State Department Press Briefing On 10/29/24

… located just to the south of Khartoum. They attacked multiple villages in the area, deliberately targeting civilians. Many of the RSF’s victims have been children and women. The United States condemns these attacks in the strongest terms and calls on the RSF to halt violence against civilians immediately. The group’s leaders have repeatedly committed to their obligation to civilian protection under international humanitarian law and they must uphold those commitments. The United States recently imposed sanctions on Algoney Hamdan Daglo Musa for his role in RSF atrocities and we’ll continue to impose costs on all those committing and fueling these atrocities.

(00:39)
These heinous attacks are sadly only the latest in a war that has gone on for far too long. Attacks like these exacerbate the severe hunger and displacement crisis that has put more than 25 million Sudanese in need of emergency humanitarian relief and forced more than 14 million people to flee their homes since the conflict began. Our support for the Sudanese people is steadfast as they demand a sustainable into the conflict and worked to develop a process to resume the stalled political transition to inclusive civilian-led democratic governance. With that, Matt.

Great. Well not great, but I mean not great at all.

Understood, yeah.

Sorry.

Understood.

Before we get into the Middle East, I just wanted to ask you if you’ve got an answer to my question about the Cuba vote in the UN?

I know there’s going to be a vote today. I don’t believe it’s happened yet. It’s occurring this afternoon. Oh, what was your question? How we will vote? We’ll vote no.

You’ll vote no? And have you lined up anyone to-

As I previewed yesterday, it was likely I didn’t think we were going to vote for a resolution condemning ourselves and in fact we will vote no.

Have you lined up anyone to vote with you?

I think I’ll wait until we see the vote results to talk about the outcome.

So no, you’re not sure if you’ll get or one or two others?

I would not expect an outcome-

Dissimilar?

Dissimilar. I was going to say inconsistent. Dissimilar is a better word to previous outcomes. This is a resolution-

In other words, it would be another demonstration of virtually the entire world’s opposition to this, to the embargo?

I wouldn’t expect a dissimilar result, but we have made our position clear on it for some time and we’ll continue in our vote at the UN today.

All right. To the Middle East. Yesterday at the briefing, shortly before the Knesset voted on these two bills that deal with UNRWA, you once again reiterated the US position that they shouldn’t do it and that the laws shouldn’t be passed. And that if they were, there should be steps taken to mitigate the situation. So now that the laws have both passed and recognizing that they won’t take effect for another two months or so at least, what is your response of what are you planning to do particularly given the emphasis that you guys, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin in particular have put on improving the aid supply into Gaza?

Yeah, let me start by just reiterating that we are deeply troubled by this legislation. It could shudder UNRWA operations in the West Bank, in Gaza, in East Jerusalem. It poses risks for millions of Palestinians who rely on UNRWA for essential services including healthcare and primary and secondary education. UNRWA of course, plays a critical role in providing services to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and throughout the wider region. And particularly in Gaza, they play a role right now that at least today cannot be filled by anyone else.

(03:50)
They’re a key partner in delivering food, water and other humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza that wouldn’t have anyone else to get it from if UNRWA were to go away. So we have made clear our concerns over this bill. We have made clear our opposition to this bill. As the Secretary said in his letter and as I reiterated yesterday, there could be consequences under US Law and US policy for the implementation of this legislation. We are going to engage with the government of Israel in the days ahead about how they plan to implement it. We are going to watch and see if there are legal challenges to the law and if there’s any impact by those legal challenges and then we will make our decisions after looking at all of those factors.

All right, I’ll let others go.

Could I follow up [inaudible 00:04:45]?

I can’t let you go without comment that is fantastic shirt.

Thanks.

Before we get going.

I bought it from Angola, so anybody on the previous trip-

I figured you got that on the trip that we were on, so it’s great.

Africa’s a fashion powerhouse. Seriously, can I ask you about back on UNRWA, the Norwegian government today said that it’s going to go to the International Court of Justice, see if Israel has actually legal obligations to let aid in specifically the context of UNRWA? Does the US have any comment on that move by the Norwegians on the ICJ?

I don’t have any comment on that move, but they certainly have a legal obligation to allow humanitarian assistance in and not to erect roadblocks, to humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza and we have made that clear since the outset of this conflict and a great number of our engagements with the government of Israel have been around ensuring that they do let humanitarian assistance in and that they do ensure that humanitarian assistance gets to the people that need it. And that is precisely one of our major concerns about this legislation.

(05:50)
I should be clear, by the way, it’s not our only concern about this legislation. We also support the work that UNRWA does outside of Gaza. We support the work they do in the West Bank. We support the work that they do in the broader region to deliver humanitarian services to Palestinians, but the work is absolutely critical and irreplaceable in Gaza right now. And we have made clear, made clear before the passage of this legislation and it remains true that there are potential policy and legal implementations to this legislation being implemented and we’re going to be in conversation with the government of Israel about that.

Sure. Maybe stepping away from the UN per se. I wonder if you had anything to say about the Israeli strike today In Gaza, I think latest death toll that we’ve reported is nearly 100. By eyewitness accounts, many of them appear to be civilians, children. I know you don’t speak for the government of Israel, but as Israel’s ally, do you have anything to say about this?

We are deeply concerned by the loss of civilian life in this incident. This was a horrifying incident with a horrifying result. I can’t speak to the total death toll, but there are reports of two dozen children killed in this incident. No doubt a number of them are children who have been fleeing the effects of this war for more than a year now. We have reached out to the government of Israel to ask what happened here. We don’t yet know the underlying circumstances. We have not gotten a full explanation for them about what happened. But step back and look at where we are in this campaign.

