this press conference is just

over 40 minutes. tv>> good afternoon, everyone. a couple things at the top and then we will get going. today, we are grieving the lives lost as a result of deadly that ripped through several states across the southern lane. our prayers are with the families that lost loved ones. we wish those injured a speedy recovery. these tragic storms come as

communities across the south and midwest are still recovering from severe weather that destroyed homes, businesses, and leveled entire communities earlier this month. we remain grateful for the first responders. our teams have been directly in touch with state and local officials. the president spoke directly with the governors to offer his condolences for the lives lost and reiterate that the federal government stands ready to support as needed.

president biden is taking action to improve their travel experience by taking on hidden junk fees. the administration is mandating airlines show upfront the price of checked bags, seats, and flight changes, or cancellations, which will save consumers $500 million a year. two airlines, spirit and frontier, announced they are ending change and cancellation fees. our administration is also requiring airlines to provide automatic refunds when flights are canceled or significantly changed. we areotels and car rental companies show the full price upfront, banning hiddewe e of gas including by selling one

million barrels of gasoline from the northeast supply reserve. we know severe weather which ise department of transportation is keeping pressure on airlines to improve when there are flight delays or cancellations. we have the admiral here who is going to speak to the development in the middle east. admiral? >> hello, everybody. right off the top, i want to talk about these devastating images and reports coming out of rafah over the weekend following an idf strike that killed dozens of innocent palestinians, including children. we have all seen the images, they are heartbreaking and horrific. there should be no innocent life lost here as a result of this conflict. israel of course has a right to go after hamas. we understand that this strike

did kill two senior hamas terrorists who are directly responsible for attacks against the israeli people. but, as we have also said many times, israel must take precaution possible to do more to protect innocent life. as soon as we saw these reports, we reached out to the israeli defense forces at various levels to gather more information and we have been actively engaged with the idf and partners on the ground to learn more about what happened. i will note that the idf released initial findings that point to the fire being caused by a secondary explosion, not the initial strike. i think this speaks clearly to the challenge of military airstrikes in densely populated areas of gaza including rafah because of the risk of civilian casualties, which of course happened terribly in this case. a horrible loss of life.

we are glad that the israeli defense forces are doing a full investigation, which we believe is going to be very important to try to prevent mishaps. with that, i will take questions. >> thanks, admiral. can you explain how a strike in rafah does not cross the line the president had set and many of you have repeated the operations be targeted and limited? >> we still don't believe a major ground operation in rafah is warranted. we don't want to see the israelis smash into rafah with large units over large pieces of territory. we still believe that and we haven't seen that to this point. what we are going to be watching very closely. i want to end this answer by making it clear that regardless, every single loss of innocent life is tragic and every single

loss of innocent life should be prevented as much as possible. >> has the president seen the images? >> i don't know, i can't speak -- she had been kept apprised through the weekend. >> you are saying the tent encampment that was first struck is considered a densely populated area? >> the whole area of rafah is densely populated. there has been one million or so who had evacuated rafah proper, but it is not like they are going all that far away. >> how does this not violate the redline the president laid out? >> we don't want. we haven't seen that at this point. >> how many more charred corpses does he have to see before the president considers a ange of policy? >> we don't want to see a single more innocent life taken and i take a little offense at the question. no civilian casualties is the right number. this is not something we turned

a blind eye to nor is it something we have ignored or neglected to raise with our israeli counterparts, including this weekend as a result of this particular strike. they are investigating it, so let them investigate it and see p with. >> the president doesn't have a personal limit to this? >> the president has been very clear and direct about our expectations for israeli operations in rafahspecificallya written large. we don't and won't support a major ground operation in rafael 2jand we have been very consist on that. the president has said that should that occur it might make him might have to make different decisions in terms of support. >> why not have him say that himself? >> the president has been leaders throughout the region, he has been addressing you through various

forums, including in a press conference last week. >> you said you don't think a major ground invasion is happening right now, but this is a template -- in densely populated area. i understand the israelis are describing this as a tragic mishap, but isn't this the kind of incident you have been concerned about the whole time? >> this exactly does speak to the challenge of military operations in a densely populated area. a challenge we have been sharing our perspectives on from our own lessons learned in places like iraq and afghanistan. >> despite the loss of life do you still think the strike was precise and proportional? >> i think we will let the israelis do their work investigating. i don't think you can expect me to speak to the details of a strike when we had nothing to do with that. >> you have called the strike devastating comedy emerges heartbreaking.

