LIVE: Department of State Daily Press Briefing

Happy Monday, everyone. Let's get started. The United States is today imposing sanctions on Amana, the largest organization involved in settlement and illegal outpost development in the West Bank, as well as its subsidiary, Binyane Bar Amana. Amana is a key part of the Israeli extremist settler movement. It maintains ties to a number of individuals previously sanctioned by the US government, and it has helped establish dozens of illegal settler outposts and directly engage in the dispossession of private land owned by Palestinians. In addition, we are imposing sanctions on Eyal Hari Yehuda Company, its owner, Itamar Yehuda-Levy, Shabtai Koshlefsky, the vice president of HaSemar Yaush, and violent extremist Zohar Sabak. The actions of these individuals and this company have contributed both directly and indirectly to the rise of violence in the West Bank. The United States remains committed to fighting increasing extremist settler violence. Over the past 10 months, we have sanctioned 33 entities and individuals, including today's actions, for their activities in the West Bank. These sanctions have targeted an ever-broadening array of actors, from individuals to organizations, for their roles in the escalating violence and instability. There is no justification for extremist violence against civilians, period. We are committed to working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to de-escalate violence in the West Bank, which has cost the lives of too many Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The president and the secretary have repeatedly stressed with their Israeli counterparts that Israel must do more to stop violence against civilians in the West Bank and hold accountable those responsible for it. But as we have also made clear, in the absence of such actions by the government of Israel, we will continue to take our own steps to hold those responsible for violent extremism accountable. And with that, Matt, congratulations on the bill's victory yesterday. Thank you. It was a, it was, yes, it was big. And it was good. I won't speak, I won't. I'm glad that the whole country, with the exception of maybe Kansas City area, is happy. I'm not a, I'm not a partisan to either of those teams, so I won't speak to the relevant, the relative goodness, but, you know, where the remarks stand. Well, thank you. Before we get back to the, to what I'm sure will be a lot of questions about the Middle East, I just wanted to ask you quickly about transition. Is there anything new to report on contacts between incoming team and state? So, a couple things. With respect to the official transition process, no, there's nothing that has changed. I'll let other agencies speak to the memorandum of understanding process. My understanding is that there has not been a signed memorandum of understanding, which is what has to take place before the incoming administration's transition team can come start work here, getting briefed and getting access to information to proceed in the transition process. That process has not changed. There has been an additional contact. I can read out, the secretary phoned Secretary-designate Marco Rubio yesterday to offer his congratulations on his appointment and to pledge to him, as we have said publicly, that we will do everything within our power to make it a successful transition. Okay, and that was the extent of it? That was the extent of the call, yeah. Okay, now, on to the, well, does anyone have another transition question? Did the secretary talk about any policies? I'm not gonna get into any further specifics other than what I said, which is he called to offer his congratulations and pledged that we would work to make it a successful transition. So, on the Lebanon front, there's a whole flurry of speculation and reports that something is in the works. Can you fill us in on where things stand there? So, we continue to be engaged with our Israeli counterparts, with the government of Lebanon, with a number of other countries, both in the region and outside the region, to try and reach a resolution to the conflict across the blue line. As you know, we've been trying for some time to get a resolution that would see UN Security Council Resolution 1701 fully enforced, and we are making progress on it, but I wouldn't want to comment on it beyond that. Do you know if there are people heading up to the region? Well, we always have people moving around various places in the region, but with respect to any travel to Lebanon, I don't have any to announce today. Okay. Not everybody wants to wait. All right, Alex. Front row is very demure today. It's like everybody else was watching the Bills game and celebrating. Can we just say that on the Middle East, if you want to? Sure, sure. Just on Gaza, in the aid situation, which does not seem to have improved significantly at all since last week in your announcement last week. What's the latest on that? So we have seen the situation improve, though to see the actual realization of all of those improvements, we do think will take some time, but we have seen the government of Israel take additional steps. They voted last week to allow 250 trucks per day in, and then in addition, the prime minister instructed the minister of defense to make every effort to get that level of daily truck deliveries up to 350, which is the number that we called for in the letter. As you know, they