hamas intentionally embeds itself with civilians within and below hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, refugee camps. but israel has the most sophisticated -- one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world. it is capable of neutralizing the threat posed by hamas while minimizing harm to innocent men, women, and children. and it has an obligation to do so. ultimately, that's just not the right thing to do, it's also in israel's security interest. the prime minister and member of the war cabinet agree with this approach. we discussed the details of israel planning, and i inunderscoring the loss of life and civilian displacement we saw in northern gaza not be repeated in the south. as i told the prime minister, intent matters but so does the result. at the same time, hamas has

choices, too. hamas could immediately release all of the hostages it holds. it could stop using civilians as human shields and stop using civilian infrastructure to stage hamas attack. hamas could lay down its arms, surrender the leaders responsible for the slaughter, the torture, the rapes of october 7th. hamas could renounce its stated goal of eliminating israel, killing jews, and repeating the atrocities of october 7th again and again and again. meanwhile, everyone around the world who cares about protecting innocent civilians, innocent lives should be calling on hamas, indeed demanding hamas that it immediately stop its murderous acts of terror and deplorable use of innocent, men, women and children as human shields. in our meetings with israeli leaders here and in jerusalem

and palestinian leaders in ramallah, we discussed our continued focus from preventing the conflict from spreading whether to the west bank, to israel's northern border, or to the broader region. i raised our deep concerns about steps that could escalate tensions in the west bank including extremist settler violence and proposals from parts of the israeli coalition government to further expand settlements. i made clear our expectations about addressing these issues. we also focused on what we can, what we must do now to prepare for the day after the conflict, to create the conditions for a durable and lasting peace, building on the principles that i setout a few weeks ago during the g7 meeting in tokyo. breaking out of the cycle of violence, the cycle of conflict, ensuring israel's enduring security demands improving the live of palestinians in gaza in the west bank in immediate tangible ways and providing them

with a credible path toward their legitimate aspiration for statehood. in ongoing conversations with israeli, palestinian, and arab leaders, we'll discuss practical steps to make real a just and lasting peace and what each of us is prepared to do to help achieve it. we have no illusions this is going to be easy. we will surely have disagreements along the way. but if we're going to move forward on practical steps, towards lasting peace, lasting security, we have to be willing to work through these disagreements because the alternative, more terrorist attacks, more violence, more innocent suffering is unacceptable. that's why the united states is here, and we're leading toward this goal. with that, happy to take some questions. >> the first question goes to reuters. >> hello, mr. secretary.

you've just said the u.s. is urging israel to ensure the protection of civilians before starting its operations in southern gaza. i'm wondering you've talked about what you made clear to prime minister netanyahu and the war cabinet, but what concrete and specific assurances have you gotten from them, if any, based on what you heard from them today are you confident israel will follow the international rules of war in southern gaza when it resumes its military operations? my second question is you and others in the administration have repeatedly said that the united states wants to see a revitalized palestinian authority to rule gaza and the west bank, so could you tell us what exactly the u.s. vision is for a revitalized pa, and does it include a reshuffle in the leadership? thank you. >> thanks. so as i said, we made clear the

imperative that before any operations go forward in southern gaza, that there be a clear plan in place that puts a premium on protected civilians as well as 17ing and building on the humanitarian assistance it's getting into gaza. and the israeli government agreed with that approach. there are concrete steps that it's not appropriate for me to detail here tonight that we know and we heard can ensure to the best of anyone's ability that that happens. it's obviously challenging given the particular conditions israel has to deal with in getting to hamas and making sure, again, it can't represent the threat that it posed on october 7th. but, again, israel understands the imperative of protecting

suvellians, the imperative of humanitarian assistance and will continue to work to ensure that carries forward in practice. and, again, as i said to the prime minister, to the war cabinet, intent is obviously where you start. it's vitally important. and i'm very confident in that intent. but results, of course, where fundamentally what matters. with regard to the palestinian authority, we've said and indeed i had an opportunity to discuss today with president abas the need for reform, the need to revitalize, to revamp the palestinian authority so it can effectively meet the aspirations of the palestinian people and deliver for them. there are a number of things that go into that including, for example, reform so that it more

effectively combats corruption, that it engages and empowers civil society, that it supports free press and open media, and a number of other things. leadership choices, these are of course up to the palestinian people and palestinians themselves. but there are a number of things that we think would be critical to making sure that, again, the palestinian authority can be effective in helping to advance the aspirations and the needs of its -- of its people. >> for the next question -- >> secretary blinken, reportedly there are disagreements between you and the israeli government about the way forward regarding the timetable. is there a time limit from the u.s. point of view on the operation -- on the continuation of the operation in gaza.

