Department of State Daily Press Briefing 4/16/24

Hello, everyone. Sorry to be a couple minutes late. Just get set up here. I do not have any comments from the top. So Matt, do you want to kick us off today?

Sure. Yeah. So have the Israelis told you what they plan to do in response to what happened over the weekend?

They have not. We have been in close communication with them, as well as other partners in the region over the past few days. The secretary has continued his consultations. In the past 24 hours, he has talked to Benny Gantz, a minister in the Israeli war cabinet. He has just in the past couple of hours, completed a phone call with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar, Minister Al Thani. And he continues to send the same messages in all of his conversations, which is we do not want to see further escalation of the conflict.

Okay. And have you gotten any response that leads you to believe that the Israelis will heed your advice?

I think I will let the Israelis speak for themselves about what decisions they will make. Obviously these are their sovereign decisions. But we have been clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense, but we do want to see, as you’ve heard, multiple members of the administration say, no escalation of this conflict.

All right. And then you just said he spoke to Gantz and the Prime Minister of Qatar, but does he have other-

Of Qatar.

Yeah, Qatar.

He is continuing to make calls. I don’t have any other calls to read out or announce at this point.

Well, does he plan to speak to Netanyahu or does he plan to speak to Gallant or?

I don’t have any other calls to announce. He typically doesn’t speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone. As you know, the president usually handles those phone conversations and he talks to the Prime Minister when we’re in Israel on trips.

Can you say at the current moment where we are right now? Are your concerns still as high as they may have been over the weekend for escalation?

They continue to be high. It’s always tough to assign an exact percentage or say if they’ve gone up or gone down, partially because we have been at risk of escalation of this conflict really since October 7th. And it’s been something that we have been working to avoid and something that we have been working to contain. And there have been various periods where the risk of escalation has gone up.

(02:28)
Obviously, over the weekend we saw the risk of escalation increase dramatically, and of course the Iranians did escalate the conflict. This was clearly an escalatory act, the launching of 300 missiles and drones from Iranian soil directly targeted at the state of Israel. And so, what we’re going to continue to do is try to deescalate the conflict. But as long as the war in Gaza continues, we’re not going to be back at the place we were before October 7th. It is an ongoing process of trying to reduce tensions in the region and try to maintain as much calm as possible knowing that there is an ongoing conflict that obviously exacerbates tensions in Israel and around the region.

Okay, last one. I just want to know have any of these developments affected the Secretary’s travel plans?

No. He still intends to leave tonight for the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Capri and Italy and be there tomorrow, Thursday and Friday.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Matt, I know you said they didn’t give you any sense of what their plans are, but did they give you any timeline of when they might respond, hours, days?

I’m just not going to speak to those private conversations. And as I said, those are really decisions for the Israeli government and questions best posed to the Israeli government.

Has there been any exchange of messages between the US and Iran in the wake of this weekend’s-

There has not been, and I’ve seen some false reporting about messages exchanged between the United States and Iran, reports claiming that we have delivered messages to them. There have not been such messages delivered. It’s been days since we’ve communicated, since we’ve sent messages to the government of Iran. And I say that as a reminder of something we’ve said before, oftentimes the Iranian government has misled the world about either messages they’ve passed to us or messages that we have passed to them. And some of those reports over the past few days have been false.

And do you have any plans to engage with the Iranian Foreign Minister when he’s in New York?

I do not anticipate any such engagements.

Can you confirm the US has granted him a visa for his visit to the UN?

So, a few things about that. Number one, visa records are confidential as a matter of law. They’re not something I can speak to from this podium. Number two, we do take our obligation as the host nation of the United Nations quite seriously. And that includes allowing diplomats from other countries, even countries with whom we have significant disagreements to attend UN meetings and UN functions. But number three, we do have the ability to restrict and, in fact, severely restrict the movements of certain diplomats while they’re in New York for legitimate UN meetings. So should the Foreign Minister of Iran attend this meeting at the United Nations, I would not expect to see him in very many locations outside the United Nations.

But there were already restrictions. So this is a further restriction?

Again, I’m not going to speak to that in detail other than to say we do have the ability to impose very severe restrictions on the movements of certain diplomats. And I would not expect to see him very many places outside the United Nations.

Well, have you? Because one of the first things you guys did, like in February, just after you came into office, was to remove the restrictions that were put on Iranian diplomats in New York. So have you restored those?

So as I stand here today-

And those restrictions, if I’m correct, and I think I am, it precluded them from going anywhere outside of the UN building, the Iranian mission and a five block radius of the east side.

