i'm not going to preview new specific announcement or timing. we're only hours after what is a fairly seismic event but it's something we want to pursue aggressively in the days ahead. >> thank you. >> to follow-up on sean's question. he said nothing in the middle east is related. how can you link the seize fire in gaza to lebanon? >> that's the point we have made. we have never believed that the two conflicts are linked together. and you're pursuing when you look at diplomatic relations with the state of lebanon and trying to find a cease-fire agreement in gaza. of course, hezbollah linked the two conflicts even when we did not believe they were linked. what we believe is stability be -- brings about stability. if you can bring an end to the

conflict in gaza, that heightens the chances of reaching a diplomatic solution to the fight across the blue line, and that remains our assessment. >> netanyahu said today that they will continue. >> as i said a moment ago in response to another question, they have a very real, very legitimate strategic objective that they need to continue to pursue, which is the return of all the hostages, and we have a very real interest in that objective as well because seven of those 101 hostages are american, and we want to see them returned, so we will be in conversation with them about the best way to achieve that objective in the days ahead, but as you know, we have long been clear that we think reaching a

cease-fire that brings those hostages home and sets the conditions for an end to the war is the right path forward. we hope we have an opportunity now. >> [indiscernible] >> long-term, no, we don't believe it is. it's not just a path for return of hostages. you can see how you might return some hostages in one-off operations here and there, but, no, you are not going to return all the hostages through fighting, nor are you going to achieve a durable, lasting end to the war just by fighting on the battlefield because you kill one terrorist, you see that terrorist replaced by someone else, so ultimately, you need to find not just -- you need to achieve not just military objectives but also political objectives and you need to create a pathway forward. >> are there specific types --

steps you want to see israel take going forward? >> we are going to have that conversation with them before we announce publicly. again, we are just hours after this event. it is appropriate to let the president have a conversation with the prime minister, appropriate for the secretary to have conversations with his counterpart. >> i'm sorry, last one. has he specifically discussed post-or gaza? >> yes, he has. >> going back to your opening remarks and the statement we made from vp harris and the statement issued by president biden, all saying the killing is a renewed opportunity to end the war in gaza and you have said your priority was to release the hostages, stop the fighting, but maybe there's also the question

now that something that used to bother you when we ask you before, it is not solving this route in the future. october 7 will keep happening again. my question is if you have helped israel with weapons shipments and what's required to achieve the objective of eliminating the threat to gaza and now the ongoing operation in southern lebanon, but now what are you going to do after the war to push israel more toward the solution you see for the conflict, especially if advising them does not seem to be enough? >> is not just the united states making clear our views on this question. it is countries in the region and countries around the world

who have made clear their views on the question. in some cases, it's not just their views, but their policy. you will recall that on his trip, the secretary made earlier this year, he went to israel and made clear that what he heard from countries in the region is that they were ready for a new path forward with israel as well. there were parties in the region ready to put aside decades-long disputes and normalize relations with israel and present a new alliance of countries inside the region that would isolate iran, so there are enormous benefits for israel's security, for economic development, for relations with neighbors and standing in the world to finding a political path forward that allows palestinian people to realize their aspirations. i get the tension inherent in

your question, which is we cannot make that decision for the governor of israel or for the people of israel. all we can do is lay out to them the upside of ultimately moving forward with a path to a reunited gaza and the west bank and a political path forward for the palestinian people, and we can lay out the risks of not pursuing that path, and the risks are well-known. but it's israel that has to make that decision in the same ways that other countries in the region have to make their own decisions about the type of relationship they want to have with israel. >> you must know that the world does not work this way, the -- a country does not adhere to your rules unless you apply more pressure on the government to

abide by international law, and international law states that the west bank is an occupied land and that a kid-state solution is the way forward. i know other countries and the international community agree with you, but you are blocking agencies like the united nations from taking action on israel to force it to making this decision. at the same time, u.s. the most powerful israel ally will look to take the steps as well. as i've heard several times in this briefing, whatever they want to do they are going to do. >> we believe that ultimately, this is a pathway needs to be negotiated by the parties, not impose on them and that continues to be the position of the united states and will continue to be our position. without making predictions for

what will happen in the future, the paths i laid out are very stark and they are different paths for israel and for the region, and so we and other countries in the region will continue to make clear to israel the risks of continued instability and the real rewards of a path forward for the palestinian people, and they will have to make their decisions just as other countries do. >> does the u.s. believe right now that the hostages still in gaza are at greater risk and greater danger? what is the message to families who are seriously concerned about their safety in what may be a critical period? >> i don't have any assessment to make on that from here. obviously, again, we are in the early hours. i would make clear to anyone who is considering harming any hostage, american or otherwise, that they will be held accountable. they should be held accountable.

