LIVE: State Department Briefing With Matthew Miller 2024-07-16 17:23

All right. Good afternoon. I do not have anything from the top. So, Matt, you want to kick us off? No, not at all. That's a surprise. You want to say anything about your former boss? The Justice Department? No. I don't think I do. He's not from New Jersey. No, I certainly don't have any comment on law enforcement matter. Okay. Let's go to what have you guys heard, if anything, from foreign governments about what's happened over the course of the last 72 hours with the Republican Convention, the nomination of J.D. Vance as vice president, his positions on Ukraine, and other matters. So, I'm not aware of any specific conversations about either the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Obviously, when you had NATO in town last week, you did have a bunch of conversations on the sidelines of events between people all around town about the election in the United States, just as we have conversations, you know, social conversations about elections in other countries. I think people are well aware of the election that's happening here, but I'm not aware of any specific conversations over the last 24, 72 hours about the Republican Convention. Okay. I'll leave it there. I'm sure people want to go to the Middle East. You said yesterday that you had seen civilian casualties come down from high points of the conflict and from where they were six weeks ago, but that you wanted to see them end completely. Palestinian health officials said at least 57 people were killed in Israeli bombardments. Does this increase your concerns at all? And have you raised this with your Israeli counterparts? It doesn't increase our concerns because we have had extraordinary concerns about civilian casualties for some time. And that's why we are pushing so hard, not just pushing, but actively negotiating to get a ceasefire that would stop this daily tragedy, where you see innocent Palestinian civilians being killed as a result of this war. But even before we get to what we hope will be a ceasefire, continue to push Israel to take further measures to minimize civilian harm. Secretary pushed Ron Dermer and National Security Advisor Hanegbi when they were here yesterday. We understand. Look, in all of these strikes, Israel has said publicly that they were striking militants. And of course, we've seen reported deaths of militants, including Hamas leaders, in some of these strikes. But we've also seen credible reports of civilian deaths. And so it is why we continue to push so hard for a ceasefire, which is the way to really get a lasting solution to the ongoing violence in Gaza. Hamas has accused Israel of stepping up attacks to try and derail efforts for a ceasefire deal, do you have any concern that that is the case? No, I don't think the strikes that they're taking have anything to do with a ceasefire deal. I think, as they said publicly, they're trying to, as they have done from the days right after October 7th, trying to degrade and ultimately end Hamas's ability to launch attacks on the state of Israel. Separately, we have heard from Israel repeatedly, publicly, we've heard from them privately, they are committed to trying to reach a ceasefire. They're committed to the proposal that they put forward and the President outlined publicly over a month ago, about a month and a half ago now. And they continue to remain engaged in the talks to try to reach a ceasefire. I'll come back to you. Yes, go ahead. On this point that was just raised, you know, Israel says that they were targeting Hamas, but you don't have any independent sources that confirm there was actually Hamas leaders in that building that was targeted, do you? I do not. With respect to this particular strike, no, I do not. Now, we have seen credible evidence all throughout this war that Hamas has hidden its fighters, hidden its leadership inside civilian infrastructure, inside schools. I can't speak with respect to this specific strike, but certainly those are actions that are consistent with the pattern of behavior we have seen from Hamas. Where was that? Can you share with us some of that behavior, the pattern of behavior in particular places and so on? Yeah. In fact, Saeed, I remember you and I having this exchange several months ago and I emailed you an article that detailed Hamas's long history of hiding in, I think it was actually more than one article, several articles detailing Hamas. My point being, you don't need intelligence assessments from the U.S. government or anyone else. Hamas's long-established behavior of hiding in civilian sites predates October 7th, and certainly we've seen it over the course of this conflict. But that makes, let's say, targeting one person worth killing 100 people? We don't want to see, no, so we do not want to see civilians die. Now, I would say a lot of this would be solved if Hamas behaved like a military organization. We talk about other conflicts where this is not an issue because you don't see the military leadership hiding in hospitals, hiding in schools, hiding in religious sites, hiding in apartment buildings. If Hamas stopped doing it, it would certainly make the job of the IDF easier to target Hamas leadership without civilian casualties. But that said, as long as they continue to behave that way, the IDF still has the responsibility to do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties. Well, you know, the whole of Gaza is the size of Washington Metropolitan, Washington, D.C. I mean, it is a guerrilla force. It's not an army. They're not allowed to have airplanes and tanks and so on, but that... The size of Gaza does not justify hiding your fighters inside a hospital or inside a school. Let me ask you about