(07:26)
We are a year into the government of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and Israel has decimated Hamas’s military capabilities. It has decimated Hamas’s leadership. It has through its military action, ensured that Hamas does not have the ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th. And all of that getting to here came at great cost to civilians in Gaza, which is of course often the case when civilians are caught in the crossfire in conflict. And so that tragic cost to civilians continues today, quite notably in this strike, which seems to have claimed significant civilian life and it is another reminder of why we need to see an end to this war.

I mean, the Secretary himself also said last week that he thinks that Israel’s strategic goals have largely been met. I mean, so why carry out strikes like this and what’s the utility at this point?

So you have to take that question to the governor of Israel. So I will say that as the Secretary said, yes, their strategic goals have largely been met. Now there is a strategic goal that remains incredibly important and that is to return all of the hostages. But as you have heard, any number of leaders in our government speak to for some time from the president to Secretary Blinken to Secretary of Defense Austin, it is critically important not just to the people of Gaza but to Israelis and to Israel’s own security that Israel be mindful of achieving a larger strategic success and that they be mindful of finding a way to end this campaign in a way that brings the hostages home and in a way that ensures their security and not just continuing in an endless perpetual conflict.

Just one more, and this is obviously been something you’ve been asked many times over the past year, but what is the US going to do about it? The US is obviously the major arm supplier to Israel, the major diplomatic supporter of Israel. You said that this incident is horrifying and while you’re trying to address and try to find out more information, what would be the consequences if the US feels that this was without warrant? It’s hard to say it’s just about in any case, but if the US decides that this was what it was.

Look, so not to get ahead of things, but when it comes to assessing any one individual strike, it’s something that we have to be very deliberate about and take time to assess the underlying circumstances to decide whether there was any particular potential legal violation and what the implications of that would be. I will say what we are going to do about it though is to continue to try and end the war and continue to impress upon to the government of Israel the need to end this war, to continue to work with the other mediators, Egypt and Qatar, to try and find a way forward to end this war.

(10:38)
And to continue to work with partners throughout the region and throughout the world to present a plan for what follows the war, which would give Israel the confidence that they don’t need to continue an endless fight, that there would be actual security in Gaza that would provide security for Israel too and so that they can withdraw their forces from Israel and know that there isn’t an ongoing threat to Israeli civilians into the state of Israel. Sorry. Shannon, go ahead. I’ll come to you next. I’m just going to go down the line. Although then I’ve skipped Gillian. So then I’ve skipped Gillian. Sorry. Having promised Shannon and Humeyra. I’ll do Shannon and Humeyra and then Gillian.

Going back to the letter sent by Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin to the Israeli government, it calls for the creation of a virtual channel to discuss civilian harm incidents and says the first virtual meeting of that channel should take place before the end of October. Has it happened yet or is it on the books?

We have had conversations about the establishment of that channel. I don’t have anything definitive yet to report. We continue to have conversations of how to establish that in a way that will be meaningful and will actually produce results.

Does the State Department consider that meeting or its equivalent to have taken place already?

I don’t have an announcement to make today. We have a few days left in the month. Yeah.

Matt, so on that letter, I think that was sent about more than two weeks ago. Does the United States have some sort of an interim assessment on how Israel has done so far in terms of fulfilling US requirements given what’s going on in Northern Gaza too?

So we have been watching and engaging with them about each of the steps that we called on them to implement in that letter. Now I’m not, during this thirty-day period, going to go through line by line and say which one has been implemented and which one has not. Although we are very carefully tracking that and we are engaging with them about specific steps that we want to see them take. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for me while we’re going through this process to go through one by one and talk about where they are. Just speaking largely though, or speaking broadly I should say, we have seen some progress but we haven’t seen enough. That’s why I said last week… It is what the Secretary said last week. It continues to be the case that we have seen them take some initial steps, but we need to see them do much more and we are engaged with them to impress upon them the importance of doing much, much more.

Right. Given it’s another two weeks left, I believe, how confident are you that they are actually going to fulfill these?

I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to make any predictions at this point. We made clear what the steps are we want to see implemented. We put a deadline on it. Let’s wait until we get to the deadline to talk about where things stand.

Right. And about this deadline, there is a lot of commentary out there and in the law there is no grace period. You are saying at this moment in time that you have not seen enough from Israel. So I just want to ask the question that a lot of people out there are asking why not implement the law now?

We are implementing the law. We have not assessed him to be in violation of the law at this point.

You’re just saying they’re not fulfilling the things that you want from them, that they are impeding aid into Gaza.

That is not what I said.

They’re not impeding?

That is not what I said. We have outlined a number of steps that we want to see them take in the letter. Now to answer your question, the reason why we didn’t set an immediate deadline or you have to implement all these steps five minutes after you get the letter or you have to implement all these steps seven days after the letter is because there are some of the steps that we understand take actual time to implement. If you look at some of the-

Sure. But it’s been two week.

But we thought that 30 days was an appropriate measure. Not two weeks or we’d put two weeks in the letter. There were some things that we wanted to see happen immediately and we saw some of those happen immediately. We saw areas reopen immediately. We saw the Jordan route reopen immediately. And the letter made clear, some things we want to see happen immediately and then we need to see other things happen within 30 days. We’re not yet at 30 days. I promise you we will have an extensive conversation about this at the end of that thirty-day period, but we’re in that window now.

Okay. I am just having trouble understanding how two things add up and that is the Secretary has said, you’ve said whatever Israel was doing to ensure more aid goes into Gaza that has fallen off significantly. There hasn’t been a sustained effort and they have not been doing enough for a sustained period of time. How does that not mean that they’re not impeding aid? How can those two things be true at the same time?

We have not judged them to have-

So describe whether they’re not doing enough [inaudible 00:15:27] impeding aid.

