Department Press Briefing – October 16, 2024 – United States Department of State

MR MILLER: So we – our commitment to Israel’s security and to the defense of Israel is ironclad. That will not change. As the letter makes clear, there are implications under U.S. law to the delivery of humanitarian assistance and Israel doing everything that it can to ensure that the delivery of humanitarian assistance is not impeded. And I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, but it does make clear that there are implications under U.S. law. But our hope is that Israel will take the steps that we outlined in the letter.

QUESTION: No, I get that, and that’s what you said yesterday. But the thing is, is that the letter talks about additional FMF, Foreign Military Financing. As you are well aware, there is a 10-year MOU with Israel that is already on the books that you are obligated to provide Israel with 3.3 billion a year on – in FMF on top – and then another 500 million a year until 2028 for missile defense programs. When the letter talks about additional FMF, does it not mean on top of what you have already committed to?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to get into parsing the letter in any further detail. As I said yesterday, we intended this to be a private diplomatic conversation, not some letter —

QUESTION: Yeah, well, it’s —

MR MILLER: — not something that we discuss publicly. We’re going to have the conversations about the full implications of the letter privately with the Government of Israel, but I think I don’t want to go beyond that publicly at this point.

QUESTION: Right. Yeah, but additional FMF, that does not include FMF that is already in the MOU that you have already committed to, and would – and in some cases has already been spent.

MR MILLER: We —

QUESTION: Even post-2025 or 2026, whatever —

MR MILLER: We are going to follow on our obligations under the law. And beyond that, I don’t – as I said, I don’t want to try to parse —

QUESTION: Well, I’m not sure I understand what your obligations are under the law. And it sounds like you might not, either.

MR MILLER: I do – I do fully understand. We’re going to have a good – we’re going to have continued – so —

QUESTION: Okay. So does additional FMF mean money on top of the 3.3 billion a year, or 3.8 billion a year?

MR MILLER: I – as I said, this is not a letter that we intended to make public, we intended to discuss in public. I understand it is public, and so you – it is very fair for you to ask questions about it. But when it comes to those implications, we’re going to have those conversations privately with the Government of Israel. And we hope, ultimately, that this is all hypothetically because we hope, ultimately, the Government of Israel implements the steps that we outlined and there are no further implications.

QUESTION: Right. But further implications, you can’t even speak to what one implication might be.

MR MILLER: I can’t speak to them here in this setting.

QUESTION: Okay. So if we drag you outside and – (laughter) – off-camera, you’ll be able to speak to the implications?

MR MILLER: If you join the Government of Israel, I’m happy to have a conversation with you about the intent of that letter and what we fully mean by it.

QUESTION: No, I don’t think —

MR MILLER: But I don’t think that’s – obviously, that’s not a step that’s going to happen. No. I’m being serious, Matt, here. The – we did —

QUESTION: No, I get it. But I’m being serious too, because there are —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s a – there are people up on the Hill who are outraged and, like, demanding that this be rescinded or demanding that you show proof of any potential violation of international humanitarian law or any hindrance of U.S. assistance getting in, and calling this a threat of an arms embargo. And if that’s not correct, they should be disabused of that notion because regardless of what you say about the timing of the letter, we’re in the run-up to an election. So I think people should know what it is that’s at stake here. Is it additional, like, on top of what’s in – already in the MOU which runs until 2028? Or does it include stuff that’s in the MOU?

MR MILLER: So first of all, people on the Hill say all kinds of things, not all of which —

QUESTION: Yes, they do.

MR MILLER: — not all of which we respond to.

QUESTION: But this has become a political thing.

MR MILLER: It has become a political thing, but that’s always the case with this type of matter.

QUESTION: All right.

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – what I will say is, look, we do have an obligation under the law to ensure that Israel has a qualitative military edge. We have an obligation under the law to continue to comply with the obligations of the MOU. We also have an obligation under the law to ensure that Israel complies with all elements of U.S. law when it comes to the use of our – of our – of security assistance that we provide.

QUESTION: Okay. So are you saying that you have not yet figured out how you – how you – you’re saying, then, that you have not yet figured out how you might reconcile the two obligations, the qualitative military edge and the MOU, with —

MR MILLER: I’m saying —

QUESTION: — the additional FMF?

MR MILLER: We are not at a point today where we have to make that judgment, and we hope that we never get to that point.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Hold on, I just —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I want to go just to Lebanon for a second because there was this footage that appeared, I guess overnight, of Israel blowing up an entire village in southern Lebanon. What do you make of that?

MR MILLER: So I’ve seen the footage. I cannot speak to what their intent was or what they were trying to accomplish, what their targets were. I don’t know what they were. Obviously, we do not want to see entire villages destroyed. We don’t want to see civilian homes destroyed. We don’t want to see civilian buildings destroyed. We understand that Hizballah does operate at times from underneath civilian homes, inside civilian homes. We’ve seen footage that has emerged over the course of the past two weeks of rockets and other military weapons held in civilian homes. So Israel does have a right to go after those legitimate targets, but they need to do so in a way that protects civilian infrastructure, protects civilians.

QUESTION: All right. I’m not sure I understand. “I cannot speak to what their intent was or what they were trying to accomplish.” Isn’t it pretty clear that they —

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: — what they were – what their intent was and that they’re —

MR MILLER: So – so —

QUESTION: Whether they had a specific target in mind or not, blowing up an entire village, that seems to be pretty self – or revelatory.

MR MILLER: So I don’t – I don’t know what was in those buildings. I don’t know what was potentially underneath those buildings. That’s why I said I can’t speak to what they were trying to accomplish.

