JUNE 20, 2024

On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby

Via Teleconference

11:12 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining us.  Hope everyone was able to take some time off yesterday, if you were, and relax.

Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then as always, we’ll get through as many questions as we can.

MR. KIRBY:  Good morning, everybody.  What I want to talk about today is Ukraine and our efforts to meet their critical air defense capabilities, their needs.

For more than two years, at the President’s direction, we have prioritized strengthening Ukraine’s air defenses to help protect the Ukrainian people against Russia’s aerial attacks.  But in recent months, Russia has accelerated both its missile and its drone attacks against cities and civilian infrastructure.  They are trying to destroy Ukraine’s energy system ahead of this winter.  Again, this is not a new tactic for them, but they have certainly applied a lot more energy and effort into it in recent months.

As we’ve heard from President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian military is in desperate need of additional air defense capabilities.  We take our partnership seriously, especially when a partner like Ukraine is in such jeopardy.  Right now, we know that Ukraine urgently needs these additional capabilities.

We have continued to dig deep and provide Ukraine with a variety of air defense systems and interceptor missiles from our own stockpiles, including those of the Patriot system, NASAMs, and of course, the Hawks.  

Many of our allies and partners have stepped up in historic ways as well.  But obviously, more is needed, and it’s needed now.  So as a result, the United States government has made the difficult but necessary decision to reprioritize, near term, planned deliveries of foreign military sales to other countries of particularly Patriot and NASAM missiles to go to Ukraine instead.

So let me just take a moment to explain what this means.

As you know, the United States has a robust foreign military sales program where our defense industrial base produces and then exports material to other countries, including, of course, air defense missiles.  And what we’re going to do is we’re going to reprioritize the deliveries of these exports so that those missiles rolling off the production line will now be provided to Ukraine.  This will ensure that we’ll be able to provide Ukraine with the missiles they need to maintain their stockpiles at a key moment in the war and as we get, again, towards the end of summer and into the fall.

As a result, deliveries of these missiles to other countries that are currently in the queue will have to be delayed.  To be clear, those countries will still receive the missiles that they have ordered.  It’s just that the delivery timelines will now take a little longer.

We have, of course, informed all the affected countries that we are taking this extraordinary step.  And we’re making every effort to minimize any negative impact to countries with affected foreign military sales cases.  If any of our other partners were ever in a situation similar to Ukraine’s, we would go to extraordinary lengths to support their security as well.

This decision demonstrates our commitment to supporting our partners when they’re in existential danger.  The United States firmly believes that this is the best course of action right now to support Ukraine, while still ensuring other partners receive the air defense missiles and capabilities that they’ve committed to purchase, again, on a delayed timeline.

Look, the broader message here to Russia is clear: If you think you’re going to be able to outlast Ukraine and if you think you’re going to be able to outlast those of us who are supporting Ukraine, you’re just flat-out wrong.  And we’re going to make sure that we give Ukraine the critical air defense capabilities they need now and into the future.  And we’re going to keep working with our allies and partners to make sure that they too get the air defense capabilities that they ordered.  And we’re grateful to the nations that we’ve reached out to and have not only understood but many of them have been fully supportive of this decision.

So with that, we can start taking some questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Steve Holland with Reuters.

Q    Thank you.  Along those lines, could you talk about what are the ramifications for the United States of the defense pact signed by Putin and Kim Jong Un over the last couple days?

MR. KIRBY:  Steve, I did not hear that question.  Can you repeat it?  I’m sorry.

Q    The ramifications of the defense pact that Russia and North Korea signed in the last couple of days.

MR. KIRBY:  The ramifications of the —

Q    Defense pact.

MR. KIRBY:  The defense agreement that they signed?

Q    Yes.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I talked about this the other day, you know, but I’m happy to revisit it here now that they’ve made public the text of this agreement.

Number one, no surprise here, Steve.  We’ve been talking about this and warning about a burgeoning defense relationship between these two countries now for many months, through a series of downgraded intelligence that we put out there.

So we’ve been sharing information publicly about how the DPRK has been enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine and about their weapons transfers.  Obviously, it’s something that we’ve taken seriously.  If we didn’t take it seriously, my goodness, we wouldn’t have made it public and wouldn’t have been talking about it for quite some time.

Number two — and I think this should be fairly obvious too — when you look at the body of work President Biden has directed the national security team to do, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, we have been strengthening and bolstering our allies, our alliances, and our partnerships all throughout that region throughout the entire three and a half years of this administration, including through the historic trilateral agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan and the United States, including through the AUKUS initiative, including by expanding our access and cooperation with the Philippines.  And of course, we’re going to continue to evaluate our posture throughout the Indo-Pacific as needed.

But we have prioritized this part of the world since the beginning of this administration.  And that work, that effort, we believe, has right now and will continue to put us in the best possible position to be able to thwart any threats and challenges, not just on the Korean Peninsula but elsewhere in the region.

Q    And if you —

MR. KIRBY:  But wait, just a couple more points, if I could.

That’s not to say that this development, this agreement is not a concern.  Of course, it is.  It should be a concern to any country that cares about maintaining peace and stability, not just on the Korean Peninsula but in the Indo-Pacific.  It should be a concern to any country that believes that the U.N. Security Council resolutions ought to be abided by.  It should be a concern to anybody who thinks that supporting the people of Ukraine is an important thing to do.

And we would think that that concern would be shared by the People’s Republic of China, since this agreement also seems to be in direct contrast with the statement that President Putin and President Xi made in Beijing just a month ago in which both countries called for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Now, last thing I’ll say here, Steve, and then I’m happy to take any follow-ups you have, is: Our view is that this agreement is also a sign of Russia’s desperation.  I mean, they’re reaching out to North Korea for missiles, reaching — they’re still getting drones from Iran.  They don’t have a lot of friends in the world, and they’re trying to do everything they can to pull on the strings of the friends that they do have.

Russia is absolutely isolated on the world stage.  They’ve been forced to rely, again, on countries like North Korea and Iran.

Meanwhile, split-screen, if you will, Ukraine just organized a successful peace summit in Switzerland that had more than 100 countries and organizations sign up to support President Zelenskyy’s vision for a just peace.

So, last thing I’ll say, and then I promise I’ll shut up on this: We’re just going to keep supporting Ukraine as they defend themselves from Russia.  And we’re obviously going to keep looking for opportunities to strengthen, deepen, and bolster our strong and vast network of alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.

So, sorry, that was a long one.  But go ahead, Steve.  You have a follow-up?

Q    Thank you.  Just a quick follow-up.  Mike Turner is giving a speech, saying that the Biden administration isn’t taking the threat seriously enough of Russia’s space-based nukes.  What’s your response to that?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, he’s just wrong.  He’s just flat-out wrong.

Look, we have absolutely taken this very seriously.  We’ve been working this particular problem set from every possible angle, including through intense diplomacy with countries around the world and, obviously, through direct conversations with Russia.  We’ve been working hard to get other countries to join us in making clear what the dangers are of an anti-satellite weapon that’s designed to carry a nuclear weapon, just like the one that Chairman Turner is referencing.  And we put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council to do that just about a month or so ago.

As we said at the time, in February, when this was made public, publicizing this highly sensitive intelligence was highly irresponsible, and it was something that the intelligence community themselves had serious concerns with.  And we had assessed that starting with private engagement, rather than immediately publicizing the intelligence, would have been a much more effective approach.  So, obviously, as we said at the time, and we still are, disappointed that that opportunity was prevented by Chairman Turner’s letter and then, thus, making it public.

Nevertheless, what I can say is: We’re going to continue our efforts to dissuade Russia from putting a nuclear weapon into orbit.  We’re going to do everything possible to prevent that outcome.  This is a national security issue.  And quite frankly, it’s not something that anyone should be playing politics one way or the other.

All nations, all individuals, anybody in public service, particularly here in this country, ought to be similarly concerned about the manner in which we talk about this and the approach that we take to try to stymie the Russian plans.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Jordan with Bloomberg.

Q    Thanks, Kirby.  Two questions for you.  First, on the Patriot missiles, can you tell us a timeframe of when the countries that will have their deliveries delayed, when they’ll be able to get them?  Are we talking weeks, months, years?

And secondly, wondering if the administration is aware of a pair of major cyberattacks on a software company used by auto retailers and whether there’s been any determination if that’s been carried out by a foreign actor and if there’s any assessment of how that will affect the economy.

