LIVE: Department of State Daily Press Briefing (Nov. 19)

Good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see that they've gotten back to being sufficiently cold in here. Yesterday it was a little warm. Matt, you want to kick us off? Oh, you've got nothing? I've got lots, but you can go first. Well, go ahead. Why don't you just spill the beans? About which particular bean would you like me to discuss today? Well, let's start with, where do we start? Ukraine or Lebanon? Let's start with the Middle East. What's the latest with the discussions over the Lebanon ceasefire? So you might have seen that the President's Special Envoy, Amos Hochstein, was in Beirut today meeting with the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament. He gave a press statement after that where he made clear that we have made significant progress and that an agreement is within reach, but it's going to take decisions by both parties, by both Israel and Lebanon, to actually get an agreement. And that's what we're going to continue to push for. OK. Well, so where does this leave us right now? It leaves us that we're going to continue to talk to the parties to try to get an agreement. There are a number of issues. He is. The United States, yeah. Amos, the Special Envoy, is the lead negotiator. But then you know the President has been involved at various times. The Secretary has been involved at various times. And it will continue to be an across-the-government focus to try and reach a diplomatic resolution, because it's critical to getting people back to their homes on both sides of the blue line. OK. And the main goal of this proposal is essentially the basic framework of what you guys in the French had laid out at the end of September, which is obviously a ceasefire, but also full implementation of 17-11. It is the full, without getting into the underlying details, which I know you understand, given that we're still negotiating this potential resolution. We want to see the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 17-01, so both Israelis and Lebanese civilians can return to their homes. What I'm getting at is that this proposal, or what he was over there discussing with the Lebanese and is apparently going to Israel to discuss with the Israelis, is essentially the same as what you had on the table before. Isn't that correct or no? So I'm going to answer that by saying, obviously, in the course of negotiations, proposals always evolve, because it's a conversation that happens between the relevant parties and us as the mediator. So the proposal that is on the table right now is not identical to the proposal that was on the table two weeks ago or two months ago. But the overall framework that we're trying to reach is, yes, full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 17-01. Thanks. Amir. Hi. Matt, this might be a bizarre question, but do you know why he is more optimistic than before? The reason I ask this is we've been here many, many times with Gaza Seek Fire. What is the concrete progress that you guys have made that you think you're uncomfortable with this time? So I'm not going to speak to the underlying details, which I'd have to, to tell you where the assessment comes from. But obviously, when we come out and give you an assessment about where negotiations stand, it's based on our conversations with the parties. And so he can make the kind of statement he made. I can make the kind of statement I made yesterday when I noted that we had made progress, because we are in conversation with the parties. And we can see that we have overcome some of the obstacles to getting a resolution. But there's more to be done. And we need an agreement from the parties. But we are working to accomplish that. We want to get one done as soon as possible. Can you put a timeline at all? No, I can't do that. It is our understanding that the United States has agreed to the Israeli condition that when it's struck by Hezbollah from across the border in Lebanon, that it reserves the right to go in and attack those targets. Is that correct? I'm not going to speak to any underlying details of the agreement, which is not to say, not to either confirm or not confirm. Just to say, when it comes to any underlying details of this resolution that we are trying to reach, while we are still in the negotiating stages, I don't think it would be helpful for me to be talking about what the details are publicly. Right. On the civilian harm channels that you guys were discussing and you mentioned in the letter, do you have any updates for us? We have scheduled a meeting between senior officials here at the department and senior officials in the Israeli government in early December. It will be the first meeting of that new channel. And that would take place here or virtually? I'm not going to get into the details of that meeting, but it'll happen in early December. Can you say how senior those Israeli officials and State Department officials are? As we get closer to the date, and certainly on the date and after, we'll have a more specific readout of the people that were involved. But at this point, no. Right. A couple of final things. So we can assume that the channel is set up now and it's going to. And this is going to be its first meeting. And what is your plan about this channel, given that you're saying this meeting is going to happen in December? I suspect then you're going to have maybe a month or so or like 40 days to talk to the Israelis about this. What do you intend to achieve during that very limited time? So the purpose of this channel is to inform the ongoing work that the State Department has to do to make assessments about the use of US-provided weapons. That's what we want to do, as well as to