those of the goal the united states is pursuing and will continue to despite these accusations by the icc prosecutor. >> that's it, nothing else? >> that's it. >> let's start with that since you started with that.

you said the actions, the announcement on television and cancellation of the flights of the staff: to question the legitimacy and credibility of the investigation. do they call those into the question for the entire court? >> we are just referring to the actions the prosecutor has taken. we will see what the next step is. it calls into question the investigation he has conducted and the action he has taken when you see him short-circuit a process that was underway to gather facts which is what you expect any investigator to do when they are considering pursuing such a case. >> are you going to do anything about this? are you going to wait until the judges peter approve or deny the application? >> i don't have any announcement to make and we reject this action by the prosecutor and are

reviewing his initial statement and i am nothing further to announce. >> i will let seminole to go. >> you said this could jeopardize efforts for a cease-fire. why would it jeopardize efforts? >> i don't think there is any doubt that this will embolden hamas. they been the principal obstacles to achieving the cease-fire agreement. >> a couple of weeks ago, they agreed to the conditions for a cease-fire. >> that's not accurate. >> let me ask you one more question. let me ask you about rough up. according to the u.n., we have 900,000 people near rough out.

he said israel has a plan but they have 1.3 million people there. obviously, this assault is at the center of rafah. there are 9000 people which is almost one million people who have already fled. what will they actually do about this? >> i thought you had a question there. we made clear we oppose the major military operation in rafah. we don't think that would be productive to israel security either in the short or the long-term. we think it would have a dramatic impact on the lives of people there and the ability to get them humanitarians assistance. we have not seen israel launch a major operation which we are watching closely but we are in close communication with them.

we have great concerns about the ability to care for all of the people who have been evacuated and have chosen to leave themselves even if they are not in the areas where israel has ordered people to leave. we have great concerns about the ability to get them food, water and we are working with the humanitarian community, or international partners on that question. we are also engaged in conversations with the government of israel about this. the national security advisor to the president was in israel this week meeting with the israeli government. i will leave it to the white house to speak to that. it is our goal to try to prevent a major operation that would have such a deleterious humanitarian impact. >> a final one, on the crossing at rafah, we have not seen anyone go through for a while now. you said your getting paid to

those who have been forced to leave. how are you getting that there? >> profit is not open it's been going in through the side. the eight has been in the form of commercial trucks, not humanitarian assistive but it still food and water going into gaza and getting to people. just open the maritime route which will allow the increase in assistance news and eight going to the north. we want to see rough open as well we have been engaged in discussions with our israeli counterparts and our egyptian counterparts about how to effectuate that and it remains a top priority for us. >> is it likely to happen in the next day or so? >> i never make predictions here. >> i was stunned by your original answers. are you ok with the obligation for arrest warrants against hamas? >> we don't believe they have

jurisdiction over either of the parties in this conversation. >> do you think they should be prosecuted? >> we think hamas should be held accountable. that could be either to the prosecution of the war effort by israel -- hold on, it could be by being killed or it could be by being brought to justice in an israeli court. we do not believe the icc has jurisdiction in either party in this case because the palestinian people do not represent a state. >> obviously, the administration is troubled by actions that israel has taken post october 7. where is the accountability for that? i question asked a long time ago is where to the palestinians go to seek redress? >> let me answer this a couple of different ways. in the short term with respect to questions war crimes committed israel has an open investigation, number of open investigations.

we made this public when we released our report a national security memo 20 including investigations that have become criminal investigations into conduct when members of the idf. that's the first criteria for judging whether someone has committed a war crime or violation of idf code of conduct. that's one of the reasons why we have concerns about the icc. it's set up to be a court of last resort and if that country is not holding its personnel accountable, that's when the icc comes in, not in the middle of the process as they have done here. that's it. we've spoken a lot about this and we believe there should be an establishment of an independent palestinian state. it would have the ability to join the statute and become a member of the international criminal court like every state in the world has the right to do. >> so where did they go? >> israel had its own

investigation and second, we have accountability mechanisms here. we have processes that are ongoing to look at israel compliance with international humanitarian loss of there are places to look at these questions. in our view, fundamentally not a roll of the icc. remember, we have a jurisdictional complaint here. we don't believe the icc has jurisdiction. if you look at the statement the secretary made that i echoed in my opening remarks, that's not our only problem with the prosecutors the action is taken. he has short-circuited an investigation and brought this action without waiting to see where these israeli investigations and up without completing the trip he had planned to come to israel to look into these questions. it's not just a question of jurisdiction but at the way the investigation is covered. >> who does have jurisdiction here? >> the governor of israel has jurisdiction. >> over gaza.