you stop short of outright condemning the strike. can you explain why? >> we have been i think very strident in our condemnations abt the deaths of innocent civilians. these deaths are not excused from that. we have to understand what happened here. they have already said it was a tragic mistake. they are looking into it. they have been able to investigate themselves and hold people accountable in the past. we will see what they do here. >> weekend strike, is it our assumption that nothing about u.s. policy is changing? >> as a result of this strike i have no policy changes to speak to. happened, the israelis will investigated. we will take great interest in what they find and we will go from there. >> we saw a good amount of international condemnation from this strike whether it was from the president of france or others in europe.

weave not yet heard from the president publicly. why is that? >> you have heard the president on nerous occasions in just the last few days about what is going in in the middle east and other places around the world and you will hear from him again. >> is there any concern that the united states itself is isolating internationally as you continue to support the operation? >> one of the things we have talked about with the israelis are about the manner in which some of these operations are being conducted. it is a real danger that israel itself could become further isolated from the international community just by dint of the manner in which they are conducting operations. this is a concern clearly. it is not in israel's best interest or our bestest for israel to become

increasingly isolated on the world stage. one of the things the president came into office wanting to do and we had made progress before october 7 was working to a more integrated israel in the region. it is in our national security interest to make sure that doesn't happen. the psi decisions or execute on policy based on public opinion polling or on popularity contest. he bases his decision on our national security interests. what is at stake at home and abroad? sometimes what is in the best interest of your alliance and partnership is to be candid, forthright, even tough with your friend, which we have been able to do with israel. >> y said that israel's isolation -- are you concerned at all about the united states being isolated? >> i thought i got to that in the last part. >> i'm sorry, i did not catch

that. >> i'm going to try it again. the president is not making decisions based on popularity or public opinion polls here and around the world? what meets those interests and it certainly doesn't mean our interest or our israeli partners interests for them to become further isolated. he is making decisions based on what is in the best interest of the american people and safety and security abroad. >> last week, he said, what they are going to be looking at is whether there was a lot of death and destruction from the operation. if what happened this weekend doesn't qualify as a lot of death and destruction, how would you describe it and how would you qualify what a lot of death

and destruction is? >> i'm not going to go with a measuring stick or a quota here. the right number of civilian casualties is zero. we have seen about a dozen or so that we know of at least from this strike alone. that is horrific and terrible. we don't want to see that. the answer should be zero. the israelis have said this wasg a tragic mistake. they will investigate. so said and this is the other part of what jake said, we don't want to see another --a major ground operation in rafah, that would really make it hard for the israelis to go after hamas without causing extensive damage and potentially a large number of deaths. we have not seen them do that to this point, but we are watching it very closely. >> you have said repeatedly the u.s. does not want to see a major ground operation in rafah,

but the israelis have moved into central rafah. >> i don't want to talk about israeli defense force operations, but my understanding is that they are moving along something called a philadelphia corridor on the outskirts of the town, not the town proper. we are not on the ground. we are not there. we don't have troops to look at every single soldier where they are. israelis are telling us. what we are able to discern as best we can, as best we can as we speak here today,, we have not seen a major ground operation and th had told us pry would use on thet outskirts of town to put pressure on hamas. >> nbc's crew in rafahj has described it as being central rafah. if it were to be central rafah, with that be considered? >>we are talking about, you are

dragging me into a hypothetical and i hate that. one armored vehicle does not constitute a ground operation. i'm telling you that the israelis are telling us they are on the outskirts. a major ground operation is moving in a along a variety of targets on the ground. >> on the strike today, at least 21 people killed in a strike of the tent encampment today. what is the u.s. response to that? >> we can't verify those reports. the israelis are saying there was no such strike. >> i want to make this very clear.

