MR MILLER: Let me start with some opening comments. The United States remains deeply concerned with the Georgia Dream party’s anti-democratic actions as well as its recent statements and rhetoric. These actions risk derailing Georgia’s European future and run counter to the Georgia – Georgian constitution and the wishes of its people. Secretary Blinken recently announced a comprehensive review of all bilateral cooperation between the United States and Georgia. As part of that review, the department implemented a new visa restriction policy to address these actions under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Today, under this policy, we are taking steps to impose visa restrictions on dozens of Georgian individuals. This includes individuals responsible for or complicit in and immediate family members of those responsible for or complicit in undermining democracy in Georgia, such as by undermining freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, violently attacking peaceful protestors, intimidating civil society representatives, and deliberately spreading disinformation at the direction of the Georgian Government.
This first tranche of visa restrictions comprises members of the Georgian Dream party, members of parliament, law enforcement, and private citizens. It remains our hope that Georgia’s leaders will reconsider their actions and take steps to move forward with their nations long-stated democratic and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. But if they do not, the United States is prepared to take additional actions.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Is – can you give us any better idea of how many dozen?
MR MILLER: A few dozen. This is a first – this is the first tranche. It is a few dozen. We never —
QUESTION: Okay. So a couple dozen could be read as two. A few – does that mean three?
MR MILLER: Around that. Between – it is between two and three dozen. We don’t generally give out —
MR MILLER: — specific numbers, but it’s between two and three dozen.
MR MILLER: And I want to emphasize this is a first tranche of sanctions.
QUESTION: Yeah, but – and have these people been notified, do you know?
MR MILLER: They have not been notified. We typically don’t notify people, but they find out if they try to come to the United States.
QUESTION: Well, no, you do notify them if they have an existing visa.
MR MILLER: If they – correct, if they have an existing visa.
QUESTION: Has anyone been notified —
QUESTION: — that their existing visa has been revoked?
MR MILLER: I doubt it has happened because we have just put this into effect today. But for those – if there are people in that category, they would be notified subsequent to this.
QUESTION: Okay. Unless anyone has anything else on this?
QUESTION: Just a follow-up.
MR MILLER: Air condition?
STAFF: We’re working on it.
QUESTION: Any idea how the —
MR MILLER: It’s for the benefit of everyone in the room, not just me. Matt, too, I could tell.
QUESTION: Just to follow up —
QUESTION: — how are they selected? We know that there are 80-odd MPs that voted for the law. How do you select two dozen, three dozen out of 86 —
MR MILLER: So first of all, I can’t give you specific names. It’s not – I know it’s not the exact question, but just as a reminder to everyone that visa records are confidential under law, so I’m not able to say with any degree of specificity. But as I said in the statement, we’ve looked at the people who have taken actions to spread disinformation, who have taken actions to undermine democracy, to violently attack peaceful protestors, and intimidate civil society representatives. And as I said, this is just the first step in our series of actions. And I should note that the actions that we are prepared to take are not just necessarily related to these new sanctions that we are posing. We also said that we are undertaking a full review of our relationship with the Government of Georgia.
QUESTION: Does it include the speaker, the man who signed it into law?
MR MILLER: As I just said, I’m prohibited by law from announcing who visa restrictions apply to.
QUESTION: Okay. But how many tranches, Matt, do you expect, if you know?
MR MILLER: I can’t give you any definition on that question today. I can tell you that we are prepared to impose additional sanctions, and we will take all other steps as appropriate.
QUESTION: Matt, what message are you trying to send by splitting it into tranches? Are you still hopeful that you might stop this from happening? I mean, next steps —
MR MILLER: So as I said in my opening statement, there is still time for the Georgian Government to reverse the trajectory that it’s on. That doesn’t just reply – apply with respect to this law that they passed. Its applies to the way they have been cracking down on dissent. It applies to the statements that their leaders have made rejecting the path that Georgia has been on for so long. So there is still time to turn it around, and our policy will dependent on – be dependent on the policy that Georgia undertakes.
QUESTION: Please come back to me later.
QUESTION: Can I move to the Middle East?
QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the proposal that was put forward? Has Hamas put forward any official response? We heard overnight in a statement some – it sounded like downtrodden response, but then Egypt has reportedly heard some encouraging signs. What’s the latest?
MR MILLER: We have not received an official response from Hamas. Obviously, their – we have been in conversations with our partners in the region, especially with the Government of Egypt and with the Government of Qatar. And those partners have been in conversations with the political wing of Hamas, the – but we have not yet received an official response to the proposal —
QUESTION: When do you expect to —
MR MILLER: — that’s on the table.
QUESTION: — receive a response?
MR MILLER: I don’t have an update on that. We have wanted to see a response as soon as possible. We think this is an – should be an urgent priority to get this ceasefire over the line to start to alleviate the suffering that is happening every day in Gaza. So we would hope for a response from Hamas as soon as possible, and we continue to wait.
QUESTION: And then can I ask on this deadly Israeli strike on a school that was housing IDPs in Gaza. What’s your response to that?
MR MILLER: So we have been in contact with the Government of Israel about this strike. They have said to us essentially what they have said publicly, which is that – and this is their claim – that they were targeting 20 to 30 members of Hamas and other militant groups, that they used a precision strike to target only one part of the building without hitting areas where civilians were sheltering.
