State Department Briefing 11/13/23 Transcript

Good afternoon everyone. Mic seems a little odd today. Humira, you want to start us off?

Yeah, sure. Welcome back Matt.

(00:29)
I just want to ask about some of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments from last week. I’m aware that they’ve evolved and Secretary has also laid out a vision on what Washington thinks about the future of Gaza. But where we are, it does look like there is a disagreement with Netanyahu and US on the future of Gaza. US doesn’t want any reoccupation. And while Netanyahu has clarified some of his comments and has made different comments, it does sound like Israel does want a security force, and with an indefinite period of time. So I’m just wondering what the US thinking on that is. How are you negotiating with the Israelis on that and how is that going?

So I will say that yes, as a first item, he has clarified some of his remarks, but you’re right, he has made comments that are different from the vision that Secretary Blinken laid out, both when we were in the region and then in a speech that he gave in Tokyo last week. Let me just reiterate, I know you know them, but just for the record, the principles that the Secretary laid out, which is that number one, at the end of this conflict, there can be no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. It can’t happen now while the conflict’s happening; it can’t happen at the end of the conflict.

(01:50)
Number two, there can be no continued use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism or other violent attacks as we saw it used on October 7th. Number three, no reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict. And number four, no reduction in the territory of Gaza.

(02:05)
Those are the principles that we believe in. And when we start to have conversations with people in the region about what the future of Gaza looks like, those are the principles we’re going to lay out that we want to see adhered to.

(02:17)
And I would add to that, central in the question of what happens in Gaza must be Palestinian voices who have a right to have a voice in their own future. So we will keep making that clear. We’ll make that clear directly in conversations with the Prime Minister Netanyahu and other leaders of the government of Israel as we have publicly.

And you just said no forcible displacement, but we are seeing people from North Gaza moving to South Gaza because of… What kind of assurance, if any, is the United States getting from Israelis that those people will be able to move back?

So they have said publicly that they expect those people to be able to move back at the end of the conflict. When we say no forcible displacement, there is a difference between people moving out of harm’s way, which we fully support. We want to see people move out of harm’s way so they avoid being harmed by Israel’s military campaign, move out of harm’s way inside Gaza and being forcibly expelled from Gaza, which we very much oppose. So Israel has said publicly, they expect people to be able to return to their homes, to return to their neighborhoods at the end of the conflict.

Can I quickly go to hostages? There has been different reports about different kinds of proposals. To the extent that you can share, what is the latest, do you have some sort of renewed optimism that there could be some progress on that this week perhaps?

So on the first question, I’m going to stick to the rule that I’ve adhered to and that Secretary Blinken is adhered to pretty rigorously, which is we’re not going to talk at all about either the substance or the status of negotiations to secure the release of hostages, including the American citizens who we know remain held hostage.

(04:01)
It continues to be a top priority for us. Secretary Blinken had a call with his Qatari counterpart over the weekend about this. There are others in the government engaged on this, including of course the President himself. So in terms of the prospects, it continues to be a top priority. But again, we are dealing with a brutal, violent terrorist organization who’s holding them hostage. And I don’t think I want to put any kind of a percentage on assessing what they may or may not do.

When you talk about there’s no forcible displacement, is that what you’re saying?

Yeah, from Gaza, from Gaza. Again, I just made the point. We understand that [inaudible 00:04:38]-

So the Israeli is saying basically leave the north and go to the south, or you’re basically probably going to get killed. That is no forcible displacement from Gaza. You’re talking about out of-

I’m talking about outside… From Gaza out to Egypt or another third country, yes.

Okay. So you’re okay with all of the hundreds of thousands of people who are in the north of Gaza all being-

I would say we support-

Pushed down into the south.

… people inside Gaza being moved out of harm’s way, absolutely.

Okay. And then when this is over, you say they’re going to get to return?

Israel has said that publicly.

Yeah, to what? You said to their homes and to their neighborhoods.

So I will say that-

Do those homes and neighborhoods still exist?