something that you just said, that Israel wants to degrade and deplete and, you know, render Hamas totally incapable of launching an attack like the one we saw on October 7th. Well, the president himself said that Hamas was unable to do that anymore back on the 31st of May, didn't he? He did, yeah. Okay, so why do we continue to do the same thing over and over again? If Hamas no longer is capable of doing this, if the United States of America, the preeminent power on earth, you know, and the one that keeps the Israeli military sustained and so on, says, look, they are no longer, this reason is no longer valid because they no longer are able to do that, as the president said. A few things about that. It has, yes, it is our assessment that they no longer have the capability to launch an attack with a size, on the size and scale and scope of the attacks of October 7th. Hamas, without a doubt, does still pose a threat to Israel and does still pose a threat to Israeli civilians. Hamas continues to be a legitimate military target for the government of Israel to strike. That said, it has also long been our view, and you've heard me talk about this, you've heard the secretary talk about this, that Israel will never defeat Hamas through military action alone, and that it is going to require ultimately a political solution to a struggle between Israel and Palestinians that predates Hamas, that dates back decades, and if you were to ultimately reach an end to the violence between Israel and the Palestinian people that has gone on for decades, it will take more than a military campaign against Hamas, a terrorist organization, it will take a political solution, and of course, you see us continue to try to advance that. So, taking these two positions exactly, that you, you know, you just articulately illustrated, yeah, is that like a catch-22 situation? The war will go on forever because there will always be Palestinians who will fight the Israeli occupation, no matter what, under whatever conditions. So, are you saying this war can go on forever? We need to have completely neutralized Hamas? I think that question ignores everything I have said and everything that we have been pushing to try to do for some time. Let me just finish. It ignores the fact that we are pushing to obtain a ceasefire to stop the immediate death in Gaza. It ignores what the president has said and what the secretary has said repeatedly, and it's reflective of what we are trying to do, that we want to take that ceasefire and turn it into enduring calm, and we want to turn the enduring calm into lasting peace and stability. Now, my last question is, there was, you know, Anwar was, an Anwar headquarter was flattened in Gaza. Do you have any comment on that? I mean, Anwar has been the primary provider of aid and help, education, health care, and all these things for the Palestinians. Without Anwar, there would be, you know, a humanitarian disaster. Do you have any comment on what has happened to Anwar thus far? So, we do support the work that Anwar does. We've made that quite clear. They are a critical delivery mechanism for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people in Gaza. They have played an important role in delivering humanitarian assistance on the front lines since the outset of this conflict, and it has been really critical that that work has been critical, and it's critical that they continue it. But with respect to this strike, it goes back to the problem I was speaking to a moment ago, which you do continue to have Hamas leadership, Hamas militants that hide themselves in civilian sites, and Israel has a rightful goal of attacking militants and preventing them from continuing to threaten the state of Israel and the people of Israel, but they need to do so in a way that minimizes civilian harm. I just want to follow up on your answer to Said about the day after and the plan for peace in the Middle East. You've been, I mean, from this podium or even from many other platforms in the U.S. government, you've been pushing for months now for a day-after plan from the Israelis, and you're pushing with the regional players to find a formula for a peace that will – everlasting peace. But what we hear from the Israelis is a different page. They are opposing any Palestinian control of Gaza. They're not willing to enter any discussion internally about the day after, and in principle, the Netanyahu government and his factions are against the two-state solution. You've been pushing for months. Do you have any way of pushing more or putting – exerting more pressure on the Israelis to engage in that? So a few things about this. Just one kind of factual note. So with respect to plans for the day after, I spoke about this a little bit lately. We have seen the Israeli government start to develop more of their own plans and put more of their own plans forward, not as advanced as we would like to see, certainly. But just as a factual matter, they have been starting to have those conversations internally, and they've been having those conversations with us, and I believe they've been having those conversations with others in the region as well, which is not to say that there is a fully formed plan that is ready to go or certainly one that would be acceptable to the broader community, but they are at least advancing in their thinking of that issue. But I would say that with respect to the longer-term issue, we – ultimately, Israel is going to have to make some tough choices, which is always the case. It's been the case with this struggle between Israel and Palestinians for decades that ultimately resolving it requires tough choices by both sides of this conflict. And to get to, in our view, a lasting end of this