At the same time, we’ve seen the reports on the ground. We’ve seen the videos from the ground. We’ve seen the claims that 14 children were killed in this strike. And certainly when you see – if that is accurate that 14 children were killed, those aren’t terrorists. And so the Government of Israel has said that they are going to release more information about this strike, including the names of those who died in it. We expect them to be fully transparent in making that information public.
QUESTION: Were U.S. weapons used in this strike?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any update to that. I’d refer to the Government of Israel to that question.
QUESTION: And then my last question. How does this not cross the red line that the President laid out several weeks ago? This is the second incident in less than two weeks where we’ve seen a pretty large civilian toll and what was supposed to be a precision strike.
MR MILLER: So with respect to the policy that the President announced, he was speaking specifically to a large-scale operation in Rafah, and we have not yet seen a large-scale operation conducted in Rafah.
That said, we have seen strikes that put civilians in danger well before the President said that, and we have made clear to the Government of Israel that we expect them to do everything that they can to minimize civilian harm. We’ve been through this before. It applies in this situation, too. It is a difficult situation – if it is true – that you have this site where Hamas is hiding inside a school, other militants are hiding inside a school, those individuals are legitimate targets, but at the same time they’re embedded near civilians. Israel has a right to try and target those civilians(1) but they also have the obligation to minimize civilian harm and take every step possible to minimize civilian harm. So that’s why we are pressing the Government of Israel and the IDF to be completely transparent about what happened here. We want to know the facts as much as anyone.
QUESTION: Have they taken every stop possible at this —
MR MILLER: We have seen them take improvements over time. But still, if it bears true that this strike resulted in the death of 14 children, the results aren’t where they need to be. So it gets back to this question of intent and results. Even if the intent is what the IDF has said publicly, that they were trying to hit – use a precision strike just to target 20 to 30 militants, if you have seen 14 children die in that strike, that shows that something went wrong. That said, these are all facts that need to be verified, and that’s what we want to see happen.
QUESTION: Matt, could I ask a follow up?
MR MILLER: Go ahead, Simon. I’ll come to you, Simon.
QUESTION: Just to follow-up on the broader issue of civilian harm. So we had this NSM process that came to an end, and you came to these specific conclusions that didn’t lead to any impact on provision of arms to Israel. Now that that kind of 90-day process with the NSM is finished, I guess there’s an annual NSM requirement for you. But just to sort of be clear, as of now, what kind of – are there any, like, timelines you can give on when you’re going to be able to make conclusions regarding Israel’s conduct? Is there a date when we can – when all of these – or at least some of the assessments that you’ve been making since the beginning the war might be completed and you can actually make a definitive —
MR MILLER: There’s not a definitive date I can give you, standing here today. I can tell you that there are a number of reviews going on of specific incidents, and those continue. As we’ve said – or as the report said, the NSM-20 report that we released – it’s often difficult to come to definitive conclusions in the middle of the war, where we don’t have access to information on the ground. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible. We look at it; we sort through; we take all the information that we can and try to use that to make our best judgments. But it does make it difficult.
So that said, we have a number of these reviews going on. We want to see them wrapped up as soon as they can, but they’re difficult and time-consuming. You have to look at facts, and sometimes you have to make legal determinations as well that are informed by those facts, and that’s what’s – that’s what we continue to do.
QUESTION: Will you make public the results of those reviews?
MR MILLER: It’s hard for me to say what we will – it’s hard for me to say what we will do with the result that has not yet finished. I can tell you that there have been some – I’ve said this before – there have been some that have been finished and have found to be no violations, right. You can think about how this might work, same if you look – think about any kind of investigation, where you take a broad – you take say a big number of cases, you can look at some and see right away that no, they don’t rise to the level of violation, some that bear more scrutiny. So there were some that we looked at and were able to take out of the system quickly, and there are a great others that are going forward and we’re continuing to review.
QUESTION: Without trying to go through the laundry list of – there are a lot of cases here, but are there any that you can give us as an example of? This came up in the briefing. For example, there was lots of cases that came up in the briefings. Are there any of those where we’ve asked you about it, and then you’ve gone away and looked at it and found we’re happy that there was no violation?
MR MILLER: I just can’t give you that kind of specificity from here.
Said, go ahead. I’ll come to you next.
QUESTION: This particular area – you called on me? You called on me, right?
MR MILLER: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, I thought – yeah, okay.
MR MILLER: I’ve never known you to be shy, Said. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, from time to time, you know.
MR MILLER: I don’t believe that. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
QUESTION: So – it’s with old age. Anyway, so this area, Nuseirat, was an area that the Israelis even did not ask people to evacuate. I mean, this is really refugees. They killed 64 people; we won’t know how many was killed. I mean, what possible advantage – and I wanted to ask you, because you – the other day, you said that maybe Sinwar prefers the safety of the tunnels, the comfort of the tunnel, to coming out and so on. So why would Hamas militants – what possible tactical advantage or strategic advantage for them to be in the school? Isn’t that just like a red herring, something that the Israelis can use time and time and time again as a cover to continue to kill people. I mean, considering that 130 civilians were killed in the preceding 24 hours.
MR MILLER: So the advantage to Hamas – and it is a sickening advantage to them – is that they think they can hide behind civilians and prevent from being struck. And there have been times, I can tell you – hold on. There have been times that we know that Israel has passed on taking strikes because there were Hamas militants who were embedded directly with civilians, and they made the decision that they could not take a strike against a militant without causing disproportionate civilian harm. So that has happened, and there are militants who were not – there were strikes that they did not take because of that reason.