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, what I can tell you is that we expect the first shipments from this reprioritization of air defense missiles to Ukraine will happen over coming weeks.  Certainly before the end of the summer, Ukraine will start to see the initial deliveries of these.

I can’t say with specificity what the delay is going to be like for every country that is affected by this, because these are individual contracts.  And as we have communicated to these countries and will continue to do so, we’ll do the best we can to minimize their delay as much as possible.  But each country is going to have a different set of circumstances applied to that based on how much they’ve ordered and, you know, what their own self-defense needs are.

But I also would just add that the scope of the deliveries that were given to Ukraine will span — will provide them enough capabilities over the rest of this fiscal year and, of course, all next fiscal year.  So about 16 months will be the focus of the timeframe to fill out Ukraine’s inventory.  And then, after that, the countries that have been asked to delay will start to get their deliveries.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question —

MR. KIRBY:  Oh, wait a minute, before you go to the next question.

You asked — I don’t have a good answer for you on the reports of a cyberattack on the auto industry.  I’m going to take that question, and we’ll see if we can get something a little bit better for you.

Q    Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, sorry about that.

Q    Thank you.  Our next question will go to Arlette with CNN.

Q    Hi, thank you.  I have just two areas I want to touch on.  Still on the Ukraine air defense capabilities: Do you have an idea of how many countries will be impacted by this?

And then, if I could also ask about Israel: How frustrated has the President been about Netanyahu’s comments claiming that the U.S. was withholding some military aid for Israel?  And what do you think Netanyahu’s motivation was in making such a claim?  And are there any plans — or where do things stand — plans for POTUS to meet with Netanyahu when he comes to Washington in July?

MR. KIRBY:  Okay, there’s an awful lot there.

Look, on the number of countries, I would just say it’s a range of countries.  But I think we’re going to respect each country’s prerogative to either acknowledge it and speak to it or not.

I would tell you — you didn’t ask this, but just to make it clear that this reprioritization will not affect Taiwan and what Taiwan continues to need and to receive from the United States with respect to their self-defense.

Look, on the Prime Minister’s comments — and I assume you mean the video that he put out, claiming that, you know, it was unconscionable for the United States to withhold assistance — I would just — a couple of points here.

Number one, obviously, we didn’t know that video was common.  And it was perplexing to say the least, certainly disappointing, especially given that no other country is doing more to help Israel defend itself against the threat by Hamas — and, quite frankly, other threats that they’re facing in the region — than the United States.  I mean, my goodness, this President put U.S. fighter aircraft up in the air, in the middle of April, to help shoot down several hundred drones and missiles, including ballistic missiles that were fired from Iran proper into Israel.  There’s no other country that has done more or will continue to do more than the United States to help Israel defend itself.

So those comments were deeply disappointing and certainly vexing to us, given the amount of support that we have and will continue to provide Prime Minister Netanyahu.

And I think you had, like, several other follow-ups on that.  And I think I —

Q    Well, what do you think his motivation was behind making such a comment?

MR. KIRBY:  I —

Q    (Inaudible) domestic audience at home, or is he genuinely concerned about some missing aid that they haven’t gotten?

MR. KIRBY:  No idea.  You’d have to talk to the Prime Minister about what prompted him to do that.  Again, it was vexing and disappointing to us, as much as it was incorrect.  So, difficult to know exactly what was on his mind there.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Gordon with Wall Street Journal.

Q    My question was asked.  I’m good.  Thanks.

MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS.

Nick, you should be able — there we go.

Q    Yeah, sorry, Sam.  Thanks, John.  I think I know the answer to this, but just making sure: Does any air defense system in Israel — is that affected by today’s announcement?

And then, to go back to some statements from Israel: In the last 24 hours, what has been a private — or reasonably private, I suppose — dispute between the leaders of the IDF and the Prime Minister has exploded into public.  Do you think that what is now a public dispute between the leaders of the IDF and the Prime Minister threatens U.S. goals when it comes to Gaza and the region and the overall war in Gaza?  Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Nick.  So, on your first question: No, there’s no — there’s going to be no impact felt by Israel as a result of this reprioritization.

On your second question, I think it would be imprudent, at best, for us to speak about any intragovernmental tensions in Israel right now, except to say — I think in answer to your question — we do not believe that there’s going to be any — certainly any change to our objectives or our goals.  And we don’t see any impact of these tensions on our shared objective: getting all the hostages out, getting this deal in place, getting a ceasefire in place, and trying to find a way to end this war.

But beyond that, I’d let the parties speak to it.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Aurelia with AFP.

Q    Hi, John.  Thanks for taking my question.  A follow-up maybe.  On the Middle East: Can you confirm that Jake Sullivan is meeting today with the Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer?  And what would be the agenda for that meeting?

And another question, if I may, on Darfur.  One week ago, the United Nations Security Council demanded an end to the siege of the city of Al-Fashir.  Since then, have you seen any sign that the fighting is calming down?  And if not, what’s the administration doing to try to prevent, like, a major humanitarian catastrophe there?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to take your question on Darfur, Aurelia, and get back to you, rather than try to explain something that may just make me sound stupid.  So I don’t want to do that.  I want to do that right and take the question for you.

On your first question: Yes, Jake will be meeting today with his counterpart, Ha- — Hagnebi [sic], and — I’m sorry about that — and Mr. Dermer.  And it’ll be a wide-ranging discussion, I think you can imagine, about everything that’s going on with the Gaza war, with our support to Israel, with our efforts to get a better sense of how they’re continuing to prosecute operations against Hamas, as well as continuing to talk about the importance of closing on this deal.

Sorry, I blanked on his last name.  It’s Hanegbi.  Hanegbi.

Anyway, that’s the focus of that meeting today.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Haley with Scripps.

Q    Thank you.  I’m curious, on the line of the hostage ceasefire talks, if there have been any additional developments or if you’ve heard back from Hamas additionally this week.

And then, when it comes to the supply of Patriots to Ukraine, I mean, I know — I’m guessing you’re probably not going to put a specific number on this, but what impact do you expect this to make quantitatively for them when it comes to the numbers they’re asking for?

MR. KIRBY:  I can tell you, on the Patriots, it’s in the realm of hundreds that we’re talking about, as I said, over the course of the rest of this fiscal year and into next fiscal year, the entire fiscal year for ‘25.  So in the realm of the hundreds.

I don’t have an update for you on the progress on the ceasefire deal.  Again, it’s our understanding that Hamas — I’m sorry, that Qatar and Egypt are still talking to their interlocutors with Hamas and trying to see if they can close whatever gaps exist.  And we’re still hopeful and still watching this very, very closely.

And just to remind: As I said in my opening statement, it is in the realm of the hundreds, and it’s both Patriot interceptor missiles and NASAM interceptor missiles.  Both programs.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Keleigh with NewsNation.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks for taking my question.  I wanted to ask about the tensions between Hezbollah and Israel and the concerns of a wider war.  I know something you’ve spoken about and the administration has spoken out about not wanting to see this grow into a wider war.

On Tuesday, the IDF approved operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon.  Since that approval, what discussions have the U.S. had to try to deescalate the situation?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, as you know, our envoy, Amos Hochstein, has been in the region the last few days, shuttling back and forth between Tel Aviv and Beirut to have these exact conversations.

I won’t speak to IDF military planning; they need to do that.  I would just tell you that we still don’t want to see a second front opened up.  Obviously, we take the tensions and the rhetoric seriously by both sides.  And we’re doing everything we can to try to prevent that outcome.  And those conversations are ongoing, literally as we speak.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Anita with VOA.

Q    Thank you so much, John.  Going back to Putin and his travels in Asia: He’s headed to Hanoi.  Is there any indication, that you are aware of, that he seeks material support from Vietnam for the Ukraine war?

And then secondly, with the top State Department official headed to Hanoi as well this week, is the U.S. seeking a debrief from Hanoi on Putin’s visit?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, obviously, we have an embassy there, and they’ll certainly have, in due course, appropriate conversations with their counterparts in the Vietnamese government.

But, look, I would just say, broadly speaking, our expectation is that Vietnam will continue to adhere to its commitment to, and its commitment and support for, the basic principles of the U.N. Charter, which include sovereignty, which include territorial integrity, and that they’ll continue, as they have, to convey that these principles need to be upheld all across the world — in Europe, as well as in Asia.