>> looking at the actions by the military. >> they have to bring it to israeli -- >> we have jurisdiction with the use of our equipment. >> how do you have jurisdiction? that's not jurisdiction in the criminal process. >> it has to do with the determinations we make and the policies. long-term, >> what about the doj? it does not have jurisdiction here. >> i'm referring to criminal jurisdiction. we agree the palestinian people should have the ability to make these determinations but that's not where we are today. >> [indiscernible] >> you push back on the jurisdiction in the process. is the united states able to challenge the substance of the

arrest warrant evidence should israel has deprived civilians that are essential to human survival including food, water, medicine and energy. >> i will not speak to all the details of the prosecutor's arrest warrant because there will be a process for getting into that. people will be able to challenge that but we have spoken to the provision of humanitarian assistance recently when we issued the report. we have laid out where we've seen israel not taking all the steps we thought they ought to take we saw an improvement and a turnaround and an increase in the ability to get humanitarian assistance and. >> i don't understand why you are addressing this now. >> i'm no longer in court going point by point. >> the u.s. called it meritless. right now, can you call the

warrant applications meritless? >> we believe it is fully unfounded and should not have been brought. with respect to the underlying allegations, what is the time to look at that? we will have the time to look at it and digested and perhaps issue a more complete response. we shouldn't be where we are today because they were process is ongoing to look at some of these questions that we think should have been allowed to play out. when you look the fact that the prosecutor was scheduled to go to israel and staff was scheduled to go there today, we are puzzled to understand why he would yank those trips and go on television to make an announcement, something that is very strange. it's not usually how prosecutors announce -- >> i pointed this out. >> you pointed out i used to work at the doj. the strength thing for

prosecutor to make an arrest announcement on television so we look at the circumstances and have concerns about it. sorry to put words in your mouth. >> are you saying eric holder never did a tv interview? >> not to announce an arrest warrant before we issued an actual charging document. >> you are angry at the process he used. >> the process calls into substance the underlying process. >> you talked about the fact that israel has open investigations. what kind of timeline does this provide you with concluding those investigations? >> we've made clear to israel that those investigations should proceed expeditiously and reach conclusions as soon as possible. i will not speak to the internal discussions or speak for the israeli government but it is very difficult to put a timeline and any kind of investigation

certainly on a criminal investigation and i wouldn't want to do that on behalf of a foreign government. we want this to finish as soon as but not at the expense of thoroughness. you want to be quick but you want to be thorough and that's more important. >> i understand you challenge the jurisdiction but i suspect you also recognize what's happening there. the fact that the prosecutor has applied for an arrest warrant and talking about crimes against humanity. does that give the state department a pause or second thoughts about the conclusions of the nsm report? if you raise certain concerns there but you found israel has a credibility problem. >> if we sought new evidence, we

would always look at that in be willing, we are willing to look at our assessments if they are changed by new evidence that comes in the door but we had conducted a thorough review in writing that report and there's nothing we saw in the charges announced today that changes are fundamental conclusions. >> you are saying you have nothing to announce today in terms of action the u.s. might take. can you help us understand of the administration considering taking action against the icc? >> you should not read into my statement about that that we are considering anything or not considering anything. it's to reflect the fact that this is an announcement that was just made this morning. we are reviewing the documents the prosecutor put forth and i don't have any announcements to make about what our next steps might be. >> is there any way the u.s. can stand in the way of these arrest warrants coming to fruition logistically? >> that's a question that's

beyond my remit. i'm happy to look at that question and get back to but that's a legal question for the icc. >> you said the u.s. still supports the icc as a legitimate body. does this undermine the icc as a whole? how do we think about those two things? they are still supporting the icc investigation in ukraine yet here you are saying you don't have jurisdiction. how does that not make an impact of your view of the icc? >> the icc has done important work over the years to hold people accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. we have supported that work. that is not changed by the announcement today. we have great concerns about the prosecutor and the steps he took. it's not just because of the jurisdictional question. it will be one thing if we're looking at a jurisdictional

