In a recent press gaggle, John Kirby outlined President Biden’s upcoming meetings with Indo-Pacific leaders while addressing the escalating tensions in the Middle East. He reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to diplomacy, clarified that the U.S. is not involved in Israeli military actions, and emphasized the importance of accountability regarding recent military conduct, alongside ensuring safeguards for funding to UNRWA amidst humanitarian concerns.
On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
MODERATOR: Hey, good morning, everyone. Sorry for starting a little bit late. I’m going to turn it over to John Kirby for a topper, and then we’ll take your questions.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, guys. Not much to talk about today. Just a reminder that the President will be heading up to Wilmington this afternoon to kick off a weekend with the leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad. That’s Prime Minister Kishida of Japan, Prime Minister Albanese of Australia, and Prime Minister Modi of India.
The first individual meeting will be this evening with Prime Minister Albanese. We’ll provide a readout of that, of course.
Tomorrow morning, he will meet individually with Prime Minister Kishida and then early in the afternoon meet with Prime Minister Modi. Again, we’ll provide readouts of those discussions.
The plenary session begins in the afternoon at four o’clock, where they’ll talk about a range of issues of interest to all four of our nations, particularly when it comes to fostering a free and open Indo-Pacific region.
And then, after the plenary session, they will gather together for the Cancer Moonshot event later in the evening, and then that will be followed by a dinner.
So, a busy weekend up in Wilmington. The President is very much looking forward to it, excited about it. Great way to head into next week, which will be, of course, the U.N. General Assembly up in New York. I’ve already previewed that, so I won’t belabor that with you this morning.
I’m happy to take some questions.
MODERATOR: First up, we’ll go to Aamer Madhani.
Q Hey. Thanks, John and Eduardo. Was the White House given a heads up by the Israelis about today’s strikes that happened near Beirut?
MODERATOR: Aamer, so sorry, could you repeat the question? We had some (inaudible).
Q Sure. Hopefully you can hear me now. Was the White House given any heads up by the Israelis about today’s strikes on Beirut?
MR. KIRBY: Aamer, we’ll let the IDF speak to their operations. I am certainly not aware of any pre-notification of those strikes. And that, of course, as you know, is not atypical.
Q Has the President or any senior aides in the administration had contact with Netanyahu or senior Israeli officials this week about the electronic device explosions? And if so, have any concerns been conveyed to the Israelis about these incidents?
MR. KIRBY: I’m simply not going to comment any more on those incidents than I already have, Aamer. All I can assert to you is that there was no U.S. involvement, and that’s really as far as I’m going to go.
Q So at this point, has the President and administration’s influence on Israel’s approach to Hezbollah reached its limit?
You know, as you know, Amos was just there recently. So, our intensive diplomacy efforts continue. We believe — continue to believe that a diplomatic solution is the best way forward vice escalating any of the military conflict. I’ll leave it there.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Danny Kemp.
Just a couple of things, if I may. Firstly, there are apparently some Democratic lawmakers pushing a bill to restore funding to UNRWA, which was suspended after allegations by Israel that some members were involved in the October the 7th attack. Is that something that the White House would support, or anything you know about that?
MR. KIRBY: Look, I think our position has been very consistent since we paused funding to UNRWA earlier this year. And of course, as you know, that pause was following allegations that a number of their employees were involved in the October 7th Hamas attack.
In light of the fact that there is still an ongoing crisis in Gaza and the central role that UNRWA does play in the distribution of lifesaving assistance, we continue, as we have said before, continue to support funding for UNRWA, of course with appropriate safeguards, with transparency measures built in, and obviously with accountability also baked into that.
We believe that all of those efforts should include, for example, a requirement that the executive branch certify to Congress that UNRWA has implemented the proper policies and procedures to include the vetting of their personnel and any plans that they have for investigating credible reports of violations of those policies and procedures.
I would remind that we did support a provision back in March of — I’m sorry — we supported a provision in the March 2024 Appropriations Act, to that effect, but it was not included in what became law.
So, bottom line: Been consistent. Continue to support the essential role that UNRWA plays, and therefore support funding for UNRWA — but again, I want to stress, with the appropriate safeguards, with transparency measures built in, and certainly with a provision for accountability. And we’re going to look forward to working with other partners — Japan, UK, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Canada, others — to ensure that those appropriate safeguards are adequate to the task and to help secure appropriate funding levels for UNRWA’s humanitarian mission.
