# Iraq - United States Department of State

- Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 9, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 9, 2024																																																					May 9, 2024																																																								1:22 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Okay. Matt?QUESTION: Really, four days in a row?MR MILLER: Four days in a row. I’m sorry. I &#8212;QUESTION: Four days in a row you &#8212;MR MILLER: As I was – as I was walking out here I was remembering our exchange about this yesterday and thinking, oh, I’m going to get it, I’m going to catch it.QUESTION: There’s nothing going on in the world. It’s all very quiet. Everything is fine and calm.MR MILLER: I – again, my lack of opening remarks does not indicate lack of anything to say. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Right. Okay. So can you explain to us what the – what the practical impact, at least for the State Department, is of the President’s comments last night about arms shipments to – arms transfers to Israel and whether or not this plays into the NSM report that I guess is not coming today, and maybe tomorrow?MR MILLER: So let me speak first with the NSM report. It doesn’t have any practical impact on the NSM report. The NSM report is a backwards-looking report where we’re looking at a number of things over the past – conduct from last year and then up to when we send the report, and it doesn’t have any impact either on the content of the report or the timing of that report, which won’t be today but, again, I expect in the very near future. It’s just a matter of days that we’ll be able to get that report up to the Hill.And then with respect to the larger question, so what the President made clear is that we have concerns about a potential military operation in Rafah. I don’t think that’s any secret. We’ve been making those concerns known publicly and we have made those concerns quite clear to the Government of Israel. And as the President noted, there are certain types of military assistance that we will not make available to Israel for use in a campaign in Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. But I was under the impression that you guys didn’t speak to hypotheticals.MR MILLER: So we have made quite clear for some time our concerns about a Rafah operation, something the Israel Government has signaled is likely to be coming. And so, yes, we have been engaged with them on that.QUESTION: Well, I get it, but isn’t it “if?” Isn’t there a big “if” in here?MR MILLER: Certainly that would be our hope. We don’t want to see an operation go forward, and we are making that clear.QUESTION: Well, I know. But every time you’re asked any question that’s got the word “if” in it or it’s not something that has already happened, you refuse to answer. And now, all of a sudden &#8212;MR MILLER: I wouldn’t say every time. Wouldn’t say every time.QUESTION: Pretty much.MR MILLER: Look, this – I – so just to be – I know we should be serious about this.QUESTION: I am not trying to be making light of it.MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah.QUESTION: I just – but I just – you’re – you guys have made or the President has made a policy prescription, apparently, based on something that hasn’t happened yet.MR MILLER: He has &#8212;QUESTION: Right?MR MILLER: He – because we have been in close conversation with the Government of Israel about this fact.QUESTION: Yeah.MR MILLER: There is a different than I – there is a very real difference, obviously, between coming to the briefing room and getting a question about something that might happen, and something that we’re engaged with a foreign government that they say they intend to do. And we treat those differently for quite obvious reasons.QUESTION: Okay, so you’re saying you won’t tell us the full truth but you will – anyway. My point is &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m saying it’s different when a reporter raises a hypothetical question &#8212;QUESTION: All right.MR MILLER: &#8212; versus a government saying, “This is what we intend to do, this is what our policy is going to be,” and we have to make determinations about our policy.QUESTION: And is it your understanding that the President has decided that what Israel has done in Rafah so far is – crosses the red line?MR MILLER: We have not yet seen an indication of a major military operation. That is something that we are watching closely, and the President made that clear in his comments.QUESTION: And yet he already decided to halt the – or to suspend these – the shipments based on something that hasn’t happened?MR MILLER: We have – we have paused one shipment &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; and are reviewing others in the context of a potential operation. But again, we hope that there is no operation. That, I think, would be the best outcome for everyone involved.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.QUESTION: Actually, can I &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; follow up? Just what is your definition exactly of a major operation in Rafah? I mean, you have tanks there. You have bombings going on every day. They took control of the Rafah crossing. What is your definition of a major operation in this case?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into too much detail about that from here, but I would differentiate it from the types of operations that we have already seen from the beginning when it comes to Rafah. We have seen Israel execute strikes against Rafah. We have seen – when I mean strikes, I mean airstrikes. Going back to last October, it’s something that they have engaged in. The operation that we saw to take control of the Rafah crossing appeared to be a limited operation; it’s not a major invasion of a civilian area, neighborhoods packed with people, thousands and thousands of people.So when we talk about a major operation, we’re talking about a campaign targeting these civilian areas that are densely packed with civilians, in many cases civilians who are refugees from their homes, sometimes refugees twice over who have moved once, twice, three times, and are now taking refuge in a place that is literally their last resort, where there’s nowhere else for them to go.Yeah.QUESTION: Matt, on the NSM report, can we get the latest ETA on when State will submit that?MR MILLER: In the coming days.QUESTION: So &#8212;MR MILLER: In the – it’s the very near future. I don’t have a date to affix on the calendar for you, but it will be very soon. I can assure you of that.QUESTION: So is there a chance it might slip into early next week?MR MILLER: I am not going to give any timetable at all other than to say the coming days, which is what I said yesterday. I can assure you it will not be long.QUESTION: Okay. A couple of other things. In your answer to Matt, you said the report is going to be retrospective. Right?MR MILLER: Correct. It’s looking at – it’s looking at past conduct.QUESTION: Right. And he asked you, I think, if I got it right, how – whether there is going to be any practical impact on President’s comments on the report?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: So – but the President’s comments last night also covered the past. He talked about – let me find the quote here. He talked about, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs.” So can you explain to us how his comments have no practical impact on the report?MR MILLER: What I was taking Matt’s question to mean is Matt’s question was related to the decision that the President announced last night or that the President made public to not provide Israel certain military weapons for a Rafah campaign. That is a forward – that is a forward-looking decision. We have paused shipments.Now, the report is a backwards-looking thing. Now, the report does – will obviously look at allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different thing than what the President – I mean, it’s a – I’m speaking just to a determination going forward versus a backwards-looking report.QUESTION: Okay, well, let me ask it in the way that I sort of was thinking about asking. It is a report that is assessing whether or not Israel’s assurances are credible on two things, and one of them is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law. And the President of the United States yesterday said, “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs,” in reference to the 2,000-pound bombs. So can you explain again, like, how his comments – maybe that’s not a determination as a result of a legal process, but those are comments from the President of the United States. How does that not have any impact on the findings of the report?MR MILLER: So I think you have to look at two separate things. One is the tragedy – the tragic loss of civilian life throughout this conflict, which we have spoken to many times, the President has spoken to, the Secretary has spoken to, other members of the administration have spoken to. And we have said that far too many people have died; that Israel needs to do more to minimize civilian harm; that the actions they have taken have not yielded sufficient results – all of those things we believe to be true, still believe to be true. That is different than a legal question of whether there have been violations of international humanitarian law. That’s a different question; it applies – it goes to not just questions of civilian life – or I’m sorry, loss of civilian life, but whether international humanitarian law was violated in the loss of that life. And those questions are something that we continue to look at and have not yet – not reached any determinations.QUESTION: And how do you determine whether international humanitarian law is violated with those killings? Is your criteria intent?MR MILLER: So there are all sorts of things when you look at – I’m obviously not a lawyer, but when you look at the standards that have been applied in every conflict around the world, it goes to questions of intent, it goes to questions of proportionality. There are other things you have to look at when making those determinations.QUESTION: Okay. My final thing on this. How do you think – I’m just trying to wrap my head around this. In his comments, the President has also said in the other part of the sentence, and in “other ways in which they go after population centers.” Going after someone or something does imply, to me, intent. And also, the bombs in question are 2,000-pound bombs, and their impact when dropped in a population center are known. We know that Gaza is already very – it&#8217;s very densely populated, and there are people squeezed in a small place. So how can any country claim there was no intent if you’re dropping a 2,000 bomb on a population center?MR MILLER: So this goes back to the very difficult problem that Israel has faced from the beginning, is that you have Hamas embedded in these population centers. So yes, the Israeli military very clearly is operating within population centers, because that’s where Hamas was; that’s where their military targets have been. And I will say as we have looked at this conflict from the beginning, obviously, we react to facts on the ground. So at the outset of this conflict, you saw Hamas that was well entrenched in civilian areas and was able to launch not just the attacks of October 7th, but dozens and dozens of rocket attacks. For a while, they were launching them every day for the first month of this conflict. And Israel, in the first stages of the conflict, was able to degrade Hamas’s ability to the fact that those attacks, while they still happen, are sporadic, they’re not – they’re not as frequent, and Hamas – the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza and central Gaza have largely been defeated and have been dismantled, though clearly there is still a Hamas population that exists in all of those areas.What we have also seen over the course of this conflict is Israel take measures to try and reduce civilian harm, and we have seen the numbers come down. Just if you look at the – at the death toll from back in October, November, as Israel implemented additional measures, the civilian death toll did go down. But we haven’t seen it come down far enough. And so when you look at – you take all those facts and you overlay them with a campaign in Rafah where you have a denser civilian population than we – than Israel would have faced anywhere else, just because of the people that have fled there, and you look at their track record at previous points in the operation, it leads us to believe that there would be incredible civilian toll, and it’s something that we can’t support.QUESTION: Okay. Truly final one, and I apologize to my colleagues. Can you tell us where we are on the hostage talks? And there are Israeli officials – I believe perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu – saying the deal on the hostage talks collapsed because of the President’s decision and because the President signaled this decision. What would you say to that?MR MILLER: So first of all, I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials – is that an on-the-record quote from someone? They’re not – I’m not going to respond to anonymous officials. But I would just say that is not at all our assessment of the hostage talks. We actually think that a Rafah operation would weaken Israel’s position, both in these talks and writ large. We’ve talked about this before, that a major military operation in Rafah would further weaken Israel’s standing in the world, would further create distance from its partners in the region who actually share Israel’s goal of seeing Hamas defeated and want to see Hamas replaced with a different governance structure in Gaza.And then also, if you look – just look at Hamas’s track record, they have never cared about Palestinian civilian lives. If they did, they wouldn’t have launched these attacks in the first place, which they knew would produce a response; they wouldn’t hide behind civilians, and they would have agreed to a ceasefire long ago. So I just don’t think that that argument holds any water.With respect to the talks itself – so we continue to engage with the Israeli Government on the amendments to the proposal that Hamas submitted earlier this week. There continues to be – we continue to work to try to finalize the text, try to get an agreement. And I will just say that any effort like this is incredibly difficult. This one has certainly been incredibly difficult, but we will continue to stay engaged to try to get a deal because we believe it’s in the interest of all relevant parties.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: So just – it wasn’t an anonymous official; it was the prime minister of Israel that &#8212;MR MILLER: So I hadn’t seen that on the record. That’s – I had seen anonymous quotes earlier. I think my comments stand.QUESTION: Okay. So &#8212;MR MILLER: I did give a substantive response in any regard, so – you can apply to that.QUESTION: Well, I – okay. Substantive – I don’t know by whose definition. But anyway, when you say the &#8212;MR MILLER: Ouch, Matt. I thought I was pretty substantive. (Laughter.)QUESTION: Well, when you say that the death toll – when you said prior – the death toll will continue – or has fallen since October, it’s come down but not yet enough, whose death toll are you talking about here? Whose figures are you accepting?MR MILLER: So we are looking at the figures that are released by the ministry of health, which we do have &#8212;QUESTION: By the Gaza – by the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, which you know that we have &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; which is run by Hamas?MR MILLER: Which you know that we &#8212;QUESTION: And you have &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – let me just finish. We know that we do have – we don’t have any way of verifying those figures on our own &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then how do you know &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; but they are – they are the only figures that are available. And look, the UN relies on them, we look at them &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: We do think there are probably issues with the numbers, but they do capture a large death toll and a large civilian death toll.QUESTION: But you’re fairly certain that, at least in terms of the trend, they’re accurate?MR MILLER: It – it’s just – I won’t – I can’t say accurate with any degree of certainty, like I can’t give you a, what, percentage accuracy &#8212;QUESTION: Well, then what – (laughter) &#8212;MR MILLER: But – no, no, hold on. But if you look at &#8212;QUESTION: With any degree of certainty? Like it could be zero percent?MR MILLER: No, no, I can’t say if they’re – I can’t say if they’re off – no, hold – if they’re off by 10 percent, by 5, by 50 – I can’t say something like that. But just –QUESTION: Well, I mean, they might be off by 50 percent. Who knows?MR MILLER: But stipulate whatever they’re off by, they have come down. And so they have come down over time – the daily number has come down over time when you look at where they were last October or November to where they are today.QUESTION: All right. Last thing really briefly, just on this whole “a hypothetical” thing – because when Humeyra started her question, it was about my question to you. And it is a hypothetical, because you have the President making a determination on something that hasn’t happened yet, right?MR MILLER: He is making United States policy based on conversations with the Government of Israel, where they tell us what they plan to do.QUESTION: Well, let me put it in a very flip way. Like should I be bringing an umbrella home with me when I leave work today?MR MILLER: I have not looked at the forecast. I can’t quite answer that.QUESTION: Right, so that’s a hypothetical, so you don’t know, right?MR MILLER: I don’t have control over the forecast. The Government of Israel &#8212;QUESTION: Well &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on. The Government of Israel has control of what it’s going to do, and so when they tell us that they intend to do something, we make our policy in reaction to that.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just a point of clarification on that very front, because Admiral Kirby said this morning that the Israelis have been saying their Rafah operation is limited, precise, and of a short duration. That’s something that you’re going to monitor. So are they – have they told you that they are going to undertake a big operation in Rafah, and that’s the reason for this policy shift?MR MILLER: They have made quite clear they intend to conduct an operation. The operation they have conducted so far has been limited. They have talked, I think quite openly, about conducting a major military operation in Rafah. We are opposed to that, but we’ll see what happens. We have made quite clear we don’t want to see it happen.We continue – and I should say we do continue to engage with them about other options that they can pursue. We have presented a full range of other policy choices that they can make that we think would achieve the goal of dismantling Hamas and choking off the Hamas battalions that remain in Rafah without further endangering civilians there and without causing this mass population displacement with no place for them to go. And so they may end up taking that option, but right now we will wait and see what happens.QUESTION: Have you had any indication in conversations since this policy shift was announced that they are considering a different tactic?MR MILLER: I’m not going to talk about our private conversations with them, but you can look at their public remarks and draw conclusions from that.QUESTION: Okay. The original reason, going back to April 4th, that both the President and the Secretary have said that the U.S. would shift its policy was because Israel needed to boost the amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. That picture looks about as bleak as it has ever been with Rafah being closed, Kerem Shalom being open but no – nothing going in. So is this suspension meant to also address the humanitarian effect, or are there other potential consequences that the administration is considering on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into previewing any other potential policy options. I will say, first of all, you’re right – we have been very clear that the level of humanitarian assistance needed to come up and it needed to stay up, and it is not at the level it needs to be this week. That said, Kerem Shalom is open today and some trucks have moved through Kerem Shalom, so we are – have had a bit of an increase from where we were yesterday. I don’t have the number but I – just before I came out here – told that some trucks moved through.Some trucks also move through Erez, so there are trucks that have gotten in. Not enough – clearly, not enough, not at the level that they should be, and so that’s why we’ll continue to push, continue to work with humanitarian partners to try and get them back up as well as to get Rafah open. That will continue to be a priority for us.QUESTION: But are there any additional – because that was April 4th, so that was a month ago, a little over a month ago. So are there any additional consequences at this stage being considered for – specifically for the humanitarian &#8212;MR MILLER: I am not going to preview specific steps, but we have always made clear, when it comes to humanitarian assistance and the need to have it increased and sustained, that we will make our policy determinations based on the facts on the ground. And that’s the case.QUESTION: Okay. And one follow-up on Humeyra’s question about the hostage talks. How can you say with such confidence that the policy shift the U.S. has just announced didn’t meaningfully affect the trajectory of those talks, either by undercutting the Israelis at the negotiating table or emboldening Hamas at the negotiating table?MR MILLER: So it is just not our assessment, based on actually being in the middle of these talks and seeing how it’s happening and what Hamas is actually demanding and what their incentive structure actually is. That’s just not how we see it. But also, again, to my point, the idea that – we just have never seen Hamas as having any interest in the – in civilians and civilian life in Rafah. So the idea that a Rafah invasion that would kill civilians is something that they lose sleep over just isn’t backed up by the facts, isn’t backed up by their track record the past seven months, when they have put civilians in harm’s way time and time again.QUESTION: If a full-scale Rafah operation goes forward, is it safe to assume that it eliminates the prospects of a ceasefire and hostage deal altogether?MR MILLER: We will continue to work for a ceasefire that brings the hostages home no matter what it takes. That will continue to be the goal that we will try – that we will work for.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one question on the NSM delay. Is there any reason that you can provide to us for the delay?MR MILLER: That we just continue to work to finalize it.QUESTION: Okay. I’m curious about President Biden saying that those 2,000-pound bombs were used to kill civilians, and now the United States won’t allow those bombs to be used or doesn’t want those bombs to be used. But we know that all of Gaza is so intensely populated, so is there a differentiating factor in terms of how many civilians lives you’ll allow to be killed with those bombs?MR MILLER: No. First of all, we have always made clear that we don’t want to see any civilian loss of life. And we have consistently pressed the Israeli Government to take additional steps to minimize the loss of civilian life. But the assessments that we make are informed by what happens on the ground, and we are in a very different place today than we were last October. That’s what I made clear a minute ago in response to – I think it was to Humeyra’s question – where you have seen Hamas significantly degraded. You have seen their ability to launch the kind of attacks that they did on October 7th significantly degraded, if not completely eliminated.They couldn’t launch an attack of that scale today. Their weapons production factories underground have been eliminated. Their – most of their battalion leadership in the north and in central Gaza has been eliminated. So Israel has achieved a great number of its military objectives. So that’s one thing that is different now versus then.But the other thing that’s different now versus then is that we have watched the experience of those few months, and even when Israel has taken additional steps to minimize civilian harm, we’ve still seen results that were – we’ve still seen results where far too many civilians were dying. So we talked about this on some of the trips, where – there was one in November where the Secretary went and pressed Israel to take additional civilian harm measures. They did, they announced some of those, we talked about them publicly, and we still saw an unacceptable loss of civilian life.So when you look at all of those factors, both where the battlefield – the battle versus Hamas stands today and the track record over the last few months, it leads us to believe that the loss of civilian life in Rafah, where you have a situation unlike anywhere else, both because of the concentration of people and because there’s nowhere left to go because all of these people have come down to Rafah and there’s nowhere for them to go now, it leads us to believe that the results would be disastrous from a civilian harm perspective.QUESTION: Okay. And then NSC’s John Kirby said earlier today that Biden doesn’t want certain categories of American weapons used in particular operation in a particular place. Can you just clarify for us: Is this review of the future shipments of U.S. weaponry based on what those weapons are, or is it just based on the possibility of delaying or halting all U.S. weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get ahead of what the President said last night. We are reviewing – we have paused one shipment; we are reviewing others. But as the President made clear, we will always be committed to Israel’s defense. He talked about continuing to provide them defensive weapons. We will always be committed to Israel’s security. We will always be committed to helping Israel defend itself against Hamas, Hizballah, the threat from Iran, the threat from other terrorist groups and malign actors.But when we look at a potential operation in Rafah, the President made clear that we are not going to provide them certain weapons that they could use in such an operation.QUESTION: And then just last question. Kirby also said that Biden was forth – was as forthright in his conversations with Netanyahu about the possibility to pause weapons shipments as he was in the conversation publicly on CNN yesterday. Was the Secretary also as crystal clear in his private conversations as President Biden was publicly yesterday?MR MILLER: Yes. I don’t – we have been quite clear with the Government of Israel some – for some time that we are opposed to a major Rafah operation. And the Secretary in his conversations has made that quite clear and made quite clear the potential implications, as has – as the President did.QUESTION: He’s made clear which shipments might be paused?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get – I’m not going to get into details, but you can be fully assured that the Government of Israel understood our policy.QUESTION: Sorry. Did he make that warning in last week’s trip?MR MILLER: I’m not going to get into details. As I said, there is no doubt that they understood what our policy was should they launch a Rafah operation, or what our policy would be, I should say.Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And before I ask about Rafah, I want to bring your attention to two days from today, May 11, will mark the second anniversary since an Israeli sniper killed our colleague Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist. And I want to ask you: Are you satisfied that everything that could have been done to bring those responsible, to hold them accountable has been done, and do you consider that case to be closed?MR MILLER: That death continues to be a tragedy – one that was investigated by the Israeli Government, one that we investigated, and I don’t have anything further to add to what we’ve said – what we’ve said in the past.QUESTION: So the case is closed?MR MILLER: I just don’t have anything further to say on what we said many times from this podium.QUESTION: Now, on Rafah, Matt, I know there is – or what you guys keep saying that there is no major operation, but there are little tiny operations. They just killed a family of eight last night in an area that is to the west, not to the south or to the east, in Tel al-Sultan. I mean, I don’t want to name all their names, but four were children: Ahmad Abdulrahman (ph), 10 years old; Lanana (ph), 12 years old; Muhamad Ramzi Lulu (ph), five years old; Jana Muhamad Lulu (ph), one year old. I mean, so these things go on day in and day out, and &#8212;MR MILLER: Every one of those deaths is an absolute tragedy, Said.QUESTION: Right, right. But I mean, it is obvious that the Israelis are not heeding the President’s call, your call, to sort of hold back and so on. And the one thought or what we heard is that once they raise the Israeli flag on the Rafah crossing that maybe things will not go south from there, but they are. Right?MR MILLER: So I don’t know where you heard that, Said. Every death is a tragedy. We have made clear we want to see them take additional steps to reduce civilian harm, but that doesn’t change the fact that just as a factual matter we haven’t seen a full-scale major military operation. Again, what we’re talking about is – like the kind of operation you saw in Khan Younis, like the kind of operation you saw in Gaza City. Just as a factual matter, that has not yet begun.QUESTION: By the way, you said that Hamas is hiding among the civilian population. It was not Hamas that drove the people south. It was actually the Israelis. They told them to go and hunker in Rafah, and now &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Said, you’re getting to my exact point, which is it was appropriate to evacuate people when there was – hold on – when there was some place for them to go, right?QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: When there was Rafah, which was if not completely safe, safer than Gaza City, safer than Khan Younis, and someplace for them to go. That’s not true anymore. There are not sufficient – there’s not sufficient infrastructure in Khan Younis or elsewhere in Gaza for the people that moved to Rafah to go somewhere else. That is why we are so opposed to a military operation there.QUESTION: Yeah, which takes me to my next question. I mean, if the Israelis, as you said, have already achieved their goals, and if there is no place for these people to go anywhere, why can’t the United States say, no invasion of Rafah, this operation must end now, full stop? Because obviously this is a wall, or dammed, or whatever it is.MR MILLER: I think we have said no major invasion of – Said, hold on. You were just listening to the initial part of this briefing. But that said &#8212;QUESTION: Not &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold on, hold up. There are still Hamas fighters there. We have never said that Israel shouldn’t be able to do anything to take on the Hamas battalions that are there. We – there are things that we support. We have made clear in private conversations with them alternative paths for taking out and degrading and choking off those Hamas battalions. That continues to be our position. And it continues to be our position that Hamas could end all of this right now if they would – if those battalions would lay down their arms, if Sinwar would come out of the tunnels and if they would stop fighting. That’s another way that you could end all this.QUESTION: And lastly on the aid, it seems that there was another attack by Israeli settlers on aid trucks a couple days ago. Are you aware of that report, and is the United States doing anything about that?MR MILLER: I am aware of that report. In fact, we – if you looked at the statement we put out – I think it was day before yesterday – the Secretary talked with the foreign minister of Jordan about that attack and made clear that the Israeli Government needs to do everything possible to prevent those attacks and to hold people accountable. It’s our understanding that the Government of Israel arrested six people in response to those attacks. That was after they had arrested three people in response to the previous attack.That is clearly the right thing to do, but they need to do more to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place. These are attacks on aid convoys delivering humanitarian assistance to civilians. They have nothing to do with this – with the conflict with Hamas. They should not be impeded, delayed, obstructed in any way.QUESTION: Well, they have nothing to do with it except that it wouldn’t be needed as desperately &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean. What I mean &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; as it is if it wasn’t &#8212;MR MILLER: You know what I mean is if your goal is to deprive Hamas of something, stopping these convoys for civilians does nothing to achieve that goal.