So, as I stand here today, a day before this scheduled meeting, when he is not here, the Iranian Foreign Minister is not here in New York, I’m not able to speak to that question or answer it in detail. But I’ll just say, should he attend, you can expect very severe restrictions on his movements inside New York.

Well, the Office of Foreign Missions puts out it did when the Trump administration did this. It was public. It came out.

So I would just say-

And then you guys rescinded them very deliberately.

And I would say stay tuned, but I would not expect to see him, for example, snapping selfies on top of the Empire State Building should he travel to New York to attend this meeting.

Well, how about snapping selfies on the East River at the UN building?

Obviously, that goes back to the thing I said at the beginning, which is we do take our-

So you’re not going to say anything until he actually shows up?

We do take our obligation as the host of the United Nations seriously, but we have the ability to impose restrictions for people to travel outside of attending United Nations meetings and say hotels and airports and such things, the ability to travel to and from United Nations meetings.

[inaudible 00:07:13].

Go ahead.

Just a follow-up. You mentioned it’s been days since you’ve sent any messages. Are you talking about… Sorry, messages to the government of Iran. You’re talking about the indirect messages that are sent through other countries, right?

Correct.

And when you say days, you mean this is before the attacks on the weekend, the last time that that happened?

I am not going to get into the detail. I’m going to try to go back to what has been our usual posture as you recall. Usually, what we have done is not publicly discuss those messages. There have been a few times in the past week where we have communicated about these messages because we’ve seen the Iranian government mislead the world about what we have said or what they have said to us. So I wanted to make public the fact that we have not sent a message in the last few days because I have seen this reporting about messages that we supposedly sent to them in the past few days. That is completely false and is not true. But I’m going to get back to our usual posture of keeping those communications private.

Before that begins, are there any messages received since the attack?

I don’t have any further messages to read out.

And is there a US assessment on whether, if in the event of an Israeli response, as expected, the Israelis or as might be expected, the Israelis strike in Iran itself, does the US have an assessment of how Iran would react to that? And is that part of these discussions that the secretary-

I think that gets me into a double hypothetical, and I’m going to decline even to engage with the first part of that hypothetical question, let alone the second. I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you. The IDF-

[inaudible 00:08:52] double hypothetical.

What’s that?

The infamous double hypothetical.

I’ll keep it to one next time.

Fair enough.

The IDF’s confirmed that they’ve eliminated a senior Hezbollah commander who was part of their coastal operations. Should we read that as in any way a retaliation or the beginning of something to do with Iran? And then I have another question from Gaza.

So I’m reluctant to tell you how to read it or to try and provide any guidance about how to read it. I would note, of course, that Israel has been engaged in conflict, in exchange of fire with Hezbollah back, well, obviously before October 7th, but in a significant way since October 7th. That in itself is not an unusual activity to have occurred.

Thank you. And do you have any updates since yesterday on conversations with the Israelis about Rafah, their Rafah operation, anything from them about a humanitarian plan on Rafah? And do you also have an update on the number of Americans who may be still… American citizens who may still be in Gaza who want to leave Gaza, including their non-American family members?

So with respect to the second question, that’s a good one. It’s been some time since I’ve checked. I will take that back and get you an answer. I’m not sure if we have an assessment. For a while, we were working to facilitate the departure of American citizens and family members, and we still are, but the demand that we have seen from American citizens and their family members has declined dramatically over time, as you would expect. A lot of people leave at the outset of the conflict and then others make decisions to stay for various reasons. So the demand has gone down significantly over time. But I’ll check and see if we have an assessment of the number remaining.

(10:42)
And then in terms of a Rafah operation, we have not yet had the follow-on meeting to talk in detail about the government of Israel’s plans. And we have still not been briefed in detail on their plans either for a humanitarian evacuation or humanitarian considerations or on the military side.

Thank you.

[inaudible 00:11:05].

Let me go here. I’ll come to you next, Jane. Go ahead.

Matt, I want to go to about the Shifa Hospital. Today, a UN team entered and what they’re witnessing is horrific scenes. Yesterday, a mass grave been discovered on the outskirts of a Shifa Hospital that contains so many unknown bodies. Did you see these reports? And do you have any comment on it?

I’ve seen the report. I don’t have any independent assessment to offer at this time. I’d want to look into it in detail before I can offer any kind of reaction.

But did you reach out to the Israelis? Are you opening an investigation on that? It’s a mass grave.