dispute where the president are believed he had legitimate jurisdiction we believe he fundamentally did not. that is a legal question. lawyers can argue that as they often do. we look at the way the investigation itself has been conducted and that gives us added concerns about the actions he took. >> you mentioned these are fully unfounded. did you mean the whole process? >> the entire process. i will not do a factual point by point on each of the charges but the process itself, the equation of israel with hamas, brutal terrorist group with a democracy that for all its faults does have its own existing accountability mechanism underway. we find that process and the

outcome that is generated deeply flawed. >> i'm coming to the conclusion that you are looking at pretty similar materials and assessments of the actions of the u.s. and israel? there looking at open source evidence, can you say whether you are confident to get to this conclusion? >> i don't have any confidence in the conclusion they are getting to. i don't know where they got their information. this goes to the point in my opening statement about calling off a visit to israel where they could have interacted with the israeli government. they are not on the ground in gaza to collect information first hand. with -- whether they have collected inflation otherwise, i presume we would see that is the case -- as the case goes forward. >> a lot of the information is open source.

do they have to go to israel? do they have to figure out the public comments? >> whenever you are conducting a case, it's not just a question of public comments. if you were going to bring a case of this nature, you might want to go to the israeli government and say we have concerns about the following things, why don't you brief us on your ongoing investigation? i know they have not conducted a full, complete process to that regard. there was a trip scheduled to go to these questions. whether they conducted a limited review, i know the israeli government has not spoken to that. it was prepared to cooperate in much more extensive detail and that process was ended. >> let's turn it around, what about hamas? >> i don't think hamas will cooperate with investigation if that's your question. >> so they don't need to go to

gaza. and they don't need to go todoha but they do need to go to israel? >> we don't get to the question because there is a jurisdictional issue. we don't believe they have jurisdictions over the leaders of hamas. we have more than one concern. >> i get that. >> but if they don't have jurisdiction, why are you saying they should have gone to israel. israel is not a member of the court. why should they go to israel? >> as we said in the statement, despite israel not being a member of the court, they were willing to cooperate. with respect to hamas, you can conclude looking at what happened on october 7 that hamas intended to kill civilians. that is without doubt. absence the jurisdictional

question, it would absently be a war crime and a crime against humanity. you cannot say the same about the state of israel. >> it's a problem for you guys for the icc to go after israeli officials. it doesn't seem to be a problem for them to go after hamas. >> we don't think they have jurisdiction to go after hamas. >> should hamas be held accountable? >> i answer that question a little while ago. it's not up battlefield in a court of law. >> you said the fact that they were combined together, they were separate, would that be acceptable? >> it doesn't change the jurisdictional judgment. it would be the opposite. we have a jurisdictional objection. >> with israel by itself, you

can say these take -- they take these actions against hamas but not israel? >> i thought i was clear, we do not believe they have jurisdiction to either of the parties in this conflict. go ahead. >> you said israel has an investigation. are you satisfied with the way israel conducts the investigation? >> i'm not ready to offer an assessment on that because the investigations are ongoing. it's important to wait for their conclusions. if there are investigations that conclude that we don't think have been conducted appropriately and we don't think there has been justice when there should be we have the ability to make that assessment ourselves, we will stand up and say it but the investigations are ongoing now we can offer that kind of conclusion at this point. >> will there be consequences if you find out such things? >> that's a hypothetical. we haven't gone to the port -- point of that sort of finding

yet so i will not engage with that. >> the icc accuses netanyahu of causing extermination of civilians as a method of war. do you think those things are not happening in gaza? >> we down, we made clear that there have been steps we wanted israel to take to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance that for a time they weren't taking. they will often come up and present objections and say they are trying to prevent military items from getting in or dubious items that can be used for the military to get in. they will say they have restricted movements in certain areas where the military is operating. whatever the case may be, there been a number of times we made clear that their actions weren't good enough and we need to see improvement. you for the president and the secretary say that and you seen the president and secretary get involved to bring about a change in behavior on behalf of the

israeli government and we seen that change. the fundamental bottom-line reality is that we have seen food get in, water get in, medicine get in but not enough. it has improved. >> are you saying there is a good amount of eight getting into gaza? >> we have seen improvement but until people in gaza are not hungry and have enough to eat and drink, medicine, shelter, we will not be satisfied and we will start pushing for more. go ahead and we will come back to you. >> in addition to everybody else, you said that israel is not a member of the icc which is true. i don't know if you are aware but israel has supported the candidacy when he was elected in 2021. he wanted him to be there.