now have five crossings open. They reopened a crossing that had been closed. They opened a new crossing, things that we called for. They restarted the Jordan Air Forces Corridor, something that we had called for. They removed 30 items from the dual use restricted list, something that we had called for in the letter on behalf of a number of humanitarian organizations that had been calling for those steps to be taken. They restored deliveries to the north. They expanded the Mawassi humanitarian zone by 25%, something that we had called for in the letter. They're implementing the UN's plan to prepare for winter, which includes things like repairing roads, facilitating the entry of winter specific aid, vaccinations for winter specific diseases. And so we have seen them take a number of steps, some of which have been public, some of which they have communicated to us, and I'm making public now, and it will take some time to see whether those actually translate to what they're supposed to translate to, which is more humanitarian assistance making it into Gaza, and then more humanitarian assistance making it to the actual people inside Gaza that need to get it. And that's what we're committed to seeing take place over the coming weeks. Yeah. Just, I guess this is related to sort of transition. Do you have any comment on reporting about Elon Musk meeting with the Iranian ambassador last week in Rwanda? I don't. Okay. I don't. Going back to Lebanon, Matt, can you say whether there have been any gaps that have narrowed in the negotiations over a diplomatic resolution here? Has VOLA presented any response to the proposals that have said to have been briefed to them? You know, I just don't think it's productive, unfortunately, to get into the details of the back and forth negotiations, only to say that we have been at this for some time now. We have been sharing proposals, both with the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel. Both sides have reacted to the proposals that we have put forward. There has been an exchange of different ideas for how to see what we believe is in everyone's interest, which is the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And we're gonna continue to stay at that process because we believe a diplomatic resolution is key to allowing the fighting to stop, to protecting civilians, and allowing the civilians in both Israel and Lebanon to return to their homes. In past weeks, there has been optimism around the discussions to varying degrees. Are you able to give us a characterization of where that stands now? Are you optimistic that something can come together in the coming weeks? I am not gonna make a characterization, which shouldn't read anything into, other than to say we are committed to trying to get these negotiations over the finish line. We believe it is in the government of Israel to get them over the finish line. We believe it is in the interests of the government of Lebanon to get them over the finish line. I'm not gonna characterize the chances, other than to say when you have a resolution in the interest of all the relevant parties, we ought to be able to get to an agreement, and that's what we're gonna try to do. And then switching to Doha and the calls for Hamas to be booted out of the country, where does things stand there? Are there still Hamas officials in Qatar? If not, where are they now? I will let the various relevant governments speak to where they are. I know the government of Qatar has spoken to this to some extent. I've seen the reports that some of the leadership of Hamas who had been in Doha have now moved to Turkey. I'm not in a position to dispute those reports. What I would say on behalf of the United States is that we don't believe the leaders of a vicious terrorist organization should be living comfortably anywhere. And that certainly includes in a major... Remember that Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that has murdered a number of Americans, continues to hold to this day seven American citizens hostage. And of course, that's not even to speak of the citizens of other countries that it has murdered and that is held hostage. So to the extent that members of Hamas are in Turkey or in any country, look, a number of these individuals are under U.S. indictment, have been under U.S. indictment for some time. And we believe that they should be turned over to the United States. If they are in Turkey and aren't turned over or expelled or what have you, whatever acts may be made, what kind of consequences would there be for Turkey as a NATO ally? I don't wanna get ahead of things here. We've just seen the reporting in the last few days that they have moved to Turkey. But of course, we will make clear to the government of Turkey as we have made clear to every country in the world that there can be no more business as usual with Hamas. Let me, yeah, go ahead, Hiba. Upon the questions regarding Lebanon and the negotiations, you used to say, for example, when it comes to Hamas and Israel, the onus is on Hamas or on Israel. When it comes to Lebanon, where's the problem? Here or here? Lebanon, Hezbollah or Israel? So both the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon need to agree to an ultimate resolution, a diplomatic resolution. Obviously, that requires to both of them agreeing to the various proposals that we have put forward. And you can imagine, as is always the case in this kind of diplomatic