and another question. there are about 140 hostages still left in gaza. many of them are reportedly severely injured, and yet the red cross hasn't yet visited them. can you clarify if this was indeed included in the agreement? and if it was, why isn't it being implemented, and why is israel pressured to continue to expand the humanitarian assistance to gaza while hamas has not let humanitarian access to our hostages? >> thank you. first part of the question. we support -- continue to support -- will continue to support israel's efforts to do everything possible to ensure that hamas cannot repeat the horrors of october 7th, and that means among other things that hamas cannot remain responsible for governance in gaza, and it cannot retain the capacity to repeat those attacks.

how israel does it those are decisions for israel to make. but as i said we also believe it's very important that in engaging in that effort the way it does matters -- makes a big difference. as we just discussed the imperative of putting a premium on protecting civilians and ensuring humanitarian sutassiste flows into gaza is something that is vital to us and something that the israeli government agrees with. on the hostages i'm not going to get into any of the negotiations or any agreements, but clearly it would be very beneficial and important for the red cross to have access to hostages to be able to check on their

well-being and condition. having said that, of course, none of that should be necessary because there shouldn't be any hostages in the first place. that horrific part of what hamas did on october 7th is something we are dealing with now every single day. the positive development is as i said we're now completing the seventh day where hostages have been returned today their families. and that's a very positive and powerful thing and something we want to see continue. and hamas should release everyone right now, but in the absence of doing that and as this process i hope continues, yes, it would be very good for the red cross to have access and to see them. the question of humanitarian assistance is something fully apart from hamas and the hostages because this is about innocent men, women, and children in gaza, not hamas who

desperately need the aid, to desperately need to the help. conditions in gaza are very, very, very difficult and severe. and the need for most basic things for food, for water, for medicine, for fuel to make sure people can have clean water, they can have sewage systems that work, that's absolutely essential and imperative. as i said earlier particularly as we head into winter we're already seeing the potential for disease outbreaks for example because of the lack of potable drinking water. this is an imperative. it's an imperative because it's the right thing to do. it's an imperative because it's the necessary thing to do. again, i come away convinced from my discussions with the israeli government that they fully not only understand that

but believe that and will act on it. >> vivian salaamo with "the wall street journal." >> thank you, mr. secretary. i know it's been a long day so apologies for the bundle of questions. hamas is believed to have released the last number of women and children that were in its captivity, so what assurances if any do you have that hamas might be open to releasing male hostages? and on the flip side of that is israel prepared to agree to the conditions setout by hamas on that? separately, president biden has signaled that the u.s. is prepared to issue visa bans on what he described as extremist israeli settlers? what is the status on that? and forgive me one last one on india. federal prosecutors on wednesday charged an indian national in a murder for hiring scheme targeting a sikh separatist and according to the indictment it was organized by the indian

officials. are you concerned that india is turning to tactics that violate international human rights to silence its critics around the world? >> thanks, vivian. so three, not bad. but, yes, nice and concise. so on the release of more hostages, look, i can't speak to hamas' views or its intentions. i can tell you that for the united states, for israel, for other countries who have their citizens being held captive by hamas, clearly we want to see this process continue to move forward. we want an eight day and beyond and all hostages returned today their families. that applies to all whatever category they may happy to be in.