conflict, it's going to have to take tough decisions by Israel. The case that we will make to them, to get to your question, is that ultimately, making some of these tough decisions is actually in their interest. It's in their long-term security interest. It is, of course, in the interest of the Palestinian people to see lasting stability in Gaza, to see reconstruction, to see a better form of governance than what they've had since Hamas took control of the Strip a couple decades ago. But it's also in Israel's long-term security interest to find a lasting resolution to this conflict. So we will continue to press that case to them, but they will have to make decisions for themselves, as every sovereign country has to do. But it's just – it is just our view, and we certainly hope that the people of Israel will ultimately endorse this view as well, that continuing to have this long-term security threat staring them in the face is a problem for their security, and it is a barrier to their long-term integration with the region, which is something Israel has wanted from the very founding of the state. What's the Palestinians' options here? I mean, until the Israelis or Israeli government reach a sober moment to accept that it has to do tough choices, as you said, what are the Palestinians' options to fight this occupation that will be acceptable to you? So when you say Palestinians, I don't know if you mean the Palestinian people, if you mean the Palestinian Authority, there are lots of different ways to answer that question. We think there are things that the Palestinian Authority can do. We think there are reforms that the Palestinian Authority can make that will make it clear that they are a reformed, revitalized authority that can serve as a credible governing structure, both for the people of the West Bank and the people of Gaza. And that's a message that they could send both to the government of Israel, but also to the Palestinian people, who we know want to see a reformed PA. So that's – that is one thing. Ultimately, what we are trying to do is work with the Palestinian Authority and work with partners in the region who we know want to see lasting peace and stability, and want to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And so that's what we'll continue to do. Go ahead. I would like specifically the attack on Saturday, Israel's attack on Gaza Town Unit. So Israel said it was targeting Hamas commander, Mohammed Baez, and they are yet to confirm whether he was killed or not. Do you expect them to confirm soon if they won't? Does this concern you? Because we know more than 90 civilians killed, including children, but we don't know whether the Hamas commander was killed or not, or even he was there after all. So with respect to Mohammed Baez, I will defer to the government of Israel to speak – to determine when they might be able to make some kind of assessment and when they will speak to it. That's ultimately a call for them to make. We do know that they were successful in killing other militants, including a Hamas commander, in that strike. But that said, to answer the question, no, the deaths of any civilians are not acceptable. We don't want to – we don't accept the deaths of civilians in any strike, and that is why we continue to push for a ceasefire to stop this daily death inside Gaza. Do you think these kind of situations hamper ongoing ceasefire negotiations? Because we know civilians killed at the moment, but they are yet to confirm the Hamas commander they said they were targeting was killed or not. Do you think these kind of vague situations hamper the ongoing ceasefire process? Because we know the U.S. wants to seal the deal as soon as possible. So I'm not going to speculate. I'm going to speak to what we've seen. And what we've seen is that the ceasefire negotiations have continued, and despite various public statements that are made by both sides on this conflict from time to time, what we have actually seen in the negotiations is pushing forward to try to get a deal. So I'm not going to speculate about what could happen. Obviously, people can always pull out of negotiations for their own reasons. We hope that won't happen. We haven't seen it happen yet. What we have seen has made us believe we can get to a deal, which, of course, does not mean that we will. We're going to continue to try to push for one. Follow? Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Sir, you said that Hamas is a military organization, of course, several times. Terrorist organization, I think. It's – Hamas is a terrorist organization that does have certain aspects of it that make it look like a military. It's ultimately a terrorist organization. Yes, sir. One, who is supporting them, who is financing them, and they have had miles and miles of underground tunnels going from there to different places, and terrorists are living there, were living, and they were sharing all these tunnels. So where do we stand? Where do we go from here? Who is supporting them? And they have headquartered in Qatar. They have been largely financially backed by the state of Iran, which is why we have taken actions to hold Iran accountable for its financing of not just Hamas, but other terrorist organizations in the region. Can I go back to something you said in response to an earlier question? You said several times Israel is going to have to make tough decisions. I think you said three times. Does Hamas not – or do the Palestinians not have to make tough decisions, too? Why are you saying – No, they do. Because the question was about Israel. The question was about the state of Israel, and that's why I talked about Israel. I did in a question about what the Palestinians could do. I talked about