engagement, there are things that each side wants and the things that each side objects to. And what we try to do is to work through that and get to a resolution that both parties can agree to. But ultimately, the onus is on both of those countries. And when it comes to the internal politics in Lebanon, you've been trying to have a kind of political solution for the presidential elections and many things in Lebanon. Any update on these efforts? No, look, we continue to wanna see the Lebanese parliament elect a new president. We have been pushing for that since before. The outbreak of violence in the past few months, we've been pushing for that since before October 7th, and we're continuing to push for it, but I don't have any update to offer. There are some talks that there are regional partners pushing for a role to Bashar al-Assad within Lebanon. Are you on the same page, or do you accept such a proposal to start with? I don't know what proposal that refers to specifically, and I wouldn't wanna comment on it here today. Thank you. Let me just try to stay in the region first. Michelle, go ahead. Do you support the Israeli right to intervene in Lebanon militarily in the future in case the Lebanese armed forces or the UNIFIL don't move against Hezbollah, especially in the south? Yeah, so I don't want to speak to that specifically. I know there've been reports about various things that may or may not be under negotiation, so sometimes when I comment on even general questions like that here, they're interpreted as me weighing in on the specifics of negotiations. I will, of course, say that every country in the world has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. That includes Israel. It includes other countries as well, and I think I'll leave it at that. And will you give Israel guarantees in this regard? I'm just not gonna speak to the underlying diplomatic negotiations. And is there only one draft that you are working on or two drafts? Only one. I think I'm gonna have to apply my previous answer, which is I'm not gonna talk to the specifics of the negotiations. Ultimately, we're looking to a proposal that can be agreed to by both countries. And do you know if Folkstein is going today to Lebanon or? I would refer you to the White House for that. Amos hasn't worked here for more than a year now, but I would direct you to the NSC to speak to his travel schedule. Thank you. Go ahead. Over the weekend, Haaretz reported on Israel's crackdown on foreign activists in the occupied West Bank, stating that at least 16 foreign activists, many of them are Americans, have been expelled from Israel since last October after being detained in the West Bank. Have you seen these reports and do you have any reaction? Do you believe that Israel is deliberately targeting foreign activists? We have seen the reports and we are currently gathering more information about them. I don't have any specific information to speak to, and so I don't have any comment on them, but would say in general, we support the rule of law and due process, and we'll continue to advocate for these principles, especially when they pertain to the treatment of US citizens. And one more on this, you know, activists being targeted. Turkish-American activist Aysen Özge was also killed by Israel in the West Bank 69 days ago, and there has been no accountability to this day. Eyewitnesses say she was deliberately targeted by Israeli forces. The last time I raised this issue at the briefing, you told me that you were pressing Israel for answers. Have you received any answers? Do you have any update? I don't have an update. That continues to be the case. We have been in contact with the government of Israel, including very recently about this case to make clear that we wanted to hear from them exactly what happened. As you know, the secretary has said that it is unacceptable that anyone should be shot and killed just for attending a peaceful protest, and we continue to press the government of Israel to conduct its investigation and to brief us on the results of that investigation, but I don't have an outcome to read out as of yet. Are there any steps that the State Department plans to take regarding this instead of waiting for answers? So we want to see the end of the investigation before we speak to that, which does not mean that it is an open-ended timeline, right, there's a point at which. Like, are we talking about weeks, months, or years? I'm not going to speak to it publicly. We're in conversation with the government of Israel about it. But we want to see the investigation be thorough, and then when we see the results, we'll, of course, be willing to speak to them at that time, as well as any additional steps that may or may not be warranted. Yeah, thank you, Matt. On the U.S.