as it pertains to any communication to the families of hostages, to their loved ones, we will give those communications privately. as you know, we have been in close touch with families of the seven americans who continue to be held and will continue to be in close touch with them about the status and well-being of their loved ones. >> apart from reinvigorating cease-fire and hostage talks, there are no specific steps being taken right now? >> the specific step being undertaken -- i don't mean to suggest that you are downplaying in terms of the question, that is the step we need to take to try to get it home. it is in our judgment the most fruitful path to bringing them home is to get an agreement that gets them out. as i said, it has long been our position that just the way the

situation on the ground works is you are not going to return all those hostages home through military action. you may see operations here and there that may return hostages, but ultimately to bring them all home safely, you need to reach an agreement that helps bring about an end to the war. >> did as comes against the backdrop of what happened amid heightened tensions. what is the u.s.' understanding as to if a retaliatory strike may go forward? >> i'm not going to be those conversations out publicly, as i have scrupulously declined to do over the past few weeks. >> iranian media is referring to sin are's death as a martyrdom, saying he was killed while battling israeli forces on the battlefield. what is the risk -- how significant is the risk that his death, rather than subduing militant groups in the region,

emboldens them at this time? >> i'm sure that hamas and other terrorist groups will try to present him as some kind of hero for the palestinian cause, but i think it is important that everyone remember the actual fact, which is that he was a brutal terrorist did not just terrorize the israeli people but that ruled gaza with an iron fist before october 7, that brutalized palestinians in gaza, that tortured palestinians in gaza, and then unleashed a conflict that has been responsible for the death of more than 40,000 palestinians. i would hope that anyone considering thinking of him in any favor at all will look on me consequences of his life and the havoc he has wreaked.

>> the president that israel had resisted all kinds of pressure to stop the war, stop the fighting, and to not enter russia -- enter rafah. as it seemed the u.s. has called to not enter rocco to try to broker a cease-fire or at least never going to meet with israeli approval or acceptance? >> i will say that we always made clear that we supported israel conducting counterterrorism operations to target their leaders of hamas, to target hamas militants, and not only did we make clear we supported it, but we provided active intelligent support for those operations, and i think i will leave it at that. >> the cease fire hostage release deal that has been

undertaken, that is, i am assuming, although there has not been anything discussed, but it is still on the table? >> correct. >> i'm trying to understand from the israeli perspective, if you could not get that past -- and i think during that time, it was when a senior official said that netanyahu was making maximalist statements not conducive to getting a deal done. i'm just wondering why now that anyone would be willing to accept such a deal. >> because he is not the only party to this arrangement. the other parties have refused to negotiate also. we did have important decisions we were going to need the prime minister and governor of israel to make, but we have seen the make concessions already. it was our assessment we could get to a deal and in the middle

of that, he walked away from the table. without making any predictions about what will happen -- and i will refer you to what i said at the beginning of this briefing, which is without a doubt there are tough decisions for israel to make to get to an ultimate agreement. without a doubt. we are the first to say that and we are the people engaging with them to try to convince them to make those tough decisions, but you had on the others a roadblock, an absolute stonewall know, and that person is removed. that, we think, presents an opportunity. >> absolutely, but at that point, there was not enough incentive for netanyahu, and we have seen himself put himself in a far stronger position. >> what that leaves out is that we were negotiating with him and hamas over how to get to yes and we believe we could get to an agreement, and then cinemark --

