# Qatar - United States Department of State

- 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
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Arab Foreign Ministers Office of the SpokespersonThe following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today in Riyadh with the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, as well as Palestine Liberation Organization Secretary General Hussein Al Sheikh.  They discussed the importance of a sustained increase in humanitarian assistance to address the dire situation in Gaza. The Secretary reaffirmed the United States’ support for efforts to achieve lasting peace in the region, including through a pathway to a Palestinian state with security assurances for Israel.  Secretary Blinken emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. The Secretary also underscored the importance of regional coordination to prevent the conflict from spreading.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in Riyadh. The Secretary and Prime Minister Al Thani discussed the ongoing efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza leading to the release of hostages held by Hamas. The Secretary thanked the Prime Minister for the central role Qatar has undertaken in these endeavors and emphasized the need for Hamas to accept the significant proposal that is on the table. Secretary Blinken also underscored our shared commitment to continuing to increase and sustain the provision of life-saving humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The Secretary and Prime Minister Al Thani reaffirmed the strength of the U.S.-Qatar bilateral relationship and its role in promoting regional security and stability.						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																																Israel-Hamas Conflict																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Qatar																																Secretary Trip																															The Secretary of State
- Under Secretary Bass Travel to Qatar and Pakistan Office of the SpokespersonActing Under Secretary for Political Affairs John Bass will travel to Qatar and Pakistan April 26-30.In Doha, Qatar, he will meet with senior Qatari government officials and other diplomatic missions to discuss support for Afghanistan and shared security interests in the region.In Islamabad, Pakistan, Under Secretary Bass will meet with senior Pakistani government officials to discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues as part of the U.S.-Pakistani partnership.
- Qatar HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Qatar				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	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();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Qatar																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Qatar during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: enforced disappearance; arbitrary arrest; political prisoners; serious restrictions on free expression, including the existence of criminal libel laws; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully in free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; extensive gender-based violence; existence of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct, which were not systematically enforced; and the prohibition of independent trade unions and significant or systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association.The government took limited credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.																																				b. Disappearance										There were reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities. Social media users and human rights activists launched online campaigns in 2021 and during the year demanding authorities reveal the whereabouts of Noof al-Maadeed, a citizen and women’s rights defender who had fled the country in 2019. She sought asylum in the United Kingdom but thereafter dropped her asylum request and voluntarily returned to Qatar in 2021. In March she posted videos on her X (formerly Twitter) account complaining of alleged harassment by the security apparatus. Her last online appearance was on March 18, and her whereabouts were unknown as of year’s end.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution and law prohibited torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, and there were no credible reports that government officials employed them.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Administration: Authorities conducted investigations into credible allegations of mistreatment. No statute allowed ombudsmen to advocate for prisoners and detainees.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted monitoring visits by independent human rights observers and international bodies to all facilities except the state security prison. The government routinely provided foreign diplomats access to state security prisoners. The country’s National Human Rights Committee (NHRC) reportedly paid regular and unannounced visits to prisons and detention centers, and thereafter presented recommendations to the appropriate authorities. The NHRC did not publish its annual report in 2023 to provide information on the number of visits.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of persons to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required that persons be apprehended with warrants based on sufficient evidence and issued by an authorized official. By law all suspects except those detained under the Protection of Society Law or the Combating Terrorism Law had to be presented before the public prosecutor within 24 hours of arrest. If the public prosecutor found sufficient evidence for further investigation, authorities could detain a suspect for up to 15 days with the approval of a judge, renewable for similar periods not to exceed 45 days, before charges had to be filed in the courts. Judges could also extend pretrial detention for one month, renewable for one-month periods not to exceed one-half the maximum punishment for the accused crime. Authorities typically followed these procedures differently for citizens and noncitizens.The law permitted the prime minister to extend detention indefinitely in cases of threats to national security and to adjudicate complaints involving such detentions. The state security service could arrest and detain suspects for up to 30 days without referral to the public prosecutor.In most cases a judge could order a suspect released, remanded to custody to await trial, held in pretrial detention pending investigation, or released on bail. Although suspects were entitled to