the fact that they endorsed him, they know there is some consequences. >> it doesn't change the underlying jurisdictional question. >> no one agreed with you. they said at the same statement for the i have -- from the white house. >> it's the assessment we've made her the conclusion we drawn. >> many international lawyers have different backgrounds. israel has committed crime against humanity and war crimes. the state department lawyers, have they come to a conclusion or not reached a conclusion or do you agree with them?

what about the international lawyers who found different conclusions? >> let me separate the icc. when it comes to the icc, we have a jurisdictional issue we have an issue with how this investigation was conducted. to answer your underlying question about making this determination is a question we are looking at here with ongoing -- ongoing processes to look at u.s. provided weapons and those prophecies are ongoing and we haven't reached a final determination. go ahead. >> did you send official condolences from the u.s. for the death of the president of iran? they also participated at the u.n. council for a of silence. is that viewed as appropriate? >> we have been quite clear that the president was a brutal participant in the repression of

the iranian people for nearly four decades. he was involved in numerous, horrific human rights abuses including playing a key role in the extrajudicial killing of thousands of political prisoners in 1988. some of the worst human rights abuses occurred during his tenure as president, essentially human rights abuses against women and girls. we regret any loss of life. we don't want to see anyone die in a helicopter crash. that doesn't change the reality of his record as a judge and as the president of iran, the fact that he has blood on his hands. most importantly, her fundamental approach to iran has not changed and will not change. we will continue to support the people of iran and defend their human rights, their aspirations to an open free society and democratic participation we will continue to confront the iranian regime support for terrorism and

pluripotent of dangerous weapons in the advancement of nuclear programs in ways that have no credible outcomes. >> did the u.s. help in recovery efforts in any way after the crash? >> we were asked for assistance by the iranian government we indicated we would offer assistance as we would do in response to a request by a foreign government in this sort of situation but ultimately week, we are not able to provide that assistance. i'm not going to get into the details but we were asked by the iranian government for assistance and we said we would be willing with respect to any government in the situation but ultimately, for logistical reasons, we could not provide that. >> what exactly is official condolences? >> on behalf of the united states government. >> why doesn't it say that? official condolences means absolute nothing and i'm not sure where -- why you are

offering condolences if this guy was as bad as you say he was. >> because we regret any loss of life. it doesn't change our view of him. >> there is not work on -- there's not one person the united states didn't want to see in an accident? >> there were people on board that aircraft, families, it's a step the united states has taken with any number of foreign leaders with whom we had vehement disagreements and have died. we also made clear in that that we continue to support the iranian people and their fundamental struggle for freedom. >> i would point out to you that when one of the former presence of cuba died, fidel castro, one of your predecessors did not offer any condolences. they basically said good riddance. if you really think that this

president was as bad as what you have laid out in the beginning, i'm curious as to why you would put a statement out the matter how short it is. what's the line of fit official condolences? >> is longer we're addressing the historical record, the u.s. offer condolences for people we had great disagreements with. altar world war ii -- >> he did not die during world war ii. the disagreements were quite articulate it by the u.s. government. it's a step the united states takes to recognize people have families and in no way at all undermining our fundamental view of the iranian regime and its crimes against its own people and our support for the iranian people. >> go ahead. >> he did make it clear his point is on the word official

and you mention condolences. you did not use the word official. i'm sure you've seen that the people inside of iran, some of them are celebrating this incident. i was wondering what you make of that. >> i can certainly understand why people inside iran would feel that way when you look at the brutal repression that happened under his tenure. especially when you look at his abuse of women and girls, i can see why people in iran would feel that way in response to his death. i obviously can't speak for them. >> with the condolences, are to sending contradictory messages? >> absently not. if you listen to the statement i made, we been quite clear about how we view his tenure.

i don't think there's any country in the world that has been more clear eyed about the iranian regime and more clear right about this president repression of the iranian people than the united states of america. we have made that quite clear. we have been quite clear that has not just been with the words you have heard from the seniormost leaders in our government but the actions we have taken including imposing more than 500 sanctions on the iranian government for their destabilizing actions in the region and the repression of their own people. >> what is your official message to those iranians were killed and murdered and attacked? >> the official message is that we stand with them as we have stood by them and our policy of holding the iranian regime for those abuses has not changed and will not change. >> what about the origin of the crash?