So we thought it was appropriate that when we saw the decrease… Look, there are a lot of reasons that aid cannot make it in. Some of them can be intentional, some of them can be unintentional, some of them can be bureaucratic either inside Israel’s system or inside the UN system. Some can be the effect of criminal looters who obviously the government of Israel does not control and is not responsible for. And so given all of those different factors that can go into the result that we saw and the result that we saw was aid coming down more than 50% from

From its peak, we made clear that, look, on the things that you can control, on the things that the government of Israel can control. Recognizing that you don’t control everything, we want to see steps. And at the end of those steps we will come back and talk about what the results have been.

Just one final thing on Northern Gaza. When you were answering, I think Shannon, you talked about this endless cycle that the Israeli military seems to be in right now. So, is the US calling the Israeli military to wrap up to finish what it’s doing in Northern Gaza now?

We want to find a durable end to the war. And I say the durable end of the war is an important way to think about it. We have not called on Israel to just withdraw from Gaza and leave a vacuum there, because a vacuum actually doesn’t help the Palestinian people, who would be once again living pretty immediately under Hamas’s tyranny and would be potentially subject to the same jeopardy that Hamas has put them in for the past year by launching terrorist attacks against Israel.

(17:07)
And it certainly wouldn’t solve Israel’s security problem. It would potentially land us back in the same place months or a few years down the road. And so, that’s why we are working to restart talks, which happened over the weekend, to try to find a durable end to war. It’s why we’re working on the plans for what follows the war with our partners.

Actually, just read the final one. On this special channel or mechanism to talk about civilian harm incident,. You said you’re still talking. Can you explain why it hasn’t been set up?

I don’t have any more to read out today. It’s an ongoing discussion between us and the government of Israel, and I just don’t have any [inaudible 00:17:49].

So, when you say that you raised this particular incident of today with the children killed-

Yes.

You raised it with the US?

The United States raised it directly with the government of Israel.

It was the ambassador.

I’m not going to get into who, but it was conversations from our government to theirs now. Sorry. Sorry to have-

Can I ask a quick off-topic question?

Yeah.

[inaudible 00:18:12] China, foreign influence operations. We’ve talked about Russia and Iran kind of ramping up foreign influence operations ahead of the election. Friday, Saturday, there was new reporting that the Chinese or Chinese government-linked officials managed to hack the audio of a senior Trump campaign advisor’s cell phone that was preceded by general reporting that they were trying to get access to data for the former president and Senator Vance and unnamed folks on the Kamala Harris campaign.

(18:49)
I guess is this something that you are tracking with regards to China especially? And are you addressing it diplomatically at all? Or are you just leaving it all up to the FBI to investigate?

So, I’m not going to speak to the specific incident because it is appropriate for the FBI and the intelligence community to speak to any specific incidents when it comes to such influence operations or such potential espionage operations across any wide variety of incidents.

(19:23)
I will say that we have raised consistently with the government of China, at the secretary’s level and at other levels, the fact that we are watching very closely any attempts to hack US systems, US equipment, US personnel to interfere in US elections or other US entities or events, and that we would certainly hold them accountable for any such actions.

Beyond just the hacking portion of it, is it fair to say that you’ve seen an increase in Chinese influence operations here generally? [inaudible 00:20:08]

Yeah, I would defer to the intelligence community to speak to that. As you know, the State Department has the mandate from Congress to track influence operations conducted by foreign governments overseas, but when it comes to influence operations that foreign governments conduct inside the United States, it’s a matter for the intelligence community and the FBI. And so, I would defer to them.

And I’d have to go back and look at previous transcripts. I don’t remember off the top of my head, but at one point you had said or kind of indicated that-

Now you’re hoping I can remember what I said.

No, I don’t think you have to. Basically, I just want to know if this, at one point you had indicated that Chinese influence efforts targeting US officials, not even related to the election, just in general or sort of… I don’t know if they were more sophisticated, but they surpassed the efforts of the other countries, like they were more aggressive. Would you still describe that as the status quo?

I don’t remember that comment, although I’m not disputing it. I just don’t remember that at all. But I do, again, think it’d be more appropriate for me to defer to the intelligence communities and law enforcement to speak to that.

So, it’s fair to say you don’t really address that? [inaudible 00:21:22]

Yeah, it’s just not on the… Look, so when it comes to making assessments about what’s happening inside the United States and monitoring what’s happening inside the United States, the intelligence community and law enforcement does that work.

(21:36)
Now, when there is something that rises to a level of concern that needs to be addressed directly with the Chinese government, we do address it directly with the Chinese government, and we have over many number of months made clear directly to Chinese officials our concerns about this type of behavior and the potential for this type of behavior and the fact that we would take it very seriously.

Thanks, Matt. And just back to Israel and Palestinian Territories, there’s another deadline coming up for Israel’s finance minister to sign off on whether the Palestinian-Israeli banks can engage in correspondence. There’s concern from the US and also the G7 members, and apparently a letter was sent to Netanyahu expressing concern that Smotrich won’t sign off on extending that cooperation and that it could potentially collapse the Palestinian economy. How real is this concern from the US, and can you give us guidance on what the US would do if he decided not to go ahead and explore that?

We have been extremely concerned about this. You will recall of course that this is not the first time we faced this possibility. Several months ago that particular minister made threats that he would not extend this particular provision.

(22:59)
And we made clear to the government of Israel that such an action would have severe consequences for the Palestinian economy. It would have severe consequences for Israel’s security. It would potentially cause enormous disruption in the West Bank. And that’s not in the Palestinians’ interest, and it’s not in Israel’s interest.

(23:23)
And we were able to impress upon the government of Israel the incredibly harmful nature of such an action the last time they got up to such a deadline, and convinced them to extend it. And we’re continuing to impress upon them the same thing this time.

(23:41)
I don’t want to deal with a hypothetical about what would happen if they didn’t extend this provision. It’s important that they do. Yeah, Said?

