MR MILLER: Good afternoon. Get situated here. Let’s start with some opening remarks.
Over the last week, the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces has carried out a major and brutal attack across eastern part of the al-Gezira state in Sudan, located just to the south of Khartoum. They attacked multiple villages in the area, deliberately targeting civilians. Many of the RSF’s victims have been children and women.
The United States condemns these attacks in the strongest terms and calls on the RSF to halt violence against civilians immediately. The group’s leaders have repeatedly committed to their obligation to civilian protection under international humanitarian law, and they must uphold those commitments. The United States recently imposed sanctions on Algoney Hamdan Daglo Musa for his role in RSF atrocities, and we will continue to impose costs on all those committing and fueling these atrocities.
These heinous attacks are sadly only the latest in a war that has gone on for far too long. Attacks like these exacerbate the severe hunger and displacement crisis that has put more than 25 million Sudanese in need of emergency humanitarian relief and forced more than 14 million people to flee their homes since the conflict began.
Our support for the Sudanese people is steadfast as they demand a sustainable end to the conflict and work to develop a process to resume the stalled political transition to inclusive, civilian-led, democratic governance.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Great. Well, not great, but – I mean, not great at all.
MR MILLER: Understood, yeah.
QUESTION: That – sorry.
MR MILLER: Understood.
QUESTION: Before we get into the Middle East, I just wanted to ask you if you got an answer to my question about the Cuba vote, UN.
MR MILLER: I know there’s going to be a vote today. I don’t believe it’s happened yet; it’s occurring this afternoon.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR MILLER: So what was your question? How we will vote?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR MILLER: We will vote no, but –
QUESTION: You’ll vote no?
MR MILLER: We will vote no.
QUESTION: And have you lined up anyone to – other –
MR MILLER: As I said – as I previewed yesterday, it was likely.
QUESTION: Have you lined up anyone –
MR MILLER: I didn’t think we were going to vote, I think —
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: — for a resolution condemning ourself.
QUESTION: Fine. But —
MR MILLER: And in fact, we will vote no.
QUESTION: But have you lined up anyone to vote with you?
MR MILLER: I think I’ll wait until we see the vote results to talk about the outcome.
QUESTION: So no, you’re not sure if you’ll get one or two others?
MR MILLER: I would not expect an outcome –
QUESTION: Dissimilar to previous –
MR MILLER: — dissimilar – as I was saying, inconsistent – “dissimilar” is a better word – to previous outcomes. This is a resolution –
QUESTION: In other words, it will be another demonstration of the entire – virtually the entire world’s opposition to this, to the embargo. Right?
MR MILLER: I wouldn’t expect a dissimilar result, but we have made our position clear —
QUESTION: All right.
MR MILLER: — on it for some time, and we’ll continue in our vote at the UN today.
QUESTION: All right. Two out of the Middle East. Yesterday at the briefing, shortly before the Knesset voted on these two bills that deal with UNRWA, you once again reiterated the U.S. position –
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — that they shouldn’t do it, and that they – the law shouldn’t be passed, and that if they were there should be steps taken to mitigate the situation. So now that the laws have both passed, and recognizing that they won’t take effect for another two months or so at least, what is your response? And what are you planning to do, particularly given the emphasis that you guys –
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin in particular – have put on improving the aid supply into Gaza?
MR MILLER: Yeah. Let me start by just reiterating that we are deeply troubled by this legislation. It could shutter UNRWA operations in the West Bank, in Gaza, in East Jerusalem. It poses risks for millions of Palestinians who rely on UNRWA for essential services, including health care and primary and secondary education. UNRWA, of course, plays a critical role in providing services to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and throughout the broader – the wider region. And particularly in Gaza they play a role right now that, at least today, cannot be filled by anyone else. They are a key partner in delivering food, water, and other humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza that wouldn’t have anyone else to get it from if UNRWA were to go away.
So we have made clear our concerns over this bill. We have made clear our opposition to this bill. As the Secretary said in his letter and as I reiterated yesterday, there could be consequences under U.S. law and U.S. policy for the implementation of this legislation. We are going to engage with the Government of Israel in the days ahead about how they plan to implement it. We are going to watch and see if there are legal challenges to the law and if there is any impact by those legal challenges, and then we will make our decisions after looking at all of those factors.
QUESTION: All right. I’ll let others go.
QUESTION: Quick follow-up for me.
MR MILLER: Shaun.
QUESTION: Just —
MR MILLER: Let me just – I can’t let you go without commenting. That is a fantastic shirt –
QUESTION: Oh, thanks. (Laughter.)
MR MILLER: — before we get going. It’s great.
QUESTION: Bought from Angola, so anybody who went on this trip —
MR MILLER: I figured you got that on the trip that we were on, so – it’s great.
QUESTION: Well, it’s – Africa is a fashion powerhouse. Can I just – on a serious note, can I ask you about – back on UNRWA – the Norwegian Government today said that it’s going to go to the International Court of Justice to see if Israel has actually legal obligations to let in aid, and specifically in the context of UNRWA. Does the U.S. have any comment on that move by Norwegians and the ICJ?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that move, but they certainly have a legal obligation to allow humanitarian assistance in and not to erect roadblocks to humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza. And we have made that clear since the outset of this conflict, and a great number of our engagements with the Government of Israel have been around ensuring that they do let humanitarian assistance in, and that they do ensure that humanitarian assistance gets to the people that need it. And that is precisely one of our major concerns about this legislation.