gather our own information about what Israel is doing. We get questions from you about specific strikes, and we want to know the answers both to be responsive to the media and for our own purposes. So it's to gather information about incidents that have been raised that are a cause of concern or a cause of question. Now, we take all the information we gather, whether it be from public reporting by the media, whether it be from NGOs, whether it be from the government of Israel or other governments, and feed it into our processes, both our policymaking processes and the judgments that we have to make about potential violations of international humanitarian law. And we will continue to do that. Right. So given that this channel is now set up and you will have a meeting. And you intend to use the time to further your ongoing assessments, which have been ongoing for more than a year. Can you commit that one of those many assessments will conclude in the end? What do you mean that they will conclude? Do you mean by January 20th? Yes. So let me just step back and say that the assessments that the State Department is required to make are legal requirements. And they're not legal requirements that are attached to any one administration. That burden for the State Department continues through the end of this administration and into the following administration. So we want to get that work done as quickly as possible. But this is not a partisan exercise. It's not a political exercise by this administration. This is the serious work of government that is supposed to go on, regardless of who the president is. Final thing. Sure, I understand that. But at the moment, you guys are still in charge. And I'm asking this administration, because I've asked this question many, many times. It's been over a year. You have said to us these assessments about Israel's potential IHL violations have been going on. The fact that you have this channel, does that mean your work on that front is going to speed up or not? So our work is already moving as quickly as we can possibly make it move. But they are difficult assessments that we have to make that require both gathering facts and making, in some cases, complicated judgments. And so I have never been able to put a timetable on that work, because we have a number of different incidents that we are looking at. But we are committed to working through that process and having an answer as quickly as possible. Can I follow up? Has there been any conclusion to the 500 CHERG incidences that you were looking at? So let me just first say that we have never confirmed an exact number. I know that number has been reported. But when it comes to incidents that we have looked at, I think I've spoken to this before. There have been some incidents that go through the process that you can pretty quickly take out of the process early on. It's a typical fact-finding case when you get presented a potentially concerning incident. And you find out that, no, there's actually a justification for that incident, or there wasn't the harm that was reported. And you can take those out of the process. Then there are the more difficult ones. And those take time. And those are ongoing. I don't have a conclusion to report out yet. And none of those have been concluded, though. So what my point is, there are some that, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, they have not. There are some that have been concluded that were in the earlier stage, but no with respect to that. And to this new channel that is meeting in December, can you give us a sense of what particular incidents would rise to that channel versus the existing channels? How much overlap are we going to see here? I don't want to speak to it publicly, but there are a number of incidents. You've heard me speak to a number of incidents from this podium. You've heard the Secretary speak to them. We have raised some of them in the National Security Memo 20 report that we issued back in April. There are a number of incidents that we have had questions about and we have had concerns about without speaking to any one of those. We certainly have a list of incidents to go through in that channel, which is not to say that we haven't sought answers through existing channels. We have, but we set up this new channel because we wanted to formalize a mechanism for getting answers to some of these questions. And then on Gaza, there's reports of just this prevalence of looting of humanitarian aid by gangs in Gaza. There's a report from The Post today that Israeli forces are looking the other way on this or actively facilitating it. What is the US assessment of whether Israel is doing enough to stop this looting in Gaza? So let me just first say with respect to the looting that's ongoing, first of all, it's important. And the people who are looting humanitarian assistance for their own ends are taking food and medicine out of the hands of civilians, including children, who need it. Incredibly desperate people who need access to this food. And anyone who is stealing or diverting humanitarian assistance for their own profit, for their own gain, is quite obviously harming their own people, and they should stop immediately. That's the first thing that I think needs to be made clear when it comes to looting. Second, when it comes to looting, so what we have seen is a breakdown in the security situation inside of Gaza. And there are a lot of reasons for the breakdown in that security situation. And what we are trying to work through is with the IDF, with COGAT, with the relevant UN agencies to find solutions to get more security assistance delivered to the people that need it. So one of the things you heard us speak to last week is, at our