I’ll let the two countries speak for themselves about the particulars of this visit and whatever they might agree to coming out of it.  But I think it’s — I would remind you that that we, the United States, President Biden, elevated our bilateral relationship with Vietnam to a historic level, basically upgrading it to a comprehensive strategic partnership.  And that’s a partnership that we believe reflects well the strength of that bilateral relationship.  And we’re going to stay focused on continuing to deepen it, broaden it, improve it for our own mutual benefit to each other and to the region.

We’re focused on this bilateral relationship in ways that we don’t believe anybody else really is, and we’re going to stay focused on that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Yuna with Channel 12.

Q    Hi, Kirby.  Hi, Sam.  Thank you for doing this.  First, to follow up about a question I don’t think was answered.  Is there a plan for a meeting between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu during his speech in Congress?

And the second thing is: After the video by Netanyahu, was there any talks behind the scenes?  I know that he met Special Envoy Amos Hochstein, but was there any attempt to scale it down a little bit?  Any apology coming from Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, I don’t have anything on the President’s schedule to speak to.

On your second question, I think we’ve made it abundantly clear to our Israeli counterparts, through various vehicles, our deep disappointment in the statements expressed in that video and our concerns over the accuracy in the statements made.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.

Q    Thanks so much for taking my question.  Going back to the issue of arms shipments to Israel, could you give us an update on the status of these 2,000-pound bomb shipments?

And is there anything to add about the shipment itself or advancing the deal of the F-15 fighters to Israel?  Has that been approved, and will that go ahead?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m going to let the State Department speak to the F-15 question; that’s really more in their lane.  I will just tell you a couple of things.

Number one, as I said earlier, material assistance to Israel and their ability to defend themselves has continued — has continued to flow, even though there had been a pause put on those 2,000-pound bombs.  I don’t have an update for you on that one way or the other.  But the idea that we had somehow stopped helping Israel with their self-defense needs is actually just not accurate.

On the F-15s, the only other thing I’d add is that these would be slated to be delivered in, like, 2029, if they’re approved.  And that approval process is ongoing, not related at all to the current conflict.  But again, I’d point you over to the State Department to talk about that in a little bit more in detail.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Neria with Israel 13.

Q    Hey, Kirby.  Thank you so much for doing this.  After hearing Netanyahu’s remarks, we’ve heard really tough comments by the White House, and also, we’re hearing you now saying that it was very disappointing.  Did you try to tell — to say anything to Israeli officials about it?  Are you about to say today in your official meetings with Sullivan and senior officials in Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  As I said earlier, I think to a question a few minutes ago, we’ve made it clear at various levels, through various vehicles, our concerns over the content of that video.

Q    And why do you think that he did that?  Why do you think that he put that video out there?  Do you have an assumption?

MR. KIRBY:  No idea.  You’d have to talk to the Prime Minister’s office.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Morgan with Semafor.

Q    Hey, John.  Thanks so much for doing this.  Just one follow-up on the decision to reprioritize the air defense capabilities to Ukraine.  You mentioned you notified other countries will be affected.  What kind of reaction did you get?  I mean, were they understanding?  Was there a level of concern there?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I could describe it as broadly understanding of it.

Q    Thank you.  And I think we have time for one more question.  We’ll go to Marek with Polskie Radio.

Q    Thank you, Sam.  Hi, John.  On missiles: You said that Taiwan and Israel won’t be affected.  What about countries on the eastern NATO flank, close to Russia and Ukraine?  Are those countries excluded?  If not, why?  There were cases when Russian missiles flew over Poland during Russian attacks on western Ukraine.

And my second question: Are you also considering putting on hold or redirecting deliveries of Patriot and NASAM systems itself, including launchers and radars?

MR. KIRBY:  Including launchers?

Q    And radars.

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, so to your first question, as I said earlier, we’ll let the countries affected speak for themselves on this.  As I said, the response we got was broadly supportive.  And many of the countries that we talked to were, in fact, very supportive of this because they know how serious the need is in Ukraine.

As for the actual amount, this is about — just to be clear, this decision is about reprioritizing the deliveries of missiles, the actual interceptor missiles.  We did take a look at the broader system writ large — the launchers, the radar systems, all that go with that — and I think we’d be open to it.  But the way that FMS is — foreign military sales program — is structured, right now we just don’t have eligible systems coming off the production line.  So it was something we looked at, but right now the focus is really going to be on the missiles themselves.

Q    Can I take it as a confirmation that eastern NATO flank countries are not excluded from the hold?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, I’ll let other countries speak for themselves.  As I said, we spoke to a number of countries about this, and I don’t think we’re going to identify them here today.  We’ll let those countries speak for themselves.  I mean, we’re talking about air defense capabilities here.  And some countries will likely be more willing to talk about their participation in this effort than others, and they should speak for themselves.  So I’m just not going to get into that.

But I do want to go back, if I could, just on your question about systems.  One thing I forgot to mention was: Separate and distinct from this effort — and as I said, we’re open to continue to look at the possibility of systems themselves being redirected.  But even before this decision, we had been working closely with other countries, in Europe and beyond Europe, that have systems — launchers, radar systems, and support systems — about their willingness to contribute those systems to Ukraine’s air defense capabilities.  And so, that effort is ongoing; I would even describe it as a parallel effort.  And we’re going to continue to do that going forward.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And thanks, everyone, for joining.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, reach out to the NSC press distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Thanks, everyone.

END    11:44 A.M. EDT

----------------------------------------

JUNE 08, 2024

Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on
the Israeli Hostage Rescue Operation

STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
 

Today, Israeli security forces conducted a successful operation to rescue four hostages from the grips of Hamas in Gaza. All four were taken from the Nova Music Festival on October 7, and Hamas filmed the horrific abduction of Ms. Argamani for the world to see. Now they are safe and reunited with their families. We commend the work of the Israeli security services that conducted this daring operation.

The United States is supporting all efforts to secure the release of hostages still held by Hamas, including American citizens. This includes through ongoing negotiations or other means. The hostage release and ceasefire deal that is now on the table would secure the release of all the remaining hostages together with security assurances for Israel and relief for the innocent civilians in Gaza. This deal has the full backing of the United States and has been endorsed by countries from around the world, including the G7, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Qatar, as well as the sixteen countries with their citizens still being held by Hamas. They all must be released — now.  

###

-----------------------------------------------------
 

JUNE 03, 2024

G7 Leaders’ Statement on Gaza

STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), fully endorse and will stand behind the comprehensive deal outlined by President Biden that would lead to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages, a significant and sustained increase in humanitarian assistance for distribution throughout Gaza, and an enduring end to the crisis, with Israel’s security interests and Gazan civilian safety assured. We reaffirm our support for a credible pathway towards peace leading to a two State solution.

We call on Hamas to accept this deal, that Israel is ready to move forward with, and we urge countries with influence over Hamas to help ensure that it does so.

###

----------------------------------------

JUNE 03, 2024

On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National
Security Communications Advisor John Kirby

Via Teleconference

11:35 A.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Good Monday morning, everyone.  Thanks for joining us for the NSC News of the Day Gaggle with John Kirby.

I’d like everyone to pause for a moment and join us in wishing John Kirby a very special happy birthday, which he is hating me for announcing to you all right now.

MR. KIRBY:  You’re a dead man, Sean.  (Laughs.)

MODERATOR:  With that important announcement, I’ll turn it over to Kirby.

MR. KIRBY:  Good morning, everybody.  As I think you saw, today we announced that Vice President Harris and the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, will travel to Lucerne, Switzerland, on the 15th of this month to participate in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine.

At that conference, they will underscore the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine’s effort to secure a just and lasting peace based on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the principles of the U.N. Charter.

At the summit, the Vice President and Mr. Sullivan will highlight the importance of countries around the world continuing to support Ukraine’s effort to secure a just and lasting peace.

And I think as you all know, this war could end tomorrow if Mr. Putin would simply withdraw his forces from Ukraine.  In the meantime, we will continue, and our allies and partners will continue, to support the people of Ukraine as they fight every day to defend themselves against this aggression.

Now, if I could switch to Mexico.  We congratulate Claudia Sheinbaum on her historic election as the first woman president of Mexico.  President Biden and the team look forward to working closely with President-Elect Sheinbaum and her team.

As noted in the President’s statement that we released this morning, we’re committed to advancing the values and interests of both our nations to the benefit of our peoples.

We also congratulate the Mexican people, of course, for conducting a nationwide successful democratic electoral process involving races for more than 20,000 different positions at the local, state, and federal level.  It’s quite an achievement, and we congratulate them on that.

