed Forces helping to enforce 1701. We would welcome Hezbollah withdrawing from the border as they said they would do when 1701 was passed and, of course, never have done. So those are all steps that we would welcome. They would all be steps that would be important for deescalating tensions and finding the diplomatic way out of this conflict. And so we’ll engage with Lebanon to see that those steps are implemented. But ultimately, those are things that we have heard promised before that ultimately haven’t proven true. Certainly we would welcome them if they were in this case.

Israeli?

So why have you then been providing the Lebanese Armed Forces with hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, if they haven’t been doing what you want them to do?

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

So you haven’t given up on the LAF either, right?

No, we have not. I’m sorry, were you finished?

So just to follow up on that question, if you are not giving up on the LAF and the Israelis are targeting Hezbollah, but then how they are targeting them also is questionable. But the thing is, regarding the infrastructure and the institutions in Lebanon, is there a kind of warning from the US government that they should not target? For example, the airport, the port, the LAF.

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

One more question. The Israeli Prime Minister also said that he wants to change the face of the Middle East, and he was the Iranian people. So, what do you read in this speech? Because he made this speech before also his operations in Lebanon.

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

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

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

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

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

But it’s just that all those things were true. You know, we’ve seen this, the Hezbollah rocket fight, for many, many months. What we’ve had in the last week or two is the killing of more than 1000 people, according to Lebanese officials, in these Israeli strikes. More than a million people displaced, according to the United Nations. I mean, that’s a huge

… huge game-changing escalation, and last week, you were calling for restraint. So I’m just asking the question about whether or not you think you got restraint or your calls were heeded.

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

[inaudible 00:24:22].

[inaudible 00:24:23].

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

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

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

Can I just pull up quickly on that?

You-

Yeah, Karen.

How worried is this department about the humanitarian impact of one million people leaving Lebanon at this time?

Of course we’re worried about the humanitarian impact. We’re worried about how that can be destabilizing, as we’ve seen before during refugee crises. We are engaged with partners in the region. We’ll continue to be engaged to try to find the best way to deliver humanitarian assistance to those people.

(26:10)
But ultimately the best thing that we can do, and that other countries in the world can do, is find a diplomatic resolution that allows those people to return to their homes. These obviously are not the first people that have had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict. You’ve had somewhere around 60, 70,000 Israeli families. I think I’ve seen estimates somewhere around 40,000 … I should say Israelis, not Israeli families. Somewhere around 40 or 50,000 Lebanese who’ve had to flee from their homes. So this is, unfortunately, a problem we’ve seen since the outset of this conflict, which is why the ultimate way to bring all of those people home is to reach a diplomatic resolution.

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Yeah.

You’ve said that Israel has indicated that the ground operations are limited at this time. That doesn’t preclude a ground invasion. There are experts inside and outside the US government that say, Israel appears poised for a ground invasion. Is that not what you see?

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

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

So let me take a little issue with the way you framed the question. Israel did not attack Hezbollah first. Israel did not attack the Houthis first. In both cases, those were responses by the government of Israel to attacks from terrorist organizations.

(28:33)
So they struck Hezbollah after taking months and months of rocket fire and, last week, missile fire, drone fire from Hezbollah. When it comes to the Houthis, they have been on the receiving end of attacks, including in recent days, from the Houthis that they were responding to.

(28:47)
So they, like every country in the world, have a right to defend themselves from terrorism. Now the way they do it matters, ensuring that they do so in a way that avoids miscalculation and doesn’t needlessly increase tensions. That is the type of thing we will continue to be in conversation with them about. But I think we ought to just be clear about the facts of what happened.

Sure. But I mean you have mentioned that the US has counseled restraint. I mean have you seen any restraint?

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

(29:47)
Now the way they do it matters, the fact that they need to be smart and strategic matters, and we’re going to continue to talk with them about how best to accomplish those goals. But they absolutely have the right to defend themselves against ongoing attacks from terrorism.

Understood-

[inaudible 00:30:02] one bit of clarification here. Are the Houthis currently a designated FTO?

They are not a designated FTO, but they-

[inaudible 00:30:11].

We would-

Well, isn’t it one of the first things this administration did when it came into office to remove the Houthis from your FTO list?

If you recall, we’ve designated them under another designation-

Yes, I know, but they-

… and continue-

But here’s-

… under this other designation to refer to them and treat them as a terrorist organization.

Okay. All right. I just want to make the point-

Yeah, just-

… that they are not an FTO at the moment.

[inaudible 00:30:36].

Sorry.

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

So this is not a US definition. This is what they have informed us that they’re currently conducting, which are limited operations targeting Hezbollah infrastructure near the border. I will let them speak for themselves about what the operations actually are.

And-

Sorry. These are limited round operations.

That is our understanding. But, again, they should speak to that, not us. Yeah.

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

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

And have they given you any timeline [inaudible 00:31:40]?

I’m not aware of any time. It’s possible they’ve given it to other officials, but I’m not aware of one. No.

One more on this. 103 US Congress members have sent … They said they sent a letter to Secretary Blinken and President Biden and the Justice Department calling for an independent investigation into the killing of Aysenur. Can you confirm if you received this letter and do you have any response to them?

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

Just I want to follow up-

Yeah, yeah.