tough things that the Palestinian Authority needed to do, including making internal reforms. I mean, your understanding of how this whole conflict started is still that it was Hamas attacking Israel, correct? On October 7th, yes, absolutely. Okay. So why say now that it's only the Israelis who have to make tough decisions? I certainly don't believe it is only the Israelis that have to make tough decisions. The question was about Israel, but as I said, it has long been the case in resolving conflicts, it takes parties on both sides making tough decisions. Okay. So Hamas has to make a tough decision, too? Well, I mean, it depends how you look at it. We think it ought not to be a tough decision to reach a ceasefire because it would alleviate the suffering of the people that they claim to represent, but it certainly has been tough – it has been tough for them to come to that decision here to date. Okay, fine. But then it ought not to be a tough decision for Israel either, right? Because they would get, according to you, according to your theory here, if they take a tough decision and, you know, agree to a ceasefire, they're going to be safe. So ought not be, but would that the world were so simple, Matt. Would that the world be so simple. Okay. Go ahead. Same in connection with what I had. Recently, in this connection question, recently Prime Minister Modi of India was in Moscow meeting with President Putin. They discussed about this situation in the Middle East in a big range many times, including this time when NATO meetings were going on here. So where do we go as far as Prime Minister Modi's discussion with President Putin that this war is – must be ending and people, countries must come to an end to have a peace for the – for peace forever in the Middle East between these nations, Israel and other countries while going on in the region? So I don't have any specific comment on that other than that, as we have said before, we have never seen Russia willing to play any kind of a productive role in resolving conflicts in the Middle East, certainly this conflict in the Middle East. Thank you, sir. In Thailand, in a luxury hotel in Bangkok, six people were found dead, including two American nationals. Police are investigating it as a possible poisoning case. Are you in contact with your Thai counterparts in assisting in any way? So we are aware of the reports of the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Bangkok, Thailand. We offer our sincere condolences to the families on their loss. We are closely monitoring the situation and standing ready to provide consular assistance to those families. Whenever a U.S. citizen dies in a foreign country, local authorities are responsible for determining the cause of death. We do reach out to local authorities often to communicate them about – to communicate with them when it involves the death of a U.S. citizen, and we will certainly be doing so here. But I would defer to the local authorities for any further comment on what I believe is an ongoing investigation. Secretary Blinken spoke with the Thai foreign minister earlier today, I believe. Did the deaths come up on the phone call at all? So the call happened around 9 o'clock this morning. I think it might have been before we saw the reports of the deaths, so I don't know that it came up in the call, but I'll have to check and get back with you to confirm. Yeah, keep going. Mark, I was wondering if you have any updates on the RFE-RL journalist detained in Russia, also Kormasheva. Has any new information come to light to be able to designate her as wrongfully detained? No, I don't have any new information to report. Obviously, as we've said, journalism is not a crime, and we have urged her swift release, but I don't have any new information to provide about a wrongful detention determination. I'd like to follow up on that question, given that this week is going to mark nine months of her arrest. When there is a lack of transparency about the process here, it does trigger a lot of questions about what is the reason to why she's not being detained. Is it because she's Muslim, she's a female, or what's the reason? Alex, give me a break. That is a ridiculous thing to raise, that it's because of her gender. We have designated both men and women as wrongfully detained, and if you look at our track record in this administration, we have returned over 40 wrongfully detained American citizens. So I think the track record actually shows this administration taking this work incredibly seriously, and working hard, and making tough choices sometimes to return those U.S. citizens who have been detained overseas. It is the top priority for the president. It is the top priority for the secretary to make sure that U.S. citizens overseas are safe and secure, and we take the process extremely seriously. I know it doesn't always move as quickly as you or some others would want, but I think if you look at our record, it shows that we are able to get results, and for those Americans who remain wrongfully detained, and other Americans who are detained overseas, we are working day and night to get them home, and with respect to her case, as I've said, we've called for her release. Her husband and her daughters are in town. Is the secretary or anyone still planning to meet with them? I don't have any meetings to announce today. I will stay in the region. Russia's Lavrov just landed in New York this morning, along with Sakharova and others. Both are actually under current U.S. visa restrictions. We have discussed that previously in previous years that you guys comply with obligations, the 1947 agreement, but the question is, how does it look like right now? We discussed just three weeks ago how Russia