Q Okay, thanks. And on a similar note, or similar topic, do you have any comment on the Wall Street Journal report that the administration has effectively given up hope of getting a ceasefire by the end of President Biden’s term?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, man — I mean, I talked about this the other day at the podium. Nobody is giving up hope. Nobody is going to stop working towards this.
As we’ve said so many times, we believe the best chance at getting the hostages home is through the ceasefire deal. We’d be the first ones to recognize, as I did the other day, that it’s hard, it’s daunting, and that we are not closer to achieving that than we were even a week or so ago.
But ain’t nobody giving up. We’re still going to keep the shoulders to the wheel. We’re still going to keep trying on this. The President has directed his team to continue to try to find a way to see if we can get a proposal that both sides will agree to so that the fighting can stop, we can get the hostages home, and we can start to really work towards a surge of humanitarian assistance in Gaza for the people that are suffering and in such dire need of it.
MODERATOR: Thanks. Next up, we’ll go to the line of Haley Bull.
Q Hey, thank you. Curious if there is any consideration of updating guidance for Americans in Lebanon, or if you’re sending any specific instructions to Americans who may be there in light of the escalating tensions on the Blue Line. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Haley — I’m not aware, Haley, of any additional guidance. I think the State Department has already spoken to this and issued travel warnings and advisories with respect to being in Lebanon. I’m not aware of anything additional.
I do want — and so I would refer you to the State Department, but I’m simply not — I’m not tracking anything new. But I do think it is — this provides an important reminder that Americans should not travel to Lebanon. It is at “Level 4: Do Not Travel.” And so, we strongly urge all American citizens not to go there, and if they are there, to think about leaving seriously.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Nadia Charters.
Q Thank you. A couple of questions. In addition to what happened with the pagers yesterday in Lebanon, today Israel’s attack on Dahiyeh has killed a senior Hezbollah military leader. How can you not see this but an escalation?
I know you keep saying that you wanted — you prefer a diplomatic solution, but at this stage, when Israel said there’s no red lines, do you believe that the diplomatic solutions has failed and the military solutions is taking place on the ground?
And I have another question.
MR. KIRBY: No. No. No, we don’t. Amos was just there. We still believe that there is time and space for a diplomatic solution. We think that that is the best way forward. War is not inevitable up there at the Blue Line, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to try to prevent it.
Q Okay. Second is: Israel Channel 12 has obtained material that have not been seen before, and they’re basically saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu has played a role to sabotage a hostage deal. Do you believe that Netanyahu has been obstructing the hostage deal? Hamas aside, do you believe that he’s responsible for that too?
MR. KIRBY: Nadia, I haven’t seen this report. I haven’t seen this alleged video. So, obviously, I can’t comment on any of that. All I can comment on is how diligently we continue to try to get this ceasefire deal in place. And as I have said numerous times, in order to get there, you got to be able to compromise and you got to have some leadership, and that means on all sides of the equation here. You need compromise and leadership on all sides.
I will also finish this answer by repeating again what I have said before: that Mr. Sinwar remains the main obstacle to pushing this forward. And I’d leave it at that.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Nick Schifrin.
Q Hey, John. Thanks very much. First, a very easy one, I think, and then a question that you can answer. Just making sure: None of these attacks that either Israel is claiming credit for, or not, in Lebanon, has anything — any involvement of U.S. intelligence, is that right?
MR. KIRBY: There is no U.S. involvement in these incidents.
Q Okay, great. All right.
And then, I know you can’t say very much on the strike in Beirut just over the last hour, but it is the 40th anniversary today of the attack on the embassy annex that killed 24. The deputy leader of Hezbollah, who has been targeted by Israel today, participated in that embassy attack. What does the United States say in general, even if you can’t say any specifics on this, on what happened? What would the U.S. say if that person was targeted and, in fact, killed? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Nick, you’re just — you’re not going to be happy with me on this one, but there’s really just not a lot I can say about these reports today. They just came in before we started the gaggle. I’m in no position to confirm any of the details of them. I certainly would point you to the IDF to speak to their operations.
I’m not trying to dodge you. I promise you that. It’s just I don’t have enough information or context to comment here in this particular gaggle right now. I mean, it just — we just got the reports, and so I think it would be foolish for me to weigh in with any level of specificity.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Asma Khalid.