With that, we can take some questions.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our first question we’ll go to the line of Will Weissert with the Associated Press.

Q    Hi there.  Happy Birthday again.  Thanks so much for doing this.

Why did the President make no mention in Friday’s remarks about — that Israel remains determined to destroy Hamas?  Why does the administration think that Hamas would be willing to agree with that huge Israeli caveat?  And what other gaps, as Netanyahu referred to them, are there between the U.S. and Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  The President has spoken numerous times about the right and responsibility of the Israelis to eliminate the threat that Hamas poses right across their border.  Nothing has changed about that.  The purpose of the speech was to lay out the details of this recent proposal for a hostage release, a ceasefire, and a potentially — a potential end to hostilities for the long term.  And that was the reason he wanted to lay that out for the American people.

But make no mistake — I mean, he remains consistently supportive of Israel’s right and responsibility to go after the threat posed by Hamas.

I didn’t write down all your questions, but I think you asked about — oh, why we think Hamas would go for this.

I think — I would point you to comments that Hamas leaders themselves made on Friday, which was that they were — that they received the President’s speech in a positive way.  And now they’ve got this proposal; they got it Thursday night.  We’re awaiting an official response by them.  And they ought to take the deal.  This gives them what they’ve been looking for, which is a ceasefire and, over time, through the phases, the potential withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

So they ought to take this deal.  It’s very forward-leaning.  And it’s good for the people of Gaza, good for the Israeli people.  And they just need to move forward on it.

As for the gaps, I don’t know what gaps you’re referring to.  I mean, I’ve heard different statements coming out of Israel.  The Israeli Foreign Minister himself acknowledged that this was the Israeli proposal, that it was accurately — that it is the Israeli proposal.  And we’re confident that it accurately reflects that proposal, a proposal that we worked with the Israelis on.  So I know of no gaps to speak of.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go to Steve Holland with Reuters.

Q    John — and Happy Birthday, John.  How did it come about that the President announced an Israeli — a ceasefire plan?  And did the Israelis know he was going to do it?

MR. KIRBY:  Can you repeat that again?

Q    How did it come about that the President announced an Israeli ceasefire plan?  And did the Israelis know he was going to do it?

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, we informed them that the President was going to speak on the hostage deal before he did, of course.

And to your first question, it’s important to remember this was — it is an Israeli proposal.  It’s one that we and they worked on through some intense diplomacy.  It’s the result of our own diplomatic efforts with Israel.  But it is, in fact, their proposal that they have, again, publicly acknowledged is, in fact, their proposal.

The President felt that it was important to lay it out there publicly.  As you know, Steve, we don’t typically go through the details of these kinds of proposals.  But in this case, given where we are, given how much longer the hostages have now been held, given the fact that Hamas has reneged on several past occasions on proposals that were sent to them, and given the fact that the Israelis really did work hard to come up with this proposal and did so in good faith, the President felt it was important, for the first time, to publicly lay that out.

The timing was related based on the fact that, the night before, we had given it to Hamas.  So that’s what explains a Friday speech, is that Thursday it went to Hamas.

But he thought it was important to lay out the details publicly so that the whole world can see what was in here and the whole world could see how seriously Israel was taking this, and to make it clear that Hamas absolutely needs to accept this proposal.  It’s a good one.  It gets us six weeks of peace.  It gets us the hostages out.  It gets us the ability to negotiate for phase two, which would get all the hostages out and a potential cessation of hostilities.

This, as the President said in his speech, is the best way to end this conflict.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with Nick Schifrin from PBS.  

Q    Hey, John.  Happy Birthday.  Just going to be (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:   I’m going to kill Sean Savett.  (Laughter.)

Q    Quick fact-check elucidation.  You’ve said twice now Hamas received the proposal Thursday night.  Can you just confirm that was — it’s a proposal in writing that they got?

And my two major —

MR. KIRBY:  Correct.

Q    Okay, got it.  Great.

And two major questions.  Have you received any Israeli assurance that an agreement agreed to by the war cabinet would be authorized by the full cabinet?

And a senior administration official on Friday night told us it was, quote, “minor differences” between this draft and what Hamas had put forward.  Don’t suppose you can detail what those minor differences are?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  No, I really can’t.  I don’t want to go into any more detail than the President did.  And quite frankly, I hope you would agree the President actually laid out a lot of detail in terms of the phases and what each phase would produce.

But for those minor differences, I think it’s best if I don’t go there.

I’ll let the Israelis speak to their internal domestic politics.  This is an Israeli proposal.  The Foreign Minister himself acknowledged that.  The Prime Minister has acknowledged that.  This is their proposal.  I’ll let them speak to internally how they arrived at it.  But as I told Steve, it was certainly the result of a lot of diplomacy between them and our team over recent weeks.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with MJ Lee from CNN.

Q    Hi, John.  Happy Birthday.  And thanks for spending a part of your birthday with us.

First of all, just on the ceasefire deal, can you quickly confirm whether it is correct that the ball is in Hamas’s court right now?

MR. KIRBY:  First of all, there’s no other place I’d rather be on my birthday than with all of you.

And secondly, yes, it is fair to say that the ball is in Hamas’s court.

Q    Okay.  And I was hoping you could help us make sense of the Prime Minister’s response to the President’s speech on Friday.  So, the Prime Minister said that there can be no permanent ceasefire until the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, among other things.  The President said in his speech last week that Hamas has been degraded to such a point that it couldn’t again perpetrate another October 7th-like attack.  So are they not seeing eye to eye on this?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’m going to let the Prime Minister characterize his public comments.  What I can tell you is that we’ve had a lot of diplomatic conversations with the Israelis in recent weeks, during which or after which we arrived — they arrived at this proposal, their proposal, again, as a result of a lot of diplomacy between us.  We’re comfortable that it represents fairly and honestly an Israeli proposal, a very forward-leaning Israeli proposal.  And we’re confident that Hamas needs to take it.

I want to make — put a punctuation point on this one point, because it came up in the first question.  There is no question at all that we don’t want to see Hamas pose a threat to the Israeli people.  We absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that Hamas and their ability to conduct that kind of an attack again must be prevented, and that Israel has a right and a responsibility to go after that threat and prevent another October 7.

The President said clearly on Friday that, from a military perspective, we don’t assess that Hamas can conduct another October 7.  We didn’t say — he didn’t say that that doesn’t mean that Israel can’t continue to go after the threat as appropriate.  As a matter of fact, as you and I are speaking, they are still operating in Rafah and trying to put pressure on those leaders and some of those military units there.  And we understand that.

But now’s the time, as they have militarily degraded Hamas to the point where they can’t right now conduct another October 7th — now, as they continue to put pressure on these leaders and these units in Rafah, now is the time to move forward to the next stage here, get phase one of this in place, get at least some of the hostages out, get a six-week ceasefire, get 600 trucks in a day so that we can get to phase two and a permanent cessation of hostilities.

Again, I won’t speak for the Prime Minister’s comments and why he said what he said.  All I can tell you is this proposal is an Israeli proposal.  It is the result of intense diplomacy between our two teams.  The President characterized it accurately.  And now it’s up to Hamas to accept it.

Q    And just quickly, you said the Israelis did get a heads up that the President would be making his speech on Friday.  Did they object?

MR. KIRBY:  Not that I’m aware of.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with Michelle Jamrisko of Bloomberg.  Michelle, you should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Sorry about that.  Good morning, Admiral.  And let me add my birthday greetings with apologies.

I wanted to get your reaction to OPEC+ members agreeing to extend to next year their output cuts.  How are you seeing that from a national security perspective?  And how much pressure do you see that putting on prices at the pump for Americans?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I would just say that the President remains focused on those prices at the pump for consumers, and they continue to come down.  I’m not going to be able to comment on what OPEC does from month to month.  Again, our focus is going to be on the price at the pump for consumers.  And the President is confident that he’s got the strategies in place to do that.  But I won’t be able to comment much more beyond that.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with Andrea Mitchell from NBC.

Q    Hi, John.  Happy Birthday.

MR. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)  Thank you.

Q    Sorry to chime in.

