military operations in gaza.

the president spoke with prime minister netanyahu. the call lasted 30 minutes and was constructed. the president reaffirmed his

message on holocaust remembrance day. the two leaders discussed the shared commitment of israel in the united states to remember the 6 million jews who were systematically targeted and slaughtered in the holocaust. one of the darkest chapters in human history and to forcefully act against antisemitism in all forms of hate fueled violence. of course, the two leaders spoke about our efforts to secure the hostage deal, including ongoing talks today. during the call, at the president's urging, prime minister netanyahu agreed to make sure the crossing is open to force humanitarian assistance for those in need. i also want to take a moment to adjust the latest reports out of rough, which was also a topic of discussion on the call. i will reiterate again that we cannot and will not speak for idf operations. but, we have made clear our views about operations in rafah that could potentially put more than one million innocent people at greater risk.

during this call, prime minister netanyahu, the president made this clear. he also made clear that we continue to believe the hostage deal is the best way to avoid that sort of an outcome while securing the release of those hostages. as i said, those conversations continue. one more thing, president biden hosted his majesty king of jordan for lunch at the right -- at the white house. they discussed the strong partnership between the united states in jordan and spoke about the situation in gaza, including efforts to secure the hostage deal and to get more humanitarian assistance into the civilians of gaza. we will have a more detailed read out of that conversation here very, very soon, just don't have a right now, but you will see it shortly. >> as far as you can tell, which proposal did hamas accept? john: i won't get into that, steve. >> is there an issue over how long a cease-fire will ask? john: you are asking me for the parameters of the deal and i will do that.

>> israel has called on people in rockford to evacuate, is that a full-scale assault? john: as i said, i will not speak about operations or their military intentions and plans. they should be the ones to answer those kind of questions. what i can only reiterate is that we have been consistent in the president was consistent again this morning that we don't support ground operations in rafah that would put the majority or even the civilians there at any greater risk. we want to see their safety and security for them. >> are you able to say whether hamas is agreeing to something that has been discussed over the last couple of days? john: without getting into the details, and director burns is still talking to partners about this, there have been ongoing negotiations and talks for weeks

and the director traveled recently to see if we can't bring this thing home. and, again, without speaking about details about the response by hamas, i think it's safe to conclude that that response came as a result or at the end of these continue discussions that the director was a part of. >> when will you get a read out from director burns? john: the president has been briefed on the response. he is aware of where this situation and where the process is, what you're asking is when were weak -- when will we get a final table slap. there is a process that has been worked in the past and will be worked this time. at response by hamas, we will evaluate and see what's in it. the israelis must have a chance to look at this and to evaluate it. director burns, as we speak, as you and i are talking, having

these conversations with partners in the region. it would be great, i'm sure we all would like to have an answer as soon as possible. i just want to get ahead of the process. >> when did it reopen or is it already open? john: it should be open soon. prime minister netanyahu committed to opening it this morning. he assured the president that it would be reopen. it had been closed for several days. >> the deputy director set over the weekend that gaza has a famine. john: the u.n. has not declared a famine in gaza at large, but i don't want to understate the degree of need and the dire situation that so many people in gaza are in, particularly with respect to food and water. it is not a great situation. that is why we are working so hard to get this deal in place

so we can keep the humanitarian assistance up at a higher level. >> is it your understanding that this is hamas final offer? is there still room to negotiate? john: it will depend on our evaluation and the israelis evaluation on the response and where we go from here. >> they are warning people to evacuate gaza. if they do go through with the operation, is the u.s. willing to consider putting limits or conditions on it? john: i won't speak to hypothetical operations that haven't happened yet. i think we have to see what transpires. the president was very direct and insistently so this morning that we don't want to see major ground operations and raw that put these people at greater risk spirit >> a month ago the administration made clear that the u.s. would change its approach of israel did not take steps to address the humanitarian crisis, does that stare -- still hold, could they

change course if the humanitarian process is an improved? john: of course spirit we have the right to adjust our policies as appropriate. >> in operation in rafah would jeopardize the humanitarian? john: we have been direct and consistent in our views of concern about operations in rafah. >> is the u.s. have any sense of whether israel is inclined or not inclined about this deal? john: i won't speak for the israel's. >> the president and prime minister spoke earlier today, this specific framework was encouraged or put pressure on the prime minister? john: you're talking about what hamas has responded to. just so you have the tiktok period, when they were talking this morning, we did not have news that hamas had responded, that news broke after the call. that said, as i mentioned in my