request, the IDF opened new routes to deliver humanitarian assistance. And we're hopeful that some of those new routes will help divert convoys away from looters. But this has been a problem that's been ongoing for some time. It was a problem several months ago. We were able to work through a security situation, working through our UN partners. A lot of that work we can't really speak to, given its sensitive security question. But it is a critical goal to make sure humanitarian assistance gets to where it needs to go. Now, that said, ultimately, you are not going to fully, finally solve this problem without an end to the war and the establishment of a new governance and security authority inside Gaza. Because ultimately, that is the problem right now, is that there is an absence of a governing authority. And it's why we continue to work to establish a new governing authority, to make sure that there is someone who, if armed criminal gangs come to loot convoys, that there is someone that can stand up and stop them. And that is an urgent priority for the United States. At this point, though, is the IDF and COGAT doing enough? So they're working to establish a security, an improved security situation on the ground. But clearly, when you have looting going on, there's a breakdown. And the IDF certainly bears part of the blame for that. The overall breakdown in authority, the end of an actual government, a government we oppose, to be clear, but a government that was providing day-to-day security, and critically, the lack of a replacement with anything else, is ultimately the key culprit for the lack of security on the ground right now. Which is why I get back to this point that we have to find an end to the war and the replacement. I don't think anyone believes, or at least no one in our government believes, and most people in the region don't believe, that the IDF ought to be the occupying power inside Gaza providing security for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. There needs to be Palestinian-led security that is preventing convoys from being looted and preserving law and order. And that's what we're trying to work towards. Off the back of Jenny's questioning on the routes and you saying that the US had asked Israel to open up new routes, what happened over the weekend? This was something that happened near the Kerem Shalom crossing. And in the Washington Post piece that Jenny mentioned, they had said that humanitarian groups had asked Israeli authorities to open up routes that would be safer, that would avoid the criminal gangs. So these routes that they'd asked for, are those the same routes that the US was asking Israel to open up? Are these different routes? So I don't know which route specifically that they are referring to in the story that the humanitarian groups were referring to in the story. But what we have communicated to the government of Israel, and lots of times we make these requests to the government of Israel on behalf of humanitarian organizations that we work with. Remember that USAID is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. It gets delivered through the UN agencies, who in many event are having their convoys being attacked. So we make these requests for them to open new routes. Whether they are the same specific routes in this instance that the UN agencies are asking for, I can't speak to with that level of detail. But in general, we are in contact with them and in communication with them about how to get new routes open that would alleviate some of the security situation. And I know that you said that obviously there is no preference for the IDF to be an occupying force within Gaza. Is there any position the US takes in terms of the IDF providing immediate security to trucks a little bit further down the road once they've entered crossings like Karam Shalom? Because this incident happened near the crossing. And there are reports of the IDF standing by whilst there were Palestinian, as you describe them, gang members with guns. And the IDF are just not doing anything. So this is a question that we have been in intense communication with the government of Israel about, and I don't want to speak to it publicly here. I would note that there have been times when UN agencies have not wanted security to be provided in certain contexts by a belligerent in the conflict, including this conflict. But this underlying question is something that we are actively working on trying to answer. OK, and on the Hamas leadership, you had mentioned yesterday about how you had mentioned what sounded like extradition of Hamas leaders, that it would be a US preference. Is the US actively pursuing extradition of these Hamas leaders that have reportedly left Doha and are now in Turkey? So I was speaking as a policy matter. Any time that there is a fugitive from US justice, we want to see them return to the US to face justice. But when it comes to specific extradition requests, as you know, it's our longstanding policy not to comment on those. They're a legal matter for the Department of Justice. OK, and then these sanctions that were announced on the Hamas leaders today, is that related to some of these Hamas leaders that are reportedly now in Turkey? I would have to go back and check. I don't know the specific location. These were sanctions that were already in the pipeline well before the event. Three of them are apparently in Turkey. I'd say these are sanctions that were in the pipeline well before the last week. I don't personally know the exact location of those. But we have sanctioned Hamas leaders that lived in Doha, that lived in Gaza, that lived in relative places around the Middle East. Just to be clear, you're confirming some of these Hamas leaders are