release on bail except in cases of violent crimes, judges infrequently ordered release on bail.Authorities were more likely to grant bail to citizens than to noncitizens. Noncitizens charged with minor crimes could be released to the custody of their employer (or a family member for children) pending trial, although they could not leave the country until the case was resolved.By law in non-security-related cases, the accused was entitled to legal representation throughout the process and prompt access to family members. There were provisions for government-funded legal counsel for indigent prisoners in criminal cases, and authorities generally honored this requirement.Arbitrary Arrest: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) citizens and residents provided confidential reports of arbitrary detention by law enforcement.Labor laws permitted employers to report “absconding” laborers. International rights groups reported several cases of employers reporting employees fleeing abusive working conditions as “absconders,” leading to arrests, detention, and deportation. International human rights groups also reported cases of migrant workers being arrested after their employers filed false absconding reports as a form of reprisal for complaining of working conditions. On February 23, international human rights organization Fair Square reported that several, mostly African, food delivery workers who filed complaints against their company were deported to their home countries as a form of retaliation and allegedly before their labor complaints were settled in court.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										Although the constitution provided for an independent judiciary, the emir, based on recommendations from the Supreme Judicial Council, appointed all judges, who retained their positions at his discretion. Foreign detainees had access to the legal system, although some complained of opaque legal procedures and complications, mostly stemming from language barriers. Foreign nationals did not uniformly receive translations of legal proceedings, although interpretation was generally provided within courtrooms. Some employers facing lawsuits from foreign employees were able to avoid justice by filing false absconding charges and canceling work contracts, causing workers to lose their legal status. This lack of sponsorship opened workers to deportation before a civil trial could take place.In October a court sentenced to death eight Indian nationals who had been arrested in August 2022, reportedly for spying. Media reported the men were alleged to be working on behalf of Israel. On December 28, the government commuted their death sentences, although the length of their alternative sentences had not been made public by year’s end.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.In matters involving family law, Shia and Sunni judges could apply their interpretations of sharia for their religious groups. In family law matters, a woman’s testimony was deemed one-half of a man’s testimony.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were reports of political prisoners or detainees. For example, Hazaa Abu Shraydeh al-Marri and Rashid Ali al-Marri remained in prison, serving life sentences for their participation in protests in 2021 against restrictions on their tribe’s ability to run and vote in Shura Council elections.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution and law prohibited such actions. According to media reports, police and security forces monitored telephone calls, emails, and social media posts.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, in accordance with the law, but the government limited these rights. Self-censorship was prevalent.Freedom of Expression: Citizens did not regularly discuss sensitive political and religious matters in public fora, but they did so in private and carefully on social media. The law prohibited criticism of the emir. Members of the majority foreign population exercised self-censorship on sensitive topics. The law penalized by up to three years in prison damaging, removing, or expressing hatred and contempt toward the country’s flag, the Gulf Cooperation Council flag, or the flag of any international organization or authority. The use of the national flag without formal permission from authorities, displaying a damaged or discolored flag, or changing the flag by adding photographs, text, or designs to it were also criminalized.The constitution provided for freedom of expression and scientific research. Instructors at Qatar University noted they sometimes exercised self-censorship. There were occasional government restrictions on cultural events, including denial of permits without explanation, and some groups organizing cultural events reported they exercised self-censorship. Authorities censored books, films, and internet sites for political, religious, and sexual content, as well as vulgar and obscene language.Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, Including Online Media: The law included restrictive procedures on the establishment of newspaper outlets and granted the government the power to close outlets and confiscate assets of a publication. Members of the ruling family or proprietors who enjoyed close ties to government officials owned all print media. Both private and government-owned television and radio reflected government views, although call-in shows allowed for some citizen criticism of government ministries and policies. While broadcast media generally did not criticize authorities or the country’s policies, specific ministries and even individual ministers were sometimes targets of criticism in print media. The government owned and partially funded the Doha-based al-Jazeera satellite television network. The government also partially funded other media outlets operating in the country. Some observers and former al-Jazeera employees alleged the government influenced the content produced by that news outlet. The Qatar Media Corporation, the Ministry of Culture, and customs officials censored material. The government reviewed, censored, or banned foreign newspapers, magazines, films, and books for objectionable political, sexual, and religious content. Journalists and publishers continued to self-censor due to political and economic pressures when reporting on government policies or material that could be deemed denigrating to Islam, the ruling family, and relations with neighboring states.Libel/Slander Laws: The law criminalized libel and slander, including “insult to dignity.” A journalist could be fined and imprisoned for up to five years for defamation or reporting “false news.” The law restricted the publication of information deemed insulting to the emir or heir apparent; blasphemous or defamatory to the Abrahamic faiths; harmful to the national currency or the economic situation; or defaming or damaging the reputation of a private individual, public employee, or their family. Various articles of the law stipulated fines ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 Qatari riyals ($275 to $2,750) and three months to two years in prison. There were instances of such laws being acted upon during the year, including administering a fine for libel for criticizing the Shura Council on social media.																