opening statement, of course they talked about the hostages and the importance of getting it secured. >> when the two leaders spoke, hamas had not -- john: yeah. >> specifically asked the prime minister. john: it would be wrong to conclude that the call this morning was about having the israelis except the hamas response. the hamas response hadn't happened yet. >> did it encourage the prime minister to get to some sort of deal? john: he has consistently met with prime minister netanyahu and urge that we get the deal secured, but it was in a pressure call, it wasn't about twisting his arm towards a certain set of parameters, director burns is in the region having these conversations with the israelis, qatari's, egyptians as we speak and that's a forum for working out the parameters, but the president clearly talked to the prime minister about the importance of getting a deal done. >> what is the president's position on unlimited opposition

into rafah? john: i don't think i could answer differently than i did with mary. we have been very clear that we don't support a major ground operation in rafah, operations that put at greater risk the more than one million people that are sheltering there. the question right now, the hypothetical, we are aware that they are warning people to evacuate. i would let them speak to their operations and to their intentions. nothing has changed about where we are with respect to operations that could put those people at greater risk. >> you know they are asking people in the area to evacuate and the possibility of a limited rough operation is on the table. does the president believe that they could execute a limited operation to rough while adequately protecting the lives of civilians? john: the president doesn't want to see operations in rafah that put at greater risk the more than one million people seeking refuge there.

>> or in limited operation into rafah? john: i think i've answered the question. >> prior to hamas saying that they have accepted this proposal, what, as you understood them to be, with the sticking points for a raw vote or the israelis are the deal that had been on the table? did it involve profit in any way? john: i will talk about the parameters of the proposal that was worked up before the hamas response and i'm certainly not going to talk about the response right now. i do understand the curiosity and you guys are all asking exactly the right questions, all very fair. but i hope you understand that the last thing i would ever want to say from this podium is say something that could put this sensitive process at risk. we are at a critical stage right now. we got a response from hamas, now director burns is working through that, trying to assess it, working with the israelis. i don't know that it gets any more sensitive than now. the worst thing we can do is speculate what's in it.

>> what was your understanding why the israelis were only evacuating part of rafah at this time? john: you would have to talk to the israelis. >> previously you said several times that hamas was in the previous stages of negotiations. what it be fair to say the ball is in israel's court? john: it depends on what the response as on the conversations we have with the israelis about where we go from here. >> do you have any sense of israelis currently using this threat for the operation in raaf as a means to putting pressure on hamas at this stage? john: you have to talk to the israelis about their intentions. >> you said you did not know the news during the call. were you surprised by hamas saying that they had reached a deal? john: it wasn't like we had a heads up about it.

we knew that the facts that publicly they had a proposal in front of them and i was just reminded of the fact that i said, many times, the ball was in hamas court. we certainly knew that they had it before them and we were waiting on word. we had hoped that there would be word very soon, we certainly hoped that there would be word today, but did we know the exact moment that al jazeera was able to break the news that hamas had a response, no, we did not predict that particular moment. >> you are at the sensitive point, you have been talking about it being a sensitive point. john: we will be encouraged when we get a deal in place and see hostages get back to their family. >> what role, if any, do you feel like the pressure of the evacuation or the announcement of evacuating, do you think that i had any role in triggering

hamas? john: i don't think we know that. >> can you talk about the timeline of the administrations of evacuation. how much time to people have to leave? did you put demand on the israelis in terms of how the evacuations are to take place under the parameters you guys have talked about? john: asking questions about the israelis and their intentions about what the larger purpose of this evacuation is and where they are wanting to go. to answer your question you have to go through the israelis to speak to the military. i won't get ahead of that, but are we curious about the timing on the intent and where they are going. absolutely, the president expressed our curiosity. greg say you're expressing what you want to see in terms of evacuations and whether israel's prepare for people moving around. john: i don't want to get a head operations that haven't happened

or speak for the israeli military. i could just say that we don't want to see operations in and around raw for that make it harder for the people seeking refuge and shelter to be safe and secure. we have made that case privately to the israelis president, did it again today with the director. we have been very consistent about that. >> john, knowing everything you just set about the concerns expressed in the u.s. about the risk of palestinians in gaza with a full scale operation, is the u.s. still aligned with israel in its intention to eliminate this terrorist threat posed by hamas? john: of course. >> is there any feeling hamas may be trying to trick the public in some way?