I should be clear, by the way: It’s not our only concern about this legislation. We also support the work that UNRWA does outside of Gaza. We support the work they do in the West Bank. We support the work that they do in the broader region to deliver humanitarian services to Palestinians. But the work is absolutely critical and irreplaceable in Gaza right now. And we have made clear – we’ve made clear before the passage of this legislation, and it remains true – that there are policy – potential policy and legal implications to this legislation being implemented, and we’re going to be in conversation with the Government of Israel about that.
QUESTION: Sure. Maybe stepping way from the UNRWA issue for a second, the – I wonder if you have anything to say about the Israeli strike today in Gaza. I think the latest death toll that we’ve reported is nearly 100. By eyewitness accounts, many, if not most, appear to be civilians, children. I know you don’t speak for the Government of Israel, but as Israel’s ally do you have anything to say about this?
MR MILLER: Yeah. We are deeply concerned by the loss of civilian life in this incident. This was a horrifying incident with a horrifying result. I can’t speak to the total death toll, but there are reports of two dozen children killed in this incident. No doubt a number of them are children who have been fleeing the effects of this war for more than a year now. We have reached out to the Government of Israel to ask what happened here. We don’t yet know the underlying circumstances. We have not gotten a full explanation from them about what happened.
But step back and look at where we are in this campaign. We are a year into the Government of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and Israel has decimated Hamas’s military capabilities; it has decimated Hamas’s leadership. It has, through its military action, ensured that Hamas does not have the ability to repeat the attacks of October 7th. And all of that, getting to here, came at great cost to civilians in Gaza, which is, of course, often the case when civilians are caught in the crossfire in conflict. And so that tragic cost to civilians continues today, quite notably in this strike, which seems to have claimed significant civilian life, and it is another reminder of why we need to see an end to this war.
QUESTION: And so what I mean to say – I mean, the Secretary himself also said it last week, that he thinks that Israel’s strategic goals have largely been met. I mean, so why actually be – why carry out strikes like this? I mean, what’s the utility at this point?
MR MILLER: So you have to take that question to the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR MILLER: So I will say that, as the Secretary said, yes, their strategic goals have largely been met. Now, there is a strategic goal that remains incredibly important, and that is to return all of the hostages. But as you have heard any number of leaders in our government speak to for some time – from the President, to Secretary Blinken, to Secretary of Defense Austin – it is critically important not just to the people of Gaza but to Israelis and to Israel’s own security that Israel be mindful of achieving larger security – or – I’m sorry – that Israel be mindful of achieving a larger strategic success and that they be mindful of finding a way to end this campaign in a way that brings the hostages home and in a way that ensures their security, and not just continuing an endless, perpetual conflict.
QUESTION: Just one more. I mean, this, obviously, has been something you’ve been asked many times and more for the past year —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — but what is the U.S. going to do about it? I mean, the U.S. is obviously the arms supplier to Israel, the major diplomatic supporter of Israel. You said that this incident is – it’s horrifying, and while you’re trying to address and trying to find out more information, what would be the consequences, if any, if it – if the U.S. feels that this was without warrant? It’s hard to say it’s justified in any case, but if the U.S. decides that this was what it was?
MR MILLER: Look, so not to get ahead of things, but you know when it comes to assessing any one individual strike, it’s something that we have to be very deliberate about and take time to assess the underlying circumstances to decide whether there was any particular potential legal violation and what the implications of that would be.
I will say what we are going to do about it, though, is to continue to try and end the war, and continue to impress to the Government of Israel the need to end this war; to continue to work with the other mediators, Egypt and Qatar, to try and find a way forward to end this war; and to continue to work with partners throughout the region and throughout the world to present a plan for what follows the war, which would give Israel the confidence that they don’t need to continue an endless fight, that there would be actual security in Gaza that would provide security for Israel too, and so that they can withdraw their forces from Israel and know that there isn’t an ongoing threat to Israeli civilians and to the state of Israel.
Sorry. Shannon, go ahead. I’ll come to you next.
QUESTION: Going back —
MR MILLER: I’m just going to go down the line. Although then I’ll have to skip Gillian.
QUESTION: You skipped me.
MR MILLER: So now I’ve skipped Gillian. Sorry. Having promised Shannon, Humeyra, I’ll do Shannon, Humeyra, and then Gillian. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Going back to the letter sent by Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin to the Israeli Government, it calls for the creation of a virtual channel to discuss civilian harm incidents and says a first virtual meeting of that channel should take place before the end of October. Has it happened yet, or is it on the books?
MR MILLER: We have had conversations about the establishment of that channel. I don’t have anything definitive yet to report. We continue to have conversations of how to establish that in a way that will be meaningful and will actually produce results.
QUESTION: Does the State Department consider that meeting or its equivalent to have taken place already?
MR MILLER: I don’t have an announcement to make today. We have a few days left in the month.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Matt, so on that letter, I think that was sent about more than two weeks ago. Does the United States have some sort of an interim assessment on how Israel has done so far in terms of fulfilling U.S. requirements, given what’s going in northern Gaza?