Internet Freedom						The government restricted access to the internet or censored online content.The cybercrime law prohibited any online activity that threatened the safety of the state, its general order, or local or international peace. It also criminalized the spread of “false news,” forced internet providers to block objectionable content, and banned third-party publication of personal or family information. Violation of the cybercrime law could lead to a sentence of up to three years in prison and a substantial fine.The law required internet service providers to block objectionable content upon request from judicial or executive authorities. Internet providers also were obligated to maintain long-term electronic records and traffic data on users, which had to be furnished to the government upon request. The government-controlled and country’s largest internet service provider, Ooredoo, censored political, religious, and pornographic internet content through a proxy server, which monitored and blocked websites, email, and voice over internet protocol platforms, including Skype and FaceTime. Users who believed authorities had mistakenly censored a site could request that the site be reviewed by the Ministry of Transportation and Communication for suitability; there were no reports that any websites were unblocked based on this procedure.In April a court issued a final verdict against a social media user for slandering the Shura Council, ordering the user to pay a fine of 30,000 Qatari riyals ($8,240) and the closure of his X account.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The government limited the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The constitution provided for freedom of assembly, but this right was restricted by law, including the Public Meetings and Demonstrations Law and the Associations and Private Institutions Law. Noncitizens, including long-term resident migrant workers, were not protected by constitutional provisions on freedom of assembly. Organizers of public meetings had to obtain approval from the Ministry of Interior to acquire a permit.						Freedom of Association						The constitution provided for the right to form groups, defined by the law as professional associations and private institutions, but the government significantly limited this right. Noncitizens, including long-term resident migrant workers, were not afforded constitutional or other protections on freedom of association. There were no reports of attempts to organize politically. There were no organized political parties, and authorities prohibited politically oriented associations. The government prohibited professional associations and private institutions from engaging in matters deemed political or affiliating internationally. Civil society organizations had to obtain approval from the Ministry of Social Development and Family, which could deny their establishment if it deemed them a threat to the public interest. Informal organizations, such as community support groups and activity clubs, operated without registration, but they were not permitted to engage in activities deemed political.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The constitution provided for freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, but the government did not fully respect these rights.In-country Movement: Restrictions on in-country movement for citizens existed around sensitive military, oil, and industrial installations. Although the practice of setting and enforcing “family-only” times at entertainment areas in Doha was no longer common, several local malls and markets continued to prevent access to certain commercial areas by male, foreign workers on weekends.Foreign Travel: The government prevented the travel of citizens when they were involved in pending court cases. Women faced gender-based restrictions on foreign travel.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in providing protection and assistance to refugees and to assist refugees in other countries. The government helped transit 15,316 Afghans to the United States through Qatar during the year, with 36,000 through Camp As Saliyah and more than 100,000 total since 2021.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status. A committee within the Ministry of Interior handled asylum requests. If granted asylum, the asylee and that individual’s family could access a range of free services provided by the government, including travel documents, jobs, monthly allowances, medical and educational services, and housing.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons										Not applicable.																																				g. Stateless Persons										The country contributed to statelessness through discrimination against women in nationality laws.There were approximately 2,500 Bidoon in the country – persons with Arab heritage who were born in the country but whose families were not included as citizens at the time of the country’s independence or shortly thereafter. Bidoon were able to register for public services such as education and health care. They were unable to own property, however, and could not travel without a visa to other Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Official documents did not recognize the term Bidoon but rather referred to these persons as “individuals with temporary Qatari identification documents.”The law allowed long-term residents to apply for citizenship after living in the country for 25 consecutive years, but the citizenship applications were by law capped at 50 per year and were rarely approved by the government. Restrictions and inconsistent application of the law prevented stateless persons from acquiring citizenship, which conferred the right to own property, open businesses without local partners, and receive free education and health services. Generally, the government did not approve marriage requests between Qatari women and stateless men.