-Iraqi discussion over the security relations in the future, you were scheduled to have a meeting in Baghdad before the end of this administration, but an Iraqi diplomat told me that the Iraqi government has requested the State Department to postpone the meeting to next year and changing the venue from Baghdad to Washington, D.C. Have you received such a request, and what updates do you have for me about your discussions with Iraq over security relations? I'm going to have to take that question and get back to you. I'm just not tracking the details of either timing or location for that meeting. And another question related to this, I'm not sure if you have anything for me, does changing administration in Washington have any impact on your discussion with Iraq over security relations, and your process in Iraq? So that gets back to a question I spoke to last time I was here, which I guess was week before last, right after the election, when I was obviously traveling last week. And the general answer to that is, I obviously can't speak to what the next administration will do on any policy area anywhere around the world. We have made clear what we believe is in the interest of the United States, and we will continue to pursue those policies and continue to put them in place between now and January 20th, but I wouldn't want to speculate in any way what the next administration may do. And last question, the Iraqi militia groups has increased their attacks on Israel. I'm sorry, the Iraqi militias, yeah, yeah. They increased their attacks on Israel. Even yesterday, they attacked Elie. And they are using a pretext that Israel has used Iraqi airspace to attack Iran. And the Iraqi government was saying that we are going to engage with the U.S. on this. What's your comment on that? Do you think it's the right pretext? We have, no, we clearly do not. We have engaged with the government of Iraq on this very question to make clear to them that the government of Iraq should not allow the territory of Iraq to be used to launch terrorist attacks against anybody. And it is not in Iraq's interest to be pulled into a regional conflict. And so the government of Iraq should take all appropriate steps to prevent these terrorist organizations from launching such attacks. Thank you. Staying in the region. I wanted to move to Russia. I should, let me just, I will come to you, Nick. Let me just make sure anyone else has anything else in the region. Go ahead, and then I'll come back to you next time. Thank you, Matt. According to Israel Behind the News report, UNRWA schools in Bethlehem are reopened and UNRWA is actively participating in the war against Israel. My question to you is, will the U.S. therefore demand on arms and ammunitions inspection of UNRWA schools and medical clinics in Ebola? So I don't know what report you're referring to, but we do not believe that UNRWA is engaged in active war against the state of Israel. Okay. Let me just finish. UNRWA exists to provide humanitarian services to the Palestinian people. We believe it's important work that they play. Now, we take very seriously the allegations that there were UNRWA employees who were involved in the terrorist acts of October 7th and made clear that that's absolutely unacceptable. And those employees must be held accountable for those actions, but that's different than a painting with a broad brush the entire organization. Again, another issue, in light of the U.S. and UNRWA accord which conditions USAID to UNRWA on the removal of incitement in texts and murals from UNRWA, will the U.S. demand that murals and texts which glorify murder of Jews be removed from UNRWA refugee camps in Bethlehem? I don't know exactly what specific report you're referring to, so I'm not gonna comment on it. Simon, go ahead. What can you tell us about what the current policy is on whether Ukraine can launch long-range missile strikes into Russia using U.S. missiles? I don't have any policy updates to speak to today. As you know, since even before Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the United States has marshaled a coalition of more than 50 countries to provide assistance to Ukraine and to hold Russia accountable for its actions. We have made clear that we will always adapt and adjust the capabilities that we provide to Ukraine when it's appropriate to do so, and you have seen us back that up with steps that we have taken over the past several years, but I don't have any new policy developments to speak to today. I mean, obviously, this is already being reported that there is a change of policy, and the Kremlin has responded, saying this is a major escalation from the U.S. Do you have a, I mean, you're not confirming the policy change, but given that this is already information out there that Russians are responding to, what's your take on them accusing you of escalating this conflict? Yeah, so again, I know this goes without saying, but let me say it anyway. I'm not gonna speak to or confirm any policy changes, but when you look at escalation of this conflict, it has been Russia that has escalated the conflict time and time again, and that includes just in the recent month when Russia recruited the deployment of more than 11,000 North Korean soldiers who are now on the front lines in Kursk, engaging in combat operations against the Ukrainian military. That is a major escalation by Russia, bringing in an Asian military to a conflict inside Europe, and as we said, as the Secretary said, our response to that would be firm, and the supporters of Ukraine's response to that needed to be firm, and we will continue to do what is appropriate to hold Russia accountable for its actions, including its escalatory actions, and to hold North Korea accountable for its escalatory actions. The Russians say that they can just deploy whoever they like to Kursk because it's inside their own country. What's the kind of principle here that a country can't bring in other troops? So the first principle that we need to remember, of course, and I know you haven't forgotten this, for everyone else, is that it is Russia that started