Thank you, Matt. Going back to UNRWA. I went to UNRWA schools for a while. My wife went to UNRWA schools all her life. And she depended on UNRWA rations. It is a major part of sustaining the Palestinians in every way, and trying to sort of satanize UNRWA and say that it has done some evil things and so on goes back before this war. It goes back to 2017 when they [inaudible 00:24:17].

(24:17)
My question to you, you said that you are deeply troubled by the decision. And you also said that you engage the Israelis. What steps will the United States take to ensure that UNRWA continues to operate?

I’m not going to preview anything from here today, Said. If you look at the letter that the secretary sent, he made clear that we were opposed to the passage of this legislation and he made clear that there could be legal and policy implications to the implementation of that legislation. That remains true.

Okay, but you see, because you said that we want to see that aid is properly allowed into the Palestinian areas and so on, but we’re not talking about the UNRWA. UNRWA is basically, if UNRWA is compromised, the whole aid for the Palestinians and in fact the real connection with what’s going on in the world community, it stops. It’s totally compromised. I’m saying that would you, let’s say, agree to, if UNHCR for instance takes over the aid to the Palestinians?

Sorry, I can’t get into a hypothetical problem.

Let me ask you a couple more questions, if you allow me. Now, at one point I think you said that if there’s a vacuum, then Hamas would return, and the Palestinians will be under the tyranny of Hamas again. So, the purpose of the war is really to free the Palestinians from Hamas tyranny?

The purpose of the war, from Israel’s perspective, and I’m just going to say what they had said publicly. The purpose of the war was to ensure that Hamas could not repeat this attack again, to hold its leadership accountable. They have done both of those things. And to return the hostages.

(26:01)
They have completed two pretty significant objectives. They’ve also decimated Hamas’ military capabilities. And so, what the secretary impressed upon them last week was that it is time to find a way to bring this war to an end.

(26:18)
Now, we have also made clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza the way it did before October 7th, because you saw the result of Hamas governance of Gaza. And that is horrific consequences for the Israeli people and horrific consequences for the Palestinian people.

But seeing what, I don’t know. I mean, they call it a war. It’s not a war. There is no opposing army. It is really a slaughter that we have.

Said, Said-

And I don’t want to enter into [inaudible 00:26:50].

Said, is the stipulation that there are no Hamas fighters left who are still shooting at the IDF soldiers?

Yes.

Because I-

Of course there are Hamas fighters. [inaudible 00:26:58]

Well, okay, so that’s-

But this is [inaudible 00:27:00].

Before you rename the conflict, let’s have facts. Let’s just establish facts about what is actually happening.

What we see day after day is a slaughter. It is a slaughter. I think there will come a time when you guys have to call it exactly what it is, because every day, and I asked this question several weeks back about Palestinians get up every day, find another 100 dead, find another 100 dead. And this keeps going on. There is no end in sight. It doesn’t seem that Israel has any incentive to basically indulge even in serious talk about a ceasefire.

Said, the horrific consequences of this war are exactly why we were trying to end it. The very things you just went through, and I would add to the suffering that’s going on, the suffering of the hostages and the hostages’ families, is for all those reasons that we’re trying to end the war and trying to end the war in a way that ensures peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians in the future.

Okay, one last question on [inaudible 00:27:57]. Now the letter was sent out, I guess around October 15th. So, the deadline is November 15th? It was sent on November 13th? [inaudible 00:28:05]

It was sent October 14th. It was 30 days. There’s 31 days in October, so that might be November 13th. I don’t know when you start the count, but there will be a lawyer somewhere in our building who could tell you the answer, the precise answer to that question.

So, on November 15, we’re going to say, “The deadline has passed, and you have not done, met our standard?”

I’m not going to predict what we’re going to do, but we made clear in the letter what the deadline was for implementing changes.

Maybe you could bring that lawyer down down to answer some questions from the podium, particularly about how you guys have not been able to come to any conclusion about whether what Israel is doing amounts to violations of international law.

Well, there are any number of lawyers in this building who are working on that question.

Well, I bet. We’ll just bring one of them down. [inaudible 00:28:46]

But for better or worse, it’s my job to stand before you all and take questions every day.

Sorry, when you say there are a number of lawyers in this building who are working on that question, the State Department lawyers are working on the question of whether or not Israeli military has violated international [inaudible 00:29:05] law in Gaza or not? There are State Department lawyers working on that?

Of course there are. That’s something we’ve said a number of times, that there are a number of, a number of-

In what process, exactly?

I’m not going to get, and so, Humeyra, you know the answer to this question because-

No, but-

No, hold on, Humeyra, just let me finish before. You know the answer to this question, because you asked it to me before, and I’ve answered it before. We have a number of ongoing processes to look at the facts of a number of incidents and to make specific assessments about those incidents.

But I’m pretty sure you didn’t mention State Department lawyers are looking at it.

Of course there’s-

You said, “We have ongoing processes.” So, the L bureau is involved in-

Of course there are lawyers that, Humeyra, first let me back up and say there is very little that we do here that doesn’t involve lawyers in one way or the other. But of course when it comes to making judgments about international humanitarian law, of course there are lawyers involved. They’re not the only people involved, but yeah, of course there are.

And is this part of an atrocity determination process?

I’m not going to get into the processes that we have [inaudible 00:29:59].

Can you say you don’t have an atrocity determination process?

As I have said to you before, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about the underlying processes that we have underway while they’re ongoing. Tom? Oh, can I go to Michelle and then come back to Tom? Because I’ve seen you come in and out a few times. I have a feeling you need to file, so…

Sorry if I mispronounce, but I think Knesset passed a bill today to bar the US from reopening the consulate for Palestinians. And I wonder what you make of that.