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

Q    So, could you clarify: The Prime Minister said that he’s never agreed to withdraw from Gaza.  The President never said there was a complete withdrawal from Gaza.  He said it would be a withdrawal from populated parts of Gaza.  Is that an important distinction?  Because does that leave Israel with control of those buffer zones that they have now created contrary, actually, to what the U.S. wanted?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I think that’s getting a little ahead of where we are right now.  You’re right, the proposal calls for a phased withdrawal from populated centers.  I think there’s some flexibility in there given the tactical situation in Gaza and what that might look like.

But if we’re able to get to phase one and then phase two, an Israeli withdrawal from population centers is certainly not an insignificant move on their part or for the Palestinian people of Gaza.

But that’s just further afield of where we are right now.  What we need right now is for Hamas to accept this proposal.

Q    And let me ask you a couple of other things just very quickly.  Clearly, it does not address the number of Palestinian prisoners or their identities, which are always a huge obstacle.  I mean, that’s — understandably, you’re not in that kind of detail yet, but that’s something that would be a hurdle.  But it also does not address a pathway to a day after or a Palestinian state or Palestinian governance, which was always part of Secretary Blinken’s, you know, initial proposals that he got acceptance from, from all of the Arab states, in a trip to eight different Arab countries several months ago.

MR. KIRBY:  Yes, Andrea, you’re right.  So, first of all, on the ratio of prisoners and hostages — to hostages, I mean, that is actually baked into this first-phase proposal.  We didn’t offer that level of detail.  As I said, the President walked through in great detail but not every detail.  And those details are hammered out in that proposal that Hamas has.  I’m just not at liberty to go beyond the detail — the level of detail the President displayed for everybody.

On your second question: You’re right, but I would ask you to remember what this is and what it isn’t.  This proposal the President talked about is, in fact, an extension of the hostage negotiations that we’ve been engaged in for weeks.  It is primarily designed to do three things: get hostages out — again, in a phased approach; get more humanitarian aid in — again, in a phased approach, hopefully up to 600 trucks a day; and then get a ceasefire in place.

In the first phase, it will be a temporary ceasefire, six weeks in duration, to allow the teams and the negotiators to negotiate what phase two looks like.  And we don’t know what phase two could look like.  All we know is what the President — as the President said on Friday, phase two would entail all the remaining hostages, including male soldiers, getting out — point one; and point two, a set of circumstances that would lead to a cessation of hostilities, comma, permanently.  That’s what phase two would end in.

And that’s really what this was about.  That was the bounds of it, the left and right side of it that the President talked about.  It doesn’t talk about a two-state solution or what the day-after governance could look like because that’s not what it’s about.  It’s really about getting the hostages home.

But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t still working hard on day-after governance or that we’ve given up on the idea of a two-state solution.  I think as you saw a week or two ago, I can’t remember now, but press coverage about how close we were to an agreement, a bilateral agreement with the Saudis, a significant bilateral agreement between our two countries that could help set the conditions for bringing Israel in and moving forward on this normalization deal.

So, yes, those things weren’t discussed in the speech.  Yes, they are not in this, but that’s because they are not in the proposal that went to Hamas.  But again, it does not mean, just because it’s not in that proposal, that we’re not still working those objectives.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Next up we’ll go to Danny Kemp with AFP.

Q    Hello?

MODERATOR:  Hey, Danny, we can hear you.

Q    Great.  Thank you.  Thanks, Admiral.  And Happy Birthday.  A couple of things, if I may, very briefly.

The first is just on Ukraine and Vice President Harris attending this conference.  Doesn’t it look a bit bad for the President to be skipping this peace summit for Ukraine and going to a glitzy Hollywood event instead?

And secondly, anything you can tell us on any executive orders on migration that might be announced tomorrow?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  On your second question: No, I’m not going to go there.

On your first question: What looks bad is when we have a supplemental request sitting on Capitol Hill for six months and the House Republicans refuse to move on it, to supply the arms and ammunition that Ukraine needs while they’re getting attacked in the Donbas, and then the Russians decide to start attacking Kharkiv.  That’s what looks bad.

There hasn’t been any single leader around the world who has supported Ukraine more, and more stridently, than Joe Biden.  And as I said last week, no matter who represents the United States — and oh, by the way, the Vice President is representing the United States of America at this summit — it can’t be said that the United States has in any way walked away from supporting Ukraine.

In fact, this whole peace formulation that President Zelenskyy formulated over a year ago and has been trying to operationalize, he’s been able to do that, able to have these conversations, able to bring other countries to the table because the United States has been so supportive of this peace formula that he has come up with.

And we’re looking forward to having the discussion in Lucerne, both the Vice President and Jake Sullivan, to see what the United States can continue to do to support it.

But you just — I’ve been talking about this war since it began, back when I was at the Pentagon.  There is no way that you can look at what Ukraine has been able to do over the last two-plus years and not see the hand of the United States there every single step of the way.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with David Sanger from the New York Times.

Q    Thanks.  And Happy 40th, John.

MR. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)

Q    You don’t look a day older than this, but if you stay

in this job, you might.  (Laughter.)

MR. KIRBY:  I feel a lot older than the birth certificate would say.

Q    Yeah, me too.

So two questions for you.  One: On Israel, your usual routine would be to say, “We’re not going to make announcements for the Israeli government; it’s up to the Israelis.”  How many times have you said this to us?  But in this particular incident, the President made a decision to jam the Prime Minister by announcing this for him and then making him try to prevaricate back and forth about whether or not this was really an Israeli proposal, on which he was a lot less clear than, say, as you pointed out, your foreign minister.  Was that the intent?

And then I got a quick question on Ukraine.

MR. KIRBY:  No, that was not the intent.  This wasn’t about jamming the Prime Minister or the war cabinet.  This was about laying bare, for the public to see, how well and how faithfully and how assertively the Israelis came up with a new proposal, how it shows how much they really want to get this done.

Really, if anything, this was about putting some public pressure on Mr. Sinwar and Hamas, who has repeatedly refused to accept what Israel has put forward.  They simply have not proven willing to take yes for an answer.  And every time, the Israelis come back with yes.

Q    So why not just let the Israelis announce it and then have the President come out and endorse it and say the ball is in Sinwar’s court?  That’s not how you did it.

MR. KIRBY:  That’s not how we did it.  And as I said, the President felt that where we are in this war, where we are in the negotiations to get the hostages out, that it was time for a different approach and a time to make the proposal public, to try to energize the process here, catalyze a different outcome.  The President believed that this was the right approach to do it.

And as I said, the timing was really related to when it was delivered to Hamas, which was the night before.

Q    Okay.  And on Ukraine: The President obviously, on Thursday, made this decision to allow American arms to be shot into a very limited area of Russia.  President Zelenskyy over the weekend thanked him for this and then immediately said: It’s not enough.  We’re going to need to have this right throughout much of the rest of Russia; we’re going to need to have it perhaps in other areas.

And we actually heard Secretary Blinken, on the last day of his trip last week, say this may not be the last area that gets approved.  Can you help us think through this moment?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I won’t get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made.  As you well know, every step of this war — as the war has evolved, the battlefield conditions have changed, we have evolved and we have changed our support to Ukraine.  And that’s — I wouldn’t expect that that general approach is going to be any different in coming weeks and months.  We’ll see where things go and what the Ukrainians need.

I mean, look, who can blame President Zelenskyy for wanting more stuff and more ability to use that stuff as his country continues to come under attack and as they particularly face a concerted — a still-concerted effort by Russia to endanger Kharkiv, one of their most important cities in the north?

So, I mean, I don’t think it should come as a shock to anybody that President Zelenskyy would be grateful on one hand, but also eager to continue to press his case going forward.

And so we’ll have those talks, we’ll have those conversations with the Ukrainians.  Absolutely, we will.  And whether it leads to any additional policy changes, I can’t say at this point, but we’re not going to turn our back on what Ukraine needs.  And we’re going to continue to try to, again, evolve our support to them as the battlefield evolves as well.

I would just reiterate that the guidance that we just issued late last week that you’re referring to with respect to cross-border counter-fires is specifically focused on Ukraine’s defense against military targets that are just over the border and targets that Russia is using to physically launch offensives against Ukraine proper.  It just makes common sense.

And our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of ATACMS, for instance, or long-range strikes, inside of Russia has not changed.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  For our next question we’ll go with Karen DeYoung from the Washington Post.

Q    Thank you.  Can you hear me?

MODERATOR:  Yes, we can.

MR. KIRBY:  Go ahead, Karen.