You saw this, and I know you did see because you were there, if you saw what the Secretary said when we were in Tokyo, he said, “There must be a sustained mechanism for reconstruction in Gaza.” Obviously a lot of those homes have been destroyed, and there has to be a mechanism to rebuild Gaza, including those neighborhoods and those homes that have been destroyed so people can return to where they lived.

Yeah, but saying, “Oh, well once this is all over, you can go back home.” But there isn’t anything that’s going to be left for them to go back to.

Yeah, obviously Gaza is the location of an intense military campaign. When it’s over, we want to see reconstruction of Gaza.

All right, paid for by…?

We will have conversations with partners in the region about that very question. I think it’s a little too early to say. We’re in the middle of the conflict right now. We’re just having [inaudible 00:06:14] start having conversations.

Fair enough, but it is not just as easy as saying, “Oh, okay, well you’re being told to move south for your own protection, but after that threat is over, then you can go back,” when you have nothing to go back to and no one is going to be stepping up to pay for reconstruction.

Nothing about this process, [inaudible 00:06:33] none of the issues in this process are easy. And I did not say they were easy. All of this is difficult. Every one of these principles we laid out will be the subject of intense diplomacy, and none of… I think everyone that’s been paying attention to the issues we’ve been grappling with and that Israel’s been grappling with and that countries in the region are grappling with, no one would tell you that any of these are anything but very, very difficult.

Yeah, last one for me. On the hospital, do you have any thoughts about what’s going on there?

Let me say a few things. Number one, you heard Jake Sullivan on TV yesterday say that we don’t want to see hospitals be the subject of crossfire. We want to see the civilians who are sheltering in hospitals, the civilians who are being treated in hospitals, including babies in hospitals, be protected. Hospitals are legitimate civilian infrastructure. They should be protected.

(07:27)
At the same time, I would say Hamas continues to use hospitals as locations for its command posts. We talk about difficult issues, this is a very difficult issue. We don’t want to see civilians caught in the crossfire. We would love to see Hamas vacate the hospitals that it’s using command posts immediately. We would love to see all the people that are calling for Israel to take steps to protect hospitals, call for Hamas to vacate the hospitals and stop using civilians as human shields.

(07:54)
We would love to see Hamas take some of the fuel reserves it’s sitting on and use that to supply hospitals in Northern Gaza. We would love to see Hamas have taken the fuel that Israel offered it yesterday that they declined for use at Al-Shifa Hospital. So it’s a very difficult situation. And I would say as a principal, I’ll just restate what I said at the top, is we do not want to see civilians caught in the crossfire.

Okay. But you say you would love to see everyone call for Hamas to vacate the hospitals, to get rid of all their fighters there, but if they don’t, you’re okay with attacks on the hospitals?

I did not say that. I did not say that.

I’m [inaudible 00:08:36] not saying you did. I’m asking you, I’m asking you.

So I am, as we have done all throughout this process, going to decline to comment on specific places always because there is a bit-

All right, just talk about hospitals in general.

Hospitals in general, we do not want to see hospitals attacked. We want to see hospitals protected.

But if A doesn’t remove their people from the hospitals-

Again, they’re-

… where they are, where you just said they are, then it’s okay for them to be attacked?

I’m not going to give a general answer on this because there are so many variables. Are there still wounded? Are there still civilians in those hospitals? Have they been evacuated? There are a number of things you have to consider when you’re going to answer that type of question, which is why we, from thousands of miles away, decline to pass judgment or give a definitive answer about something where we don’t have perfect information about what’s happening on the ground.

Can I follow up on this one please?

[inaudible 00:09:27] Matt are you? Yeah, go ahead.

Now, you speak with certainty that Hamas is using Al-Shifa hospital as a-

I did not speak to Al-Shifa-

You spoke with certainty.

… I said hospitals, just to be clear Syed.

I want to ask you about the Shifa hospital. You know for certain, the United States of America, the intelligence community knows for certain that Hamas is using that as a command post.

So I am going to use my own words because you just misstated what I said.

I’m not misstating.