QUESTION: Well, have you asked?

MR MILLER: We have been in contact with them about this – this very incident. I don’t have a report back to —

QUESTION: And how —

MR MILLER: I don’t have a report back to share today, but I – we have been in contact with them about this incident.

QUESTION: Well, okay, maybe not a report, but what did – what did they say? Did they say, yeah, we’re looking into it? Or did they say, no, we did it and we’re – and we had a —

MR MILLER: I don’t have any – I don’t – I don’t have a readout of —

QUESTION: — we had a good reason to do it?

MR MILLER: I don’t have a readout of those conversations yet.

QUESTION: All right, thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just on the letter, have you seen any improvement in aid flow to Gaza since it was sent on Sunday?

MR MILLER: We have seen some improvement in the last few days. So a few things that we have seen the Government of Israel do: Number one, we’ve seen them reopen the route from Jordan whereby the Jordan military delivers humanitarian assistance directly to the north of Gaza; 50 trucks with food, water, and other humanitarian goods went in over that route yesterday. We have seen them reopen the Erez crossing in the north. We have seen them open a new access route from southern Gaza to northern Gaza to make sure aid can – that is coming in through Kerem Shalom can make it to the north. We’ve seen them open a new route for delivery inside southern Gaza so, again, aid that comes through Kerem Shalom that – then gets delivered through southern Gaza.

We have seen them take steps to approve new warehouses and other staging facilities for the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations to ease some of the logistical burdens that they have faced in storing and in delivering assistance inside Gaza. And it is our understanding that they informed the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations in the past 24 hours or so that they are going to waive the customs declarations that they were requiring individuals to sign to bring goods in – they’re going to waive them for 12 months, which is an important step that the humanitarian organizations have called on to be taken and something that was included in the Secretary’s letter.

So we have seen them taking initial steps over the past several days, but of course the proof will be in the pudding, ultimately. And we want to see them take additional steps, and we want to see, ultimately, the results change – and the results will be more trucks coming in, more food getting in, more water getting in, and civilians having the basic needs that they require to go about their daily lives.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks. And then just on this strike on Nabatieh that killed 16 people, including the mayor, the caretaker prime minister said Israel intentionally targeted a meeting of the municipal council – sorry – to discuss the city’s service and relief situation to aid people displaced by the Israeli campaign. What’s the administration’s understanding on that, and do you find it acceptable to strike such a meeting coordinating aid?

MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to the strike. I don’t know what it is that they – that they were targeting. I would direct you to them to speak to it.

QUESTION: Would you find it acceptable to strike a meeting that was coordinating aid?

MR MILLER: So if they were targeting civilians, obviously that would not be acceptable. I don’t know that that’s what they were doing, which is why I can’t comment on this strike, because I don’t know what their intent was, what they were trying to accomplish, and ultimately, what they did accomplish. But obviously, if it was a meeting of civilians to coordinate aid and they were intentionally targeting that, of course that would be unacceptable. But that is the type of thing we’d want to see verified.

QUESTION: But they did make several strikes, obviously. There’s the village of Qana, which the whole village was just about destroyed. Then there’s Nabatieh here, where they killed the mayor during these meetings. And so I have a hard time understanding why you can’t comment. I mean, you told them yesterday – well, yesterday was specifically on Beirut. And by the way, today they bombed a place in southern Beirut. So, I mean, sometimes you say you can comment; other times you don’t want to comment. I mean, where are you here?

MR MILLER: So I can comment on an overall policy and I can comment on a specific strike when we have verifiable information about what it is that happened, what they were trying to accomplish, whether they made a mistake or not, whether they were – they accomplished their objective, whether their objective was a legitimate one. And obviously that varies from strike to strike. There are times – for example, with the World Central Kitchen strike – where we know, obviously, that they were striking civilian humanitarian workers and it is very clear that something went terribly wrong. There are other instances where they strike a site where there are terrorists who are embedded there and there’s civilian harm, and you have to ask questions about how that happened, whether they knew what they were doing. And then there are other strikes where the picture can be very mixed.

So that’s why it’s always difficult to comment on individual strikes when you are in the fog of war and don’t have, always, complete information. I can tell you, as a general principle, of course we want to see civilians protected and we want to see Israel do everything within its power to minimize civilian harm. That applies to Gaza; it applies to the war against Hizballah as well.

QUESTION: But specifically on the strike this morning in – or today in southern Beirut. Yesterday you said you’re opposed to bombing, general bombing and massive bombing, or what have you. And today they struck a new target in southern Beirut.

MR MILLER: So they do —

QUESTION: Are you okay with that, or —

MR MILLER: So they do have the right to target members of Hizballah. They have the right to target terrorists who are committed to the destruction of Israel, who are committed to death – to murdering civilians. What I made clear yesterday, what you have heard us say, is that we are opposed to the bombing campaign and the way that we saw it proceeding over the past few weeks. We are opposed to the near daily strikes – and sometimes daily strikes, and sometimes multiple strikes a day – in densely populated areas in Beirut.

That’s what we saw for a course of 10 days to two weeks, and we made clear to the Government of Israel that we were opposed to that intense daily bombardment of Beirut, and we saw it dialed back significantly. It’s not to say that there can’t be some strikes that are legitimate, but the type of bombing that we saw happening day in, day out in Beirut that was causing civilian harm, that was causing mass civilian displacement, that was destabilizing to populations inside Lebanon was something we were clearly opposed to, and we made clear to them.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you made that clear several days after, after it got reduced. You didn’t say it during – when it was happening you weren’t saying that.