So again, we don’t have American personnel in Israel who can open such an investigation or conduct any kind of inquiry. We don’t have people on the ground who can look into it, what happened. These are the types of things we raise with the Israeli government regularly. With respect to this

…this specific one, I have just seen the report, so before I offer any kind of detailed comment on it, I want to be able to look into it and confirm with my colleagues about what any follow-up steps might be.

My last question will be, any updates on how many trucks are entering Gaza now daily? Are they still on the 400 level?

We have seen a significant increase in the number of trucks, have gotten up to 400. Some days they’ve dipped back below. For example, late last week, there were a few days during Eid when it was hard to find truck drivers, so the level of deliveries dipped. We have seen, however, a steady increase in the number of trucks that are going into Gaza. I would say it is not just the number of trucks, however, that we focused on, it’s also where the trucks are going, ensuring that they get into Northern Gaza. As you heard me say yesterday, on Sunday, 65 trucks had gone into Northern Gaza and there were more planned for yesterday. I believe those trucks did move into Northern Gaza.

(12:54)
It’s been ensuring that Ashdod port is open. It now is open for humanitarian deliveries. It’s ensuring that bakeries, including bakeries in Northern Gaza can reopen. In the past 24 hours, we have seen bakeries reopen, which is important for getting food directly to the Palestinian people. And so with all of these mechanisms, we have been working to increase their capacity and make sure they are sustained. And we have seen improvement. Not yet to the level where it needs to be. And certainly once it gets to that level, we need to see it sustained over time and that’s how we’re going to judge things, but we have seen some steady improvement over the past 10 days or so.

Follow-up.

Yeah, go ahead. I said I’d come to Jan next, but go ahead. [inaudible 00:13:37] to follow-up and then I’ll come to you Jan.

On trucks going into Gaza, are these numbers based on Israeli figures? This is my first question. And secondly, UNRWA released a report today saying that there has been no significant change in the volume of humanitarian supplies entering Gaza or improved access to the North since the beginning of April. They said an average of 881 aid trucks have crossed into Gaza per day. What is your assessment on this? And it seems that maybe Israel has taken some steps in this regard, but it seems it’s not enough. Do you agree? And also… We’ll follow-up on that.

Sure. So first of all, with respect to this dispute over trucks, part of it is counting different things and not just counting a different way, but there are some deliveries that happen that are commercial deliveries that the UN doesn’t count because they’re not part of the relief efforts that the UN monitors. So two things happen. Number one, there are trucks that come in through Rafah and through Kerem Shalom, that then are offloaded at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and loaded onto UN trucks and the UN uses different sized trucks, so the UN counts their trucks, not the number of trucks that are coming in. It is a different way to actually measure the number of trucks.

(14:57)
However, even that said, the UN number itself doesn’t capture the entire daily volume because there are commercial trucks that are coming in, in some cases coming in directly through the north, through Erez or are coming in through the 96 gate crossing that they opened. Or are coming in through the South and are driving up internal roads, and those aren’t counted to my understanding in the UN numbers because they’re not being delivered through any of the UN agencies, through UNRWA or through the World Food Program or others. So the UN number does not count the total amount of delivery that goes in.

(15:33)
That said, I would agree with the overall assessment that we are not yet at the level we need to be. Very much agree with that. But we have seen steady progress and there are other things that are coming online. For example, this thing you’ve heard me talk about before where there are trucks now that are making deliveries directly from Jordan, coming through Israel and then delivering directly into Gaza. That is happening. It’s going to be increased as Israel makes certain improvements to traffic and clearing rubble and other debris that’s blocking the ability to sustain further traffic through some of these crossings that have recently opened. So we’ve gone up, we see the pathway to going up more. We want to ensure that that’s what actually happens and that’s what we’re working every day to do. That’s a long-winded answer, I know, but it’s a complicated question.

Thank you. I appreciate. Some reports say that quantity changed, increased quantity of trucks changed, increased, but trucks are not fully loaded. Is this something that you also observe or raise with Israelis?

I’m sure it is the case that some trucks are not fully loaded. I have a hard time litigating this exact dispute where looking at every truck that goes in, but I will say, our humanitarian experts who are on the ground have seen an increased volume, not just of trucks but of humanitarian assistance going in. We have seen that over the past 10 days. But that said, it’s not enough and it needs to continue and it needs to be sustained. And that is absolutely what we are working on every day. Jan, go ahead.

Thank you. Two questions on Israel and Iran. It was reported that the director general of IAEA said there were concerns that Israel would attack Iranian nuclear facilities. What is your opinion on this possibility?

Again, I’m not going to engage with hypotheticals at all, other to say that we want to continue to avoid further escalation in the region.