now in Turkey? I said I don't know the location of. OK, so you're not confirming their whereabouts. I think she confirmed the whereabouts of them. No, I'm asking you. No, I very much am not. I can't speak to the location of specific members of Hamas. If it is, in fact, true that you press countries to return or to extradite people indicted in US courts, what about the woman in the Sbarra bombing in Israel years ago who's been living free in Jordan now? There was long talk of efforts to get her extradited. And nothing has ever come of them. So why should these Hamas guys worry? Matt, I'm going to admit you're speaking to a case that predates my tenure, that I have a limited, at best, factual understanding of it, so I shouldn't speak to it. But when it comes to these terrorists who are members and leadership of a group who continue to hold Americans hostage, we do think it's appropriate that they face justice. Just one more thing on that, Matt. Secretary has met with the Turkish foreign minister today. Was there a discussion about this particular issue with the Turkish foreign minister? So he did meet with the Turkish foreign minister, Fedan, in Rio today on the sidelines of the G20. We'll have a readout coming later today. And I don't want to get into too much detail about what, of course, are private diplomatic conversations. But in all of these conversations with countries in the region, he makes clear, number one, that there should be no more business as usual with Hamas. And number two, that any country should use any influence it has with Hamas to secure the release of all the hostages, including the seven American hostages. Right, but those can be a little bit contradictory, don't you think, to use the, I mean, is there, I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is there any chance that Turkey might become the new mediator? Is that something the US would want? So the first question is, one, for Turkey to speak to. But when it comes to using influence with Hamas to secure the release of hostages, we would welcome any country playing that kind of positive role. That's what we want to see. But the important thing is that countries step up and use that influence and actually work to try to get these hostages out. And by the way, an important goal of getting the hostages out, not just for their own sake, but for countries who want to see an end to the war. That is one very clear way to end the war. Yeah, there was an Israeli report, by the way, last week that head of Israel's domestic intelligence agency traveled to Turkey and met with Turkish intelligence head. What do you make of that meeting? Could that be in any way related to Turkey emerging as a mediator? I wouldn't want to speculate. That sounds like a question for those two governments to speak to, not me. Well, we've got it right in the middle of it. So it is a question for the United States. I think when it comes to any potential meeting, I would let those two governments speak to it and certainly what it means in terms of the import of any such meeting. But when it comes to countries that have influence with Hamas, and certainly, Turkey is a country that has had influence with Hamas, we want to see all of those countries use that influence to secure the release of all hostages, especially including the seven Americans who continue to be held hostage. Yeah. Oh, you had your hand up a minute ago. Now you don't. I'm just doing my work down. I get going in order. No, I have a Ukraine question. But we'll continue. No, we can go to you. Yeah, if you want to go to Ukraine, go to you. I wanted to ask about Ukraine firing US-made missiles into Russia. This, obviously, is a result of the new policy change with the president. Is the State Department kind of concerned about the overturning of the administration, the turnover of the administration impacting this change in Ukraine? And have you seen anything from Russia responding to this? So I don't want to speak to any potential policy changes. It's not something that we have spoken to as of this point. It's not something that we have confirmed. I'm not going to do so from here. And so if I'm not going to speak to any potential changes, I'm certainly not going to comment on any potential outcomes from them. I'll open it up to you, Matt. Today marks 1,000 days since they took care of war. I'm assuming you guys have a statement coming? You have seen the United Nations, our ambassador to the United Nations Security Council, speak to it already today. You have seen our ambassador speak to it today. So yeah, we have spoken to it. Let's step back a bit, Matt. When we were two weeks into this, three weeks into this, the president called out Putin, the war criminal. He called his actions genocide. He said that he's terrorizing the Ukrainians. It's funny, given that you guys have multiple weeks left, are you considering to seize this momentum and to come up with those policy decisions, such as designated Russia as the state? How about such policy decisions as assembling a coalition of 50 countries to support Ukraine and hold Russia accountable? How about policy decisions such as surging billions of dollars in US support to Ukraine that has led them to be able to win the Battle of Kiev, to push Russians back from territory that they had occupied? How about policy decisions that have led to freezing Russian sovereign assets, and not just the United States freezing Russian sovereign assets, but leading other countries to freeze Russian sovereign assets and use the interest from those assets to directly support Ukraine? So if you look at the long history of policy decisions, Alex, I think our record's pretty clear. But doesn't he just believe that Putin is committing a genocide, and