MR MILLER: We made it – we did make it clear to them privately while it was happening, and we saw a change in behavior after we made it clear. I will – there is some – sometimes we say this to you, and I think you don’t believe us, that we tell them things privately. This is one example; we told them privately this at a point last week well before we said it publicly. We made clear we wanted to see a change in behavior. We did see a change in behavior. It’s not to make any predictions about what they will do in the future; they’re a sovereign country that make their own decisions. But we made clear to them that we oppose the campaign that they were conducting, and we’ve seen it scaled back significantly.

QUESTION: Can I just —

MR MILLER: Yeah. I’ll come to you next, Hiba.

QUESTION: On the – connected to the aid letter. We were told by UNRWA – at CBS we were told that we’re on track to another manmade disaster in Gaza (inaudible). Their – they assess, UNRWA assesses that food deliveries have been continuously declining since May. The Biden administration’s NSM report came out at the end of May. UNRWA assesses that 1 million people didn’t get food in August and now the figure is around 1.4 million not getting food. Does this – is this a timeline that the State Department is also tracking in terms of food aid declining and not reaching that number of people since May?

MR MILLER: I can’t speak to their numbers; I haven’t seen that report. Those are their numbers, not ours. But we have seen the situation get incredibly serious and incredibly dire, and that’s why we have been engaging with them to make clear that there needed to be a change in behavior, there needed to be a turnaround, and when we didn’t see sufficient results, it’s why the two secretaries sent this letter that they sent on Sunday.

Now, over the past few days, as I said, we’ve seen some initial positive steps. We need to see much more done on the ground to make sure that people get the food, water, medicine, and other goods that they need to get. These initial steps have been important; they are not at all sufficient in any way to address the very serious humanitarian needs on the ground inside Gaza.

QUESTION: So I’m asking in the sense that if you had been tracking that, is there – is it possible that at some point the department could’ve – the administration could’ve reopened the assessment of whether Israel is restricting aid getting in or not? And I know you talk about, like, it being a problem with Hamas taking the aid inside the strip and that’s also affecting people getting it, but was there at any point a – did at any point the administration look at reopening that assessment early? I know you have to do it again in May, but –

MR MILLER: No, it – so it’s not a question of reopening the assessment or not. We have to make a report again to Congress in May. Our assessment has been ongoing, and that’s what we made clear when we released the report, is that the report that we – right, you have to release the report at a snapshot in time that is mandated by National Security Memo 20, and the judgment that we made in that report was a judgment about where things stood when we released the report. And we made clear in releasing that report that our assessment would be ongoing.

We’re going to – we weren’t going to – we’d wait until May to issue a report again, but we weren’t going to wait until May to make further assessments. They have been ongoing, and it is our ongoing assessment of the declining levels of humanitarian assistance that led us to step up our interventions with the Government of Israel that ultimately got us to where we were when we sent this letter.

QUESTION: But if this assessment is ongoing, does this department at least have an idea of how many people were not getting any food in August, for example?

MR MILLER: I don’t. I can tell you that if you just look at the level of humanitarian assistance coming in, the level had declined dramatically. And the level in September was the lowest it had been in the past year, and that levels were down about 50 percent.

QUESTION: So what kind of window are we talking about here in September?

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: Because we saw those new customs rules introduced by Israel. So are we talking about September, October that this has become —

MR MILLER: They had declined dramatically in September, and it had gone down even more in October.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah. Oh, I’m sorry, I told Hiba I’d come to her next. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you, Matt. I want to follow up on that strike in southern Beirut today. Matt, there was – there has been a pattern since October 8th that the day you say something, that you oppose something, the Israeli do something totally the opposite the second day. What happened yesterday, or the last 48 hours, the prime minister, the Lebanese prime minister said we have guarantees that they won’t – they will not strike Beirut anymore. And obviously, he was – this was the message in Lebanon. These guarantees – the U.S. gave these guarantees.

You said that yesterday, that you oppose these strikes on Beirut. Kirby, I think in his briefing, said that. I mean, does that concern you? This is the U.S. credibility. I’m not talking about whether this strike was against Hizballah or against – the messaging, your credibility, the U.S. as a mediator, especially now in Lebanon, because everybody is looking at you, at – you can – you are the one who can (inaudible) a ceasefire, at least.

MR MILLER: What concerns us ultimately is outcomes. And we involve the United States in trying to generate the best possible outcome in every possible situation. And so when you say we made this clear yesterday, I can tell you we made it clear some number of days before I stood here at this podium and said it yesterday. And it wasn’t me saying it at this podium that ultimately led to the intensity of the strikes in Beirut going down; it was our direct quiet intervention with the Government of Israel that I believe led to the intensity of that campaign being dialed back.

We are going to continue to make that clear to the Government of Israel, just as we’re going to continue to make clear to them that ultimately, we want to see full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, that includes the IDF withdrawing back into the borders of Israel, and it includes Hizballah withdrawing back above the Litani River. That is what we continue to drive for, and it is ultimately those outcomes that we’re most interested in achieving.

QUESTION: On the strikes in the south today, the village that went – the destruction of an entire village; also the strike in Nabatieh – by the way, the building was – belongs to the – I think the interior ministry, because this is a municipality. Also you said you support a limited military operation. Is there assured definition for this military – limited military operation between you and the Israeli? Because I think the understanding in Lebanon that they – what’s happening, now it’s like a scorched earth policy to create a safe zone in the south. So it seems – and it seems to be in effect now. And do you support that this will support the Israeli later in the negotiations with Hizballah or with the Lebanese Government? So –

MR MILLER: So what we support are limited incursions to attack and degrade – to attack Hizballah, to degrade Hizballah infrastructure; not to target civilians, not to destroy civilian homes, not to wipe villages out. We do support campaigns to take on Hizballah, because for the past year we’ve seen Hizballah refuse to stand down on its attacks that had led to Israeli response attacks that ultimately displaced tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border. That has been an untenable situation for the people of both countries.

