Blinken Holds Press Conference on Israel Conflict

… will determine which path this region is on, with profound consequences for its people, now and possibly for years to come. One is the path of diplomacy. Getting a ceasefire along the border between Israel and Lebanon, one that allows people from both countries to safely return to their homes and allows them to live there in security. Getting a ceasefire in Gaza that brings home the hostages, enables a surge in humanitarian relief to people who so desperately need it, and preserves the possibility of more lasting security in Gaza and in the region.

(00:41)
The other path leads to conflict, more conflict, more violence, more suffering, and greater instability and insecurity, the ripples of which will be felt around the world. The United States has made clear, along with the G7, European Union, partners in the Gulf, so many other regions, that we believe the way forward is through diplomacy, not conflict. The path to diplomacy may seem difficult to see at this moment, but it is there, and in our judgment it is necessary. And we will continue to work intensely with all parties to urge them to choose that course.

(01:24)
I also want to be clear that anyone using this moment to target American personnel, American interests in the region, the United States will take every measure to defend our people. Let me also say a word about Ukraine. This week, we took important steps to support the people of Ukraine as they continue to defend themselves against the ongoing Russian aggression and continue to stand up for their sovereignty and their independence, their right to write their own future. At the Security Council on Tuesday, the overwhelming majority of countries condemned Russia’s brutal war of conquest and called for a just and lasting peace on the basis of the United Nations Charter.

(02:07)
Crucial to that is pressing Iran, North Korea, and China, a permanent member of the council, to stop providing weapons, artillery, machinery, and other support that Putin is using to devastate Ukrainian homes, energy grids, and ports. As we saw this week, support for Ukraine is not just rhetorical, it’s tangible. Dozens of countries came together to pledge to help Ukraine rebuild. The G7 and other partners made additional commitments to strengthen its energy infrastructure in the face of Russia’s ongoing assault, sending more equipment like turbines, portable generators that are crucial to keeping the lights on and keeping Ukrainians warm, heating homes, classrooms, factories, as Russia tries to weaponize the weather as we head into winter.

(02:55)
On Wednesday, President Biden and I met with President Zelenskyy to discuss the ways forward for Ukraine to win this war, a discussion that they continued in Washington on Thursday, yesterday. To help Ukraine’s courageous defenders and citizens, we announced a surge of support, $8 billion in new security assistance, including long-range munitions, an additional Patriot air defense system, and training for more Ukrainian F-16 pilots. Starting with the Quad Leaders’ Summit in Wilmington on Saturday and throughout this week, we’ve also advanced our vision for a free, open, secure, prosperous Indo-Pacific.

(03:32)
President Biden met with Vietnamese General Secretary To Lam to deepen the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between our countries. We’re enhancing cooperation on everything from creating resilient semiconductor supply chains to addressing environmental challenges along the Mekong River. We’ll continue those conversations in a couple of weeks when we get together at the ASEAN Summit in Laos. Along with my counterparts from Japan and South Korea, we took measures to institutionalize our trilateral cooperation, building on the historic Camp David Summit and reaffirming our shared commitment to creating a Trilateral Secretariat to advance this work. Just now, I concluded a candid and substantive meeting with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

(04:13)
We discussed steps to implement the commitments that our leaders made at Woodside last year, like working to disrupt the flow of synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals into the United States, improving communications between our militaries, discussing the risks of artificial intelligence. I emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and raised concerns about the PRC’s dangerous and destabilizing actions in the South China Sea. I also underscored our strong concern with China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base, which fuels Russia’s war machine and perpetuates a war that China purports to want to see ended. Over the course of the week, we also came together with our partners to address many other crucial challenges facing the globe.

(04:58)
We worked towards a cessation of hostilities, unrestricted humanitarian access, and civilian governance in Sudan. We worked to garner additional resources and support for the Multinational Security Support mission in Haiti. We coordinated steps to increase international pressure on the Maduro regime in Venezuela, to stop its widespread repression of the Venezuelan people, to respect their will and their votes as expressed at the ballot box. These tests and so many more underscore the magnitude of the challenges facing the globe but also the imperative of diplomacy. We don’t have the luxury of pulling back. In the coming hours and for every remaining day of this administration, we’ll remain intensely focused on addressing these challenges as we work to make a better world. Thank you.

First question goes to Andrea Mitchell with NBC News.

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Andrea.

Mr. Secretary, a senior Israeli official just briefed the press on today’s operation and why they are still going into Lebanon. The senior official said that there was, their intel told them that there was a plan to encircle Israel and eliminate Israel by 2040, that Sinwar on October 7th jumped the gun, that they have been defending themselves ever since, that they felt, that they feel that Nasrallah was the key, the linchpin, to all of this, and to Hizballah. That after a year they felt that they had to get people back in their homes, that they went after Nasrallah, and in today’s strike were targeting him, clearly. They don’t know what they have achieved.