sinwar ended the negotiations before we could get there. >> from mr. netanyahu's perspective, you have a situation where, as he said in a speech today, he is calling for surrender calling for hamas to come out, lay down their arms, release hostages -- there's nothing i can see him saying about getting hostages released via discussion, diplomacy, cease fire. as far as i can see, he is saying a military solution to this is vindicated, keep going and try to get hostages released via surrender or whatever -- >> no offense, but is there a

question? >> yes, of course, how are you going to incentivize him now because this is a vindication and a reason to keep going. he wants israeli control, effectively. >> we believe the incentives are the return of the 101 hostages, and we believe the incentive is a path forward that provides increased security for israel, and we had gotten agreement from them -- if you go back, remember even before we got to this position in july and august where we were arguing over the and limitation details, we had an agreement that israel had accepted that hamas refused. it's not accurate that israel had never agreed to test you did not say that, i am not trying to put words in your mouth -- israel had not agreed to a cease-fire proposal that we put on the table and hamas did not

accept it. they came back with provisions that they wanted to change and negotiated, and then we had to bridge differences between the two parties, and hamas walked away. i cannot tell you what the government of israel is going to do. we believe it is in their interest to work with him. we have seen them previously engaged in those conversations. we have seen there are proposals that they have accepted. we have now there is a party on the others that will engage in conversation. have you have had any discussions with the qatari's today? is there anything you can reveal about that? >> nothing further, but we have a lot to pursue in the days ahead and we intend to. >> this was described as a -- the killing of sinwar was

described as a seismic event. >> it is absolutely a seismic event in the middle east. if you look at who he was, he is someone who made the decision -- it was his decision to launch the terrorist attack. someone who did not just have military control of hamas but had political control as well, and he is the person who has been the prime obstacle to ending the war and stopping the suffering of the palestinian people, so, absolutely, it is a -- >> he had others with him. >> i suppose we disagree about the relative importance. >> let me ask you a couple of things. you keep saying that hamas absolutely refused to negotiate. as far as all these people involved in negotiations, they all say that hamas agreed 100% to the proposal -- >> no, they don't.

that's not what happened. you and i have been through this before. they came back with a counter proposal, which is not an acceptance of the proposal that was put forward and endorsed by the united nations security council. if i give you a proposal and you come back and say i agree to seven of the things you proposed and on these three others, i have major changes -- that is not an acceptance of my proposal. >> [indiscernible] >> is there a question? >> i will just say at this point, yes, i do have a couple questions. hamas would look back and reassess what happened -- >> i did not say they would. i said i hope they would. >> yes, that you hope they would. would you be willing to negotiate with hamas directly? quick snow.

hamas is a terrorist organization in the united states is not engage with terrorist organizations, but we will engage with our mediators, who do. >> know when is having command and control over hamas. >> what would be the incentive? how about an end to the war. ending the deaths of palestinian civilians. what more incentive should a leader of hamas need than that? >> i'm saying they were unable to basically negotiate or make sure they can deliver hamas, what makes you think -- >> i don't think you should make excuses for sinwa. rhe was not unwilling to negotiate -- he was not unable to negotiate, he was unwilling to negotiate. >> we do not know who is in

control. let me ask you another question. >> i did not think that was a question, so i was not responding to it. >> let me ask you a question on a proposal that is being suggested that secretary blinken is going to be proposing about the israelis. can you show us something [indiscernible] >> i spoke to this yesterday. we had discussions with our them are in the region as well. it has been the subject of a number of trips the secretary has conducted and has been the subject of ongoing diplomatic conversations, and i'm not going to predict from here when we

might put forward some type of proposal, but we are very much ceased with agreeing with our partners in the region in our proposal to provide actual security and governance and a political path forward for the palestinian people. >> it seems that israelis want to see a diminished role. would you agree? >> we have always made clear that one of the principles to which we adhere is unified west bank and gaza under palestinian authority control where the people of the west bank and gaza can choose their leadership, not anyone else. >> can we go to lebanon, if you don't mind? how can the united states help to move the political process forward when hezbollah has been