this is a terror happening every single day? And if you look at our record, our record is one of holding Putin accountable and one of holding Russia accountable. And you just have to look at the results on the battlefield and the way that Ukrainians, principally through their own courage and their own dedication, but with the support of the United States and our coalition, have held Russia directly accountable on the battlefield. That is the true testament of our record. Is there any concern that Putin might eventually get away with this? So when you look at whatever happens with the outcome of this war, it has already been a massive strategic failure for Russia, hundreds of thousands of casualties, economy that has been weakened, a generation that has been mortgaged to support a war of conquest. And then it's already seen Russia lose much of the territory that it initially gained. So whatever the ultimate outcome of this war, we continue to believe that Ukraine's future is a future that is rooted in the West as an independent, democratic country, something that Vladimir Putin completely opposes. And Russia's future will continue to be one that is incredibly weakened as a result of Putin's disastrous decision. And I don't think anything that happens is going to change that outcome. Can I move this house closer, if I may? I have a question. Georgia, it feels like a reaction to the events of the past two or three days have been remarkably muted. As you know, the current Georgian Green leadership came up and they cemented their so-called official results. And there was a violent attack last night against the protesters. And there are still protests going on. Where are you at this? And why this comprehensive review is still ongoing, even given the fact that there are multiple manifestations? So Alex, let me just quibble a little bit. The comprehensive review is still ongoing. But as you know, because you have reported on it after asking me questions about it, we have already suspended assistance as a result of that review. So it's not like the review is ongoing and nothing has happened. We have already taken policy actions as a part of that review. And we will continue to take other policy actions as appropriate. Go ahead. I'm going to go ahead. In regards to Mr. Hoxton's visit to Lebanon, Arab countries' reports are saying that the source of his optimism is that he received signals from President-elect Trump that would help him in achieving his mission between Beirut and Jerusalem. What's your say? So as I said, and I think it was a response to Humera's question, I'm not going to comment on the underlying diplomatic negotiations. But of course, you shouldn't believe everything that is reported. OK, on Iran, so there were two reports from IAEA in regards to Iran say that Tehran has offered not to expand its stock of uranium and reach over 60%. And also, Iran has agreed to consider allowing four more experienced inspectors to work in Iran after not issuing visas for the previous team. However, they said that this is conditional if the E3 doesn't issue a resolution to censor them. So what's your take on it? And also, how on board is the US with the E3 resolution? So we remain tightly coordinated with our E3 partners in advance of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting. And we strongly support efforts to hold Iran accountable. As the president has made clear, the United States will ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime continues to amass a growing stockpile of highly enriched uranium, for which there is no credible civilian purpose. And they continue to not cooperate fully with the IAEA. So what we're going to do is continue to work with the IAEA Board of Governors members to ensure their full cooperation with the IAEA so that the IAEA can provide the assurances that we need that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful. So I'm not going to preview any actions that we might take over the next few days in consultation with our partners. But we will remain tightly coordinated with them. When you just referred to the growing stockpile of enriched uranium, you're talking about this latest IAEA report that came out either yesterday or earlier today, which is a significant increase in the amount of 60%. Yes, correct. That's what you're referring to. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Following up on Ukraine and Russia, Putin lowered the threshold for use of nuclear weapons. The timing, of course, comes after Ukraine used American long-range missiles into Russian territory. What do you make of the timing of that announcement? And is the US concerned about nuclear escalation? So I am unfortunately not surprised by the comments the Kremlin has made around the publication of this new revised nuclear doctrine. Since the beginning of its war of aggression against Ukraine, it has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior. Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia. Russia's irresponsible and bellicose rhetoric will not do anything to improve Russia's security. And I would just add that the change in this policy in itself just highlights Russia's hypocrisy. Russia is suggesting here that they would use or could use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states if they undertake the same kind of aggression that Russia itself is inflicting upon Ukraine and its people. So we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture. But we will continue to call on Russia to stop bellicose and irresponsible rhetoric. And then just on a different kind of warfare from Russia, after two undersea cables were cut in the Baltic Sea, US allies are warning of hybrid warfare with Russian suspected sabotage with regard to those cables. How concerned is the US about increasing that type of action? And what is the US doing to reassure its European allies? So let me just say, just speaking generally, not with respect to this report, but speaking generally, we are incredibly concerned about hybrid warfare conducted by Russia, both in Europe and around the world. And it's something that we have been in close coordination with our European allies and our other allies and partners around the world. And we have made clear on a number of occasions to Russia that it would be held accountable for. Now, when it comes to this specific incident, we've seen these reports. It is our understanding that a number of the countries in question have announced investigations into the matter, and we'll, of course, await for the outcome of those investigations before speaking to them specifically. Thanks, Mike. Last night, Israel struck central Beirut, killing two, wounding more than 30. On Thursday, they struck and killed 15 first responders in or near Baalbek. Are these productive actions as you're, quote unquote, almost at a ceasefire? So I'm not going to speak to any specific strike other than to say, of course, we mourn the loss of any civilian life. And we have made clear to Israel that it needs to take every precaution possible to avoid any loss of civilian life. But I will say, this type of action is precisely why we continue to seek a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. Because you have seen over the course of the past year civilians, both in Israel and in Lebanon, be the unfortunate victims of this fight. And we want to see civilians protected, which is why we are working so hard to get a diplomatic resolution that would stop the fighting across the blue line and would allow civilians on both sides of the border to return homes and would also allow civilians throughout Lebanon to feel safe and civilians throughout Israel to feel safe from the threat of terrorism. Throughout the course of the Gaza campaign, we've asked you a lot if you're satisfied with the precautions that Israel's taken there. Are you satisfied with the precautions, the civilian precautions? We are not. We are never satisfied when you, sorry to interrupt you. We are never satisfied when you see civilian deaths. And we want to see civilian deaths be zero. We understand that the type of conflict that Israel is operating in and is forced to deal with and the type of situation they're forced to deal with. We understand that Hezbollah, like Hamas, hides its arsenal, hides its fighters, hides its infrastructure in civilian homes and other structures. And so it's a very difficult situation that Israel has to face. But that doesn't minimize their responsibility. But ultimately, it's why we're trying to get to a diplomatic resolution that would stop this fighting. Yeah, thank you, Matt. Yesterday, Israeli foreign minister, he sent a letter to UN Security Council president and urged UN to push Iraq to take immediate actions against the Iranian-backed militia for attacking Israel. So has Israel ever reached out to you to pass or to send a letter to Iraqi government in the course of the last months? I'm not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As you know, you asked me yesterday about the underlying question. And I spoke to that. And that continues to be our position that Iraq should do everything within its power to stop terrorist attacks, both within its borders and against targets outside its borders, but with respect to any specific diplomatic conversations. What he said in the letter, I said that I emphasized that the Iraqi government is responsible for everything that's happening in their territory. And Israel has the right to self-defense. Do you agree with him that Iraqi government is responsible for the actions of these militia groups, that they are using Iraqi territory to attack Israel? So certainly, we want to see the Iraqi government do everything within its power to stop these type of terrorist attacks. I think I'll leave it at that. And last question. Iraq is set to hold its nationwide population census this week. This has raised concerns among the Kurds and other minority leaders, including Christians in Iraq, about the potential demographic shifts in disputed areas. A large number of the Kurds and other minority groups, including Christians and Yazidis, have forced to leave their area in the past years. How does the U.S. government see this process and the concerns over a natural demographic change? So we welcome Iraq's first census since 1997, which will be taking place this week and includes all Iraqi provinces. This census is important in the same way that the United States conducts its census to provide accurate information for Iraq to tailor its political, economic, and development strategies. And we encourage all Iraqis, including residents of the Iraqi Kurdistan region, to participate in the census. Thank you. Yesterday, TTP terrorists killed eight Pakistani soldiers and abducted seven police officers near Afghan border. And in recent days, we have seen a series of bombings and suicide attacks by Pakistan security forces. How the U.S. can end Pakistan? Anything like terrorism in the region? So we are aware of reports that a military convoy was ambushed near the border with Afghanistan and of a separate incident that resulted in the abduction of seven police officers in Vanu yesterday. We condemn these and all terrorist attacks. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists and violent extremists. And our hearts go out to the families and loved ones of those killed or impacted by recent attacks, including the November 9 suicide bombing in Qaeda. And I would just say, as these horrific attacks against the Pakistani people continue, we remain committed to engaging with government leaders and civilian institutions to identify opportunities to build capacity in detecting, preventing, and responding to threats posed by militant terrorist groups. So all these terrorist groups are based in Afghanistan and Taliban, who promised not to allow these terrorist groups to use Afghan soil as a launching pad, actually patronizing these terrorist groups. The U.S. has the capability to target these terrorist gangs, but we haven't seen any action since long. Why is that? So we continue to have an important bilateral counterterrorism partnership with the government of Pakistan. It includes regular high-level dialogues and working-level consultations dedicated to enhancing both civilian and military capabilities to detect and counter these type of threats. A few last questions, if I may. So a few weeks ago, U.S. officials met with Sikh educates to discuss threats faced by Sikhs in the United States. I was just thinking, President Biden recently met with Modi in Brazil. Was there any discussion on this matter? What was the last part of the question? I just didn't hear it. I heard that part, and I didn't hear the very last part. Oh, so when it comes to the President's meeting, just as always, I would refer you to the White House for a specific readout, but regarding the plot to kill a Sikh American in the United States, I would just say, as you've heard us say before, the U.S. government continues to treat this issue with the utmost importance and continues to pursue accountability through a number of different pathways. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Question for you. I want to clarify something you said yesterday. In the congratulatory phone call between Secretary Blinken and Senator Rubio, you said that work cannot continue on the transition until there's an MOU signed by the incoming. That was separate from the call. I didn't mention that that was part of the call. I was talking about the transition process separately and apart from the call. Go ahead, just a clarification. With that said. Clarify your request for clarification. Both administrations have said that they are signaling to the other that they can try to coordinate or want to coordinate on reaching a ceasefire in Gaza and freeing the hostages. Are you saying, is the State Department saying that that work at the State Department level cannot happen until there's an MOU signed by the incoming administration? So there is a, just as a legal process, and this is set out under U.S. law, specifically the act that was passed in the last several years, to govern the transfer of power, the peaceful transfer of power. There's a process that has to take place before we can, say for example, brief members of an incoming transition team on classified information. And we are ready to go. So far, the incoming transition team has not availed themselves of that process. And it's up to them to speak to the timing to that, but we are ready to go as soon as they are. That said, we are committed to doing everything that we can to make this a successful transition. That includes, of course, briefing the incoming administration at the appropriate time, when they have completed the appropriate steps about world events and about how we see world events and about things that we believe that they need to know when they come into power. But there's only one president at a time, and we will continue to pursue the policies, including work for diplomatic resolutions to conflicts in the Middle East through January 20th. Final question, there was a meeting this morning behind closed doors at the UN Security Council regarding the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release resolution. The U.S. appears to be pressuring the E-10 to remove or change some of the text in there. Can you give some information, some clarification as to what exactly the U.S. is pressing for right now in terms of the text that needs to be changed? I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to do so. At this point, we are having private conversations with other members of the Security Council about a potential resolution, but at this point, we should keep those conversations private. Yeah, go ahead. Going back to Ukraine, yesterday you didn't confirm any policy change, but you confirm now that Ukraine has used U.S. missiles to strike- No, in fact, I, in response to a question earlier in the briefing, said no, I'm not gonna confirm it. So Ukraine hasn't used U.S. missiles to strike- I am not gonna confirm that report. Ukraine, of course, is free to speak to what they have or have not done, but I'm not gonna confirm at this point any U.S. policy change. Thank you. What's your reaction to Germany saying that a severing of Baltic Sea cables are likely to be sabotaged? Is this a Russian response to the long-range attacks decision? So as I said a moment ago, a number of the countries in the region are conducting their own investigations, and at this point, until we have further information, we're gonna wait the outcome of those investigations. And was the decision to undo the missile restraints discussed with allies? Does the administration hope that the UK and France follow suit with storm shadow missiles? I think I've answered that question, or maybe more specifically declined to answer that question already today, and I'm gonna do so again. And then finally, are there plans for Secretary Blinken to host Marco Rubio at the State Department ahead of January 20, or would the process during the transition be required in order to arrange a visit? So I'm not gonna speak to that in any detail. The Secretary and Senator Rubio, Secretary-designate