this war by invading the sovereign territory of its neighbor. Russia, that invaded Ukraine, supported proxy war in 2014, and then that launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and so if Russia wanted to stop the attacks on its territory, it's the aggressor here, and it could withdraw from Ukraine, it could stop targeting Ukrainian civilians, it could stop targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, it could stop occupying Ukrainian territory, so it matters very much who is the aggressor in this conflict and who is the victim, but the fact that Ukraine is defending the occupation of its territory by launching attacks inside Russia in no way justifies the escalation of this conflict by introducing a foreign army into conflict directly with Ukrainian soldiers. And you've said that, you know, since the election of Donald Trump as the president-elect, you've said you will surge remaining military assistance to Ukraine, with, I guess, the idea of strengthening the Ukrainians. The sort of comments from Russia sort of saying, well, this is an outgoing administration and they are acting irresponsibly by further escalating a conflict. I know you're not confirming this particular act, but you have talked about, you know, rushing support for Ukraine and giving the Ukrainians as much as possible. You know, is there a danger that you are, you know, fueling the fire of a conflict that your successor may have a different view on? The American people elected Joe Biden to a four-year term, not to a term of three years and 10 months. And we will use every day of our term to pursue the foreign policy interests that we believe are on behalf, that we believe are in the interests of the American people. If the incoming administration wants to take a different view, that is, of course, their right to do so. And I expect in many cases they will do so, but it is our duty to fulfill the mandate that the American people gave to President Biden. And we will continue to do that. And I would add that when you look at the position of the American public on support for Ukraine, there's been overwhelming support among the American people and there's been overwhelming support in Congress for providing this aid to Ukraine. So we're gonna continue to provide it and get all of it out the door before we leave office. Yeah, Janne, go ahead. Thank you very much. Russia and North Korea. Russian Kremlin stated that even after the war between Russia and Ukraine ends, North Korean troops will remain stationed in Russia. What are your concerns about the integration of North Korean troops into Russian Union? We continue to be greatly concerned about the security relationship between North Korea and Russia. And I think it's worth pointing out, our concerns are not just because of the fact that North Korea has introduced its own forces onto the battlefield with Ukrainian soldiers, but what it is that North Korea might be getting in return. It seems very hard to believe that they sent 11,000 soldiers to fight in Russia, potentially die in combat against Ukrainian military without getting something in return. Now, we don't know what that may be, but it doesn't require a great leap of faith to believe that it is going to be something that is deeply destabilizing to security in Asia, which is why we have made those concerns quite clear to a number of countries in the region. North Korean Kim Jong-un said nuclear strengthening and announced that the preparation for war had been completed. How do you assess the nuclear alliance between North Korea and Russia? I just don't have any assessment at all to offer from here. Thank you. Yeah, just follow up on Simon's question. Do you have anything to confirm the veracity of a news report that following a nod from the United States, France and UK have actually decided to allow Ukraine to use long-range fires to strike deep within Russia, including the Sun shadow missiles? I don't think you will be surprised at my answer, Nike. Having not been willing to confirm these reports about US involvement, I'm certainly not gonna speak to involvement on behalf of other countries. During your recent meetings with the European officials, what sense do you get regarding the land for peace? Regarding land for peace? So I will say that when we were in Brussels last week and the Secretary met with a number of his foreign counterparts, met with the Secretary General of NATO, briefed the NAC and received updates from representatives of a number of NATO countries. And of course, met with his British counterpart and had a number of other conversations over the past few weeks. What we have heard consistently is that it is for Ukraine to decide if it wants to enter into negotiations, when it enters into negotiations, what the parameters of those negotiations would be. That has been our policy, that it's up to Ukraine to make those decisions and that has been the policy of our allies and partners and we have seen no change in that policy by our allies and partners. But I do think it's always worth adding when we talk about potential negotiations that we have seen no change in posture by the government of Russia when it comes to negotiations and you just have to look at the deadly attacks that Russia has launched against Ukraine over the past few days to see that far from being, far from showing any willingness to enter into negotiations, they continue to look for ways to escalate the