On Iraq-

Just before we leave this, have you guys decided yet or made a determination about whether what Israel hit in Damascus was a diplomatic facility or not?

We have not. We have not.

So how long is this going to take?

I can’t answer that question. We’re continuing to look into it. I don’t have a timetable, but it’s something that we’re-

What do you need to-

We need to gather enough information that will allow us to-

But how?

… make an actual determination.

You have no one on the ground in Syria. At least overtly you have no one.

As I said to you the last time you engaged with me on this question, we have a range of abilities, a range of ways to gather information. They’re partner countries of ours who are on the ground. We have intelligence capabilities, obviously. And we’re continuing to gather information, but we’ve not yet been able to make a determination.

I get it. But you were pretty quick into condemning the invasion of the Mexican embassy in Ecuador.

That was a very clear, well-established embassy.

And this is not very clear, where they blew up-

This is something that is taking a little bit more time to determine.

No one died in that incident.

That’s not the question. The question was, what is it? Was it an embassy or a consulate or not? It was very clear-

How hard is it to figure that out?

It is very clear in the case of the Mexicans. It’s something that we are gathering information on.

It’s been like two weeks.

And we continue to gather information. We don’t have a determination yet.

Let me finish my second question on Iran.

Certainly.

What are the United States’ concerns about Iran working with the North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

Certainly that’s something we’d be incredibly concerned about.

So quick-

Stay in the region?

Yes.

Yeah. Who said yes? Back there. Go ahead. I heard a yes. I couldn’t see it. Go ahead.

So the content of the trucks going into Gaza, are you talking to Israel about the contents of these trucks? Gaza is in major need of medical supplies and some people on the ground are saying, “Yes, we’re getting food, canned food, but we’re not getting medical supplies.” And one question about the West Bank. Two Palestinians were killed in Israeli settlers attack on the… Some villages in West Bank. Are you pressuring the Israeli government in regards to that, especially in light of being [inaudible 00:19:49] open arming of settlers?

So two things. First of all, with respect to your first question, we have been engaged with the Israeli government and not just with the Israeli government, but with our partner countries in the region as well as the various United Nation agencies about the importance of getting medical supplies into Gaza. They are very much needed and there have been medical supplies going in, but not nearly enough, and it’s been something that we’ve been incredibly focused on. We’ve also been working with those partners to talk to the governor of Israel to make sure that items that are legitimate medical items aren’t excluded from deliveries into Gaza. And that’s something we’ll continue to do.

(20:30)
And then with respect to the West Bank, we do remain incredibly concerned about the increase in violence in the West Bank. I put out a statement on that yesterday. We’ve seen tensions continue since then. We have made absolutely clear that the government of Israel has a responsibility to police extremist settler violence. It has the responsibility to hold extremist settlers responsible when they commit acts of violence. And as we have done in the past, if we don’t see sufficient action, we are prepared to take actions of our own.

But do you expect it to go out of hand?

I’m not going to make any predictions about what will happen in the future. We’re incredibly concerned. One of the things that we have impressed upon Israel since October 7th is the importance of maintaining calm in the West Bank. And that failing to properly hold settlers accountable for their violence, risks an escalation that isn’t just harmful to the Palestinian people that live in the West Bank, but it’s harmful to Israel’s ultimate security and that it risks broader regional de-escalation. And so we’ve made the case of why it’s in Israel’s interest to take this matter incredibly seriously and to hold people accountable for violent attacks, and we’ll continue to do that. Michel.

Do you expect Israel to alert the US when they decide to retaliate?

I’m just not going to deal with that hypothetical question. We are engaged with them closely about the need to avoid escalation in the region, but I’ll keep those conversations quiet or confidential.

It’s been about a week and a half since the IDF turned over its findings on the World Central Kitchen convoy strike. The US you said was reviewing it at the time. Has there been any assessment made on that?

There hasn’t been a final assessment. We are continuing to review the results of their investigation, and we’re also continuing to engage, not with the government of Israel about this question, but with humanitarian organizations to see what questions they have. And that process is ongoing.

Are you still not calling for a separate independent investigation?

We are not at this time. We’re continuing to review those results and engage with the humanitarian partners.

When do you expect this review process to wrap?

I don’t have a timetable. Go ahead.

The United States emphasized it’s unwilling to escalate the region. And at the same time you support… United States support Israel, which occupies the Palestinian territories and which is the main and direct cause of the escalation and instability in the region. Why you ignore this region and you work in different direction?

I’m sorry. I think I missed… Why do we ignore what?