but that's up to hamas. and again i can't speak to their intentions. i can say this process has clearly been beneficial, and the fact so many have now been reunited with their loved ones and families is something that we take joy in. but a lot of unfinished business, and we're determined to finish it when it comes to bringing the hostages home. with regard to extremist violence, all i can tell you is this. we're looking to the israeli government to take some additional steps to really put a stop to this. and at the same time we're considering our own steps. finally, with regard to india, first this is an ongoing legal matter, so you'll understand i can't comment on the detail. i can say this is something we

take very seriously. a number of us have raised -- >> all right, so i think clearly what we're hearing from secretary of state tony blinken here is a message for israel about how it is executing its war against hamas in gaza, indicating that indeed the expectation here is that israel is going to stop its pause in military action in gaza. he was saying there this is what he's he's communicated to israel, to the prime minister that intent matters. of course we know the civilian death toll is extremely high. >> i thought it was notable he said when he brought up the expectations of the united states to the prime minister and other israeli officials, he said israel agreed with u.s. insistence that when host tilts resume -- before hostilities resume, there has to be a plan in place to protect civilian

life. he was also asked a significant question about access to hostages by the red cross. something we've brought up multiple times to officials. we've not gotten a clear access as to whether the red cross being able to access some of the hostages being held in gaza was part of the deal. if so why that isn't happening and something hamas is blocking perhaps. the secretary of state did not get into detail. he didn't confirm whether or not that was part of the deal though he did say that would be a good development, and then another bit that the secretary of state shared with reporters that i thought was newsworthy was the fact he apparently brought his concerns about corruption within the palestinian authority directly to abas because there has to be reform. >> because he was asked what is the vision. but if as he's saying hamas cannot govern in gaza, they cannot have this capacity to attack israel, what happens after hamas is gone?

that's israel's goal, so what is the aftermath of that going to look like? key questions he was speaking to there. and we of course are looking at capitol hill now. >> a lot going on over there. a third attempt by lawmakers to expel congressman george santos of new york. the republican facing a slew of allegations of wrongdoing. he's up there defending himself right now. let's listen in. >> i want to point out in the resolution that the distinguished chairman from mississippi filed he states that i engaged in sexual misconduct when his own report states otherwise. that's just a clear evidence of how this process has been skewed, how this process is sloppy, and how it is contradictory to the core. the fact that in the report it states that that was not the case, but they still bring it to

the floor of house of representatives shows you the lack of respect for one's reputation. and with that i'd like to yield as much time as the gentleman from texas. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are in uncharted waters -- uncharted waters, folks. >> that was george santos lam basting the process he has gone through here as this expulsion resolution has been read, and now you have democrats and republicans in control of this time as they argue for and against his expulsion. we're going to watch this. we're going to talk more about it. obviously a lot of drama playing out there on the house floor. we'll be right back.

and we are following breaking news on capitol hill where right now lawmakers are

debating an expulsion resolution for congressman george santos of new york. this is ahead of a vote that is set for tomorrow on whether the new york republican should be kicked out of congress. let's listen in. >> i feel your passion. i understand your position, but you're about to go too far. just calm down and step back is what i advise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today. one of my -- one of my brothers here who i love and respect, these men seated here are making a mistake, mr. speaker. one of the gentleman said so, we should be held to a higher standard. talking about the removal of a member of congress, the american people to believe that the opinions of congressmen is a higher standard than the delivered vote of the american

people. is a report from a committee a higher standard than the two-year election cycle as established by our founding fathers and enshrined in our constitution? calm down. mr. speaker, i've spoken for seven years to this body here, standing here. and very rarely have i had a prepared statement nor do i today, but i'm going to read a letter that i distributed to my republican colleagues for the benefit of my democratic colleagues who did not receive a copied letter. perhaps i'm wrong whfor that. i considered sending you all this letter, and i apologize for that. the media has gotten it. it's out there. although i completely respect the work of our colleagues on the ethics committee, i have

serious concerns about the way this particular case is being handled, and i'll oppose the george santos expulsion. in the seven years i've been a member of congress, many members have been subject to campaign expenditure ethics investigations. to my recollection members have always had the opportunity to settle the matter by restitution even if they disagreed with the ethics committee conclusions. further, in many prior instances of allegations of misconduct, i recall no massive media release from the ethics committee. after a bit of a whispered brush fire, the matter just went away. maybe the member left congress, maybe the member didn't leave congress, but they weren't publicly crucified and expelled. the very fact that we have all read the quote-unquote investigative report, indicates a level of public character assassination that i have not witnessed through four terms of