So, I was not aware of the passage of that bill. I apologize. I’ll have to take that back and get an answer. So, apologize. Tom, go ahead.

Maybe you could ask that same lawyer. [inaudible 00:30:36]

I’m not sure. That’s a policy question, not a legal one.

Well, I don’t know. It seems like a legal question, right? I’m not sure that the Israeli Parliament can decide whether or not you guys are going to open the consulate.

Well, maybe that will be a legal question. I’ll have to, yeah, Tom, go ahead.

I to follow up on Said’s very first point there about UNRWA, because we understand the immediate critique that you have of the attempts to shutter it, about the critical urgency of aid in to Gaza and the effects on the West Bank and so on.

(31:05)
But there is a deeper motivation for a lot of Israeli politicians, especially nationalists who want to break the link, the historical link between Palestinian registered refugees of today and their historical dispossession in 1947, 1948, because that breaks the link between when three quarters of a million Palestinians fled there, fled and were forced from their homes in what is now Israel in ’48 and the conflict today.

(31:34)
So, that’s really important. And I just want to get a sense from you, because I don’t know if we’ve heard an answer to this question. Do you support those Palestinians continuing to have registered refugee status?

So, I can’t speak to that today. I can tell you what we’re focused on when it comes to UNRWA’s work, are the critical services that they provide. And they provide those services, as I said, in Gaza, in the West Bank, across the region. And it’s critical that work to continue. Now, as to the broader question,

… question, I can take that back and get you an answer.

Okay. I mean it’s just important because you said-

Not here. I’ll take you back and get an answer.

Okay fine. On your own letter of the 13th of October, you warned in there about the effects of legislation to ban UNRWA and you said to Galant and Derma, we ask that you take all possible steps whether with lawmakers or using the authorities of the Prime Minister’s office to ensure this doesn’t come to pass. I mean, that part, it seems they’ve already clearly ignored because the vote has passed. So they’ve had two weeks to work with lawmakers to stop it. They’re not listening to you?

The bill has passed, so…

But you’ve asked them to work with lawmakers to ensure this doesn’t come to pass. So that part you’ve already lost on then.

So as I said before, the bill’s passed and we’ve made quite clear our concerns and we’ll make our decisions based on the next steps based on the implementation of this law and based on any potential legal challenges. I said there’s always, when you have controversial laws like this that pass the potential for challenges that delay their implementation. I don’t know if that will happen, but we’re going to watch over the next few days to see.

But I asked the question because does it give you any sense of how closely or how seriously they take your letter because they’ve already ignored that part.

Well, we’re going to see, right? Look, I’ll tell you, we’ve heard the secretary speak to this. We’ve seen them already take a number of steps that we called for and others they haven’t taken yet. So we’re going to look at the end of the 30 days and go through and see what they’ve implemented and what they haven’t.

Sorry, just let me go on this point because that’s your letter. In the March 28th ICJ order on the South Africa Genocide case in order 51 two-way, I think it is. They say that Israel must take all necessary and effective measures to ensure without delay in full cooperation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision to allow aid to get into Gaza. I mean in full cooperation with the United Nations or the country in question to then the primary UN agency that is responsible for that does not seem like full cooperation.

So I will admit that I do not remember, I read that order when it came down. I do not have it in front of me and do not have the provision that you’re looking at to study. But we have made clear, I’ll say we have made clear kind of in keeping with that order precisely how important it is that UNRWA be allowed to continue. Even if you step back from UNRWA, how important it is that Israel cooperate with all of the UN agencies that are operating on the ground inside Gaza to deliver food, water, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance. And it continues to be critical that they take those steps.

I mean, you talked about its importance, but this is a key organ of international humanitarian law that has made this all of this year in the midst of this crisis. I mean, do you back that call by the ICJ?

We want, we absolutely want to see humanitarian assistance get in. We want to see it get in through the other UN partners and we want to see it get in through UNRWA

And just finally, on this air strike in Beit Lahiya, you referenced, you talked about the war’s gone on for a year getting here came at great cost to civilians in Gaza. Often the case when civilians are caught in the crossfire of conflict, and you’ve used that phrase many times before, is that a specific reference to this air strike? Do you see this as crossfire?

I also said, as you notice, if you would note my full quote said, “We don’t know what happened in this strike. We don’t know the particular circumstances.” So no, it was about the broader conflict. When it comes to this particular strike, we have reached out to the governor of Israel for information, made clear we want to know exactly what happened. How you could have a result that produces, according to reports, dozens of children dead. And we don’t yet know the answer to that question.

I’ll just raise it because it is an expression you’ve used and the Secretary’s used many times about crossfire, including when there’ve been many civilian casualties and air strikes. I mean the Palestinians do not have air defenses. So I’m just sort of puzzled about this use of the phrase crossfire.

So I think it should be pretty clear. First of all, when I made clear it was about the broader conflict and-

[inaudible 00:36:05]

Hold on. In the broader conflict you do have Hamas leadership, Hamas battalions who locate themselves under civilian buildings and fire at Israeli forces from civilian buildings. Now just to say there are something and now that’s crossfire, right? You have times when there are airstrikes that Israel carries out because they know that Hamas is located there. There are times they carry out airstrikes because they have IDF soldiers on the ground who are coming under fire from a particular location. And this is a standard military practice obviously, and they call it an airstrike to take out that location because they have soldiers who are under fire from there. That’s the definition of crossfire, I think.

Isn’t it a bit disingenuous though? Because crossfire would be understood to mean if civilians are caught in crossfire, you would understand that usually to be an accident on the ground because people are literally caught in crossfire. But using it to describe airstrikes when many, many civilians are killed feels misleading.

I think crossfire means civilians caught between one military striking a terrorist organization or another military or a terrorist organization striking a military. And that is what is happening in these incidents. Yeah, Abby.