Q    You mentioned that Israel is still operating in Rafah and this deal doesn’t mean that they can’t continue to go after the threat as appropriate.  If Hamas said today or tomorrow, or whenever, “Fine, we accept,” does Israel immediately stop its operations in Rafah and remove its forces from that populated area?  Is it simultaneous with the release of hostages?  What happens first?  And who takes over governance in populated areas in Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  So, as the President laid out on Friday, if Hamas accepts and we can begin phase one, it would, in fact, mean the first batch of hostages are released, again, over a period of time, of course.  And over a corresponding period of time, Israel would withdraw its forces from populated centers.  It would also mean, as the President said, the end or the cessation of Israeli military operations in Rafah proper.  As for how many troops would move back and over what timeframe, I think that all would have to be ironed out.

And how simultaneous it is, you know, with the release of hostages, I don’t have that level of detail.  It’s not like a shotgun start here that I know of, but it is all part of phase one.

And your second question was on governance in Rafah?  Is

that what you said?

Q    In Gaza in general.  (Inaudible) withdraw.

MR. KIRBY:  That’s what we’re trying to get at here.  That’s why — to Andrea’s question, that’s why Secretary Blinken is still working hard.  And the President talked about the day after.  We’ve got to get to the day after, and we are having conversations —

Q    I’m not talking about the day after.  I’m talking about phase one.  Who takes over in these places when the Israelis withdraw, both in the north and central Gaza and in Rafah?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I think you heard over the — I mean, certainly this is a question really more for the Israelis to speak to, but Defense Minister Gallant made comments in just the last day or so about setting up civilian governance centers in Gaza that would be run by Palestinians who are not affiliated with Hamas.  But I’d let them characterize that view a little bit more closely.

Q    But the Israelis have proposed this before, and the Palestinians have said the Israelis don’t get to choose.  And people — the Palestinians rejected that, rejected Israel establishing this, and said, “You don’t have anything to do with it.”  So who decides?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, this is the conversation we’re having with the Israelis, will continue to have with them.  They’ve proffered some ideas on what that could look like as they would potentially withdraw from Gaza.  I’d let them speak to that.

Q    And just to (inaudible) now — so you would expect that if Hamas said today, “Fine, we accept the deal,” Israel would immediately begin withdrawing its troops from Rafah (inaudible)?

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was —

Q    (Inaudible) go after the threat.

MR. KIRBY:  What I said was there would be corresponding discussions about the tick-tock and exactly when the hostages would be released, when the prisoners would be released, and then when Israeli forces would begin to move out of population centers.  But as our understanding, in phase one, as soon as phase one begins, that operations in Rafah would end.  That is our understanding.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We just have time for a couple more.  We’ll go to Ron Kampeas with JTA.

Q    Oh, thank you for taking my question.  First of all, it seems that the crux of the disagreement as to — between the Israelis and you guys on this thing has to do with President Biden saying the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue.  That seems to suggest that basically, you know, the temporary ceasefire is going to be a permanent ceasefire, and the Israelis aren’t able to do anything about it.  And so, it’d be interesting to understand how exactly you do understand the transition between phase one and phase two.

And the broader question is that: On October the 10th, the President said “pure, unadulterated evil” has unleashed on this world.  And I think what the Israelis want to know is: How can you leave pure, unadulterated evil in place as a part of this deal?  Hamas gets to continue to exist, you know, maybe perhaps not in a capacity in which it can carry out an October the 7th, but it’s still there.  And I think that — I’d just like you to address that.

MR. KIRBY:  Look, I don’t think I can say it any better than the President said, to your first question.  During the six weeks of phase one, Israel and Hamas will negotiate the arrangements to get to phase two, which would be — which would represent a cessation of hostilities, a permanent cessation of hostilities.

But there’s an awful lot of work that has to be done to negotiate what phase two looks like.  And as the President also said, you know, those negotiations would have to proceed in good faith between Israel and Hamas.  And Israel will want to, as they have a right to in these negotiations, make sure that their interests are protected, of course.

And that gets to your second question.  We don’t ever want to see another October 7th.  We don’t ever want to see, going forward, Gaza under the control of Hamas, whatever post-conflict Gaza governance looks like.

And, yes, I understand we don’t have all that figured out right now.  We don’t have all the answers to all that right now.  We’re working on it very, very hard.  Whatever it looks like, it can’t look like it did on the 6th of October, when Mr. Sinwar had the ability, singlehandedly, to violate a ceasefire that was in place and send his fighters into Israel to slaughter 1,200 people.  That can’t happen again.

Now, what that looks like going forward, I can’t tell you right now.  But if the essence of your question — and if I don’t get it right, you tell me — but if the essence of the question is, you know, should we expect that Israel should have to live next door to that kind of a terrorist threat, the answer is no, of course not.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We have time for just one more question.  We’ll go to Haley Bull with Scripps.

Q    Hey.  Thank you.  And Happy Birthday, John.  I wanted to go back to some of Netanyahu’s statements since the President’s announcement.  Is there any concern that him so publicly speaking about their insistence of reaching their war objectives is undermining the pressure you’re trying to put on Hamas?

And then, on Ukraine: I know you just outlined all the reasons why the President is such a strong supporter of Ukraine.  Given that, why not send him to this peace summit then?  Thanks.

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, the short answer is no.  It is true that our assessment is that Hamas is militarily not capable of conducting the attacks of October 7th again.  It is true that the Israelis have put an enormous amount of pressure on Hamas and have degraded their capabilities in a very significant way, or their military capabilities.

But even as you and I are speaking here, they are still conducting targeted operations inside Rafah because there are still viable threats by Hamas inside Rafah.  There are still tunnel networks where they continue to harbor fighters, potentially hold hostages, and certainly store weapons.  And they still have a capability down there, and Israel has every right to go after them.  They are, and they’re doing it in keeping with the plans that they shared with us, and they’re doing it with capabilities that we continue to provide them to use.

So I simply refuse to accept the premise of the question that the President’s comments with respect to military capabilities of Hamas somehow undermines Israel’s ability to go after them when, in fact, they continue to go after them as you and I are speaking.

And, look, as for the — your second question: As I said before, Ukraine has no stronger champion than President Biden.  And the United States has actively participated in every single one of the previous Ukraine peace summits.  Every single one.  And as I said earlier, we have been the strongest, most staunch supporter of this peace deal that President Zelenskyy put forward.

Since he put it forward, the United States has been trying to find ways to operationalize it.  We’re sending the Vice President of the United States and the National Security Advisor to this particular peace summit — again, because of our desire to be represented around that table.

But as I said last week — and, by the way, that alone is high level, very serious representation by the United States.

But as I said last week, no matter who it would have been representing the United States, there can be no question that Ukraine has no stronger backer than the United States.  And we’ve proven that time and time and time again over the last two and a half years.

I don’t think you can name another nation that has done as much for Ukraine and for their ability to push back on Russia than the United States.  And I don’t think you can name another leader around the world — in fact, I know you can’t name another leader around the world who has done more than President Biden has to back up President Zelenskyy in every single way possible.  I mean, my goodness, we were just talking, to David’s question, about the cross-border policy and how that might change.  And my answer is that, you know, we’re going to continue these conversations; we’re going to continue to help them do what they have to do.

You can’t name me another foreign leader that’s doing as much as Joe Biden.

MODERATOR:  Thank you so much.  And thank you all for joining us for our gaggle today.  I hope everyone has a good rest of the day, and feel free to send us an email if we didn’t get to your questions.

12:12 P.M. EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAY 31, 2024

Background Press Call on President Biden’s
Remarks on the Middle East

Via Teleconference

2:35 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR:  Good afternoon, everyone.  And thanks so much for joining today’s call.  Apologies we’re a few minutes late.  As you saw from the invite, this call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official.  And it is embargoed until the conclusion of the call.

For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the call today we have [senior administration official].  [Senior administration official] will have a few words at the top, and then we’ll take your questions.

With that, I’ll turn it over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  So I’ll just — a little bit at the top and then we’ll do Q&A.  So, thanks for joining.

So today, as you know, President Biden delivered an update on his efforts to secure a deal that would lead to the release of all the hostages, an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, a further surge of humanitarian assistance into and distributed throughout Gaza, and ultimately — ultimately, and potentially, the end of the crisis.

The President’s message was clear.  There is now a roadmap in place to do all of this after months of diplomacy that he has led together with his negotiators and Israel, Qatar, and Egypt.

He made clear that Israel’s security is paramount and that this deal is the best path to both end the crisis in Gaza and to ensure Israel’s security today and over the long term, with the hostages coming home.