Now with respect to this one, we need to know exactly what happened. As I said, and as you just pointed out, there are conflicting accounts about what exactly happened here, and that’s why we need to get to the bottom of it.
QUESTION: We are no military experts, at least I speak about myself, but one knows from reading so much and so on, I mean the safety of the rubble area, the safety of the destroyed cities and buildings and so on, that becomes a concrete jungle – it’s a lot safer for these fighters. There would be no incentive whatsoever for them to go and be among their families and so on, because the food is probably better in the tunnels or in these places; the safety is a lot better. Why would they do it? Or just anything that Israel can say —
MR MILLER: So number one, I just think I established exactly why they would do it. Number two, I just don’t think as a factual matter it’s actually in dispute that they have done it and they continue to do it.
MR MIILLER: We have seen clear, convincing evidence – some of that evidence has been made public – of them hiding in civilian targets going back before October 7th, and that it’s continued to be one of their primary tactics since October 7th.
QUESTION: I tell you what —
MR MIILLER: And I should say, launching – in addition to hiding, launching attacks, launching mortar attacks and launching other attacks from inside civilian infrastructure.
QUESTION: But not from these – not from these areas. I mean, they want to launch attacks where the Israeli military is actually present and so on, not likely – and then (inaudible) where they could be bombed from the air and so on. I mean, this thing that we keep hearing about – human shields and so on – I just wanted to remind you that this is basically an Israeli thing to the point where the Israeli supreme court told them: you could not do it – you could not use Palestinian kids as human shields to (inaudible) and walk into the cities and so on. And in fact, they continued to do it.
So what possible – I mean, Israel has no credibility whatsoever to believe what they say that there are Hamas fighters that are hiding there. We have not seen any evidence. They have not shown us any —
MR MIILLER: So – so —
QUESTION: – of these people that were killed.
MR MIILLER: So what I just said is Israel said to us they are going to release the names of militants that they have killed. If that’s true, if they do it, the entire world will be able to see that and judge. But I’m going to wait until we see what happens.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a couple more questions, if I may?
QUESTION: And – on – yesterday there was the march into Jerusalem, the Old City and so on. And the marchers just beat the heck out of a Palestinian journalist and so on. And Palestinian journalists seem to be at the tail end of recognizing, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank and so on. Is there any particular reason for that?
MR MIILLER: So we have seen the videos of this incident, seen the photos of this incident, and we strongly condemn them. Journalists and media workers are essential to democracy. They should not be attacked anywhere in the world, including in Israel, for doing their jobs. We expect Israel to uphold its stated commitment to human rights and press freedom. We expect them to protect journalists from these kinds of assaults. And if there are violations of criminal law, we expect people to be fully held accountable.
QUESTION: And do you expect Israel to take what you just said seriously enough to actually abide by that?
MR MIILLER: We – I’m going to make clear what the United States expectations are. But we have shown repeatedly that we are willing to have tough conversations with Israel about these matters.
QUESTION: So you said you can’t say if it’s a U.S. weapon that was used in the school attack. Have you at least pressed Israel to use more strategically targeted weapons, as opposed that could explode widely? And then what is their response to that?
MR MIILLER: Yeah. We have at a number of time – a number of occasions pressed them to use the most precision weapon possible and the smallest weapon possible to achieve a legitimate military aim so you minimize the civilian – the level of civilian harm. That’s been something we’ve pressed them really from the outset of this conflict.
QUESTION: And so what is their response these past two attacks that have used what they say are precision weapons but have been very destructive?
MR MIILLER: So their claim is that they are using precision weapons and that they are using the smallest weapon possible to achieve the target. That said, we have obviously seen the reports of civilian harm. Obviously, in the incident several weeks ago, you saw a catastrophic consequence when it seemed that the result of the weapon they used was a subsequent fire, a subsequent explosion of some sort, that caused tremendous civilian death. And so they need to investigate exactly how that happened. They have an ongoing review of that. As far as I’m aware. It’s not been concluded yet. I know we haven’t been briefed on any review yet. And with respect to this one, we – as I said, we need to see what the facts are, and we expect them to make those facts public and be completely transparent about it.
QUESTION: And they are reviewing this one as well? Have you heard that?
MR MIILLER: I don’t know if it’s an official review. They have said to us that they are going to release information about – that shows what happened, what the strike – what the result of the strike was and who it was that was killed in the strike. I don’t believe they’ve announced an official review yet, but if they – if there – if it is shown – if there are shown to be civilian deaths, as the reports on the – from the ground appear to show, then we would fully expect them to review that, consistent with their code of conduct.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up? Just —
QUESTION: You’ve said repeatedly “transparent,” that you’re looking for – for the Israelis to be transparent. I mean, the Israelis are basically saying that militants were killed. So I mean, do you expect them to investigate beyond that to see whether children were killed, civilians were killed? And is there a track record of Israel actually investigating that on the ground?
MR MIILLER: So two things. One, with regard to transparency, they have said that they will release the names of those who were killed.
QUESTION: The names of the militants or the names —
MR MIILLER: That is what they have said, and we’re going to watch and see what they do. If we think any further investigation is warranted after we see the results of what they announce first, we won’t hesitate to call on that, as we have in the past. There are incidents that they have reviewed in the past, and as we’ve said, they have a number of incidents where they have conducted reviews. And those have led to criminal referrals, and they have full-blown criminal investigations. But there are also incidents – and those are not public – but there are other incidents where they have announced – they have conducted reviews and announced the results publicly.