congressional service. it's troubling to me that a republican-led ethics committee would present itself as so judgmental. previous ethics committees investigations have always been conducted quietly, reflective of our constitutional standards of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. reports of similar allegations of campaign finance violations like family vacations overseas and cosmetic dental procedures and sexual adventures of every sort have not historically been released today the public. this particular ethics committee investigation seems to be quite public, and i'm not seeing any allowance for the member to make restitution of alleged campaign finance violations. full media disclosure combined with intention to move straight to expulsion appears weaponized to me. colleagues, you can believe what

you like but the 56-page investigative subcommittee report is most certainly not written within the parameters normally found in an unbiased, impartial investigative report. it's filled with conjecture, opinion, and per jorative language that no professional investigative report should include, no experience cause offer would present to a d.a. and no impartial d.a. would ever present to a court as unbiased. you may accept this report as grounds for expulsion from congress, but i say, no, it's not right. the totality of circumstance appears biased. it stinks of politics, and i'll oppose this action in every way. perhaps my colleague should step back from expulsion, look in the mirror, reflect upon the long established historical record of congressional behavior, consider the founder's intent and let,

we, the people of new york determine their representative. this report is posing as an objective presentation of fact, yet it is most certainly written with notable disregard for professional objectivity and wrapped in a media incensed public disclosure that any congressional man can see is a public crucifixion. i'm stunned members would cheer for this expulsion. ites like witnessing an otherwise fair and compassionate village gather to elcelebrate the burning of an alleged witch. since the civil war only two members of congress have been expelled, and both have been convicted in court of federal crimes. that's the standard. and the house of representatives should not deviate from that standard. i'm a solid no on expulsion, and i encourage every member to

carefully consider what kind of precedent we're setting here. mr. speaker, i appreciate this opportunity to encourage my colleagues sincerely on both sides of the aisle to step back from this expulsion. i yield. >> gentleman from new york, mr. esposito. >> thank you. and as i fully respect my friend from louisiana and have much love for him, i want to reassure no one is cheering for this ethics report. and with that i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my friend from new york and fellow long islander mr. lolota. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i'd like to present three issues on both sides of the aisle who are either against or

for expelling george santos. regarding fraud, mr. speaker, both federal and state laws would require jail time or a monetary fine or both for any of our constituents who tricked another person into an agreement to another american's disadvantage. here in the 2022 election by his own admission george santos induced new york voters and donors throughout the nation to support him by fraudulently creating an entire new person that donors and voters would support. santos did this intentionally, figuring the uneducated, underemployed, and person of simple means he actually is could not earn the support of voters and donors. the facts of george santos' fraud are not in dispute. george santos is not the person he offered to voters. he didn't work where he said he did. he didn't go to school where he said he did. he's far from rich, he isn't jewish, and his mother wasn't in

the south tower on 9/11. >> it's the debate on the house floor over the expulsion of congressman george santos. some really heated back and forth. questions about that house ethics committee report. surprisingly some congressmen on the republican side, again, republicans are in control of the committee that put this report together saying that it's bogus, that it stink of politics. really surprising to see some of this. >> i don't know that all of them are standing exactly by him as much as disagreeing with the process, which may be a really important thing to note. but you just heard it there as well, a democratic congressman laying out some of these egregious lies that had been told by george santos. >> yeah, we've got to sneak in a quick break. we'll keep an eye on this and bring you the latest from capitol hill.