You said earlier, and this is a hypothetical, but I’m starting with your own hypothetical. If this UNRWA legislation was implemented.

A hypothetical on a hypothetical.

Well following on yours, if this UNRWA legislation is implemented, just digging down on that, you’ve described them as irreplaceable, that there’s no alternative. So at that point, would you assess that Israel is directly or indirectly impeding the delivery of humanitarian-

I really can’t predict what kind of an assessment we’ll make in the future. I made clear that our concerns over it and I made clear we’re going to watch over the coming days what happens with the implementation of this law. But where we will land, I’m not going to forecast today.

And then there are some reports from earlier this week that the IDF detained medical staff within one of the largest hospitals in Northern Gaza. The UN said yesterday that they left two doctors to take care of hundreds of patients. Is the US asking Israel about what led them to detain those medical staff? And are you satisfied with their answer?

We are asking. I don’t have an answer yet.

Are you concerned about-

Certainly we would be concerned about the reports of doctors being detained if it prevented doctors from… if there was no reasonable basis for that detention and it was preventing them from carrying out critical life-saving work, absolutely we would be concerned about that. But as always, we want to establish the actual facts and we’re looking into asking the governor of Israel for more information. Janie.

Thank you Matt. A couple of occasions on Russia and North Korea and our follow-up, if I may. North Korea’s foreign minister went to Russia to discuss additional dispatch of North Korean troops and the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that the dispatch of North Korean troops was legally justified under the Russia and North Korea Mutual military treaty. Do you think that the dispatch of North Korean troops to have Russia’s legal work is a violation of international law?

We do. We believe that Russia’s training of DPRK soldiers involving arms or related material is a direct violation of security council resolution 1718, 1874 and 2270. And DPRK soldiers providing or receiving any training or other assistance related to the use of ballistic missiles or other arms would violate resolution 1718, 1874 and 2070. In addition to Russia and the DPRK’s ongoing UN arms embargo violations.

And one more. The UN Security Council meeting on the North Korea’s military deployment will be held tomorrow. As you know, sanctions in the security council will be difficult to do due to opposition from China and Russia. Recently the United States and South Korea and Japan and their allies have established a mutual, I mean multilateral sanctions system against North Korea. Can sanctions on military cooperation between Russia and North Korea be implemented through this system?

So the multilateral sanctions monitoring team is a mechanism for examination analysis and public reporting on the implementation of UN sanctions measures against the DPRK. It’s not a sanctions-imposing mechanism itself, but of course we do maintain the ability to impose sanctions on both Russia and North Korea. We’ve shown we’re willing to use those abilities and authorities in the past and we’ll continue to do so. When appropriate.

Doesn’t the United States delegation to visit Ukraine because the South Korea only visited NATO and Ukraine. Do you have any-

We have US delegations who are traveling to Ukraine virtually every week. I don’t have one to announce today, but it’s quite regular to see US officials visiting Ukraine. The Secretary of Defense was there last week. Secretary Blinken was there last month and we’ll have a number of important visits coming in the coming days. The chief of staff to Ukraine’s president is here today meeting with Secretary Blinken and others from the US government.

Thank you.

So there are multiple reports saying that the new appointed head of Hezbollah is in Iran. Given that Israelis started, as soon as the announcement came officially about his appointment, that they’re going to take him out, is US concerned that Israeli taking him out in Iran will intensify the situation in the region, especially with the Iranians saying that they are preparing for attack on Israel?

I don’t want to comment on a hypothetical action in any way.

Okay. And I have another one regarding comments by Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield today. She said that the United States made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that one year into the conflict, Israel must address catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The United States rejects any Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians in Jebaliah or elsewhere. And that Israel’s word must be matched by action on the ground. Right now that is not happening. This must change immediately. So can we take this to mean that the US is acknowledging that there are Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians? And how should we see this in the context of the mid-October letter sent by Secretary Austin and Blinken?

I don’t think that’s the way you should take it. I think you should take it to be consistent with the letter that Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin sent where they made quite clear that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation. You heard me address yesterday. We’re particularly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Jebaliah where food isn’t getting in right now and water isn’t getting in right now, and that does need to change. And that’s what Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield was making clear in those remarks.

Can we still have the Lebanon part of that just for a second? I mean there are multiple reports coming out of both Beirut and out of Israel that the US has proposed some kind of a ceasefire plan for Lebanon that would call for a full implementation of UNSCR 1701 with withdrawals by both Hezbollah and Israel within two months. Is that at all your understanding of where… You understand?

So I don’t want to get into the private diplomatic conversations that we’re having including about what any potential timetables might be, but we have been making clear in those conversations that we want to see as part of a diplomatic resolution, the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and that means Hezbollah withdrawing north of the Litani River. It means Israel ultimately withdrawing south of the blue line and it means peace and stability. And what we’re working on to get to that point are ways to bolster the Lebanese armed forces to ensure that they can provide security and they can provide stability in southern Lebanon.

Thank you, Matt. [inaudible 00:44:51] Iran will have impact to Ukraine again. In the case of H.R. Peshachmar, you tweeted about Iran murdering the US person, California resident. Some of us have been covering his case. You told us for months that you will be charging the Islamic Republic by their action. Well, this is the action.

Yeah, and I think we’ve made quite clear what we think about this action, we’ve made quite clear what we think about previous actions that the Iranian government has taken. And you’ve seen us since the outset of this administration impose more than 700 sanctions on Iran and Iran entities for a number of actions including their human rights violations against their own people. We condemn the execution of German-Iranian, dual citizen Jamshid Sharma, which reminds us once again of the brutality and repression that characterizes the Iranian regime. We offer our sincere condolences to his loved ones. We have been in touch with them to express those condolences directly. This is the latest abhorrent act by Iran following the transnational repression it committed when it abducted him. It also underscores the record pace of unjust executions in Iran, continues unabated despite Iran’s attempts to promote a gentler face to the international community. So we are in touch with the German government. We are in touch with the European Union and our other allies, and we will continue to stand with them in holding the Iranian regime accountable for its brutal human rights abuses.

