Department of State Daily Press Briefing 5/07/24

Good afternoon. Sorry to be late. Again, I don’t have anything to start with. So Matt-

Really? Again?

… see if you have a curveball for me two days in a row.

A curveball. Okay, let’s see.

I should not have walked into that. That is tempting fate.

Let’s start with New Caledonia.

I’m going to take the question.

All right. So seriously, on Rafah and the situation there. And I recognize that your colleague at the White House just went over this for about an hour recently, so I’m not sure you’re going to have anything different to say. But since he spoke, has there been any change in the administration’s understanding of what the Israelis are doing there?

No. So a couple of things that we have seen over the past 24 hours. So obviously there was the operation that they launched overnight last night to take control of Rafah Gate. They have described that as a limited operation. It appears to be, at least that piece, a limited operation at this time. They have also, as we discussed yesterday, ordered the evacuation of some 100,000 people in neighborhoods in Rafah. This military operation that they launched last night was targeted just to Rafah Gate, it wasn’t an operation in these civilian areas that they had ordered to be evacuated. So we will continue to make clear that we oppose a major military operation in Rafah. Make that clear to them privately as well as publicly.

But your sense of this is that the Israelis have, at least not yet-

Not yet.

… overstepped what you have warned them against doing?

This appears to be a limited operation but of course much of that depends on what comes next. They have said, I think quite clearly, it’s no secret that they want to conduct a major military operation there. We have made clear that we oppose such an operation. And separately, but of course it’s related, we’re trying to achieve an agreement that would bring an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages.

And on that? How’s that going?

Negotiations are ongoing in Cairo today. We continue to believe that there is space to reach a deal and we are trying incredibly hard to push one over the line.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Thank you. On Rafah. Are the actions that Israel is taking so far reflective of the advice that US officials have been giving regarding targeted precise strikes in Rafah? Or are the Israelis’ actions beyond that?

I am not going get into the either… I’m not going to do two things. Number one, I’m not going to get into the private advice that we have given them. Two, I’m not going to offer an assessment about whether that aligns wholly with the advice that we have given because to do that I’d have to lay out what it is that we have told them. But I will say that this does appear to be a limited operation so far. But as I made clear, it does, to a great extent, depend on what comes next. And what we’ve seen so far is the order is not just limited operation but the ordering of the evacuation of 100,000 people. And we have made clear that we don’t think the kind of military operation that would follow such an evacuation is one that we can support because of the dramatic impact it would have on the civilian population there and the ability to get humanitarian assistance in and delivered to those people.

You and other American officials have reminded us consistently that the US has been clear about what it thinks about a major Rafah offensive. Have you been coordinating with allies and partners on the potential consequences should Israel launch such an offensive?

So I’m not going to speak to that. Largely because I’m not going to speak to what decisions that we may make if Israel does launch such an operation. We have made clear that they have to make their decisions about policy and we’ll make our decisions about our policy. Obviously we discussed that with our allies and partners around the world. Secretary, every time he meets with one of our allies, one of the first things on the table, oftentimes even before whatever bilateral issue we have to discuss, they want to talk about what is going on in the Middle East and what is going on with respect to the war in Gaza. So we do talk about this sometimes in quite a bit of detail, but I’m not going to read that out publicly.

Okay. I have two more on the region. One is on the hostage talks. There’s been some reporting that the US may be making promises about the length and the permanence of the cessation of hostilities, promises that Israel may not be willing to keep. So can you clarify whether the US and Israel are actually aligned on that front or whether the US is making some unilateral promises?

So I’m not going to talk about the details of these negotiations and I hope you’ll understand why. Something we have tried to do since the beginning is not to talk in too much detail about these negotiations because of how sensitive they are and they maybe have never been more sensitive than they are at this moment, where we think a deal is possible and we’re trying to push one over the line. I will say that we have closely coordinated with the government of Israel on this matter. We have been in touch with them on a daily, oftentimes an hourly basis, and we’ll continue to do so.

Okay. One more. Without getting into what the conclusion is, tomorrow is the deadline for the National Security Memorandum that this building needs to deliver to Congress. Again, I don’t expect you to tell us what, if any conclusion has been made, but has a conclusion been made as to whether Israel has violated US or international law?

I’m not going to answer that question directly because the report is not yet finished. We are working incredibly hard to get that report finished, get that report finalized and get it delivered to Congress as soon as possible.

Do you expect it to be delivered tomorrow?

We are trying very hard to meet that deadline. It is, I will just note, a self-imposed deadline, it’s not one that is in statute. But we are trying very hard to get the report done. It is a complicated report. This is the time the department has ever written something like this. First time we’ve ever gone through and made these kind of assessments about the two questions that are at issue in the report. So there is a lot of work that has to be done. That work is ongoing. We know we’re up against a deadline, we’re trying to meet it. It’s possible it slips just a little bit but we are still at this point trying to get it done by tomorrow.