(06:52)
They still feel that when in the military you have momentum, that you have to keep going, that they will be a lot farther along in their operation if it turns out that this was successful, in their terms, today. But that they still, he said, the official said, still have to keep going, and they are not ready to pause. From your conversations, what is your perspective about whether Israel continuing with this operation and not going in on the ground, which they said is not preferable, but if doing this in what they consider a targeted way is a legitimate response to what they see as an existential threat, or if there is another alternative, a diplomatic alternative?

Andrea, I will let Israel speak to their operations and their objectives. It’s not my place-

But how has it affected the American objectives and the American policy?

Look, we and many others have been clear about what we see to be the best path forward. And the objective that Israel has in the first instance in Lebanon is an important and legitimate one. It’s creating an environment that’s secure enough to enable people to return home, because remember what happened on, starting October 8th. Hizballah started lobbing rockets and missiles into Israel, trying to create another front in the war. And Israel, of course, had to respond to that.

(08:33)
And in the process, tens of thousands of people had to evacuate their homes in northern Israel. Villages and homes were destroyed in southern Lebanon. And so we have large populations, both in Israel and in Lebanon, who’ve been forced from their homes. And it is a legitimate and important objective for Israel to, again, create an environment in which people can get back to their homes. The question is what’s the best way to do that. What is the most effective, sustainable way to do that?

(09:02)
We believe, and many other countries who’ve joined is in putting out a call for a ceasefire for 21 days believe, that the best way to do that is through diplomacy, through a ceasefire, and then reaching an agreement that pulls back forces from the border and gives people the confidence that they can go back to their houses, that the kids can go back to school. So we believe that’s the best path forward. And the Israelis put out a statement earlier today sharing that they share the aims of the call that we put out, again, with the G7, with the EU, with key Arab partners.

(09:40)
So the question is not does Israel have a right to defend itself against terrorism. Of course it does. The question is not does Israel have a right to deal with existential threats to its security and enemies across its borders with the avowed intent to destroy Israel. Of course it does. But the question is what is the best way to achieve its objectives, to reach enduring security. And in this instance, with regard to Lebanon, what’s the best way to achieve the stated objective of creating an environment in northern Israel that gives people confidence to return to their homes? As I said, we believe the diplomatic course is the best one.

For the next question, Hiba Nasr with Asharq.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to ask the question again. Since October 7, you’ve been saying that Israel has the right to defend itself. And you’ve been stating all the time that they have the right to defend their selves against Hizballah and Iranian proxies in the Middle East. So my question. Now you repeated how it does that matter. Can you clarify whether this Israeli approach to targeting Hizballah’s leadership falls under self-defense?

(11:06)
And what’s the US administration clear position on the policy of targeted assassination? And if I may, please, one second question. You’ve emphasized for calm along the northern borders, and you have been working towards this goal for the past 11 months. Now, as we edge closer to a broader conflict, could you specify what do you mean by calm? Are you referring to a return to the pre-October 7 status quo, implying a cessation of hostilities, or the full implementation of Resolution 1701?

(11:44)
Because it does matter for the Lebanese and for the Israeli to understand what are you proposing. And just one final question. We are two weeks away from October 7, Mr. Secretary. What could you have done differently that might have changed the current situation? Thank you.

I appreciate that you managed to get in several questions. So first, on the events of the last hours, we are still gathering information, making sure that we fully understand what happened, what the intent was. And until we have that information, I can’t address in detail our response to it. So we’ll continue to work on that in the hours ahead. With regard to a broader conflict, we’ve said very clearly, you’re right, ever since October 7th, that one of our objectives, besides making sure that Israel does what it needs to do to make sure that October 7th never happens again, besides doing everything we can to try to make sure that people who are caught in this horrible crossfire of Hamas’s making, and who are suffering so terribly, women, men, children in Gaza, that they get the protection that they need and the assistance they need.

(13:06)
Besides that, our objective has been to try to prevent the war from spreading, as well as escalating. And on multiple occasions since October 7th, we seemed to be on the verge of just that happening, including in the days immediately following October 7th, and then again on several other occasions, most notably in April, and even more recently than that. And each and every time the combination of American deterrence and American diplomacy manage to prevent a wider war. We’re intensely focused on doing exactly that now, along with many other countries. Because in our judgment, the judgment of so many others, it’s in no one’s interest to have a wider conflict.

(13:46)
And so we’re working in every possible way to prevent that from happening. Now, in terms of where we think this should go, no, going back simply to October 6th in terms of the border between Lebanon and Israel is not sufficient. Because it’s not simply a matter of having a ceasefire, that is, Hizballah firing into Israel, Israel responding in a tit-for-tat. What’s necessary is to create the conditions, including moving forces back, such that people in both northern Israel and southern Lebanon have the confidence to return home.