No, you did. [inaudible 00:09:59]

Let me be clear what I said, I’m not going to comment on any specific hospital. To do so would require me to get into intelligence matters, which I’m not going to do from the podium. I will say, as a general matter, yes, we do know that Hamas uses hospitals, and there is plenty of public reporting about this, you can read about it in the press, using hospitals as command centers.

Let me rephrase my question. Does the United States have any evidence that Hamas is using this particular hospital or the other hospital as a command post? Do you have evidence?

With respect to a general matter, I will say yes, we do.

You have it?

With respect to a specific hospital, I’m not going to get into intelligence matters.

But all the hospitals are completely out of service right now, so if you indulge me to a few more questions on this particular issue.

[inaudible 00:10:49].

On this very issue. There are Norwegian doctors that served in that hospital that came out and said, European doctors and say, “This is nonsense. There’s no command posts.” And so on. Why don’t you send in a commission or the Red Cross or ask anyone to go and see, because that’s what they said, “Come and see it. Come and see it and see if it’s being used as a command post.” Why don’t you do that? That would…

So I would just say, we feel fairly confident in the judgment we’ve passed. We would welcome truly independent observers going. I think that’s a little unrealistic to ask for in the middle of a conflict, Said.

They are willing. The Red Cross said they are willing to do that.

We have seen Hamas at times break its agreements that it’s had with the Red Cross and other [inaudible 00:11:37]. I think it’s a little bit much to ask for someone to go make an assessment like that.

Okay. Now we talk about the fuel. You’re saying that Israel offered Gaza or offered the hospital something like 200, 300 liters of fuel and they requested that somebody would come in the middle of the night and pick it up at 2:00 in the morning and so on. They said, “Do it through the Red Cross, do it through the agencies.” Why wouldn’t they do that? Why must they have Hamas people go and pick it up in the middle of the night at two o’clock in the morning? Isn’t that a bit cynical?

I don’t think so. I’m not going to… First of all, the idea would not be that Hamas people would come pick it up.

Well, whatever. The official-

Hold on. Hold on. Sorry. Just let me finish my answers. That people from the hospital would come and pick it up. I would say that they should have accepted the offer. I will let Israel speak to the exact specifics of it. But if they need fuel, which they clearly do, they should have taken the offer from the governor of Israel. But to the larger point, Hamas is sitting on fuel reserves in northern Gaza. Hamas is using fuel reserves to ventilate its tunnels. If Hamas truly cared for the people in Al Shifa and in other hospitals in the north, it could take the fuel that it’s using to protect its fighters and send it to the hospitals so the hospitals could protect patients. They are not doing that.

And so you think that by this continued assault and so on that Israel will achieve its goal of let’s say providing care for those who need it and at the same time disarm the hospital? What is the end? What is the vision as far as the hospital is concerned?

I’m going to let Israel speak to its exact campaign. I’ll speak to US principles. They can speak to their campaign.

Since we don’t know what happened after Friday, after Saturday because the Shifa Hospital quit counting. They don’t have the means to do it anymore. But until then, there were about 11,400 Palestinians who have died. That’s about one in 200. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, fathers, babies. Every 10 minutes we have a child killed in Gaza, so what is the end game? How do you see this thing ending or must this slaughter go on?

Said, let me start by just reminding you what the Secretary said on Friday, which is that far too many Palestinian civilians have been killed as a part of this conflict. We want to see the government of Israel take steps to minimize civilian harm. We would love to see Hamas stop using civilians as human shields, which they very cynically do. They’re the ones that continue to put civilians in harm’s way. They obviously have shown no sign of changing that longstanding abhorrent practice of theirs. And we want to continue to get civilians out of harm’s way into places where they can be safe from harm. And we want to continue to get them humanitarian assistance. If you were paying attention to the Secretary’s trips around the region, as was true about his first trip to Israel and other countries in the region, that has been our primary focus from top to bottom. And let me get… Last question and then we-

My last one please. When the Secretary says, “Far too many Palestinians have died.” Does that mean enough is enough by now? Is that the end?

It means exactly what it says, which-

Far too many?