Sorry. This is the first time you guys have ever written a report about whether your military sales to a foreign country are being used in violation or not in violation?

It is the first time we have had to write this kind of report that’s called for in the NSM. There may be other ones. But let me just-

[inaudible 00:06:37] successive you and your predecessor and then previous administrations have always talked about how you’re always looking into whether or not the weapons that you provide to the countries are used in compliance with them. And this is now, all of a sudden, it’s the first time?

No, those are different questions, Matt. We are always looking into how things are used, but those are ongoing assessments. And right now these are ongoing assessments. And that’s what makes the process a little difficult. We have ongoing assessments that are being made. And in the middle of that process, we are, because we decided it was a good idea to do on our own volition, stopping in the middle of that and making assessments or answering questions about Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law as well as the delivery of humanitarian assistance. And I should add, it’s not just Israel. I always make this point. There are other countries as well that this applies to. It is the first time State has ever written a report of this nature, especially in the middle of a conflict, that goes to Congress and so we want to make sure we have it right.

All right. And then just one other thing that I was confused on is that you seem to be bothered by the idea that the Israelis have told 100,000 people to evacuate from part of Rafah. And yet it was my understanding that over the course of the last month or so, you guys have been telling the Israelis that you would oppose a major operation there unless they had a plan to get civilians out. Are you suggesting that moving or telling 100,000 people to get out of the way is a bad thing-

No.

… if they’re going to do an operation?

It is not in theory.

I mean that seems to me that that is a plan, whether or not it’s worthy or not, but it is a plan [inaudible 00:08:23].

It is not in theory a bad thing to do. Of course, if you’re going to conduct a military operation, you want to see people evacuated. But those people need to have somewhere to go. And the place that they go to needs to have sufficient food, sufficient water, sufficient housing, sufficient sanitation. And we have not yet seen a plan that would deliver that. And I’ll add, there’s also the question that if you evacuate 100,000 people and launch military operations, will it be only 100,000 people that move or will it be more, other people that see the conflict and flee in the face of it? Our assessment is it’s a lot more than 100,000 that would move. And so you have to have plans not just for 100,000 people, but hundreds and hundreds of thousands of additional people to take care of their needs and that’s not what we have seen. So Simon, go ahead.

Yeah. So I’m wondering, you’ve been warning obviously that this operation shouldn’t go ahead without that plan. You seem to be holding back from saying that it has gone ahead. But in terms of what you’ve been warning about, the humanitarian impact, it seems there is already an impact in terms of another border crossing is closed and at the moment we understand both border crossings are closed. So do Israel’s actions over the last 24 hours set back the work that you’ve been pushing them to do on the humanitarian situation, given that there’s near famine conditions in Gaza?

Certainly the closing of Kerem Shalom and the closing of Rafah set back the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Now to some extent, the full answer to that question depends on what happens next and whether they’re quickly reopened. And Israel has committed to reopen Kerem Shalom tomorrow, we’re working to make sure that that actually happens. So humanitarian assistance can continue to come through. And I should add that Kerem Shalom didn’t close just because of an action by Israel. It closed because it was bombed by Hamas. So we want to see it reopen as soon as possible, they’ve said they’ll do it tomorrow.

(10:17)
Same thing with Rafah. They said that Rafah will reopen for the delivery of fuel, which is incredibly important to desalinization of water. It’s incredibly important to fueling the trucks that deliver humanitarian assistance once it’s inside Gaza. And it’s incredibly important for running bakeries that deliver bread for the population there that needs it so much. But we want to see it fully reopened. And so when I say it depends on what happens next, if Kerem Shalom opens and Rafah reopens, those will be important steps because we don’t want to see humanitarian assistance limited or impeded in any way.

Have they told you that now they’ve got control of Rafah, this is actually going to be better in terms of getting humanitarian aid? Is that what you seem to be suggesting?

No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. I don’t want to get into any private conversations. They’ve said it would reopen for fuel, we want to see it reopen for everything. Because Rafah is crossing that we should note that the amount of humanitarian assistance that has gone in through Rafah has gone down over time as assistance has shifted more to Kerem Shalom. But that assistance is still critical. We’re not in a position where we can afford to see any delivery mechanism shut down, even if it’s one of the relatively small ones. And I only say relatively small in relation to the amount coming in through Kerem Shalom. But we also want to see it open for fuel. It is the entry point for humanitarian workers that come in. It is the exit point for people that come out of Rafah. So it’s important that gate be open not just for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, but so that humanitarian workers can come in and out of Gaza to do the important work that they do every day.

And just finally. We’ve already seen, I think there’s some videos of tanks rolling over civilian infrastructure as they’ve entered into the area around the border crossing. There are reports of civilian loss of life. There’s been airstrikes in Rafah. I guess just to try and get clarity on does the US oppose what Israel has done so far or you’re just saying we have to wait and see?