But ultimately, what we want to see is implementation of the – of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, because that would get us back to a place where those residents can return to their homes.

QUESTION: Is there any political engagement, any U.S. official visiting Beirut next week? Do you have anything?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make about travel next week.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Stay tuned; we’ll make announcements as we have them. But I don’t have any to announce today.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I just want to also follow up on Hiba’s question regarding the outcome of this war. You’ve been saying it many occasions that the outcome should be the full implementation of 1701. And as the fighting goes on, we see ourselves further away from achieving that by a military means. I remember when I asked you about Naim Qassem’s statement that he is willing to go with Berri, the parliament – the Lebanese speaker of the parliament, that you were saying that yes, we want it ultimately, but now it’s time for Israel to attack Hizballah.

Hizballah is still fighting, still firing missiles. Things threatening to go beyond control in southern Lebanon. We’ve seen yesterday the Israeli military just – I don’t know what the word to describe that, but a whole village went into nothing in southern Lebanon. Do you feel that maybe this approach of you allowing Israel this window is actually dragging you more and more into something that you don’t really want?

MR MILLER: So first of all, as you’ve heard me say before – and I’m going to repeat it again, because I think it’s always an important reminder – Israel is a sovereign country that makes its own decisions. And we impress upon them what we believe the best outcome is for their security interests, for the security interests of neighboring countries, for the security interests of the broader region. But these are decisions that Israel ultimately makes, and we will intervene with them to make clear what we think is the outcome that they ought to pursue.

When it comes to what happens next, obviously we want to see a change in the political situation in Lebanon, because we want to see them elect a president. We’ve made that clear. But the part of the question that I’m having a little bit of trouble with is it removes any agency from Lebanese political actors, and the Lebanese political system, and puts it all on the United States. It is ultimately up to the people in Lebanon, the Lebanese Government, to break through the dysfunction that has plagued it and elect a new president – something that we have made clear, something the international community has made clear that they want to see for some time. It is up to the Lebanese people to break the stranglehold that Lebanon has had – I’m sorry, that Hizballah has had on the Lebanese Government. We can do our part, other countries can do our part, but the countries in the region play a role in this too. Lebanon – the Lebanese people play a role in this too.

So what we want to see happen is Hizballah degraded, Hizballah pull back, Hizballah finally meet the obligations that they committed to in 2006 and have never fulfilled – it’s important to remind people of that, because it is an important part of the story of how we got here today. And we’re going to continue to work to try to achieve that outcome.

QUESTION: But Matt, yeah, Israel is a sovereign state of course and can take its own decision, but you are providing them with weapons. And you did before put restrictions on countries – Ukraine is an example – that you provide them with military aid in the middle of the war and you put restrictions, a limitation, on how they use this military, especially targeting inside Russian territory. Why don’t you apply the same here with Israel?

MR MILLER: Every conflict is different. We continue to engage with Israel about the need to protect civilians, to minimize civilian harm, and that will continue to be at the center of our policy.

QUESTION: My last question is about a report that came out a couple of hours ago in New York Times – or I saw it a couple of hours ago (inaudible). It’s about Israeli military using captured Palestinians in Gaza as a human shield. And if I want to quote here what the report is saying is that the practice is “routine, commonplace…organized, conducted with considerable logistical support and the knowledge of superiors on the battlefield. The detainees were handled and often transported between squads by officers from Israeli intelligence agencies,” which shows – I mean, we’ve been asking about this before, but it shows here it was more organized, it was more within the knowledge of higher command in Israel, and it’s still going on. Do you have any comment?

MR MILLER: Yeah, I also saw that report, and I can tell you we found it incredibly disturbing. If the facts as presented in that report are true, they are completely unacceptable. There is no reason, there can be no justification ever for the use of civilians as human shields. It would be a violation not just of international humanitarian law, but of the IDF’s own code of conduct. I know that the IDF has announced that they are investigating the claims in that report. That is entirely appropriate for them to do. But even more than investigate, if they do find violations, people need to be held accountable, and they need to take steps to ensure that these practices are not repeated.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Michel

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Matt. I have several questions too. First, did you get any sense from the Lebanese leaders that you are talking to that they are ready to move forward to elect a new president and to get rid of the Iranian and Hizballah influence in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak on behalf of the officials inside the Lebanese Government that we have engaged with. Obviously, as you know, the Secretary spoke to the prime minister on Friday. He spoke to the speaker of the parliament on Friday. We’ve made clear that we believe it is in their interest and the interest of stability in the region to elect a new president, but I’ll let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: And second, on the buffer zone in the south, Israel, it looks like they’re planning to establish a buffer zone two kilometers from the border inside Lebanon. Do you support such a move?

MR MILLER: I don’t know what you mean by buffer zone. If it means Hizballah pushing back to be on the Litani River, obviously that’s something we support. If it’s some kind of other buffer zone – for example, if it’s a buffer zone that would be occupied by the IDF, that would be something we would oppose.

QUESTION: And on the letter that the Secretary sent to Israel, today news reports said that Prime Minister Netanyahu convened an emergency discussion on increasing aid to Gaza, and senior Israeli officials said that the aid will be expanded soon. Did you get any response from the Israelis in this regard?