>> i have seen the statements made on iranian state television that it was the result of a technical failure but i don't have the independent assessment. i wouldn't want to offer any assessments about what the impact might be. go ahead. >> i know you are quite clear but it's still very difficult for me to understand or report on the statement you just put out. you issued condolences. everything you're talking about is about supporting iranian people, human rights -- >> that's the statement we issued. >> and then there was another statement following yours of why there was a second statement and why you felt you had to do more explanation. >> i think you were referring to this being within a half an hour. >> how can i report on your

official condolences. you are talking about supporting iranian people. how can we tell the iranian people exactly how this was being talked about. they were happy on social media so how will we report on this? you don't have any diplomatic ties with the iranians? >> first of all, i would never presume to tell anyone how to report anything. i would say that you can look at not just the statements i made today but the repeated statements over nearly 3.5 years by the president of the united states and the secretary of state and other members of the administration about our views of the iranian regime and our actions to hold them accountable and our support for the iranian people in their struggle against the brutal regime. those have not changed and will not change. >> does it have to do with direct talks with them? >> i will not speak to any talks real or imagined.

i would not draw any such conclusions. >> how do you feel about the acting foreign minister. how do you feel about him? >> i just don't have any, to offer today. maybe in the coming days. >> i wanted to follow-up on the condolences question. it seems like you are taking an approach to this. >> what approach? >> it's for whom the bell tolls. >> had i heard the reference, i would have caught it. >> perhaps you should shorten the sentence. >> well done, i will do my best. a lot to get through appear. maybe if i questions were an interrupted so often. an attempt to get it all out.

go ahead, sorry. >> it's john don, not hemingway. they say these condolences are a slap in the face to iranian women and assault in the wound of the people who have been suppressed in iran. who is the target audience for this statement? what effect are you hoping it will have? i can't believe you expect that theraisi family will take comfort in the u.s. statement. we didn't hear this kind of statement when prigozhin died in a plane crash. >> he was not a head of state. >> what you trying to accomplish here? >> it is the type of statement the united states government

typically makes in the situations including with some quite objectionable people as we have done throughout our history. it doesn't change our view of him or our view of the regime or the policy we will carry out with respect to them. >> you didn't acknowledge about a reelection. now you are expressing official different views? >> i'm not trying to jam you up here but what are you trying to accomplish by doing this gesture? is this supposed to have some humanitarian effect on the families of the people who died, diplomatic thing you hope will be reciprocated? >> it's the appropriate step we think for the united states government to take in this instance while being very clear about what our policy is and our view of the iranian regime is. >> on this help you said iran has sought from the u.s. --

this was to confirm that this was in the aftermath of the crash and they needed help with the rescue efforts. >> they did ask for assistance. i will not get into what the details of that assistance were. i'm just not going to get into the details. ultimately, we weren't able to offer that help. >> was it through the usual channels? >> i will not get into the channels. i'm just not good to -- i'm just not going to get into this conversation. >> the celebrations in iran from the opposition groups, there have been reports of supporters of the regime threatening to celebrate and saying there would be consequences if they came forward and does the united states have any opinion on that? >> one of the points we made in the statement was iran will be

selecting a new president. as they go through that process, we will be supporting the iranian people's ability to express their fundamental freedom. we've seen the freedoms crackdown on again and again. it's their freedom of speech, and other fundamental freedoms. i'm not surprised you are seeing initial reaction in that light. we will look at this the same way we have looked at past instances of crackdowns by the regime or allies of the regime today raining people, exercising their fundamental rights and if there are steps appropriate to take to hold people accountable, we women hesitate to do so. >> any concern this could affect regional stability in a region that hanging on the knife's edge? >> i will not offer anything on something that just happened 24 hours ago. in this region, we are always about anything that could cause instability. you seen the secretary and other members of the administration engaged since october 7 to keep