So we clearly oppose the destruction of any civilian infrastructure if it does not constitute a legitimate military target. Now when you get to looking at any one video, we’d have to be able to assess whether that’s a legitimate military target. Are there Hamas fighters in there? The issues that we have gone through a number of times. But certainly we don’t want to see civilian infrastructure damaged, destroyed in any way. But that said, to the larger question, it is not our assessment that a major military operation has begun at this point, but that could obviously change at any moment and we will continue to make clear that it’s not one that we could support.

Just one video in question has an Israeli

… tank rolling over an “I love Gaza” sign. Does that seem like something that could be a legitimate military target?

That does not seem like it would serve any legitimate military purpose. No.

Well, do you consider an “I love Gaza” sign to be critical infrastructure?

No. So I’ve seen the video, but I don’t know whether the tank was going or… But just on the face of it, no, that would not seem to be so. Go ahead.

Matt, On the NSM, is that taking into account anything that’s happening in Rafah over these past few days?

So it is a looking backwards report. I’m not going to get into it. You’ll have to wait and see when we make it public.

Yes or no though? Can you say if that’s part of why you might not meet the deadline?

Again, when it comes to any of the content of the report, I think is just going to have to wait and see. It was something that we’re still working on.

And the Jordanians say that another one of their aid convoys was attacked by Israeli extremists on the way to Erez. Do you have any comment on this? Has there been any discussion with the Israeli government since this latest incident, which is I think the second one in recent days?

It is something that we have raised with the Israeli government. We have made it clear to them that they need to take action to prevent these attacks and they need to take action to hold people accountable. This is something that happened for the first time, the first time with this particular route last week when we were in Israel and the secretary raised it directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu and in that case they made three arrests of people responsible. That is obviously the appropriate thing to do. They need to make arrests in this case, hold people accountable, and send a strong public message as a deterrent that they will not tolerate these attacks on convoys that are just trying to deliver humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians that need it.

So there’s also, our team has reported that nine children have been killed in Rafah since the start of the Israeli “limited operation”, as you described it. Do you have any comment on this?

Obviously every death of any civilian, but especially children is a tragedy whether they’re in Rafah or anywhere else inside Gaza and we’ve made that clear since the outset of this operation. Yeah, go ahead.

Just to clarify-

I heard you sort of jumping in back there several times. I always get to you, Said.

I know. I know you will. I’m just getting some exercise.

I think we can all do better than counting what we do in here is exercise.

Yeah, that’s about the extent of it. Anyway, the NSM-20. Now it’s been three months. How long it will be before it is released? Do you have any expectations like next week or the week after?

So we are working incredibly hard to get it done. We want to get it done tomorrow. It’s possible it slips just a very short period of time, but as I said, our goal is still to try to get it done tomorrow. If we don’t, I’ll have an update for you, but we want to get it done as soon as possible.

So it could come out tomorrow?

Absolutely.

Okay. Now a couple of things on Rafah. You said that your understanding is that this is a very limited operation. So the Israelis can conceivably do a number of limited operations. In other words, collectively it’ll be a big operation, but they can hit strike this area of Rafah, that area of Rafah, and so on. Would that also be okay with you?

So I’m not going to speculate about some hypothetical scenario that may happen in the future, but obviously there is a point where a series of limited operations are one large one. That’s just as a theoretical point as obviously true. But in terms of what might happen, I’m just not going to speculate on that or comment on such a hypothetical.

On the crossing, I mean you said that the crossing of Karem Abu Salem or Kerem Shalom was closed because of the strike, but in fact what was struck was a military base or a military encampment for the Israelis and not really the crossing itself. I’m just saying logistics.

So I mean you could make that argument. It was that strike at Kerem Shalom that precipitated its closure. And I would say yes, it appears that the strike was aimed at IDF forces there. Could have hit the humanitarian workers, could have hit everyone coming through. It’s that strike that precipitated its closure. But that said, you should be very clear about what our position is. We want to see it open. We want to see it open as soon as possible. They’ve said that they’ll open it tomorrow. We are going to work to see that that happens.

Isn’t it a bit cynical of the Israelis to do this on the day after Cindy McCain came out and said there’s a full-blown famine in Gaza. They closed Rafah, they closed Kerem Shalom, they closed all these things. Doesn’t that bother you that right after the head of the World Food Program comes out and says there’s a full-blown famine in Gaza, they went and closed it?

So I don’t think you have to draw a connection between those comments and the closing of those two gates. It doesn’t matter. We want to see the gates open because we know the humanitarian situation is dire in Gaza. We know that people need food and need water and need medical supplies and that’s why we want to see those crossings open. It’s also why we work to get Erez crossing open. It’s why we’re working on a maritime option. It’s why we’ve continued to work hard from the President on down to get humanitarian assistance delivered into Gaza.

One last question on the settlements, the Israeli settlers seem to use… They’ve shepherd their sheep and so on to using their guns and so on to basically take over to seize West Bank land. Are you aware of this report?