MR MILLER: We have been – we obviously have gotten a response from them. We’ve been in contact with them about the elements contained in the letter. I will let them speak for themselves, but we have made clear to them that we expect them to take it incredibly seriously. As I said, we have seen in the past few days them take some initial steps, but there’s much more that they need to do.

QUESTION: And finally, why did you give them 30-days ultimatum — not more, not less?

MR MILLER: Well, if you look at the letter, it says we need to see immediate action, and we have seen immediate action. But we also made clear that there – some of the steps that would take more than three days, four days, seven days; for example, the ability for people to relocate from al-Mawasi to areas inland before it gets cold, something that you can’t do overnight. You have to – you have to be able to set up places for them to go. You have to have food when they get there; you have to have sanitation facilities. Those aren’t the kinds of things that can happen in a week or a few days. So we thought it was reasonable to give Israel a bit of time to implement those steps that we recommended in the letter, but that there are other things that needed to happen urgently and immediately, which is what we’ve seen over the past couple of days.

QUESTION: And one more, if you don’t mind. News reports said too that the Secretary is ready to put forward a plan for a post-Gaza-war and that the deadline would be after the elections. Is this accurate, and do you have a specific plan to offer?

MR MILLER: So we haven’t made any decisions in that regard. We continue to be in consultation with a number of countries in the region. The Secretary has been – has traveled extensively to talk with partners throughout the region – including Israel, including Arab countries – about plans for the post-conflict period in Gaza and how you establish governance, how you rebuild Gaza, how you reconstruct people’s neighborhoods, and how you provide a political path forward. But those discussions are ongoing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Janne, I’m going to skip over you to try to stay in the region, so Tom.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: I’ll come – but I will come back to you. I promise.

QUESTION: Just to —

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I wanted to return to Nabatieh and the mayor who’s been killed in this strike – apparently killed 16 people. I mean, this is described as a Hizballah-affiliated mayor. The attack was on an official Lebanese state building. I mean, if there is – if that’s, on the face of it, the reason for this attack, that he’s Hizballah-affiliated, is that a justifiable target in your view?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to comment on the face of things. I want to be able to comment when I have full, verified information, which I don’t have at this point.

QUESTION: Well, I’m asking a question – I mean, you said earlier that Israel has the right to target members of Hizballah. I mean, would you regard a Hizballah-affiliated mayor of a village as a member of Hizballah that Israel has the right to target?

MR MILLER: So again, I don’t even have confirmation that he’s a Hizballah-affiliated mayor. I’m taking your version of the story. Before I comment on the specifics of a strike or deal with that kind of hypothetical, I would want to know the full particulars, which I don’t have at this point.

QUESTION: I mean – and the reason I ask the question is just about policy, because obviously a lot of this is using American-supplied arms. So does Israel have the right to target anyone who has an affiliation with Hizballah? Because this is a group that has a clear military side to it and it also is deeply embedded in the state. It’s the most dominant force in Lebanon. It has civil servants; it has MPs. Would you regard all of those as legitimate targets?

MR MILLER: They have the right to target militants. They have the right to target those engaged in terrorism, those involved with supporting terrorism, with financing terrorism, and helping carry out terrorist attacks. I think that’s clear under international humanitarian law. They don’t have the right to carry out attacks on civilians. That’s also clear.

QUESTION: Okay, so that sounds like —

MR MILLER: But – I just don’t —

QUESTION: But it just sounds like there is a line there.

MR MILLER: But – hold on. I just – when you want to get to the next iteration of looking at an individual person, have to know the specific facts about the individual person.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not – I’m not actually asking about – about an individual person. I’m just – it sounds from what you’re saying is that there is a line in the – civil servants or MPs who – some countries do not designate the political wing of Hizballah as a terrorist organization, as I think the U.S. does. But it sounds as though you are putting a line there and saying —

MR MILLER: I don’t – I will not either agree or disagree with your characterization. I’m going to stand on the words that I just outlined for myself.

QUESTION: Matt?

QUESTION: Okay, and I just – but I just want to expand this, because I think it does go to what the strategy is here, what your strategy is as the primary military backer of Israel, in terms of this operation. Because you have moved from a strategy just a few weeks ago which was get the residents of Israel back to the north, get the residents in Lebanon back to the south – basically that was your primary objective – and then rolling into that trying to get 1701 implemented as part of a short truce where you get people talking. But you’re now way beyond that, because you’re now in a situation where you’re saying you want a new president elected. You’ve said you want – it’s up to the Lebanese people to break the stranglehold that Hizballah has on the Lebanese Government. You weren’t saying any of these things a month ago. Has —

MR MILLER: That is – that is absolutely not true.

QUESTION: Okay, but not —

MR MILLER: Just as a – just as a factual matter, we have made clear going back even before —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) —

MR MILLER: Let me just – Tom, just let me correct the record —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — because it’s really important. We have made clear going back before October 7th that we wanted to see —

QUESTION: A new president.

MR MILLER: — the Lebanese —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — parliament break this political deadlock and elect a new president. This is not a position —

QUESTION: But —

MR MILLER: It’s not something new that we are trying to accomplish.

QUESTION: But you weren’t connecting it to an Israeli military operation which has invaded Lebanon, which is bombing Beirut, and now these things are wrapped together. So I’m asking about the strategy for the military campaign that you’re the key supplier of, because this sounds like – and given what Benjamin Netanyahu has said about he wants the Lebanese to rise up against Hizballah, and you’re saying break the stranglehold. This is now in the context of military operation. So I’m asking the question: Is that the – are you creating these conditions for the Israelis to stop? Do you want basically Hizballah removed as both a military and political force in Lebanon?