all right, congressman matt gaetz speaking in opposition to the expulsion resolution against george santos. let's listen. >> pled guilty to a number of those crimes and continued to serve in congress. he was in congress for like an additional pay period after having pled guilty to the very same things that were -- that mr. santos has been indicted for. and so i think it's persuasive to me that mr. higgins and mr. nels, two law enforcement officials with sterling reputations, are here not necessarily to defend mr. santos

but to defend this precedent and this due process that is being shattered. and i was struck when the author of this resolution said the quiet part out loud. he didn't try to shoe horn the expulsion of george santos into some existing construct or precedent. he said, yep, we're making a whole new precedent. we're making whole new rules right now, but he defends that by saying that the new rules better, that it's a higher standard so we should just throw away everything that's happened from the first congress to the 118th because the new precedent is more robust. the problem it's a lower standard for due process without merit. mr. speaker, whatever mr. santos did with botox or onlyfans is far less concerning to me than the indictment against senator menendez who's holding gold bars inscribed with arabic on them

from egypt while he's still getting classified briefings today. but he's not getting thrown out of the senate. he's getting classified briefings indictment for bribery. because santos was buying botox and onlyfans we've got to throw him out? if george santos is convicted, he ought to be expelled. but until then, it is an incredibly dangerous thing for people in washington, d.c. to substitute their judgment for the judgment of voters. winston churchill said that in a democracy people get the government that they deserve. well, people of mr. santos' district elected him. this is not some district in rural mississippi with like one newspaper. this is new york city, and george santos rolls in there, wins, and you know what, it's between him and his voters, him and the justice system. and the fact that the ethics

committee has done this incredible violation of precedent will do grave damage to this unsitution for many years to come because now there's no requirement of any conviction. there's a departure from the precedent of the duncan hunter matter and many others. and i fear what that indicates for the future of due process and the democratic process. i yield back. >> gentleman reserves. >> i yield one minute to mr. garcia. >> gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, truth and justice are crucial components of a healthy and strong democracy. as a member of congress i take the oath very seriously. i love this country deeply. we should all have intentions to defend it. that's why i rise today to defend the house and support the expulsion of representative santos. i wish no personal harm to the representative from new york and i imagine it's a difficult moment for him and the

institution. i believe the actions must be accountable for him as well as his lies. he fabricated his background, lied to the fec and employment fraud. that's why he's under a serious indictment. the bipartisan report is out. it's damning. people want better from congress. they want good and ethical government and to deserve the truth. i once again ask the representative from new york to resign and save themselves and this country from this vote. and if not i encourage a yes vote to restore integrity to the body and expel representative santos. i yield back. >> gentleman from california yields, gentleman reserves. >> gentleman from new york recognizes mr. santos. >> you know, i hear a lot the lying. i encourage representative santos to resign, do the right thing which is to resign. what i hear is people don't want

to take this vote. i'm just here. i'm willing to take the vote. take the vote, guys. i'm okay with that. this is your time. this is what they've all built-up to all year. the most damning feature of this farce is the total per version of this priority and this conference who ran on the commitment to america, yes, witch hunting george santos is great right there, i remember that on the top line on the commitment to america. this conference has failed to pass four different appropriations bills, mr. speaker. it had rules fail on the floor. we had members weaponizing the rules committee because it didn't do what they wanted. our borders are wide open. it's no-man's-land being run by

ngos. and yet this congress has now taken three measures, and the insurmountable amount of time that goes behind them to expel a member duly elected by the people of the third district of new york. you see, i didn't think that my tenure in congress would be this way, mr. speaker. i came here to do work. i came here to pass and work on conservative legislation. i have a stellar conservative record that i am proud of. the work i've done in this body i am proud of. the votes i've taken in this body i am proud of. every vote that i have taken that might have been against leadership, i standby those votes not because i disrespect leadership but because i want a more conservative agenda for our country. now, i can't say the same thing about some of my colleagues especially the ones most adamant to remove me. almost as if we remove him,

there's no comparison. it's that much simpler. they can go home and say they're conservative. they won't know what a real conservative will look like on long island. that's just the reality. the votes are there. now, let's talk about the fact of due process that everybody seems to say that i have taken and i have received. you know, it's no secret in this body that obviously i have an ongoing process with the doj. i was given a deadline, an unrealistic deadline to testify before the committee the same day that i had to go to court, and they gave us a hard liner yes or no answer. they wouldn't settle for anything else. that was the deadline. i could not surpass that date. which means it was either i go to new york city to adhere to my doj case, or i go to the ethics committee.