MR MILLER: So we have been watching and engaging with them about each of the steps that we called on them to implement in that letter. Now, I’m not, during this 30-day period, going to go through line by line and say which one has been implemented and which one has not, although we are very carefully tracking that and we are engaging with them about specific steps that we want to see them take. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for me, while we’re going through this process, to go through one by one and talk about where they are.
Just speaking largely though, or speaking broadly I should say, we have seen some progress, but we haven’t seen enough. It’s why I said last week – it’s what the Secretary said last week – it continues to be the case that we have seen them take some initial steps, but we need to see them do much more. And we are engaged with them to impress upon them the importance of doing much, much more.
QUESTION: All right. Given it’s another two weeks left, I believe, how confident that – are you that they are actually going to fulfill these?
MR MILLER: I’m – I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to make any predications at this point. We made clear what the steps are we want to see implemented. We put a deadline on it. Let’s wait until we get to the deadline to talk about where things stand.
QUESTION: Right. And about this deadline, there is a lot of commentary out there, and in the law there is no grace period. You are saying at this moment in time that you have not seen enough from Israel. So I just want to ask the question that a lot of people out there are asking: Why not implement the law now?
MR MILLER: We are implementing the law. We have assessed them to be in violation of the law at this point.
QUESTION: But you just —
MR MILLER: We —
QUESTION: You were just saying they’re not fulfilling the things that you want from them.
MR MILLER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: That, I mean, they are impeding aid into Gaza. You —
MR MILLER: That is not what I said. We have —
QUESTION: They’re not impeding aid?
MR MILLER: They – that is not what I said. They have – they – we have outlined a number of steps that we want to see them take in the letter.
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: Now, to your answer your – the reason why we didn’t set an immediate deadline or you have to implement all these steps five minutes after you get the letter or you have to implement all these steps seven days after the letter is because there are some of the steps that we understand take actual time to implement. If you look at some of the —
QUESTION: Sure, but it’s been two weeks.
MR MILLER: Hold on. Just wait. Yeah, but we thought that 30 days was an appropriate measure, not two weeks, or we would have put two weeks in the letter. There were some things that we wanted to see happen immediately, and we saw some of those happen immediately. We saw Erez reopen immediately. We saw the Jordan route reopen immediately. And the letter made clear, some things we want to see happen immediately, and then we need to see other things happen within 30 days. We’re not yet at 30 days. I promise you we will have an extensive conversation about this at the end of that 30-day period, but we’re in that window now.
QUESTION: I just – okay. But I’m just having trouble understanding how the two things add up, and that is the Secretary has said, you’ve said whatever Israel was doing to ensure more aid goes into Gaza, that has fallen off significantly. There hasn’t been a sustained effort and they have not been doing enough for a sustained period of time. How is – how does that not mean that they are impeding – they’re not impeding aid? Like how can those two things be true at the same time?
MR MILLER: We do not – because we have not judged them to have —
QUESTION: So despite the fact that they’re not doing enough —
MR MILLER: Hold on. Hold on.
QUESTION: — they haven’t been impeding aid?
MR MILLER: We have not – so we thought it was appropriate that when we – saw the decrease – look, there are a lot of reasons that aid cannot make it in. Some of them can be intentional. Some of them can be unintentional. Some of them can be bureaucratic, either inside Israel’s system or inside the UN system. Some can be the effect of criminal looters, who obviously the Government of Israel does not control and is not responsible for. And so given all of those different factors that can go into the result that we saw, and the result that we saw was aid coming down 50 – more than 50 percent from its peak, we made clear that, look, on the things that you can control, on the things that the Government of Israel can control – recognizing that you don’t control everything – we want to see steps. And at the end of those steps, we will come back and talk about what the results have been.
QUESTION: Just one final thing on northern Gaza. When you were answering I think Shannon, you talked about this endless cycle that the Israel military seems to be in right now. So is the U.S. calling for – is the U.S. calling the Israeli military to wrap up, to finish what it’s doing in northern Gaza now?
MR MILLER: We want to find a durable end to the war, and I’d say a durable end to the war is an important way to think about it. We have not called on Israel to just withdraw from Gaza and leave a vacuum there, because a vacuum actually doesn’t help the Palestinian people who would be once again living pretty immediately under Hamas’s tyranny and would be potentially subject to the same jeopardy that Hamas has put them in for the past year by launching terrorist attacks against Israel, and it certainly wouldn’t solve Israel’s security problem. It would potentially land us back in the same place months or a few years down the road. And so that’s why we are working to restart talks, which happened over the weekend, to try to find a durable end to the war. It’s why we’re working on the plans for what follows the war with our partners.
QUESTION: Actually just really the final one, on this special channel or, like, mechanism to talk about civilian harm incidents, you said you are still talking. Can you explain, like, why it hasn’t been set up? Do you have —
MR MILLER: I don’t have any more to read out today. It’s an ongoing discussion between us and the Government of Israel, and I just don’t have anything further I can say.
QUESTION: So when you say that you raised it with them, you raised this particular incident of today with the children killed?
MR MILLER: Yes.
QUESTION: You raised it with the U.S. —
MR MILLER: We – the United States raised it directly with the Government of Israel.