Q Hey. Thanks, John, for doing this. I have a quick question about the pager/walkie-talkie attacks. I know you’ve said you can’t really speak broadly to it beyond the fact that there was no U.S. involvement, but I want to ask sort of more of a broader, big picture, strategic question about what the U.S. position is about this tactic as a mechanism of war. And do you have concerns at all for it being used, in terms of other mechanisms and ways, in countries in the supply chain that the U.S. relies on for many of its own technologies?
MR. KIRBY: I do appreciate the question, Asma. I’m afraid I’m just not going to have anything more to say about this. The United States was not involved in these incidents at all, and I’m going to leave it there.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to the line of Lalit. You should be able to unmute yourself.
All right, we’ll move on to the line of Michael Hernandez.
Q Thanks, Eduardo. Thanks, John. I do have two quick questions. First, I wanted to see if NSC has any reaction to videos purporting to show Israeli forces throwing the bodies of potentially dead Palestinians off of buildings near Jenin.
And then, separately, I wanted to just follow up on Nadia and Aamer’s questions and just kind of ask very explicitly if this strike in Beirut, which the IDF has publicly claimed credit for, is in keeping with your appeals to reduce tensions in the region and avoid escalation. Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: So, on your second question, again, I’m going to refer you to the IDF to speak to their operations. I don’t need to tell you that there have been strikes back and forth across the Blue Line now for many months. And from the very beginning, we have sought to try to prevent an escalation of this conflict, certainly to the north, and we are involved in intense diplomacy to that end.
As I’ve said earlier in this gaggle, we believe that there’s still time and space for diplomacy to work, and we’re going to continue to give it a shot, and that’s where we are.
But as for this particular strike, again, just heard the reports ourselves. Refer you to the IDF.
But I do want to stress: We don’t want to see escalation. We don’t want to see a second war — a second front in this war opened up at the border with Lebanon. And everything we’re doing is going to be involved in trying to prevent that outcome.
As I also said earlier, there is no reason for an expanded military conflict in Lebanon to be inevitable. We don’t believe it. We’re going to keep working to that end.
On your first question, yes, we’ve seen that video, and we found it deeply disturbing. If it’s proven to be authentic, it clearly would depict abhorrent and egregious behavior by professional soldiers. And we reached out immediately to our Israeli counterparts about it, and we pressed them for more details. They have assured us that they’re going to investigate this and that there will be proper accountability if it’s warranted. We’re going to be very eager to see what the IDF investigation finds, and as always, we expect that investigation be done thoroughly and transparently.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to the line of James Rosen. James, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Q Hey. Can you all hear me, I hope?
MODERATOR: Yes.
Q Thank you both. Admiral, two questions on the Middle East, if you would.
One, you have now, as the war approaches its first-year anniversary, the benefit of enough experience to look back on last November, when you were able, with your partners in the region, to finalize a ceasefire for a hostages deal that went into effect for some time and produced tangible results, and the subsequent failure over many, many months of different iterations of proposals and negotiations.
So I wonder if you could, with the benefit of that hindsight, say for us what conditions were present, do you think, in November that made a breakthrough possible at that time that apparently are no longer present. Or how do you account for the fact that you were able to do it once and just have not been able to do it again? What are the conditions that have created that disparity?
MR. KIRBY: James, it’s a really thoughtful question, and I would say, first, we’re not sitting down and doing that exact analysis. We’re focused on the deal at hand and the one before us and trying to find a way to get it across the finish line.
The only thing I would add in terms of context to your question is that war evolves over time. Conditions change on the ground over time. Operations have an effect.
And you were right: Early on in this, we were able to have some success in terms of at least getting a temporary ceasefire in place so we could get a small number of hostages out. Well, actually, not all that small. It was not insignificant, the number that we were able to get out. But that was early on. And over time, you know, the war evolved in many different ways, and conditions on the ground changed in many different ways, and the outlooks and the perspectives of the two sides changed as the conflict and the violence wore on.
And all of that — all of that context affects the decision-making process of leaders involved. That’s the best I can do in answering your question.
But I do want to come back to where I started. I mean, we’re not looking a lot in the rearview mirror here. We’re really looking ahead and trying to find a way forward that has proven difficult — as I said the other day, daunting, in fact. But it doesn’t diminish the energy that we’re applying to the problem set. And quite frankly, it doesn’t — though we’re looking at this pragmatically and certainly with no rose-colored glasses — I mean, we know what’s before us; we know how hard this is going to be — it doesn’t diminish our hope that we can actually get there. And so, that work continues.
MODERATOR: Next up, we’ll go to Lucas Thompson.