MR MILLER: Of course we want to see Hizballah not exercise political power inside Lebanon. They’re a terrorist organization. They are a terrorist organization that is —

QUESTION: But I’m saying it’s —

MR MILLER: Hold on. Just – Tom, just let – let me finish. You had a long build-up to the question. They’re a terrorist organization that has held the Lebanese people hostage, that has killed, murdered civilians inside Lebanon. So of course we don’t want to see them involved in governance inside Lebanon, and that is not anything new. Just – I see your hand up. Let me just – that is not anything new. That has been the policy of the United States going back years and years – decades, in fact. And it has also been the policy of the United States that we want to see them elect a new president, going back for some time.

Now, we do want to see people return to their homes. We ultimately want to see a diplomatic resolution. But it needs to be a diplomatic resolution that actually will produce that – Said, hand down for a – I’ll come to you – that will produce that outcome. Because we saw for the year, after October 7th, these tit-for-tat attacks going back and forth across the Blue Line, and the result was tens of thousands of people being displaced for their homes. So we want to see, at the end of this military campaign, this diplomatic resolution that will get people home.

Yes, we also want to see a change in the Lebanese Government that means Lebanon can elect a new president. That has been our position for some time. It’s not something new that started when the first Israeli forces crossed the border.

QUESTION: But I’m just challenging that, because yes, you’ve always said that about Lebanon’s been in this crisis where it hasn’t had a president for two years, and obviously you don’t want Hizballah in Lebanon. But you weren’t saying we think the way to do that is to bomb Lebanon into this solution, which now —

MR MILLER: I did – I have not said that today.

QUESTION: I know you haven’t said that – you haven’t said that.

MR MILLER: So just to be clear – just to be clear —

QUESTION: But what I’m saying is I’m trying to get – I’m trying to ask —

MR MILLER: — if you want to use words, use the words that I’ve used.

QUESTION: I’m trying to ask you to – I’m asking you to disentangle these two things. Because I’m saying to you: Is it a condition of the end of this – of the military operation in Lebanon that these things are achieved, that there is a new president, that Hizballah are basically disempowered completely, both militarily and politically? Because you weren’t saying this was way to achieve that more than four weeks ago. You weren’t saying the way to achieve that involved a military campaign, but now we are in a situation where the two things, as far as I can tell, are bound together, and you’re not distinguishing the things as far as I can see.

MR MILLER: So let me just go back to something that we said immediately after Israel launched this military campaign, which is that we are fully cognizant that military campaigns can at times create space for diplomacy. Long history of that.

They can also produce the opposite effect, and we’ve seen military campaigns in Lebanon where Israel has crossed the border with the intent of a limited campaign and it has turned into something completely different, and we’re aware of the possibility of that scenario as well. I’m not going to make any predictions about what will happen. I’m telling you what we’re going to try to achieve. Ultimately, when you come to asking about the military objectives, that’s a question for Israel, not for us. I can tell you what it is that we want to see happen, and that’s what I’ve made clear.

QUESTION: And I just – last thing – I know other people want to come in. But it’s just the point is the President said right at the start of all this, don’t repeat the mistakes we made after 9/11. We saw what happened with Iraq with the attempt at regime change, and 10 years later you have ISIS. And so I ask this question because critics of what’s happening now in Lebanon with the Israeli military campaign that’s happening would say, well, look, this is just another regime change attempt, and to try and do that through a campaign of bombing has been proven, especially in the Middle East, to be completely futile and counterproductive.

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: You seem to be – you’re behind this; you’re in with this.

MR MILLER: So we are not interested in regime change. We are interested in the people of Lebanon electing a president and breaking the deadlock that a terrorist organization – I don’t know how I could be any more clear than that. That’s what we’ve been interested in for years. It’s what we continue to be interested in and continues to be what we push for in our diplomatic engagements.

Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. First on the aid, you said that we’ve seen improvement in the last couple days. Do you have any – can you quantify that? I mean, the number of trucks that —

MR MILLER: Yeah, as I said when I was outlining it, 50 trucks came in —

QUESTION: Fifty, okay.

QUESTION: — from Jordan yesterday; there were another I think it was 20 or 30 trucks that came in on Monday into Erez. So we’ve seen some initial truck deliveries, and we’ve seen the opening of these other routes that should allow aid to move around Gaza more easily and especially move from the south to the north. But the proof is going to be in the pudding and we’re going to have to watch and see that all of this isn’t just sustained, but that it – that it continues to increase.

QUESTION: So the level that you want to see over the next 30 days and so on is what, like 300 —

MR MILLER: Three hundred and fifty. It’s outlined in the letter.

QUESTION: Three hundred and fifty. Okay.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: All right. That’s good. Second, on the issue that Matt raised on the memo providing Israel with 3.8 – I guess $3.8 billion a year and so on. That was done during the Obama administration. But let me ask you in principle, if a country that you provide aid to breaks the law, regardless of what kind of agreement you signed with them, can’t you break away from that agreement? Say that they have basically grossly and fundamentally broken the law or the terms of the agreement.

MR MILLER: Yeah, we have obligations under our own laws to ensure that countries that are the recipients of U.S. military assistance don’t block the delivery of humanitarian assistance, don’t impede the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we take steps to ensure that we enforce that law. We have obligations under U.S. law to ensure that our weapons are used in compliance with international humanitarian law.

QUESTION: So in principle, you can declare that agreement to be null and void if it does not fit into your —

MR MILLER: Said, I’m not going to get too far into parsing the law from here as I’m not a lawyer. But yes, we have the ability to enforce U.S. law, of course.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. What?