I don’t know. I’m not aware of this specific report, but obviously that has been something that has been well-reported and well documented over the past several months as well as preceding that time.

Thank you.

And I thought there’s going to be a follow-up question. Since not, I’ll just go ahead. We have made clear that the Israeli government needs to do more to crack down on settler violence. They need to do more to police settler violence. They need to do more to hold extremist settlers accountable for their violent actions. And we have also made clear, and you’ve seen us roll out sanctions to this effect that when we don’t see a sufficient action, we are ready and willing to take action ourselves and we’ll continue to do so.

Thank you.

Thank you. The UN Secretary General Mr. Antonio Gutierrez said that the closing of Rafah Crossing is adversely going to affect the humanitarian aid that’s getting into Gaza, so a situation that’s already catastrophic. Do you believe that’s a violation of international law?

So to answer that question, you have to look at all the other deliveries of humanitarian assistance. I can’t offer you a legal definition from here because you have to weigh it against other factors including whether sufficient humanitarian assistance is coming in through other crossings. If you could theoretically come up with a situation where all of the aid that’s going in through one crossing diverts to another. That said, that’s not a situation that we want to see because there is not enough humanitarian assistance going in right now. We have seen it increase over the past four or five weeks since the president had that phone call on April 4th with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

(19:57)
But we are not yet at the point where we can afford to shut down Rafah or any other one crossing. We need to see humanitarian assistance come in and so that’s why we’ll work to continue to see it reopen. Now that said, one of the things that Israel said is very much accurate, which is Hamas did control the Gaza side of Rafah Crossing and Hamas was continuing to collect revenue from that crossing being open. So it is a legitimate goal to try and derive Hamas from revenue money that they could use to continue to finance their terrorist activities. That said, we want to see the crossing open and we’re going to work to try to get it back open.

Okay, so you’re justifying basically that the Israelis closing it because they have many reasons?

That’s not what I said. Not at all. Just not at all a take that’s-

You were just saying that they’re collecting revenue.

You could find another way to open that crossing hopefully without Hamas being the one that is manning the Gaza side of it and collecting revenue as goods flow through Rafah, collecting revenue, some of it illicit, some of it probably illicit when you think of bribes and other things that happen with the crossing of traffic through that crossing. So I would say yes, it is a legitimate goal to try to deprive Hamas of that revenue, but we need to find a way of doing that that keeps Rafah open.

I see. There’s just express concern about this, a hundred thousand civilians were being evacuated and you said there is no place for them to go. And our reporting from Gaza basically that there is no safe place for people to go. And as you know, many people have been walking 10 kilometers to go somewhere else. Isn’t this already defying what you’ve been calling the Israelis not to do, whether evacuating a million and a half or a hundred thousand? The evacuation has to be with a viable plan, as you said, but there is no viable plan, so the Israelis are already defying you. Any consequences for that?

So we have made clear we don’t want to see a major military operation. This does look like the prelude of a major military operation. We have not yet seen that operation commence. And in terms of any policy response, we’ll wait to see what happens next before we make those determinations.

Okay, one final question. I don’t know if I’m satisfied with your answer, but anyway, one final question about this, mass graves. Almost 400 people been buried in mass graves. Some of them according to the latest UN report, not eyewitnesses on the ground, the UN report or Palestinian Media that they’ve been buried alive and some were children, some were women. I know you’ve been seeing that you’re a bit slow and writing reports and delivering them on time, but why we been falling about this investigation? What’s holding this investigation? Because there’s serious concern here, about 400 people have been rounded and buried and some have been buried alive.

So we have made clear that Israel needs to continue to be transparent about this issue. Israel has said that with respect to this issue of mass graves, there are places where they were operated, where there were mass graves where Palestinians have buried their dead altogether. Probably because of the extraordinary circumstances in which they have been forced to live. And Israel has come in and exhumed some bodies to try to identify whether there were hostages here. They’ve gotten intelligence that there were hostages contained in those mass graves. And so they’ve exhumed them to check that and then rebury them after the fact. We believe they ought to continue to be transparent about what exactly took place and that’ll continue to be our position. Go ahead.

Matt, could I clarify just one thing?

Sure.

Haaretz just reported that the crossing at Rafah would be managed by an American company. Are you aware of this kind of suggestion?

I’m not aware of that at all.

Thank you.

That was my question.

Sorry about that.

That’s two days in a row. I came to you and somebody else had asked your question.

I came to sit next to him and he steal my turn.

Right.

On this?

Yeah. Michel, go ahead.

News reports said today that the administration is holding up munitions shipments to send a political message to Israel. Is that true and what is the message?

Look, our support for Israel’s right to defend itself, our support for Israel’s right to ensure that October 7th never happens again remains strong. And with respect to any individual shipments, I’m just not going to speak to them from here.