conflict. Was there a growing acknowledgement that countries may be forced to accept a political reality? So I'm just not gonna speak to private discussions among our allies, but in every conversation that we have had over the past weeks, we've heard the same thing that we have heard over the past few months, which is that it is up to Ukraine to decide Ukraine's future and that no other country can or should dictate that to them. And if I may ask a transitional question, sorry about that. China House, how do you assess the future of the operation of China House, given a State Department structure is expected? Yeah, so again, I'm a little loathe to predict the future under the incoming administration. I will speak on behalf of this administration and say that we have seen the work of China House to be absolutely instrumental to the policies we have pursued to manage our competition with China appropriately and to rally our allies and partners to the threat that China poses in many cases. And we think that work is important and we're gonna continue that work, but as to what changes the incoming administration will make I obviously can't speak to those. Thanks. Regarding Ukraine aid more broadly, of all the aid packages that have been sent so far, such as the 425 million announced on November 1st, how much is yet to be dispersed? And is the expectation that that'll all be dispersed by January 20th on the new administration? So when it comes to the provision of security aid and how much is left in stock, I'd refer you to the Pentagon to speak to that question. I know that they have spoken to that at various times in their daily briefings. I have a number in my memory, but I'm afraid if I try to pull it down, I'm gonna get it wrong. So I'd refer you to them to speak to how much of that appropriated security assistance is remaining. But when it comes to that security assistance, we are committed to getting all of it out the door before January 20th. And just as a follow-on, as you said, the Biden administration has two months and two days left. How typical or atypical would it be for an administration to take such a significant foreign policy decision in its last stretch? So I don't know which specific decision you were speaking to. The appropriated money was provided by the... So let me just say with respect to the money, it was appropriated by the United States Congress and it was appropriated for a reason to make sure that it's delivered to the governor of Ukraine. And that's why we are carrying out the policy. We intend to faithfully carry out that duty. When it comes to any potential policy changes, as I said, the president was elected to a four-year term and the American people expect him to govern for a four-year term and the American people expect him to make the decisions that he believes are appropriate. There is no one who thinks that for the first two months of the next term, they're supposed to continue to carry out the decisions made by this president. That's not how presidential terms work. There's one president at a time. And as long as Joe Biden is the president, he will make the appropriate decisions. And when the next president takes office, he can make his own decisions. Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Just a couple of kind of clarifying questions for me. This is clarifying for me, it might be clear for others. Would you rather not talk about policy change or there is no change? I said, I'm not gonna speak to any potential policy changes one way or the other. I mean, the secretary... I don't think you're unclear, Alex. Just to be, despite the premise of your question, I don't think you need clarification here. I mean, the secretary made it clear that depending on the situation on the battlefield, we will adjust our policy. Have you done anything since the first time you heard about North Korea providing troops for Russia to fight? Anything to discourage North Korea from providing more? Yeah, we have been in close conversations with not just our allies and partners, but with other countries who we believe should be concerned. We have communicated directly with the government of China, who, as you know, has a very close relationship with the DPRK, obviously much closer relationship than we do. And it made it clear that we think this sort of deepening tie between North Korea and Russia, and especially the type of assistance that North Korea could receive from Russia in return is not in China's interest and that China ought to speak out against it and that China ought to make clear to North Korea that this is something they object to. And these are the statements, but there was no action? I think we have taken a number of steps. And if you look at the diplomatic engagements that we have pursued, Alex, I could point you to, well, oftentimes I can't speak to them publicly, but there have been a number of times over the past few months when our diplomatic engagements with allies and partners or other countries have led to them to intervene and potentially ward off a dangerous escalation. Tomorrow marks 1,000 days since January, actually February 24th, 2022. Why not strengthen Ukraine's hand while you can by letting them strike back deep inside Russia? If you look at what the United States has done, we have supplied Ukraine with an extraordinary amount of equipment, billions and billions of dollars of equipment that they have used to prosecute this war, that they have