this conflict from escalating further and spiraling out of control and it will continue to be our overriding policy goal, not just connected to the steps but for its own sake. anymore on this? go ahead. >> do you have any reaction or questions on the former iranian foreign minister? mr. miller: first of all, we are not going to apologize for our sanctions regime at all. the iranian government has used its aircraft to transport equipment to support terrorism, so we will continue to fully enforce our sanctions regime, including our sanctions regime for aircraft for use by the iranian government. ultimately, it is the iranian government responsible for the decision to fly a 45-year-old helicopter in poor weather

conditions, not any other actor. >> do you confirm indirect talks? mr. miller: i will not speak to those at all. we have the ability to send iran messages when it is our interest to do so but i will not comment on those in any way. >> thank you. ballistic missiles into the east coast last weekend. this was done right after putin announced they will use north korea as a summit. do you assess north korea, china, and russia with their solidarity? mr. miller: to respect to the missile launch, the pentagon put out a statement to that and i would refer to you for that. when it comes to the cooperation between russia and north korea,

we have made clear it should be of great concern to anyone who's interested in maintaining peace and the ability on the korean peninsula. that should include the prc. that is what the secretary made clear. that is something that should concern china as well, and china should use its influence to push back on that increasing cooperation between the two regimes. it is not a decision they have made to do. >> the un security council is weakening, so how can we sanction north korea's continued violations? mr. miller: we have been concerned that the security council has not spoken with one voice since 2017 with the dprk's repeated violations of the sanctions. it has increased its ballistic missiles.

we urge beijing and moscow to use their influence to encourage dprk to reclaim from that -- refrain from that behavior and return to the negotiating table. ryan? >> now the question of jurisdiction. you said because the palestinians are not a state actor, they don't have jurisdiction. jen psaki in 2016 said the icc convicted the commander of the militia for his responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. it represented a significant step towards delivering justice for victims in the drc. she went on to say that the u.s. reiterates its calls for the apprehension of another leader of an abusive rebel militia, who are subject to an arrest warrant by the icc. the state department offers $5

million. it was the position of the administration that you could put out an award for somebody that can go to the icc. so, why does that not apply to the current -- mr. miller: we have supported the work of the icc in previous cases. i cannot speak to this case because i don't know the fundamentals to it. ultimately, the main ways the icc has jurisdiction, if one of the two state parties to the case is a signatory to the wrong statute, it comes in the icc's jurisdiction. that is not the case here. you have israel which is not a signatory to the icc> . the palestinians do not represent a state at this time so they cannot sign their own statute and come under the icc jurisdiction. >> quick follow-up to what sayeed asked about about whether or not the u.s. approved a deal from hamas.

director burns was involved in that. are you saying that was not the case? mr. miller: i will not speak to any of the recordings because there has been reportings all over the map. some of it right, some of it partially right, some completely wrong. the reporting that hamas accepted a proposal was not accurate. they sent back a response that excepted some of them but offered amendments. some of those amendments are significant in nature. they said they accepted the proposal. that is not what actually happened. >> it is not just the drc you guys have supported investigations into or offered awards. uganda. there was a big push made for awards offered for that. i'm glad that you said it is not just the drc. when you said that the icc in

this case, at least with israel, did not go to israel, they also did not go to gaza or doha, correct? mr. miller: they will have to speak to that. i know they didn't go to gaza. >> another icc case, an actual arrest warrant that was issued, not just applied for, but was issued in terms of russia, ukraine. did the icc prosecutor's go to russia to interview the people who are ultimately given, subjected to these arrest warrants? mr. miller: the difference between russia and israel is israel is a democracy with accountability mechanisms, and investigations are underway. that is not the case in russia. we are not aware of any russian investigation into war crimes. >> the similarities between the two is that neither of them are parties to the statute, neither

are members. mr. miller: ukraine is and that is why they have jurisdiction in that matter. one of the parties in the conflict is a member. >> in other words, it is ok if they go to one side, but not the other? mr. miller: that is how jurisdiction is fundamentally a pplied to the statute. >> if you are not a signatory to a conflict, then apparently it's ok if the prosecution does not go to that country. in this case, russia. then, this current, israel which is not a signatory -- you don't have a problem that they didn't go to russia -- mr. miller: there a fundamental difference. israel said they would cooperate with the investigation. russia did not. israel said they would cooperate with the investigation, talk to them about the charges they were