not only violates the U.N. charter, but also does violate U.N. sanctions on North Korea. We discussed gifted a car to the North Korean dictator. First of all, what restrictions are they under when they're going to be in New York? Secondly, how does it look like? Do you think about U.N. credibility, and this man is going to lead a Security Council meeting? When you want to speak to our credibility when it comes to Russia, look at our actions over the past two years with holding Russia accountable, and I think it answers that question quite well. When it comes to the United Nations and representatives of any country attending events at the United Nations, we have a responsibility as the host of the United Nations to allow foreign diplomats to attend. That is an obligation that has been upheld for decades by administrations of both parties, and it's one that the United States takes seriously. That said, we do have the ability to impose restrictions to make sure that diplomats that do attend for legitimate U.N. meetings only can participate in those meetings and can take off on, say, tourism visits across the United States. Is the Secretary planning to boycott his ministerial? I don't have any announcements to make. Follow-up on Menendez. We've just seen reporting that he had continued to receive foreign policy and intelligence briefings despite being accused of being a foreign agent for Egypt and Qatar and now convicted. From a State Department perspective, does that cause for any concern? I just don't have any comment on that at all. It remains a law enforcement matter, and ultimately, the question of who receives those type of briefings is a matter for the Senate to decide. Just a quick question on Vance, who Trump thinks as his running mate yesterday. He's been a vocal critic of USAID for Ukraine and has said that Britain was an Islamist, nuclear-armed country. What's the administration's view of this, and do you have any concerns that this could endanger the relationship? I'm going to probably have a tough time over the next few months when there are going to be a lot of claims made on the campaign trail that I want to respond to and probably shouldn't respond to, so I will instead just speak about our record and our record of support for Ukraine. Ultimately, I think the question really comes down to not just what we support and what anyone else in public life supports, but what the American people support. What we have seen is when it comes to Ukraine, the American people strongly support continued assistance to Ukraine. They strongly support allowing Ukraine and helping Ukraine to defend itself against Russia's aggression. It's not just the American public, but it's bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress. When you saw the Supplemental Appropriations Bill finally get a vote after obstruction on one side of the aisle, we saw an overwhelming vote in support of military assistance, so I think that's probably where I should leave it with that. With respect to the United Kingdom, look, we have a long-standing, close relationship, a special relationship with the United Kingdom, and despite any kind of—I won't comment at all—I think the American people understand the importance of that relationship and would reject any attempts to mischaracterize it. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia today or yesterday signed an agreement on space. What's the importance of this agreement, and is it part of the larger package that the U.S. is working with Saudi Arabia on? That is a separate agreement from the ongoing discussions we have had with Saudi Arabia about what further regional integration would look like and what improved bilateral relationships and expanded bilateral agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia would look like in the context of regional integration, so it is a separate agreement. That said, the specifics to it—I'll have to take the question and get back to you. Thank you. Thank you very much. The question is regarding the President Biden's recent interview in which he said that he got a call from Saudis and they want to fully recognize Israel with the security conditions. The question is, we have seen a brief security brief by the national security team to the Congress about the nuclear cooperation, that is, the civilian nuclear program with Saudi Arabia, and we got mistakes from the Congress, from the Republicans and Democrats. Some wrote a letter to President Biden to condition it with the nonproliferation, and some said you have to look twice on this. So it seems like there is some prioritizing by the U.S., and in this interview, President Biden didn't mention anything that Saudis are mentioning two-state solution for the Palestine. So is there anything under consideration regarding the security guarantees for the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel? So do you mean—I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Do you mean that we would just do an agreement with Saudi Arabia absent— With the security deal contract. Oh yeah, yeah. No, look, you've heard me speak to this before, and you've heard other leaders of our government. No, this is a package deal that it all works together, or it doesn't really work at all. And we've heard the governor of Saudi Arabia say that something that's important for them for normalization is to get a legitimate path to two states. And so we continue to look at this as something that we believe is very important, something that we believe is hopefully achievable, but no, we're not pursuing separate agreements. One on Pakistan. Two more security personnel got killed in a horrible exchange of fire with the terrorists, and again, these are terrorists coming from