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law did not provide citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage. The emir exercised full executive powers, including the appointment of cabinet members. The law categorized Qataris into “genuine” citizens who could prove their families had been in Qatar before 1930 and “naturalized” citizens from families who became citizens after 1930. There were no official statistics publicly available on the number of “genuine” and “naturalized” citizens. Only “genuine” citizens had the right to run and vote in Shura Council elections.																										Elections and Political Participation										Recent Elections: In June elections were held to select members of the Central Municipal Council (CMC). The Ministry of Interior elections committee enforced the following four eligibility conditions for citizens to vote or run in the CMC elections: Qatari citizens by birth or naturalized more than 15 years ago; older than age 18 to vote and older than 30 to run in the elections; registered as residents in the same district where they wished to vote or run; and police clearance that they had no criminal convictions for a moral crime. The elections committee approved 110 candidates, including four women, to run for office. Of the four women candidates, none managed to win a seat, leading to a CMC lacking women’s representation for the first time since 2003. There were no reports of election interference.Political Parties and Political Participation: The government did not permit the organization of political parties, and there were no attempts to form them during the year. Voting was open only to citizens at least 18 years of age who could prove their family resided in the country before 1930 or that their grandfather was born in Qatar.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: No laws prevented women or historically marginalized groups from voting. Traditional attitudes and societal roles continued to limit women’s participation in politics, but women served in various roles in public office. For example, in March the emir appointed Lolwah al-Khater Minister of State for International Cooperation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Noncitizen residents were banned from voting or otherwise participating in political affairs, although they served as judges and staffers at government ministries.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for official corruption, and the government generally implemented the law effectively. There were isolated reports of government corruption.Corruption: In May the Ministry of Interior announced that several top ministry officials were under investigation on charges of corruption. The official announcement did not provide further details regarding the case. In August the Ministry of Interior announced the arrests of employees in its General Directorate of Passports, and in September it ordered two officers to appear before a criminal court for embezzlement.The government reported investigating a police officer for allegedly coercing individuals to work for the private company he owned and using his authority as a law enforcement officer to intimidate them from reporting the situation. The case was referred to courts and remained under review at year’s end; the alleged perpetrator remained in custody.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A number of international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings. Government officials were often cooperative and responsive to the views of these groups.Researchers from international nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch continued to visit and report on Qatar without interference from authorities. The government was often responsive to requests for meetings and jointly participated in public events hosted by human rights groups, including on sensitive topics such as labor rights.Government Human Rights Bodies: Under a mandate from the cabinet, the Human Rights Department at the Ministry of Interior and the Human Rights Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were responsible for observing, reporting on, and providing training on human rights matters. The NHRC was generally considered effective. The cabinet mandated the NHRC, whose members by law had immunity and operated as an independent body, to issue an annual report on human rights conditions in the country. By year’s end, the NHRC had not published an annual report for 2022 and gave no explanation for the delay.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law criminalized rape but did not specifically recognize rape of men, spousal rape, or so-called corrective rape of LGBTQI+ persons. Sexual assault and other gender-based crimes were rarely reported, mostly due to social taboo. The penalty for rape was life imprisonment, regardless of the age or gender of the survivor. If the perpetrator was a nonspousal relative, teacher, guardian, or caregiver of the survivor, the penalty was death. The government enforced the law against rape; however, a survivor of rape could face criminal prosecution for extramarital sexual conduct if authorities decided the survivor consented at any point during the crime. Survivors could be forced to produce witnesses to prove they were raped in cases where the survivor knew their rapist.No specific law criminalized domestic violence, whether against spouses or other members of a household, including domestic workers. According to the NHRC, authorities could prosecute spousal violence as “general” violence under the criminal law.Extramarital sex was punishable by up to seven years in prison, flogging (for unmarried persons), or the death penalty (for married persons). A woman who gave birth out of wedlock could receive a 12-month prison sentence, on average, and could also be subject to corporal punishment (flogging) or, in the case of foreign residents, deportation. Press reports indicated prison sentences and flogging were rare in such cases.Discrimination: The constitution asserted equality between citizens in rights and responsibilities, but social and legal discrimination against women persisted. Sharia as implemented in the country discriminated against women in judicial proceedings, freedom of movement, marriage, child custody, and inheritance.In line with local social norms, male relatives generally represented female relatives in court, although women had the legal right to attend court proceedings and represent themselves. Judges had discretion to consider a woman’s testimony as equal to one-half of a man’s testimony.By law, women citizens were not permitted to transmit citizenship to their