preparing to bring. the icc short-circuited that cooperation. russia was never going to cooperate. >> for the last month, officials said how horrible it would be if the icc came forward with these arrest warrants, to the point where the people in this government said what are they so concerned about? nothing is happening. now it has happened. but, they have made clear from day one, what makes you think they were prepared to cooperate? mr. miller: i can only say that they had a trip scheduled for the prosecutor himself where they planned to cooperate. look, if he made that trip and had been stiff-armed, that would be a different circumstance perhaps. i have a fundamental hard time arguing why it was he had to bring these warrants today before he completed that trip. why not go and see if they were cooperating and make the assessment afterwards? that's not what happened.

>> in a recent media interview, prime minister modi revealed how he made an effort to stop israel's attack in gaza by sending an envoy. is the state department aware of that? mr. miller: i'm aware of those comments. i don't have any comment on them. >> may i draw your attention to a new york times story? muslims in modi's india, which describes how the largest community in india have fear and uncertainty. have you engaged with the indian officials? mr. miller: we are deeply committed to promoting and protecting universal respect for the right for freedom of religion or belief of all around the world. we have engaged many countries including india for the importance of equal treatment.

>> is the u.s. considering reinstating -- the bangladesh foreign minister -- consider reinstating the facilities. mr. miller: i don't have any announcements to make on that regard. alex, go ahead and then we will wrap. >> i will give you a chance to respond to the u.s. -- mr. miller: that the u.s. what? >> that the u.s. -- mr. miller: i don't believe i saw statement by the ukraine president. the two parties in this conflict, one is russia and the other is ukraine. we want to see ukraine win this war and have made that clear, including by providing them with billions of dollars in security assistance.

you have also seen the secretary make an entire speech about the strategic failure that russia has brought on themselves by launching this conflict. >> you want to see russia lose the war? mr. miller: we want to see ukraine win, which by the very nature means russia lose. we would like russia to end the war. our position on who we want to see win or lose has been pretty clear for the past two years now. >> the comment which was urged to leave all jurisdictions, as well as the use of weapons inside russia. mr. miller: i don't have any comment on that other that our policy has not changed. >> extremely brief. do you know anything about these three americans, one dead and two arrested who were allegedly involved? mr. miller: first of all, just

of the policy statement, we condemned the armed attacks on the national palace and denounced political violence in all forms. we are extremely concerned about the reports of involvement by u.s. citizens. we are closely monitoring the situation and will cooperate with authorities to the full extent possible. with respect to the involvement of u.s. citizens, with respect to the individual who is deceased, we do not have any record of him being a united states citizen. with respect to the other two who have been reported to be a united states citizen's, who are reported to be in custody, due to privacy restrictions, i cannot comment on those cases in detail other than to say whenever a united states citizen is arrested overseas, we see consular access and would do that in any circumstance. >> you have sought consular access for these people? mr. miller: i don't know if i could say that without violating the privacy rules.

>> you either have or you haven't. mr. miller: you know the rules. we have to get a privacy waiver before we can say that. it is the law. >> even before? has the congo notified you there are two american citizens who have been arrested? mr. miller: due to these privacy restrictions, there's not much more i can say today. hold on. i hope to be able to say more as we often are able to do in these cases as we work through these issues. >> on the guy who apparently died, what do you mean you don't have any record? mr. miller: we don't have any record of him being a u.s. citizen. oftentimes, that is harder to establish if someone is an lpr or not. i can say with respect to citizenship, we do not believe we have any record of him being a citizen. >> all the other question about syria, do you have anything to say about the death of an american citizen in syria that

was just announced over the weekend? mr. miller: we saw the statement the family put out over the weekend and our hearts go out to them at this difficult time. we have engaged extensively to try to bring them home and we remain committed to seeking a full accounting of his fate. one more. >> was he -- can you say what status he was given if anything? mr. miller: he was not wrongfully detained. i don't have a full understanding of that. i know some of it has to do with not being acknowledged by the syrian government. it has to do with a status he had already been assigned before the act passed. this gets into bureaucratic questions but it did not change our work to try to seek full accounting for his status. that will wrap it up for today