blocking the election of a new president? >> is not a question of the united states putting pressure on the lebanese political decision-makers. this is a decision they have to make for themselves, but we are engaged with multiple members of the lebanese government, and we are engaged with our partners in the region who we also know have engaged with the leaders of the lebanese government, and we have all had a singular message, which is it is time for the parliament to go forward with electing a president finally. what else we can do -- we can work to strengthen lebanese institutions, primarily the lebanese armed forces, which we see as a bulwark for security and stability inside lebanon that we have supported with direct financial assistance over the past couple decades, and we will continue to support because we think the role they can play in providing stability -- and it's one of the most respected institutions in the country, and

incredibly important one, and it has to be maintained. >> would you ask the speaker to convene parliament to elect a new president? >> we made very clear to the speaker and to the prime minister that we think it is important that the parliament elect a new president in the days and weeks ahead. specific steps i'm not going to get into. >> on the incursion, did you get any sense for how long this military operation would last? >> i think i should let them speak to their timetable. >> [indiscernible] >> i expect that we will be represented there. i don't have any announcements to make about it. the conference is still a week away. i think stay tuned until next week to look for any kind of announcement coming out of it. >> thank you. >> yet.

>> can you talk about how much the u.s. was involved? >> this was an exclusively israeli operation. we have been providing intelligence since the beginning of the conflict to help them locate and fight and bring to justice the leaders of hamas, and i do think that intelligence has been successful in increasing the pressure on those leaders, but when it comes to this specific operation, this is an israeli operation and i will let them speak to it. >> is at your assessment that today we are one day closer to the end of the conflict or one day away? >> i don't want to make any productions other than to say that a major obstacle to the end of the conflict has been removed and we think that provides an opportunity, but i'm not going to make any productions about what's going to come -- any

predictions about what's to come. >> [indiscernible] suggest that china has been sending materials to russia to use in ukraine >> we have seen for some time chinese companies provide components to russian companies that russian companies then use to turn into machinery, weapons, other components that russia could use in its what this was the first -- and we had imposed sanctions on a number of those companies. this was the first time we saw a chinese company manufacture a weapon itself but then was used on the battlefield by russia -- was sent to the battlefield and used on russia and that's why we imposed the sanctions we did

today and that's why we continue to work with our allies and partners around the world to make clear to china that this practice is unacceptable and they need to take steps to counter it. >> [indiscernible] flying troops for russia to use in ukraine. do you have any new intelligence? >> i don't have anything further that i can offer today. >> [indiscernible] >> because they have on their side the united states of america and a number of countries around the world. we have marshaled a coalition of more than 50 countries who support ukraine in territorial integrity and sovereignty and have continued to provide support in a number of ways -- military support, economic

support, diplomatic support over the past number of years and will continue to provide support. >> thank you. when you speak about ending the war, you have stated you oppose the reoccupation of gaza. is that position still stand? >> of course. >> israel has said they will continue to operate in gaza for years to come. >> i have not seen its full context, but i will say as a matter of fact, we ultimately want to see israel fully withdrawn from gaza. they have a right, as any country does, to address terrorist threats against their

people, but what we want to see as an end to this war is the terrorist threat from gaza eliminated and we want to see ultimately a political path that establishes a palestinian state that is not hostile to israel. of course you would not want to see and would not need to see the idf operate in that environment. >> [indiscernible] >> yes, that's what we want to see is a complete withdrawal. that's what we meant when the secretary laid out almost a year ago a number of principles we want to see for the end of the conflict and one of them was no occupation of gaza. >> thank you. our report is that an agent said the u.s. would not consider withholding support for food and medicine.

>> that is not at all an accurate representation of her comment, not all of which were accurately presented in that article. you have what becomes a secondhand presentation put into an article. not all of those comments were in any way accurate. >> what was the basic characterization of her describing -- >> i'm not going to speak to a private meeting, but we have always maintained we are committed to the >> so you will enforce us law including -- >> if you look at the letter that the secretary, if you look at the letter the secretary sent the other day, he said there are a number of us laws and policies that are implemented by israel not taking steps to allow humanitarian assistance to get in and we will enforce us law. but we're going to, we want to see israel take increased steps. we've seen them take some increased steps over the last few days, but we need to see much more. >> i guess there have been previous instances for which this threat has been floated,