It was in the past that you believe that Iranian supreme leader is in charge of decision-making process. So by refusing to sanction him in the past in the Masa case and other cases, do you think you’re actually creating an atmosphere but in which he’s acting in-

Alex, I just went through the litany of sanctions that we have imposed on Iran and remind you that we have worked with other entities around the world to impose sanctions on Iran. If you look at what happened in just the last month, you saw European allies step up for the first time and impose sanctions on Iran air, which will have real implications for that airline’s ability to operate flights between Iran and European destinations. So I will make no apologies for our efforts to hold Iran accountable for its behavior.

On Ukraine, you spoke about the marked meeting. I say you might not want to get ahead of the meeting, but-

But here’s a question about it.

Two questions actually.

Here’s a question to get ahead of the meeting.

Indulge me, there are reports that-

The White House already put out a statement about this meeting.

He met with Jake earlier. He is meeting with the secretary. Meeting the secretary-

The White House statements already out.

Right. Well, I apologize for not putting out a statement about a meeting that hasn’t happened yet here at the department.

How was it the issue of North Korea supplying the troops for Russia to fight in Ukraine will be the subject [inaudible 00:47:31]

Certainly that would be one of the topics that could-

That the reports that the US will not impose restrictions in future if that is the case. Can you confirm that this is actually [inaudible 00:47:40]

I’m not going to comment on those reports.

One more, last one [inaudible 00:47:42]

Alex, that was four or five. I got to move on. Go ahead.

Thank you. A couple of weeks ago, department of Justice indicted an Indian agent for a murder plot against a Sikh humanist lawyer in New York. You told us that US wants to see meaningful accountability by the Modi government, but that agent still has not been arrested.

Arrested. So what are the next steps? Is US seeking his extradition.

So, that’s a matter I would refer you to the Justice Department on. When it comes to a question of extradition, that of course is the legal matter. We always defer to DOJ to speak to extradition. But I will tell you that we have been in dialogue with the government of India about this matter. Of course, they sent a delegation here two weeks ago to directly brief US government officials on the status of their investigation, and we briefed them on the status of our investigation. And we made clear in that meeting, but we will continue to make clear that it is important there be real accountability.

So, after the killing of Sikh leader, Hardeep Singh Najar in Canada by Indian agents, Canadian authorities expelled all Indian agents serving in the Indian High Commission. And there are some unconfirmed reports that same action took place here in Washington DC, could you confirm or deny State Department expelled the Indian agents serving in High Commission here in DC?

I’m not familiar with this report that we expelled Indian diplomats?

Yeah.

No.

Indian agents who are serving here in [inaudible 00:49:02]-

I’m not aware of any such expulsion, no. Ryan.

[inaudible 00:49:05].

Yeah. And then we’ll go to Ryan. Sorry, Ryan.

I know it was a few days ago, but India and China, I don’t know if State Department has commented on that, India and China said that they’re working to resolve their border rolling through, essentially through joint patrols has reached during the BRICS Summit. Does US have any comment on those? Has the US had any indirect engagement on this?

So we’re closely following the developments. We understand that both countries have taken initial steps to withdraw troops from friction points along the line of actual control. We welcome any reduction in tensions along the border.

Has the U.S played any role in this indirectly?

No, we have talked to our Indian partners and been briefed on it, but we did not play any role in this resolution. Go ahead, Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you. So, you commented earlier on how the letter that you guys sent in mid-October to Israel suggests that they not pass the UNRWA ban. Right above that in that same letter, bullet point three of the three says that Israel should also end isolation of Northern Gaza by reaffirming that there will be no Israeli government policy of forced evacuations of civilians from Northern to Southern Gaza, ensuring humanitarian organizations have continuous access to Northern Gaza through northern crossings and from Southern Gaza.

(50:18)
Obviously the 30 days isn’t up, but two weeks ago, the situation in Northern Gaza was bad. Like today, it’s utterly dystopian. The opposite of making progress has happened there. Somebody mentioned the 109 civilians killed in this residential building as part of this forced evacuation. So, it seems like neither of those two things have happened, and in fact they’ve gone the opposite direction. Do you need the 30 days to make an assessment on at least that bullet?

So, we have made clear that the situation in Northern Gaza, which is what that bullet refers to, needs to change. And Secretary Blinken made clear directly to the Prime Minister last week that the situation in Northern Gaza needs to change. That we need to see everyone in Northern Gaza, every civilian in Northern Gaza have access to food and water, and other humanitarian assistance, and we’re going to continue to make that clear.

You started with the RSF and the most recent war crimes. UAE is one of the strongest backers of the RSF. You guys are very tight with the UAE. Why can’t the US pressure the UAE to put a stop to this? It’s how long is this going to-

We have made clear to every country in the region, every country around the world that no country should do anything to prolong this conflict, including providing arms to either of the warring parties.

It just seems like countries in that region just aren’t interested. Maybe they listen, but they just don’t follow the advice that [inaudible 00:51:44]-

Look, every country makes its own decisions on a host of foreign policy issues. But I can tell you that the thing that the secretary heard time and time again as we were in the region last week, is that partner after partner welcomed our engagement because we are the only ones who could play this critical role of trying to end conflicts in Gaza, trying to end conflicts in Sudan. They’re difficult. They’re parties with intensely competing interests in their own politics and their own situations, but we heard over and over again that countries welcome the role that we play.