And second, did the US give any guarantees to Hamas on ending the war in Gaza?

So I’m not going to speak to what are very sensitive, delicate, ongoing negotiations and you should not read into my kind of blanket refusal to do that anything as regards to your question. It’s just a rule that given the nature of the negotiations right now, I don’t think it would be helpful. I don’t think it would be productive to get into it. There have been obviously a lot of reports over what has been in various proposals over the past 24 hours. Some of those reports have been more accurate than others. Some of them have been completely off base. I don’t think it serves our purpose given the status and negotiations to kind of parse through those here and talk about them.

And what about this report concerning the guarantees?

I think I just answered the question. I don’t have anything further to add.

On the arms shipments, to Michel’s first question, so your position is that you don’t comment about individual shipments?

Not in this case, no.

Because you do in pretty much every other case. In fact, I’ve looked back over the last three weeks. I got one to Argentina, one to Iraq, one of the Netherlands, one to Poland, one to Saudi Arabia. You don’t have any problem talking about those?

It always depends on the situation, but we have made clear in this… It often does. There are times that we have congressionally mandated rules about things we need to disclose. There are times that we disclose arm shipments because we want to rally our-

So you don’t-

Hold on. We want to rally our allies and partners to do the same. And there are times that we keep those shipments private. It’s also true, as you know, you know this more than me, that there are a variety of different arms sales programs. There

There are different disclosure mechanisms for each of those.

I’m well aware, and I know where you’re coming from on this. I just think that it doesn’t make any sense. Basically, you just have to come out and say that you are not consistent about this. And that when it suits you to announce an arm sale or an arms shipment, you’ll do it. And when you don’t think that it suits you, then you don’t. And that’s inconsistency at its… That is the definition of being inconsistent.

There are different situations all around the world. And of course, we look at them differently.

[inaudible 00:26:37].

Go ahead, Alex.

Thank you, [inaudible 00:26:39]. I’m going to stay in the region.

Yeah, if you stay in the region… I’ll come to you. Go ahead.

Just one quick one. Is there any update on whether the US has come to a new determination on possible Leahy Law violations?

No, it’s-

[inaudible 00:26:52] in the case of that one IDF unit.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. No, we continue to look through and review new information that Israel has provided to us and are working on what that assessment will be.

And you have no expectation for how long that process could take?

I don’t. We’re trying to get it finished as soon as possible, but it’s important that we get it right as well.

I want to stay in the region. But farther east on Syria, the US repatriated several dozen… I think around two dozen Westerners from the camps in Al-Hol. There were apparently 11 Americans that were repatriated. Can you give us any details on how that operation played out? Could you tell us, if you have that number or ballpark number, of how many Americans we’re talking about left in these camps?

In terms of the operation that just happened overnight, there were 11 Americans and then one family member who is not a US citizen, but a family member of a US citizen, part of this 11 who were repatriated and brought to the United States. It’s something that we’ve been working on with our international partners, as well as humanitarian partners, because we believe that repatriation is the only durable, long-term solution to the humanitarian and security situation in Northeast Syria. And just as we have done in this instance, we urge all countries of origin to repatriate, rehabilitate, reintegrate, and where appropriate, prosecute their nationals upon return from Syria. And then with respect to the number of Americans that remain, we’re aware of approximately 25 US citizens who may be located in displaced persons camps and detention facilities in Northeast Syria, around 25.

Beyond the 11 that came back?

Yes, beyond.

May follow up on that statement?

Sure, just go ahead.

So this was not a product of direct talks with Syrians, right?

No, it was not.

If that’s the case, did you learn anything about the case of Austin Tice during this process?

With respect to Austin Tice, we continue to call on the Syrian regime to ensure Austin Tice and every US National held in Syria are able to return home. We continue to work every available path to ensure his return home. We’ve engaged extensively with regard to this case, trying to bring him home, and we’re not going to give up until we do.

You might want to take this one from me. As you know, Austin’s mother was in town last week. She gave an interview, and she said that she’s seeking access to State Department report from 2020, fall, about the trip of Trump administration officials to Syria. The report was not shared with the family, which contains significant details about how the Syrians are trying to provide proof of life. Are you willing to come up with the report?

I can’t speak to that specific report. We have obviously been engaged with Austin Tice’s family, including his mother. I will just say, as a parent, I think every parent cannot imagine what it is she must be going through. And so, people here from the department engage with her on a regular basis to talk about this case and update her on the work that we are doing to try to bring him home.

Thank you. This might also be a good segue to the details about latest information about the US soldier that was detained in Russia. What do you know, anything new, and you are seeking access to talk to him?

So this is one where, it’s often the case, there’s not much I can say. You’re aware of the privacy rules and our inability to say very much about these cases when we don’t have a privacy waiver. I can confirm that a US citizen has been detained in Russia. Whenever a US citizen is detained abroad, consular officers seek to aid him with all appropriate assistance and we are doing so in this case. Not able to say more.