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, Josh.QUESTION: Hey, thanks. Just wanted to clarify something you said at the top. I think I heard you say there are certain types of military systems that we will not make available to Israel for use in a Rafah campaign. Does the President’s statement preclude delivering those weapons shipments or analogous ones to Israel for use in other areas during this timeframe?MR MILLER: I am just not going to get beyond what the President said last night at this point. We’ve made clear what our policy is. We will engage with the Government of Israel about this question and others, but as I said at the top, while we are opposed to the – I’m just going to speak about this generally – while we’re opposed to a Rafah – major Rafah military operation, we do still support Israel’s right to defend itself against other threats. That has not changed; that will not change. The President’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad.And I should have said this earlier, so I’ll make the point now – we actually think – one of the – we actually do believe that a Rafah campaign actually – in addition to all the harm it would cause to the Palestinian people, actually weakens Israel’s security, doesn’t make it stronger. It’s one of the other reasons we’re opposed to the campaign.QUESTION: So and – and this just as a practical matter, do you assess that Israel requires the weapons in these shipments to proceed with the – with the operation?MR MILLER: I am not – I just am not going to get into the details of how they would conduct an operation at all.QUESTION: Okay. So, well then, on Hamas’s incentive structure, granted that – granting your point that they are not concerned in these negotiations about civilian casualties, you have said before – you even alluded just now – there is Hamas – there are military targets in Rafah. Does Hamas in these negotiations feel an incentive to release hostages in order to preserve that military infrastructure?MR MILLER: We think the only thing the Hamas leadership cares about is protecting themselves, not the &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah fine – all the Hamas – all the Hamas assets that &#8212;MR MILLER: Is themselves, so I’m going – I’m kind of limited in what I can say here, but ultimately, when you look at the things that are on the table in the hostage deal, the point of a hostage – this deal, the things that Hamas gets out of it, are things that would benefit the civilian population of Gaza. Those aren’t things that they have shown they have a huge interest in advancing.QUESTION: Right. And I’m just trying to think about how – obviously, this is a big issue that has a lot of really important components, but I’m just trying to zoom in on how it affects the hostage negotiations. I’ve talked – spent a fair amount of time this week interviewing the families of Israeli Americans. They’re – I think every one of them was very complimentary of how the administration and this building has been supportive of them, but I can’t help but wonder, as we watch what Hamas says – and so much of this negotiation seems to hinge on the sticking point of a ceasefire, of an end to the military campaign – if – do you assess that the President coming out up front and saying that there – they will – that the U.S. would not provide weapons in this context – does that not undermine Israel’s leverage in a negotiation?Or do you just think that the military issue here is not – and I mean, I heard what you said earlier about how you think this would play out, but however self-serving Hamas is, does not the – do you just not think the threat of military losses on that file are relevant to the negotiations?MR MILLER: No. It just hasn’t been our assessment that that is how the negotiations have played out at all.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, so I want to go back to the talks and following up on that question. There was some reportings that the talks are now on pause because the Israelis brings a new demand of excluding Rafah from any ceasefire – agreed ceasefire in the – in Gaza Strip. Can you comment on that? Can you confirm or deny, or is this will be something acceptable for you, to exclude areas from ceasefire?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the kind of picayune details of leaked reports, but largely speaking – broadly speaking – the ceasefire negotiations have been about a ceasefire for all of Gaza, not isolating any one particular area.QUESTION: Not exclusions?MR MILLER: No seclusion – they have been a ceasefire for all of Gaza.QUESTION: And two days ago you were positive that a deal is possible and bridging the gap is still possible in the negotiations. Is it still your assessment?MR MILLER: It remains our assessment that it’s possible. This has always been difficult, though. It’s been difficult from the beginning, and when you get to the end of these types of negotiations, it – it can – you’ve heard the Secretary say this before. Oftentimes the last issues are the hardest ones to reach. There were other periods where we thought we might be close to a deal. All I can say is that we think there’s space for a deal still and we’re going to continue to stay engaged with our partners in the region to try to push for one.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Switching the topic?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah. Two questions on Iraq. Under Secretary Uzra Zeya was in Baghdad yesterday and she was in Erbil today, and she met with the different officials. I want to know if there is any connection between her visit to Baghdad and the recent law that was passed by Iraqi parliament, anti-LGBTQ. And overall, how does the U.S. view the human rights and democracy in both Iraq and Erbil?MR MILLER: So this was a long-planned trip to advance regional humanitarian, human rights, and civil security priorities. She had three objectives there: one, promoting democracy and partnering with Iraqis to support a vibrant civil society; two, advancing the protections of human rights, including press freedom and freedom of expression; third, advocating to create safe, informed, voluntary, durable solutions to internally displaced persons throughout Iraq. But of course our position on that law is well-known. We’ve made that quite clear.QUESTION: And secondly, in her meetings with the KRG officials, what we saw from the KRG statement, and also her meeting with the president of Kurdistan, they touched about the situation in Sinjar, the current situation in Sinjar, and also the agreement of Sinjar. How do you see the current situation in Sinjar and the agreement of Sinjar that was agreed in 2022 – in 2020, sorry, but it hasn’t been applied (inaudible)?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a full answer.Go ahead, Willy.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. Are you worried that – I mean, this is – the weapons has kind of been your trump card. Are you worried that by using this card now you’ve lost your leverage and your ability to influence Israel, particularly on the humanitarian front?MR MILLER: So we have – I’ve gotten this question a lot about leverage. We’ve never seen it just as a question of leverage. Israel is a longstanding ally of ours. We have a deep relationship with them at a government-to-government level. We have a deep relationship with them at a people-to-people level. We have always seen this – understood this relationship is between two sovereign countries. Israel is going to make the decisions that they are going to make. They have to make a full assessment of the situation they face in Gaza. They have to take a full assessment of what that will mean for the policies of their allies and partners. And we have to do the same thing, and we will.That said, we will continue to give Israel our best advice about what they should and should not do, as we have from the beginning. We will continue to have – (cell phone rings). That’s loud, Kylie. (Laughter.) Will have very direct at times, I’m sure, conversations about both how they operate their military campaigns and the provision of humanitarian assistance. I don’t expect that to change in any way.QUESTION: Those channels remain just as open today after the President’s interview on CNN as they did (inaudible)?MR MILLER: We have continued to have conversations with the Israeli Government today, I can assure you of that.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Moving to Europe.MR MILLER: Sure.QUESTION: Happy Europe Day. The EU approved a plan to use some of the funding generated by profits from Russian – frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine. Are you on the same page with them now that REPO Act is the law of the land?MR MILLER: I don’t have any announcements to make. We continue to work with our European partners to ensure that we use those assets that remain frozen and that will remain frozen – that we use those assets for Ukraine’s benefit. But I don’t have any further announcements to make about it.QUESTION: On the supplemental, do you feel any urgency in terms of obligating the funding that you have available? The DOD already announced 7 billion immediately, but you have 2 billion available from State to meet the urgent needs in Ukraine (inaudible) the funding &#8212;MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: Hmm?MR MILLER: What was the question about it?QUESTION: The State Department has &#8212;MR MILLER: When? Was the question when we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: To meet – to meet the urgent needs.MR MILLER: Stay tuned.QUESTION: All right. So &#8212;MR MILLER: If the question is when. I didn’t – I didn’t hear the first part of the question, but stay tuned.QUESTION: On Georgia, I know we discussed that yesterday as well, but an awful lot happened since yesterday. We have seen graphic pictures of them beating up the protesters. Some young protesters are being – are being beaten up in and outside of their apartments. Where are you standing? I know that you made it clear that you stand with the people of Georgia. Is there any obvious example you can give us to prove that’s the case?MR MILLER: So we are deeply troubled by the actions taken against those protesting against the draft law and the actions taken to advance it. We are aware of increased reports of harassment and physical assault of civil society and opposition activists and journalists. We condemn this and we call for a full, independent, and timely investigation. And I will just say, and kind of in response to the broader question, we have enjoyed a successful partnership with Georgia for more than 30 years. We would like to continue to work with Georgia. There is still time to work collaboratively with Georgia, but the Georgian Government needs to change course for that to be the case.QUESTION: Clearly they ignored every warning from this building. Is it time for the Secretary to step in and pick up the call, call them and say enough is enough?MR MILLER: I always appreciate the very prescriptive policy options you have to offer us in this briefing, but we will take – (laughter) – we will &#8212;QUESTION: It’s the general sentiment.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: That’s the sentiment in Georgia. People feel &#8212;MR MILLER: No, I understand. But we have made clear what our policy is and we will continue to make that clear, and I’m not going to preview any actions that we are going to – going to take from this podium.QUESTION: Again, I &#8212;MR MILLER: Let me – let me just – let me go – just go ahead.QUESTION: I’m afraid I may have just gotten my answer with “stay tuned,” but now that the battle in Congress is over for aid and American support, what is going to be the main focus? And if Ukrainian manpower is now a concern, what, if anything, can the U.S. do to help in that regard?MR MILLER: So when it comes to manpower, that is a question that Ukraine of course has to answer for – answer for itself, and we have seen the Ukrainian Government take steps to that question. What we can do as a partner of Ukraine is to continue to support them militarily and to continue to support their economy, and most of all, to do what we can to help to get them to a place where they can stand on their own two feet. And you have seen us implement a number of policies in that regard. We’ve started to see the money that was passed in the supplemental flow. I can assure you there will be more announcements coming – upcoming in the next few weeks.Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, question one. Senior UNRWA official Scott Anderson told Politico the other day that IDF units are already on the ground in Rafah killing dozens of people there, including kids. He also said one of the units is the same that killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, including an American, of course. So he is saying the IDF is already killing people, to Said’s point, kind of in a way that questions this line between major and minor operations. And one of these units is one that ostensibly killed an American. So how is the U.S. letting an Israeli unit that killed an American now continue to kill Palestinians? Like, is that not a red line?MR MILLER: So I’m just not able to verify that report; and since I’m unable to verify that report, I’m not able to comment on any implications of it.QUESTION: But conceivably, I mean, look (inaudible).MR MILLER: The red line I – bottom line, I cannot – I mean, I can’t verify that to be true, so I can’t talk about any &#8212;QUESTION: Understood.MR MILLER: &#8212; possible implications for something I don’t know to be true.QUESTION: But just to follow up on that, what is the latest on the unit that did kill the World Central Kitchen workers?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, it’s been 101 days now since Hind Rajab, her family members, the medics sent to save her were killed. So first question related to that: Is there an update on the investigation into that attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any – one. I’m happy to go back and get you the latest.QUESTION: All right, okay, okay. So she’s one of 14,000 kids killed, Israeli forces have killed. Those World Central Kitchen workers, of course there’s a hundred more. President Biden admits Israel has killed civilians with U.S. weapons. We have the delay of the memo as to whether or not the U.S. determines whether Israel has violated international law.With all of this, I understand there’s been a pause in one shipment of weapons. You have said other shipments are under review. But how did the U.S. feel comfortable sending Israel 17 billion if we can’t get answers to any of this, and how can it justify sending any more weapons at this point?MR MILLER: So two things can be true at the same time, and two things are true at the same time here. One, that we have – do have concerns about certain ways that Israel has conducted operations. We’ve been open and forthright about those. We’ve engaged with the Government of Israel about ways they can improve their operations to minimize civilian harm. We’ve seen them take some steps. We haven’t seen them take enough. And of course, that has led us to have concerns about how a Rafah operation would unfold. That is one thing that’s true.The other thing that’s true is that we are committed to Israel’s defense. Israel is a democracy in the Middle East that is a longtime ally of the United States with whom we share many values, that faces a number of threats from its neighbors, it faces a number of threats from terrorist groups, and we are not going to abandon Israel in the face of those threats, and that includes spending every dime that is contained in the supplemental for Israel’s defense. I would also add that there is money in that supplemental for humanitarian relief efforts for the Palestinian people, and we intend to spend every dime of that money as well.QUESTION: And I know you’ve said still Hamas remains there. But as we’ve discussed before many times in this room, there is the possibility not just of Hamas sustaining for many more months but that this might turn more people to sort of join Hamas after being bombarded. So, like, to what end does an operation remain just committed to, like, removing Hamas from, like, threatening Israel, given that there’s also the concern of hostages?MR MILLER: So I &#8212;QUESTION: Like, four have been killed, three have been saved in military operations.MR MILLER: I’m just saying I feel like you have been listening and internalizing the Secretary’s speeches, because what the Secretary has made clear is that there has to be a political path forward.QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: That there can’t be only a military &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Hold on – just be a military operation. There has to be a military operation that is followed by a political path forward that meets the legitimate political aspirations of the Palestinian people, or you will have a continuation of this endless cycle of violence. And that is why we have engaged in diplomacy in the region to try to create that political path forward.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Three quick questions, if I may. Yesterday Russia accused the United States of meddling Indian election and also stated that the U.S. has not yet provided any reliable evidence regarding the murder plot against a U.S. citizen named Pannun by Indian nationals. Could you comment on this?MR MILLER: So with respect to the first, no, of course we don’t involve ourselves in elections in India, as we don’t involve ourselves in elections anywhere in the world. Those are decisions for the people of India to make.With respect to the second question, there is a publicly-returned indictment that contains alleged facts. They’re allegations until they’re proven before a jury that anyone can go and read. I won’t speak to them here because, of course, it’s an ongoing legal matter. And I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: Two Bangladeshi citizens were shot dead by Indian security forces at the Bangladesh-India border, and this continues a concerning trend of civilian killing at the border which appears to violation – violate international law. Could the U.S., given its strong partnership with India in the region, request that India assess these killings and ensure accountability for any violations?MR MILLER: So we are aware of the reports about this incident. We understand the Indian and Bangladeshi border security agencies are in communication with one another, and I would defer to them to speak to their respective investigations into the circumstances of the shooting.One more, quickly.QUESTION: One more, thank you. Following the sham election in Bangladesh in January 2006, the ongoing local government election which is being boycotted by the main opposition party BNP is experiencing issues of intimidation, voter rigging, harassment, attack on journalists, and low voter turnout. Could you provide an update on the U.S. visa policy as announced last year for those responsible for undermining democratic election in Bangladesh?MR MILLER: I don’t have any updates to announce. We obviously made that policy public. At times we make designations under that policy public; at times we keep them private. I don’t have anything to announce today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thanks, Matt. I take your point a few moments ago about the word “leverage,” that you don’t love that word. But President Biden’s announcement about the arms shipment I think would be seen by most people as the most assertive mode for trying to rein Israel in. With approximately 35,000 people dead, approximately 80 percent of the population of Gaza displaced, and the UN saying there’s a fully blown famine in the north, what do you say to critics who say that such a move should have come earlier?MR MILLER: So I spoke to this earlier and said that our policy responds to the facts on the ground. We made clear at the outset of this conflict we wanted to see Israel defeat Hamas, we wanted to see Israel dismantle Hamas and prevent its ability to launch the terrorist attacks of October 7th again. They’ve largely succeeded in that goal. As I said, Hamas could not launch attacks again today. We also respond to the increasing civilian death toll, and while we’ve seen the daily count come down because of steps that Israel has taken that we have urged, it hasn’t come down enough. And so when you look at all of those things in total, that leads us to believe that an operation going forward would have enormous impact on civilian harm.And I do just want to say, again, every time I get this question about the number of civilians that died in this conflict, it gets posed to me as a question about the Government of Israel. And remember, it is Hamas that hides behind civilians, it’s Hamas that has built tunnels under hospitals and schools and mosques and at times hides in those facilities and puts civilians at harm’s way. So I get there are very fair questions about how Israel has conducted this war, and I stand here and answer them. The Israeli Government answers them too. But it is also true that a lot of the harm to civilians is because of the way Hamas decided to embed itself in the civilian population in the first place. That in no way changes the burden on the Government of Israel, as we’ve made clear.QUESTION: But respectfully, Matt, I mean, they’re dead because the armed forces of Israel killed them.MR MILLER: It – going after Hamas fighters who are hiding behind civilians. That has been the – the has been true since day one; it remains true today.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Just to follow up on his question, it makes it – your answer makes it sound like it’s an okay number for 40,000 &#8212;MR MILLER: That’s – that is not –QUESTION: &#8212; people to be killed.MR MILLER: That is not – hold on. That is not at all a fair reading of what I said. I made quite clear that – we have made quite clear for – since the – for months and months and months that far too many Palestinians have been killed in this conflict. And we have engaged with the Government of Israel to bring down the level of civilian death and convince them to take additional steps to reduce civilian harm. When we look at the operation in Rafah, it is a landscape like no other both because of the densely – the way people are densely packed into such a small area – people from Gaza City; people from Khan Younis – and, unlike with respect to an operation in Gaza City or Khan Younis, there’s nowhere for them to evacuate to, and that is a critical difference when it comes to a Rafah operation that didn’t exist for previous ones.QUESTION: So the Israeli army says that it has the munitions it needs for the Rafah operation and for any planned operations. Does that mean – do you think that that is their way of saying we will go into Rafah?MR MILLER: I will let them speak for themselves on those questions.QUESTION: And just more about the aid. You say that every dime in that U.S. aid to Gaza will be spent. How do you – how do you plan to spend it in Gaza given that settlers are stopping convoys from going into Gaza?MR MILLER: Delaying – delaying –QUESTION: And today UNRWA &#8212;MR MILLER: Hold – delaying not stopping.QUESTION: And today UNRWA was set on fire by settlers as well.MR MILLER: So first of all, they delayed those convoys; they did not stop them. Those convoys eventually got through. And those attacks on those convoys are just one route into Gaza. That’s a specific route coming from Jordan being delivered into Erez. There are other routes. There’s deliveries from Ashdod that are coming straight into Erez, as well as hopefully we’ll get Kerem Shalom back open and running at a significant level as it has been for several weeks. And, of course, we want to get Rafah open. That’s what we’ve been working on. It’s what we’ll continue &#8212;QUESTION: And can I ask about Sudan?MR MILLER: Let me – that’s – just because that was three and we’ve been going a while, let me go &#8212;QUESTION: Sudan?MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. I want to go back to the NSM report. Okay, the timeline, it starts in 2023 – January 2023, correct? I was wondering when is the cutoff. When does the report stop that review?MR MILLER: I am going to defer that answer – I know this will be unsatisfying – until you can see a public piece of that in the coming days. All of the questions about what’s contained in the NSM will be answered.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Maybe not all, but a number of them, so &#8212;QUESTION: All right. I have a couple more, please.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Have humanitarian organizations had any input in this report? And if so, how was it decided to be incorporated in the report?MR MILLER: So the report is written by people here in the State Department as well with input from the Defense Department. It’s not written by outside organizations. Of course, it can’t be. It is a report by the United States Government, so they don’t have input in the sense that they are actually looking at the report, editing, contributing components to it. But that said, we interact with humanitarian organizations all the time. We take their feedback. We take their input. And it is reflected in all of the work that we do.QUESTION: Okay. Two more now, moving away from Israel.MR MILLER: Two more?QUESTION: Just a little.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Two more.QUESTION: Earlier when you talked about defending – still defending Israel’s security, you mentioned a couple of threats to Israel, including Iran. Now, I was wondering if you mean Iran the country or the rulers – the people in power in Iran.MR MILLER: I certainly don’t mean the people of Iran. I mean the regime in Iran that has financed terrorism against Israel and recently launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel.QUESTION: It seems like Iran is feeling – feeling a little threatened, because today another senior advisor of Ali Khamenei, the leader, said that if Iran’s existence is threatened, they will review their military and nuclear doctrine. I was wondering how concerned are you by these – this threat – this comment about revision of their nuclear doctrine is – how concerning is it?MR MILLER: So those comments are irresponsible, but as the President and Secretary have made clear, the United States will ensure one way or another that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We continue to use a variety of weapon – or sorry – a variety of tools in pursuit of that goal and all options remain on the table. Ultimately, we believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve a sustainable, effective solution, but given their escalation across the board – including their failure to cooperate with the IAEA – we are far from – far away from anything like that right now.And then we’ll do one more and then wrap up. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. The President said he put the hold on munitions and bombs to Israel over not wanting them used in a full-scale invasion of Rafah. Why has the U.S. put a hold given that a full-scale invasion is not underway and instead it’s a limited operation by Israel?MR MILLER: I think I may – I have answered that any number of times already in this briefing. So go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. And will other shipments &#8212;MR MILLER: No offense. It’s just kind of – (laughter) &#8212;QUESTION: Will other shipments be put on hold? Is that something under consideration?MR MILLER: We are reviewing other shipments. I don’t have any announcements to make.QUESTION: Finally, is the NSM-20 report binding in terms of providing weapons to Israel?MR MILLER: The – I’m not going to speak to the NSM report until it is final to make a conclusion. That said, you can look at the national security memo itself and see what factors go into our determinations and what potential outcomes are – not – and I will leave it at that.With that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Bangladesh																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Ukraine
- Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to Jordan and Iraq Office of the SpokespersonUnder Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya is on travel to Amman, Jordan, and Baghdad, Erbil, and Ninewa, Iraq from May 6-10, 2024, to advance regional humanitarian, human rights, and civilian security priorities.In Amman, Under Secretary Zeya engaged senior Jordanian government officials and United Nations representatives on maximizing the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza through land and air routes.  She commended the government of Jordan for leading regional efforts to organize and deliver vital humanitarian assistance to Gaza and underscored the United States’ commitment to advancing enduring peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.  In addition, Under Secretary Zeya recognized important progress in bilateral counternarcotics cooperation, countering trafficking in persons, and organizing inclusive national elections in September 2024. During her visit, the Under Secretary also met with civil society representatives supporting greater citizen participation in addressing societal challenges.In Baghdad, Under Secretary Zeya met with Prime Minister Sudani, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Hussein, Minister for Migration and Displacement Jabro, and Minister of Interior Shammari on the vital role of human rights in the U.S.-Iraq 360-degree partnership and Iraq’s security, stability, and sovereignty.  Their wide-ranging discussions addressed efforts to bolster protections for Iraqi civil society, human rights defenders, and journalists; the global fight against illicit synthetic drugs; alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza; and progress repatriating Iraqi citizens from al-Hol Camp and countering trafficking in persons.  The Under Secretary also emphasized the importance of creating safe, informed, voluntary, and dignified durable solutions for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Iraq.  Additionally, Under Secretary Zeya met with civil society stakeholders on expanding economic empowerment and human rights for all Iraqis.In Erbil, the Under Secretary will engage Kurdistan Regional Government President Nechirvan Barzani, Prime Minister Masrour Barzani, Deputy Prime Minister Talabani, and Minister of Interior Ahmed on U.S. support for a democratic, stable, secure, and prosperous Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR), including on protections for human rights; media freedom; and support to refugees and internally displaced persons.  She will also engage representatives of Iraq’s diverse religious communities, internally displaced persons, and other civil society leaders. Throughout her visit, Under Secretary Zeya will encourage Iraqi federal and IKR leaders to deliver progress for survivors of the ISIS genocide, including Yezidis and other religious and ethnic groups, the ten-year anniversary of these atrocity crimes approaches.For further details, please follow @UnderSecStateJ  on X and @UnderSecStateJ  on LinkedIn.
- Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – May 6, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – May 6, 2024																																																					May 6, 2024																																																								1:47 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR MILLER: Don’t have any opening comments, so to you, Matt.QUESTION: You have nothing to say?MR MILLER: I think I &#8212;QUESTION: Nothing is going on in the world?MR MILLER: I think I imagine what your first question is going to be, so –QUESTION: Well, I figure &#8212;MR MILLER: So go ahead.QUESTION: You know what? I’m going to surprise you, because I don’t want – before we get into the long back and forth about Rafah and the ceasefire, I want to ask you if you can just answer this straight and – simply and straight about the Israeli closure of Al Jazeera. What is – what is your response?MR MILLER: So we have seen the announcement from the Government of Israel about closing Al Jazeera. We have made quite clear that we support media freedom all around the world, including in Israel, and that we are quite concerned about this action.QUESTION: You’re quite concerned about this action? Are you – are you asking the Israelis to do anything?MR MILLER: So as the President said on May 3rd, journalists and media workers are an essential part of any democracy &#8212;QUESTION: I know.MR MILLER: &#8212; because well-informed dissent is critical to building stronger and more successful societies, and we will continue to support and advocate for free and independent media around the world. We think Al Jazeera ought to be able to operate in Israel, as they operate in other countries in the region.QUESTION: Okay. So you oppose?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: You oppose this?MR MILLER: We do.QUESTION: Okay. All right. Then getting on to – so you’ve seen these reports in the last hour about Hamas accepting a ceasefire, but also the Israelis ordering or telling people in Rafah to get out. What’s your take on that?MR MILLER: So I can confirm that Hamas has issued a response. We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region. As you know, Director Burns is in the region working on this in real time. We will be discussing this response with our partners over the coming hours. We continue to believe that a hostage deal is in the best interests of the Israeli people. It’s in the best interests of the Palestinian people. It would bring an immediate ceasefire. It would allow increased movement of humanitarian assistance. And so we’re going to continue to work to try to reach one.QUESTION: And so – but you haven’t made any – yet made any determination about whether this is – whether they’re accepting what is on the table or they’re accepting something that is different?MR MILLER: We have only received the response in the last hour, 90 minutes, and as I said, are going through it now and discussing with it – discussing it with partners in the region. So I don’t want to characterize the nature of that response just yet.QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.MR MILLER: Okay. Shannon.QUESTION: Can I follow up on Al Jazeera?MR MILLER: Wait. Shannon, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been some reports that – from Israel that perhaps Hamas agreed to a proposal that was put together by Egypt and Qatar that was softer than the initial framework that was in the works last week. Is it possible that there has been a different proposal that the U.S. is not involved with tracking?MR MILLER: So I’ve seen those suggestions; I’ve seen some of those reports. And I think you’ll – I hope you’ll understand that because we are still reviewing the response that has come in and because we are working on this in real time and trying to reach an agreement, I’m just going to decline to comment in detail about any of those reports. We are going to be discussing this response with our partners in the region in the hours ahead. It remains our top priority to try to reach a ceasefire agreement that will lead to the release of hostages, that will allow a surge of humanitarian assistance both into Gaza and allow it to move around inside Gaza. But I don’t want to comment on any of the various reports about what they might have been responding to until we’ve been able to go through it in detail and come to a full understanding and discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: And can you say at this point – maybe you can’t – but Hamas’s political wing and their militant wing, are they on the same page here? Do you feel like this is a response that at least indicates where the entire group is?MR MILLER: I am just not going to – I am just not going to speak for Hamas at all. As we have said for some time, there has been a significant offer on the table. The ball has been in Hamas’s court. We have made clear that they should accept that offer, that Israel made significant compromises, showed that they wanted to reach an agreement that would lead to the release of hostages, that would bring an immediate ceasefire. And we have hoped that Hamas would take the deal that was on the table. Now, as to what’s in their response, what it looks like, we’re going to review that and withhold judgment until we’ve had a chance to conduct a full review.Shaun.QUESTION: Could I ask about the – this – the threatened Israeli offensive in Rafah? In the hours before this, there were lots of reports about evacuations – not just a report, but Israel is talking about evacuations from Rafah. How does this – what’s the U.S. message to this now? Do you think that Israel should hold off on the – on any operations in Rafah as we discuss this response from Hamas?MR MILLER: Of course we do. We’ve made quite clear our position on Rafah for some time, which is that we cannot support an operation in Rafah as it is currently envisioned. We have made clear – the Secretary made this clear in his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli Government last week – that we have not seen a humanitarian plan that is credible and that is implementable. And we believe a military operation in Rafah right now would dramatically increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, would lead to an increase in loss of civilian life, would dramatically disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance, all of which is coming through – I shouldn’t say “all,” but the great majority of which is coming through Kerem Shalom or Rafah and is being distributed inside the Rafah area. If you think about what it would do when you have people moving north to places where internal distribution lines are not currently set up and you’re going to have to try to re-establish those in the middle of conflict in Rafah, we think that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do.So even absent this latest response, we have made clear that we do not support Israel launching a full-scale military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Sure. I mean, you just said that in terms of – that’s the standard U.S. position on this. But has there been any communication with the Israelis about – I mean, in the past hours or so – about the response from Hamas and how this affects the situation in Rafah? Is there a message &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to get into our – those conversations. As I said, we just literally in the past hour, 90 minutes received that response from Hamas in the first place. Of course, we will be discussing it with Egypt, with Qatar, with Israel – the three countries with whom we have been working throughout this negotiation process. But I don’t want to get into the timing of those, but obviously, if we have – if those conversations had not already started, they will be ongoing in the next several hours.Humeyra.QUESTION: Matt, under the current circumstances, do you still think a ceasefire is achievable, based on what you know coming here?MR MILLER: I – what do you mean, is a ceasefire achievable?QUESTION: Like &#8212;MR MILLER: A ceasefire is what we are trying to achieve.QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, it has &#8212;MR MILLER: There is – there is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; over the weekend there was, like, there was a quiet impasse, and right now Hamas has accepted it. But from Israel, we’re hearing that that’s not the proposal that we’ve sent; that’s a softened version. That throws into – the whole thing into doubt.MR MILLER: Yeah. And I think I answered &#8212;QUESTION: So I’m just wondering, like, what’s your sense here?MR MILLER: A ceasefire is absolutely achievable. There has been a deal on the table – a proposal on the table – that would achieve an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. Now, as for Hamas’s response, which I think gets to your question, again, I don’t want to characterize it in any sort of detail until we’ve had a chance to review it in depth and talk with our partners in the region about it.QUESTION: And one thing on the humanitarian aid. Last week, when the Secretary was in Israel, there was an increased emphasis on – in his – during his trip on the delivery of humanitarian aid. We visited Kerem Shalom, which got shut down over the weekend after the Hamas attack. But can you give us, like, a sense of what a Rafah offensive – how that would impact all of Gaza? Because there are issues with distribution in the north. If we have a Rafah offensive in the south, could there be any meaningful humanitarian aid delivery in the north?MR MILLER: So let me just speak broadly to all of Gaza first, and then I’ll come to the north. So certainly a Rafah operation in – a Rafah operation would make it incredibly difficult to sustain the increases in humanitarian assistance that we have been able to deliver over the past few weeks since the President’s call with Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 4th. You have seen an increase in the number of trucks going in through Kerem Shalom; you have seen an increase in the distribution inside of Gaza, including inside southern Gaza. All of that would be put in jeopardy by a Rafah offensive because obviously, just look at what happened in the past 24 hours when you saw Hamas rocket attacks on Kerem Shalom that led to the death of three IDF soldiers and led to the closure of Kerem Shalom.If you had an ongoing kinetic military operation, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the impact that that would have on the delivery of humanitarian assistance – not just through Kerem Shalom, not just through Rafah gate, but of course inside all of Rafah and all of southern Gaza.Now, separate from that, we have been working on standing up additional delivery mechanisms to get aid directly in to northern Gaza without having to go through Kerem Shalom – not because we anticipated an upcoming Rafah operation, but because it’s so difficult to get aid through Kerem Shalom and then move it all the way to the north of Gaza. So that’s why you saw the opening of Erez crossing, which is something that the President insisted on and something that we achieved last week when the Secretary was there, first in Jordan and then in Israel. So you can have trucks move directly from Jordan, through Erez crossing in the north, not have to go all the way to Kerem Shalom and come back up north. You saw Ashdod Port opening so goods can come directly from Ashdod and go in through a northern crossing, and it’s why we’re standing up the maritime operation.So there will be ways to get humanitarian assistance in to northern Gaza directly; we have been working on those because it’s important to do so because we’ve seen how difficult it is to get aid from southern Gaza into northern Gaza. It’s hard to speculate what the impact of a Rafah operation would have on the delivery of that aid to northern Gaza, but certainly you can say without a doubt that it would dramatically impact the delivery of humanitarian assistance in southern Gaza.Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Just going off of that for a second, you said earlier – reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t support a full-scale invasion into Rafah. What about a limited invasion into Rafah?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speculate on the types of military operation. We &#8212;QUESTION: It’s not speculating &#8212;MR MILLER: No – so – no, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; the Israeli Government has said limited &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m about to answer, Kylie. So there are proposals that we have put on the table – and this is why I’m not going to talk about some of this publicly &#8212; there are proposals that we have put on the table to the Israeli Government that we have discussed with them, that we think would be a much more limited, much more targeted, much more effective way of achieving their legitimate military – their legitimate military objectives, which is taking on the Hamas battalions that are remaining in Rafah. Those look very different than the types of operations that we have seen proposed publicly by the Israeli Government, and I think I’ll leave it at that.QUESTION: So just to be clear, what you have proposed to them isn’t your understanding of what they are planning to go ahead with in the near future?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to what they might be planning to go ahead with; I’ll let them speak to that. We’ve seen the announcement they made today about evacuation orders for not the entire – not entire southern Gaza, not entire – the entire Rafah area, but for a significant portion of it, 100,000 people. And I – of course we have concerns that any evacuation at all in such a crowded area, if you see 100,000 people move, you’re going to see other people in the next area move as well – which, of course, is something that you want to see happen if there is a military operation. But the problem now is there’s such limited places for them to go inside Gaza, and there is no effective way to distribute them – distribute aid to them and make sure they have access to shelter, access to sanitation, in the places that they would go if, say, you had hundreds of thousands of people moving from Rafah.QUESTION: And then without characterizing the Hamas response, given you guys are still reviewing it, would you say it’s a hopeful sign that they have given a response here?MR MILLER: I think that would be characterizing it, so I’m going to decline to do so until we have completed that review.QUESTION: And when do you think you will be able to complete that review? When should we expect an assessment from the administration?MR MILLER: The – Director Burns, as I said, is in the region literally working on this right now. I don’t want to put a timetable on it, but it is something that is a top priority for everyone in this administration from the President on down. You saw that the President had a phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Achieving a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of hostages was one of the top priorities of the Secretary’s trip when he was in the region last week. So everyone is focused on this. Everyone is trying to get a deal over the line.QUESTION: Thank you. Last week there was some reporting that the Biden administration had put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel. Have you seen that report? Can you comment on its accuracy?MR MILLER: I have seen that report. As is usually the case, we don’t comment on specific cases of arms transfers, and I’m not going to do so here.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR MILLER: Yeah, Said.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to clarify on the offer, the offer that you said was generous and on the table and what seems to be accepted now. Does that mean that the ball is no longer in Hamas’s court?MR MILLER: Said, it’s impossible for me to answer that question without characterizing the response that Hamas has given, which I’m not yet willing to do.QUESTION: Okay, all right. On Al Jazeera, now we know that Israel is accusing the correspondents of Al Jazeera, our colleagues who are Israeli citizens by the way, accusing them of incitement that goes back many years and all these things, a crime that is punishable by imprisonment. Are you worried that these correspondents might actually be imprisoned by the Israelis? And if they are, what would the Government of the United States do?MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to those specific allegations. It’s not something that we’ve reviewed in detail. We would have to do that. I’m certainly not going to speculate about what we might do in response to an action that has not yet been taken. I will just reiterate that when it comes to the decision to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel, it’s something that we are concerned by. We support the work that journalists and media do.We have had – and I don’t think it’s any secret that we have had our differences with Al Jazeera &#8212;QUESTION: Right, of course.MR MILLER: &#8212; over the years, including in some of the ways in which they – that they cover this conflict. But we support the free media &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR MILLER: &#8212; conducting their operations everywhere in the world.QUESTION: Yeah, I think most countries have had an issue with Al Jazeera. Let me ask you about Rafah. Now the movement, 100,000 people and so on, now how many would need to move before Israel can go in and legitimately go after Hamas’s position? I mean, the area is so small – al-Mawasi, where they are moving and so on – just meters – kilometers away.MR MILLER: It’s not &#8212;QUESTION: What – would prevent, let’s say a Hamas fighter or Hamas leaders and so on to actually move to another place? They allegedly have a network of tunnels that would allow them to do that and so on. And then we have the same kind of situation. We see the Israelis saying we want to go after them in that area. I mean, how do you read this whole situation?MR MILLER: So that is not really a question I can answer. I will just make clear, as I have already and as others in the administration including the President, including the Secretary have on a number of occasions, that an operation – a major operation in Rafah – is not something that we can support.QUESTION: Yeah. And finally, I asked on Thursday about Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh. I was wrong. He wasn’t shot. He was – apparently he died and some say under torture and so on. I know that your colleague at the White House said what she said, that she was saddened and all these things, but have you followed up on this issue? How do you follow up on it? Because apparently they are keeping his corpse. I mean, they are not turning it to his family or others and so on for proper burial.MR MILLER: It is one that we have raised with the Government of Israel. I don’t have a response to read out. We have made clear with Israel, as we have made clear publicly, that they must treat all detainees humanely and with dignity in accordance with international humanitarian law and that they must respect detainees’ human rights and also that they must ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Hi, Matt. Since they took all the Al Jazeera questions, I’ll skip mine.MR MILLER: No problem.QUESTION: I just want to &#8212;MR MILLER: Alex, did you have something?QUESTION: No, no, no, no.QUESTION: I just want to – because I’m a little bit confused, if you can clarify. So the Hamas response is not on the general’s proposal? It’s not – it’s not accepting this proposal?MR MILLER: I think I made clear I am not going to characterize their response one way or the other until we’ve had a chance to fully review it, digest it, discuss it with our partners.QUESTION: All right. My second question is about the pier that the United States is conducting. We believe we have, in our reporting, that it is close to being operational. Can you just tell us how this pier will operate? I mean, who will have the upper hand in all – in making this &#8212;MR MILLER: So it is something that we have been trying to complete as soon as possible. And when I say we, I mean largely our colleagues at the Pentagon who are constructing the pier. We have been involved in liaising with humanitarian groups that will be involved in the distribution of humanitarian assistance once it comes in to Gaza, but with the actual timeline for the launch of the pier and its operation, any details I’m going to defer to the Pentagon to comment on those in any detail.QUESTION: By the way, on the pier itself, it was – it was said over the weekend that it was moved to (inaudible) because of some high winds and waves and so on. Do you have any comment on that?MR MILLER: I’m going to defer to the Pentagon for any of those operational kind of details.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: They’re the ones that are responsible for constructing and moving it and ultimately launching it.Michel, go ahead, and we’ll do a few more in the Middle East before we &#8212;QUESTION: Did you ask Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from Doha – from Doha, and is it the time for these leaders to leave?MR MILLER: I am not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. As we have said a number of times, the Secretary in his conversations has made clear with a number of partners in the region that any relationship they have with Hamas, any influence they have with Hamas, they should use to make clear to Hamas that it – to Hamas that it needs to accept a ceasefire deal that includes the release of hostages. And he has also made clear publicly that at the end of this process there can be – there can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, as existed in too many places before October 7th. And I think I’ll decline to comment for any further.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Any more on the region? Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: In the region on &#8212;MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. For World Press Freedom Day last week, the Secretary did put out a statement about that. I’m just curious as to why that was a decision not to mention the Gaza war, granted that many journalists have been affected by a lack of press freedom around the world and that – and also being killed in various conflicts, but there was a substantial number of journalists that were killed in Israel and Gaza at the end of last year. Was there a reason why that wasn’t mentioned?MR MILLER: No. The Secretary has spoken to that a number of times, including in the region, including speaking directly to the colleagues of journalists in some instances who have lost their life tragically. We mourn the death of every journalist. You’ve heard the Secretary speak to the fact that it is because of journalists in Gaza that we see what’s happening, that the world knows what’s happening. And so we support their work. We want to see it continued. And we mourn the loss of every journalist, and I’ve spoken to that many times since the outbreak of this conflict.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Well, just one more on the &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Or just on Kerem Shalom.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the Israelis have agreed to reopen it after the attack that happened on Sunday?MR MILLER: So, yes, that was a – if you looked at the readout from the President’s call &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; it noted that the prime minister had agreed to open it in that conversation.QUESTION: Okay. Because the Secretary was just there on Wednesday, and you believed that Kerem Shalom was critical &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; with or without a Rafah &#8212;MR MILLER: It is &#8212;QUESTION: operation.MR MILLER: Kerem Shalom is absolutely critical to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, especially in southern Gaza now that we’ve stood up operations in the north. But &#8212;QUESTION: Right. So is it open now, do you know?MR MILLER: I do not know if it’s been reopened. I’ll say it was an incredibly cynical act for Hamas to attack Kerem Shalom yesterday knowing that Kerem Shalom is the linchpin to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Gaza. It goes to this point we’ve made on a number of occasions that Hamas claims that they represent the interests of the Palestinian people, but when you see some of their actions – and we talk about them hiding behind humans, using them as human shields all the time. When you see them attacking the gate that serves as the delivery point – as we saw if you were there last week, as we saw with our own eyes – the delivery point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, it really does undermine any claim that they have to acting on the people of Gaza’s behalf.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Can I switch regions?MR MILLER: Let me – I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks, Matthew. What action would the U.S. take if Israel were to invade Rafah?MR MILLER: We have made clear that we cannot support an operation, and I don’t want to speculate on what actions we might take if one should proceed.QUESTION: Okay. And what’s the department’s reaction to Türkiye suspending trade ties with Israel?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that. They are both allies of ours, and we would encourage them to work through their differences, but I don’t have any specific comment.QUESTION: And finally, what is the department doing to hold the CCP accountable for continued Chinese assistance to Russia’s defense sector?MR MILLER: So you heard the Secretary speak to this when he was in China and made clear that China can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be a partner of Europe on the one hand and then continue to fund the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War on the other hand. He raised this directly with President Xi. He raised it with Director and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. And he made clear in those meetings that if China didn’t act, we would. And a couple of updates to that. You saw us roll out additional sanctions on Chinese entities who have supported Russia’s defense industrial base last week.And then I want to note that we’ve made clear that it is not just the United States that is concerned about China’s activities, but it is also our partners in – and allies in Europe. And you know President Xi is in Europe today meeting with President Macron, meeting with the president of the EU. And if you noted the comments from the Government of France, they very much intended to press this same case with President Xi and make clear what a threat they see – that they see it the way we see it, which is that it is a threat not just to Ukraine but is a threat to European security. And we think it’s important that our allies and partners stand strong in sending that message as well.QUESTION: And just one more?MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: And what is the department’s message today given it’s Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, especially with Israel having suffered several months ago the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? And I note the Secretary’s step-father &#8212;MR MILLER: Yeah, the Secretary put out a statement on that yesterday &#8212;QUESTION: Oh, okay.MR MILLER: &#8212; where he reiterated what has been our continuing message, which is never again. And I think you’ll see this President speak to this further.QUESTION: Matt, can I piggyback off &#8212;MR MILLER: (Inaudible) go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, you said you (inaudible) &#8212;QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; for a limited – more limited operation in Rafah. And you’re working – you are working on a ceasefire with your partners. What comes first? I mean, you share the objective, you said, with the Israelis that they have to defeat Hamas in Rafah. But since you are working on a ceasefire, it’s a little bit confusing what you support. What’s the priority here?MR MILLER: Our immediate objective is to achieve a ceasefire that alleviates the suffering of Palestinian people, that secures the release of hostages, and then we want to build that ceasefire, as we have made clear, into something more sustained and something longer lasting. I’m – a little bit of a bind here because I can’t really speak to the options that we have proposed to Israel – you can see why we would want to keep those confidential – but we have proposed options that we believe are more effective and would be more effective in dealing with the threat that Hamas poses. And those are options that they could pursue, and I think I’ll leave it – I’m – unfortunately, I have to leave it at that.QUESTION: One more question. In case these negotiations fail, are you preparing for a worst-case scenario that the Israeli went into Rafah – goes into Rafah and this lasts until the fall?MR MILLER: Of course we are prepared for every scenario, but I don’t think I want to read out what actions we might take.QUESTION: For every scenario?MR MILLER: Well, that’s a fair point, Matt – every scenario that you can reasonably predict we prepare for.QUESTION: Well, what happens if, like, aliens come down?MR MILLER: That’s why I said every scenario you can reasonably predict.QUESTION: Are you prepared for that one too?MR MILLER: If that happens, I’ll run to the hills with – right behind you, probably.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Are we ready to move on to different region?QUESTION: Could I just do one more?MR MILLER: Shaun – yeah, Shaun, go ahead.QUESTION: I know you &#8212;MR MILLER: Sorry, Nike. I tried. Let the record reflect I called on you, and Shaun, the head of the State Department Correspondent Association, stepped on your question.QUESTION: Yes, I – exactly. Well, I’ll gladly defer to Nike – gladly defer to Nike after this, as – I figure you’re not – probably not going to answer this, but the – just &#8212;MR MILLER: For a question I’m not even going to answer, too.QUESTION: Exactly.MR MILLER: Sorry. Go ahead.QUESTION: But just a couple of – on a serious note – just a couple of moments ago, the Israeli army saying that the evacuation orders that it issued earlier – confirming that this is preparation for a ground invasion. I know they’ve been speaking about a ground invasion in – a ground operation in general for some time. Do you have any further comment on that? I mean the – this – whether – do you have signs that the Israelis are actually going ahead imminently with a ground operation?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to their military activities. We have made quite clear that we oppose a military operation there and I’m going to leave it at that.Nike, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Russia, Russia President Vladimir Putin will be set to start another six-year term on Tuesday. Do you have anything on that? I understand U.S. Ambassador Tracy is currently out of the country. My question is: Is anyone from the U.S. embassy attending his inauguration ceremony, or is the U.S. joining other countries to boycott?MR MILLER: No, we will not have a representative at his inauguration.QUESTION: U.S. is boycotting?MR MILLER: We will not have a representative there. You can draw your own conclusions.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Does that mean that you don’t consider Putin a legitimate president?MR MILLER: He – we certainly did not consider that election free and fair, but he is the president of Russia and is going to continue in that capacity.QUESTION: Let me get your immediate reaction to reports about Russia’s planned nuclear drills. How much it will complicate the situation, and what kind of response will that invite from the United States?MR MILLER: So Russia’s rhetoric – their nuclear rhetoric – has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. That said, we have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture in response to these announcements, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus, if I may. On Georgia, we had a protest in front of this building on Saturday. Georgian Americans were asking the State Department to impose sanctions on Ivanishvili and the GD MPs – not for actions that they might or might not take, but the actions they have taken already. So are you considering any measure?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to make any sanctions announcements, whether that relates to what we might do or what we are considering, as is typically our practice here.QUESTION: We heard from senior officials, this building – it feels like you guys are – you guys expecting some U-turn in this case or some offramp by suggesting that Ivanishvili might be misinformed, so all the statements we have heard from him are not his or his – or reflecting his viewpoints. Is that a reflection of what we have heard from them?MR MILLER: I’m not going to characterize at all. We are going to keep pressing our case, which is we believe that the law that they are considering would put Georgia on a precarious trajectory. It would jeopardize Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and undermine the U.S.-Georgia relationship, and we will continue to make that clear, and they will make their own decisions.QUESTION: And thank you. On – finally, on Armenia-Azerbaijan, ambassador to Baku today for the first time visited Karabakh. Let me get your sense of significance of it and where in – this week there will be ministerial in Kazakhstan. What are your expectations &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on that or any expectations.Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Matt. A question on Iran. As you may be aware, the IKR president, Nechervan Barzani, he’s in Iran with an official visit with a purpose finding solutions to the disputes between Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan region. How does the U.S. view this visit and efforts? Do you have any comments on that?MR MILLER: So we have consistently encouraged de-escalation in the region, but we don’t have any comment about the specifics of that trip. I would leave it to the Kurdistan Regional Government to comment more in detail on President Barzani’s travel.QUESTION: And one more question: Do you think that having these kinds of discussion with Iran could help and lift any impacts on the Iraqi stability? Because we witnessed they attacked the Iraqi Kurdistan and there were a lot of tensions between these two capitals.MR MILLER: So I don’t want to speak to these specific conversations, but of course we have always encouraged any conversations that would lead to de-escalation and would lead to further stability in the region, including vis-a-vis Iran, which of course has been one of the greatest contributors to instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.QUESTION: And last question, as we are speaking of Iran. Minutes ago, the Iranian foreign minister put a post on X and he said that we sent Hamas response to the plan proposed by Egypt and Qatar. What he says that – he said that to stop the attacks by Israel, and second, exchange prisoners, and thirdly, the human blockades. And now the ball in the opposite court, we are honest with – in our intentions. This is what he posted. So how do you see the Iranian role in bringing that Gaza the conflict into the end and &#8212;MR MILLER: Bringing a Gaza conflict to an end? I see no Iranian role in bringing a Gaza conflict to an end. You’ve seen Iran be one of the greatest instigators of this conflict in the first place, from financing Hamas and supporting Hamas to financing and supporting Hizballah and other groups that have contributed dramatically to instability, not just when it comes to attacks on Israel but when you look at the – their proxy, the Houthis, and attacking international shipping, and greatly destabilizing the region. So no, I don’t see Iran playing any kind of productive role.QUESTION: And they are not the &#8212;MR MILLER: That would be – that would be completely out of character for them.QUESTION: They are not honest with their intentions, what he said on his post?MR MILLER: They’re not what?QUESTION: Honest with their intentions?MR MILLER: With their – Iran’s honest with their intentions? No, I would not characterize them as honest with their intentions. When it comes to the specific comments that they made about Hamas’s response, I’m not going to comment on those, because as I said, we’re reviewing their response, so I don’t want to confirm what may or may not have been in it.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. So can I just get your reaction to this? Over the weekend, a Moscow court sentenced a Russian Falun Gong practitioner to two months in detention for her beliefs. It’s the only other country outside of communist China to incarcerate a citizen for the meditation practice. Jake Sullivan said that he wasn’t surprised by this, as China’s – Russia relies on China’s economic and technological support. So given these circumstances, what’s the State Department doing to address the broader implications of the spread of China’s persecution of Falun Gong into Russia, possibly in exchange for support?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a specific response, since it relates to this one case that you mentioned.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah. Go ahead.QUESTION: A little over a week ago, China held unification, unity talks between Hamas leaders and Fatah. Sir – and they – I think it resulted in them just saying that they’re agreeing to &#8212;MR MILLER: Keep talking, yeah.QUESTION: Keep talking? What’s your reaction to China being involved in unity talks between these &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t have any reaction to them playing a role in these talks. We saw previous talks take place between Hamas and Fatah in Moscow. They’ve held talks in other locations. Leaving that aside, we have long said that if China wanted to play a productive role in bringing this conflict to an end, that it’s something that we would welcome. If they wanted to play a productive role in helping prevent escalation in the region, that is something we would also welcome. The Secretary has spoken to his counterpart, Director Wang Yi, six times since October 7th to press this case, to press China to use all of its influence in the region. And we will continue to press them to do that.We think there certainly are countries that they have a relationship – with whom they have a relationship in the region, including countries, most notably Iran, with whom we don’t really have a relationship. So if China can bring its influence to bear, that would be a productive step for it – it would be a productive step that it could take that would benefit the region and benefit the entire world.QUESTION: One more on Saudi Arabia.