the safe haven in Afghanistan. So you've spoken many times on this podium, and the question is, do the United States have some concerns with the persons who took responsibility or who took guarantees in the Doha agreement that they will not let them use this soil against the neighboring Pakistan, who have been a U.S. ally? So do you have any concerns? Do you have anything on this? Do you have anything on this? Sure. So I'll first say that, of course, the Pakistani people have suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists and terrorists. We have a shared interest with the Pakistani people and the government of Pakistan in combating threats to regional security. And yes, we do continue to urge the Taliban to ensure that terrorist attacks are not launched from Afghan soil. That has been a priority for us in engagement with them, and it continues to be. Yeah, Michel. On the diplomatic solution between Israel and Hezbollah, is there an agreement already ready to be signed in case there is a ceasefire in Gaza? So I'm not going to speak in detail to the diplomacy that we have been pursuing to resolve the conflict across the blue line, other than to say that it continues to be our assessment that it's important to get a ceasefire in Gaza to unlock the possibility of an agreement to that conflict. So it's something that we're pursuing, but you've heard Hezbollah say publicly that if there is a ceasefire in Gaza, they will stop their attacks on Israel. We don't think they need to wait for that, but certainly that's what they've said. So we'll continue to pursue diplomacy to resolve that conflict, but we really do think a ceasefire in Gaza is important to unlocking a further possibility of achieving it. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Joel, I'll come to you next. Thank you very much. I knew there was somebody over there. I was like, there was somebody over here. Go ahead. Thank you very much, Matt. As you mentioned earlier that elections are getting close, so you are going to be asked questions about campaigns. So Sarah Sanders, when she was the spokesperson at the White House, her child and my child were in class, but for five years, I did, or four years, I did not go to the White House press briefings. But when this administration came and I did go, I was not treated anything much nicer either. Is this about the stool again at the White House? It's the handicapped seat, and I don't think it's funny at all. No, I didn't know that's what it was. I remember you raising it previously, I didn't know the context. So I had much better, I had very good hopes on President Biden administration regarding the media treatment. What I'm saying is that during their time, I did not even go once for the press briefing because they're at his- Let me just interrupt you quickly to ask that you get to the question. Sorry. As much as I enjoy the extended wind-ups. So Voice of America had asked you a question that Taliban are asking about the helicopters from Uzbekistan, and you had said that you would reply them back. Is there any update about those helicopters or no? We did get back to Voice of America. If you're interested in the answer, I'll take it back and get the same answer back to you. Just one last question. Last week, a couple of weeks ago, I had a chance to listen to one of the three amazing diplomats, Ambassador Munter, Ambassador Hale, and Ambassador Peterson. They all served in Pakistan as ambassadors. One of them said that it's great that Pakistan is off the back, so we don't have to pay billions of dollars every year. Ambassador Anne Peterson said that the fifth largest country in the world should not be let down and should not be the way it is basically right now. Just give me a little bit of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Where is Pakistan fitting in this whole situation right now? Because from what I see, Pakistan seems to be going down in almost every aspect that I can think of. So Pakistan continues to be a close partner that we work with on a number of important matters, including improving the Pakistan economy. You've heard me speak a number of times to the importance of securing an IMF facility and Pakistan making reforms in that regard. We'll continue to do so. I have a question. Just to be clear, the president's characterization of it was broadly correct. And then do you think that you have time in this administration to work out that kind of deal if events unfold in Israel the way you want or has that been closed? So I don't want to put a timeline on it. Partly because, look, you've heard the secretary say that in his conversations with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, there are two things that he needs to be able to reach a deal. One is calm in Gaza. Two is a path to an independent Palestinian state. We don't yet have a calm in Gaza, so it's a little hard to speculate about the timeline of a normalization deal when we haven't reached the first milestone. So we're going to continue to push to get calm in Gaza, to get a ceasefire. We have plans. We are working with our partners in the region on security and governance and ultimately reconstruction for Gaza in the period after a conflict. And as part of that, we are discussing with Saudi Arabia what a broad normalization integration deal would look like. But there is a lot of work that remains to be done to get there, including, of course, the question about a ceasefire in Gaza. Okay. And then if I could just follow up also on the Russia question. You know, Sergey Lavrov's in New York today, and he mentioned, obviously he's going to talk about possible more peace talks with Ukraine and Russia at some point. He mentioned that a political diplomatic solution