The President described the comprehensive proposal now on the table in some detail.  This proposal has been accepted by Israel and was transmitted to Hamas yesterday.  And as he said, “This is…a decisive moment.  Israel has made their [offer].  Hamas says it wants a ceasefire.  [And] this deal is an opportunity to prove whether they really mean it.”

Israel can make this offer without further risk to their own security because Israel has so degraded Hamas’s forces over the last eight months, as the President explained.  At this point, of course, Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out another October 7.  Its military capacity has been significantly eroded.  And its leaders are dead or in deep hiding.

For the Palestinian people and the people of Gaza, this is an opportunity to end the suffering of the past eight months.  Again, as the President said, too many innocent people have been killed in this war.  And the deal now on the table offers a roadmap to end the suffering for the hostage families waiting for their loved ones to return and for the people of Gaza caught in this terrible war that Hamas started.

The President also called on Israeli leaders to stand behind this deal no matter what pressure comes.  And we know there are debates about these issues in Israel, of course.  He made clear that this is a far better path than alternatives, and it’s the only path that is available to both bring the hostages home and to ensure Israel’s lasting and long-term security.

The President reemphasized that Israel will always have what it needs to defend itself and always retains the right to defend itself from threats, and, of course, to bring justice to those responsible for October 7th, which we have talked about in the past.

With this deal in place, what can follow would include agreements on the northern border to allow people to return to their homes in safety; beginning to rebuild Gaza together with the international community and the Arab partners, Palestinians, and Israelis in a manner that does not allow Hamas to rearm or threaten Israel; pursue an Israel more integrated regionally, including through a deal with Saudi Arabia, and the security integration the President discussed — the successful defense of Israel against an attack from Iran just last month through regional integration and coordination; and create the conditions for a future of freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people.

The President ended with a clear call to action.  “For months,” he said, “people all over the world have called for a ceasefire.  It’s time to raise your voices and to demand that Hamas come to the table, agree to this deal, and end this war that they began.”

He concluded, “Everyone who wants peace now must raise their voices and let the leaders know they should take this deal, work to make it real, [work to] make it lasting, forge a better future out of this tragic terror attack” of October 7th and the subsequent conflict.

So I think the President laid it out today very clearly.  And you — obviously you’ve seen or you have his remarks, and I’m happy to address any questions.

MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our first question will go to the line of Steve Holland.  You should be able to unmute yourself

Steve, I think you might be muted.

Q    Is that better?

MODERATOR:  Steve, I think we just hear static.

Steve, we’ll come back to you.  We’ll go to Alex Ward.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi.  Thanks so much for doing this.  Two questions.  One is: By saying that, you know, Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out another October 7, is the President saying that, effectively, Israel has won this war and there’s really no need for a continued military campaign against Hamas?

And then, sort of two related: Of course, the administration’s stance has been to not see a major military ground operation in Rafah similar to others seen in Gaza City and Khan Younis, but we do have, as of right now, six Israeli brigades in Rafah, the same that the Israelis have had in Khan Younis.  So is part of the reason — one, is this — it feels like this fits the definition of a major ground operation.  But two, is part of this messaging to say to the Israelis, hey, it’s — you know, it’s time to not go forward with the way you’re conducting in Rafah?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks.  First, there are not six Israeli brigades in Rafah, so I’m not sure where that information is from.  We have a very good picture of exactly what’s happening in Rafah.  I think one reason that we’ve spoken so clearly about is because we actually know exactly where Israeli forces are, what they’re doing, what the objectives are.  And so far, I think we have a pretty clear understanding and sight picture of precisely what they’re doing and what they aim to do.

We’ve also been watching this closely.  And if that changes, and if some of the plans go back to where they were a couple months ago, that might be a different story.  But right now, I think we have a very clear understanding of what they’re doing.  And sometimes there might be, you know, a story of an Israeli unit in central Gaza.  We kind of know what the unit is doing.  We have a good understanding of that communication with the Israelis.

But again, this is something that’s an ongoing process.  It’s been an ongoing process for the last 10 weeks or so and, I think, ultimately, a fairly productive one.  But it’s an ongoing issue.

And on your second question: No, I think the President was actually laying out that there is a new proposal on the table. It is a very forward-leaning offer.  And I think the reason the Israelis are able to make this offer is because of some of the success they’ve had in degrading Hamas’s military capacity.  I don’t think this offer would have been possible three months ago.

This has been a difficult, painstaking negotiation.  And at the heart of it, of course, is the core demand to see hostages coming home.  And with hostages coming home, there is now really a roadmap to the end of the crisis.  It is a detailed four-and-a-half-page agreement.  It has been negotiated, again, in painstaking detail.  And what’s on the table now is, really, kind of an end game to the process.

And so we thought it is important, I think, to come out and lay this out because often these deals get characterized by those who might not want to see the deal.

So I think the President laid out particularly what is in the first phase of the deal, what would unfold, and what is on offer.  And, again, I think we give credit to the Israelis for putting this offer down.  And the President made very clear that the onus here is on Hamas.  I would say that this — what is on the table now is extremely close, in almost every respect, to the deal that Hamas has said they would take not too long ago.  

So, this is going to continue.  The President made clear there are details to work out.  This is not going to be done tomorrow.  But, kind of, the roadmap is very much now on the table, in place.  And I think with some coordinated efforts in the region, we’re going to do everything we possibly can to get this done.

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to the line of Aamer Madhani.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hey, thank you.  The President alluded to hurdles to get from phase one to phase two in this plan.  I was just hoping you could draw a little bit of a picture of concerns, biggest hurdles that you see between phase one and phase two.  And then secondly, there wasn’t mention, I don’t think, of a two-state solution.  Where does that come in, if at all, in this process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, from phase one to phase two — and the elements of phase one, again, were laid out — it is comprehensive.  It is the release of a category of hostages — I think many on this call are familiar with; we’ve talked about this before — but also with not only the further surge of humanitarian assistance and distribution across the strip, but also the beginning of rehabilitation of essential services, clearing of rubble, and relief to the people of Gaza, including temporary shelters, temporary housing, everything else.  It was all mapped out in the deal.  And that all happens immediately in the first six weeks.

The second phase of the deal is for the release of all remaining — remaining hostages.  And some of those hostages are Israeli soldiers, male Israeli soldiers.  The women come out in the first phase.  And that will require a subsequent negotiation during the first six weeks for the ratio of a potential prisoner exchange and some other things.

So everybody agrees that has to be worked out.  We’re not going to work that out now, but it’ll be worked out over the first six weeks.  And so long as those talks are ongoing, the benefits to the deal for everybody in the first phase would continue and the mediators would try to make sure that that, in fact, happens.

So it would be our hope and expectation that the deal would move into phase two and everything that comes from phase two and then into phase three.  But we’re also realistic, and the President said, “I’m going to level with you” — there’s still pieces here to work out.  But that’s basically what still has to be discussed once you’re in a ceasefire and in the first phase.  And I think we’re quite confident that we could get that work done.

I think the President spoke quite depth — in some depth about the importance of this deal and the ensuing calm for the aspirations of the Palestinian people and where that can lead.  And so, again, we’re realistic about that process as well.  We have to have a Gaza that — with Hamas no longer in power, with Hamas no longer able to threaten Israel.  We have to work to reform the PA and the West Bank, which is ongoing, and ultimately having an interim administration in Gaza that can help with stabilization and a pathway forward there.  So that is all kind of in train.

And when the President talks about the importance of the day after in his speech, that kind of — all the elements of that are part of the day after.  But this speech was focused on this deal that is now very much before us, not with every single detail of the day-after planning.  But the day-after planning, I think we’ve been making some progress on that.

Obviously, we have done extensive work within the United States and all of our experts in the interagency and with our partners around the world and in the region.  And that process is now very much joined with the Israeli side.  And I think over the last few weeks, it’s fair to say there’s been more progress than there has been to date.

And it remains a concern of ours, as you’ve heard expressed from Jake and others, that without a military strategy that’s connected to a political and diplomatic strategy, the military gains often can be fleeting, as we’ve seen in the past.  So that day-after process is critically important.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to the line of Karen DeYoung.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Hi, thank you.  I just wanted to ask for a clarification of two things.  What the President described as Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, that would also include, in phase one, withdrawal from Rafah, yes?