(30:37)
Unfortunately, the Pentagon is able to say some more. I think they’ve done so publicly, and I would refer you to them for that. But I just have to say the same thing I always do when asked about a US citizen who has traveled to Russia, which is our travel advisory is at a level four for a reason. US citizens should not travel to Russia for any reason. It’s dangerous. You risk being detained. You risk other threats to your health and well-being. And so, for any American citizen anywhere in the world, whether they are here in the United States or whether they’re in some other country, if you are considering going to Russia, don’t do it. Could not be less complicated.

Thank you. One last one from me. We have heard little statements coming from Russia about British participation in Ukraine war, and they say that they’re going to target British weapons, whether inside or outside of Ukraine. This goes back to the question that we discussed with you, with Vedanta, with Ned, more than year and a half. Why is it that Ukraine doesn’t have a right to target Iranian, North Korean targets? Whether it’s inside or outside of the region.

You’re proposing that Ukraine should widen the conflict beyond even Russia-

[inaudible 00:32:00]-

But to other countries and bring other countries directly… Hold on, hold on. Bring other countries directly into the conflict. I would just say, that is a rare question that answers itself. I don’t think that would be in anyone’s interest. Go ahead.

Thank you.

No, no. In front of you, sorry. Go ahead.

Thank you so much, Matt. Just a quick follow up on Rafah offensive. You said, it is limited, not a major operation. But do you think it’s the constructive approach to go into Rafah right after Hamas accepted a ceasefire at the time when many Palestinians were on the street celebrating the possibility of a ceasefire?

Let me just make one thing clear, which is Hamas did not accept a ceasefire proposal. Hamas responded and in their response made several suggestions. It’s not the same as accepting. The statement that was issued yesterday that was widely reported, and I’ll blame the reportings… What the statement said is not an accurate reflection of what happened. They responded as people do in a negotiation process, but it was not an acceptance.

(32:59)
Now that said, we are trying very hard to get a ceasefire agreement over the line as I said a moment ago. And I will just say, separate and apart from an operation in Rafah, the scenes that we saw in Gaza… When you see people coming out in the streets and celebrating what they thought was a ceasefire, number one tells you just what they’ve lived through. You know that, obviously. But you really see just the joy on people’s face, what they’ve lived through and the emotion in thinking that they might have some hope that this conflict will come to an end. But also, I can say for everyone here just confirms why we think it’s so important to get this ceasefire agreement over the line and why we are going to continue to push for it.

Just a quick follow up. I think you didn’t comment on whether or not you find Israel’s approach constructive.

I spoke to this earlier in the process, which is we don’t want to see a major military operation. They have said this is a limited operation. There are some legitimate purposes, like I said, in keeping Hamas from depriving revenue from Rafah Gate. But at the same time, we don’t want to see Rafah Gate shut. We want to see it reopen. So I’m not going to pass judgment one way or the other, whether it’s constructive or not. What is important from our perspective is that we not see a major military operation go forward, and we’ve made that, I think, pretty clear.

Thank you, sir.

Can I just clarify? It sounds like this is the case. The secretary last week, multiple times, referenced this generous and flexible offer that Israel had put forward. And you’re saying this is not what he was referring to, that Hamas put forward or accepted yesterday?

There was an offer… He was referring to the offer that was put forward some 10, 11 days ago. April 26th, I believe it was. That’s the offer that was on the table. Hamas seemed to make clear in their statements that they accepted that offer yesterday. That is not what they did. They responded with amendments, call it a counter proposal if you want, and we’re working through the details of that now.

Can you give us any updates on the military pier that’s being constructed in Gaza? Do you expect that the Rafah operation is going to delay its construction or [inaudible 00:35:12]?

I would really refer you to the Pentagon for details on that, just because they’re the ones that are actually doing the construction and doing the operation. They’ll have the latest details on it. I would certainly hope that a Rafah operation would not delay it. It’s in a different part of Gaza from where they would be operating. If anything, it just shows why it’s so important to get that pier finished.

(35:34)
But, that said, no one should think that the pier… No one should think that the completion of this pier and the opening of that route is in any way a replacement for Kerem Shalom and Rafah being open. Getting that pier finished is not a sufficient means to close other gates. It’s not sufficient reason to operate in the south and disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Because even when that pier is open, the amount of aid it can deliver a day is somewhere around 100 trucks and no way can replace what needs to come in to Gaza through these other gates.

[inaudible 00:36:14].

Very good. Someone that’s been watching the Pentagon briefings. No offense, I wish I had time to watch their briefings as well as do my own. I just don’t. Janet, go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Regarding the US and South Korea’s defense cost sharing, it has been reported that if Former President Trump is re-elected, South Korea’s defense cost sharing would increase significantly. Recently, there was discussion defense cost sharing, South Korea and the United States in Hawaii. You know that. Will defense cost sharing be increased under the Biden administrations? If so, what percent will it increase?