It would be important, finally, to make 1701 real, not simply a piece of paper that’s never been effectively implemented. And I remind as well that as part of Israel leaving Lebanon in 2000, after it had been bogged down there for 15 years, as part of that, and through 1701, the understanding was that any of the armed militia would put down their weapons, the state should have a monopoly on the use of force. Hizballah never did that, and it’s presented an ongoing threat to Israel ever since, again, with the avowed goal of eradicating it. So in this instance, the most important thing to do, again, if the objective is to just get people home, get kids back to school in Israel and in Lebanon, the most important thing to do through diplomacy is to try, first, to stop firing in both directions, and then to use the time that we would have in such a ceasefire to see if we can reach a broader diplomatic agreement on this.

(15:35)
I think it would have to proceed in phases, but we have to have conditions on the ground such that people know with confidence that they can be safe in their own homes. And finally, as we come to October 7th and the anniversary of that horror, our focus is not thinking about the past, our focus is intensely on the here and now, and the efforts that we continue to make to get a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that results in a surge of humanitarian assistance to the people in Gaza who desperately need it, and that opens the prospects for enduring peace and stability. That’s where our focus is, that’s where it’s going to remain.

Olivia Gazis with CBS.

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I also have a multi-parter, so with your indulgence.

Yep.

Mediators were in the thick of negotiations in July when Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran. Now there’s the unconfirmed possibility that Hassan Nasrallah has been targeted, possibly killed, just days after the US of course put forward its ceasefire proposal with a coalition of countries. How can the US continue to put its weight and credibility behind these proposals when it can make no assurances that its mediators won’t be targeted and won’t be killed? To put it bluntly, Mr. Secretary, are the ceasefire proposals that you had been efforting in Gaza and in the north now dead? On Iran, to date, Tehran seems to have been deterred through, as you mentioned, US efforts from directly retaliating against Israel and other interests, including after the assassination of Haniyeh, including after the pager operation in Lebanon.

(17:24)
Is the US willing to continue its efforts to deter Iran, especially as some of these operations that the Israelis are engaging in come with little advance notice, if any? And on Ukraine, earlier this month, you and Foreign Secretary Lammy stood in Kyiv and said that you would continue deliberations about long-range weapons capabilities in Russia over the course of the UN General Assembly, engaging with Western allies. The Germans came out this week publicly to voice their opposition to that capability. Is there a clear answer from the US to this request from the Ukrainians, and if not, how much longer do you expect them to wait for a clear answer? Thank you.

Thanks. Olivia, with regard to the ceasefires both in Gaza and in Lebanon, I don’t think the question is one about individuals. The question is one about interests and what is in the interests of the respective parties and getting them to act on those, on those interests. I mentioned a moment ago, in the case of Gaza, the interests of all concerned really should go to bringing this ceasefire agreement across the finish line, what we’ve been working to do now for the last several weeks. It’s manifestly in the interest of Israel, which in Gaza has accomplished the military objectives that it set out, at horrifically high cost for civilians who were caught in the crossfire that Hamas created.

(18:53)
But those military objectives have been achieved, and so getting the hostages home, putting Gaza on a better path, I believe is in their interests. It’s manifestly in the interests of people in Gaza who would get immediate relief from the war, immediate relief in terms of a surge of humanitarian assistance, and a commitment from the international community to help them rebuild their lives. And it should be in the interests of Hamas if, as it says, it represents the interests of those Palestinians in Gaza because the ceasefire would advance those interests. So irrespective of the individuals involved, the interests are clear, and whoever the individuals are, they’ll have to make determinations and decide.

(19:42)
Similarly, when it comes to Lebanon, the same thing. It’s clearly in the interests of the Lebanese people to have peace, to have security, to have stability, to not live under threat, and certainly in their interest to avoid a wider war where the, inevitably the biggest victim of such a war, those who would suffer the most, are the Lebanese people. And so those who purport to represent their interests and have their well-being at heart should find a way to act on those interests irrespective of the, of the individuals involved. And this is what so many of us are working to put forward. We’ve been very clear in not just what we’ve said but also in what we’ve done, including the deployment of significant assets in the region, that we will do our part to deter further conflict, to deter escalation, to deter a widening war.

(20:45)
And there are two sides to that coin, one to avoiding that wider war, one is this deterrence, and we are committed to it. But the other is diplomacy, and as I mentioned before on several occasions since October 7th, we’ve been on what we judged to be the brink of that wider war, and through a combination of deterrence and diplomacy we’ve managed to prevent it. That’s what we’re focused on now. And all parties in the region, I think, including Iran, know that and can see that. And then finally, with regard to Ukraine, I wasn’t there because I was here in New York representing the President and the administration.