there is nothing that you have seen thus far that would prompt a u.s. response? >> that is what i've been saying here. >> i want to get your reaction to those asking for resignations of certain officials? >> we don't believe sanctions against the icc are the right approach here. we don't believe the icc has jurisdiction. we don't support these arrest warrants. we have said that before. we don't believe that sanctioning the icc is the answer. >> admiral, please help me to understand. you just said that basically there is no major operation you have seen by the israelis in

rafah. you insisted that it has to be a viable plan to evacuate all civilians and that was considered kind of a redline. so, it is -- explained to me how one million people who are forced to leave rafah to no place considered a safe zone, how could that be different from what you said? that the give us a viable way. one million are not really safe becausas yesterday, they were attacked, you have seen the pictures, headless kids. the israelis say their plan is to let these people leave. these people are forced to leave. how was this any different from your insistence that it has to be a good plan, a viable plan, a

practical plan to make sure these people are going ta safe place? >> i didn't say that everything happening in rafah is perfect or good. i'm not saying that at all. >> you said before that it has to be a viable plan to evacuate 1.5 million people. >> not all the one point 5 million are out of rafah. there are still hundreds of thousands still in rafah that are still in danger and we still have not seen a plan.it is why d about our view that we don't mad operation that puts these people at greater risk. i'm not really sure where you and i are on a different page here. >> he didn't answer my question. >> let's try again. >> you said the israelis have to offer a viable plan to evacuate 1.5 million civilians. >> we want to see a viable and credible plan.

>> one million already forced to leave to places that are not safe. half a million over the next few weeks. >> what happened on sunday was terrible and tragic and you are right. >> thank you. >> you are right, not enough has been done for the safety and security of the innocent people trying to seek refuge in and around rafah. i'm not pushing back on that at all. i'm not able to verify where everyone went. i'm not sure if they went to a tent comforces or they went somewhere else. obviously, it is a dangerous place. we don't want to see it happen again. which is why it is important for the israelis to investigate this completely, and be transparent about it. and more important to learn lessons from investigation so this can't happen again.

>> [indiscernible] >> one quick question. the european union are considering imposing sanctions on israel if it does not oblige by the order to stop the attack on rafah. is this something that you disagree, agree with? is there a rift between you and the europeans? the whole of the eishat we are talking about. >> we have no plans for those kind of sanctions to put in place based on the icj. it is a ruling we do not concur with, nor do we see that they have jurisdiction. >> thanks. >> how can the administration not want to see a major ground operation, but not have a measuring stick? >> the question was how many deaths. it was not a quest -- measuring stick about a major ground operation. the question was how many deaths

is too many? one is too many. we don't want to see any war. what would jake was trying to do when he came up to explain to you what a major ground operation entails. lots of units, tens of thousands of troops or thousands of troops moving in a coordinated set of maneuvers against a wide variety of targets on the ground in a massive way. it is not hard to discern that. it is very obvious what that is. what happened sunday, very tragic. it was an airstrike. it wasn't the first airstrike they conducted in rafahthis oneo question about that. nobody was asking me about red lines a ogo when there were other airstrikes in rafah that didn't cause civilian casualties. this is an airstrike, not a major ground operation. it is different.

we are not on the ground. we are going to watch this closely and we are as we were since sunday staying in touch with our counterparts to make sure we get the answers for the questions that are not unlike what you have. >> i know you are saying major ground operation. but he didn't say major ground operation. when he was asked to clarify what his red lines were, he said, israel had not yet moved into population centers in rafah . does the u.s. currently not consider the strike sunday to have hit a population center? and how do you define a population center? >> the president wasn't moving the stick anywhere. he was talking about major ground operations in rafah proper which is what we have been saying all along. when he was referring to population centers, that is what

he was referring to. as i said in my opening statement, what happened sunday shows how difficult military operations are in a densely populated area. rafah is a densely populated area. >> you have the president saying that he doesn't want israel to target any population center. i know you said tanks are moving along the corridor. we are seeing tanks in rafah. we are seeing strikes continue to kill civilians, including children. for an average was watching their taxpayer dollars go to this, can you explain to them how this isn't a major military operation? or maybe it would help to explain what is a major ground operation when it comes to the biden administration? >> i thought i already did that, but i'm happy to do it again. i am not the idf]■ spokesman and this is not tel aviv. this is the white house press briefing room.