i heard israeli officials commenting on this proposal as a trick and there has been a lot of pressure to -- john: go ahead, i'm listening. >> pressure on the administration to make sure the palestinians are being served in that the u.s. support for israel is in overhand it, and you have the report come out earlier today or maybe yesterday that the u.s. was potentially weighing withholding and armed shipment to israel. is there any concern hamas is trying to capitalize on that public pressure and play a trick, as israeli officials put it? john: i don't think there's a way i could answer that question unless i got between their ears. that's a place i don't want to be. i think that's a great question for him. it's interesting, i stand up

here and answer questions, karine does, matt miller, pentagon colleagues, the president does, and mr. netanyahu does in the idf president does. you know who has an answer to a single question about his intentions and what games you might be playing were where he intends to take this, the head of hamas. and i think it's high time that he answered some of these questions and come clean about what is -- what his intentions are. i don't know. all i know is i got a response. bill burns is looking at the response and we will see where this goes. hopefully, hopefully, whatever is in this thing, hopefully it can lead to the hostages getting out real soon with their families where they need to be. as each day passes, their lives get further at risk. time is really of the essence. >> noting your answer, is it a good idea to try to negotiate with terrorists? john: it's not like we sit down pie-in-the-sky and say, today's a good day, let's negotiate with

terrorists. you have to negotiate with who you got a negotiate to get people back with their families. if there's a better idea to get those hostages home to their families, i think we would love to hear them, i just don't think there's another way to do it. you have to negotiate through qatar with hamas to get those folks back to their families. that's the hard work of diplomacy. sometimes it means you sit across the table from some really bad folks that you'd rather not have to talk to. but they got those hostages and we want them back. >> u.s.-backed israel intention to defeat hamas. john: we want to eliminate that threat. jack has said many times, you will not eliminate an ideology through military operations, but you have a right and responsibility to eliminate the threat they suffered on the seventh of october, 100% and we have been nothing but steadfast on that.

>> speaking about a tiktok, what problem is this going to solve? john: you've heard me say many times, they talk as appropriate. given where we were in the hostage deal negotiations, given where we were with humanitarian assistance with them being shut down for several days, certainly given where we were with expectations in raw front, this made all the sense in the world for today the be the day with the president and prime minister netanyahu speak. >> when was the call set up, this morning, yesterday after the rocket attack? john: i would tell you the initial planning for the call to be late in the weekend. >> on a different topic, why did the u.s. halt and ammunition shipment to israel? john: i have seen the press reporting on this, all i can tell you is jackie's question. our support for israel's security remains ironclad. i won't get any -- get into any

specifics over one shipment to another. >> the bombs may have been used in rafah, the concern is over rough and what the is really could use as ammunition, did that play any role in a shipment? john: i have no answer other than what i gave you. >> did the united states put a pause on the shipment to israel? john: won't confirm that report.

at the same time they have a right and obligation to be careful about civilian casualties and getting more humanitarian assistance. that's why we are working so hard on the hostage deal. that's why the president in the united states continue to leave the world in terms of actually making a difference in that outcome, making life better for the palestinian people. no other countries doing more than the united states to increase that assistance and get the cease-fire in place. >> the israelis stopped bombs of al jazeera over the weekend. can you comment on the appropriate actions for the united states allies. john: we don't support that action as we set on world press freedom day on friday.

i know karine talked about this, the work of independent journalism around the world is absolutely vital. it's important to inform citizenry and the public, but also important to help inform the policymaking process so we don't support that at all. the focus of the call was on the hostage deal and rafah. you saw, i think i put a statement out this morning on that. we have officially reacted to it. >> is there planning on discussing their banning of al jazeera and the threat you see with the israeli government? the freedom of press in the united states and across the globe, and then this decision came. the issue with the government. john: we have raised this issue and i made a public statement about it. >> on rafah, has israel presented or provided the

administration with a comprehensive plan? john: no. >> -- john: our security commitments to israel are ironclad. the president push very hard to get that supplemental funding so that we could continue to help israel with the security need. >> appreciate the ambiguity, it's true. john: i can't speak for what you're appreciate, all i could tell you is that my answer is not going to change. >> what is the definition of an assault or attack on raw foot in the view of the white house that would be seen as an from his impure john: there hasn't been an assault or attack, its ground operation, let's not get ahead of where we are. the president did express, again, our concerns about