It means that far too many have died. We want to see fewer civilian casualties. We want to see the government of Israel take steps to minimize civilian casualties. And we have direct conversations with them all the time about that. And we want to do all these other things I just talked about to get civilians out of harm’s way and get them the humanitarian assistance they need. Let me-

But without a cease fire, more will die [inaudible 00:15:10].

Because it’s been a few, let me go to someone else.

Thanks, Matt. Just to pick up on where we left off, is it your understanding that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties? Is it your assessment?

It is. It’s our understanding that they do attempt to minimize civilian casualties. They’ve talked about that publicly. We think there are additional steps that they can take. The Secretary communicated that to them very clearly when he was in Israel and we’ve had continued ongoing conversations with them about that.

If hospitals are indeed sanctuaries for Hamas, which is [inaudible 00:15:37] it is, is there any active discussion over creating field hospitals and potentially US involvement in it?

Not US involvement inside Gaza, but yes, there has been conversations with our allies and partners about setting up additional field hospitals. There’s been conversations about setting up additional facilities where people either in southern Gaza or people who have moved to southern Gaza from the north can seek medical care. As I think you probably know, there are wounded Palestinians from northern Gaza who have been evacuated and left through Rafah Gate to seek medical care. So yes, that is something we continue to work on.

Thank you. Please come back to more on Ukraine and Russia [inaudible 00:16:14].

Can I just ask one more on this hospital issue? Given what you just said, what Jake Sullivan has said and what the Secretary said about there’s far too many Palestinians killed, we’ve asked you this question in previous weeks, but in light of all of these new developments and the targeting of the hospitals, is there any intent at this department or the administration to take a look at in a formal way, whether Israel has followed the rules of war?

Again, we are monitoring the situation very closely as we always monitor conflicts, but I’m not going to provide any update on internal deliberations.

I should not be interpreting that, the internal deliberation part, as there is an internal deliberation on this?

You should interpret it exactly the same way you should have interpreted it two weeks ago when I gave the same answer-

So you’re saying there is-

Which is, I’m not going to comment on internal deliberations.

But you’re saying there is no change in the thinking in light of the recent developments in Gaza?

I’m saying what I just said, not what you were claiming I said. I will use my own words and what I said is, we’re monitoring, of course. We monitor this situation as we monitor any conflict, but in terms of our internal decision-making process, internal deliberations, I’m not going to speak to this.

You understand why I’m asking this, right? Because you’re saying there are additional steps that they can take, but they don’t seem to be taking them right now and all of this is unfolding with the hospitals. So I’m wondering if there’s any change in the administration’s thinking on this.

I’m just not going to talk about internal matters. Go ahead [inaudible 00:17:50].

So I have a couple of questions, Matt. First are you on the same page with Israel regarding how to deal with Hezbollah? Did you ask or did the administration ask the Israeli government not to escalate the situation with Hezbollah and drag the US to a new war or broader war?

So I’m not going to get into internal conversations with the government of Israel. I will say that you have heard us say publicly a number of times, one of our primary objectives is to keep this conflict from widening and that means to keep it from widening both in terms of preventing additional conflict in the north of Israel with Hezbollah and to prevent conflict widening to other countries in the region.

Are you aware of the reports that Israel targeted journalists in south Lebanon today? And do you have any comment on that?

I’m not aware of those reports today. If it just came in the last bit while I was coming out here, I haven’t seen it.

And finally, in the supplemental package request, the OMB stated that the crisis in Gaza could result in displacement across borders and higher regional humanitarian needs and funding may be used to meet evolving programming requirements outside of Gaza and including Israel, West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. What does the administration mean by that?

So I think you should take into it that we are doing prudent planning as we always do in these situations. It’s not a prediction about what might happen or what will happen in the future. As I said a moment ago, we’ve made very clear that Palestinians should not be displaced from Gaza. But as part of our planning, we’re planning for any number of scenarios. We want to keep this conflict from widening, but we have to be prudent and plan for any potential humanitarian scenarios should they emerge.