QUESTION: It was the ambassador?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into who, but it was conversations from our government to theirs.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MR MILLER: Now, sorry to have —
QUESTION: Can I ask a quick off-topic question?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On China, foreign influence operations. We’ve talked about Russia and Iran kind of ramping up foreign influence operations ahead of the election. Friday, Saturday, there’s new reporting that the Chinese or Chinese-linked – Chinese Government-linked officials managed to hack the audio of a senior Trump campaign advisor’s cellphone. That was preceded by a general reporting that they were trying to get access to data for the former President and Senator Vance and unnamed folks on the Kamala Harris campaign. Is – I guess is this something that you are tracking with regards to China especially? And are you addressing it diplomatically at all or are you just leaving it all up to the FBI to investigate?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to this specific incident because it is appropriate for the FBI and the Intelligence Community to speak to any specific incidents when it comes to such influence operations or such potential espionage operations across any wide – wide variety of incidents. I will say that we have raised consistently with the Government of China – at the Secretary’s level and at other levels – the fact that we are watching very closely any attempts to hack U.S. systems, U.S. equipment, U.S. personnel to interfere in U.S. elections or other U.S. entities or events and that we would certainly hold them accountable for any such actions.
QUESTION: Beyond just the hacking portion of it, is it fair to say that you’ve seen an increase in Chinese influence operations here generally in recent months?
MR MILLER: I – yeah, I would defer to the Intelligence Community to speak to that. As you know, the State Department has the mandate from Congress to track influence operations conducted by foreign governments overseas, but when it comes to influence operations that foreign governments conduct inside the United States, it’s a matter for the Intelligence Community and the FBI, and so I would defer to them.
QUESTION: At one – and I’d have to go back and look at previous transcripts. I don’t remember off the top of my head, but at one point you had said or kind of indicated that —
MR MILLER: Now you’re hoping I can remember what I said.
QUESTION: No, I don’t think you have to. Basically I just want to know if this – at one point, you had indicated that Chinese influence efforts targeting U.S. officials – not even related to the election, just in general – were sort of – I don’t know if they were more sophisticated, but they surpassed the efforts of the other countries. Would you still – like they were more aggressive. Would you still describe that as the status quo?
MR MILLER: I don’t remember that comment, although I’m not disputing it. I just don’t remember that at all. But I would – I do, again, think it’d be more appropriate for me to defer to the Intelligence Communities and to law enforcement to speak to that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: So —
QUESTION: So it’s not – is it fair —
MR MILLER: Oh, sorry.
QUESTION: Sorry. It’s fair to say you don’t really address that on a diplomatic —
MR MILLER: It’s just not – yeah, it’s not the – on the, look, so when it comes to making assessments about what’s happening inside the United States and monitoring what’s happening inside the United States, the Intelligence Community and law enforcement does that work. Now, when there is something that rises to a level of concern that needs to be addressed directly with the Chinese Government, we do address it directly with the Chinese Government, and we have over many number of months made clear directly to Chinese officials our concerns about this type of behavior and the potential for this type of behavior and the fact that we would take it very seriously.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Just back to Israel and the Palestinian territories, the – there’s another deadline coming up for Israel’s finance minister to sign off on whether the Palestinian, Israeli banks can engage in correspondence. There’s concern from the U.S. and also the G7 members, and apparently a letter was sent to Netanyahu expressing concern that this – that Smotrich won’t sign off on extending that cooperation and that it could potentially collapse the Palestinian economy. How real is this concern from the U.S.? And can you give us guidance on what the U.S. would do if he decided not to go ahead and extend that?
MR MILLER: We have been extremely concerned about this. You will recall, of course, that this is not the first time we’ve faced this possibility. Several months ago, there were – that particular minister made threats that he would not extend this particular provision, and we made clear to the Government of Israel that there – that such an action would have severe consequences for the Palestinian economy. It would have severe consequences for Israel’s security. It would potentially cause enormous disruption in the West Bank, and that’s not in the Palestinians’ interest and it’s not in Israel’s interest. And we were able to impress upon the Government of Israel the incredible – incredibly harmful nature of such an action the last time they got up to such a deadline and convinced them to extend it, and we’re continuing to impress upon them the same thing this time.
I don’t want to deal with a hypothetical about what would happen if they didn’t extend this provision. It’s important that they do.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Going back to UNRWA, I mean, I went to UNRWA schools for a while. My wife went to UNRWA schools all her life, and she depended on UNRWA rations. It is a major part of sustaining the Palestinians in every way, and trying to sort of Satanize and – UNRWA and say that it’s done some evil things and so on goes back before this war. It goes back to 2017 when they stopped the funds. My question to you: You said that you are deeply troubled by the decision. You also said that you engaged the Israelis. What steps will the United States take to ensure that UNRWA continues to operate?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to preview anything from here today, Said. If you look at the letter that the Secretary sent —
QUESTION: I understand.
MR MILLER: — he made clear that we are – we’re opposed to the passage of this legislation, and he made clear that there could be legal and policy implications to the implementation of that legislation. That remains true.
QUESTION: Okay, but you see – because you said then we want to see that aid is properly allowed into the Palestinian areas and so on. We’re not talking about UNRWA. UNRWA is basically – if UNRWA is compromised, the whole aid for the Palestinians, and in fact their whole direct connection with what’s going on in the world community, it stops. It’s totally compromised. I’m saying that – would you, let’s say, agree to if UNHCR, for instance takes over the aid to the Palestinians?