So with the World Central Kitchen strike, for example, they announced the results of the review. They made clear what, from their perspective, had gone wrong and why that strike had happened in the way it did. And they announced disciplinary actions, including firing, against a number of military officials.
QUESTION: And just to put a point on that, I mean, do you think it’s – are you basically calling on Israel also to identify those who were killed who were potentially noncombatants, who were children? Do you expect Israel to do that?
MR MIILLER: So we want to – so I don’t know if they have any ability to do that, right, if they’re not there on the ground. But we want to know exactly what happened, and we’re willing to look at all sorts of information to determine that.
QUESTION: I’m sorry if you covered this before, but I mean, is – how are you going to know if the list of names that they release is accurate?
MR MIILLER: So we will – I don’t want to prejudge – it’s – it is —
QUESTION: I mean, I could make up a bunch of names right now and tell you —
MR MIILLER: It is – it is a good question.
QUESTION: But that doesn’t – that doesn’t necessarily mean that those were actually the people who were killed or that they were militants.
MR MILLER: Yeah, it is a good question. We’ll wait and see what it is they release and if they show – if they release any information to back that up. It could be that they – well, I don’t want to speculate to what they could release to back that up. But we will wait and see what it looks like.
QUESTION: Okay. All right. But if it turns out that they named these people and they are confirmed to have been militants and you are able to – or there’s some kind of confirmation that they are in fact the ones who were hit, is that enough for you even if they don’t go into any civilian —
MR MILLER: So we also want to see – no —
QUESTION: Whether they’re identified by the Israelis or not, it’s clear that there were.
MR MILLER: We – well, we also want to see the – see the civilian harm and look at what exactly happened and to have a full understanding of that. We’ve seen —
QUESTION: Have the Israelis —
MR MILLER: We’ve seen the initial reports, but we want to fully understand it, and then the Israelis should want to fully understand that, too. They have said that they want to minimize civilian harm. We have impressed upon them the importance of that, so they should want to know that information, too.
QUESTION: Right, but – and I apologize because maybe I missed this while I ran out, but did they say that they would go into details on any civilians who were killed?
MR MILLER: They have made clear initially what – that they would release information about it. I don’t have the full details about what they would say, but we —
QUESTION: Well, that’s actually – but as far as what you understand, they’ve said that they will —
QUESTION: — release the names of the militants —
MR MILLER: And other details. I don’t know what those details will include because they haven’t – they haven’t done that yet. So.
QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on what Simon was asking about the State Department’s own internal assessments after the NSM had concluded. The Secretary said in one of his Hill testimonies a few weeks ago – I think it was Senate Appropriations – he was asked about State’s own internal assessments about Israel’s actions, and he was also asked if the State Department has the kind of resources that it needs to meet the objective of carrying out its own internal assessments.
And the Secretary – sorry if my notes are a little bit rough here, but he had said it’s a good – it’s a very good question and it’s something we’re looking at very hard and that we – it’s something that in order to do it in real time, the answer is probably no. And it’s an incredibly labor-intensive process. He indicated that the State Department doesn’t have the resources it needs to get this done quickly or efficiently. Can you just clarify if that’s the case? Because Simon was asking about when we might get some kind of conclusions on some of these cases.
MR MILLER: It is – yeah, it is the case it is difficult to review the sheer number of incidents in real time and provide with – definitive answers on all of them in any kind of compressed timeframe. It is one of the challenges we face. If you just look at the sheer number of casualties in the war in Gaza, and of course the sheer number of civilian casualties, there are a number of specific incidents that we have felt obligated to look at. And certainly we would welcome additional resources, that we haven’t made an official request to Congress yet. It’s something that that is the type of thing we go through in our usual budgeting process. But certainly we would welcome more resources to look at these issues.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one of the northern front? There’s reports that the Biden administration had – has cautioned Israel in recent weeks to keep the war with Lebanon or any escalation limited and also warned about Iran intervening. Can you comment on that?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations, but, as I’ve said earlier in the week, we have been clear with the Government of Israel since the immediate aftermath of October 7th that one of our top priorities as – in this conflict was to see it not expand any further than it already has, and that remains the case. And that remains the subject of our diplomatic conversations not just with Israel but with other countries in the region. I will say that we continue to see Hizballah taking strikes across the border, including incredibly destructive strikes, and Israel of course has the right to defend itself when hit by a terrorist organization, but we remain concerned about the risk of escalation and the risk that any type of escalation could further widen and broaden this conflict and get us back into the place where we were earlier in this conflict, when you saw strikes in Iraq that we have worked to try to mitigate and try to prevent from occurring. So that remains a top priority for the United States.
QUESTION: Can I – I just wanted to clarify on this issue of the names, because I don’t remember you – I don’t recall you having done this before you – where you’ve called for them to release names after an airstrike. I mean, given your close security relationship, are you – they often do release names later on, but were you given any names that they were targeting? Have you been given privately any names that they were targeting in this specific airstrike and, if not, is that why you’re calling for them to do so?
MR MILLER: No, not yet. Just to make it clear, they have said that they were going to release the names of the 20 to 30 militant – they told us there were 20 to 30 militants they were targeting. They’re going to release the names of those. They believed that they’ve killed those militants. I think they want to show that they were actually killing militants, not civilians. That doesn’t, obviously, obviate the chance that they might have – there might have also been civilians that were killed in this strike. So – so I —
QUESTION: But your list – their list of 20 to 30 names basically —
MR MILLER: That is what they have said they would provide. We expect them to do that as well as any other details that would shed light on this incident.