And secondly, the President talked about phase two, assuming Hamas lived up to its commitments, there would be a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.  Israel has said in the past, and certainly Prime Minister Netanyahu has said very recently, that Israel would maintain security responsibility for Gaza.  And they’ve already put in place a buffer zone around it.  Both of those things would disappear, assuming Hamas lived up to its commitments.  Is that correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, Karen, we’re describing what’s in the deal.  So the first phase of the deal is a withdrawal from densely populated areas, from wherever Israeli forces might be — in densely populated areas in Gaza, in the first phase.  And the second phase is a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza subject to conditions being met for the second phase, which, again, would have to be worked out.

And the President also, of course, emphasized that Israel always retains the right, as does any sovereign country, to act against threats against its security.  And obviously, that would continue.

But the deal that has been negotiated I think is very clear in its terms, again, subject to — and I think the President was very clear in that passage of the speech — subject to Hamas living up to its terms of the deal and some of the conditions being met.  But that is what’s laid out in phase two, and that’s why this is really such a, I think, a far-reaching and important proposal.

I think it’s fair to say that if you’re into phase two and phase three, Israel will have some guarantees about its own security in that Gaza can no longer be a platform for terrorism against and threats against Israel, which is very much a focus of ours.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to the line of Barak Ravid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Yes.  Thank you.  There is something that was sort of — not in the President’s speech, and you are not referring to it either: Hamas said yesterday publicly, in an official statement, that it will not even enter negotiations on this new proposal until Israel stops its war in Gaza, which is like a whole new hurdle, in addition to what we had until now.  And the President didn’t talk about it; you’re not talking about it.  How are you going to know that they’re willing to even go back to the table?

And second question: You spoke yesterday, I think twice or three times, with the Prime Minister of Qatar, who is the leading negotiator right now.  What did you hear from him about how much pressure Qatar is willing to put on Hamas to accept this deal?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think, first, I’m not going to — you know, Hamas — their public statements versus what they say privately.  I would just say a few things.

This deal does stop the war, and it’s nearly identical to Hamas’s own proposals of only a few weeks ago.  So if that’s what Hamas wants, they can take the deal.  Alternatively, if its leaders choose to live deep underground, holding innocent hostages, including women, as the war goes on and the people of Gaza suffer, that would be their choice.  And I think the onus very much is on those leaders.

And all countries with an interest in seeing the war come to a conclusion and seeing the ceasefire begin — that’s why the President was very clear — should call on Hamas here to basically live up to its own words, release the hostages and stop the war.  That’s what the deal does.

And so, conversations with the Qatari Prime Minister and others, I think it’s fair to say there’s a recognition from everybody that’s been working on this that what is now in front of everybody is basically the terms by which Hamas was prepared to move forward.

So, you know, there are some small gaps.  But again, this is a detailed four-and-a-half-page arrangement.  This is not something like Hamas said something and then Israel presents something completely different.  This is now at the stage where Hamas has said they’d be prepared to do deal X, and what is now on the table is basically that with some very minor adjustments.

So they just got this last night.  Obviously, they’ll look at it.  And this whole — as the President was very clear, this is not going to be concluded tomorrow.  But he felt very strongly, and also in consultation with other leaders in the region, that it was time to kind of lay out very clearly what is offered in this proposal, and particularly in those first six weeks, kind of laying out in detail the relief that comes to the people of Gaza, the relief that comes to suffering hostage families, and what is available.

So I’m not going to respond to public statements made by some Hamas officials here and there.  They know what’s in the deal.  They know it’s nearly identical to what they put on the table.  And we’re obviously in deep consultations with the Qataris, Egyptians, and others to try to move this forward.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to Patsy.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thank you.  A couple of questions.  What are Israelis agreeing to in terms of this deal, in the context of the survival of Hamas leadership?  Are they willing to accept a deal where Sinwar and others remain alive?  Is there an agreement between the idea of what dismantling Hamas — what it means to Israelis versus what it means to Hamas?

And then also, separately, if you would indulge me, when do you expect to receive Israel’s review of the IDF strike on Rafah that killed 45 civilians over the weekend?  Do you expect them to reveal their collateral effects radius assessment of the strike?  And more broadly, has the U.S. ever been provided with IDF procedures for collateral damage analysis?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, on the leaders and Israel’s inherent right to defend itself and also pursue justice for October 7th, I think the President spoke to that, and we’ve spoken to that in the past.

On the strike and the horrific aftermath of this weekend, you’ve seen what the Israelis have put out.  The Israelis have presented to us in even more detail exactly what happened and the steps they took before that strike, including the selection of a very small munition and with precision and with a lot of intelligence work that went into it to ensure a very low risk of civilian casualties.  And unfortunately, something happened after the first strike against two Hamas terrorists, and Hamas even put out statements about the loss of its two leaders responsible for West Bank operations.

There was a secondary explosion, and I think the Israelis are looking into what exactly that was.  They do not believe it was from their munition.  And they’re looking into this in some detail.  They have shared with us everything that they know so far.  And I think we have said we want that work to continue through an independent investigation and see the results.  So that’s where that all stands.

MODERATOR:  We’ve got time for about two more questions.  Next up we’ll go to Michael Gordon.  You should be able to unmute yourself.

Q    Thank you.  Much of what you say about phase one — although there’s some additional detail that’s familiar to us, the six-week duration — phase two and phase three are still a little (inaudible).  Is Israel agreeing to discuss phase two, or did they have concrete proposals to what phase two would be?  And can you explain in a little fuller detail what phase two is supposed to be and what Israel has agreed to do then, and what phase three is?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yeah, so phase two is the final exchange of all remaining live hostages, and that includes the male soldiers.  So there has to be another negotiation about that.  It includes a cessation of hostilities, permanently, and a withdrawal of Israeli forces.  So those are kind of the basic elements with, again, conditions that will be discussed during the first six weeks.

And then phase three — and each phase is about 42 days to get the — for the exchange of hostages, for example, in phase two.  And then phase three is an exchange of remaining remains and also outlines a pretty extensive three- to five-year reconstruction program for Gaza that’s fully backed by us, by the international community, and others.  So by the time you get to phase three, I think you’re very much in the rehabilitation of Gaza and stabilization.

And there are other, kind of, elements that go into this, but those are the basic — you know, the basic contours, all of which are laid out in the proposal.

MODERATOR:  Next up we’ll go to David Sanger.

Q    Thanks.  And thank you, [senior administration official], for doing this.  The Israeli — the Prime Minister’s office turned out a statement tonight, I think after the President spoke, saying that they were united in the desire to bring home the hostages and so forth, but then said the exact outline that Israel has offered, including the conditional progression from stage to stage, enables Israel to maintain the principle that Hamas’s military is destroyed and its governing capacities in Gaza end.  Is that an accurate understanding?  Because I didn’t hear that in the President’s speech.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think the President said Israel’s interests can be protected throughout this negotiation, but it’s also an agreement that clearly lays out the terms and expectations of all sides.  And the U.S. as a guarantor, together with Egypt and Qatar, we would do our best to ensure that the Israelis live up to their commitments as they’ve agreed to do, and, of course, Qatar and Egypt making sure Hamas lives up to their commitments.

I have no doubt that the deal will be characterized by Israel and be characterized by Hamas.  But we know what’s in the deal.  We know what the expectations are.  We’re also very confident, again, as I think the President laid out very forcefully: This deal, at this stage in the conflict, is the path for long-term security for Israel and the path to bring the hostages home.

And I think the arrangements and some of the day-after planning, you know, helps ensure that — that Hamas’s military capacity to regenerate in a way that can threaten Israel would be very much foreclosed under this arrangement and, I think the President said in his speech, ensuring that Hamas cannot rearm.

So this is all part of what has been discussed.  This will require an awful lot of work over the coming months, years, should we be fortunate enough to close this deal.  But that very much is our commitment.  And I have to say the Egyptians and Qataris are very much on the same page with the paramount, immediate interest to get into a ceasefire and to begin this important rehabilitation work and to bring the hostages home.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, everyone.  Unfortunately, that’s all the time we have left.  I know there are lots of questions remaining.  Please send them over to the NSC press team.  We’re happy to follow up with you.

Thanks, everyone, for joining.  Again, this call was on background, attributable to a senior administration official.  The embargo is now lifted.  Thanks so much.

3:00 P.M. EDT

MAY 23, 2024

House Speaker Johnson delivers remarks at Israeli Independence Day event

House Speaker Johnson delivers remarks at Israeli Independence Day event Ago

ac