must be accompanied by concrete steps to eliminate threats to the Russian Federation from the western Euro-Atlantic direction. It seems to be a reference to that draft treaty they put out in 2021. I know you're very deferential to the Ukrainians in terms of talking about the Ukrainian position there. Are you guys willing at all to have some kind of larger conversation connected to that process? And what do you make also, you know, he mentioned that it would have to be, you know, take into account geostrategic realities on the Eurasian continent. Like, is it your – there's been a lot of talk in this room and elsewhere about China enabling Russia's defense industry for the war in Ukraine. Is it your understanding that China is also backing Russia in terms of its negotiating position or desired negotiating position vis-a-vis NATO in that larger project? So when it comes to the – this wasn't part of the question, but maybe the premise of the question. You're right, that we do think that Ukraine needs to be at the forefront of any diplomacy to end the war because they are the victim of this aggression. It is their territory that's being occupied. It's their people that have been killed that continue to suffer as a result of a war that they did not start, that they suffered from. And in fact, they've been suffering from for 10 years now. Of course, it's not just a war that started in February of 2022. So it is important that Ukraine be in the driver's seat for what is ultimately their future. And we will support them in whatever way possible. To the larger question you asked about it, though, the problem with that formulation, not the formulation of your question, but the problem with the formulation from the foreign minister is there's no one in Europe that is threatening Russia. There's no one in Europe that was threatening Russia before the invasion of Ukraine, either the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 or the full-scale invasion in 2022. What Russia seems to see as a threat is a democracy functioning on its borders. And that's just not a legitimate view. There's not been a military threat. No one has threatened to take Russian territory, to take Russian land. So we reject that view. And so we'll continue to work with our Ukrainian partners on where diplomacy can take ultimately ending this conflict with a just peace, not just a peace, but a just and a lasting peace. With respect to China, so look, we have seen, as you said, further relationship between China and Russia. And it's not just with respect to revitalizing the defense industrial base. It is also with respect to being a major strategic partner of Russia. And you've seen close ties between President Putin and President Xi, visits between the two. And so I can't ultimately predict where it will go. What I can tell you is that when we have talked directly to the Chinese government, we have said that ultimately we would hope that they could play a productive role in ending the conflict. But it needed to be a role that recognized who was the aggressor and who was the victim. And it was not just getting peace for peace's sake, but also getting peace that was a just peace and a lasting peace for the state of Ukraine. But ultimately, I can't tell you what they're going to do. Sir. Saudi Arabia. Sir. Yesterday, the president in an interview said that the Saudi conditions for normalization with Israel would be, you know, a guaranteed protection by the United States and for the provision of arms and a security agreement, and also the ability to have a peaceful nuclear program. And so he did not mention a Saudi condition that has always been, you know, laid in the back about a Palestinian state and all these things. That answer is just with respect to the bilateral agreements between the United States. I know it does get confusing sometimes because in these discussions, there are bilateral agreements that would take place between the United States and Saudi Arabia as part of an integration deal, a normalization deal. And then there are other things that have to happen between Saudi Arabia and, of course, of Israel, the two countries that would be normalizing relationship with each other. But Saudi Arabia has always made clear that for that to move forward, it still does, it has always made clear and still makes clear that they need to see calm in Gaza and they need to see a path to two states. That has not changed. Alex, go ahead and then we'll wrap for today. Georgia, please. Last week's Washington communique was completely silent about Georgia, like zero mentioning of Georgia. In comparison to previous years, you know, in Vilnius, they had an entire chapter on its membership, be it, you know, Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Can you please help us put that into context? I know that you guys hosted the foreign minister in this building. Any, what is your view of Georgia, you know, lacking, you know, in this week? So we continue to support the Georgian people's Euro-Atlantic aspirations, but we have seen the government of Georgia take a different turn and take a different path. We've seen the government of Georgia take, pass laws that move Georgia away from its democratic trajectory. As you know, you've spoken about the law that they pass and how the effect that it could have on civil society and the way it could enable government crackdowns on legitimate democratic rights. And so it is the Georgian government's actions that have fundamentally altered its relationship with the United States, but not just with the United States, with other, with countries in Europe. And on that point, any update for us regarding the second tranche? No, no, no updates from here. All right. Thanks, everyone.