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: The other day, you had said that in order for normalization to take place between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that Saudi Arabia is looking for calm in Gaza &#8212;MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; as well as a path to peace. That path to peace, is that the Oslo Accords? Is that something different than Oslo? Is that expanding on Oslo or &#8212;MR MILLER: So I don’t want to get into the details, because it’s something that we still continue to talk with Saudi Arabia about, but it is a path to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel. And the details of what that would look like is something that we’re continuing to discuss with them.QUESTION: So would that make Oslo irrelevant? MR MILLER: I just – I don’t want to – it’s a – it is a negotiation and a discussion that is ongoing right now; I don’t want to characterize it in any way with respect to how it would interact with past agreements.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Yeah.QUESTION: A ceasefire deal doesn’t end the war in Gaza. It means returning to fighting again and more Palestinian civilian victims, as it’s happened daily – ten of thousands have already murdered due to the bombing and the famine imposed by Israel, most of them children and women. My question: Why the U.S. doesn’t intervene to stop the war completely – I mean, permanent ceasefire – especially that the Palestinian civilian killed with the American weapon?MR MILLER: So we have been working incredibly hard – it has been the focus of most of this briefing – to achieve an immediate ceasefire that would stop the fighting in Gaza and would alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, those who have died as a result of the conflict and also those who are suffering as a result of lack of humanitarian aid or inability to access humanitarian aid.Now, that’s the first step. We want to get an immediate ceasefire and then we do want to see it turn into something more durable. We’re going to try to work to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible. That said – and I know I’ve – hammer on this – have hammered on this in the past and the Secretary hammers it on the past – has hammered it in the past – Hamas could achieve an immediate ceasefire right now. Hamas, the entity that started this conflict by murdering civilians – innocent civilians – could lay down their arms, could surrender and stop putting the Palestinian people in harm’s way.So it – when people ask questions about Israel that are legitimate questions, and when they ask questions about us that are legitimate questions, I hope people will also realize that Hamas plays – played the instigator role in beginning this conflict and could end it today if they wanted to.QUESTION: But it’s not permanent. It’s temporary.MR MILLER: We are – as I – I just spoke to that in my answer.QUESTION: Yes. Excuse me, I want a question.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: That IDF already requested the people in Rafah to evacuate. I wonder if the evacuation for Palestinian in Rafah across the Egyptian border is being considered.MR MILLER: So Egypt has made quite clear that they do not want to see the displacement of the Palestinian people. It’s not just Egypt. We have heard that from virtually every country in the region: that they do not want to see Palestinians displaced because of the very unfortunate history in that regard. And we have made clear to the Israeli Government that Palestinian – the Palestinian people shouldn’t be replaced – or displaced.Now, one of the major risks of a full-scale Rafah operation is that it would destabilize that border between Gaza and Egypt and would lead to that sort of displacement, which would destabilize the Sinai Peninsula, of course. It’s another reason why we believe such an operation is a bad idea in the first place.QUESTION: Okay.MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead in the back.QUESTION: Thank you very much. U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Sunday that the United States will have to send troops to Ukraine if Ukraine is defeated in conflict with Russia. Any chances that is a real option for &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just not going to comment on statements made by members of Congress. The President has made clear that he will not send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine.QUESTION: Okay. And one more question. Can you explain why is it okay for the United States to have a law on foreign agents and it’s not okay for Georgia, Russia to have one?MR MILLER: So the difference is in the nature of those laws. When you see the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act, it is to people who are acting on behalf of a foreign government, not people who are doing legitimate nongovernment organization work, who are doing humanitarian work, who are doing civil society work. It’s a very different type of thing. I’ve seen those false equivalencies drawn in the past. And when you look at the text of the proposal in Georgia and the text of the proposal that has been passed due to Kremlin influence in other countries, they are very different than the type of law that we have on the books here in the United States.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much. Question is regarding the ministers’ priorities on the normalization talks regarding Saudi Arabia and Israel. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan mentioned, insisted, in an interview that the administration will enter in any defense pact with Saudi Arabia if only they normalize ties with Israel. So question is: Is it diplomacy of United States for integration of Israel in the Middle East or it’s another defense pact by the United States to counter Iranian-backed movements in future from the Middle East?MR MILLER: I’m not sure I completely understand the question. But I will say I don’t want to get too much into the details of our negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the ongoing discussions, but that we continue to work to finalize both the bilateral pieces of such an agreement as well as what the pathway to an independent Palestinian state would look like.QUESTION: Secondly, Canadian authorities arrested three individuals linked with the killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The United States have many findings on the connections of Indian foreign operations at U.S. soil, as Wall Street Journal reported last week regarding the connection of Indian Government with some targets here in the United States. So with this recent development, what do United States have more to take up with the Indian administration?MR MILLER: So I would refer you to the Canadian authorities to speak to the details of the investigation there. With respect to the indictment that was returned in the United States, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak on behalf of that in detail. And then the only thing further I’d say: When it comes to the State Department, we made clear when these allegations were first made public that it’s something we think India should take very seriously and investigate. They opened a Committee of Enquiry to look into the matter, and that work is ongoing, and we’ll wait to see the results. But we made very clear that it’s something that we take seriously and we think it’s something they should take seriously as well. Hudson.QUESTION: Matt, apologies for not asking in the Israel section, but I have nosebleed seats today so I didn’t get it. But &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m just – I’m just happy to see you here in the briefing.QUESTION: Great to be here. In response to the Axios report that the U.S. is withholding an ammunition shipment to Israel, the Biden administration has told several reporters around town that the U.S. has surged weapons into Israel since October 7th. I’m kind of curious about this response because for much of the conflict, the administration has downplayed reports about the near-constant approval and shipment of arms to Israel. I’m just wondering if you could clarify, what’s the case? Has the U.S. been surging weapons to Israel since October 7th or not?MR MILLER: So we have provided weapons to Israel since October 7th. We have always made clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense. That commitment to Israel’s security remains ironclad, and that includes providing security assistance to Israel since October 7th to ensure that the attacks of October 7th can never be repeated.QUESTION: Thanks.MR MILLER: Kylie, and then I’ll come to Humeyra.QUESTION: Can you just provide us an update on the NSM-20 report and if it’ll go to Congress on time, when it’s due on Wednesday?MR MILLER: The only update I have is that we continue to work on it, and we’ll have more to say about it later in the week.QUESTION: You can’t say that it’s on track to be delivered on time?MR MILLER: It’s on track. We’re working on it. I just don’t have any updates. It is our intention to provide it on time, and we’ll have more updates as we get closer to the deadline.QUESTION: And just two quick questions on it. I know you don’t want to get into it, but I still have two questions. There are concerns among lawmakers that the Political-Military Bureau in this building is leading the drafting of the report, and I wonder how you respond to that.MR MILLER: So I’m not going to get into the internal mechanisms that we go through to develop such a report, but I will say that a broad spectrum of the department will contribute to this report. People will have a chance to make their views known. People will have a chance to offer their assessments of what they’ve seen. It’s important that different bureaus inside the department which bring different skills to bear and different points of view and different capabilities have the chance to review both of the section – both of the tasks that we were given in the report, both when it comes to compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and we expect all of them to speak candidly about what they’ve seen and make their recommendations and make their honest assessments, and we’ll deliver a report that reflects that.QUESTION: And one more question. The memorandum requires all recipients of U.S. weaponry, including Israel, to make assurances that they’re using those weapons, quote, “in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Will U.S. officials at the department be probing those assurances that they get from Israeli officials if there’s reason to believe that they aren’t credible assurances?MR MILLER: So we are taking very seriously the task that we were giving – that was given to us in this national security memorandum, and it pertains not just with respect to Israel but with other countries as well that receive U.S.-provided security assistance. So the initial step was to get assurances from those seven countries that they were complying with international humanitarian law and that they were not impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We’ve received those assurances I think probably 43 days ago, somewhere around that, and now we are going through and looking at compliance with international humanitarian law and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I don’t want to get into – too much in detail because we are close to when a report will be delivered and I should wait and let the report speak for itself, but it is – I can tell you it is something that we take incredibly seriously and there is a lot of work going on at the department to make sure we fulfill that obligation and we fulfill it thoroughly.QUESTION: So you’re not taking those assurances on face value?MR MILLER: I – let me just let the report speak for itself when it comes out, but it is something that we are absolutely taking seriously, and we are looking at a whole host of activities and actions when it comes to any one of the governments – the relevant governments in this case, and we’ll be making our own assessments not just based on what those governments have told us but based on what we have seen in our review here at the State Department.QUESTION: Thank you.MR MILLER: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Just one thing on that, actually, Matt. So when the report is produced, we have reported that there are people – there are some U.S. officials at the State Department who have raised serious concerns about Israel’s possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law, and what they say is its arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid. So when you produce that report, you’re basically weighing in on whether the assurances are credible or not. Is there going to be a section where you address those countering, let’s say, opinions from different bureaus, or is it just going to be we found that credible or not?MR MILLER: You – this is going to be a very unsatisfying answer, but you are just going to have to wait until &#8212;QUESTION: I’m used to that.MR MILLER: Yeah, sorry about that – until the report is complete. But I will say that one of the strengths of this department is that we have people with a rich diversity of experiences, a rich diversity of expertise, and a rich diversity of views, and the Secretary takes all of those seriously. He takes all of their points of view seriously, and the entire senior leadership of the department looks at the entire landscape when compiling – when going through an exercise and compiling a report like the one we are doing here.QUESTION: Right. But really, from a format point of view, it’s just going to have, like, one assessment?MR MILLER: I know, and I’m just – that I’m not – and that I’m just not going to speak to today.QUESTION: Okay. And will there be a – because you said – in your answer to Kylie you said we collect recommendations. Can you confirm there is going to be a recommendation one way or the other from the legal department?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to the internal mechanisms of a report that is still being compiled.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?MR MILLER: Go ahead, Said, and then Shaun, and then we’ll wrap for the day.QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly, but on breaking international law and so on, is the threatening of the ICC by Israel or even by members of Congress itself a violation of international law, the threat itself?MR MILLER: I am not enough of an expert in international humanitarian law to speak to that.QUESTION: Okay. But this department &#8212;MR MILLER: We have made clear that we do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction in this case and oppose their investigation.QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I’m just saying the threatening of the ICC by Israel.MR MILLER: I see. You should take it up with an international humanitarian lawyer.Go ahead, Shaun.QUESTION: Sure. On two things – two different topics. Rwanda – the Rwandan Government didn’t really like a statement that you issued last week saying that the Rwandan Defence Forces were involved in the attack near Goma on the east of the DRC, saying that the statement’s ridiculous and that the Rwandan forces weren’t involved in that. Do you stand by that? Has there been any communication with Rwanda?MR MILLER: We absolutely do. The attack in question came from the Rwandan Defence Forces and M23 positions on the Mugunga IDP camp. The Government of Rwanda must investigate this heinous act and hold all of those responsible accountable, and we have made that clear to them.QUESTION: Has there been any communication directly with the Rwandans themselves?MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to diplomatic conversations, but we have made quite clear what we think about this act and the fact it ought to be investigated.QUESTION: Great. And then a completely different topic, Mexico. The three surfers who were killed, one of them an American – I don’t know if you – do you have any lines, any communications with the U.S. on that?MR MILLER: Yeah. So we can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, Carter Rhoad, near Ensenada, Mexico, and are closely monitoring the situation. We offer our sincere condolences to the family on their loss. We are coordinating with local law enforcement on their investigation into the matter, and out of respect for the privacy of the family, we will decline to comment further at this time.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Canada																								China																								Democratic Republic of the Congo																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Rwanda																								Saudi Arabia																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 30, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 30, 2024																																																					April 30, 2024																																																								1:17 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: Let’s see. I have – I don’t have anything off the top, so Daphne, do you want to kick us off?QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that Israel will carry out an operation against Hamas in Rafah regardless of whether or not &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: Sorry.MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, regardless of whether or not a ceasefire and hostage release deal is reached. Is it still the case that the U.S. hasn’t seen a credible plan for entering Rafah? And what will you do if they go ahead, as Netanyahu is warning?MR PATEL: That is correct. We – it continues to be the case that we have not seen a credible plan that would address the varying areas of concerns that you’ve heard me talk about a number of times from up here and others, primarily the ability to address the serious humanitarian concerns surrounding – again, Rafah is a region with more than 1 million people seeking refuge, so that an area that continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as the safe departure of foreign nationals. And so any kind of operation that’s – that does not address some of these key concerns would certainly be opposed by us.I’m not going to get into any hypotheticals, but this is something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. Conversations continue to be happening at all levels, and we continue to press forward on those conversations and asking for what their plans may or may not be as it pertains to Rafah.QUESTION: And are you concerned that this warning that they would go ahead with whether or not a ceasefire and hostage deal is reached could derail hostage talks?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate on that. What I can say, Daphne, is that we remain committed to reaching a deal for the immediate – for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and allows for additional steps to be taken in terms of surging humanitarian aid, and something that we hope will help bolster the protection of civilians as well.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?QUESTION: A follow-up on that?MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead.QUESTION: Israel’s track record in heeding to the U.S. statements or calls could be arguably not great. What gives you confidence or what makes you think that Israel would, in fact, listen and hear your calls not to go into Rafah?MR PATEL: I’d dispute, though, the premise of that a little bit, Leon. Over the course of this conflict, there have been a number of endeavors in which the United States has pressed for that we have seen our partners in Israel undertake, dating back to the beginning of this conflict even in the early days of this conversation that we were having around humanitarian aid. We also continue to see steps being taken as it relates to their cooperation on a number of other lines of effort in the humanitarian aid space.But both – look, when it comes to humanitarian aid, when it comes to the protection of civilians, and when it comes to a potential operation in Rafah, our answer continues to be we need to see more, we need to see more steps being taken. And as it relates to an operation in Rafah, we have yet to see a credible plan that would address the underlying concerns that I laid out to Daphne.QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?MR PATEL: Olivia, go ahead, yeah.QUESTION: Just because the Secretary was also asked about this not long ago. He said that the U.S. views on this were well known. But he didn’t address part of the question that – whether Israel had in fact committed to present a military and humanitarian plan. So absent the plans themselves, has there been a formal commitment from the Israeli Government to present those plans before launching any – an invasion?MR PATEL: I am not going to be a spokesperson for the Government of Israel. Through the Strategic Consultative Group that you have seen National Security Advisor Sullivan and Secretary Blinken undertake their consultations with counterparts in Israel, discussions at those levels and through other interlocutors as part of those engagements, those conversations are ongoing. As the Secretary said, the United States position on this could not be clearer. For how long we’ve been talking about this, we have expressed our serious concern about any kind of operation that does not address some of these key pieces, and we’ll continue to stress and raise these very important issues.QUESTION: Thank you. I mean, I totally appreciate not asking you for the Israeli perspective on this, only whether the U.S. has actually received a commitment from the government to have formal plans presented prior to any invasion.MR PATEL: I am just not going to speak to further specificity about this process.QUESTION: Okay. Two others on the region, if that’s okay.MR PATEL: Mind if I jump to Gillian?QUESTION: Sure.MR PATEL: And then we can – we’ll – I’m sure we’ll get to everybody. Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I’m just wondering if State has any comment or any information, anything today on the anti-Israel protests across the nation now, really going from California all the way to New York. A lot of these student protesters are accusing the Biden administration of being complicit in genocide. Wondering if you – if diplomatically &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; foreign-policy-wise, you guys have &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, so I’ve spent a number of the last few daily press briefings talking about this, and I’m happy to reiterate what I said before. First, I will echo what the Secretary said in talking to one of your colleagues on the margins of his trip to Beijing. Demonstrating – demonstrations, I should say, expressing your opinion about any kind of government action, expressing your opinion about foreign policy, exercising your First Amendment right – none of those things are problematic or antisemitic or Islamophobic, in their own right. It is when those things are coupled with the use of certain language, and rhetoric, and insults that we have seen and have been part of some of these demonstrations.Beyond that, those kinds of things of course we would condemn and take issue with. But we believe that every American has every right to express their points of view, to exercise their First Amendment right. When it comes to policies that are – that as it relate to any particular campus, those campus officials are better suited to speak to those policies that they have in place both in terms of dealing with expressions of First Amendment rights or otherwise. I am not in a space to speak to that.But of course, everyone has every right to make their point of view heard, and from our perspective across this administration we’ve made clear that we insist that these happen in a peaceful, nonviolent manner. And any kinds of these demonstrations, when they are paired with or coupled with rhetoric, language that is antisemitic, Islamophobic, essentially insults or target someone for just who they are, that’s deeply problematic.QUESTION: A quick follow-up.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: One thing that’s kind of new as far as I’m aware is you’re seeing regimes now like the Iranian regime, China has started to weigh in – the government, and criticize the Biden administration’s response to these protests. We saw overnight the Chinese saying that the way the U.S. Government is responding is violating these students’ rights. Do you have a comment on these adversaries kind of using it as an opportunity to criticize?MR PATEL: Look, the policies and procedures as it relates to demonstrations, protesting, things like that that may or may not exist on a particular college campus, or may or may not exist in a particular town, city, or municipality, it is certainly not in the remit of the State Department so I am not going to even delve into that.QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though &#8212;MR PATEL: There’s other agencies that are better suited to speak to that. But what I can say broadly, we of course support anybody to be able to express themselves and to exercise their First Amendments rights. They should not and cannot become violent, not peaceful. And in those particular circumstances, we believe it is the right of the appropriate law enforcement and – enforcement and security officials to take appropriate actions consistent with the policies of that jurisdiction. Again, we are delving far away from foreign policy and into law enforcement, which is not the remit of this – of this department.QUESTION: No, because what I’m asking really is: Is it not from a foreign policy, foreign relations, diplomacy perspective, isn’t it, I mean, hypocritical of the Chinese and the Iranians, some of the worst human rights violators in the world, to be criticizing the Biden administration’s policy response to America?MR PATEL: I don’t think anybody in this administration is interested in taking a human rights lesson from the Iranian regime, or the People’s Republic of China for that matter. And both of those regimes’ crackdowns on self-expression, on free and fair press, on basic human rights, is clear.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving &#8212;QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on a couple of things.MR PATEL: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.QUESTION: The image that it’s giving of the United States with the protesters being arrested is not necessarily the one you would want to have.MR PATEL: Leon, there are laws in this country. Again, we are delving away from the topics that are discussed in this department. But if laws are being broken on certain college campuses, in certain municipalities, in certain towns, in certain cities, in certain counties, it is will within the right for the officials of those jurisdictions to enforce whatever laws that are so appropriate as it relates to that region. Beyond that, we fully support anybody’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right and make their opinions as it relates to any action or policy the government may or may not be taking and making their points of view heard.QUESTION: Vedant &#8212;MR PATEL: Said.QUESTION: Thank you, I just have quick follow-ups and then I have a couple questions of my own.Now, in response to Gillian, you said there are certain things that are being said in these protests that you have issue with. Could you share some of those with us?MR PATEL: I’m not going to repeat them from up here, Said, but &#8212;QUESTION: But you made an assertion that you are obviously in command of. What are these statements?MR PATEL: Said, there have been a number of these demonstrations in which the imagery, in which the language that has been written on some of the poster material, has either been akin to what I would believe to be antisemitism. But we’ve also seen expressions, rhetoric, signage that is akin to Islamophobia and the targeting of Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans, as well. Of course any kind of language or rhetoric in that space is concerning, troubling, and unacceptable. But again, we fully support people’s ability to peacefully make their – express their First Amendment rights.QUESTION: Now on the statement by the Israeli prime minister on Rafah, I mean, he is saying very plainly that whether there is a deal or there is no deal, I am going storm Rafah. And you don’t have a position on this? I mean, he’s not waiting for a deal to be arrived at.MR PATEL: I think our position on Rafah – I really don’t appreciate you, Said, twisting my words or the words &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not.MR PATEL: &#8212; of the Secretary or other officials up here. We have made our point of view &#8212;QUESTION: I am quoting what the prime minister of Israel said. I’m not &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand. I understand your question. And in response to your question, and Daphne’s question, and the number of times that we have asked – been asked about a potential operation into Rafah from up here, we have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region, when it comes to this region in particular in Gaza being an important conduit for the delivery of humanitarian aid, it being a region in which foreign nationals at least at the beginning of this conflict were able to use, are able to use consistently for safe departure.So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a non-starter for us. And you’ve heard me say this. You’ve heard the Secretary say this. You’ve heard Matt say this; you’ve heard Admiral Kirby, Karine, the President. We have been consistent on this.QUESTION: Yeah. So would it be appropriate for the United States of America to say, whether there is a deal or not a deal, we find that the storming of Rafah is unacceptable?MR PATEL: I – we have been pretty clear about that, Said.QUESTION: Very clear?MR PATEL: We have been very clear that many – any kind of military operation into Rafah that does not address these concerns would be unacceptable to the United States.QUESTION: Right. Now I have a question on the humanitarian situation. Officials at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, leaked a – they leaked a document that says that the Israeli Government intently sort of put obstacles in the way of these humanitarian aid convoys or whatever, getting food to Gaza. Now are you aware of that report?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to comment on leaked documents, Said.QUESTION: Why won’t you comment on this document?MR PATEL: I’m not going to comment on leaked documents, on things that continue to exist under a deliberative process. I will just say that the Secretary and the leaders of this administration, they hear a diverse range of views from across this department, from across the interagency. When it comes to processes that are within the deliberative process, we take those points of view into consideration, but beyond that, I am just not going to speak to purportedly leaked documents.QUESTION: Okay. Would you agree that there is a – almost a common opinion among professionals and experts and so on that Israel is in fact – and the prime minister of Israel are in fact – take measures day after day to sort of make these humanitarian aids, including American – large portions of American aid &#8212;MR PATEL: I would disagree with your characterization.Julia.QUESTION: Thank you. I know the State Department and Secretary Blinken have made clear that the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in your view over the Palestinian conflict. But I wanted to get your response to remarks from Netanyahu just today, especially in context of the conversation we just had about the campus protests. He said, “Branding Israel’s leaders and soldiers as war criminals will pour jet fuel on the fires of antisemitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world.”Do you agree with that assessment that it’s antisemitic for the ICC to pursue Netanyahu? And what do you make of him connecting this to the campus protests?MR PATEL: So fundamentally, at the heart of this, Julia, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over this issue, and that’s the crux here. Beyond that, I’d let the prime minister and officials within the Israeli Government clarify or offer any commentary on his comments.But at the crux of this for the United States is that we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction on this. That being said, we work closely with the ICC on a number of key areas. We think that they do important work – important work as it relates to Ukraine, Darfur, Sudan. But again, on this particular incident – instance – in this particular instance, I’m sorry, they just do not have jurisdiction.QUESTION: If I may, another on Saudi Arabia.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: There have been reports that Saudi Arabia has decided to normalize relations with Israel but is waiting to determine when they do that based on the U.S. election and the results of the election. What do you make of Saudi Arabia potentially weighing this presidential election so much, when the urgency is now?MR PATEL: So I would – I’d defer to officials in the Saudi Government to speak to their position. I’m not a spokesperson for them. What I can say from the United States is that we also have been unambiguous about how we feel that a greater – a more integrated Middle East region is better for not just the interests of the United States, but it is better for peace and stability in the Middle East region. It is also something that we believe other officials across the Middle East region and Arab world view this as well.We are continuing to work this. We think that Israel’s further integration in the Middle East region can unlock additional benefits. It can offer greater security, which is in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interest of the people of Israel, and it’s also in the interest of other partners as well.But of course, we also are continuing to stress and underline the importance of doing everything we can to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire – one that releases the hostages, one that allows a surge of humanitarian aid into the region as well.Go ahead, Nadia.QUESTION: I don’t know if somebody asked you about this or not, but I want to ask you about the Amnesty International report.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Okay. So basically, Amnesty just published its report. I don’t know if you’ve seen it in details. But they say there is a reasonable evidence that Israel has committed war crimes, a gross violation of international – of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law. I’m just wondering – I mean, with something as serious as this from a very reputable organization, that normally use it to talk about rogue states, et cetera, when they finding and they publish their reports – why the State Department still now has not published anything to either contradict or to support other human rights organizations been talking about what’s happening in Gaza? Basically &#8212;MR PATEL: So first, I’ve not seen that specific report, Nadia. But I think you were in the briefing room just about a week and a half ago in which we – when we unveiled the 2024 Human Rights Report, in which there was, in fact, a section outlining Israel and the Palestinian territories.When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza – and I have spent a number of days talking about this – we are continuing to assess what is happening on the ground. We have a number of tools at our disposal to look into what is happening on the ground and, if required, hold appropriate and relevant parties accountable. You’ve heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about Leahy. You have heard us talk a great deal in this briefing room about the CHIRG process. We continue to have those options as well as other avenues under the Foreign Assistance Act to look into these things. And as in any conflict zone, Nadia, this work is ongoing and we are feeding into that process in close coordination with not just our embassies and consulates, but also civil society, independent media reporting of such things, and, of course, NGOs as well.QUESTION: Can you just assure us that, actually, you treat Israel the same way as you treat any other country that found in violation of international law? Because what we hear from you is all the statements and some actions, like we see with the settlers, but many believe that when the prime minister of Israel pick up the phone, call the White House, the finding is changed and delayed and pushed, just like we heard about – even the Secretary, we were together in Italy when he assured us that we’re going to hear about this report – about the Leahy report and the violation of using U.S. weapons. But we haven’t heard about it. So I just wanted an assurance from you that actually you’re taking these things seriously.MR PATEL: Well, I spent about 50 percent of the daily press briefing yesterday talking about it, so I would take issue with how you laid that out. There are absolutely – we hold Israel to the same standard that we hold any country with, and that is with – in Gaza, outside of Gaza, anywhere. International law, international humanitarian law needs to be followed, and it needs to be abided by. And when we find violations or when we find issues that are concerning, not only do we raise them with the Israeli Government, we will take appropriate actions consistent with the systems and tools that we have in the United States to take appropriate actions.I spent a great deal of yesterday talking about the Leahy process in which we found five violations of – gross violations of human rights. So when we see issues, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. There is no different standard or different set of rules when it comes to any country on which we have a relationship with.QUESTION: Okay. Just one final clarification.