today or any other day, i'm not going to take it on myself to speak to israeli military operations. you should be asking admiral hug ari that question. what i will tell you is that what we have seen is what the were going to do. they said they were going to close off the revenue. they were going to go after hamas terrorists in as precise a way as possible, that they were not going to smash into rafah with a lot of ground forces. as we speak today, that is still the case. we have not seen them smash into rafah. we have not seeth units, large f troops in columns and formations in some sort of coordinated maneuver against targets on the ground.

what we have seen is they have targeted tom also. -- tunnels. they have done airstrikes. this one with tragic results, but not all of them with tragic results. and yes they are moving some armored vehicles along a corridor along the outskirts of gaza that they have told us they would use. everything we are seeing and we can't see everything, but everything we can see tells us that they are not moving in in a major ground operation in population centers in the center of rafah. we will watch this hour-by-hour, day by day and we will stay in touch with our israeli defense counterparts. >> tre numbers out there. does the u.s. have an accurate number of palestinians that have fled rafah and how many displaced palestinians are still in rafah? and for those that fled, where

are they? >> let me go back and we will get you better numbers, the best i can. most of the numbers we are getting, we are not on the ground counting noses, so w rel, whether it is international organizations or the idf. roughly speaking, more than one million of refuge have fled rafah. e did they go? i can't tell you every tent compound they went to and who is running that. i just can't do it. but several hundred thousand we still believe are in rafah. i will take the question and see if we can get a better sense of the numbers for you. >> i juswa an earlier answer where you were asked by someone in the front row about condemnation of what happened in rafah. my transcription of what you said is we have been i think very strident in our

condemnation of the deaths of innocent civilians. these deaths are not excluded from that. so do you condemn what happened in rafah? mr. kirby: we condemn the loss of life here. we want to make sure the israelis have a way to do that in a fair, transparent, credible way. look, i know what you want me to say. i get it. there should be no civilians killed. i'm not going to stand up here and make an excuse for any single individual civilian being killed. there is no excuse for it. it should not happen. w,ppen in war. it deliberately and some by tragic mistake. we'll see what happened on sunday and go from there. but no civilian casualty should be acceptable. reporter: what is the administration whether it was a tragic mistake or deliberate? mr. kirby: let's see what the investigation is. reporter: so you'll wait to see what the israelis say?

mr. kirby: let's see what the investigation comes up with. if we had done this i think we would want the benefit of having the opportunity to investigate it and to figure out what's not thing. we're giving them billions of dollars in weapons. mr. kirby: we're giving them the kinds of capabilities they need to defend themselves more. maybe some people forgot what happened on in october. 1200 innocent israelis slaughtered, mutilated, raped, tortured and they're living next to that threat, still a viable threat in rafah. you think hamas is gone? they're not gone from gaza. if you think they abandoned their genocidal intent toward the nation of israel, think again. they haven't. so israel has the right to not want to live next to that kind of threat and we'll give them the capabilities to go after it. reporter: thank you, admiral. they've been looking into the

assessment investigation into these attacks. on at least two occasions last fall the u.s. conducted its own investigation on the strike in the hospital or gathered intelligence to support the claims thathe israel east were making. why isn't the u.s. conductin their own investigations anymore? mr. kirby: we had some intelligence assessments that felt comfortable with like the hospital many months ago that we could -- that gave us a sense of our own -- our own individual assessment of what happened. our intelligence community was able to give us that level of knowledge and awareness. but it's■m case-by-case. reporter: [inaudible] mr. kirby: i don't know what happened. this happened two days ago. i don't know that would give us some independent verifiable context about what happened. ground. we aren't flying the aircraft.