QUESTION: So – but they volunteered that. You’re not calling for it, are you?
MR MILLER: We have called for it to be released publicly and as well as any other information that would —
QUESTION: Before they said that they would do it you asked them to?
MR MILLER: We went to them and asked for more – so what happened – let’s be clear. This is what I said in response to the first questions. We went to them earlier today and asked for information about this strike.
QUESTION: Not necessarily the names.
MR MILLER: No, we just asked for more information about what happened. They came back to us and said we were targeting 20 to 30 militants who were housed in one specific part of this ability. We had been – or of this building. We had been watching it for several days. We had been waiting for a moment when we could target just those 20 to 30 militants without harming civilians and we found the ability to do so. And that’s why we took this strike. They were going to – they said to us we will release the names of those 20 to 30 militants as well as other information. We said we think that’s appropriate for you to do it. There ought to be full transparency, which is what we have called for in other cases. Now, let me make also clear I can’t validate any of this information on my own. This is what they have told us. We think they should make public any further details.
QUESTION: So you’re looking for a list of 20 to 30 names to be released of combatants – militants to be released publicly?
MR MILLER: I’m looking for all the things I just outlined.
QUESTION: And if they’re – and if that doesn’t – if you don’t have a list of 30 names?
MR MILLER: Let me just – as always, I don’t want to deal with ifs and ifs. This is what they have said they would do. It’s what we think is appropriate. We think they should make any other details that are relevant public as well, it should be full transparency about this. If further steps are necessary after that, we won’t hesitate to call for them.
QUESTION: If – sorry, sorry, but just —
QUESTION: Sorry, Matt, but —
QUESTION: Sorry, “if further steps are necessary,” meaning —
MR MILLER: Any further – if there – it needs to be a further review, then we will call for that. If we need to look at it ourselves, we will do that.
QUESTION: All right. Did you want to – because I – there was just one other issue I wanted to ask about.
QUESTION: Yeah, no, I wanted to – just to follow-up on what you said, you and Matt, actually. COGAT has the names of every Palestinian born in Gaza. They do have a list of everyone. So, I mean, are we going to see names of, let’s say, commanders, recognizable commanders, or any Mahmoud, Ahmed, Yousef, Daoud?
QUESTION: Anybody could be —
MR MILLER: I don’t know and you don’t know. No one in this room knows. The Israeli Government is going to release those names and we’ll look at – and see what they do.
QUESTION: And I’ll just come back on something else.
MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any update on how the policy towards a revitalized Palestinian Authority is progressing?
MR MILLER: We have seen the Palestinian Authority take some steps, some initial reform steps. They appointed a new prime minister. That prime minister has announced a number of reforms he intends to put in place. We’re watching that very closely. We also realize that there are challenges that they face with funding that makes it difficult to carry out some of the reforms that they want to execute. It’s one of the reasons why we have been pressing Israel to release the clearance revenues that they have been withholding from the Palestinian Authority, because if you want to see a revised – revitalized Palestinian Authority, it needs to have the money to undertake these reforms. It’s why we have been pressing them not to take the devastating actions around correspondent banking that they have said they might pursue at the end of this month. So it’s something that we are continuing to engage with directly with the Palestinian Authority and with our Arab partners in the region who share this goal of ours.
QUESTION: I mean, some of that might sound a bit like understatement. I was chatting to a PA official earlier today. He talked about the financial situation is unprecedented.
QUESTION: PA finances are on the brink of collapse. If nothing changes in a few weeks next month, there is no extra income. There will be no ability to pay public wages. So they’re paying 50 percent already to tens of thousands of teachers, doctors, nurses, security forces, crucially. And they’re talking about weeks to potential collapse. So how concerned are you?
MR MILLER: We are very concerned about it and we have made clear to the Government of Israel in some very direct conversations that there is nothing that could be more counter to the strategic interests of Israel than the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority – for all of its challenges, for all the need to pursue additional reforms inside the Palestinian Authority – the Palestinian Authority has worked to maintain stability in the West Bank.
And if you look at the strategic situation that Israel faces right now, where they continue to fight a war in Gaza; they are seeing increased strikes along their northern border and the risk of further confrontation there; if you saw the Palestinian Authority collapse and instability spread across the West Bank, it’s not just a problem for the Palestinians, although that obviously – it obviously is a massive problem for the Palestinians and that alone ought to be reason for Israel to reverse this decision – it is also a massive security threat for the state of Israel.
And so we have made clear to them that allowing the Palestinian Authority to receive the full revenue to which it is entitled – this is Palestinian money, not Israeli money – is not just the right thing to do, but it is also in Israel’s security interest, Israel’s strategic interest.
QUESTION: That sounds like a nice way of trying to persuade them. But I’m interested in the issue of American power here, because your key partner, your ally, and the key figure in that government – the finance minister – is somebody who has an ideological background of he’s an expulsionist; he wants to get rid of Palestinians from the West Bank, history of making racist, anti-Arab statements. And so when he is the key figure that appears to be holding back all those revenues – and I think it stands at $1.6 billion —
QUESTION: — I mean, surely as the United States, the key ally of Israel, its key military backer, you can change that situation.