Why United States ignore this region that the occupation is the main reason and direct reason for the escalation and the violence in the area?

So first of all, I would say that it has long been our policy to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that predates October 7th. But the pursuit of that policy has been something we have been engaged in vigorously since October 7th. You’ve seen the secretary travel to the region to engage with Arab partners about putting on the table a real plan for normalization between Israel and its neighbors. That would include a pathway to an independent Palestinian state and would establish real security for Israel. That said, and I think it’s always important to emphasize this, when this question comes up as it has before, nothing that happened before October 7th

… Justified the attacks of October 7th and I think it’s always important just to make that clear.

Excuse me.

Yeah, one more.

I wonder if you heard about what’s happened today in Maghazi Camp in Gaza, the massacre, what’s happened and, today, the most who killed are children and women today this morning in Gaza.

I have not yet seen that report. I’m happy to look into it.

Okay.

Alex, go ahead.

I have different questions on…

Sure, go ahead.

Thanks so much. Let me start with the question on the report that you guys have submitted to the Congress yesterday. Compliance report, on arms agreement. There’s a line there saying that the United States continues to provide Russia with pre-launch notifications of ICBM and SLBM launches and notifications of heavy bomber exercises in accordance with proper agreements, obviously, which remain separate from [inaudible 00:24:56]. Is this a two-way road and when last time this exchange have occurred?

Alex, I’m going to make an admission here, which I have not read that report or am fully tracking the details, I’m happy to take that back and look into the report’s language and get back to you on it.

Yes, please. I’m going to move to Georgia, if I may, to follow up on your previous comments. We were particularly directed to the Georgian Dream government. You were discouraging them from moving forward, but they did act anyway. But there are protesters out there, the second day in a row, they’re trying to save their democracy. What is your message to the protesters? Do they have your sympathy? I realize I’m asking for bare minimum.

I’m going to say, first of all, with respect to that draft legislation, it does still remain draft legislation and, the last time this draft legislation was proposed, we saw it take several steps forward but ultimately not pass into law. And so, I don’t think we’re at any point where we can make any predictions yet about what’s going to going to happen, but I will just reiterate that we do remain deeply concerned about that law and, with respect to protesters in Georgia or anywhere else in the world, of course, the United States supports everyone’s right, everywhere in the world, to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

As you know, this is not the first time the initiators, same folks, are initiated in this Russian law and what is your reaction to those who believe that those initiatives are acting in impunity while you are waiting for other shoes to drop? They’re already taking the action you can’t reverse if you act later.

Alex, I would say, I would just refer you to the comments I made one moment ago, which is we have seen this legislation proposed before and not make it into law. It is still currently draft legislation. We made very clear that we are concerned about it and, as it pertains to any possible steps, I’m not going to preview anything here, but I would say that is always the case, where we do not preview potential sanctions or other measures that we might impose before we do so.

Thank you. And finally, on Ukraine, wanted to go back and forth yesterday, I’m sure you’ve seen President Zelenskyy’s comments yesterday, in which he made it clear that we can now see how unity can work truly 100% and how almost 100% of Shaheds and missiles can be intercepted. In fact, officials don’t really understand why is it that the United States is not helping them directly to prevent Russian attacks, at least targeting their energy infrastructure?

A few things. Number one, I saw the comments from the president, very much understand where he’s coming from. I would expect the president of any country who is under such withering attacks to look for any way possible to defend his people. Fully understand that. Number two, I think it is important to note the context that we have an entirely different relationship with Ukraine and Israel in that our relationship with Israel goes back decades in terms of a security partnership. We have had a decades-long security partnership with Israel where we have been providing them direct military aid, not just going back two years of a conflict, but for decades and have had long broad-standing communications between our military and the Israeli military that goes back decades. Israel is a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

(28:14)
Ukraine is just in a different position in that we did not have that kind of agreement with them prior to the immediate months before this conflict. But what you have seen us do, since this conflict, is provide them with the equipment they need to defend themselves. And that includes, of course, air defense systems, Patriot systems, and other air defense systems that we have either provided the Ukrainian military ourselves or we have sourced from other partner and ally countries around the world so they can defend themselves. And much of the reason that they have been able to successfully defend themselves against barrage after barrage after barrage of Russian attacks is because of those air defense systems that we have provided.

(28:54)
Now, that said, you’re right that we are not in armed military conflict with Russia, which is what it would require for US planes to be in the skies over Ukraine engaging with Russian attacks. And we are not going to be in direct armed conflict with Russia. The President of the United States has made that very clear. I think it’s in the interest of the American people that we not be in direct armed conflict between the United States and Russia because we do not want World War III.