MR MILLER: Said, I can’t get into a hypothetical about what would happen.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple more questions, if you’ll allow me. Now, you said that – at one point I think you said that if there is a vacuum, then Hamas would return and the Palestinians will be under the tyranny of Hamas again. So is the war – the purpose of the war is really to free the Palestinians from Hamas tyranny?
MR MILLER: The purpose of the war from Israel’s perspective – and I’m just going to say what they have said publicly —
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: — that the purpose of the war was to ensure that Israel – I’m sorry, to ensure that Hamas could not repeat this attack again, to hold its leadership accountable – they have done both of those things – and to return the hostages. They have completed two pretty significant objectives. They’ve also decimated the Hamas – Hamas’s military capabilities. And so what the Secretary impressed upon them last week was that it is time to find a way to bring this war to an end.
Now, we have also made clear – and this is – well, I’ll say we have also made clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza the way it did before October 7th, because you saw the result of Hamas governance of Gaza, and that is horrific consequences for the Israeli people and horrific consequences for the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: But seeing what – I don’t know. I mean, some – they call it a war. It’s not a war; there is no opposing army. It is really a slaughter that we have every day.
MR MILLER: So, Said —
QUESTION: And I don’t want to enter into polemics and so on.
MR MILLER: Said, is the stipulation that there are no Hamas fighters left in – left in —
QUESTION: There are Hamas fighters.
MR MILLER: — who are still shooting at the IDF soldiers? Because —
QUESTION: Yes, of course there are Hamas fighters. Obviously they are fighting.
MR MILLER: Well, so, okay. So that’s —
QUESTION: But this is – this is not a —
MR MILLER: Before you rename – before you rename the conflict or —
QUESTION: Okay. Fine. But it’s really – what we – what we see —
MR MILLER: Let’s have – let’s just establish facts about what is actually happening.
QUESTION: I understand. What we see day after day is a slaughter; it is a slaughter. I think there will come a time when you guys have to call it exactly what it is, because every day – and I asked this question several weeks back about Palestinians get up every day for another hundred dead, for another hundred – and this keeps going on. There is no end in sight. It doesn’t seem that Israel has any incentive to basically indulge even in serious talks about a ceasefire.
MR MILLER: So, Said – Said, the horrific consequences of this war are exactly why we are trying to end it. The very things you just went through – and I would add to the suffering that’s going on, the suffering of the hostages and the hostages’ families.
QUESTION: Right, right.
MR MILLER: It’s for all those reasons that we’re trying to end the war and trying to end the war in a way that ensures peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians in the future.
QUESTION: Okay. One last question on the aid. Now, the letter was sent out, I guess, around October 15th, so the deadline is November 15th?
MR MILLER: I think it was sent —
QUESTION: Are we going to say on November 13th —
MR MILLER: It was sent October 14th. It was 30 days.
QUESTION: Oh, October 14th. Sorry. I missed it by a day.
MR MILLER: There’s 31 days in October, so that might be November 13th. I don’t know when you start the count. But there will be a lawyer somewhere in our building who could tell you the answer, the exact – the precise answer to that question.
QUESTION: So on November 15th, we are going to say the deadline has passed and you have not done —
MR MILLER: I’m not going to —
QUESTION: — you have not met our standard?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to predict what we’re going to do, but we made clear in the letter what the deadline was for implementing changes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Maybe you could bring that lawyer down to answer some questions from the podium, particularly about how you guys have not been able to come to any conclusion about whether what Israel is doing amounts to violations of international law.
MR MILLER: Well, there are any number of lawyers in this building who are working on that question.
QUESTION: Well, I know.
MR MILLER: But for better or for worse, it’s my —
QUESTION: You could just bring one of them —
MR MILLER: I’d say for better or for —
QUESTION: Just bring one of them down to —
MR MILLER: For better or for worse, it’s my job to stand before you all and take questions every day.
QUESTION: Sorry, when you say there are a number of lawyers in this building who are working on that question —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — the State Department lawyers are working on the question of whether or not Israeli military has violated international humanitarian law in Gaza or not? There are State Department lawyers —
MR MILLER: Of course —
QUESTION: — working on that?
MR MILLER: Of course there are. That’s something we’ve said a number of times, that there are a number of – a number of incident —
QUESTION: Within what process exactly?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – so, Humeyra, you know the answer to this question because you —
QUESTION: No, but isn’t, like —
MR MILLER: No, hold on, just let me – just let me – let me —
QUESTION: Is this like a —
MR MILLER: Humeyra, let me – let me finish before – you know the answer to this question because you’ve asked it to me before, and I’ve answered it before. We have a number of ongoing processes to look at the facts of a number of incidents and to make specific assessments about those incidents.
QUESTION: Yes, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mention State Department lawyers are looking at it.
MR MILLER: Of – of course there are State – the – so —
QUESTION: Like, you’ve said we have ongoing processes. So the L Bureau is involved in —
MR MILLER: So of course there are lawyers that – Humeyra, first let me back up and say there is very little that we do here that doesn’t involve lawyers in one way or the other, but of course when it comes to making judgments —
QUESTION: Sure, sure.
MR MILLER: — about international humanitarian law, of course there are lawyers involved. They’re not the only people involved, but yeah, of course there are.