Matt, staying on the supplemental, is it correct that the supplemental… And this came out I guess while we were gone… But removes all congressional oversight from arms transfers to Israel? Is that correct?

No, that’s not exactly correct.

Not exactly correct.

That proposed waiver that’s in the supplemental makes zero changes to how arms sales would be notified to Congress and made public. The notification of sales, whether it’s through government to government foreign military

Terry Sales, FMS, or licensed commercial sales would be the same under the supplemental as they have been for decades. What this provision, I think you’re asking about, would do would be to allow us to waive the congressional notification requirement for supplemental foreign assistance funds not for armed sales.

So foreign assistance like ESF?

I don’t know the exact program. I’d have to look into that.

Economic support funds.

Yeah, maybe. I’d have to look for it and get back-

But not for FMF, not for foreign military financing or FMS for military sales.

I would have to dive into it and get back to you. I think the story from my understanding conflated funding notifications and arm sales notification. But beyond any details I’ll have to gauge after.

My last one is when you talked about the hospitals and Hamas using them to operate, you said that you were fairly confident of that assessment. Fairly confident.

We are very confident of that assessment.

Very?

Confident.

Not fairly.

Confident. I’m-

Well, I just want to know what the standard here is.

We are confident.

Okay. So if you’re confident that that’s the case, then you presumably then don’t have any issue with Israel, if they give people ample warning to leave.

It is a very complicated question. Not everyone who’s in a hospital can leave. There are questions of whether ambulances can get there and transport them out. It is what makes this issue so difficult and why I’m declining to pronounce specific factual judgements on difficult situations when facts are evolving all the time.

Right, but then you put yourself in the position or you leave yourself open to never having a position on it at all.

We’ve made clear what our overall position is. Again, we lay out our general principles, but I’m thousands of miles away from Israel right now. We get conflicting information. We get conflicting information in press reports. You get conflicting information from people on the ground. It is difficult to pass a definitive judgment about what has happened, what should happen. So I’ll decline to do that other than going beyond what our principles are regarding civilian protections. Go ahead.

Thank you. Just wanted to quickly follow up on the civilian casualties and I will have one more. You said you have been calling on Israel for quite a long time to minimize harm to civilians, but I just wanted to make sure, do you really think that Israel is doing everything it can to minimize harm to civilians and what are the other steps that Israel can take?

We do, as I said, think there are additional steps that they can take, what those additional steps are, we’ve had very direct conversations with them about that, but I will keep those conversations private.

Okay. One more please. During the Islamic Summit in Saudi Arabia this weekend, Turkish President Erdogan said that the Israeli minister’s remarks about a nuclear strike on Gaza revealed the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons and called on an international investigation on that. What is the US position on this call for an international investigation? And is the US aware of any potential nuclear weapons owned by Israel?

I don’t have any comment on an investigation or the underlying question. I will say that the remarks by that minister were completely unacceptable and we are glad they were immediately repudiated by the Prime Minister.

But you don’t support any investigation on that.

I’m just not going to comment on that at all.

Okay, thanks so much. There’s a internal dissent memo that’s saying the administration spreading misinformation. I know you won’t comment on the actual memo.

Correct.

But you have protesters out here on Thursday yelling, “Shame,” at employees as they walk out the building saying, “Quit your job.” How is morale inside this building and how is it affected by all of the kind of noise around it?

I would say that the State Department, like every organization, not just in government but around the world, contains people with a diversity of views. And one of the things that we think is one of our strengths, you’ve heard me talk to this before, you’ve heard Vidant talk to this last week, I think you’ve heard the secretary talk to this at times. One of our strengths as an organization is that we have that diversity of views and that we welcome people to make those views known. The secretary has met with a number of people from all ranks of the department, from different bureaus in the department to hear exactly what they think about our policy, both with respect to Israel and its conflict with Hamas and with respect to other matters including very controversial matters. And he encourages people to provide feedback. He encourages people to speak up if they disagree.