(29:20)
That said, we are entirely committed to the defense of Ukraine. We have proved that over the past two years, the President has proved that by providing American support, and if you want to ask the question about what more we can do, the question is one to put to the United States Congress because we have a supplemental spending bill that would allow us to provide more equipment, including more air defense systems, to Ukraine, that they very much need, and we hope that bill will pass.

On sanctions, do you have any update on reimposing Venezuela’s sanctions? The deadline for decision, I believe, is this Thursday.

It is Thursday. It’s two days from now. The 18th. In my mind, I had it as tomorrow, but you’re right, it is on Thursday. We have made very clear, you saw when we allowed one of the licenses that we had given them with respect to the gold industry to expire in, I believe, it was February, we made clear that there was another license on their oil industry that was set to expire on April 18th. We are two days from April 18th. We have made very clear that, if Maduro and his representatives did not fully implement their agreements under the Barbados agreement, we would reimpose sanctions. And I would just say stay tuned.

Do you think he’s been moving towards free and fair elections, which is part of that Barbados agreement?

He has upheld certain aspects of the Barbados agreement, including setting an election timetable and inviting international observation missions. At the same time, you’ve seen him block candidates from the opposition from the ballot. Those are things that we take very seriously and I don’t want to make any announcements ahead of their time, but you should certainly stay tuned over the next few days to see what more we will have to say in advance of this deadline.

Is there any concern that reimposing these sanctions could have some sort of impact or exacerbate irregular migration from that country?

Irregular migration is something we continue to work on with our partners in the region, but I don’t want to answer that question in detail because it sort of presumes a policy choice that I’m not ready to announce at this time.

Same topic.

Yeah, go ahead.

Last week there was a meeting in Mexico between US officials and Venezuelan officials, do you have any details of what was discussed there?

I’m not going to comment on private diplomatic exchanges.

Venezuela, too regarding-

I was just saying, but we have made very clear, directly to Maduro and his representatives, that we expect them to uphold the things they agreed to under the Barbados agreement.

And on another meeting today, here in Washington, with Cuban authorities on migration, do you have any comments on what is being discussed and why is this meaningful?

These were bilateral discussions between the United States and Cuba. They’re bilateral discussions on migration that take place biannually, twice a year. They reflect the commitment by the United States to regularly review the implementation of the US-Cuba migration accords, which date back to 1984, ensuring safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration between Cuba and the United States remains a primary interest of the United States consistent with our interest in fostering family reunification and promoting greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.

Thank you. Regarding-

Go ahead.

Thank you. What are some of the diplomatic measures that the US is doing to de-escalate tensions since the Iran attack?

We are engaging in… First of all, I want to say two about that. One, we are engaging in diplomacy to make clear that we don’t want to see de-escalation. That’s a message the secretary has delivered in his direct conversations with his counterparts in the region. It’s the message that others have delivered in their conversations with counterparts in the region, others from both our building and broader inside the administration. But there is another thing that we are doing too when it comes to diplomacy and that is ensuring a coordinated diplomatic response to the unprecedented escalatory actions that Iran has taken. And you’ve seen the secretary engage in conversations with his G-Seven counterparts. The President, of course, held a video call with the leaders of the G7 countries on Sunday and it’s something that we will continue to coordinate on in the days ahead.

And as far as the Arab countries, like Jordan, is there a strategy to help bolster them since they took action in shooting down those drones?

I’m going to let any country speak to its own actions. Go ahead.

There’s a new Washington Post report today that six-year-old girl in Gaza City was killed, and the paramedics who went to rescue her. And that report finds that the ammunition matches that of Israel. Does the State department of a new comment, you’ve spoken to it before, said you’ve been in touch with the Israelis. Are you satisfied with their explanation?

I did read that report right before I walked out here to the podium. And I just want to say, again, that the death of Hind Rajab is really an unspeakable tragedy. Something that never should have occurred and never should occur.

(34:27)
When she first died and we saw the reports of her death, we raised the matter with the governor of Israel directly. They told us that they had conducted an investigation and found that there were no IDF units in the area at the time of her death. I read the Post report and the Post has concluded something to the contrary. What we’re going to do is take the information that is contained in that Washington Post story, we’re going to go back to the governor of Israel and ask them for further information. We would still welcome a full investigation into this matter and how it occurred in the first place.

You’ve said, repeatedly, that there are processes that the State Department, as Admiral Kirby referred to them as well. Is this one of those such processes where the United States… Could you do something independently here?