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary said that the offer they gave to Hamas is generous. Who decide what is generosity? Is it the United States and Israel? What is it – is it Arab partners in the Saudi summit that they decided it was generous? I mean, I guess my question: How do you define what is generous and what is (inaudible)?MR PATEL: So Nadia, over the course of this conflict, we have seen Hamas move the goal post, renege on agreements that they have made as it – as relates to part of this deal. And so the Secretary was simply underlining the fact that we are in this position in which Hamas has a generous offer on the table, and it’s imperative for them to move and to act on it as swiftly as possible.Olivia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Just one point of clarification on Leahy, which I know you amply addressed yesterday, but you mentioned yesterday that the process was open-ended, right? It was subject to the MOU that exists between the Israeli Government and the United States. This new information that Israel has provided with regard to the fifth unit, is – can it continuously supply new information with regard to that unit until the U.S. sort of adjudicates in a particular direction? Or is this a finite set of information on whose basis the U.S. will decide whether to take punitive action?MR PATEL: I would say the information is definitive and it is more that, consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have, we are bound by that to consult and engage with officials in Israel on the process, on steps that they may or may not be taking, and we are assessing all of those things to ensure that they are in standard with what is laid out in the Leahy Law. And if not, as I said yesterday, there will, of course, be a resistance of applicable – a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance.QUESTION: Okay. And then a separate question on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The Secretary from Jordan earlier mentioned the opening of new crossings into northern Gaza. I was hoping you could just update us on the overall metrics, on the volume of aid that’s going in, and how that compares to what the U.S. believes is necessary.MR PATEL: So look, we are still very much in the same place that we were when David Satterfield came and talked to you all. We have seen some measurable steps in the right direction. Northern crossings including Erez and Zikim are preparing to reopen. We are seeing that routes from Jordan and Ashdod are showing progress, but not fully yet realized. And southern crossings, specifically Kerem Shalom and Rafah, have seen some fluctuating numbers of trucks, but trending in the right direction.This is all to say that we still need to see more. And some metrics that I can offer is that April – on April 25th, approximately 303 trucks entered Gaza according to the UN; 282 trucks via Kerem Shalom, and 21 trucks via Rafah. That is not nearly enough, but it is a step in the right direction. We want to continue to see more. And I know also we spend a lot of time up here talking about trucks and their inflows and outflows, possibly because it might be the most digestible metric out there when talking about this issue.But ultimately, when we talk about humanitarian aid, it is great to see trucks enter Gaza; it is even better when the humanitarian aid that enters Gaza is getting to the Palestinian people, to Palestinian civilians who need it. And we will continue to work closely with the Government of Egypt, Government of Jordan, Government of Israel, and relevant NGO partners, including the United Nations, to ensure that that final step is happening and it’s getting to the places it needs to go.Go ahead.QUESTION: I’ve asked several times about the right to defend one’s self for Palestinians, and out of this room we’ve heard that the U.S. does not exhibit any double – double standards. And today in the West Bank there – the Israelis’ occupation forces chased, beat, and threw off a roof a 32-year-old man – Palestinian man, Hassan Mansiya, near – in the Hebron district. Also, the Israeli forces attacked at least two schools with tear gas, two – inside and outside schools in the Hebron and Jenin districts, where students were, and teachers, and some of them experienced some suffocation. Since October 7th, we’ve – I mean, we’ve had, like, what is it, 95 minors that have been killed in the West Bank. I asked before: Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? I’m not talking about rogue individuals. I’m talking about as far as a legal authority to defend Palestinians. Do they – does the State Department view that Palestinians have a right and duty to defend themselves?MR PATEL: So look, I have not seen those reports that you outlined. I’m happy to look into them, and I have no doubt our partners in the IDF may be able to share more. What I can say is that actions like these, if true, they are destabilizing. They contribute to a deteriorating security situation, and they are not in the interest of Israel’s own security. And when we have seen actions like this, when we see actions from – we believe quite strongly that these kinds of activities take us away from a two-state solution, and they feed into further instability.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: That &#8212;QUESTION: But does – does the Palestinian Authority have the right to defend its citizens?MR PATEL: Absolutely it does. Absolutely it does.QUESTION: It does? Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: A follow-up on the campus protests.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have a question. The U.S. Government, everybody from President Biden on down to here at the podium has been quick to call out antisemitism at these protests, but there’s also been an enormous number of examples of Islamophobia and racism from counterprotesters. Why doesn’t the administration denounce that as well, and would you do that here?MR PATEL: I did. You can check the transcript. I did.QUESTION: Well, and let me ask you about Netanyahu’s – the news on Netanyahu today &#8212;MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: &#8212; where he said that even if there’s a hostage deal, they’re still going into Rafah.MR PATEL: Ryan, you’ve got to be on time. You’ve got to come to the briefing on time.QUESTION: Did you get asked about that this morning?MR PATEL: I spoke to that too. Come on, man.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: All right.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Today photos of pier in Gaza were published. My question: Will the Palestinian Authority, PA, be the one who will control this pier?MR PATEL: Sorry, you &#8212;QUESTION: The port.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Today I – there is photos of this port published. I wonder if the PA, the Palestinian Authority, will control this port in Gaza.MR PATEL: I do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has a role in the maritime corridor, but I am happy to defer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department and USAID to speak to this process in a little bit more specificity.QUESTION: Don’t – just one – don’t you think this port will build over the Palestinian territories, and should Palestinian people have the authority over this port?MR PATEL: So broadly, when we are talking about the future of Gaza and the future of a two-state solution and ensuring that Gaza is no longer a launch pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, part of that for us, of course, includes a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority. But as it relates to this maritime corridor, I do not believe that they have a specific role. But that being said, my colleagues at the Pentagon and USAID may be in a better place to speak to some of the more logistical components of this.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I just wanted to ask about the Erez border crossing.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: It’s also reopening in the north weeks after POTUS’s call with Netanyahu. What should we read into the timing of this opening considering that Blinken is now there to request more aid, and also this ceasefire deal hangs in the balance?MR PATEL: I would not read anything into the timing of this beyond us just stressing, again, that all of these things need to happen as swiftly as possible. But we also fully understand that there may be steps that need to be taken in when factoring in vetting, safety, other things as it relates to crossings that are used for the inflow of aid. We are not naive to the fact that this is a process, but look, we have been clear that we need this to happen as swiftly as possible.QUESTION: And I just want to touch on some of the other questions as well.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Was it the U.S.’s aim to try to beat the clock on a Rafah invasion by getting the ceasefire deal in place beforehand? And if so, have Netanyahu’s comments this morning altered that at all?MR PATEL: It’s not about beating any clock. We – if you go back and look at the history and trajectory of this conflict, there have been a number of instances in which we have been hoping, encouraging, working tirelessly for a deal that would release the hostages that we hope would be partnered with some kind of ceasefire. That has been our position for quite some time. And simultaneously, as it relates to Rafah, it has also been our position for quite some time that any kind of operation that does not address the sort of various components of humanitarian concern that we have would be unacceptable to us.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you so much. Any comment on John Bass’ trip to Doha and Islamabad? Was the meeting with Taliban official in his schedule?MR PATEL: So, as you so noted, acting Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass is on travel to Doha and Islamabad. In Doha he’ll meet with senior Qatari officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and other shared security interests in the region, and in Islamabad we expect him to meet with senior Pakistani officials and discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as well.QUESTION: A follow-up?MR PATEL: Go ahead next. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I know the State Department already talked about the Kurdistan Region’s local elections &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; some time ago, as it has been scheduled for June 10th. So now there’s a discussion that should be postponed for at least three months, so what’s your comment?MR PATEL: So we understand that President Barzani and various Iraqi authorities and other political parties are actively considering next steps. From our point of view, we would encourage them to schedule free, fair, and timely elections, and we hope that process takes place, but I don’t have anything to offer beyond that.Guita, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I have two questions on two separate topics.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: At the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, the President called on Putin to release RFE/RL journalist Alsu Kurmasheva. I was wondering if the State Department is following up her case into seeing whether she’s been – she can be identified as wrongfully detained.MR PATEL: So first, let me just say we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in the case of Alsu Kurmasheva, we remain deeply concerned about her detention in Russia. And to echo the President, we believe she should be released, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and other civil society actors.In terms of a wrongful detention designation, I’m just not going to get ahead of our process. There is a deliberative and fact-driven process underway. That process continues to be ongoing, and we constantly review circumstances surrounding detentions of U.S. nationals, so I don’t have anything to offer there.QUESTION: How often – can you tell us how often you may review cases?MR PATEL: I – we – I am not going to speak to the specifics of this process.QUESTION: Okay, another one on Burkina Faso.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Voice of America and BBC have been banned there. I was wondering if the State Department is doing anything in that regard.MR PATEL: So we are very alarmed that Burkina Faso’s Superior Council of Communication has suspended multiple independent outlets, including Voice of America and BBC, for covering the Human Rights Watch report about some recent massacres. You’ve heard the Secretary say, and including from this very podium, that far too many governments use repression to silence free expression, particularly against journalists and media organizations, for simply doing their jobs. Freedom of expression, particularly for media, is critical for accountable and transparent governance.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: You should allow more journalists as well, Mr. Vedant.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: I mean, one is – when you talk about free journalism, are you going to give a chance (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: You’re interrupting your colleague, Jalil.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.QUESTION: This is my third time and you have not given me a chance. Is this free journalism?MR PATEL: You’re – I’m happy to come to you – I’m happy to come to you after.QUESTION: Please.MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant. Can you please clear up – either validate or keep alive – some of the reports claiming that the U.S. has eased some of the sanctions on Russian banks, including central bank, to allow some energy-related operations? Why?MR PATEL: I’m not sure what reports you’re referring to, Alex. What I can just say broadly, though, is that when it comes to our efforts to hold the Russian Federation accountable for its infringement on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Ukrainian partners, we have not taken our foot off the gas, going back to February of 2022 since this invasion occurred. And we will continue to take steps both to continue to support our Ukrainian partners, but also through sanctions, export controls, and other measures hold the Russian Federation accountable.QUESTION: So there is no shift at all in that policy?MR PATEL: There is no policy shift at all.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Poland, Poland today handed official request to United States to host nuclear weapons in Poland. Do you have any reaction?MR PATEL: I don’t have any comment for you on that. I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can speak to that greater.QUESTION: Sure, thank you. And final topic on Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with both leaders over the weekend. Any reason to why he called this – any, like, intel or any concern did he want to convey? And separately on Azerbaijan and human rights, a portion of the discussion was about human rights, but hours after that call Azerbaijan arrested another civil society leader. So how much is it the reflection of functional relationship?MR PATEL: So first let me just say, Alex, it should come to no surprise to you that this is an area of the world that the Secretary himself is personally deeply engaged on. And over the course of his time as Secretary, he has had regular engagements at regular intervals with both of these countries. And our engagements with both of them are ongoing, and we continue to believe that a peace and – is possible here. And that’s something that we’re going to continue to work towards.On the second question that you raised, we are deeply troubled by the continuing arrests of members of Azerbaijani civil society, most recently Anar Mammadli. And we urge the Azerbaijani Government to immediately release all individuals who are unjustly detained.Jalil, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Vedant, and thank you very much, State Department, for bearing with me these nine years. Just one question, and then if you’ll allow me, I’ll ask another question.How do you feel – when journalists here are friends with the same podium people from the U.S. since last two decades, and you guys – this administration since last two years – if a journalist doesn’t agree – agree with you, you just ignore them. I mean, this is the beauty of this newsroom. This is the beauty of this press room. Why you guys like – you guys not feel bad to be treating somebody like this? Like, what’s the reason?MR PATEL: I’m sorry. Who are we treating in what way?QUESTION: I’m talking about this gentleman right here. Since last two years &#8212;MR PATEL: Did something happen to you?QUESTION: Sir, I feel very ignored. I ask one question, and you pass me, you are &#8212;MR PATEL: First of all, it is never a guarantee that everyone gets a question every day. We try our best to get to everybody, but sometimes we’re dealing with the confines of time. And I will just say, Jalil, in my time up here and Matt’s time and Ned’s time, we have taken questions from you pretty regularly.QUESTION: I don’t agree. But anyway, thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: I just have a question about &#8212;MR PATEL: You just used your one question, so I’m going to move – I’m going to move on now. Go ahead.QUESTION: Sir, I had a follow-up question on Kabul expansionism.MR PATEL: That’s fine.QUESTION: Under secretary is going there. The region has terrorism going on.MR PATEL: Then you should ask that question, Jalil.QUESTION: Half of the country is &#8212;MR PATEL: Then you should &#8212;QUESTION: Half of Afghanistan is under no education for girls. The under secretary is going. How do you feel talking to a nation where terrorism is once again growing up? Today in Kabul, six people were killed. Every week there is terrorism. Why is the under secretary holdings talks with the Taliban if the girls do not have education and what’s your interest there?MR PATEL: So let me just say a couple things. First, I will just – since you’ve gotten us way off topic, if you have a question, you should ask a question, not waste your colleagues’ time about other things.Secondly, I’m not aware of any travel to Afghanistan by any undersecretary, but let me just say that when it comes to our engagements with the Taliban, we engage when it is in the United States interest to do so. This is the best way to not just protect U.S. national interests but also support the Afghan people. Engagement allows us to speak directly with the Taliban, and it’s an opportunity for us to continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan including those who we have determined to be wrongfully detained. We’ll also use those opportunities to directly talk about the Taliban’s commitments to counterterrorism, and of course, as always, human rights is also on the agenda.QUESTION: Thank you very much.MR PATEL: Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much.QUESTION: A quick one: Do you have anything on the talks between Türkiye and the U.S. – U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil? A Turkish energy minister said that they are interested in diversifying Türkiye’s national gas supplies. What is your comment on this? And was this a topic of discussion between the two countries?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any more specifics to offer as it relates to the Secretary’s engagement with Foreign Minister Fidan, but let me just say I’ve seen those public reports, and I’m not going to offer anything additional on potential commercial negotiations, but from our vantage point we would encourage any country to diversify its energy supply and curb dependence on Russian energy. And to just broaden the aperture a little bit, Türkiye has played a very important role as the host of the Southern Gas Corridor in helping diversify European energy supplies and European gas supplies away from dependence on Russia, and as the host of multiple LNG liquification facilities which have received a lot of American LNG since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine.QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Middle East?MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Hamas and Fatah leaders meeting in Beijing at the invitation of China? What is your comment on dialogue between Hamas and Fatah?MR PATEL: So our message on this has been what it was since October 7th. If any country purports to have influence or relationships with Hamas, the message is quite clear: release every single hostage and it can no longer be business as usual. They should call on Hamas to lay down their arms, and that is the best and fastest way to get us where we need to be.Taka, go ahead.QUESTION: So the family of the Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea met State official this morning. Do you have any detail about the meeting? Who met the families? How do you describe the meeting?MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check if there’s any specific officials that we can share, but the U.S. stands with the long-suffering relatives of Japanese abductees, and we continue to urge the DPRK to right this historic wrong and provide full accounting of those that remain missing. And we don’t have any other meetings on this to announce at this time.QUESTION: Details?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check some more specifics but I don’t have anything for you at the – go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: You talked about the Kurdistan Region’s election &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; but I need a clarification on that. What do you mean when you say that you encourage them to schedule a free and fair election? Because it’s already been scheduled for June 10. Does the U.S. support rescheduling that election?MR PATEL: Our understanding is that President Barzani and various other authorities are actively considering next steps, and we will let that process play out before commenting further.QUESTION: Do you support rescheduling this election?MR PATEL: That’s not for us to decide. What we would encourage is for these elections to be scheduled and for them to be free, fair, and credible. But beyond that, our understanding is that President Barzani and various other entities are actively discussing additional next steps.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Pakistani ambassador in Washington, D.C., (inaudible) Masood Khan, recently talked about the importance of Pakistan-U.S. security cooperation and the need to bolster Pakistan’s defense capabilities due to regional challenges. Do you have any – something to tell us, what kind of strategy or initiative both of our countries are working on to enhance security cooperation?MR PATEL: Yeah. So the United States and Pakistan have a shared interest in combating threats to regional security. And we support Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of its citizens in a manner that promotes the rule of law and protection of human rights. Our partnership with Pakistan on security issues includes, of course, a high-level counterterrorism dialogue, funding robust counterterrorism capacity, and building programs and supporting a series of U.S. and Pakistan military-to-military engagements.QUESTION: Sir, The Washington Post’s latest article revealed that Indian Prime Minister Modi inner circle, including spy chief Samant Goel and even the national security advisor, were aware of the assassination plot on a Sikh activist in New York. So how concerning is this for you?MR PATEL: So we continue to expect accountability from the Government of India based on the results of the Indian inquiry committee’s work, and we are regularly working with them and enquiring for additional updates. We’ll also continue to raise our concerns directly with the Indian Government at senior levels, but beyond that I’m not going to parse into this further and will defer to the Department of Justice.Julia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On Sudan, I had a follow-up on &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; the UN Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s comments calling it a – the potential for a large-scale massacre. And she also said that the U.S. is appealing to countries, including the UAE, to stop support for the warring parties. Has any progress been made with the UAE and other countries, and what is the U.S. doing to try to prevent this catastrophe?MR PATEL: So to put it bluntly, as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday, this – we certainly do not view this as conjecture, and we are seeing the possibility of history repeating itself in Darfur in the worst possible way. There are credible reports that the RSF and its allied militias have razed multiple villages west of El Fasher and are planning an imminent attack on El Fasher, putting 500,000 internally-displaced persons at risk on top of the 2 million Sudanese who call El Fasher home. We also know, as the ambassador said, that both sides are receiving weapons and other support to fuel their efforts. And we’ve directly raised our concerns about reports of UAE support to the RSF with our Emirati partners, and we have made clear that the provision of arms to either side only deepens and prolongs the conflict.Go ahead, Daphne, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: You said all – you said you’d take everybody’s questions.MR PATEL: That’s not what I said. I said I would get to as many people as I &#8212;QUESTION: You didn’t even &#8212;MR PATEL: I said I’d get to as many as I can.QUESTION: That’s not what you said.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Daphne.QUESTION: The Philippines today said a coast guard ship and a fisheries vessel were damaged by water cannons used by Chinese coast guard ships. This comes right after Blinken’s trip to China. Do you have any comment on this, concerns?MR PATEL: So the repeated harassment of Philippine vessels near Scarborough Reef is detrimental to regional peace and stability, and our belief is that the Chinese coast guard installation of these barriers also endangers Philippine fisherfolk’s livelihoods and prevents them from exercising their legal rights to fish in those waters. These are rights that were set out in 2016 in a final and legally binding judgment in the Philippines-China arbitration brought to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and consistently – and this is something that the Secretary made clear on his travels as well – is that we urge the PRC to respect the navigational rights and freedoms guaranteed to all states under international law.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Afghanistan																								Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								Burkina Faso																								China																								India																								Iraq																								Israel																								Japan																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Philippines																								Qatar																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								Sudan																								Turkey																								Ukraine
- Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 2024																																																					April 29, 2024																																																								1:10 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Starting early.MR PATEL: Try – always like to keep you all on your toes. I have a little bit of a hard out today, guys, so I will try to get through as many of you I can, but I’m going to be mindful of the time.Ellen, would you like to kick us off?QUESTION: Sure, thank you. On – Secretary Blinken has made a decision to give Israel more time to rectify the situation with the IDF unit that – after deeming that it was guilty of gross abuses of human rights, and that Israel has not held it accountable. And separately, there are the four other cases where there was, I believe, a staff recommendation, according to ProPublica, that these other groups had also committed gross human rights violations and should – the Leahy Law should apply to them. And Secretary Blinken waited five months, according to the ProPublica article, to make a decision on that.So this – is there – the one unit, Netzah Yehuda, is, according to the Israeli military, still operating, and operating in Gaza sometimes. There’s not much of a sign of urgency from the State Department that there are these Israeli units accused of gross human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, killing – torture, rape, and the death of a U.S. citizen.MR PATEL: Is there a question there, Ellen? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yes, I’m getting there. There doesn’t seem to be – that there needs to be any urgency to protect the Palestinian civilians who are being exposed to these gross human rights violations, including with the postponed decision on Netzah Yehuda.MR PATEL: So to take a step back, I take it you are referring to some of the things that were publicly reported at the tail end of last week in reference to some correspondence that the Secretary had with congressional leadership? Is that what you’re referring to?QUESTION: Yes. Yes.MR PATEL: Okay. So let’s – I think important that we take a little bit of a step back here. First, when it comes to the Leahy Law, we have a careful and very deliberate process when it comes to implementing the Leahy Law. And I want to reiterate what you’ve heard me, the Secretary, Matt, and others say before, which is that the same standards when it comes to the implementation – or, sorry, the same standards of the application of this law applies to every country that receives U.S. security assistance.What I can say in terms of where the process is right now is that after a careful process, we found five Israeli units responsible for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights. All of these were incidents much before October 7th, and none took place in Gaza. Four of these units have effectively remediated these violations, which is what we expect partners to do. It is consistent with what we expect all countries whom with we have a security relationship with. For a remaining unit, we continue to be in consultations and engagements with the Government of Israel; they have submitted additional information as it pertains to that unit. And we’re continuing to have those conversations consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel that was entered into in 2021.When conclusions are made under actions that fall under the auspices of the Foreign Assistance Act, we are required to consult with officials from the Government of Israel, and that is ongoing. We are engaging with them in a process, and we will make an ultimate decision when it comes to that unit when that process is complete.I would also just want to note that the remediation standard is consistent, and it is the same for all countries. And what we ask of host governments in that situation is effective steps being taken consistent within their processes and systems to bring respective parties to justice. So as it relates to the process here, that’s all of the update that I have for now, but we’re going to continue to engage with the government on that and we will have more to share, I’m sure, at some point in the future.QUESTION: There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in the meantime; concern for Palestinian civilians exposed to these units doesn’t factor into the timeline of &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me just – I would 100 percent dispute the premise of that question. This is a deliberate process, it is a detail-oriented process, and it is a rigorous process. It is easy to sometimes want things to happen as quickly as possible, but it is more important to ensure that these processes are happening in the most robust and rigorous way possible, because we are ultimately dealing with facts, and we want to make sure that we can follow the facts and make sure that we are appropriately engaging with appropriate stakeholders, including, in this case, the Government of Israel. There is a clear process on this that we intend to follow, and that is the same process for determining these things, the standards of which are consistent with all countries.Go ahead, Kylie.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you’ve been saying about the standard being a typical process that you follow and remediation being standard across the board. So what is the remediation standard here? How long are you going &#8212;MR PATEL: So that’s the point that I was making, is that the standard of remediation is that the – these respective countries take effective steps to hold the accountable party to justice. And that is different on a country-by-country basis. I’m not going to be prescriptive of that on here, including in this incident. But it is &#8212;QUESTION: So then – I’m sorry, but then it’s not a standard if you’re saying it’s different on a country-by-country basis.MR PATEL: It’s a standard in the sense that we expect to see remediation in – but each country in which we have a security relationship is different. There are different protocols and procedures in place in those respective countries, and those respective countries can speak to what accountability measures they have within their systems. I’m not a spokesperson for those components.QUESTION: So you won’t speak to what the process you’re expecting to play out here is? How long you’re giving Israel for remediation in this?MR PATEL: Correct. Absolutely. I’m not going to get into that, beyond saying that we are engaging with the Government of Israel on these things. And I’m sure we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.QUESTION: And then the Secretary said ten days ago that a determination on the Leahy front with Israel had been made, and that we would see results. So I’m wondering if the determination that he made ten days ago is this determination that you guys are now making public, or if that changed due to engagements with the Israelis.MR PATEL: What we were talking about was the gross violations of human rights. As it relates to this one particular unit, I will say that this process continues to be ongoing, given this additional information that we’re engaging with the Government of Israel consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Simon.QUESTION: Okay &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll get to you, I’m sure.QUESTION: So no answer as to if it’s changed?MR PATEL: What – sorry, what?QUESTION: The determination ten days ago. Is this – you won’t say if it’s the same determination as &#8212;MR PATEL: What we were speaking about was the gross violations of human rights. That’s what the – the Secretary was alluding to. I will say that this process, though, with the Government of Israel broadly, continues to be ongoing, especially as it relates to this one unit.QUESTION: Just to clarify &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; where we are, because this is a bit complicated: The U.S. Government has concluded that five different Israeli units committed gross human rights violations, but as of now all of those units can still continue to receive U.S. arms, weapons, ammunition.MR PATEL: Well, in the – in four of those instances, as I just said, we have seen remediation of those violations. And that is, of course, what we expect of partners. Beyond that, as it relates to this fifth unit, that is a process that is still ongoing.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: But let me just say, Simon, since you gave me the opportunity, when we’re talking about the Leahy Law, what we are talking about are unit and component restrictions when they are found in violation. It does not have bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a country, especially a country like Israel in which we have a longstanding security relationship, the provision of bulk assistance that’s gone back many, many years.QUESTION: But as of now, even the fifth unit, where you’re unsure whether there’s been remediation, they are still eligible to receive U.S. arms?MR PATEL: That is – that is – that is the interpretation of the law, correct.QUESTION: Okay, yeah. And to sort of – I wonder, the public might listen to you say that you’ve concluded that that there are gross violations of human rights, but is there any detail you can give us? What are these incidents? What kind of things are we talking about? Some of the reporting has involved sexual assaults, murder. Are these – is there anything you can tell us about what this conclusion is that &#8212;MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of these incidents from up here because overall, the totality of the situation continues to be an ongoing process. But I am – have no doubt that we will have more to share in the time ahead that is consistent with the appropriate congressional pieces as well as the engagements with the host government on this going forward.QUESTION: And you’re not going to tell us – you’re not going to tell us what the units are in question?MR PATEL: Again, that is not something that we generally make public beyond through appropriate consultations with legislative bodies as well as the host government.QUESTION: So the U.S. Government has conducted a process, found these units have conducted grave violations of human rights; that sounds very serious, but you won’t tell us what those violations were, who committed them, and you’re going to continue to send weapons to them?MR PATEL: That is a process that is consistent with the standards that we have with other countries as well. You have to remember, Israel is a country in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. Other countries similar in this grouping, I would say, would include the government – in terms of the kinds of relationship we have – include Ukraine, include Egypt. And in those kinds of countries, there is a proactive vetting of the whole security universe, a constant evaluation in close consultations with our embassies and consulates, NGOs, civil society, media reporting on the ground, as to assess what is happening in those countries. And so consistent with that process, we – not in a place to share publicly the specific components of their security services that – in which this is applicable to.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Sorry, hold on. Is this on this, or &#8212;QUESTION: On this.MR PATEL: Okay. Let me get to Olivia, then I’ll come to you, Leon. I’m so sorry.QUESTION: Can you talk about within what timeframe this new information from the Israeli Government reached the State Department?