(24:52)
It doesn’t mean that we’re going to change our policy based on their disagreements. He’s going to take their recommendations and make ultimately what he thinks is the best judgment and make his recommendations to the President about what we ought to do. So I would just say that it goes to this question of morale, we see the diversity of opinions as a source of strength of this department, not as a source of weakness.

Mr. Miller, my name is Jacob Milton. I’m working for weekly Bangladeshi and a publication called We Are the People and Greek TV. As you know that Bangladesh and DACA is another hot place like Gaza. It’ll become a Gaza strip very soon if free and fair election is not going to take place. Bangladesh is a sovereign country where 90 to 95% of the people are in favor of democracy and free, fair, participatory and inclusive election. Citizens of Bangladesh become very optimistic once America starts playing a role concerning human rights and democratic process. All major political parties except all [inaudible 00:26:02] working with his Excellency, Peter Haas and other diplomats from other nations. Why must the US government discuss the Bangladesh issue with India? Does it not indicate that our country has already been sold to India by the current regime of Bangladesh? Does the US needs India’s concurrence do anything in Bangladesh?

Let me just say what I have said many times, which is we support free and fair elections in Bangladesh. We think the future of the Bangladeshi government should be determined by its people. Full stop.

I have one follow up please.

You asked three in one there. I’m going to go ahead.

Thank you, Matt. Assistant secretary Donald Liu has sent a letter with [inaudible 00:26:44] for dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition. But how can there be any dialogue when most of the opposition political leaders are in prison? And I’m wondering who received letter from the opposition as government cracked down opposition in going on and government workers been killed at least five. So what is your comment? How can be a dialogue in this scenario?

So again, I welcome the attempts by various reporters to draw me into internal Bangladeshi political matters and I’m going to continue to refrain from doing so. The United States does not take a side in Bangladeshi elections. We do not support one political party over the other. We support free and fair elections, period.

One follow up.

I’m good.

Okay. I wonder, sir, how can Palestinian accept the offer of full Israeli offer for them? The patient who left the hospitals, targeted and killed by Israeli soldiers, and as well Red Cross they said declared it’s very difficult to them to do their duty and also honor, they lost 99 of their employee. So it’s difficult to accept this offer as well. My question-

Let me just say something first. So I think your question goes to what I was saying.

No I have the question.

No, sorry. The point you just made and I will definitely come back to your question. The point you just made I think gets to the difficulty I was speaking to a minute ago about finding definitive judgements when facts are so hard to ascertain. You mentioned reports that the Israelis were firing on people near the hospital or relief workers. There are reports that Hamas fighters are firing on Israeli soldiers from inside the hospital.

You mean the civilians.

So my point being, that in such a difficult situation, it’s why I’m declining to pass judgment. But I would say in general, if it is so important for this hospital to have fuel, which it obviously is, I would hope that they would take the government of Israel up on its offer to provide fuel as well as of course, as I said earlier, that Hamas would just start turning over some of its own. Now go ahead with your question.

My question, is Israel planning to build the buffer zone, the north part of Gaza and Gaza cities? Reports talk about that, that Israel is planning to build buffer zone in the northern part of Gaza. So are you ensure or guarantee civilian people who left their homes in Gaza, northern part of Gaza and Gaza City, after the war is end, they will go back to their homes. Are you guarantee that?

So what I can guarantee is what United States policy is. And what United States policy is that there should be no reduction in the territory of Gaza. And that’s a matter that we will continue to make clear to the governor of Israel and to other partners in the region as we start to have these conversations about the future of Gaza.

Thanks Matt. I know you won’t comment on the reported cable or memo or the many reported cable

… And memos of dissent. But is the secretary aware of dissent, particularly on this issue? And would you say that this issue has drawn dissent like perhaps others haven’t in his tenure here?

So I’m not going to characterize this issue versus other issues. There are, of course, a number of controversial issues that we deal with. And at any time, on a big controversial issue, of course not everyone in the department agrees with the given policy that we decide to pursue at any one point. So comparing this issue to others, I don’t think I’m able to do. I will say, as I said before, that this is a difficult issue, where people have very strong feelings, for very good reasons. That is not true just at the State Department. You look at the protests that have happened around the country, the protests that are going to happen in Washington this week. You look at the very strong feelings that this issue has aroused in the United States and around the world. Of course, that extends to inside the State Department, where people have very strong opinions.