… on the limited ground operation. You don’t want to define it, but what you are against? I mean are you against the Israelis staying in South Lebanon? Are you against another occupation? I know you don’t want to define the limited operation.

We want to see a diplomatic resolution, period. I’m going to leave it at that. Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. [inaudible 00:32:40] to Ukraine, if I may. You guys put out a joint statement on Ukraine, Russia’s annexation of a portion of Ukrainian regions. Some of them, Zaporizhzhia, was under constant attack, hail attack on the region. I’ll give you a chance to expand on that. [inaudible 00:32:56] that Ukraine actually could be able to prevent those weekend attacks if it had permission to strike back.

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

(33:32)
So Ukraine does have an enormous amount of material to defend itself. We always look at whether there are additional tools that we can provide them. If you notice the announcement that the president made on Thursday, we’re providing them with additional $8 billion in security assistance, and we’ll continue to support them.

If you’re okay with Ukraine’s striking back, then why not let them strike back with your weapons?

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

I’m following last week’s-

Let me [inaudible 00:34:30].

Just a follow up, Matt, [inaudible 10:32-.

Let me … [inaudible 00:34:32], go ahead.

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

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

Well, was that the case with Rafah, for instance? Not just Rafah, but [inaudible 00:35:31].

Hold on. We’ve never wanted to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas.

Well, okay. Well, what about the ceasefire?

We wanted to see a ceasefire-

[inaudible 00:35:38].

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

Okay. But so, for instance, other UN satellite image shows that 66% of Gaza structures have been damaged. You earlier today said that

The US supports the targeting of terrorist infrastructure, not civilian infrastructure. Does the US believe 66% of Gaza’s buildings are terrorist infrastructure?

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

(36:29)
Look, you can talk about Israel and the culpability that Israel has and the tough decisions that Israel needs to make, and it’s absolutely true that Israel needs to make tough decisions to get to a ceasefire. But the way out of this conflict is a ceasefire and it is Hamas that is missing in action right now, that won’t come to the table to talk about one.

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

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

One final thing, I’m sorry.

Yeah. One more.

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

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

[inaudible 00:37:48] you said the Palestinian Authority, one of the defects or shortcomings is the PA doesn’t have control over Gaza. Do you think that the PA has effective governing control over the West Bank?

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

Some of it.

Yeah, some of it.

Which parts?

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

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

We do not.

And sometimes we don’t see a Hezbollah member in that building after it was hit by an airstrike.

We don’t want to see a single civilian casualty in Lebanon.

But we are seeing it.

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

[inaudible 00:39:06] last week.

I know, but it’s important to understand why Israel is defending itself against these attacks. It’s because Hezbollah started a war, started a conflict with Israel on October 8th. Had nothing to do with Gaza. Nothing at all to do with Gaza. They started the conflict and Israel has a right to defend itself against that terrorism.

(39:22)
Now, that doesn’t mean that every civilian death isn’t a tragedy. Of course it is, and Israel needs to do everything possible to minimize civilian casualties. But the reason why this conflict-

[inaudible 00:39:33].

Before you interrupt, just let me finish. The reason why this conflict is happening in the first place is because for 12 months, Hezbollah has been attacking Israel. 12 months. And has been unwilling to cease those attacks. And that’s why Israel’s defending itself.

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

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

(40:22)
Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you very much, Matt. In Pakistan, this donut shop has become very popular, by the name of Crusteez, because its employee had called the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that, “Shame on you.” My question is, do you hear these things? I mean, spokesperson, you see globally. Do you see countries where the chief justices are called, “Shame on you”?

I am not fully tracking the latest donut shop news from Pakistan, I will admit.

But you are in Northern Virginia.

Not tracking Northern Virginia-

And Capitol Hill.

I’m not tracking Northern Virginia donut news either, but I’m happy to be educated. I love donuts, so… Sour cream donuts especially, if anyone wants to bring them to the briefing room.

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

So I wasn’t aware of that statement until you brought it to my attention. I’d want to see it in its full context before I commented. Let me go, because we’re running out of time, let me go to your colleague.

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

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

Thank you so much. And there are reports of violence involving the use of armed forces against worker in Ashulia area near Dhaka. These casualties reported also. Given reference in 2014, chairman of US State Committee on Foreign Relation, Robert Menendez, said on the first anniversary of the Rana Plaza tragedy that western countries would not buy clothes that are stained with the blood of Bangladeshi workers. Given the US a longstanding advocacy for labor rights and peaceful protest, does the State Department have any comments and concern regarding this?

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

Last question on press on Bangladesh. Several prominent journalists in Bangladesh, including Shakil Ahmed, Farzana Rupa, Muzammil Babu, Shyamal Datta, and Mahmudur Rahman are reportedly being held in custody without bail. Given the importance of press freedom as a pillar of democracy, does the State Department have any concern on comments regarding the current situation in Bangladesh?

We want to see press freedoms upheld in Bangladesh and of course across the world. In the back.

Thank you.

In Asia, did you get an answer to the question I posed to you earlier?

No, I’ll have to follow up with you on that.

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

I’ve seen reports of that strike. I don’t have any further information about it, so I wouldn’t want to comment in detail. But as I said earlier, of course we do not want to see any civilian targets, any civilian infrastructure targeted in any way. Let me go to Nick and then we’ll wrap.

There’s reporting the US will not seek another term on the UN Human Rights Council. Is that accurate? And if so, why?

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