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to that specificity on diplomatic engagements. What I can say is that they provided additional information to us, and that is a process that’s going to continue to be ongoing.QUESTION: But was that additional information supplied after the Secretary made his – revealed that some determinations had been made (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the diplomatic engagements that we have. What I can say is that this is consistent with the memorandum of understanding and which we have with Israel to talk about these things, prior to any conclusions that are made under things that fall under the Foreign Assistance Act.QUESTION: Generally speaking, are governments under Leahy that we have relationships with bound by a certain amount of time &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not.QUESTION: &#8212; with which they need to provide evidence or sort of confirm that they have taken steps on accountability or &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not. They are not.QUESTION: So this is a completely open-ended process &#8212;MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; and violations can stretch on for an indeterminate amount of time? And at what point then does the department actually take any punitive measures?MR PATEL: Well, again, you have to – it’s important to remember, Olivia, that each country is different, so it’s difficult to talk about these circumstances with a broad-brush stroke. What I can say is that there is not a stipulation on timing, but we’ll continue to have these engagements and we will press directly with governments and countries about sharing applicable information.Again, in the context of Israel, this is a government in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. There is constant around-the-clock evaluation and vetting ongoing as it relates to the security parameters and circumstances on the ground. So we are looking at reports, we are looking at public reporting, we are looking at media reporting, just as we would do in any conflict zone, ensuring that there are no violations of international law, no violations of humanitarian law.QUESTION: But that seems to be at the core of the problem here, is that Israel is a unique country being offered unique treatment in this circumstance.MR PATEL: They are not being offered unique treatment. There is nothing that I have outlined here that is inconsistent with the Leahy process that is – when it comes to the countries that which we have security relationships with.QUESTION: You’ve cited the longstanding security relationship and how it might &#8212;MR PATEL: Because there are some countries in which the relationship we have with them would require us to approach this just slightly differently – Ukraine being an example, Egypt being an example, Israel being another example. But there is not a special treatment. There is not a different standard to &#8212;QUESTION: So what does “slightly differently” mean?MR PATEL: So Israel is a country that – in which we have a longstanding security relationship. There is a lot of bulk assistance that is going whether – to use an example, things like bulletproof vests or something – in which the Government of Israel may choose to want something like that. And then it is then on the central government to disseminate that to specific units or components within their security system.So for countries in which we have that kind of longstanding deep relationship – in Israel’s case, it’s called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum – there is around-the-clock, proactive, constant vetting and evaluation of the circumstances that are on the ground to assess whether there are international – there – whether there are violations of international humanitarian law, violations of international law. That is a process that is ongoing. There is no such thing as special treatment or double standards here. The standards of the Leahy Law are applied consistently to all countries.Now, in some countries, like the ones that I stipulated, the security relationship is such as that there is this additional forum vehicle, but that is not a double standard or any kind of special treatment.QUESTION: I want to defer to my colleagues, which is – I mean, it just seems hard to countenance there’s no double standard with this as a special arrangement and set of circumstances that Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not a special arrangement, the standards of which – in fact, it is taking a closer look at the situations on the ground. It’s not a double standard; the standards are the same. It is a forum created to allow for the – for an assessment that is comparable to the kind of security relationship that we have with that particular country. Israel is not the only one that – in which this model exists.QUESTION: My last question on this is that – does the State Department believe that actually taking punitive measures under Leahy in this instance with regard to this one unit would somehow damage diplomatic relations with Israel?MR PATEL: I’m not going to get ahead of that process, Olivia, and we would certainly hope not, because throughout this whole process, we have been clear-eyed and consistent. You’ve heard the Secretary, you’ve heard the President, you’ve heard me, you’ve heard Matt – that throughout the course of this conflict, you have – we have reiterated our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. That was true then; it is true now. And is Leahy unit-specific. It is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we have with that particular country.I will also note that this is – continues to be an ongoing process. And if at any point remediation efforts or things like that are found to be inconsistent with the standards that we find, there of course will be restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. We intend to be an administration that’s going to follow the law as prescribed.QUESTION: Vedant?MR PATEL: Tom – oh, sorry, let me go to Leon, because he’s had his hand up, and then I’ll come to you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; of course you’re going to get a question. Has there ever been a briefing where you’ve not gotten a question on this issue?Leon.QUESTION: Thank you. We agree that all this is pre-October 7 and involves the West Bank, abuses in the West Bank, okay? So quite a while ago – I don’t know exactly how long depending on which of the units you’re talking about, but I find it a little bit strange that in four of those units, you – they have the remediary corrections that they did, and you accept that evidently. And in this fifth unit, what sort of additional information could have come through all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks that would make it that you are not able to make the determination yet?And then second question: What kind of remediary decisions are we talking about? I mean, disciplinary – or what kind of corrections? Can you speak to that?MR PATEL: So on the second point, that’s up to the host government. The standard that we expect is that they bring the relevant parties to justice. We cannot have some kind of prescriptive metric given that each country is different and their procedures as it relates to their own government systems and military systems are different, but our standard for remediation, we expect that of all countries in this case. But beyond that, Simon – I’m sorry, not Simon, Leon – it is an ongoing process so I’m not going to get more prescriptive or specific on the relevant details.Tom, go ahead.QUESTION: To follow up – can I just follow up on that?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, I’m confused. Do you know whether or not the Israelis have remediated this unit?MR PATEL: That is – that is essentially what we are engaging with them on as it relates to this. Again, I can say that in these five individual incidents of gross violations of human rights, for four of these units they have effectively remediated those violations, which is, again, something we expect and want from the countries that – which we have security relationships with. It’s what we expect of our partners. As it relates to this remaining unit, the Government of Israel has submitted additional information. We are currently reviewing it, which is consistent with the memorandum of understanding we have with them. We’re engaging with them in a process, and we’ll make a decision from there when that process is complete.QUESTION: Okay. But the answer is you don’t know. You don’t know if they’ve remediated this unit on these places and we don’t know what the cases are because you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: When I say something is mid-process, it’s safe to assume that. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, but the law – the law is really clear. So the law says, “No assistance shall be furnished...to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” So you’ve made that determination that they have committed a gross violation of human rights. The exception is that that prohibition “shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports” – to the appropriate congressional committees – “that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring responsible members of the security forces to justice.” So has the Secretary notified Congress that they are taking effective steps?MR PATEL: So I’m not a legal or technical expert.QUESTION: No, because you don’t – you don’t know, and you just said you don’t know if they’ve remediated so &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on the specifics of the legal process for you, Tom, and get back to you.QUESTION: But that is the legal process. So according to the legal process, you’ve determined that they have carried out gross violations of human rights, but you haven’t determined that they’ve remediated. And yet the Secretary said on April the 19th you had made the determinations. So I’m – I’m just really confused about what changed after April the 19th?MR PATEL: As I was pretty clear, what I shared was that the Government of Israel has shared additional information with us, and we are &#8212;QUESTION: But that – according to the law, that is not an effective remediation. So at the moment, you have a situation where you have – you have determined there was a gross violation, but you don’t have remediation. And I can’t see any part of the law which says you might decide over a couple of days that it’s been remediated and therefore keep security assistance going.MR PATEL: So like I said, this is an ongoing process. I’m not going to speak to it more specifically, but consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel, we are engaging with them, consulting with them as it relates to not just this broader process but additional information that they’ve shared. And we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you – thank you, Vedant. By the way, did – can you share with us the outcome of the investigation of the death of Omar Assad that was – that actually died while in the custody with this unit, Netzah Yehuda? Do we know what was the outcome of that investigation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer right now.QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Said.QUESTION: Yeah, please, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The other thing is it seems that Israel has rebuked the United States call or your call the other day for investigating the mass grave, the mass burial and all these things. Do you have any comment on that?MR PATEL: So Said, there has been some – and if you’ll allow me a quick second, I don’t have – make sure this is the right thing here. As it relates to this Said, the IDF has been pretty public in that in its search for Israeli hostages &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; they uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously buried their dead.QUESTION: They excavated – you mean excavated – yeah.MR PATEL: There has been some pretty consistent public reporting dating back to January that that is an area that Palestinians had to bury some bodies, but the IDF can speak more specifically about that process. But you heard me speak to this, you heard the National Security Advisor say – and consistently across this administration, I’d say that the facts matter and, of course, if there is any kind of inconsistency that needs to be looked into – but I believe that the IDF has spoken publicly about what this is and what this isn’t.QUESTION: Okay. So you accept their answer? I mean, their answer was we did not do that; we don’t do this. I mean that’s what – and they consider the matter to be over. Do you consider the matter to be over?MR PATEL: Said, I just said if there are in fact any inconsistencies, then that should be looked into. But based on even just the public reporting, the IDF has been clear about what this is and what this isn’t. That being said, we engage with the Government of Israel and the IDF around the clock. This is something we’ll continue to discuss with them if we need to raise any further issues.QUESTION: Okay. A couple more questions, if you allow me. It has reported that the U.S. is working with Israel to prevent any kind of ICC warrant of arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Are you aware of that? Is that true? Can you confirm that?MR PATEL: It’s important to take a step back here, Said, that since this president has come into office, we have worked to reset our relationship with the ICC. And we are in contact with the court on a range of issues, including in connection to the court’s important work on Darfur, on Ukraine, on Sudan as well. But on this investigation, our position is clear. We continue to believe that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Palestinian situation.QUESTION: Yeah, but you did welcome the warrant of the arrest for Vladimir Putin, correct? I mean, you welcomed that. I’m just asking. You did.MR PATEL: Said, these are two very different – first of all, I actually – I really – I don’t appreciate &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not making a comparison. I’m &#8212;MR PATEL: You literally are, though. You literally are. There is no moral equivalency between the kinds of things that we see President Putin and his – and the Kremlin undertake in comparison to the Israeli Government, Said.QUESTION: I’m not asking for a justification. I’m saying you did – you did welcome it, right? Okay.MR PATEL: This is also not – the ICC, as you know, is not – we are not party to the Rome Statute on this.QUESTION: Right, that’s true. Let me ask you one last question on the Saudi trip.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip to Saudi Arabia. It has been said that the Saudis suggested or came up with a proposal that basically said let’s focus on the security issues, arrangement on security issues and the civilian nuclear program, whatever, and leave the normalization, the Palestinian state, to another time when things are more propitious to discuss these things. Can you confirm that to us?MR PATEL: Said, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: Did the Saudis submit a new proposal that delinks &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to set into the specifics of our ongoing diplomatic engagements, but we remain committed to the long-term goal of a more stable and prosperous and integrated Middle East region, including through normalization and of course also including through the advancement of a two-state solution. The Secretary just addressed this in Capri that this is something that we have continued to be working on as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s been something that he himself has been intensively engaged on. But beyond that, I’m – we’ll just defer to our Saudi partners to speak to that.QUESTION: Yeah. As far as your – you know, there has been no proposal delinking these issues, focusing on the security issue versus the Palestinian normalization issue?MR PATEL: Said, we think that an integrated Middle East region should include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia but also the advancement of a two-state solution as well.Go ahead, Guita.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the ceasefire aspect of the Gaza war, the Secretary in Riyadh today said that, and I quote, “...between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas,” unquote. He met with the Arab foreign ministers. He met with the Turkish foreign minister there. Does the State Department see a role for the Islamic Republic of Iran on this decision by Hamas that everybody is waiting on whether to take the proposal or not, one way or another?MR PATEL: I cannot think of any actions in the past I don’t know how many years that the Iranian regime has taken that – one, that has been actually beneficial to the Palestinian people. What I would just say broadly, any country is welcome to play a positive role, but actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to the actions of the Iranian regime, the track record is pretty clear: they continue to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism; they continue to be a backer and funder of groups that have been focused on destabilizing and bringing violence to the region. So their actions are pretty clear here.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Friday, State Department strongly commended the attack on the on the Khor Mor gas field in Kurdistan, but my question is how the United States can protect Kurdistan Region from militia groups where there is also U.S. investment in the region.MR PATEL: So we do strongly condemn the attack on the Khor Mor gas field, and we offer condolences to the families of those who were killed, and we wish for a quick recovery of those who were injured. And as we’ve said previously, attacks like this on civilian infrastructure, they’re an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.QUESTION: A follow-up on that?Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Let me try to approach the whole Leahy Law thing in one or two different ways. You say that U.S. law is applied systematically throughout. Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Because there is U.S. law that says that there should be a funding cutoff under the Arms Export Control Act and the Glenn-Symington Amendments that says that there shouldn’t be aid to nuclear proliferators, and Israel is a damn sure nuclear proliferator. But last time I asked, you folks won’t even acknowledge the existence of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.MR PATEL: Yeah, I don’t – I still don’t have a comment for you on that, Sam.QUESTION: But U.S. law is applied systematically, but you won’t even acknowledge the existence of &#8212;MR PATEL: Of course U.S. law is applied systematically.QUESTION: But you won’t even acknowledge the empirical reality of a nuclear weapons arsenal.MR PATEL: Don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let me try a different fact then. Tomorrow there will be a decision issued by the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – not just simply to punish genocide but to attempt to prevent it in real time. Nicaragua’s lawsuit says that it is, quote, “enabling Israel to  genocidal acts.” Quote, “Germany has provided political, financial and military support to Israel fully aware at the time of  authorization that the military equipments would be used in the commission of  breaches of international law by this State and in disregard of its own obligations.”As I understand it, Nicaragua is doing this against Germany and not the U.S. because the U.S. has a reservation in the Genocide Convention saying that it will not adhere to any judgments by the International Court of Justice. But it doesn’t have to invoke that. My question to you is: Would the United States invoke that; or, if a state wanted to go to the International Court, will the United States actually adhere to international law and say we will not invoke this way of bailing out of the legal system, we will actually abide by a court decision?MR PATEL: Sam, let me say a couple of things there. First, we’ve been incredibly clear on this dating back to a number of months that we find allegations of genocide in this current, ongoing conflict in Gaza to continue to be unfounded. That was the case previously when similar matters were brought before the ICJ, and that continues to be the case. And let me just say when it comes to our partners in Germany, they share our convergence on the importance of doing everything we can to make sure hostages are released, to make sure that there is more humanitarian aid going into Gaza, and that everything can be done possible to make sure that this conflict ends as quickly as we can.QUESTION: But I’m not asking you for your alleged assessment. I’m asking you: Will you adhere to a court ruling from the world court?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals, Sam.Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: No, no, it’s not a hypothetical.MR PATEL: Ellen.QUESTION: It’s a “will you adhere?”MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: I was just wondering if the – Secretary Blinken himself has made clear that there is not remediation by this unit. The letter to the House Speaker says that Blinken will work to identify steps to get Israel on a path of remediation for this unit. And as my colleague here pointed out, that’s not in the Leahy Law. The Leahy Law doesn’t say you can enter one – you enter negotiations to try to bring a country into remediation.MR PATEL: First, I would not call it negotiations. We are engaging with the Government of Israel on facts and on information that is consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them. I think it’s also important to remember we want to see remediation when it comes to our partners and countries in which we have longstanding security partnerships with.Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Gaza university protests, which have intensified across American campuses over the past week with the students making several demands, including calls for policy changes and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and according to a poll by CNN over the weekend, young Americans under 35 disapprove the administration’s handling of Israel’s war on Gaza. And many countries, including your allies in the region, also expect you to change course and put more pressure on Israel. So are these objections and protests considered on – in policymaking process in this building? And specifically I’m wondering: Will U.S. policy be changed or affected by these protests in any way?MR PATEL: Look, Rabia, when it comes to people protesting and sharing their opinions, making their voices heard, that is something that is consistent with the First Amendment. It is consistent with things we see in this country, and certainly people have every right to do so, including people who may have differing viewpoints on foreign policy that we’re pursuing. The same would be applied to employees of the federal government. They, of course, have every right to express their opinions and points of view. I’ve said a number of times before that the Secretary, at least when it comes to the workforce, he is incredibly receptive to different points of view. He believes that that makes him a stronger policy maker, and the outcomes include better and more well-thought-out policy. And we’ll continue to encourage the mechanisms that we have for people to share their points of view.When it comes to protests, though, people continue to have every right to do so. We would just continue to press that they be nonviolent and that they remain peaceful.QUESTION: But will the U.S. policy be changed or affected in any way by these protests?MR PATEL: When it comes to – when it comes to the policy that we’re pursuing, Rabia, the only real metric for us is what is in the interests for the American people and what keeps the American people safer and more secure.QUESTION: So you don’t take into account &#8212;MR PATEL: And in our point of view – and what – and in our point of view, more humanitarian aid going into Gaza is also good for the United States. The defeat of Hamas is also good for the United States. Ensuring that Gaza can no longer be a springboard for terrorism is also good for the United States. And a two-state solution that brings about greater peace and stability and integration in the Middle East region is also good for the United States.We are pursuing these policies because we believe they are in the interest of the American people. It will bring about greater peace and stability in the region, and it will keep our country and other countries in the region safer. People are allowed to disagree. It is a free country and they have every First Amendment right to express their points of view and to make them heard, and we encourage people to do so in a peaceful and nonviolent way.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Vedant. A question on the attack on the Khor Mor gas field in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, as you could speak of moments ago about it. Last time, in January, when a field – when that field was attacked, you request the Iraqi Government to investigate and bringing to justice those who were responsible. And this time we saw the same statement from State Department on that attack. In your assessment, who was or is responsible for this attack, and have you ever get back by the Iraqi Government why they are not bringing those responsible into justice? And are they willing or they can’t do it? Is that something of your concern?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer when it comes to a responsible actor there, and so I will just refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And one more question on that. As you are pushing or helping or wanting Iraq to get its energy independence from Iran and that’s why you are waivering the sanctions to get electricity from Iran, and this field is one of the alternates for the Iranian energy supply to Iraq, do you think that this attack – these kinds of attack – is a warning to all the stakeholders and parties, including the United States, that getting Iraq independence energy from Iran is not an easy and – it’s not easy to divest Iraq from Iranian independence? Are you considering these attacks in your – into your calculations when you’re speaking of Iraqi independence energy from Iran?MR PATEL: So I’m certainly not going to speculate on why or why not someone chose to strike an electricity – or a gas field. What I can say, though, is that this kind – these kinds of affronts to civilian infrastructure, they are a direct attack on Iraqi sovereignty, and that’s why you saw us condemn them, but I don’t have anything else beyond that.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: On the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Secretary Blinken said that we’re getting close to an agreement on bilateral things. Can you elaborate on that?MR PATEL: I can’t, Michel. I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, but the Secretary just last weekend in Capri was – laid out that this is something that we’ve been working on, including as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s something that we’ve been intensely engaged on, and we believe that this is something that is key to what is our long-term goal, which is a more stable, prosperous, and integrated Middle East region.Olivia.QUESTION: One quick question on hostages.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Public comments by the Secretary this morning – he indicated that a new offer by Israel on the table was extraordinarily, extraordinarily generous. Is there a sense that a deal is closer than it has been in recent weeks, or is Hamas the same unknown that is has been?MR PATEL: So our hope is that – our hope is that – of course that some kind of progress can be made. We remain committed to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and takes some additional steps for the surge of humanitarian aid. To echo the Secretary, a generous deal has been put on the table, and it’s now on Hamas to accept the deal. I will just say that currently what is standing in the way between a ceasefire and some progress for the Palestinian people is Hamas.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I have a clarification on this one, please? On this?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Now, the Secretary was talking about sustainable calm, sustainable calm. What we heard today from the foreign secretary of United Kingdom, David Cameron, he was – he was talking about 40 days of ceasefire. Could you – could &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about this process, Said, beyond saying that we’re committed to reaching a deal that includes an immediate ceasefire, that includes the release of hostages and additional humanitarian aid. It’s something that we’re continuing to work towards. As the Secretary said, a generous deal has been put on the table, and really the responsibility now is for Hamas to accept it.QUESTION: But it includes no time, no 30 days &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about the process, Said.Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Said’s question regarding Omar Assad now. Netzah Yehuda has been cited for violations – gross violations of human rights, including for being responsible for the death of an 80-year-old American citizen, Omar Assad. So that took place almost two years ago, 2022, and now you’re saying that Israel presented new information and that there’s a discussion of – or remediation of that military unit. What kind of new information provided almost two years later could make the family of Omar Assad, an American citizen, feel like they’ve received any kind of justice?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to the specifics of this process because it is ongoing, but remediation is what we want to see in as many of these instances as possible. That is what we expect of our partners and that’s what we expect of countries that we partner with. But beyond that, I’m not going to get ahead of this.I will also note that if at the end of our engagements and discussions in this process with the Government of Israel it is found that processes are inconsistent with what is laid out in Leahy or if information is inconsistent with what is expected under Leahy, there will of course be a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. As I said to one of your colleagues, we intend to be an administration that follows the law, and that is also true in this case here.Janne.QUESTION: Are you in touch with the family to explain all this to them?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and China. It has been reported that the Russian ship transporting North Korean weapons is using a Chinese port and is currently docked. What measures is the United States taking in response to North – China’s toleration of arms trade with Russia and North Korea?MR PATEL: So look, Janne, we have – this is something that we take incredibly seriously. You saw the Secretary and Matt and myself speak about the closening that – of the relations we are seeing between Russia and the PRC, especially as it relates to ongoing endeavors as it relates to the Russian defense industrial base. We think that that is not just risky to the region, but it is directly an affront to Ukraine. So we’re going to continue to take appropriate steps to hold relevant actors accountable.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: On China, quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Secretary Blinken last week and urged the United States not to step on the – cross forbidden line against China’s sovereignty. What specifically does the forbidden line on sovereignty mean? Is this Chinese red line?MR PATEL: So this is not a new position of ours, Janne. Over the course of our engagements with the PRC since Russia’s aggressive, unjust, and illegal infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, we have made clear – including to the PRC – that any kind of provision of lethal assistance from the country, from the PRC, would be unacceptable to the United States, and we would take appropriate steps to hold them account should that happen. We reiterated that and will continue to reiterate that in every engagement that we have.Alex, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying on Russia, then I have a couple more on the South Caucasus.MR PATEL: You can get one. Go ahead.QUESTION: Over the weekend – yeah, thanks so much – over the weekend, Russia arrested two more international reporters – one working for AP, another one for Reuters. What do you know about their cases, and do you have any response yet?MR PATEL: So I don’t – I don’t have specifics that I can get into, Alex, again, when – in any of these situations involving detention, we’re dealing with privacy areas as well. But to take a step back, the Kremlin has an egregious track record when it comes to its crackdown on media freedoms, its crackdown on journalists, its detention of journalists. I would point you no further than the case of Evan Gershkovich, who continues to be wrongfully detained by the Russian Federation, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure the release of both Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: And then – I have a couple more &#8212;MR PATEL: Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Germany																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Nicaragua																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								The Secretary of State
- Anti-Prostitution and Homosexuality Law in Iraq Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States is deeply concerned by the Iraqi Council of Representatives’ passage of an amendment to existing legislation, officially called the Anti-Prostitution and Homosexuality Law, which threatens constitutionally protected human rights and fundamental freedoms. The law bans same-sex relations with steep fines and imprisonment and punishes those who “promote homosexuality.” Limiting the rights of certain individuals in a society undermines the rights of all.This amendment threatens those most at risk in Iraqi society. It can be used to hamper free-speech and expression and inhibit the operations of NGOs across Iraq. The legislation also weakens Iraq’s ability to diversify its economy and attract foreign investment. International business coalitions have already indicated that such discrimination in Iraq will harm business and economic growth in the country.Respect for human rights and political and economic inclusion is essential for Iraq’s security, stability, and prosperity. This legislation is inconsistent with these values and undermines the government’s political and economic reform efforts.
- Condemning the Attacks on Civilians and Energy Infrastructure in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region  Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States strongly condemns today’s attack on energy infrastructure in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.  We offer condolences to the families of those who were killed, and we wish for the quick recovery of those who were injured.  Attacks like this are an affront to Iraq’s sovereignty.  We encourage the authorities to investigate and bring to justice those who are responsible. The United States will continue to work with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government in support of Iraqi security, stability, and sovereignty.  