(31:07)
I’ll just reiterate that the Secretary wants to hear from those employees. He wants to hear what their opinions are. I won’t comment on any dissent memos, but he has spoken in the past about how he welcomes the dissent channel and thinks it’s a very valuable channel and that he likes to get feedback through it and he hopes that people will use it and he hopes that it continues to be protected. One of the reasons we generally don’t talk about it is we want people to feel that they can use that channel confidentially without fear that, somehow, their participation in that channel would be used against them, with respect to employment or promotion decisions down the road. It’s a channel that the Secretary finds very valuable, as he finds valuable his meetings with employees, as I said, at all ranks, to talk about their opinions on this issue and many others.

But beyond the channel, has he, on this issue, spoken to employees or diplomats or anybody at State who have raised disagreements with how the US is conducting foreign policy on this issue?

Of course he has. He’s talked with people inside the building who very much support the policies that we have undertaken, as well as people that disagree. And what he does in those meetings is explain how he came to the decisions that he’s come to, explains our conversations with the Government of Israel, outlines our entire policy, which is not just support for Israel’s right to continue to hold accountable the terrorists that attacked it on October 7th and have continued to attack it, but also, all of our work to protect civilians and to get humanitarian assistance to civilians, our work calling for humanitarian pauses.

(32:36)
I think one of the things he makes clear anytime he has a conversation about these issues is it is the United States of America, not any other country, that was able to secure an agreement to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. It was the United States of America that was able to secure an agreement to get humanitarian pauses, so people could move through these humanitarian quarters that have now been set up from north to south. So he will continue to make that clear. In all of his conversations.

Has it changed his decision making at all?

I’m not going to speak to impact on his decision making, but he is someone who wants to have his opinions challenged, wants to have his positions challenged, wants to engage in a good faith back and forth. Because he believes that that strengthens his ability to make good decisions on behalf of the American people. Go ahead.

Yes. This is a question about the APEC Summit this week. Do you expect there could be a trilateral space to talk about fentanyl in APEC, considering that the leaders of Mexico, China, and the US are in the city of San Francisco? Today, the major of San Francisco said she would like to hear some progress on this issue.

So I won’t speak to any specific meetings that we haven’t yet announced, but I will say that curbing the trafficking of Fentanyl and the devastating impact it’s had on American citizens is something that the Secretary raises in his meetings with officials from the Government of China. It’s certainly something that was on the agenda when we’ve met with officials from the Government of Mexico. You can very much expect that it’ll be on the agenda for a number of his meetings at APEC. Go ahead.

You framed your response earlier that it was the US who was able to get humanitarian aid into Gaza, the US…

Broker an agreement is what I meant, yeah.

Yeah, and who was able to get these three or four to five hour pauses. So how much responsibility do you take then for the 11,100 lives that have been lost, if you are in a position to stop that today?

I would reject the premise of that. The Government of Israel conducts its military campaigns. We talk to them about how to minimize civilian casualties. We talk to them about what they can do to protect civilians and how to get them out of harm’s way. We do everything that we can to broker agreements to get humanitarian assistance in, but ultimately, this is a campaign that’s being conducted by the Government of Israel. We will continue to make our policies clear to them. We will continue to offer our best advice to them, as you’ve seen the President do, and we will continue to work to get humanitarian assistance in.

Thank you, Matt.

To Ukraine, Russia, if you don’t mind. Secretary met with Ukrainian…

[inaudible 00:35:05] Are you saying that, without the United States, there would be no humanitarian aid going into Gaza?

So you never know what a counterfactual is. Had we not brokered that agreement, you have no idea whether someone else would have come. Hold on, hold on.

There was no one else out there doing it.

Let me finish. You have no idea whether someone else would’ve come in and brokered an agreement. What I’m saying is what did happen is that it was the United States that brokered that agreement, that allowed humanitarian assistance to come in.