MR MILLER: We continue to have, as I said, very direct conversations with the Government of Israel about the dire consequences this would have for Israel – or for the Palestinian people and for Israel’s own security situation.
QUESTION: But do you see something like that —
MR MILLER: There are other – let me just – let me just finish. There are other partners in the region who are having those same conversations with the Government of Israel. We are not yet at the point where they have run out of money, so we continue to work on it, and I think I’ll leave it at that for now.
QUESTION: But do you see someone like that as a legitimate voice in this issue, who has a very key role in that in —
MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear on a number of occasions that we disagree with the statements that particular minister has made.
QUESTION: It’s not just statements. It’s actually – I mean, this is —
MR MILLER: Well, this – Tom, just let me finish. I was about to say that. We have made quite clear on a number of occasions that we disagree with the statements that particular minister has made and the actions that that particular minister has taken. And we will continue to do that and we will continue to work to try to see them reversed, because ultimately these are actions that are not in the interest of Israel. As I said, not in the interest of the Palestinian people, but they are self-defeating for the state of Israel and its long-term security, and we hope that wiser heads will prevail inside the Israeli Government.
QUESTION: But just finally, because I know you want to move on, but I think people might find it very puzzling that you have the leverage of $3.8 billion of defense supplied to the Israelis per year, and you cannot compel this situation to change, given the ideological background of —
QUESTION: — a figure like this in an absolutely key role in your key partner and ally in the region.
MR MILLER: We have had this conversation a number of times on a number of different issues, and it remains the case that Israel is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions. Yes, we supply them with security assistance. Every country in the world that we provide security assistance to ultimately is a sovereign state that is going to make their own decisions. Now, we can go in and have very direct conversations with them, and we do and will continue to, but ultimately not only do they make their own decisions, but they are responsible for those decisions and they’re responsible for the consequences of them.
QUESTION: Just – it’s related to —
MR MILLER: Go back – yeah, go back and then I’ll —
QUESTION: — Palestinian Authority reform. I would imagine you’ve seen that there’s also been another report about a shouting match that happened between the Emirati foreign minister and a senior advisor to the Palestinian Authority where the UAE foreign minister called the Palestinian advisor Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. This was in relation to him accusing the Palestinian Authority of being corrupt, reforms not being effective. Can you give us an update on how it’s going or not going well with other Arab —
QUESTION: — Arab nations in terms of, like, supporting the Palestinian Authority, the new leadership reforms and —
MR MILLER: So we continue to engage in conversations with our Arab partners about not just reforms to the Palestinian Authority, but the broad sweep of post-conflict issues that we need to work on. And there are differences among different countries in that group, and sometimes those differences are minor and sometimes those differences are major, and what we do is try to work to bridge all of them and come up with compromise proposals that the – that everyone can get behind.
Now, none of this is easy, right? This is – there is a reason why this dispute has been going on for decades because there are very tough, thorny issues involved here, and probably no more – no more so than now, where we are prevented – presented with a host of very difficult issues that we have to resolve. But we continue to pursue diplomacy, and the Secretary continues to engage in conversations with those Arab partners about trying to bridge those differences.
QUESTION: Do you feel at all confident that an Arab nation might step up and help at all with the financial issues of the PA? Is that —
MR MILLER: That’s not something for me to speak to. I would leave it to those countries to answer.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: China has protested to India that exchange of greetings between Prime Minister Modi and President Lai from Taiwan. Following this there have been several state and nonstate actors going on social media and saying that India has to – India would have a price to pay. What do you say about the coercive and threatening behavior coming out of China on the issue?
MR MILLER: So I haven’t seen those specific reports, so I don’t want to comment on them in detail. But I would say that such congratulatory messages are the normal course of diplomatic business.
MR MILLER: Go ahead, Alex.
QUESTION: Matt, a couple F-16-related questions. Yesterday you guys put out – the PMA Bureau put out a post saying that, yes, Türkiye purchased the fighter jets. Have you guys already signed the letter of acceptance, or there’s a ambiguity there? Can you please clarify?
MR MILLER: It was Türkiye that signed a letter of offer and acceptance to purchase the F-16s. The sale is an investment in NATO interoperability and will support the national security interests of the United States, Türkiye, and the NATO Alliance. You may remember that getting this particular sale over the finish line was – took some time, and we’re glad to see it moving forward.
QUESTION: Thank you. And Ukraine seemed to be unhappy about some of the delays involving F-16 training. There was a Politico report about that yesterday. They believe that this doesn’t match with amount of jets that they might take and – to operate. Why there’s a delay?
MR MILLER: So I won’t speak to those specifics; I’m not familiar with them. Training is not something that we conduct out of the State Department, obviously. That’s something that happens in the Pentagon, so I would refer you to them to speak to any specifics with regard to that. But I can say that speaking generally, training Ukrainian pilots has been a major priority of us, something that we’ve worked hard on and worked to ensure our Allies in NATO can do as well. And that – those – that training is ongoing.
QUESTION: Thank you. And final one from me. As I understand, Special Advisor Bono just returned back from the region, and he spent two weeks in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Any progress, any readout?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on his travel. I would direct you to his office for anything specific on his travel.
QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. Going back to the risk of escalation in conflict in the Middle East, today the Islamic resistance in Iraq said in a statement they carried out two joint military operation with Houthis on Israel’s Haifa port.
MR MILLER: Can you – ask it again. Just speak up a little bit. Sorry. Yeah.
MR MILLER: Maybe the microphone is poorly placed in your part of the room.