used to push Russia back off of Ukrainian territory in many respects, the job, of course, is not completed, and we have authorized them to take strikes inside Russia. Now, with respect to any other potential policy changes, as I said, I'm just not gonna speak to them from here. You believe you still have time? I'm sorry? You believe you still have time? I don't have anything further to say on the matter, Alex. I think it's quite clear. Thanks so much. My last one on this matter, German shots called to Putin, was it helpful, harmful, worries you about? I don't have any comments about the diplomatic engagements by the government of Germany, who is, of course, a close ally of the United States. Go ahead. Thanks, Matt. An Indian citizen, Anmol Bishnoi, was detained in California by the US Immigration Department last week. Media reports suggest that FBI officials and Indian security officials have discussed the possibility of deporting him. Wondering if you have anything to add on this report or verify this report. The only thing I would add to it is that it would be appropriate, if anyone is gonna comment on such a report, it would be the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, not the State Department. There were also disturbing reports of- I said is going to, is going to. They may, and I prefaced it that way because they may decline to comment, but I certainly am not gonna comment on something that falls within their jurisdiction. There were also disturbing reports of mob violence when a political gathering of Army League in Bangladesh was attacked for peaceful protests, public attacks on women, minorities attacks, journalists jailed, and press access canceled. Critics of the interim government suggest that the 15th August students' monsoon revolution is taking the country back to the conditions from where it all started. We heard Vedant condemning it here from the podium, but have you had any engagements with the Bangladeshi interim government on this particular issue? I'm not going to speak to private diplomatic engagements from here, but we have made clear to the government of Bangladesh, as we make clear to countries all around the world that we support the right to peaceful protest and that in no way should any government engage in violent crackdowns on peaceful protests. One last one. Bangladesh Attorney General pushed for change in the constitution to remove the word secular from the constitution amid growing attacks on religious minorities. Wondering if you have anything to add on that. I'll take that back and see if we have anything to say. Go ahead. Secretary Blinken last week pledged a firm response to the North Korean troops in the fighting in the war. So if there's no change in policy, should we expect any response, any more response to that and when? You should expect us to deliver on the secretary's words and I'll leave it at that. And going back to the Schultz call, did the Germans consult with you before or did they read out the call afterwards? I'm not gonna speak to private diplomatic conversations but we were always in close contact with our German allies. Yeah, go ahead. I think to follow up on UNRWA, when Israeli parliament actually passed the bill to ban UNRWA, you told me that you oppose this and there might be, there could be consequences under the US law. I wonder, is there any update on that? Will this administration take any action against that? We are still in the implementation period for that law and we have made clear to the government of Israel that how concerned we are about the implementation of that law and we'll continue to stay engaged over the course of that implementation period which is, I believe, 90 days. Thank you. Yeah, Jenny. Can I follow up on something that was in the letter that Secretary Blinken and Austin sent, this civilian harm channel, has that met yet? I am not aware if it's met yet. I know we were working to set up the meeting. I was traveling last week. I don't actually know whether the meeting's taking place but we're looking to get it established. And then on the West Bank, there was another round of sanctions today as you previewed at the top but where's the thinking on sanctioning Ben Gavir and Smotrich? So I've never- From congressional Democrats for you guys to do that. So I think you know the answer I'm gonna give here which is I'm never gonna talk about potential sanctions targets before we take such an action. Just as if you had asked us last week if we were gonna sanction any of the organizations that we sanctioned today, I would have said we're not gonna speak to potential actions. But we do mean it when we say the government of Israel needs to take further actions to crack down on those responsible for extremist settler violence. And if they don't, we are committed to taking our own actions. Would you support your partners sanctioning these two Israeli ministries as the Brits have suggested they would do? I'm not gonna speak to hypotheticals. These are the type of things that we discuss with them privately but I think we ought to leave it at that. Yeah, Simon. There was a statement about Tom Perriello going to Sudan. He's already there, I believe. The Sudanese government put out a statement talking about some of the meetings that have happened that he had discussed with the sovereign council there. Several suggestions about, I think mostly about humanitarian aid and a political process to end the war. Is