we're not choosing the targets. we're not providing the intelligence that leads to every target israelis decided to hit. it is their operation, their troops involved, their capabilities, their pilots. they have the obligation to investigation this themselves and they will do that and we will take a look at it and then see what it says. if we have some means independently of being able to verify some parts of the information ourselves and i'm sure our intelligence community will do what they can to put that together for us, but it's not -- you shouldn't expect that in every opportunity on any given day in gaza that going to be able to just independently triang late every -- triangulate every single event. reporter: what would the investigation look like? for many months there have been

discussions behind the scenes what would be the alternative to the major ground operations. were these strikes some of the alternatives? mr. kirby: some of the alternatives -- again, i can't speak, again, to these particular strikes. what the israel east said they were going after hamas app are a tiffs and they said they killed hamas operatives in a hamas compound. hamas itself put out a statement celebrating the martyrdom of two of their fighters in the strike on sunday so i don't know how anybody could dispute that they weren't trying to go after hamas in a targeted, precise way in this as a matter of fact -- just a second. as a matter of fact, the israelis have said they used 37-pound bombs, precision-guideú bomb. i am not verifying it. just saying that'shat they said. if it is in fact what they used it's indicative of an effort to

be discreet and targeted and precise. now, obviously, this had tragic results and obviously, that needs to be investigated and we need to know why even using small indictment precision guided munitions this was able to happen but we have to let the israelis get to the bottom of it. reporter: [inaudible] if it was intended to be precise? mr. kirby: again, you're asking me for information about their targeting and decisions i can't answer. all i have to do is point what they said which is they were going after a hamas compound and as a result of that strike or f there were some secondary explosions that led to this fire that led to these deaths. i can't -- i just physically can't expect those dots for you sie ere not involved in the operation. it's important to let them investigate it. reporter: i have a question. one quick follow-up on rafah. is there a feeling here at the white house that prime minister

netanyahu's policies put president biden more and more difficult position and you, also? mr. kirby: me? i'm perfectly comfortable. i'm fine. you. no. i mean, the president takes the weight of these decisions very seriously. he takes his obligation to israel very seriously. and the responsibility that the united states has to help israel defend itself against a truly genocidal threat. you want to talk about that -- throw that genocide around -- then read the hamas manifesto. that's there. he also takes very seriously our obligations to make sure that innocent palestinians don't suffer any more from a war they didn't start and they're not responsible for this. mr. sinwar started this war and no other nation, no other leader is doing more than president biden is to get humanitarian assistce get a

hostage deal in place, to try to find a way to end the conflict. president biden is leading on all those scores. so this is -- theseg are tough decisions. it's a tough issue and he's doing the best he can to act and lead according to his principles. reporter: [inaudible] several operations in europe. just yesterday the response to these activities, poland restricted the movement of russian diplomats in poland, so what's going on there? what's your reaction? are you tracking any similar activities, russian activities here in the u.s.? mr. kirby: are you talking about election interference, sabotage, that kind of thing? reporter:rby: yeah. we're watching this with great concern. i wish i could say it wasn't part of the russian playbook but it is and you don't have to look too far in the distant past to see that. so we're working hard with our

european counterparts to do everything we can to build resilien, or ourselves here at home, but for them overseas. reporter:f ask the talk the president had with the president of mexico and action on border. i wonder if you've seen any impact on that and the election and ultimate transition period to have an impact on that? ago they pledged a meeting of action to crack down on the border. have you've seen anything from that? mr. kirby: we have. i owe you a better answer. i admittedly don't have the data in front of me but we have decreases in the number of people arriving at the border. the mexicans have stepped up to stem the flow along some of those routes, particularly rail and road routes. and they have also done quite a bit to work with us on cracking down on these -- on these criminal gangs that are -- that