QUESTION: Sure, I’ll repeat the question. Yeah, today the Islamic resistance in Iraq said in a statement they carried out to joint attacks with Houthis against the Israeli Haifa port. And I think this is the first time that the Islamic resistance in Iraq, that they are cooperating with the Houthis to attack the Israels. How do you see these developments, especially cooperation between Iraqi militia groups backed by Iran and the Houthis?
MR MILLER: So we have long made clear that we oppose any attacks by the various militia groups, Iranian-sponsored militia groups, against the Government of Israel, and that we are prepared to help Israel defend itself against those attacks. Obviously any kind of cooperation between them is something that would be incredibly concerning and that we would work to mitigate.
QUESTION: And this may trigger retaliation attack by Israel, and you said earlier that when there were attacks on the U.S. forces in Iraq, you worked to try to mitigate these threats from occurring. Have you reached the Iraqi Government to rein in these groups, do not attack Israeli from 100 miles away from —
MR MILLER: So without speaking to any specific conversations regarding these attacks, it has been our general policy to press the Iraqi Government to prevent attacks being launched on their soil, either against the Government of Israel or against United States interests or United States troops in the region.
QUESTION: And lastly, my last question, this week the Iraqi parliament passed the budget law which provided more than 4 trillion and 556 billion Iraqi dinar, which equivalent to 3.5 billion U.S. dollars to PMF, Iranian-backed groups, and including those groups who were attacking the U.S. troops in Iraq. So do you concern about that the future security of Iraq and this – the future security of the region when these groups are getting funding by Iraqi Government?
MR MILLER: We do remain concerned that individuals within the PMF are not responsive to the Iraqi commander in chief and engage in violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq and Syria. Attacks against U.S. and coalition service members as well as Iraqi’s security service members and businesses undermine Iraq’s security and economy. And we continue to urge the Iraqi Government to rein in these individuals and hold them accountable for breaking Iraqi law.
QUESTION: Other violence in the region, in the Middle East, in the general region. Sudan – there was an attack in Al Gezirah state in which it’s been reported that over a hundred people were killed. The RSF was blamed for this. Do you have any update both on actions on the RSF and on the army, and any potential resumption of talks in Jeddah?
MR MILLER: So the only thing I’ll say is that we continue to engage in diplomacy to try to end the war, mitigate the humanitarian crisis. You may have seen that the Secretary spoke to the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia about this earlier this week. He spoke to General Burhan last week about this very thing. And what we have continued to urge is a return to talks between the SAF and the RSF to try to reach a ceasefire, and that remains what we’re focused on.
QUESTION: Is there any progress on that? I mean, it’s —
MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer from here.
QUESTION: On the Lions’ Den sanctions, roughly how many people are you – are going to be impacted by that?
MR MILLER: We – it is – they are not people; it is an entity. I don’t know how many people are members of the – that entity, but this is a sanction against an entity, not individuals.
QUESTION: So do you think they have a lot of assets in the U.S. to seize?
MR MILLER: So usually the question is not – it’s not just one of seizing assets. When we impose these kinds of sanctions – under this new executive order and that we’ve imposed several already – it prohibits people from doing any business with U.S. persons, U.S. entities, or accessing the U.S. financial system. So it’s not just about seizing assets, though clearly that is part of the potential accountability measures, but it is to prevent them from taking any transactions that could run through the U.S. financial system. And I know you’ve probably looked at these before, and there are a great deal of transactions around the world that do interact with our financial system in one way or the other.
QUESTION: My question is about your favorite subject.
QUESTION: Related to the Lions’ —
QUESTION: Can I just ask one on the Lions’ Den? Sorry.
QUESTION: That some, like, groups like FTD (ph) have been saying that this group is not active anymore since last summer, that it’s unlikely that the group will resurge, that basically these sanctions have come too late. Do you have a comment on that?
MR MILLER: So the sanctions included – the sanctions that we imposed included – were based on not just activities that this group took in 2022 but also that they took just earlier this year. So no, I would not agree with that.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Wednesday, China, Russia, and Iran issued a joint statement on the Iranian nuclear deal, calling on Western countries to step up their actions and restore the agreement. Do you have any reaction to this statement?
MR MILLER: I don’t have a specific reaction to that statement, but we continue to have grave concerns about the – about Iran’s nuclear program, as we made clear at the IAEA just yesterday in voting for a resolution. We continue – we’ve seen the regime continue to amass a growing stockpile of highly enriched uranium for which it is – for which there is no credible civilian purpose, and we look forward to working with our allies and partners on a broad, comprehensive strategy aimed at achieving a sustainable solution that includes Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA.
QUESTION: And one more question on Georgia, on the sanctions. Can you please clarify what gives the United States the right to basically dictate to the Georgian parliament what laws it should pass, what laws it should not pass? Can you imagine Georgia telling the U.S. Congress what laws it should pass, what laws it should not pass?
MR MILLER: So we are not dictating in any way to the Government of Georgia what laws it should pass, and in fact, if you look at where this law was inspired, I think it was from another country that has passed its own version of this law. It’s Russia that passed this version of law and clearly – and clearly was the model for the law that Georgia has passed. So the basis of our action is we have seen Georgia crack down on its own people, crack down on democratic dissent, and take these actions that reverse the steps that it has been on towards the EU and towards further integration with the West.