QUESTION: And is this part of an atrocity determination process?
MR MILLER: I’m not going to get in – I’m not going to get into the processes that we have underway.
QUESTION: Can you say you don’t have an atrocity determination process?
MR MILLER: No, as I have said to you before, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about the underlying processes that we have underway while they’re ongoing.
QUESTION: Still on Israel?
MR MILLER: Tom. Oh, can I go to – can I go to Michelle and then come back to Tom? Because I’ve seen you come in and out a few times – I have a feeling you need to file. So —
QUESTION: Yeah, sorry – sorry if I missed this.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But the Knesset passed a bill today to bar the U.S. from reopening the consulate for Palestinians, and I wonder what you make of that.
MR MILLER: So I was not aware of the passage of that bill. I apologize. I’ll have to take that back and get – and get an answer. So, apologize.
Tom, go ahead.
QUESTION: Maybe you could ask that same lawyer who you say (inaudible).
MR MILLER: I’m not sure – that’s a policy question, not a legal one, so – (laughter).
QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. It seems like a legal question. I’m not sure that the Israeli parliament can decide whether or not you guys are going to open a consulate —
MR MILLER: Well, maybe that will be a legal question. I’ll have to – yeah.
Tom, go ahead.
QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on Said’s very first point there about UNRWA, because we understand the immediate critique that you have of the attempts to shutter it, about the critical urgency of aid into Gaza and the effects on the West Bank and so on. But there is a deeper motivation for a lot of Israeli politicians, especially nationalists, who want to break the link – the historical link between Palestinian registered refugees of today and the historical dispossession in 1947-1948. Because that breaks the link between when three-quarters of a million Palestinians fled their – fled or were forced from their homes in what is now Israel in ’48, and the conflict today. So that’s really important. And I just want to get a sense from you, because I don’t know if we’ve heard an answer to this question: Do you support those Palestinians continuing to have registered refugee status?
MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to that today. I can tell you what we’re focused on when it comes to UNRWA’s work are the critical services that they provide. And they provide those services, as I said, in Gaza, in the West Bank, across the region, and it’s critical that work continue.
Now, as to the broader question, I can take that back and get you an answer.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, it’s just important because you said —
MR MILLER: Not here – I said I’ll take it back and get an answer.
QUESTION: Okay, okay, fine. On your own letter of the 13th of October, you warned in there about the effects of legislation to ban UNRWA, and you said to Gallant and Dermer: We ask that you take all possible steps, whether with lawmakers or using the authorities of the prime minister’s office, to ensure this doesn’t come to pass. I mean, that part it seems they’ve already clearly ignored because the vote has passed. So they’ve had two weeks to work with lawmakers to stop it. Are they – they’re not listening to you?
MR MILLER: The bill has passed, so —
QUESTION: But you – you asked them to work with lawmakers to ensure this doesn’t come to pass. So that part, you’ve already lost on.
MR MILLER: The – so as I said before, the bill has passed and we made quite clear our concerns, and we will make our decisions in – based on the next steps, based on the implementation of this law, and based on any potential legal challenge. As I said, there’s always, when you have controversial laws that – like this that pass, the potential for challenges that delay their implementation. I don’t know if that will happen, but we’re going to watch over the next few days to see.
QUESTION: But I ask the question because – does it give you any sense of how closely or how seriously they take your letter? Because they’ve already ignored that part.
MR MILLER: Well, we’re going to see, right. Look, I’ll tell you, we’ve heard the Secretary speak to this – we’ve seen them already take a number of steps that we called for, and others they haven’t taken yet. So we’re going to make – we’re going to look at the end of the 30 days and go through and see what they’ve implemented and what they haven’t.
QUESTION: So that – sorry, just let me go on this point, because that’s your letter. In the March 28th ICJ order on the South Africa genocide case, in Order 51(2)(a), I think it is, they say that Israel must “Take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision” to allow aid to get into Gaza. I mean, in full cooperation with the United Nations, for the country in question to then ban the primary UN agency that is responsible for that does not seem like full cooperation.
MR MILLER: So you are – I will admit that I’m – do not – I read that order when it came down. I do not have it in front of me and do not have the provision that you’re looking at to study, but we have made clear – I will say we’ve made clear, kind of in keeping with that order, precisely how important it is that UNWRA be allowed to continue. And even if you step back from UNRWA – how important it is that Israel cooperate with all of the UN agencies that are operating on the ground inside Gaza to deliver food, water, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance – and it continues to be critical that they take those steps.
QUESTION: But do you – I mean, you talked about its importance, but this is a key organ of international humanitarian law that has made this order this year in the midst of this crisis. I mean, do you back that, the call by the ICJ?
MR MILLER: We want – we absolutely want to see humanitarian assistance get in. We want to see it get in through the other UN partners, and we want to see it get in through UNRWA.
QUESTION: And just finally, on this airstrike in Beit Lahia you referenced, you talked about this – the war’s gone on for a year. Getting here came at great cost to civilians in Gaza, often the case when civilians are caught in the crossfire of conflict. And I – you’ve used that phrase many times before. Is that a specific reference to this airstrike? Do you see this as crossfire?