are actually leading these efforts. so i'll get you a better answer but yes, we have seen a difference. reporter: do you expect that policy to continue after the election? mr. kirby: we have every hope and expectation we will. i will let the mexican democracy to -- we have no expectation that mexican cooperation and support is going to diminish. ms. jean-pierre: thank you so much, john. reporter: they said moving the taliban from the list of banned organizations with raising the possibility of moss moscow recognizing them? what do you think this sends -- what kind of message do you think this sends? mr. kirby: i think it sends a horrible message. the taliban have not met any of the commitments they said they

would meet. the way they're treating women and girls. the way they're managing their economy. the way they're taking care of their own people. we don't recognize the taliban as the official governance of afghanistan and for russia to do so, i do believe -- we believe that that would send a bad message to others. reporter: [inaudible] mr. kirby: i don't want to get into hype theycals at this point -- hypotheticals at this point. reporter: and then china urged the -- [inaudible] there is a fellow member of the security council that could be overturned. what do you think about china? mr. kirby: not surprised. not going to change our approach. reporter: thank you so much. my question on rafah just sort of following up on the previous question. you've been very consistent today talking about -- mr. kirby: yeah. reporter: ground operation. in the past you and other administrationground operation

and used the term major military operation. i'm wondering what is happening in rafah right now is considered a major military operation? mr. kirby: we do not consider this a major military or ground operation at this point but, again, we are watching this very carefully. reporter: would additional air strikes constitute a major military operation? mr. kirby: it would have to depend on the size and scale and scope. what we've seen so far -- and, again, this one had tragic consequences, but it was in the use of munitions that they said they used and in the targets they were going after, not unlike and not out of character of the other air strikes they have participated in in rafah in recent days and weeks. so it wasn't out of that scope. obviously, it had a different outcome here which is incredibly tragic but it wasn't of a different sort or of a different reporter: there was a readout on the call between president biden

and president sisi on friday saying there would be a major delegation going to talk about opening up the raffi crossings. -- rafah crossing. can you give us a sense who will be in t delegation, if this is happening this week and what the agenda might be for for you. reporter: can you say whether or not in the temporary -- is the u.s. going to increase airdrops for aid? is there a mechanism to -- does it appear -- [inaudible] mr. kirby: you'd have to ask the pentagon. i don't know if there is any increase in airdrops to supplement the problems we had pier but the pentagon would know more than i have. reporter: does the president think the temporary pier is viable? mr. kirby: as a supplement. it was never intended to

supplant to get those trucks in. it's tough. weather plays a role. i mean, mother nature■k has a s here. even in the summertime that can be a pretty rough place. that's what's happening right now. can it be a force multiplier? can it add? absolutely. i think they so far have gotten more than a thousand metric tons in just off the temporary pier arone considering the weather, considering the complexibility to do that way, the multimode stops to get from ship to pier to truck to ground, that's still an impressive record so far. reporter: thank you. john, what would the consequence be if there were an american strike on a legitimate terrorist target that ended resulting with 45 civilian deaths and some 200 others injured? what would that look like as an american response? mr. kirby: i can't answer a hypothetical like that, but we have -- we have taken -- we have

conducted air strikes in places like iraq and afghanistan where tragically we caused civilian casualties. we did the same thing. we owned up to it. we investigated it. and we tried to make changes to the way, which i had to learn from it, to make changes so that -- those mistakes wouldn't happen again,nclled out of afgh we did take a -- we conducted an air strike which tragically killed a father and some of his kids. we atoned for it, we learned from it and we put in place procedures to try to prevent that from happening again and that's what our expectations would be in this case. reporter: ukraine's president zelenskyy said the ability to use western provided weapons to target inside russia is essential to the success. he said he appealed to senior u.ff allow ukraine to do this.

is the president considering this request and if yes, what is he looking at right now? mr. kirby: we're aware of the request in this regard. i would tell you there is no change to our policy at this point. we don't encourage or enable the use of u.s.-supplied weapons to strike inside russia. i would note the ukrainians have in the past defeated imminent air attacks such as some of the ones that considered in the last few days on their will continue to talk to them nearly every day about what they need and i think i'd leave it at that. thank