We do have processes ongoing to look at various incidents. I have made it a practice never to confirm when a specific incident is under consideration as part of one of these processes, but there are a number of incidents that continue to be under review at the State Department and that will continue to be the case. That is a separate matter than raising the question, with the government of Israel and asking what they have found. And that’s what we’ve done in this case and that’s what we’ll be going back to them to do with the new details that were raised by the Washington Post.

And one more on aid, but the humanitarian pier that DOD is leading on, are you facilitating relationship with NGOs to get that aid into Gaza?

We have been in conversation. Obviously, DOD is the lead for the construction

… of that pier and the operation of that pier. But our special envoy, David Satterfield, as well as officials in our embassy in Jerusalem, have been engaged in conversations with the government of Israel and various United Nations agencies and private relief organizations about the operation of that pier. And how to ensure that aid, that is delivered into Gaza over that pier, can then be properly and efficiently distributed inside Gaza. Which of course has been one of the difficulties over the past couple of months once aid actually is delivered. That’s been true for the delivery of aid over land routes, and what we’re working to ensure is that it’s not a problem for the delivery of aid through this new maritime corridor. Go ahead.

[inaudible 00:36:47] talking about what was increasing concern about Chinese support for Russian military industrial base. And so have you warned the Chinese against doing that, like you did a while ago when it comes to lethal aid or are you planning any actions to address that?

(37:10)
And separately, if I may, Polish President Duda said today that he will meet with former President Trump. That’s obviously another meeting after David Cameron met with him. And the Ukrainians expressed interest in that. Are you concerned at all about these meetings, that there might be some shadow diplomacy or something like that?

I don’t have any comment on those meetings other than to say that we have seen over the course of years of American elections where foreign governments engage with the nominees of major parties here, just as American diplomats and American leaders often engage with foreign opposition leaders. The secretary has regularly engaged with the opposition leader in Israel. He met with the opposition leader from the United Kingdom when he was in Munich in February. So that’s something that has happened over decades between governments of various parties in the United States and in other countries.

(38:22)
With respect to your first question, remind me.

Chinese.

Oh, with China. So we have long made clear to the People’s Republic of China that we would have concern with any actions that they took to support Russia’s war in Ukraine. And that does not include… that doesn’t have to just be direct military support, but that we would be incredibly concerned about any steps taken by Chinese companies to reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. And so what we have seen over the past months is there have been materials moving from China to Russia, that Russia has used to rebuild that re-industrial base and produce arms that are showing up on the battlefield in Ukraine. And we are incredibly concerned about that. And you saw the secretary engage with NATO foreign ministers about that, week before last. It will certainly be on the agenda when he travels to the G7 tomorrow to meet with G7 partner countries. And then the only thing I will say further about that is the secretary does plan to travel to China in the coming weeks. And without getting too far ahead of those meetings, you can certainly expect that that is an issue that he would be expected to raise. Go ahead.

Regarding Venezuela again, because we have seen that President Gustavo Petro from Colombia, he has been engaging with Maduro, for instance, last week. At the same time that the US officials were meeting with representatives from the Maduro government in Mexico, he was meeting with Maduro in Venezuela. How important has been the role of President Gustavo Petro and do you believe that he’s aligned with the US towards Venezuelan sanctions?

Let me take that back and get you a comment. All the way in the back. Yeah.

Can you provide any information or comment on the assurances that the US has given the high court in London on the proposed extradition of Julian Assange?

I would defer to the Department of Justice on that question.

Is the US working on a possible plea deal in this case? And is that something that the Australian government has asked for?

When it comes to plea deals or any other matters of ongoing cases, I’m going to defer to my colleagues at the Justice Department who should be the ones to comment on that. Although I expect what they’ll say is you can look to their court filings for any comment, but still.

Is it something that the US has been discussing with the Australian government?

Again, I’m just going to defer to the Department of Justice. Go ahead.

Sir, Pakistan has initiated discussions with the IMF over a new multibillion dollars loan agreement. Pakistani finance minister is here and seeking US help in terms of investments. Is US supporting or can support Pakistan in these challenging times?

So we welcome last month’s announcement that the IMF has reached a staff level agreement with Pakistan. We understand, as you said, the Pakistani minister of finance is in town, here in Washington, for meetings at the IMF and World Bank. Pakistan has made progress to stabilize its economy and we support its efforts to manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges. Our support for the country’s economic success is unwavering and we’ll continue to engage with Pakistan through technical agreements as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.