no disrespect to the committee, i've incurred over $200,000 in legal fees that have been predominantly paid for. so to suggest that i have not complied with them is yet another lie. they have received every document they've asked, and documents we did not have, we have told them we don't have them. we don't have access to what you're asking for. and they've persisted and insisted in inventing documents, communication between myself and people that did not exist, that communication we informed them. and i rise and question again to the chairman will he set the record straight that his expulsion resolution contradicts the findings of his report? which one is it? am i guilty of a sexual

harassment claim or am i not? the report says i'm not. his filing on this expulsion resolution says i am. that is a very serious allegation. one that i sought to see the end of. where the house -- the congressional -- the office of congressional ethics, pardon me, sent a referral to the investigative subcommittee saying that they did not suggest further investigation into the matter because it lacked credibility. yet it sits on their expulsion resolution. i call that hypocrisy, more lying, more swamp behavior from this body, the same reason that americans have no trust in this body because, unfortunately, far too often too many of our colleagues here will speak from both sides of their mouth

without regard to who it might hurt. as it has said people in this town will hurt people a whole lot so they can benefit just a little bit. with that, i reserve. >> all right, george santos, this is the question. is three times a charm when it comes to trying to expel a member of congress who has cat fished voters and they're trying to expel for misusing campaign funds? or is being a reliable republican vote going to save him? this is the debate that is before us now. we will pick this back up after a quick break.

let's pick up where we left off with george santos defending himself potentially facing expulsion. here's the congressman from new york. >> tiff done the best i can to serve in this body and to deliver the best i can in my campaign promises to vote as a conservative vote this body. i standby that. with that, i would like to yield as much time as my colleague may consume, the gentleman from louisiana. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what i ask of my colleagues, again, very respectfully on both sides of the aisle, is to just step back from this moment and reflect upon the sacred right of

the american people to determine their representation in our representative republic. this is not a right that has beenment imnumerated for this congress. the american people run this thing. i believe the people of the third district of new york are quite capable of removing representative santos if they choose to do so. in the history of our nation, we have never done what we're poised to do. since the civil war, two members of congress have been removed by expulsion, both having been convicted of federal crimes.

the people of these united states own the sacred right to remove their representative. this is reflective of our oath ladies and gentlemen. and i say this sincerely. my beloved colleagues, step back from this agegregious act that u have threatened. reflect upon the american people that we serve, the oath that we have sworn, and allow the people of new york to cast their vote as they see fit. mr. speaker, i am prayerful.

>> a little bit of deja vu. we're hearing the kmang at the podium defending george santos facing potential vote of expulsion. he's really just repeating himself at this point, filling the 30 minutes that they have for debate. >> that's right. he was allotted 30 minutes. he has to fill that. the other side voting for the expulsion resolution will also fill that. so raising questions of does had he not have anyone else that he can go to besides that handful of people who have spoken for him. >> any time you're in a situation like this and you have to go to someone like matt gates to be your character witness, you're not in a good situation. this is so stark in the differences of what we're hearing. we have people that support santos frustrated with the process and the precedent, not addressing the issues here. the congressman from new york who brought forth this expulsion request, he hit the nail on the head.

he said, you have 23 indictments in a court. you can see your day in court, but what we found as members of the ethics committee is indisputable. you no longer should serve in this body. that's what they are making their decision on. what is the purpose of having an ethics committee if you're not going to expose this kind of behavior and show there are consequences for these actions. >> one thing the congressman did not do is not appear before the ethics committee. he declined their request to respond to any of this. now he's taken to the house floor with just a couple people behind him there. there are 435 members of the house. he will get a lot of votes, but this is different than actually speaking out loud for him he could have responded on the ethics committee. he declined to. i'm not sure there's much precedent for this. history would show that the only members who have been expelled have been convicted. but all he's done, the mother of the 9/11 burning building, the on and on, history does not provide a guide for this at this

moment in modern history of social media, how he deceived all his constituents. >> one of the points that gaetz made is why is the members of congress, why is their judgment any better than the voters? the voters didn't know all this. he has misused campaign funds since then. >> such a good point. the lead with jake tapper is going to start after a very quick break. picking up, as we continue to follow this, the discussion, the debate here over the expulsion resolution around george santos.