MR MILLER: As I – I also said, as you noted, if you would note my full quote, said we don’t know what happened in this strike, we don’t know the particular circumstance. So no, it was about the broader conflict.
When it comers to this particular strike, we have reached out to the Government of Israel for information, made clear we want to know exactly what happened, how you could have a result that produces, according to reports, dozens of children dead. And we don’t yet know the answer to that question.
QUESTION: I just raise it because it is an expression you’ve used and the Secretary has used many times about crossfire, including when there have been many civilian casualties in airstrikes. I mean, the Palestinians do not have air defenses, so I’m just sort of puzzled about this use of the phrase “crossfire.”
MR MILLER: So I think it should be pretty clear. First of all, when – I made clear was about the broader conflict. And in —
QUESTION: Absolutely. But I’m saying it has been used about airstrikes.
MR MILLER: Hold on, just – in the broader conflict you do have Hamas leadership, Hamas battalions who locate themselves under civilian buildings and fire at Israeli forces from civilian buildings. Now —
QUESTION: About —
MR MILLER: Just – no, just to say there are some – and now, that’s crossfire, right? You have times when there are airstrikes that Israel carries out because they know that Hamas is located there. There are times they carry out airstrikes because they have IDF soldiers on the ground who are coming under fire from a particular location – and this is a standard military practice, obviously – and they call in an airstrike to take out that location because they have soldiers who are under from there. That’s the definition of crossfire, I think.
QUESTION: But just isn’t a bit disingenuous, though? Because crossfire would be understood to mean – if civilians are caught in crossfire you would understand it usually to be an accident on the ground because people are literally caught in crossfire. But using it to describe airstrikes when many, many civilians are killed feels misleading.
MR MILLER: I think crossfire means civilians caught between one military striking a terrorist organization or another military, or a terrorist organization striking a military, and that is what is happening in these incidents.
Yeah, Abbie.
QUESTION: Matt, you said earlier – and this is a hypothetical but I’m starting with your own hypothetical. If this UNRWA legislation was implemented – so —
MR MILLER: A hypothetical on a hypothetical.
QUESTION: Well, following on yours. If this UNRWA legislation is implemented – just digging down on that – you’ve described them as irreplaceable, that there’s no alternative. So at that point, would you assess that Israel is directly or indirectly impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid?
MR MILLER: I really can’t predict what kind of an assessment we will make in the future. I made clear our concerns over it, and I made clear we’re going to watch over the coming days what happens with the implementation of this law. But where we will land, I am not going to forecast today.
QUESTION: And then there are some reports from earlier this week that the IDF detained medical staff within one of the largest hospitals in northern Gaza. The UN said yesterday that they left two doctors to take care of hundreds of patients. Is the U.S. asking Israel about what led them to detain those medical staff, and are you satisfied with their answer?
MR MILLER: We are asking. I don’t have an answer yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Are you concerned about —
MR MILLER: Certainly, we would be concerned about the reports of doctors being detained, if it prevented doctors from – if there was no reasonable basis for that detention and it was preventing them from carrying out critical, lifesaving work. Absolutely we would be concerned about that. But as always, we want to establish the actual facts, and we’re looking into it and asking the Government of Israel for more information.
Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. A couple of questions on Russia and North Korea, and I will follow up if I may. North Korea’s foreign minister went to Russia to discuss additional dispatch of North Korean troops, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that the dispatch of North Korean troops was legally justified under the Russia and North Korea mutual military treaty. Do you think that the dispatch of North Korean troops to help Russia’s illegal war is a violation of international law?
MR MILLER: We do. We believe that Russia’s training of DPRK soldiers involving arms or related material is a direct violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2270. And DPRK soldiers providing or receiving any training or other assistance related to the use of ballistic missiles or other arms would violate Resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2070, in addition to Russia and the DPRK’s ongoing UN arms embargo violations.
QUESTION: And one more. The UN Security Council meeting on the North Korea’s military deployment will be held tomorrow. As you know, sanctions in the Security Council will be difficult, due to opposition from China and Russia. Recently, the United States and South Korea and Japan and their allies have established a mutual – I mean, multilateral sanctions system against the North Korea. Can sanctions on military cooperation between Russia and North Korea be implemented through this system?
MR MILLER: So the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team is a mechanism for examination, analysis, and public reporting on the implementation of UN sanctions measures against the DPRK. It’s not a sanctions-imposing mechanism itself, but of course we do maintain the ability to impose sanctions on both Russia and North Korea. We’ve shown we’re willing to use those abilities and authorities in the past, and we will continue to do so when appropriate.
QUESTION: Does the United States delegation to visit Ukraine because of South Korea related visited to the NATO and Ukraine?
MR MILLER: So we have —
QUESTION: Do you have any —
MR MILLER: We have U.S. delegations who are traveling to Ukraine virtually every week. I don’t have one to announce today, but it is quite regular for – or to see U.S. officials visiting Ukraine. The Secretary of Defense was there last week, Secretary Blinken was there last month, and we have a number of important visits coming in the coming days. The chief of staff to Ukraine’s president is here today, meeting with Secretary Blinken and others from the U.S. Government.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: So there are multiple reports saying that the new appointed head of Hizballah is in Iran. Given that Israelis started as soon as the announcement came officially about this appointment that they’re going to take him out, is U.S. concerned that Israeli taking him out in Iran will intensify the situation in the region, especially with the Iranians saying that they are preparing for attack on Israel?