Okay. Well, was there anyone else, that you were aware of, who was in a position to be able to broker an agreement?

It was the United States that did it. I don’t know what you’re referring to. I’m sure you have a…

No, I’m just wondering. You’re taking credit for all of… It’s just like his question. If you’re taking credit for the “good,” that means some aid getting in to Gaza, then…

We take responsibility for the things that we do, correct.

Okay. But if you’re claiming that you have influence with the Israelis, enough to get the aid in, then you’re saying that you don’t have any responsibility for anything else?

No. I think that you were on both of the last trips. I think it’s very clear that, while we are able to make our opinions known to the Government of Israel and we are able to move them, there are issues on which we have disagreements. Started this briefing off about some of the disagreements that we have with them with respect to where Gaza will come.

You’re taking credit for this, but you’re not taking responsibility for other…

No, I’m taking credits for things where we have had a direct impact, where the United States Government…

Or where can point to something “positive” happening.

And there are other areas that we continue work on.

And those aren’t our fault, right?

There are other areas we continue to work on.

Follow up on that?

Go ahead.

Thank you so much, Matt. I was hoping you could fill us in on this morning’s meeting on Ukraine the Secretary held with the delegation. Did he assure the Ukrainian side that the topic of Ukraine will be on top of his queue, despite the challenges abroad and at home this week?

We, in all of our conversations with the Ukrainian Government, make clear that we will continue to stand by them, that we will continue to back them. And you don’t have to just look to our private conversations. You’ve heard the President of the United States speak to the American people about exactly this question, when he laid out in an Oval Office address our request to Congress to provide supplemental assistance to Ukraine, so we can continue to back Ukraine. In addition to that, the Secretary talked with Mr. Yermak this morning about steps we can take together with Ukraine to harden its infrastructure for the upcoming winter. We, of course, in the last winter, saw Russia trying to take down energy sites in Ukraine. They may very well do that again, so we had talked to them about steps that they can take to prepare for and respond to that.

As I understand, you also, guys, are talking to the Russians, as part of APEC talks. There was a discussion between Ambassador Matt Murray and his Russian counterpart. Is Ukraine being discussed without Ukraine on the table?

Ukraine is not being discussed without Ukraine on the table. If you mean the final disposition of the conflict, we have made clear that we will never make any decisions or we’re not in a place to make any decisions without Ukraine. Of course, we will talk about the war in Ukraine and we will talk about how we can best defend Ukraine. We always do that in partners. Secretary has talked a number of times about how he’s constantly in meetings with foreign counterparts looking for ways that other countries can assist Ukraine. We will certainly do that.

But who is the non-sanctioned Russian deputy prime minister that will represent…

I’m sorry, what was the…

The non-sanctioned Russian deputy prime minister will represent Russia at APEC, who is he or she?

I’ll have to get back to you on that. I don’t know.

Have you guys invited Ukrainians as well to the summit?

I’ll have to get back to you on that as well. I’m not aware.

There are rumors that [inaudible 00:38:50].

I don’t know, Alex, I’ll have to take it back.

And also about Iran, if you don’t mind. There are speculations on social media that US is about to issue a new waiver on Iran, that will allow Iran to access $10 billion. Why? When? How? Anything you can tell us about that?

I think you certainly shouldn’t expect me to comment on speculation on social media, and I will decline to do so. Go ahead and then, we’ll wrap it up.

Is it true though?

I think I just answered it or declined to answer it.

Thank you, Matt. Can you please give us a sense if anything discussed in New Delhi 2+2 meeting on particularly Bangladesh upcoming election? Indian Press and Bangladeshi Press described that they had a good meeting on Bangladesh upcoming election, and we saw the Indian statement, as well as the Chinese statement, terming as “internal affairs.” So can you please give us a sense?

I’m just not going to talk to this. Hold on. As I said, this’ll be the last part. I’m not going to talk to the specifics of the meeting, other than what we put out in our readout and the Secretary said in his statement while we were in India. Thanks everyone.

Thank you.