MR MILLER: What?

QUESTION: You really think that you have the ability to declare null and void the MOU that was signed?

MR MILLER: Not – I did not say “null and void.” We have the ability to —

QUESTION: Well, that’s what he said, and you said —

MR MILLER: I said I’m not —

QUESTION: — I’m not going to get into it.

MR MILLER: So I – I’m not going to get —

QUESTION: I don’t think you do.

MR MILLER: I’m not – hold on. I’m not going to get into —

QUESTION: I think you’re walking a real fine line here if that’s what you – if you think that that’s —

MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into parsing all the provisions of law, including the provisions of law that provide us – that requires to provide military assistance and the provisions of law that requires to ensure that other – that people comply with the Foreign Assistance Act requirement —

QUESTION: Well, you need to rule it in or rule it out.

MR MILLER: — hold on – requirements.

QUESTION: Because if you —

MR MILLER: No, this goes back —

QUESTION: So it could be somewhere in the middle, then?

MR MILLER: This goes back to the conversation that you and I had at the beginning of this, which I know —

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, but you just —

MR MILLER: — which I know – no, I – no.

QUESTION: You just – but you just left the door open to you saying that you could declare, that the administration could declare the MOU that was signed and took effect in 2019 —

MR MILLER: I did – I – so I very much —

QUESTION: — and is valid until 2028 could be declared null and void.

MR MILLER: I very – I very much did not.

QUESTION: I don’t – okay.

MR MILLER: So you should —

QUESTION: I don’t think that’s correct, but that’s what you implied.

MR MILLER: That is not at all what I implied or said.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Let me just continue. Also on the issue that Ahmed raised on the human shields and so on, I know you’ve always accused the Palestinian groups or even Hizballah of using civilians as a human shield, but you declare them as terrorists. Would you declare the Israeli army as a terrorist organization?

MR MILLER: No, the Israeli army is not a terrorist organization, Said. That’s ridiculous.

QUESTION: Okay, they’re not a terrorist – but they continue – let me – please, just let me finish. So we see this happen time and again. This is a practice that has been conducted by the Israelis in the West Bank for a very, very long time. So how would you – how would you reach a conclusion in the end? Because Israel could investigate itself. It has done that time and time again, but we never really see the results. They never are held accountable to anything. And then they say, yeah, we have done this, and this is wrong. So what would be the consequences?

MR MILLER: So we want to see them fully investigate and, if appropriate, hold people accountable. If there are people who have committed violations of the IDF code of conduct, they need to be held accountable under Israel’s military justice system. If there are people that have violated international humanitarian law, they need to be held accountable. If we see violations of the laws of war, of international humanitarian law, we have procedures that we look at as well.

QUESTION: And then a couple – one thing on Aysenur, the American that was killed more than a month ago, the activist – the activist American. Her family are demanding justice. Have you heard from the Israelis on this issue? How long will it take?

MR MILLER: So we have been in contact with them, including in the recent – in recent days, about the status of this investigation. My understanding is that it – is that it is ongoing, and we have made clear to them, including recently, that we want to see it completed as soon as possible.

All right. I am going to try to go to somebody else.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR MILLER: Hold on. Just I’ll go to Kylie, and then we’re 45 minutes in, I haven’t gotten to anything else, and so Kylie, go ahead, and then I’m going to try to go to some other questions.

QUESTION: I’m going to try not to reiterate questions that have been asked. So when it comes to the changes you want to see in the Lebanese Government presidential elections, do you think that Lebanon is any closer to actually carrying out those elections today than they were a few weeks ago before the U.S. was really pushing hard on this?

MR MILLER: I don’t have an assessment to offer from here. That’s something that members of the Lebanese political system need to speak to.

QUESTION: Okay. And then one other question. There’s a report that the Secretary is considering laying out the day-after plan for Gaza after the presidential elections in November. Is that accurate? Is he planning to roll that out after the elections?

MR MILLER: So I did speak to this in response to someone else’s question. I don’t have any announcements to make about a plan. It’s something that we continue to discuss with a number of countries in the region, our Arab partners, our Israeli partners as well, about what the specific contours of a plan would look like. As you know, this is something we’ve been working on going back months. But as to when we would have something to present with our counterparts in the region, I don’t have a timeline.

QUESTION: Would there – are there any conditions on the ground that would need to be in place in order for such a plan to be presented?

MR MILLER: So I just don’t want to get into the – what the plan – what a plan might look like. Obviously, you know the relevant pillars of such a plan because you’ve heard the Secretary speak about them publicly: governance, reconstruction. But I don’t want to get into any further details here. It’s something that we’re in active, ongoing discussions about.

All right. Alex, I’m going to go – I’m going – just because I’ve only got 10 minutes left, I’m going to try to get some other questions before we break for the day. Janne, you’ll —

MR MILLER: I – he was over at the White House today; I don’t know if he joined the call or not.

QUESTION: President Zelenskyy today, as you know, spoke, and he presented his victory plan. You last week commented on the plan, so you told us that we reviewed the plan, we saw some number of productive steps. Can you please help us, now that we know what you knew back then – can you please help us decode it a little bit? What do you support? What are your thoughts?

MR MILLER: No, I’m not going to get into the various details other than to say that we continue to engage with the Government of Ukraine about that plan. Obviously, the President spoke to President Zelenskyy about it today; I’m sure that that was one of the topics of conversation. And we continue to work with them about other measures that aren’t included in the plan that we believe would position Ukraine to win on the battlefield and ensure a just and lasting peace.