Rubio, had a conversation yesterday where the Secretary pledged our full cooperation to ensure a... Sorry, yesterday or Tuesday? I'm sorry, two days ago. I spoke to it yesterday. They spoke over the weekend. Pledged our full cooperation to ensure a successful transition, but I think we ought to keep the rest of the conversations private. I mean, Senator Rubio, he is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so the two couldn't meet anyway. Absolutely, and we will have that discussion with Senator Rubio, but not with you. Apologies. Go ahead. Job's fired. Go ahead. Thank you so much. Going back to IAEA, at the moment that you're talking, there is a resolution being prepared, being written in Vienna by E3. Do you support that resolution? So as I said in response to a question earlier, we are gonna remain tightly coordinated with our E3 partners in advance of this Board of Governors meeting. We strongly support efforts to hold Iran accountable, but we are not going to preview any actions that we are contemplating or detail private diplomatic conversations, including with our E3 partners. Okay, and then there are, based on our Iranian sources, there are threats coming out of Islamic Republic. They are saying that they're gonna activate advanced centrifuges in response to IAEA resolution. They are threatening that they are gonna come past the nuclear sphere in all of this rhetoric. Do you take this sort of threat seriously? I'm not gonna respond to those reports, as we have made clear. What Iran should do is cooperate with the IAEA, and I'll leave it at that for now. And one- Yeah, sorry, go ahead. It's not a back mechanism, sorry. Let's say now, or in the upcoming few weeks, that you have the Biden administration, do you support the activation of snapback mechanism? We're gonna continue to consult with our allies and partners on this question, as with all questions that pertain to Iran, and I will leave it at that. Keep those private, go ahead. You won't comment on the authorization- You noticed. But Assistant Secretary Nichols gave an interview to the Brazilian newspaper, where it seemed like he was confirming it, or it was taken as such by- It was taken as such. I can tell you the Assistant Secretary was speaking to our long record of decisions to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. So another thing, Minister Lavrov said today that without the Americans, it is impossible to use these high-tech missiles. And without going into if you allow that or not, can you comment on that? At least, I mean, is that, the operation of these missiles require American involvement? So I'm not gonna speak to that, but has the United States shared intelligence with Ukraine? Absolutely, we have. Have we shared that intelligence with Ukraine with the expectation that it would improve their performance on the battlefield? Absolutely. And we'll continue to do that. Yeah, go ahead. Excuse me, I have a question on Israel. On November 7th, the Israeli parliament, like Knesset, they passed, after a second reading, a law that allowed the government to detain 14 years old kids. And the law as well allowed the government to deport it, like their relatives or families of any Palestinians are doing any operation or attacks inside Israel. And this was seen as collective punishment or like targeting Arab people who lives in occupied East Jerusalem. So how do you comment on this law that's targeting family and targeting kids? So I wasn't tracking this specific piece of legislation. I'll have to take it back and take a look at it and get you a comment. You told me the same answer in November 7th. Like I asked it and told me I'm gonna take a look. We will take it back. As you probably know, it is our standard practice when we get questions like this, to take it back, we can look into it and email you a response and we're happy to do so. Okay, the second question. In the new administration, there is like a diplomat, Mr. Hakabi. He, his own beliefs that West Bank is called Yehuda and Samarra, not West Bank. And here I wanna ask about the U.S. like foreign policy faith, like the thing that you teach it for this intern. This area called West Bank or called Yehuda and Samarra, because I understand this country is like, the reference is like separating church and authority, but you're secular country. So your reference is like all testimony, Torah, or like the international law and U.S. resolution. Like we wanna make sure like there is a- Can I just ask you to get to the question? Yeah, yeah, the question. Yeah, this question in the U.S. policy is called West Bank or Yehuda and Samarra. You have heard me repeatedly refer to the West Bank as the West Bank. You have heard the secretary referred to as the West Bank and the president referred to it as the West Bank. Incoming, hold on. An incoming administration has the ability to make their- To what? To change- Yehuda and Samarra? The administration has the, an incoming administration has the ability, I don't think this is a secret, to use the terms that they feel are appropriate, but we have made clear that we believe the West Bank is properly referred to as the West Bank. Let me go ahead, go here and we'll wrap for the day. Thank you. On Hong Kong, do you have anything on Hong Kong where 45 pro-democracy advocates and former lawmakers were sentenced for exercising their universal rights? Yeah, so we are extremely concerned about this action. You have heard us speak out against it in the past and just before the briefing, we released a statement where we announced that we are imposing new visa restrictions on Hong Kong authorities for their participation in this action. Can you say how many? I cannot. And we'll leave it at that for today. Thanks everyone.