operations in rafah that would put at risk these people that are trying to find shelter there. i think it would be a futile exercise for me to get up here and give you a laundry list of what would or would not compose some kind of ground operation in rafah. the idf has to speak to what their intentions are. >> but is still ground operation versus the missiles overnight is what we are hearing. john: it doesn't matter if it's missiles or rockets, things that kill innocent people, that's not ok. the president made it clear we don't want to see operations in rafah that put at risk those million and a half people there. >> out is the president assess the ongoing attempts to make sure this deal comes together. john: it's a nice side way to get to that talking about the

parameters of the deal, i appreciate that. >> i was generally interested. john: excellent. i'm sorry i impugned your question. i think he is very grateful for the work that director burns on the whole team has been doing to try to get us to this point. but it only really matters if we can get the deal in place, and i'm sure director burns would agree with me on that. and those hostages can get home. but he has done terrific work thus far and i know that he wants to get this across the finish line as much as we do. >> on a different topic, look forward to the last few minutes, the u.s. soldiers detained in russia, it happened the last few days. he was stationed in korea, travel to rush on his own, he's being accused of some sort of theft. as the administration aware of this report? what can you tell us? john: i cannot tell you much, i hope you can understand that.

it's a better question put to our dod colleagues and we are aware of the case. >> another matter related to russia, threats from moscow the last couple of days started striking british military facilities because of nuclear drills and because of weapons manufactured in the u.k. being used in the conflict that could apply to other allied countries as well, directly the united states, do you have a response to that? john: what i would say is number one, it's reckless and irresponsible for the leader of a major nuclear armed power to be rattling their way that he is with potential use for nuclear weapons. obviously we have monitored this very closely. i could tell you we have seen nothing, even despite the reckless rhetoric that would cause us to change our strategic term posture. lastly, if mr. putin and russian officials are worried about

their troops in ukraine getting hit with weapons from other countries, the thing to do is take your troops and leave. >> what with the timing mean to the relationship between them? john: you know something i don't know. i have not seen those reports, i cannot confirm it. i will go back to what i said. a half a dozen, if not, more times. we don't support operations in china that put them at risk. >> provided by russia to north korea and the sanctions and

there is 500,000 barrels in last week you said that the limit was 106 to $5,000 john: i did not bring the peril tattle -- barrel data with me today. >> the oil tankers by the u.n. on the timing of china this time with your sanctions against russia and sanctions against

china. john: i would admit iou another answer. i will get back to you more detailed. i would only say, to exit myself from this question gracefully, that we want everybody to enforce the sanctions that are against north korea appropriately and consistently, and not everybody does. north korea has benefited from sanctions from the region and beyond the region. >> thank you, very much. i had a question on russia and ties between china and russia. they are visiting china this month and right before the visit and they saw a russian police raided the home, this is the place persecuted in china. it is the white house sending a reaction to this? john: i have not seen the

reports about the detention of these individuals. if they are true, certainly that would be concerning to us. but i would probably refer you to the state department to speak a little bit more about that than i can. just again, at large, we have seen china and russia try to go poster together. we believe a big reason for that is frankly, the united states. and putting themselves in positions to either oppose our foreign policy objectives are to try to be an obstacle to them in many different ways. so it's concerning to us. the most specific concern that we have right now is the fact that some chinese companies are providing microelectronics and components so that mr. putin can continue his defense industrial base improvements and developments and put weapons in the field that kill innocent ukrainians. and we have made those concerns clear directly to our chinese counterparts.

>> i want to ask, just for clarification on the senior ministration and defense department, anybody? john: not that i'm aware of. john: not that i'm aware of, they've done this before in the past. i'm not aware of any other meetings. >> on the pier, if you could talk about that and whether or not a cease-fire would need to be in place that would have to be fully implemented in operation. john: a cease-fire does not have to be in place for it to operate. it might make it easier, there's no fighting going on, but it doesn't have to be. one of the big issues that we are still working out is what the force protection lay down would look like and how, not just the people operating, but the material itself could be safe from any attack.

as far as i know, and you should go to the pentagon for more detail, essentially, the pier itself has been constructed. it is not in place because last week they had weather issues, so they weren't able to put it in place. you should go to the pentagon for where it is now. as i understand, it's still not being put into place. if you have to anchor it and make sure people build a causeway so you can get to and from it. there's still a lot of work that has to be done to get it operational, that would include the force protection lay down. but, no, short answer is you don't have to have a cease-fire in place to