I just don’t have those numbers at my fingertips, sorry.

You don’t have anything further? Because you have-

In terms of the percentage, it’s not something I have. I’m happy to take it back and try to get you an answer.

Thank you, and have another one. And recently, UN resolution to prevent nuclear weapons in space were rejected by Russia’s veto. What do you think about the UN’s permanent members imposing penalties to veto abuse?

As we said at the time, we were incredibly disappointed that Russia vetoed what should have been a quite uncontroversial resolution regarding the obligations of State parties under the Outer Space Treaty. It should be clear, I think, that no country should have reservations about prohibiting putting a nuclear weapon into orbit. And in terms of potential actions, I don’t have anything to preview from here.

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead.

Thanks, Matthew. Politico just reported that the, and I’m quoting from the report, “Administration is holding up shipments of two types of Boeing-made precision bombs to send a political message to Israel.” Is this true?

I think Michelle asked me that exact question five, 10 minutes ago, and I answered it.

Okay, sorry. Now that Israel has invaded Rafah, is the department considering any actions such as sanctions or withholding aid from Israel?

I also answered that question earlier when I said we are not going to preview policy options at this time.

And finally, six lawmakers from the Congressional Executive Commission on China has sent a letter to the State Department asking for states who use its existing rewards program to seek first-hand information on forced organ harvesting in Communist China and disrupt the illicit trade. State Department has expressed concerns about this issue before

Before publicly and in the human rights reports, do you have any response to the letter and will state consider using the rewards program to stop forced organ harvesting?

I’m sure I have received that letter and will respond in due course to the members themselves.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Two questions.

Thank you.

Comment. One, as far as conflict in the Middle East or Gaza or Hamas and Israel is concerned. First on October seven, Hamas attacked the innocent people in Israel. Now innocent people are being killed or they are dying in Gaza because of basics they are not getting. My question is that Hamas may be a common problem for the common people in Gaza and how can you describe for the common people, we are negotiating with Hamas. Is a Hamas a terrorist organization or is a political organization?

It is absolutely a terrorist organization.

So why are we negotiating then with them?

Well, Hamas is holding civilians hostage, including American citizens and we want to see those American citizens return home. So it’s also true that Hamas is one of the parties of this conflict and has the ability to end it, so we think it’s appropriate. We’re not in direct negotiations with Hamas, but obviously we are engaging with countries in the region, Qatar and Egypt who have the ability to talk to them. And we think it’s appropriate to do so because we want to see these hostages return home, especially the American hostages, but the hostages of Israel and every other country. Remember there’s not just Israeli citizens who are being held hostage and we believe this is the best way to do so.

Second sir, Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury, both were in China recently, and both warned Chinese leadership about not to interfere in the US elections and among others. Can you describe that? What kind of warning was and what was the response from the Chinese leadership?

So I’m not going to speak to that in any level of detail, but the secretary did make clear, reiterating something, a message that we have delivered previously to the Chinese government, that any interference, any attempt to influence our upcoming election is something that would be unacceptable.

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you. Just to clarify, you’ve called the Rafah operation limited, but you also said it had the appearance of being a prelude, your word, to a major operation.

I don’t think that’s what I said. It’s not my intent. I said that, number one, they have described it as limited. It looks at this way to not be the major operation that you would see, say for example, if they entered the neighborhoods where they have ordered evacuations. We don’t know if it’s a prelude or not. They’ve made clear that they intend to offer, to launch a major military operation and we have made clear that we are opposed to that. I can’t speak to-

So you’re not calling it a prelude?

No, I can’t speak to whether this-

Because Yoav Gallant is… I’m sorry.

No, go ahead.

Yoav Gallant is touring the Rafah area today and he said, “I directed the IDF to enter the Rafah area, take the crossing, carry out its missions. This operation will continue until we eliminate Hamas in the Rafah area and the entire Gaza Strip.” So that doesn’t sound limited to me.

So they have made similar statements in the past about what their policy tends to be-

Yeah, but they’re there now.

… and we have made our statements about what our policy is and we will continue to make that clear. Yeah.

I want to move to another region, Haiti. Do you have any updates for us on where we’re at in terms of the deployment of that police force or security force now that the presidential council was put into place? What is the status of play on that at this point?

So we welcome the progress and the political process that has taken place. We continue to work with our Kenyan partners in other countries for the deployment of the MSS. In terms of an exact deployment schedule, we have, I think for operational security reasons, not wanted to affix a public date to it, but it’s something that we’re working to make happen as soon as possible.

But are there any pre-elements forward, people going in now in Haiti from the US or from…

Not that I’m aware of, not that I’m aware of.

I mean, it’s more of a Pentagon question.

Yeah, that’s why I’m… Go ahead.