- Department Press Briefing – April 24, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 24, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; April 24, 2024																																																					April 24, 2024																																																								1:08 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: That was, like, very in unison. Good job, guys.I don’t have anything off the top, so Ellen, if you’d like to kick us off?QUESTION: Hi, Vedant. Former State Department Security and Human Rights Official Charles Blaha took part in a panel presentation on credible allegations of human rights abuses by Israeli forces this afternoon. And he said that in his experience in 30 years at the State Department, the State Department gave Israel special treatment that no other country in the world got and that it showed undue preference to Israel in accepting its accounts of incidents for – that involve allegations against Palestinians. So aside from the fact that he’s a free citizen, free to say what he wants to say, is he correct? Is the person who was central to the kind of reviews that are happening now in the State Department, is he correct in saying that’s the situation, or did he misunderstand how things worked over three decades?MR PATEL: So I can’t – I can’t speak to these comments; I haven’t seen them, or can’t really speak to this individual and their – what their role may have been here at the State Department. What I can say unequivocally is that we apply the principles and guidelines that are outlined in clear legislation when it comes to the security relationships we have with countries around the world, including Israel, consistently. I will also note that when it comes to the appropriate use of American security assistance we also apply the principles and guidelines as it relates to those consistently with countries across the board.Simultaneously, we have a number of measures and efforts in place when it comes to ensuring that there is compliance with international humanitarian law. We’ve talked about a number of those levers from this briefing room, and we apply the tenets laid out in those measures consistently across the board with countries across the board. There is no such thing as special or preferential treatment when it comes to the implementation and enforcement of what we believe to be U.S. law.Simultaneously, when it comes to Israel, at every conversation we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative to ensure that every possible step is taken when it comes to ensuring that civilian casualties are minimized, that deconfliction measures are implemented immediately, and that humanitarian aid can get to the place that it needs to go and that humanitarian aid workers are protected. And we’ll continue to be very direct about those efforts, and we’ll continue to apply the tenets of our – of these factors consistently across the board with all countries.QUESTION: A former – a couple of former senior State Department officials involved in the process have come forward now to say that’s not the case. Does that – does that prompt – should that prompt an examination of the State Department of its own process?MR PATEL: Again, I have not seen these other comments, but what I can say unequivocally is that there is no such thing as double standards or preferential treatment. We apply the rule of the law, and the standards outlined and the various accountability mechanisms we have consistently across the board with all countries that we have security relationships with. I assume these individuals that you outline are private citizens, so they have every right to speak whatever it is their opinion is on issues pertaining to global affairs, but we – as you know – we see no indication of – or reason to reassess our policy or the steps and procedures that we have in place.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. A senior Israeli defense official has said that Israel’s military is poised to evacuate Palestinian civilians from Rafah and assault Hamas holdouts in the city. Do you feel that U.S. concerns about an operation in Rafah have been heard or addressed?MR PATEL: We don’t. This is an ongoing process. We continue to be very clear – and Ambassador Satterfield reiterated some of this yesterday – that when it comes to a military operation in Rafah there needs to be a serious, credible plan when it comes to how to deal with some of the very pressing humanitarian challenges. You’ve heard me talk about these before: First and foremost, we have more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; Rafah as a region continues to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid as well as a region of safe departure for foreign nationals. For these reasons and many others, we continue to engage directly with our partners in Israel about them needing a very serious, coordinated, and well-thought-out plan when it comes to any military operation in Rafah.QUESTION: Have you gotten any assurances on protection of civilians from the Israelis?MR PATEL: We are having these conversations. They are ongoing. Obviously, in the broader sense of the conflict, we have stressed the moral and strategic imperative of pressing – of protecting civilians and making sure that every possible step is taken to protect and minimize civilian casualties. But on the topic of an operation in Rafah, this is a conversation that we’re going to continue to have. You might have been in the briefing last week in which we talked about National Security Advisor Sullivan’s meeting with the – through the Strategic Consultative Group to talk about some of these issues. These conversations will continue to be ongoing, and we’ll continue to engage with our Israeli partners on this.QUESTION: Will the U.S. take any action if they go ahead with an operation?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals here.QUESTION: Okay. And then if I could just ask, Palestinian Authority has reported finding hundreds of bodies in mass graves at a hospital in Khan Younis this week after it was abandoned by Israeli troops. I know you said earlier this week that the reports are troubling, but will the U.S. call for an independent inquiry?MR PATEL: So first, the – let me just say the allegations are troubling, they are disturbing, we take them very seriously, and we’re continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information. It’s our understanding the IDF has spoken to some of this publicly; they have stated that in search of Israeli hostages, they have uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously been buried. And after determining that no hostages were there, these graves were recovered. Obviously, the IDF can speak to – specifically about their operations in the region. But we’re also continuing to press the Government of Israel for more information onto what this is and what the circumstances are here. And when we have that information, we’ll be happy to share that with you.QUESTION: Can I follow up (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: &#8212; my colleague. At that event, actually, where they released something called the independent task force on the application of National Security Memorandum 20 &#8212; I’m sure you’re aware of. Now, these two former officials from the State Department, they were – of course they’re private citizens, but they were speaking officially of their time spent in the State Department. So you are saying that there has never been at any time a special treatment of Israel in terms of the dispensing aid, military aid, or otherwise, or even political aid?MR PATEL: Said, what I am saying is that when it comes to the security relationships that we have with countries around the world – whether it be Israel, whether it be any other country where we have a robust security relationship – the applications and standards of the laws that guide that security relationship, including the laws and procedures that guide accountability measures that are in place within our system to ensure that human rights are not being violated, to ensure that American assistance is being used properly, the laws and guidelines and standards of those are applied consistently across the board. There is no double standards and is there no special treatment, regardless of country.QUESTION: There is absolutely no special treatment of Israel at any given point in the past 50 years, whatever?MR PATEL: Said, I can only speak &#8212;QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: &#8212; to this administration and the work that is ongoing here. I think we – you know we always don’t like turning these press briefings into history lessons.QUESTION: Right, okay. That’s fine.MR PATEL: I’m not here to speak about 50 years. What I can say is that since the onset of this administration and our longstanding security relationship with Israel, this has been the case.QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not interested in relitigating history either. I just wanted to ask you – now, the report they are talking about, or the memo they are talking about, was issued back on February 8th. I believe there is another one coming up soon in May. Can you tell us what it will – what it will do and will not do?MR PATEL: Said, I’m going to not get ahead of the process here. You saw around in March us speak to this first benchmark, which was receiving these letters from the various ministers and government officials who we have security relationships with. But beyond that, there is of course an additional component around the May 8th date, and so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Yeah. Two more points. On the Patrick Leahy Law, now we understand that it is obligatory, right, it is obligatory that whatever arms sent to anyone of your security partners and so on would abide by what is stated or what is dictated by the Leahy Law; it is a law. So can you share with us the mechanism that you apply in enforcing that law?MR PATEL: So Said, without getting technical, let me just be clear: Of course we take our obligations to the Leahy Law incredibly seriously. It is another example of a tool that we have at our disposal that we continue to apply consistently across the board when it comes to countries of – in which we have security relationships. A determination on a Leahy Law violation would essentially mean that it – we would have been found gross violations of human rights, and then particular components under a particular country where we have a security relationship, those specific components would be ineligible for U.S. assistance. But again, that is talking about it in a broad term, and I’m not going to get more specific than that.QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, on the mass grave. Now an Israeli spokeswoman for the Israeli army basically dismissed the whole thing, dismissed the charge. Now you’re saying you find it troubling, and you ask the Israeli Government for clarification. Do you expect them to come back to you with this clarification? Do you have a timeframe?MR PATEL: I don’t have a timeframe for you, and we do expect them to provide us with more information.QUESTION: But considering that this is just happening and it has a certain level of urgency – I mean, considering that the UN is asking for an independent investigation and so on – do you say that we need a response within this period of time?MR PATEL: We are stressing the urgency of not just this incident but other incidents in which we continue to press our partners in Israel for more information and more details about the circumstances surrounding it. We don’t always read those conversations out; sometimes they are private. But our partners in Israel are ones in which we engage with regularly around the clock at varying levels, and we’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Elizabeth, go ahead.QUESTION: There was a report in Israeli media over the weekend that Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich is pushing to legalize 68 outposts in the West Bank. Does the State Department have a reaction to that report? And is this something you’ve raised with Israeli officials?MR PATEL: So look, these reports about directives to support illegal outposts in the West Bank, we believe that to be dangerous and reckless. Our policy, U.S. policy, remains that settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace and the Government of Israel’s program is inconsistent with international law. And we’ll continue to urge Israeli officials to refrain from taking actions to fund outposts that have long been illegal under Israeli law. Actions or announcements seeking to expand outposts will only move the goal of peace and stability in the region further away.Abbie. On the region or anything else?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Hamas released a video today of Israeli American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin. I wondered if you had any comment on the video and if you had any further information on proof of life or the date of the video – and more broadly, if you could give an update on the hostage discussions.MR PATEL: Sure. So the video itself is being actively examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell. I can’t comment it – on it any further at this time, on any of the specific parameters on the verification of it or not. But I will just note that if it’s real, that this is another example of Hamas preferring to hold hostages rather than end the war and bring much-needed relief to the Palestinian people in Gaza.On the matter of hostage talks and negotiations, Abbie, there is a deal on the table: release the sick, the wounded, the elderly, women, and there is a ceasefire. It’s simple as that. The whole situation continues to be totally unacceptable to us; since October 7th, we have stressed at every tide and turn that every single hostage needs to be released. And candidly, over the course of this conversation, it’s something that the world has lost focus on a little bit, that it is Hamas that started this war. It’s Hamas that is continuing to hold hostages and has the ability to end it by releasing them.When it comes to this video, Hersh should be home with his family, and we and Secretary Blinken are not going to rest a single minute until that happens, including the President, of course.Alex. On the region?QUESTION: On Iran, if I may.QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Let me see if there’s anything else on Gaza specifically before we pivot to some of the broader topics.QUESTION: Okay.MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Does the U.S. support an investigation into the mass graves found in Gaza, an independent investigation?MR PATEL: So as I said, we’re continuing to ask our partners in Israel for more information. I don’t have an additional assessment to offer.QUESTION: So you want Israel to investigate but not an independent &#8212;MR PATEL: We are asking for more information on the circumstances relating to the reporting of the mass grave, as I said to both of your colleagues when they asked this very same question.QUESTION: That’s not &#8212;MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. So in the Human Rights Report released on Monday, you said that Israel, the government, took some credible steps to identify and punish officials who may committed – who may have committed human rights abuses. However, we have not seen some credible steps regarding several investigations since October 7, including the killing of Hind Rajab. I wanted to follow up on what Matt said last week. He said that you would ask for more information in the light of – in light of the recent Washington Post report, which cast doubts on earlier Israeli findings. Any updates on this? Have Israelis gotten back to you?MR PATEL: So specifically as to what mechanisms might be in place within the Israeli system, I will let our partners in Israel speak to that, about any efforts that they are undertaking. From the United States perspective – you’ve heard me say this before – we consistently, in all conflict zones, continue to assess and identify evidence, facts, situations on the ground. Those are analyzed. Those are looked through the various inputs and systems that we have to assess violations of possible human rights, and we take the process from there. And we’ll make additional assessments as we need.But these are deliberative processes that are rigorous, that are detail-oriented, that are rooted in the law and rooted in facts, and they take time. I don’t have anything official to offer.QUESTION: But specifically, I’m asking about the killing of Hind Rajab. Have you asked them for more information, and have they gotten back?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on this case specifically. I don’t have anything from up here.QUESTION: And any updates on World Central Kitchen aid workers? You were reviewing Israeli findings. Have you made an assessment?MR PATEL: So when it comes to the findings in the World Central Kitchen, that tragic event, you saw our partners in Israel take a number of steps when it came – comes to accountability measures, specifically as it relates to dismissing three officers and placing some additional others on probation.In light of that, we’ve also continued to see some steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance, but we also continue to stress the importance and we need to see additional steps being taken when it comes to deconfliction mechanisms and steps that they can take to protect humanitarian workers. Ambassador Satterfield spoke a great deal about that yesterday, about things like comms equipment and other ways in which steps can be taken to ensure that humanitarian workers are kept safe, and we’re going to continue to press our partners in Israel for those kinds of things.I’ll go back to you, Ellen. Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I ask about the – the work being done for the findings that will be finished on May 8th? Are there any additional new investigations or inquiries being done as part of that examination of Israel’s &#8212;MR PATEL: So the national security memorandum is not a new process or a new policy process in which there are new standards or some sort of new thing that is applied to the countries that we have a relationship on. It is an assessment of whether we find a particular country who we have a security relationship with – whether we find their assurances to use U.S. security assistance properly – whether we find those assurances credible and viable. And that work is ongoing.When it comes the – but when it comes to ensuring that there are not violations of human rights and that human – and that U.S. assistance is being used appropriately, there are a number of processes in place that already exist within the federal government. We’ve talked a lot about them here &#8212;QUESTION: But I understand – I understand that the same processes and standards as before. My question is are there new – any additional investigations, reviews (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not an investigation, Ellen. It’s not an investigation. It is an assessment &#8212;QUESTION: So there’s – so you’re looking at (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I don’t fully understand what you are asking.QUESTION: I mean, are you looking at – is there a deeper look being taken into specific instances in Gaza?MR PATEL: This is work that is already ongoing and totally separate from the national security memorandum. You are conflating these two very separate things.QUESTION: No, I’m talking about the national &#8212;MR PATEL: I understand, I understand, and what I am stressing to you is what we have said from the onset since the national security memorandum was signed. It is not a new investigation or a new process. When it comes to ensuring the appropriate use of American security assistance and ensuring that human rights violations are not taking place, there are a number of steps that already exist within the U.S. Government that are being inputted into, that are being assessed. We are looking at the facts on the ground as we would in any conflict zone, but I’m not going to speak to &#8212;QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: But I’m not going to speak to these ongoing deliberative processes. We’re not gathering new facts. This gathering of facts has been ongoing since the onset of October 7th, as it would in any conflict zone. The national security memorandum process is a totally separate thing. It is not an – outlining any new process or any new investigation. It is an assessment of assurances operated – offered by host governments when it comes to the assurances that they provide on the use of U.S. assistance. We’ve been pretty clear about this going – dating back to a number of press briefings.QUESTION: Right. I guess I’m saying are you doing any additional – you’ve got the assurances, but how do you determine they’re accurate?MR PATEL: That is the work that’s ongoing. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but this is the work that has been ongoing not just in this conflict zone but in every conflict zone on the face of this planet, where we look at the facts on the ground, we work with civil society organizations, we work through our embassies and consulates to assess what is happening on the ground, and those facts, they then are assessed at – looked at further. They are examined. They can move into various other processes as well, whether they be CHIRG, whether it be a Leahy process, whether it be something else. That work is always ongoing.Go ahead in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia.MR PATEL: Okay. I’m going to come back to you at the end.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying with Iran for a while – I have a couple of other questions on Ukraine – Toomaj Salehi, very well-known dissident rapper, very well known for criticism of – his criticism of the Iranian regime, got sentenced today to death. Any reaction, and any steps the U.S. can take to prevent this from happening?MR PATEL: We have seen those disturbing reports. He – we’re talking about someone who has already faced torture and other harsh treatments in detention. This is just another example of the Iranian regime’s horrific and pervasive human rights abuses. We once again condemn the Iranian regime’s use of death – use of the death sentence as a tool to suppress people’s human rights and fundamental freedoms. We continue to closely follow reports of Mr. Salehi’s situation.QUESTION: The MAHSA Act is now the law of the land. Can you guys give us sense of how you’re going to implement it, when, and will you directly – will you be willing to directly target Iranian supreme leader for his gross human rights violations?MR PATEL: So, Alex, we continue to have a number of tools at our disposal to hold the Iranian regime accountable – the MAHSA and SHIP Act, as you so noted. We’re of course going to implement the law, but I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, and we’ll wait on speaking to any of the Iran-related provisions specifically for now.QUESTION: May I move to Ukraine if I may, or &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me finish out on the region and then &#8212;QUESTION: Please come back to me.MR PATEL: &#8212; come back to you.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Toomaj Salehi and the sentence he was just given, is there anything you can do on the international scene to stop it?MR PATEL: Well, look, Guita, we continue to have tools at our disposal when it comes to the – to pressuring the Iranian regime, when it comes to their crackdown and their various serious egregious violations of human rights. I’m not going to preview those from up here. But again, it is – this is just another example of the regime’s pervasive and egregious human rights abuses.QUESTION: Sure. Among the tools you’ve – you always refer to is sanctions, but sanctions is not going to stop them from executing somebody who has spoken in support of freedoms. Anything else you may be able to do?MR PATEL: Well, look, the reports are incredibly disturbing and troubling. And we’ll continue to raise cases like this one and raise violations of human rights like this and continue to make clear these kinds of egregious crackdowns, in public forums like this one, through the international community, so that we can further collectively hold the Iranian regime accountable for its crackdowns.On the region?QUESTION: On the region.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Doc.QUESTION: Okay, thank you, Vedant. I just had really a follow-up, but I didn’t get to finish my question about the Netzah Yehuda Battalion. And this is the question: In light of jewishpress.com and Middle East Forum reports regarding the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization criticism of the IDF, that battalion, and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which supports Hamas in its war against Israel, does the U.S. Government vouch for the credibility of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization reports regarding those U.S. sanctions against the Netzah Yehuda Battalion? And a quick follow-up.MR PATEL: I’m not sure I fully am following your question. What exactly are you asking about?QUESTION: Have you heard of the Democracy for the Arab World Now organization?MR PATEL: I’m not familiar with this organization.QUESTION: Okay. Well, I’ll go to the next question here.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: Right. There’s – United States continues to sanction more and more Israelis. Can you describe in detail what is the basis for these sanctions, why there isn’t a public hearing so that the American public can see or hear the evidence, and which other allies does the United States currently have sanctions against the citizens and military units?MR PATEL: So generally, public hearings are not part of the process of designating individuals or entities under our system. But let me just be clear and let’s talk about what this is about. This is about violence in the West Bank, violence that we believe to be destabilizing when it comes to our ultimate goal of peace and stability in the region. And that’s why you saw the administration take steps last week to designate individuals that we believe to be contributing to that instability through violent extremism.Go ahead. Yep.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A question on Iran. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Agency, said in an interview with Deutsche Welle that Iran is weeks rather than months away from having enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. What’s the U.S. assessment on that? Do you have the same belief?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any – I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here. What I can say is that we sincerely appreciate the IAEA’s extensive efforts to engage Iran on longstanding questions relating to Iran’s safeguard obligations. And we’re going to continue to support Director General Grossi and the IAEA in their efforts. We’ll also continue to consult closely with the E3 and other appropriate partners on this, but I’m not going to – don’t have anything &#8212;QUESTION: What about his comments? He says that Iran is weeks closer to enriched uranium to have the nuclear – does that concern the U.S. Government?MR PATEL: Look, any kind of – the President has been very clear that we will go at all lengths to ensure that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon. But I don’t have an assessment to offer on Director General Grossi’s comments, but we certainly continue to appreciate his efforts to engage the Iranian regime as it relates to their safeguard obligations.QUESTION: And one last question, if I may.MR PATEL: Sure.QUESTION: Yeah. This week and after the Iraqi prime minister went back to Baghdad, the militia group has resumed their attacks. The Pentagon spoke of that, and here at the State Department Matthew spoke of that, too. But my question is that were there any connections with the Iraqi Government on that specific attacks and the resumption of the militia groups attacks on the U.S. forces?MR PATEL: I’d refer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon to speak in greater detail about this. I don’t have anything to offer from here.QUESTION: No – no connections from State Department?MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Patel. Just a few one – and promise to make them brief. On Monday Secretary gave detail about the Human Rights Report, and you said you do not have double standards. Since last year and a half, you do not see a million Pakistani moving out of the country, journalists being put in jail, women in jail, political workers in jail.MR PATEL: Is there a question here?QUESTION: So Pakistan was not part of human rights violation in the yearly report. Do you guys not see any violation happening there since last one year?MR PATEL: I am sure that there is a section that is – that includes Pakistan. But beyond that, did you attend the briefing on Monday?QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: Then you probably recall both the Secretary, Matt, Ambassador Gilchrist being pretty explicit about the fact that the Human Rights Report is not a compendium of every single human rights violation that has occurred in calendar 2023. It is – it has picked certain specific entries. It is not supposed to be some sort of cross-cutting total list that includes every single violation. Of course, when it comes to any country in the world, including of course to Pakistan, human rights continues to be on the agenda, and it’s something that we’ll continue to raise with them.QUESTION: Okay – just one, sir?MR PATEL: Yeah, just one. Go ahead.QUESTION: On the same topic, the Human Rights Report, the Mexican president spent 40 minutes today early in morning criticizing the report. He said, among many other things, that the reporting itself, it’s a breach of international law. He also said that the criticisms of his Mexican Government in the report were not accurate. So what do you have to say about this? Is it unlawful under international law issuing these kind of reports? And do you give assurances of the things that you included regarding Mexico?MR PATEL: So one, certainly the publication of the Human Rights Report is not a violation of international law. It’s something that we have done every year that this secretary has been secretary and for every year almost before that – I can’t think of a year in which the State Department – across administrations, across Secretaries – have issued Human Rights Reports. Again, I’ve said this a number of times this week: the Human Rights Report is not an United States assessment on these various anecdotes and entries that are in there. It is a compilation of entries made from credible inputs – media organizations, government organizations, civil society actors, our embassies and consulates – who input these specific entries.And as it relates to the section on Mexico, I just am not going to speak to these specific entries. Your opportunity to do that was on Wednesday when – or Monday when Ambassador Gilchrist was here. So you all should have attended to talk about some of these entries more specifically.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: It’s about Colombia &#8212;MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: &#8212; about the Human Rights Reports. Colombia also sent a diplomatic note of protest because of the inclusion of an investigation against the son of the president, of President Petro. Colombia believes that it’s unfriendly, it shouldn’t be included there. And on the other hand, they protested against you, your statements yesterday, because they believe you gave credibility to the information of the investigation. I want to clarify exactly what were you trying to say when you said that you gave credibility, because that – let me be clear – some people are even saying that you said that money enter the campaign.MR PATEL: So I don’t think that – there should be no confusion as it relates to my comments. Let’s just take a step back and talk about this as a matter of fact. First, the Colombian Government has every – it is their prerogative to conduct whatever kind of diplomacy or take whatever actions that they see fit under their government. But what we’re talking about here is that in the 2023 Human Rights Report, in the Columbia section, there are references to an inquiry that was opened by the Colombian attorney general’s office. The – it’s a matter of public record, that the attorney general’s office has opened this inquiry. The State Department didn’t announce it; the Human Rights Report didn’t announce it. This is a matter of public record.And government organizations are one of the many credible inputs that go into compiling the Human Rights Reports. This report, one of the things that it’s known for is compiling credible actions that governments take. But the inclusion of any entry in the Human Rights Report does not denote any kind of fact-finding or assessment by the United States Government as it relates to these specific entries.And on the case that you note yesterday, I was pretty clear yesterday and I will be so again: I have no comments or assessment or details to offer as it relates to this specific matter that the attorney general’s office has raised. That is for them to speak to, including the details and any specifics around the inquiry that they’re looking into. The United States Government does not have an opinion or point of view or an assessment on what’s laid out there.QUESTION: Mr. Patel, just one last thing. There’s a new attorney in Colombia, it was appointed by President Petro, and the course of that investigation is already changing. Does the U.S. trust that the investigation can be conducted fairly? Do you trust, like, the Colombian institutions on this, on the attorney general office appointed by President Petro, investigating his son?MR PATEL: I have no different assessment to offer when it comes to the justice system in Colombia. This is an issue for the Government of Colombia and the Colombian attorney general’s office. I don’t have any other perspective from the United States.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Abbie, go ahead.QUESTION: Turks and Caicos?MR PATEL: Sure. What a pivot.QUESTION: At least – it’s good, yeah. Serious pivot. At least two Americans are currently being detained in Turks and Caicos after bringing in ammunition to the country earlier this year. Does the State Department have any concerns regarding the detention of Americans for bringing ammunition into the country? They’re both looking at the potential of 12-year sentences.MR PATEL: So Abbie, as you know, our embassies and consulates, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We’re aware of the arrest of U.S. citizens in Turks and Caicos. When a U.S. citizen is arrested, we stand by ready to provide all appropriate consular assistance. But in a foreign country, U.S. citizens are subject to the country’s laws even if they may differ from what is law in the United States.I will note that our department put out a security alert in September of 2023 that states that in the Turks and Caicos Islands, firearms, ammunitions, and other weapons are not permitted. Turks and Caicos Island authorities strictly enforce all firearms-related laws, and the penalty for traveling to Turks and Caicos Islands with a firearm or ammunition or other weapon is a minimum of a custodial sentence of 12 years. So – but beyond that, we are aware of these reports, and we are continuing to engage and provide all appropriate consular assistance.QUESTION: Are you able to provide any estimate for how many Americans are being detained in Turks and Caicos for &#8212;MR PATEL: As you know, Abbie, as a veteran covering this department, the number of Americans citizens not just in Turks and Caicos but in any country, that is a number that fluctuates. We do not ask or even require American citizens to register or notify with us when they travel, when they head to any destination, so that is just not a number I can offer from up here.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. There have been reports that President Erdogan’s meeting with the Hamas leader might have affected his anticipated White House visit. I will not ask you to confirm whether the Turkish president is coming, but I will ask you, what is your message to your allies? Will a meeting with a Hamas leader potentially set an obstacle to White House visit?MR PATEL: So our message to our allies and partners today is the same that it was on October 7th, which is that it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas and that any country who may have a relationship with Hamas, influence with Hamas, needs to send a very clear message that they should take the deal on the table that will release hostages and help bring about much-needed relief to the Palestinian civilians in Gaza; and that they should ultimately ensure that every single hostage is released. But I don’t have any other &#8212;QUESTION: So that – that mean that a meeting with a Hamas leader is business as usual? Or it can influence a visit in United States?MR PATEL: I have no assessments to offer on that meeting beyond that.QUESTION: So could I just follow up on that point very quickly?MR PATEL: Sure. Yeah.QUESTION: So would you like to see your ally – like Qatar, for instance – throw the Hamas leadership from Qatar?MR PATEL: I spoke &#8212;QUESTION: Because there’s been a lot of talk about that.MR PATEL: I spoke a little bit about this &#8212;QUESTION: I understand.MR PATEL: &#8212; last week, Said.QUESTION: But since this was brought up now &#8212;MR PATEL: And that – I will, again, leave it to the Government of Qatar to speak to any steps or – that they may be taking as it relates to their own government.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. On the Secretary’s visit to China, he said he would address human rights. But on this report that came out on Monday, will he specifically address the persecution of religious groups like the Uyghurs and Falun Gong? And what have talks been like on this in the past?MR PATEL: So what I can say is that in every engagement that we have had with the People’s Republic of China since the onset of this administration, human rights have always been on the agenda, and they will continue to be so. And I have no doubt that human rights will be discussed this week while the Secretary is there.Go ahead.QUESTION: The Secretary’s trip to China comes on the heels of the state visit by the Japanese prime minister, the unprecedented U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral, and forward movement on AUKUS. And next month the inauguration of the Taiwanese president-elect is approaching. How will these factor into discussions with Chinese officials, potentially President Xi?MR PATEL: So, look, broadly the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region continues to be a key tenet of what we will be engaging on, not just with these countries that you laid out, but also in our engagements with the PRC over the course of this week. It’s important to note that there’s a number of other topics that we expect to come up. We talked a little bit about them earlier this week. He’s going to work, the Secretary, to accomplish three main goals: first, make progress on key U.S. priorities, including resuming counternarcotics cooperation, continuing military-to-military communication, issues around artificial intelligence, and strengthening people-to-people ties.He’ll also clearly and directly communicate concerns on regional and global issues; as I said, peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, maintaining cross-strait ties, ensuring that tensions are kept in check. We also will discuss managing our relationship and competition responsibly with the PRC. You can expect all of these things to be talked about, and more importantly, you’ll have a chance to hear from the Secretary at the end of the week when he has a press conference at the conclusion of his trip.You had your hand up in the back. Did you not?QUESTION: Yeah, but my question has been asked.MR PATEL: Great.QUESTION: But just to follow up &#8212;MR PATEL: Relax, Alex, I will get to you.QUESTION: &#8212; is the Secretary going to have his ending press conference in China or back here in the U.S.?MR PATEL: It will be in Beijing at the end of the week.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two topics, Ukraine first. The first tranche is out today. It did not include long-range ATACMS, but there are reports that the President has already directed administration officials to send them. I think the reports actually say that it has already been delivered and is being used. Can you please confirm that, and overall, your reaction to the first package?MR PATEL: Sure, Alex. So, yes, I can confirm that the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS at the President’s direction. He quietly directed his national security team to send ATACMS to Ukraine for use inside Ukrainian sovereign territory in February. They started moving as part of the military aid package we announced on March 12th, and those missiles arrived in Ukraine this month. We did not announce this at the onset in order to maintain operational security for Ukraine at their request, and I’ll defer to them to speak about their use and how they may or may not be operationalized in their own military operation.QUESTION: Extremely helpful. And moving forward, can you guys give us a sense of how you guys are going to determine what kind of guns, weapons, do they need to make a tangible change?MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on any forthcoming drawdowns or any forthcoming security systems or assets we may be providing our Ukrainian partners, only to say you saw us take a huge step today with the announcement of this $1 billion package. It was incredibly helpful, and our message to our Ukrainian partners is that this assistance is on the way and that our commitment to their defense is unwavering.QUESTION: Again, final one from me on Armenia-Azerbaijan.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I saw reports about some progress has been made in terms of border delimitation. Any reaction? Are you guys involved? Is Special Advisor Bono planning to go to the region or is he involved at all?MR PATEL: I don’t have any travel to announce, Alex, but the Secretary mentioned this in his tweet, that we welcome the announcement that Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed upon the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration as the basis for border delimitation between the two countries. This is an important step towards concluding a durable and dignified peace agreement.Daphne, did you have your hand up?QUESTION: Yeah, I was just going to ask how many ATACM – long-range ATACMS &#8212;MR PATEL: Again, I’m not going to speak to the specifics.All right. Thanks, everybody.QUESTION: Thank you.(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					Armenia																								Azerbaijan																								China																								Colombia																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Mexico																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Ukraine
- Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Elizabeth Richard Travel to Türkiye Office of the SpokespersonDepartment of State Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Elizabeth Richard will visit Ankara, Türkiye, April 22 for the U.S.-Türkiye Counterterrorism Consultation. The United States and Türkiye relaunched their counterterrorism consultations at the Strategic Mechanism meetings in Washington D.C. in March 2024.Ambassador Richard and Turkish government counterparts will broaden and strengthen U.S.-Türkiye counterterrorism cooperation to thwart terrorist travel; combat terrorism-related networks engaged in organized crime; ensure the defeat of terrorist organizations such as PKK, DHKP-C, and ISIS in Syria and Iraq; and cooperate to counter the threat of ISIS and al-Qa&#8217;ida affiliates present in Africa and South and Central Asia. Ambassador Richard will also engage Turkish officials on ways to further combat exploitation of global finance channels by terrorist organizations.
- Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 18, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024																																																					April 18, 2024																																																								1:23 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.MR PATEL: I do not have anything off the top, Matt, so if you would like to kick us off.QUESTION: Yeah. Before we get into what’s going on at the UN and then with Iran and this other kind of thing, can you clear up – either to kill or keep alive – these persistent reports that you guys have told the Israelis that you’re okay with them going ahead with the Rafah operation as long as they don’t attack Iran?MR PATEL: So we’ve been pretty clear, Matt, that any kind of operation into Rafah requires some pretty serious planning, because of the three main components that you’ve heard me, Matt, the Secretary outline pretty seriously before: first and foremost, of course, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; the region itself continuing to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid and an important conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals. So any kind of operation into Rafah would require serious planning, and we would seriously oppose anything that is done without factoring in those various pieces when considering how to conduct a military operation into Rafah.QUESTION: Okay. That’s an excellent answer to a question that I don&#8217;t think I asked. I asked you whether or not the U.S. has told the Israelis that you’re okay with a Rafah operation as long as they limit or don’t attack Iran in response to what happened over the weekend.MR PATEL: So Matt, I don&#8217;t want to – the devil is in the details here. It would require what kind of operation into Rafah we’re talking about. If it is one that is reflective of these three very serious concerns that we have – I’m not going to preview or get into hypotheticals, but those are some serious areas of concerns that our continued engagement with our partners in Israel continues to be that when it comes to Rafah, these three things need to be addressed and you need to have a plan for them.QUESTION: Okay. Well &#8212;MR PATEL: And so that’s going to continue to be our message. And that is separate from our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and their self-defense and their ability to defend themselves.QUESTION: All right. So regardless of whether Israel does anything with – in response to the Iranian attack over the weekend, you still would oppose a Rafah operation, unless what you’ve just mentioned are – so why can’t you just say, no, that it is not true that you have &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not true. It’s not true. But I’m speaking – it’s not &#8212;QUESTION: Well, why couldn’t you have just said that at the beginning instead of going on for &#8212;MR PATEL: Because you’re – I am &#8212;QUESTION: I thought the question was pretty clear.MR PATEL: It wasn’t that clear. I’m trying to be specific. And I’m trying to be specific in response to your question.QUESTION: All right. And then as it relates to Rafah, this call today – is it over?MR PATEL: The White – our colleagues at the White House will have a readout later in the afternoon. I don&#8217;t have a sense on the status, but Admiral Kirby spoke briefly about this on Air Force One.QUESTION: Yes.MR PATEL: National Security Advisor Sullivan is going to be conducting this meeting happening today. We will have participants from the State Department tuned in and joined for that conversation. But I will leave it to colleagues at the White House to &#8212;QUESTION: Okay. But as far as you know, the call is not over? Or has it even started?MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have a sense on timing.QUESTION: All right. Last one. At the UN right now, I think the Security Council is voting or about to vote on this Palestinian recognition resolution. How are you guys going to vote?MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution.QUESTION: Okay. Again, you buried the lead again.MR PATEL: As an expert of the UN, Matt, I will also just so note that, due to statutory requirements, such an admission of statehood would also require the United States to cease its funding to the United Nations. But the U.S. is committed to intensifying its engagement on this issue with the Palestinians and the rest of the region, not only to address the current crisis in Gaza, but to advance a political settlement here that we think can create a path to Palestinian statehood and membership in the United Nations.QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?MR PATEL: It’s been &#8212;QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: We don’t think so.QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.QUESTION: Thanks.MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.QUESTION: Right. But you see, you have – you’re pursuing this mega-deal in the Middle East, like Saudi-Israel normalization, and then tied to that is PA reform and the creation of a two-state solution, and let’s assume for a moment that all of that would go swimmingly. Netanyahu has to agree to that, and he has repeatedly rejected to the creation of a Palestinian statehood. So can you explain how your alternative approach is going to prevail, expeditiously or not?MR PATEL: Well, officials in Israel also know that further integration into the Middle East region can reap benefits for them and for the people of Israel, and so they recognize the work that is at hand and what is at stake. So we’re going to continue to work at this, and in every conversation with our partners in Israel and other partners in the region who share a convergence on this idea, we’ll continue to engage on this.QUESTION: One last thing on this.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, do you think that the creation – like, the path for a Palestinian state at the UN – U.S. would veto this regardless of the timing? If this would come up again in three months’ time, you would still veto it, or does it have anything to do with this particular moment in time?MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our actions on Security Council resolutions down the line or get into hypotheticals. I think that would be pretty irresponsible. Speaking in the context of the text and the iteration that was on the table today – but again, I would echo what we have said pretty consistently, is that we do not think that actions in New York, even if they are the most well-intentioned, are the best, appropriate path. We think the best path forward is direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, supported by the United States and other regional partners.QUESTION: And the final thing is on aid.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So over the last couple of days, both you and Matt this week have talked about an improvement on the overall humanitarian aid picture from Gaza, but Guterres and other UN officials have been still talking about limited progress. They are giving pretty specific examples – for example, one is, like, Israeli authorities have cleared more aid convoys, but apparently those clearances are often granted when it’s too late in the day to make the deliveries and return safely. They don’t want their personnel to operate in darkness in a war zone littered with unexploded ordnance. So are you aware of these difficulties? Because it does sound like, while you guys are talking about improvement, on the ground that improvement doesn’t seem to be happening.MR PATEL: I’m not sure you caught the totality of Matt and mine’s briefings, because both of us were &#8212;QUESTION: How? I’ve been here.MR PATEL: I don’t know about that. Both of us have been incredibly clear on two fronts. There has been some measurable progress that we’ve seen when it comes to humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, but the circumstances within Gaza continue to be dire, and more absolutely needs to be done. The crisis that we’re seeing demands rapid expansion of these efforts. We are talking about making sure additional aid gets into Gaza, making sure additional steps and measures are taken towards deconfliction and appropriate humanitarian access. We’ll continue to work at these and push for these kinds of things, but we have talked about both of these issues, Humeyra, that we are seeing steps taken, steps that we believe are in the right direction, but both things can be true. We can see positive steps, but we can also feel sincerely and strongly that more absolutely needs to be done.And again – I talked a little bit about this yesterday – it’s why we’ve so unequivocally supported a multiplicity of modalities of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, whether it be land routes, whether it be air drops, whether it also be the maritime corridor that President Biden spoke about at the State of the Union as well.Go ahead. I’ll come to you after.QUESTION: So – thanks, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: To that point, Secretary Blinken and others said earlier this month if we don’t see changes that are – that we need to see, there will be changes in our policy. And this is referring to Israel and their operations in Gaza and not doing more for humanitarian aid. So should we expect any changes in policy? And if not, why not? How soon would we see those changes in policy if Israel doesn’t do more, as you said, at such a dire situation?And then also on – second question – on Rafah, we’re hearing from Israel that they have a plan; that it involves tents in central Gaza. They are trying to do more to address the civilian need there. Is that plan satisfactory to the U.S.?MR PATEL: Let me – let me answer the second first. I think we have been clear about this since October 7th, is that any kind of forced relocation or displacement of the Palestinian people within Gaza cannot and should not be part of any plan for an operation. That has been one of the principles that Secretary Blinken has been fairly clear about since the onset of October 7th.But dating back to your – going back to your first question, the Secretary and the President were very clear about – it was about a week and a half ago when the Secretary spoke to this in Brussels, is that we expect there to be changes, otherwise there will be changes when it comes to our policy within Gaza. Like I said, there have been measurable and important, positive steps in the right direction, but important work continues to be – needs to be done. Not just in the context of additional humanitarian aid, but also when we talk about deconfliction and the protection of civilians as well.So I don’t have a timeline or an assessment to preview on this, but the President and the Secretary spoke quite clearly – and this is something we’ll continue to be clear about with Israeli officials as well.Kylie, go ahead.QUESTION: Just sticking in the region &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Qatar said today – the prime minister said that they’re considering – what’s the exact phrasing here? Sorry. They’re considering basically pulling out of their role of mediating between Israel and Hamas, saying that they have been subject to political exploitation because of that role. What’s the U.S. response to that? Are you guys encouraging them to stay as mediators, or allowing them to walk away if they want to?MR PATEL: So ultimately I would refer to the Government of Qatar and let them speak to their own decisions. But let me just say that in our viewpoint, Qatar has been an indispensable mediator. When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza, the prime minister in specific has had an immeasurable role in the ongoing effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire, release hostages, safeguard civilians, and ensure the delivery of appropriate humanitarian aid.We also were very clear with our partners, including Qatar, that after October 7th it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas. But in terms of any decisions that the government makes, I will defer to them.QUESTION: But you’re saying that they’re indispensable in their role; it sounds like you don’t want them to walk away from &#8212;MR PATEL: This is a decision for – this is a decision for the Government of Qatar to make. I am simply speaking to the role that they have played thus far in the broader region. Yeah.QUESTION: Okay. And then ProPublica had a report out today that I wanted to ask you about, saying that the State Department – a panel – the Leahy Vetting Forum – recommended months ago that Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses. Is that accurate?MR PATEL: So the department takes the requirements under the Leahy Law very seriously, and we have taken extensive steps to implement the Leahy Law, and – for all countries in which this is applicable, not just Israel; all countries where this is applicable as it relates to U.S. assistance. Any Israeli security force that has been nominated as a potential recipient of U.S. assistance is subject to Leahy vetting via the normal process. There is a deliberative process in place; I am not going to get ahead of our process as it relates to these ongoing determinations and decisions. And I will just leave it at that.QUESTION: But typically – I mean, you don’t want to have to get into the specifics of this allegation, but can you just walk us through how long it would typically take for an allegation like this to be reviewed and then to be acted upon if it was presented in this forum?MR PATEL: So I don’t have a specific metric to offer, Kylie, but what we are talking about is a official policy and legal determination made on a specific unit or component of any particular state that is a recipient of a U.S. assistance. So these are processes that can take time, especially in ensuring that we’re reviewing all appropriate facts, we’re reviewing all appropriate details, and we’re also reviewing the various components exist that under the various tools that we have at our disposal. In this instance, we’re talking about Leahy, but there are, of course, other levers that we have as well. And these are deliberative processes, and we want to make sure that we’re doing the work appropriately. And so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.QUESTION: Okay. But – so it would be normal for this process to take months, even if it could have impact on an ongoing crisis on the ground right now?MR PATEL: What I can say unequivocally is that units in Israel are subject to the normal vetting process that is consistent with the application of the Leahy Law. I’m – again, I’m not going to offer a metric on how long these processes take because various countries are different and various circumstances even within countries can be and are different. So I will just leave it at that.QUESTION: Iran. Iran.MR PATEL: I’m going to stick to the – I’m going to make – go – and I’ll come to you. Go ahead, Diyar.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I’m not sure if you saw the – Iraqi prime minister’s comment about the Iranian attack to Israel. He denied if any drones or missiles were launched from the Iraqi territory during the Iranian attack. And the U.S. Government, including the President Biden statement, they said that there were attacks on Israel from Iraq. How did you get to that conclusion, and have you shared these facts with the Iraqi Government?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the details of our assessments from up here, but the vast majority of Iran’s attacks on Israel were launched from Iran. They were unprecedented and reckless, and we condemn them in the strongest terms. We agree with our partners in Iraq that it is critical to avoid regional escalation, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work on with our Iraqi partners. It’s also why we’ve urged the Iraqi Government to continue to take action against militants and weapons that are outside of their control. Over the past few days, the President and Secretary Blinken have had a number of consultations with partners in the region and around the world, and we’ll continue to push this engagement forward with world leaders on a way forward in the face of Iran’s destabilizing and malign behavior.QUESTION: And one more question. During the last few days, you met the Iraqi prime minister and Iraqi delegation from different levels. So the Iraqi is looking to get some sanctions relief from the U.S. Government, especially, they said we meet the requirements and we did some change and we removed some things from the banks and the companies. But as I learned from the Iraqi sources, that the U.S. has rejected their requests. Are you going to consider the Iraqi request to give them some sanction waivering or lifting some sanctions and removing some Iraqi banks or companies from the sanctions?MR PATEL: So I’m just going to defer to my colleagues at the Treasury Department to speak to information regarding specific sanction issues and any petitions that may or may not be in place for de-listing. Go ahead.QUESTION: So yesterday Israel attacked south Lebanon, specifically Hiram, along with 100 strikes, including phosphorous. And this is not the first time or second or tenth time; phosphorous has been used in Lebanon much more. And we know that this is like – it’s banned against civilians. So do you have any comment on that? Do you condemn that?MR PATEL: I’d refer to the IDF to speak to any particular operation that they are conducting.QUESTION: Have you seen these reports about the use of white phosphorous?MR PATEL: I – so I have seen the reports, but I will defer to our partners in the IDF to speak to specific operations. We have been incredibly clear with our partners in Israel and others about the need to avoid regional escalation as it continues to conduct operations in its self-defense.QUESTION: Yeah, but it has been used more and more. So do you condemn the use of that? And I have another question.MR PATEL: Again, I don’t have any specifics to offer as it relates to this report.QUESTION: Okay. One more question.MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.QUESTION: So the Jerusalem court ordered the eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah on Monday. You always talk about a long-lasting peace in the region and a two-state solution. How do you see these evictions working towards a peace?MR PATEL: So I’m not familiar with the specifics as it relates to this circumstance, but broadly we have been very clear that these are the kinds of actions that we think incite tensions and cause escalation and further take us away from the two-state solution that we started this daily press briefing talking about. But again, I don’t have the specifics on this case to comment specifically.Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Donald Lu and Elizabeth Horst met with the Pakistani finance minister. Could you share some details? And what kind of support Pakistan is asking from U.S. in terms of investments in economic growth?MR PATEL: So I will let the Government of Pakistan speak to any issues or topics that they may have raised in their engagement. But to take a step back, the minister of finance is in the United States for a part of a series of engagements with – not just within the U.S. Government interagency, but also engaging in – with non-governmental organizations. And he met with senior State Department officials here. During the meetings from our end, we encouraged Pakistan to prioritize and expand economic reforms, to address its own economic challenges.QUESTION: The Saudi foreign minister was in Pakistan and now Iranian president coming to Islamabad next week, and the leadership of all these countries – Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – are calling for a ceasefire and agreed for joint efforts to bring peace in the region. How you see these trips of Iranian and Saudi relationship with Pakistan and their joint efforts for the peace in the region?MR PATEL: Well, to – first let’s just talk about Iran in that context. I’m pretty confident in saying that unleashing hundreds and hundreds of UAVs and ballistic missiles on Israel is certainly not any kind of action that is actually in the interest and in the – for the benefit of the Palestinian people.But look, as it relates to any visits that other foreign ministers or leaders might have, I will let their governments comment on that specifically. Broadly, we are – continue to remain focused on de-escalation. And as it relates specifically to the crisis in Gaza, we have continued to call for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages and the additional serious influx of humanitarian aid.QUESTION: But what would you say about the joint efforts of these other countries, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia?MR PATEL: I will let them speak to any joint efforts that they might have. I think it’s – from our vantage point, we remain fairly skeptical about Iran’s intentions given its continued and ongoing destabilizing and malign behavior as recently as just this past weekend.QUESTION: In the region?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Wait, sorry, what? Did you want to &#8212;QUESTION: No, I’m going to a new topic.MR PATEL: Okay. All right. Go ahead.QUESTION: Let me ask on Georgia.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: Your statements are becoming more and more pointed and clear towards the Georgian officials. If I may ask you one more, clearly, do you – I mean, partners – have a feeling that today the Georgian Government is acting in favor of Russia’s interests in Georgia?MR PATEL: Well, if you’re talking about specific legislation – and let’s just talk about the foreign agents draft law for a moment – our viewpoint is that similar legislation has been used by the Kremlin and elsewhere to stigmatize and repress civil society organizations, media organizations, and so such kind of legislative activity, it’s not appropriate if your intended goal is to foster transparency.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead, Jalil, and then I’ll come to you, Michele. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel. Only two questions. As my friend mentioned, the Iranian president is coming to Pakistan. Yesterday a former Pakistan intelligence very popular officer, Major Amir, on a TV interview stated that in the ‘80s they had report that Israel was going to attack Pakistan nuclear weapons. Finance minister is here, as you mentioned. Imran Khan is in jail because when the Ukraine war started he – the day he was there in Ukraine. In all this scenario, what’s your, like – and the finance minister is asking for money here. Do you see Pakistan with any independent policy or do you have any suggestions for them what kind of route they should take?MR PATEL: So first let me just say Pakistan continues to be an important partner in a number of areas. Particularly, it’s a country we have an immense security cooperation with, and we of course are looking to continue to collaborate and work with the Government of Pakistan. As I said to your colleague, they were – the finance minister was here to participate in a number of meetings, not just across the interagency but with NGOs and other outside groups. And from the State Department’s perspective, during our engagements with them we encouraged them to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges.QUESTION: One more, sir.MR PATEL: Uh-huh.QUESTION: Yesterday Pakistan’s largest political party, the PTI, one of its parliamentarians said that Pakistan has given bases to the U.S. I have been a journalist 25 years; I do not know whether they have. At the same time, we have this river in Pakistan which is called the Justice Cleansing River where people go and they get corrupt, and then when they come out they get cleansed.Former prime minister who was convicted for corruption charges yesterday got cleansed in that river, so now he’s a clean guy. I’m just trying to understand that – a little senior journalist is confused about the whole situation in the region where you have corrupt rulers coming to power, finance minister begging for financial institutes’ help. Do you see these sort of leader – and state institutions fighting with each other, by the way. Just last &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, Jalil, do you have a question?QUESTION: So are you satisfied that such leadership will make the kind of decisions which are in the interest of the U.S. who are corrupt leaders, basically?MR PATEL: Our partnership with Pakistan – our partnership with any government and with Pakistan – is rooted in what is of course in the interest of the American people and the people of Pakistan, and governments that are committed to working for the people of Pakistan. That’s always been the case.QUESTION: And &#8212;MR PATEL: Michele, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks. I’d like to follow up on the decision yesterday on Venezuela.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Is the U.S. at all worried about the impact of these sanctions on the migration crisis? And secondly, what kind of incentive now do you have? What’s the incentive for Maduro to get back on a transition to democracy?MR PATEL: So first, as it relates to any concerns about migration, I think important to take a step back that in any places where we have sanctions restrictions or export controls, things like that, there is always a space and a carve-out for appropriate humanitarian products and goods – things like food, medicine, water, et cetera. But beyond that, I will just say broadly, of course, the United States is always going to enforce its immigration laws, but any additional steps or preparation that is happening, should that even be the case, I will defer to my colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security to speak about.But on the broader political context, Michele, full implementation of the Barbados Agreement, in our viewpoint, offers the best path to restore democracy that Venezuelans deserve. We think it will help improve economic and humanitarian conditions, and also address the migration crisis. We welcome that Maduro representatives have invited participation of international election observer missions. But we also call on the Maduro representatives to grant those missions the access and other requirements that they need to effectively perform their work.We’re going to continue to support Venezuelans’ aspirations for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Venezuela, while remaining fully committed to working with all parties interested in competitive elections. We’re also going to continue to coordinate with regional and international partners in support of this Barbados Agreement that we continue to think is key to get Venezuela on a democratic, stable, and prosperous path.QUESTION: And have there – has there been any follow-up with the Venezuelans, with the Maduro government since this decision yesterday by Treasury?MR PATEL: So there was – the White House spoke a little bit about this earlier in the month, but U.S. officials met with Maduro representatives in Mexico City on April 9th to express our concern about Venezuela’s electoral process and the path that it was on. But I’m not – I don’t have any additional updates to offer.Go ahead, Alex.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my own questions, but before that let me quickly press you on Georgia. You just said a good statement, but it – starting the – it still reflects your reaction, not action. I mean, you do recognize that the draft law is Kremlin-inspired. There are some 80-odd parliamentarians who have already voted for that. Where is the beef? Where is the sanction or any action that would discourage the rest from voting for it?MR PATEL: Alex, I spoke pretty forcefully about this yesterday. We continue to remain deeply troubled by this draft law and its passage in the first reading, particularly the way that it targets and stigmatizes civil society organizations and media organizations. We think that they are cornerstones of any democratic system. We are closely monitoring the situation, particularly closely monitoring the protests. And we call on all parties to respect freedom and peaceful assembly, and exercise restraint and avoid any escalatory or violent actions and respect the rule of law.QUESTION: But can you – with due respect, can you imagine any of these Russian parliamentarians who voted for this draft law being able to travel to the United States?MR PATEL: Alex, I’m just not going to speculate on hypotheticals. As it relates to Russia, I believe what I said was that we have seen similar kinds of legislation be used by the Kremlin – not just the Kremlin, but other repressive governments – to stigmatize and systematically repress civil society and media organizations. We don’t think that this kind of legislation is in line with the stated goal of fostering transparency.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Alsu Kurmasheva &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; a Radio Free Europe reporter arrested in Russia six months ago today. Can you update us on where you’re standing in terms of designating her arrest as wrongful? Have you advanced at all?MR PATEL: So we are deeply concerned about Alsu Kurmasheva’s detention, and we are looking closely at her case. We continue to press directly for consular access to Alsu, but I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how we designate wrongful detentions or compare different cases.QUESTION: I mean, imagine being deprived of your basic rights for six months, not being able to talk to your daughters, in jail, not having – there’s poor conditions; she spoke about that herself last month. Should her mistreatment itself be good enough to move forward with her designation? We are talking about an American citizen, Vedant.MR PATEL: So Alex, first of all, in any detention circumstance in – around the world in any country when it happens, whether it is wrongful or not, we are quite clear that those who are detained need to be treated with respect, dignity, and consistent with appropriate humanitarian law. That being said, on the issue of Alsu, we are continuing to look at her case and we’re continuing to press for consular access to her. But I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how these cases are determined. Obviously, to say just broadly, journalism is most certainly not a crime, and certainly no one should be imprisoned for just doing their job.QUESTION: Let me have one more, if I may.MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex, because you’ve gotten, like, three already.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: So concerning the issue of the Chinese-owned ByteDance being forced to divest from TikTok, can you share any communications or strategies that the U.S. has been in contact with the Chinese regime, especially in light of this divestiture?MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.QUESTION: Okay, thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Yesterday, Chinese foreign ministry said they welcome Secretary Blinken’s visit to China. I wonder if you can confirm his visit to China next week.MR PATEL: I don’t have any dates or specific travel to preview. Obviously, when President Biden spoke to President Xi a number of weeks ago, they spoke about continued high-level engagement and diplomacy between both sides. You saw Secretary Yellen conduct her trip. And as we said previously, we expect Secretary Blinken to visit again very soon.QUESTION: And as you mentioned, there was a summit and a few high-level exchange between U.S. and China. Do you feel there is more – the groundwork is more solid than he visited China last time?MR PATEL: Well, it’s important to remember that what we are talking about is follow-on visits, diplomacy, actions from the historic summit in San Francisco, or Woodside, rather, in which you saw a number of steps be taken in coordination between our two countries, specifically around mil-mil communication as well as steps being taken to address the fentanyl crisis. So I have no doubt that these are the kinds of things that we are going to continue to press and raise directly with the PRC in the event of any potential forthcoming travel.QUESTION: And lastly, last week during his call with Wang Yi, was it mainly on Middle East? Did they talk other subjects?MR PATEL: I don’t have any other specifics to read out about the call. When it happened, and as Matt spoke about, the primary purpose was to raise with the PRC on any influence it may have with the Iranian regime to not take further actions that we would be viewing as destabilizing or malign.Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: India (inaudible).QUESTION: China (inaudible).MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Biden has recently said, and he’s said many times in the last year or so, quote, “Were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe.” Isn’t that both false and antithetical to the First Amendment? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whoever, are safe in the United States because of the First Amendment, because of the nature of U.S. society. How can this administration stand behind a remark like that, particularly about a foreign power that itself stands accused of not only genocide but being an apartheid regime? Isn’t that statement – were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe – antithetical to the First Amendment and false?MR PATEL: I don’t have – I’m not sure which – these comments from the President you’re referring to, but I have no issue or reason with the way that those – with how – with what the President said. And I think what we are talking about historically since the founding of the state of Israel as a Jewish state is, I’m sure, what the President was referring to. Of course, we have freedoms within our own country under the First Amendment, but I don’t have anything else to offer on that beyond that.Goyal.QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s said this several times. It wasn’t a one-off. He said it when he met Netanyahu at the UN, I think last July or August, and he’s said it since then. I think he said it once he arrived in Israel.MR PATEL: It’s &#8212;QUESTION: But it says “in the world.” Jews are safe in the United States and have been safe in the United States way before Israel existed; isn’t that correct?MR PATEL: That is true, but you’re also – I think your comments are essentially forgetting to take into account the deeply troubling and horrific history that the &#8212;QUESTION: Excuse me? Excuse me?MR PATEL: I’m talking about this in the context of the historical.QUESTION: My comments are doing what?MR PATEL: I’m not – Sam, what I am saying is that you are – you are taking the President’s comments out of context, and when it is clear he is speaking about it in a historical context given the very horrific and troubling and terrible history that there has been of the Holocaust.QUESTION: He said it over and over again.MR PATEL: Goyal, go ahead. Go ahead, Goyal.QUESTION: Two questions on India, sir, please.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. For the last over 75 years India has been conducting largest democratic open elections, and tomorrow India will make another history by going the largest democratic and largest elections on the globe from starting tomorrow through June 1st, and over 600 million Indians will choose a new government in the second week of June. My question is here now that is U.S. sending any observers or any delegation for this election, and what comments do you have on this largest democracy and largest election on the globe?MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the United States sending any observers. We generally don’t in the case of advanced democracies like in the case of India. We, of course, are eager to continue to deepen and strengthen our cooperation with our partners in India, and we’re just going to let the election play out. I don’t have any assessment or comment to offer on that.QUESTION: And second question, sir.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: We have so many conflicts going on around the globe and we have UN, we have NATO, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi is very famous among global leaders and they listen to him. Even in the Middle East he’s very famous. My question is that how U.S. or the global community can use his influence to end this war, sir, bring peace in those conflict nations.MR PATEL: Well, Goyal, specifically in the first – in the context of Russia-Ukraine, if any country is interested in using its voice to further deter Russian aggression on the people of Ukraine, we certainly would welcome that. And in the current ongoing context in Gaza, any country that believes that they can play a positive role in helping us get to a release of hostages, helping us get additional humanitarian assistance into Gaza, helping to defeat Hamas, they certainly should and are welcome to play that role.Go ahead, in the back.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: Thank you so much. A couple of questions. First, as you know Iran’s Foreign Minister Abdollahian is in New York now. So I would like to know which kind of restrictions have been issued on his activities in particular, whether there was any message exchanged between the U.S. and him or his team regarding the latest conflict in the region. And then I have another question.MR PATEL: Okay. So the United States has imposed additional travel restrictions on the delegation of Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who is in New York for meetings at the UN. This restriction permits the delegation to move only within a two-block radius of the UN Headquarter district, between the UN and the Iranian mission to the UN, and the residence of the Iranian permanent representative to the UN and to John F. Kennedy International Airport. We take our obligations as hosts of the UN seriously, along with our continued concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities and support for terrorism.QUESTION: Any message exchange?MR PATEL: We have appropriate ways to send messages to the Iranian regime, and we will continue to be clear to them about the fact for the need to further de-escalate and for them to cease their reckless and destabilizing behavior.QUESTION: Yeah. Another question, sorry.MR PATEL: You just got two questions. Anything else? If not &#8212;QUESTION: A very quick question.MR PATEL: All right. You can do one more, then we’ll wrap.QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Appreciate it, sir.MR PATEL: And then Matt’s got some.QUESTION: So you mentioned about the security cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. So lately there are reports that apparently Pakistan allowed the U.S. to use some military bases inside Pakistan’s territory to launch perhaps some airstrikes against terrorist groups in Afghanistan. There are some reports. I would like to know whether it’s confirmed or not.MR PATEL: I’ll let me colleagues at the Department of Defense speak to any military cooperation that might exist.Matt.QUESTION: So in response to that, the second to last question there, you said that you have imposed additional travel restrictions on the Iranian delegation, the foreign minister and his delegation.MR PATEL: Yep.QUESTION: Yeah. Basically, you’re – you’ve reimposed the Trump administration sanctions, right?MR PATEL: Matt, I can’t &#8212;QUESTION: The ones that you guys lifted and denied that you ever lifted any sanctions against Iran, right? The ones that you lifted back in February or March of 2021?MR PATEL: Are we back into the debate of whether travel restrictions are sanctions or not?QUESTION: Well, yeah. But I want to know, I mean, does this mean that those are in place for good? Or is it just this one time?MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or get ahead of potential further visits. These restrictions are in place for this visit. And as you know, Matt, as the host country, we have at our disposal to add or alleviate any of the parameters that are in place and as it relates to their movement.QUESTION: Okay. And then given that everyone has seen video of him walking off the plane at JFK and speaking at the UN today, are you at least prepared to say that you granted him a visa or you didn’t rescind a visa that he already had?MR PATEL: Well, Matt, I think it’s safe &#8212;QUESTION: Because visa records are confidential.MR PATEL: Visa record are, indeed, confidential.QUESTION: But he didn’t get arrested; he didn’t get detained at the airport. He hasn’t been detained now. So why can you not just say &#8212;MR PATEL: Visa &#8212;QUESTION: &#8212; we gave him a visa or we allowed him to keep his existing visa?MR PATEL: Visa records are, indeed, confidential. But I think it’s safe to assume he’s not here by magic.QUESTION: All right. Okay.MR PATEL: So &#8212;QUESTION: By magic? No, I don&#8217;t think so.MR PATEL: Thank you, everybody.QUESTION: Hold on. Wait, wait, wait.MR PATEL: No. You have more? (Laughter.)QUESTION: I have one more.MR PATEL: All right.QUESTION: One more. And that is: Did you ever – did – were you able to find out from L or anyone else if there’s any place in the world that the Geneva Conventions do not – that you do not believe the Geneva Conventions apply?MR PATEL: I – to my knowledge, I cannot think of a region or a jurisdiction where we don’t, Matt. Our long viewpoint is that the principles reflected in the Geneva Convention – that those are principles that should be complied with.QUESTION: Everywhere?MR PATEL: Everywhere.QUESTION: So it applies in Gaza?MR PATEL: It – we have said that it’s up to both Israel and Hamas to comply with the international law, including the principles that we believe are laid out in the Geneva Conventions.QUESTION: So is Israel the occupying power in Gaza?MR PATEL: That is not what we believe to be the case. But we have long said it is important that both Israel and Hamas comply with international law, including humanitarian law that’s reflected in the Geneva Convention.QUESTION: So Israel is exempt from &#8212;MR PATEL: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.QUESTION: &#8212; the obligations of being an occupying power in Gaza?MR PATEL: Thanks, all.(The briefing was concluded at 2:11 p.m.)# # #						Tags																					China																								Georgia																								India																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Venezuela