So Indian Prime Minister Modi and his defense minister have said in a campaign speech that the new India will not hesitate to cross borders to kill terrorists. They’re kind of confessing to the assassination of Nijjar in Canada, Pannun’s murder-to-hire plot in New York and killings in Pakistan. Is this statement a concern for Biden administration?

So as I have said before, the United States is not going to get into the middle of this, but we do encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid escalation and find a resolution through dialogue.

In the past, United States has imposed sanctions on individuals from foreign countries involved in assassination attempts here in United States, but we don’t see similar actions against India. What is the reason of this apparent relaxation?

So I am never going to preview any sanctions actions, which is not to say that there are any coming, but when you ask me to talk about sanctions, it’s something that we don’t discuss openly. Go ahead.

Thank you, Matthew. I wanted to ask about Qatar. It sounds like they have prior ties to Hamas. So does the Biden administration see them as a reliable mediator with Hamas now?

So you have heard the secretary speak to this on a number of occasions, and you heard the president speak to this after we achieved the humanitarian pause back in November that got more than a hundred hostages out. We were able to achieve that in great effect because of the work that Qatar did to help us get those hostages out. Qatar has played an incredibly important role in helping get hostages out already, and they have played an incredibly important role in the back and forth negotiations with Hamas over the past few months to try and reach a further ceasefire deal that would get the remaining hostages out. So I would just say, with respect to Qatar, they have been a close partner in this process. They continue to be and it is because of their work that we’ve already seen hostages come home.

Do you feel like they’ve done the most they can do?

They have done an incredible amount of work. Yes, they have done everything that they can do to try and get these hostages home and we continue to engage with them. This, as I said, the secretary spoke with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar earlier today, to talk about the latest iteration of a possible hostage deal.

(43:59)
And when it comes to the impediment to hostage agreement, it’s not Qatar, not Egypt, it’s not Israel right now, it is Hamas. It is Hamas that has refused to agree to the deal that is on the table, despite the fact that it would achieve much of the things that they have publicly claimed, and repeated statements that they are trying to achieve. Go ahead.

Just want to follow up on a question I asked yesterday. Today Reuters reported that if some Palestinian residents in the West Bank are expressing concern that… they’re expressing a lack of trust in the authorities meant to protect them. So my question is, they’re saying that the Palestinian Authority is not protecting them. Does the Palestinian Authority have not only a right but a duty to protect them? And I’m talking about within the areas of their jurisdiction?

So I would say, let me just answer this question. It’s really the same answer I gave yesterday, is that we want to see the appropriate law enforcement authorities, in those areas where they have jurisdiction, to act. But ultimately, the question comes back to something I said earlier, which is the Israeli authorities, the IDF, have a responsibility to police settler violence and hold settlers accountable for their violence. And that’s what we have been engaged with the governor of Israel to encourage. Go ahead. I’m just going to… we got to wrap up, so I’m going to go here and then wrap for the day.

You have mentioned restrictions on diplomatic movements regarding the Iranian diplomats. Don’t you think it’ll be like another dead end for at least diplomatic conversations? And please also mention…

I didn’t… Just repeat that last part again. I didn’t quite catch it.

So don’t you think so it will add another dead end for at least diplomatic conversation you have with Iran, and what are the channels of communications you have, what are the level of communication level you have with the Iranian side? Because they have mentioned several times during this crisis that they did inform the United States before this attack.

So that is not true, first of all. As I said yesterday, that is not accurate. We do have the ability to send messages to the Iranian government, which when it is in our interest to do so, we have done that in the past. We’ve done that over the past week, although we have not done so in the past few days. And let me just… and the other thing I’ll say, which I said in response to an earlier question maybe before you walked in, which is that you cannot take at face value what you hear the Iranian government say, either about the messages they have sent to us or the messages that we have sent to them or about reports you see about those messages, because oftentimes they are either wildly misleading or completely untrue.

Then secondly, apparently it seems like what Israel did, it is unjustified to attack a declared diplomatic mission. Before this, Israel attack many positions in Syria by claiming that Iranian alliance are involved in the weaponizing the Syrian. But this time, this [inaudible 00:47:09] Iran to the directing engagement with the Israel. We have seen that United States initiated diplomatic efforts with its Western allies to halt Iran to strike back, and then to Israel to attack Iran. Why you and your allies didn’t join any condemnations to stop Israel to further continue this escalation, that will prolong this escalation? But you are doing diplomatic, you are doing at best your level for the diplomatic measures, but not with the condemnations.

So I will say, that I don’t agree with every one of the premises in that question, but we have very much been engaged to try to prevent further escalation of the conflict. And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks everyone.