Yeah, so just back to Rafah. Prior to Israel taking control, Hamas was collecting revenue, as you said, of those goods. Can you go into more detail on how Hamas was benefiting from that crossing and also how you navigate the fine line of ensuring that they’re deprived, while also keeping it open?

Well, Hamas has been the government in Gaza, so they were performing in addition to being a terrorist organization, they were the de facto government in Gaza. And so we’re performing government functions and that includes running a border crossing where you can collect customs. You can also, if you control a border crossing, collect, let’s call them, more irregular payments. And we have seen both of those things happen. And so it is a legitimate goal to try to shut off and choke off that revenue stream to Hamas. That said, we want to see Rafah open and so someone needs to be on the Gaza side of Rafah to run that side of the crossing. The Egyptians can’t do it. We talked about this very early in the conflict when we were trying to open Rafah in the first place. So someone needs to be there to do it and we continue to work through how to get that gate open and how to keep it open.

And there’s a report. Can you confirm that there is a plot to assassinate Zelenskyy and other top Ukrainian figures that failed?

So obviously the Ukrainian government has made an announcement to that effect. We have been in close contact with them about that. I would defer to the Ukrainian government to speak to the details of it, but obviously it just speaks to depravity that we’ve seen on display from the Putin regime since the outset of this conflict.

Thank you.

All right, so given that Israel is pledging to wage an operation in Rafah using US weapons that US opposes, is there any internal process going on to figure out what went wrong internally? How did the process allow the weapons to be shipped and then into a situation in which Israel’s going to use them in opposition to what the United States wants done?

I don’t think I can answer that question without presupposing a policy decision that we have not yet announced. We have made clear, and I’ve said it here, what our position is on a major military operation in Rafah and Israel will make its policy decisions and we’ll make ours.

So if they do continue this operation, will it result in a review of what went wrong-

Again, I’m just not going to speak to what policy determinations we might make or what internal internal mechanisms would go into answering such a question.

Pakistan question real quick?

Sure. Yeah.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer recently met with the Pakistan ambassador and he relayed to the ambassador that Imran Khan’s safety in prison was a high priority of the United States. Did he coordinate that conversation with the State Department? Does the State Department share that view that his safety in prison is a high priority to the US?

So I’m not aware of any coordination. It may have happened, it may have been conversations between this building and Senator Schumer, his staff and I’m just not aware of them. It’s certainly possible. But obviously we want to see safety and security of every prisoner in Pakistan or anywhere else in the world. Something that every person, every detainee, every prisoner is entitled to basic human rights and protection under the law.

May I please.

Go ahead.

Thank you. US ambassador in Pakistan, Donald Blome, met with the current leadership of Imran Khan’s party and after that meeting there were dozens of stories circulating in Pakistani media. Could you just tell us something about that, as that meeting was arranged on the request of US Ambassador Donald Blome.

Dozens of stories circulated about a meeting in-

Different stories.

… with our ambassador. What a new thing.

Different stories.

I haven’t got a Donald Blome question in a while. Yes, the US Ambassador, Donald Blome met with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Omar Ayub Khan and other senior members of the opposition to discuss a broad range of issues important to the bilateral relationship. This includes US support for continued economic reforms, human rights, and regional security.

Sir, after that meeting, the leadership of PTI, Imran Khan’s party told media that they have expressed their concerns about human rights violations, fabricated cases against Imran Khan, freedom of speech and others. What is your position on these issues, sir?

So we have to addressed this any number of times and our position is the same as we have stated it previously, which is we take no position on elections in Pakistan. We take no position with respect to any particular political party. And of course we want to see basic human rights upheld, as I said in my answer to Ryan’s question.

So one last question. Saudi Crown Prince, MBS, is visiting Pakistan in the next few days. Recently Iranian president was in Pakistan too. So how you see these trips when there is too much tension in the region?

So certainly we always support diplomatic engagement between our partners. I don’t have any further comment on the visit between the Saudi Crown Prince to Pakistan, but that kind of diplomatic engagement is routine and something that we support and encourage. But when it comes to Iran, of course, while we welcome regional de-escalation, we’ve seen the outbreak of limited conflict between Iran and Pakistan. We do remain skeptical about Iran’s attentions given its continued destabilizing behavior broadly in the region. Take one more and then we’ll wrap for today. You, go ahead.

Thank you. I want to ask you about Rafah. You said you do not want to see a large-scale military operation, but on a scale of limited versus large military operation, what is acceptable for you when you configure for the concerns of the lack of humanitarian aid that this can be a problem? When you talk about the possible displacement of the people who are there already in the region. Where is this line for you, United States, where you’re going to say, “Okay, this is now large-scale operation. We don’t support that?”

I’m not going to get into trying to define it here. I will add though that we have had detailed conversations with the Israeli government about this, much more detailed for obvious reasons and what we are willing to say publicly or what is productive to say publicly. And they know quite clearly what our position is. And I think I’ll leave it at that. Wrapped for today. Thanks everyone.