MR MILLER: I don’t want to comment on a hypothetical action in any way.
QUESTION: Okay. And I have another one regarding comments by Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield today. She said that “the United States made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that one year into conflict, Israel must address catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The United States rejects any Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians in Jabalia, . And that Israel’s word must be matched by action on the ground. Right now, that is not happening. This must change immediately.”
So can we take this to mean that the U.S. is acknowledging that there are Israeli efforts to starve Palestinians, and how should we take – see this in the context of the mid-October letter sent by Secretaries Austin and Blinken?
MR MILLER: I don’t think that’s the way you should take it. I think you should take it to be consistent with the letter that the Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin sent, where they made quite clear that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation. You heard me address yesterday we are particularly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Jabalia, where food isn’t getting in right now and water isn’t getting in right now, and that does need to change. And that’s what Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield was making clear in those remarks.
QUESTION: Can we stay on Lebanon for – just for a second?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, there are multiple reports coming out of both Beirut and out of Israel that the U.S. has proposed some kind of a ceasefire plan for Lebanon that would call for full implementation of UNSCR 1701 with withdrawals by both Hizballah and Israel within two months. Is that at all your understanding of where things stand?
MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the private diplomatic conversations that we are having, including about what any potential timetables might be. But we have been making clear in those conversations that we want to see, as part of a diplomatic resolution, the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and that means Hizballah withdrawing north of Litani River, it means Israel ultimately withdrawing south of the Blue Line, and it means peace and stability. And what we’re working on to get to that point are ways to bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces to ensure that they can provide security and they can provide stability in southern Lebanon.
Alex.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Very quickly on Iran, then I want to move back to Ukraine again. The case of Jamshid Sharmahd, you tweeted about Iran murdering a U.S. person, California resident. Some of us have been covering his case, and you told us for months that you will be judging the Islamic Republic by their action. Well, this is their action.
MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think we’ve made quite clear what we think about this action, as we made quite clear what we think about previous actions that the Iranian Government has taken. And you’ve seen us, since the outset of this administration, impose more than 700 sanctions on Iran and Iran entities for a number of actions, including their human rights violations against their own people. We condemn the execution of German-Iranian dual citizen Jamshid Sharmahd, which reminds us once again of the brutal – brutality and repression that characterizes the Iranian regime. We offer our sincere condolences to his loved ones. We have been in touch with them to express those condolences directly. This is the latest abhorrent act by Iran following the transnational repression it committed when it abducted him. It also underscores the record pace of unjust executions that Iran continues unabated, despite Iran’s attempts to put a gentler face to the international community.
So we are in touch with the German Government, we are in touch with the European Union and our other allies, and we will continue to stand with them in holding the Iranian regime accountable for its brutal human rights abuses.
QUESTION: You told us in the past that you believe that Iranian supreme leader is in charge of the decision-making process. So by refusing to sanction him in the past in Mahsa case and other cases, do you think you actually are creating an atmosphere in which he’s acting in —
MR MILLER: Alex, we – I just went through the litany of sanctions that we have imposed on Iran, and I remind you that we have worked with other entities around the world to impose sanctions on Iran. If you look at what happened in just the last month, you saw our European allies step up for the first time and impose sanctions on Iran Air, which will have real implications for that airline’s ability to operate flights between Iran and European destinations. So I will make no apologies for our efforts to hold Iran accountable for its behavior.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Ukraine, you spoke about your (inaudible) meeting. I know – I understand you might not get – want to get ahead of a meeting. But —
MR MILLER: But here’s a question about it. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Two questions, actually, if you –
MR MILLER: Here’s a question, to get ahead of the meeting.
QUESTION: If you’ll indulge me, there are reports that –
QUESTION: The White House has already put out a statement about his meeting with Jake.
MR MILLER: He met with Jake earlier; he’s meeting with the Secretary. That meeting – meeting the Secretary –
QUESTION: The White House statement’s already out.
MR MILLER: Right. Well, I apologize for not putting out a statement about a meeting that hasn’t happened yet here at the department. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: How much of the issue of North Korea supplying the troops for Russia to fight in Ukraine will be a subject of the discussion?
MR MILLER: Certainly that will be one of the topics that they cover.
QUESTION: And there are reports that the U.S. will not impose restrictions in future if that is the case. Can you confirm that this is actually –
MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on those reports. Let me –
QUESTION: And one more – on last topic if I may.
MR MILLER: Alex, that was, like – that was four or five; I’ve got to move on.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. A couple of weeks ago, the Department of Justice indicted an Indian agent for a murder plot against a Sikh human rights lawyer in New York. You told us that U.S. wants to see meaningful accountability by the Modi government. But that agent still has not been arrested. So what are the next steps? Is U.S. seeking his extradition?
MR MILLER: So that’s a matter I would refer you to the Justice Department on. When it comes to a question of extradition, that, of course, is a legal matter; we always defer to DOJ to speak to extradition. But I will tell you that we have been in dialogue with the Government of India about this matter. Of course, they sent a delegation here two weeks ago to directly brief U.S. Government officials on the status of their investigation, and we briefed them on the status of our investigation, and we made clear in that meeting what we will continue to make clear: that it is important there be real accountability.