(21:22)
So while I got a chance to see President Zelenskyy with President Biden briefly when they were both in New York, the meeting that took place yesterday was one that I wasn’t part of. And I can tell you, though, from the readout that I got from the meeting, that it was not only very good and very positive but, among other things, it resulted in, or we announced at the same time, the provision of significantly more assistance to the Ukrainians, notably security and military assistance, more than $8 billion worth, that will carry us through the end of this administration. In the conversation between the President, President Biden, and President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainians presented their plan for victory. And I’ll let them speak to the details of that, including what’s necessary in their judgment to achieve it.

(22:11)
And we are studying it very carefully, and that includes what, if any, additional things we or other partners of Ukraine would be called on to do in order to help them achieve that success. But the President has been very clear that he’s committed to Ukraine’s success. He’s committed to making sure that they have what they need to effectively defend themselves as well. I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again, every step along the way, we’ve adapted and adjusted to those needs, and I’m convinced we’ll continue to do so.

And for the final question, Mark Magnier with South China Morning Post.

Hi, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much. Brazil and China a couple of hours ago pushed further on this idea of pushing a, sort of mediating with a peace plan. Can I get your reaction to that? Is it a distraction? Is there a useful part of that, particularly in light of Zelenskyy, President Zelenskyy’s opposition to it? Related to that, Ambassador Nick Burns yesterday, I believe, basically signaled that there could be more sanctions on China related to their dual-use assistance to Russia.

(23:24)
Given that at this point we seem to have about 300 sanctions, by some count, against China, and there’s not too much evidence that they have managed to change China’s behavior, what’s the effectiveness of doing, of putting more sanctions on that? Is there a different approach here with allies, perhaps, that can be done to change China’s behavior? And finally, any thoughts on Xi Jinping and President Biden, a meeting, call, something, perhaps on the sidelines of APEC? Thanks a lot.

Thank you. So on peace proposals, peace plans, from our perspective, any proposal, any plan that’s grounded clearly in the principles of the United Nations Charter, notably, territorial integrity, sovereignty, independence, is something that’s worth looking at. So I was very clear at the Security Council a couple of days ago about what we and most other countries see as the basis for a just and lasting peace. A peace in which the aggressor gets everything that it’s sought and the victim does not have its rights upheld is not a recipe for a lasting peace, and certainly not a just one.

(24:47)
But a peace that’s grounded in the charter, that upholds its principles, that is. And so any proposal that’s out there we would judge and evaluate on that basis. On the question of sanctions, look, we’ve been very clear, and we’ve taken action accordingly already, on our concerns about the provision of assistance by Chinese companies to Russia and, notably, to help it build up its defense industrial base. Roughly 70 percent of the machine tools that Russia’s importing, coming from China, Hong Kong. Ninety percent of the microelectronics, from China, Hong Kong.

(25:33)
And this is materially helping the Russians produce the missiles, the rockets, the armored vehicles, the munitions that they need to perpetuate the war, to continue their aggression. So when Beijing says on the one hand that it wants peace, it wants to see an end to the conflict, but on the other hand is allowing its companies to take actions that are actually helping Putin continue the aggression, that doesn’t add up. We’ve taken a number of steps already. I think what you’re hearing again this week is, not just from us but from many other countries, a deep concern about this, and you heard that as well at the Security Council.

(26:17)
So I’m not going to preview any actions we may be taking in the, in the future, but it’s also, I think, important to note that other countries are not only concerned about this, they’re acting on it and will continue to act on it. And I would hope that that message is received loud and clear and that actions follow from any actions that we and others take. Our intent is not to decouple Russia from China. Their relationship is their business. But insofar as that relationship involves providing Russia what it needs to continue this war, that’s a problem and it’s a problem for us and it’s a problem for many other countries, notably in Europe, because right now Russia presents the greatest threat, not just to Ukrainian security, but to European security since the end of the Cold War.

(27:09)
With regard to President Biden and President Xi, I’ve got nothing to share in terms of any schedules, but I can tell you, I can tell you this, when Foreign Minister Wang and I met just a couple of hours ago, we discussed a number of things and we talked about the work that we’re doing to implement the agreements that were reached between the two presidents at Woodside, outside of San Francisco, at the end of last year, including the military-to-military relationship and communications, the flow of, curbing the flow synthetic drugs, the responsible use of AI, et cetera. We also talked about a number of areas where we have real differences, and I alluded to some of those a few moments ago. But we also agreed on the importance of the leaders communicating. And so I fully anticipate that we’ll see that in the week and months ahead. Thank you.

Thank you, all.

(28:02)
[inaudible 00:28:07]