Now, Georgia can make its own decisions about how it wants to move forward. We can make our own decisions about how we want to move forward. But we are not going to continue to allow people to come into the United States, we are not going to continue to support – well, I should say we will continue to review the financial assistance that we give to Georgia, and that all is potentially at jeopardy if Georgia is not pursuing policies that are in line with the interests and values we have seen it express here to date.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew.
MR MILLER: Then we’ll – then Ryan, and then we’ll wrap.
QUESTION: Were Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the U.S., would Secretary Blinken meet with him?
MR MILLER: So I heard an “if” at the beginning of that question. I don’t use —
QUESTION: Well, as expected. As expected.
QUESTION: No, he didn’t say “if.”
MR MILLER: He said if he – he said —
QUESTION: He said “were.”
MR MILLER: “Were.” (Laughter.) Fair.
QUESTION: He said were Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the United States.
MR MILLER: It is another – it is a —
QUESTION: He did not use the “if.”
MR MILLER: It is another entry into a hypothetical —
QUESTION: No, back me up, Matt.
MR MILLER: — into a hypothetical question that I typically decline to answer. He has not announced a visit, and certainly I’m not going to announce meetings for visits that are not yet on the books.
QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the administration’s reaction to China not participating in the Ukraine peace summit?
MR MILLER: So we certainly would encourage China to participate in that summit. They have attended previous versions of the summit. We thought that was – that their presence was helpful. We think their presence would be helpful here, but I actually think there are other actions that China could take that would be even more helpful, and that would be cracking down on the companies that continue to help reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base.
QUESTION: And finally, what does the 80th anniversary of D-Day mean for today’s global challenges?
MR MILLER: So you heard the President speak to this earlier. You saw this – may have seen the Secretary speak to this in a couple of TV interviews he did. When you look at the alliance that the United States was part of in D-Day to stand up to tyranny and help push back tyranny when tyranny was on the march across Europe, it is an inspiration for some of the same challenges that we face today, and it is a reminder that we are stronger when we work in concert with allied nations that share our values, that support democracy, and work to – and push back against those forces who oppose it.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. So the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations has said that Israel is now going to oppose the resolution that the United States is putting forward to push forward the Israeli ceasefire plan. Did that come as a surprise to the United States? And does that undermine the U.S. effort to get Hamas to agree to this deal if Israel is saying that it’s going to vote against its own deal at the UN?
MR MILLER: So we have been talking with a number of governments, including the Government of Israel, about the direction of this resolution and what it ought to look like. Those conversations continue. We do think it is important that the United Nations Security Council speak with one voice on this. We have this rare opportunity where we have a chance to reach an immediate ceasefire that ultimately could lead to an end to this war, and so we want to see the Security Council act. We want to see it act as soon as possible. Now, the way this process works is that you often have to engage in diplomacy with members of the Security Council and sometimes with members off the Security Council to help get a resolution like this over the line. That’s what we continue to do.
QUESTION: Matt, I’ve got three really, really brief ones that you’ll probably be able to answer in several words.
QUESTION: One, just on that last question, I was under the impression this was a Security Council resolution.
QUESTION: It’s not a General Assembly resolution.
MR MILLER: Correct. And Israel – I know the —
QUESTION: Which means that Israel does not get to vote.
QUESTION: They don’t have a vote.
QUESTION: So why – I’m not sure why did you answer the question the way you did.
MR MILLER: Because we are talking to Israel about this resolution.
QUESTION: No, I understand that, but I mean —
MR MILLER: We’re talking to other members off the Security Council about it as well.
QUESTION: But they don’t get a vote because they’re not in the council.
QUESTION: Okay. Secondly, do you have anything new on the Beirut – and sorry if you did this while I was out – on the Beirut embassy incident yesterday?
MR MILLER: I don’t. I don’t have an update on the investigation that the Lebanese authorities are conducting.
QUESTION: All right. And then the very last thing: Yesterday you said that the amount of aid, assistance given to Georgia – I think you said over the last couple of years – is about 390. Can you be more specific? How many years is that?
MR MILLER: It’s two. It’s two. And I can go back and – I can go back after – it’s a couple years.
QUESTION: So since Fiscal ’23?
MR MILLER: I will go back and get the specifics. My understanding is that’s the amount budgeted for the last two years to the Government of Georgia. That’s across a range of different programs, and we can get your more details on it.
QUESTION: Okay. But it’s two years?
MR MILLER: Two years, correct.
QUESTION: Okay, great. Thank you.
MR MILLER: If you finished – yeah, one more, and then we’ll go.
QUESTION: Just real quick on the Human Rights Watch report on white phosphorous. We’ve seen tons of reports now about the use of white phosphorous by the IDF – 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon since October according to HRW. So does the U.S. have any policy that it – with regard to the use of white phosphorous?
QUESTION: Putting – setting aside whether or not these individual incidents occurred.
MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah. So white phosphorous is something that’s commonly used in military operations to produce smoke to obscure ground forces, mark locations, or provide illumination, and just the usage by itself is not something that’s prohibited under international humanitarian law. But, as with any type of military operation, civilians can’t be targeted. If white phosphorous is used, precautions have to be taken to minimize harm to civilians, and it’s incumbent on countries to use white phosphorous in ways that are consistent with international humanitarian law.
QUESTION: Are these incidents concerning, that Human Rights Watch is saying that they were outside the bounds of what you just described?
MR MILLER: So I’ve seen the reports, but that is the type of thing that we’d have to take a look at and assess before commenting in detail.
With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:31 p.m.)