QUESTION: There are concerns that France and Germany, they have been scaling down their military support to Ukraine. Do you have any – do you share those concerns?

MR MILLER: Every country has to make its own decisions based on their capabilities, based on their budgets, about what they can do. We have been gratified by the coalition of more than 50 countries we have put together to support Ukraine. We’ve seen a number of countries, not just inside Europe but outside Europe, who have contributed to Ukraine’s defense, and we’re confident that that support will continue.

MR MILLER: Of course we do. My colleague John Kirby at the White House laid out some new information yesterday. I don’t have anything to add to that.

Janne, go ahead.

MR MILLER: We continue to have great concerns about the growing security relationship between Russia and North Korea.

QUESTION: And the second question. The defense ministers of Russia and China met in Beijing and reaffirmed military cooperation between the two countries. What concerns do you have about substantial military cooperation between China and Russia?

MR MILLER: We’ve spoken on that before, and I don’t have anything new to add to it today.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

MR MILLER: We have made clear that there’s no excuse for violence, either conducted against those conducting peaceful protests or conducted by those protesting, and anyone that’s responsible for violence should be held accountable.

QUESTION: And there are reports that followers of the outlet Hizb ut-Tahrir and Jamaat-e-Islami sang Islamic song and even forced to recitation of Qu’ranic verses on the Durga Puja (inaudible) during Bangladeshi largest Hindu festival. How does U.S. administration view this incident? And will it engage with Bangladesh Government to ensure the protection of religious freedom and the rights of minority communities in Bangladesh and around?

MR MILLER: Obviously we are committed to religious freedom in Bangladesh and elsewhere. With regard to that specific incident, I’ll take it back and get you – get you an answer.

QUESTION: Do you have any particular answer for that —

MR MILLER: That’s what I said. I’ll take it back and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Oh. Thank you.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

MR MILLER: Sure. So we – the meeting that occurred yesterday – we updated – “we” being the U.S. Government broadly – updated members of the Committee of Inquiry about the investigation that the United States has been conducting. We’ve received an update from them on the investigation that they have been conducting. It was a productive meeting, and I will leave it at that.

QUESTION: Did they also inform you about some of the actions they might have taken (inaudible) —

MR MILLER: They did inform us that the individual who was named in the Justice Department indictment is no longer an employee of the Indian Government.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the cooperation of the Indian Government?

MR MILLER: We are satisfied with the cooperation. We – it continues to be an ongoing process. We continue to work with them on that, but we do appreciate the cooperation, and we appreciate them updating us on their investigation as we update them on ours.

QUESTION: And do you see further meetings with them?

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything to announce today.

Go ahead.

MR MILLER: We have a close partnership with the Government of Mexico. We have a close partnership with the new president of Mexico. We look forward to working with her and her administration; the ambassador looks forward to working with her and the administration. We look forward to a long continued partnership.

QUESTION: So no restrictions on the Mexican ambassador similar to —

MR MILLER: Nothing that I have to announce today.

MR MILLER: So if you look at our record – if you listened to my full presentation yesterday, you would’ve heard I said our interventions with the Government of Israel started in the days immediately after October 7th to make sure that humanitarian assistance got in, and we saw them let the first trucks come in through Rafah. We then intervened with them to get Kerem Shalom open, to get Erez open, to get the route open so humanitarian assistance from Jordan could come in.

Now, there have been times when assistance has decreased, when it has stagnated, and when that’s happened, we’ve intervened again to make sure it returns to the levels it needs to be. That’s what we are doing now, and we’re going to watch and see what happens and monitor the results closely.

Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry, one – a follow-up on that —

MR MILLER: Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that, please, Matt.

MR MILLER: Daphne – no. Daphne, go ahead.

MR MILLER: We have engaged with them at a number of different levels and made clear our concerns and called for his release.

QUESTION: Has there been any progress?

MR MILLER: I don’t have anything further to announce from the podium today.

MR MILLER: So first of all, just let me say I have had a blanket practice from my first day that I’m not going to comment on things that happen while I’m at the podium, because I obviously haven’t seen the full context of them other than what’s presented to me in a question. But we have made quite clear to the Government of Israel that UNIFIL soldiers need to be protected, they’re there to fulfill an important mission, and that attacks on them are unacceptable.

QUESTION: Do you see any indication that they are heeding those warnings?

MR MILLER: So I can’t speak to this specific attack. We’ve made clear what we believe and that attacks are unacceptable.

Go ahead.

MR MILLER: So broadly, we want to see peace and stability in the Middle East, a region that has had a lack of stability for decades now. When it comes to Israel, you have a state that has a terrorist organization in Hamas committed to its destruction, that has a terrorist organization in the north in Hizballah that’s committed to its destruction. It has another state, Iran, that is committed to its destruction and proves that every day by funding these terrorist organizations. So we are committed to the defense of our fellow democracy, Israel, in the face of these threats to the state of Israel and to Israeli civilians, and broadly we want to see peace and stability, and that’s what we try to work for with our partners in the region.

MR MILLER: So I would say that we have made quite clear to China that we oppose any changes to the status quo when it comes to Taiwan, and we’ve expressed our concern about their engagements in that regard, including in recent days. But while I know questions about the Middle East tend to dominate the briefing room, I can tell you that all of us inside the administration are focused on all this – on all the threats around the world to peace, stability, security. And you just have to look at the President’s travels to Asia, where he’s traveled to Asia 20 times – more than any of his predecessors – to show that we retain the ability to focus on the crisis in the Middle East, to defend Ukraine, and address threats to security and prosperity in Asia as well.

QUESTION: So no concern that —

MR MILLER: And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)

# # #