Q John, Secretary Blinken, when he was in the region, did not visit Israel. And now, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is not visiting Israel next week. What message is the administration sending to Israel?
MR. KIRBY: There’s no message being sent to Israel. First of all, I don’t believe the Defense Department announced any kind of a trip for Secretary Austin.
This isn’t about message-sending to Israel. I think Israel knows pretty darn well where President Biden and this administration comes down in terms of supporting their efforts to defend themselves. And we’ve been nothing but clear and candid with them about the challenges of improving humanitarian assistance in Gaza and the need to be discriminate and precise in how they’re going about defending themselves so as to pay more heat to civilian casualties. All of those conversations continue. I would not read anything into visits or no visits to Israel.
MODERATOR: Our last question will go to the line of Hiba Nasr.
Q Thanks, Eduardo. Hi, John. John, I know that you’ve been asked this question many times, but I would try again. I mean, what does a broadened war would look like for you? I mean, except for the thing of a ground military operation. I know you said you don’t have enough information about the strike today.
And my second question: I appreciate if you get back to me on this, because you said you don’t have information. Does the strike tonight, today in Beirut — do you consider it as a targeted strike? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: I don’t know that I’m going to promise you that I’m going to get back to you on that one. We have been scrupulous in not defining every single military event over there, and I think it’s best to have the IDF speak to their operations.
And so, I don’t want to get into the habit and I don’t want to start with your question in terms of having us characterize every single event. You should really talk to the IDF about it, about their operations.
And, look, as for an escalation of the conflict or a new front, I think we all know what we mean when we talk about a new front of warfare and what that means in terms of the resources, the logistics, the sustainment, the operational maneuver, the number of forces involved in moving the conflict to a different front and what that would look like.
Again, I don’t think it’s useful for me to get into an order of battle discussion here with you guys. I think we all know what we’re talking about when it comes to the potential for escalating the conflict, and we’re doing everything we can, and we still believe that there is things that can be done on the diplomatic front to prevent that.
MODERATOR: Thanks, all. That’s all the time we have for today. We’ll talk to you soon.
September 21, 2024 White House Washington DC
Based on the information provided in the search results and the context of your query, there have been serious allegations regarding some UNRWA employees’ involvement in terrorist activities, including the October 7, 2023 attacks against Israel. Here are the key points:
Allegations and Investigations
- In January 2024, Israel alleged that 12 UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7 attacks[1][4].
- UNRWA immediately launched an investigation in response to these allegations[4].
- The UN Office of Oversight Services (OIOS) conducted an independent investigation into these claims[4].
Investigation Findings
- The OIOS investigation made findings related to 19 UNRWA staff members[4].
- For 9 staff members, the evidence indicated they may have been involved in the October 7 attacks[4].
- UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini announced that these 9 staff members would have their contracts terminated[4].
- For 10 other cases, either no evidence was found or the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations[4].
Challenges and Limitations
- The OIOS was unable to independently authenticate most of the information provided by Israeli officials, as it remained in Israeli custody[4].
- UNRWA faces ongoing challenges in vetting its large workforce, particularly in Gaza where it employs over 10,000 staff[1].
UNRWA’s Response
- UNRWA maintains a zero-tolerance policy for hate speech, discrimination, or incitement to violence[1].
- The agency states it systematically reviews allegations of misconduct and launches investigations into credible claims[1].
- UNRWA has taken disciplinary action, including termination, in past cases where staff were found to have engaged in inappropriate behavior or political activities inconsistent with UN neutrality[5].
While these allegations are serious and concerning, it’s important to note that they represent a small fraction of UNRWA’s total workforce. The agency continues to face scrutiny and calls for reform to address these issues.
Citations:
[1] https://www.unrwa.org/unrwa-claims-versus-facts-february-2024
[2] https://www.ajc.org/news/what-to-know-about-unrwa-and-its-controversial-role-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict
[3] https://cufi.org/issue/unrwa-teachers-continue-to-support-antisemitism-terrorism-on-social-media-un-watch/
[4] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152841
[5] https://www.gao.gov/assets/a289903.html
[6] https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/mccaul-appalled-but-unfortunately-not-surprised-unrwa-employees-involved-in-october-7th-massacre/
[7] https://themedialine.org/top-stories/why-is-israels-proof-of-unrwas-links-to-terrorism-not-enough/
[8] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/22/no-evidence-of-unrwa-staff-links-terrorist-groups-independent-review
Sources: Midtown Tribune news, White House.gov
Big New York news BigNY.com