there anything you can tell us about what those suggestions have been from the special envoy? So just speaking generally without getting into the specifics of his meetings today, he was in Sudan to engage with Sudanese officials including President Burhan and other members of Sudanese civil society to make clear our commitment to a civilian government. And when speaking to President Burhan and members of the sovereign council to stress the need to stop the fighting and enable unhindered humanitarian access. So when he met with Sudanese civil society members, he talked about the humanitarian work across ethnic lines to provide emergency assistance to vulnerable communities and internally displaced persons including women. And he pressed with the government the need for further steps given the scale and need of the challenge to allow humanitarian assistance in. This conflict continues to not get the attention. I think it merits from the world given the scale of the suffering, given the scale of the death, given the humanitarian assistance problem. And so we were there to continue to press the government to do all it can to not hinder the provision of humanitarian assistance. And of course we ultimately continue to wanna get to a ceasefire and an end to the fighting. Did General Burhan agree to some of these things that you're suggesting? I don't have a further readout of the meeting. I haven't talked to Tom since the end of those meetings, which were just today. So I don't have a specific readout of what the general might have said. Is part of that, like these relief corridors to get aid into al-Fasha, Sana'a and parts of Qasim? Let me take it back. I need to talk to the special envoy or his team and get you a more complete answer. Back to the Ukraine issue. On the reported permission for Ukraine to use lower range missiles, regardless of who's responsible for escalation, are you able to give us an assessment of whether there will be an escalation going forward and how did the United States? Of whether what? How, if there's an escalation going forward and how did- By whom? I'm lost in the question, so. Yes. Can you give us an estimation as to if there will be an escalation, how will the United States cope with the situation? You mean like if there's a further escalation by Russia? No, I wouldn't wanna preview how we might respond to a hypothetical situation. And is there any sort of interaction between the secretary and his Russian counterpart at the G20? No. Matthew, good afternoon. Yeah. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said, quote, discussing the Ukraine war. Quote, this war risks dragging us into a nuclear confrontation, a descent into the abyss. He just said that. What's the State Department's reaction to that statement by the Cardinal? That we wanna see the war end in a way that provides a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. But the way for that to happen is for Vladimir Putin to end his attacks on the people of Ukraine. But the war is now 1,000 days old as of tomorrow. Simply, who's winning and who's losing? I'm not gonna- The US estimation. I am not gonna give you a day-to-day battlefield assessment here, but if you look at what Ukraine has done, going back to the beginning of this conflict, at least to the full-scale invasion, we have seen them win the Battle of Kiev and stop Kiev from falling, when many, many predicted that it would fall within a month, certainly within weeks. We have seen them take back somewhere around half of the territory that Russia occupied. We have seen them in recent weeks occupy territory inside Russia and continue to defend it. So the Ukrainian forces have performed admirably up against, let's remember, a much bigger country with a military that was much larger at the outset of this conflict, with a military that had much more advanced equipment at the outset of this conflict, a gap that we have, in many respects, bridged through the provision of our assistance. So I'm not gonna make any predictions about the future of this conflict, but I'll say if you look back at the way the Ukrainian military has performed over the past two and a half years, they have performed not just with valor and with dedication, but with real results. How does it all come to an end, then? I'm not gonna make any predictions about how it comes to an end, but we want it to come to an end in a way that respects Ukraine's territorial integrity, that respects its sovereignty, and that doesn't reward a dictator who is intent on pursuing the acquisition of land through force. Go ahead. Thank you very much. Administration is quite interested in lifting ban on weapons sales to Saudi Arabia a couple of times. Meanwhile, what we observed, a widow of Saudi's land journalist, Iman Shoghi Bai, she wrote letters to U.S. senators, almost 100 letters, and only nine responded. She is seeking for justice. The question is, with the start of this administration, these things, weapon transfer and defense deals with Saudi Arabia, all were linked with humanitarian records, rights, and other things. So did you guys get some assurances from Saudi Arabia for letting them in these defense deals? So when it comes to the provision of military assistance to any country around the world, of course we take into effect humanitarian record and how our weapons might be used, and we make the decisions appropriately. All right, with that, we're out for today. Thanks, everyone.