(52:16)
Now, it doesn’t mean every country follows exactly the course that we prescribe, but we continue to try and play the leadership role that we think the moment demands, to try and bring countries together to find an end to these wars.

And just real quickly on Pakistan. I know you commented yes on the letter from 62 members of Congress. Pakistan media is reporting that Pakistan security services responded to that letter by putting out dossiers of the members of Congress who signed that letter, and flagging a particular number of them that were Jewish, and a particular number of them that were supporters of LGBT rights in an effort to undermine the strength of that letter. Is there any level of embarrassing conduct from the ISI or from the Pakistan military that would cause the US to kind of rethink this relationship?

So, let me just say, obviously that’s something that would be concerning to us, but I haven’t seen that report yet. So, before I offer a substantive comment on it, I want to take a look at the report myself and be able to weigh in on it. And we’ll either get you a written answer. I’m happy to come back and address it tomorrow from the podium. Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you. On Thursday’s phone call between Secretary Blinken and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, can you please give me more details on what was discussed specifically about Turkey’s fight against terror, given that call came immediately after Turkey was hit by a terror attack?

Yeah, so there were a number of things that the secretary and the foreign minister covered on the call. First of all, the secretary expressed the United States condolences for that attack and expressed our solidarity with the Turkish people in the face of a terrorist attack. But then they also on the call addressed the work that the secretary had been doing in the region to bring the war in Gaza to an end, to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Lebanon, to work to prevent the situation between Israel and Iran from further escalating. Made that call, the secretary made that call while we were traveling from the region to London. So, in addition to offering his condolences for the terrorist attack, he was updating the foreign minister on all the work that we did on all of these fronts on which we see Turkey as a critical partner. One more, and then we’ll wrap for today.

Thank you, sir. Two quick questions for you. First on UNRWA, you mentioned the US playing the indispensable role of trying to end conflicts. Ambassador Thomas Greenfield brought up today that Israel and the UN need to talk to each other, not at each other. There’s this 90-day window now before the implementation. Does the US, while it’s pressuring Israel, go to the UN and say, “Listen, you’re not faultless here either. UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas. It’s time not for these cosmetic whitewash report changes, but something really, really big here and try to meet halfway?” Is there an opening for that?

We have made clear that … Excuse me. We have made quite clear that UNRWA needs to undertake reforms. We have made quite clear that they need to investigate any allegations brought to them of misconduct by their employees. And we have seen them conduct investigations, and we have seen them dismiss a number of employees.

(55:21)
Now, when you look at further into this matter, you see that UNRWA has said, and if the government of Israel wants to dispute this, they should dispute it publicly. UNRWA has said that with respect to a number of the allegations that Israel has made against UNRWA employees, when UNRWA has asked for the information from the government of Israel that they would need to investigate those claims, the government of Israel has refused to provide it. So yes, UNRWA absolutely needs to take allegations seriously. They need to investigate them. If there is anyone on their payroll who is involved in the terrorist attacks of October 7th, who is connected to Hamas, who is involved in terrorism in any way, those people need to be dismissed and UNRWA needs to look at reforms to ensure that such people are never hired again in the future. But the government of Israel also needs to provide information to UNRWA so it can carry out those investigations.

The Secretary General mourned the loss of what he called a colleague, a colleague who carried out a massacre in Southern Israel. It’s one of those things that Israel looks at and says, “Something’s not computing here.” But I want to get to the second question, I know we’re short.

(56:23)
Special Rapporteur for Palestinian Rights, Francesca Albanese, is in the US. She’s going to give a presentation to the UN, do a little speaking tour. Ambassador Thomas Greenfield, Ambassador Taylor at the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Lipstadt have all deemed the Special Rapporteur in words or some phrase a purveyor of anti-Semitism. I know you can’t comment on individual visa issues, but in a broader perspective we’ve seen countries deny entry to those who have a history of anti-Semitic comments. Is that taken into account at all in a broader perspective by the State Department when it issues visas?

So, I will just say that we have an obligation as the host country for the United Nations. We take that obligation very seriously. And one of those obligations is to grant visas to any number of individuals with views with which we do not agree. The Russian foreign minister travels to New York to participate in United Nations meetings. That is our obligation as the host of the United Nations, and its one that we take seriously. And with that, wrap for the today. Yeah, we can do one more.

I wanted to go to my two separate individual people issues. The first on Iran. Do you have more to say about the execution yesterday of the US resident?

I did. I did Just a moment ago in response to-

You did?

Yeah, I did.

Oh, I’m sorry. I completely missed that.

Clearly, clearly.

And then in Cambodia. So-

I was trying to think of … I’ll leave it at

I’m sorry, I don’t know what happened. I guess it just tuned out for a second. On Cambodia, a journalist-

I tune out to some of your questions too, Matt, so-

Clearly.

Offense not taken.

You can tell by the answers. The Cambodian journalist, Mech Dara, was released on bail last week, but there are calls that charges against him remain in place. And I’m just wondering if you guys have anything to say about whether or not you think those charges are valid or should be dropped.

Let me just say that I think this is the first time we’ve had a chance to address this at the podium since he was released. So I’ll say that, first of all, we welcome that Mech Dara was released and is able to reunite with his family, and we’ll continue to monitor his case closely. We raised his case at multiple levels in Cambodia and in Washington. We were one of many voices among governments, journalists, civil society representatives who expressed concern for his arrest and advocated for his release. And we will continue to monitor his case closely and Cambodian authorities to support a positive resolution for that case, ensuring that all of his rights are respected.

(59:12)
Now, I know what the follow-up is going to be, so I’m just going to stop there and say sometimes when it comes to sensitive diplomatic matters like this, we have found that it is better to say less and work harder privately, and this is one of those cases. And with that, I’m going to wrap. With that, I’m going to wrap for today. Thanks.