noncitizen spouses or to children born from marriage to a noncitizen. The law allowed children of citizen mothers to apply for permanent status in country, even if the father was not a Qatari national. Qatari women had to apply for citizenship for their children in cases where the father was not a Qatari citizen, however, and applications were typically rejected. Citizens had to obtain government permission to marry foreigners, which was sometimes not granted for female citizens. Male citizens could apply not only for residency permits but also for citizenship for their foreign wives; female citizens could apply only for residency for their foreign husbands and children, not for citizenship. A non-Muslim wife did not have the automatic right to inherit from her Muslim husband, receiving an inheritance only if her husband willed her a portion of his estate; even then, she was eligible to receive only one-third of the total estate. A female heir generally received one-half the amount of an equivalent male heir; for example, a sister would inherit one-half as much as her brother. In cases of divorce, children generally remained with the mother until age 13 for boys and 15 for girls, at which time custody reverted to the father’s family, regardless of the mother’s religion.The housing law, which pertained to the government housing system, also discriminated against divorced women and women married to noncitizen men. While Qatari men were entitled to government-provided plots of land, divorced women were eligible for lands only after five years without remarrying. Women married to noncitizen men were not entitled to such privilege.A non-Muslim woman was not required to convert to Islam upon marriage to a Muslim, but many did so. The government documented children born to a Muslim father as Muslims, regardless of the religion of the mother.Single women younger than age 25 required the permission of their male “guardian” to travel outside the country. Male relatives could prevent married or single adult female family members from leaving the country by seeking and securing a court order.Adult women customarily could be barred from leaving their homes without approval from a male “guardian,” including to work outside the home; however, this was rarely enforced.There was no specialized government office devoted to women’s equality.The labor law did not allow women to work in jobs deemed hazardous, dangerous, or morally inappropriate, or in other jobs specified by the Ministry of Labor. By law women were entitled to equal pay for equal work but did not always receive it, and they often lacked access to decision-making positions in management of private companies and in the public sector. Gender-based violence and harassment occurred in the workplace.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Women were routinely required to present a marriage certificate when seeking prenatal care. Unmarried individuals who reported pregnancies risked prosecution for extramarital sexual relations. Although hospitals generally assisted in the birth of children of unwed mothers regardless of their marital status, there were cases of hospitals reporting unwed mothers to authorities. Emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis were not available as part of clinical management of rape.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution stipulated that “all persons are equal before the law and there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, race, language, or religion.” Local custom, however, outweighed government enforcement of nondiscrimination laws. Penalties were not commensurate with laws related to civil rights. The constitution did not prohibit discrimination based on political opinion, national origin, social origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, or HIV-positive status.Discrimination in employment, particularly based on national origin, was not explicitly prohibited in labor laws and conventions. International human rights groups and the International Labor Organization (ILO) strongly urged explicit language in labor codes outlawing discrimination in employment. The government discriminated against noncitizens in employment, education, housing, and health services. The government prohibited lower-paid non-citizen male workers from residing in specific “family” residential zones throughout the country. For cultural and religious considerations, single expatriates were not allowed to commingle with families in residential areas, transportation, or health clinics.																																				Children										Birth Registration: The government generally registered all births immediately; however, due to legal prohibitions and social stigma surrounding sex outside of marriage, obtaining birth registration for children born out of wedlock was typically not possible.Child Abuse: The law criminalized child abuse. The government enforced the law effectively. There were limited cases of reported child abuse and sexual abuse of children.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: By law the minimum age for marriage was 18 for boys and 16 for girls. The law did not permit marriage of persons younger than these ages except with consent from the legal guardian and with permission from a judge. The government generally enforced the law and underage marriage was rare.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law criminalized the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Article 7 of Law No. 14 for 2014 on Combating Cyber Crimes criminalized the production, importation, sale, circulation, transfer, dissemination, and possession of child pornography. Article 2 of Law No. 15 for 2011 criminalized the exploitation of children in acts of prostitution and pornography. The government enforced the law.No specific law set a minimum age for consensual sex. The law prohibited sex outside of marriage. The penalty for sexual relations of an adult with a person younger than 16 was life imprisonment. If the individual was a nonspousal relative, guardian, caretaker, or servant of the victim, the penalty was death.																																				Antisemitism										The country did not have an indigenous Jewish community, and there was no official data on the number of Jewish foreign residents in the country. Cartoons, opinion articles, and certain news coverage in local newspapers and other media outlets periodically carried antisemitic content.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women. The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.In addition to banning sex outside marriage for all persons, the law provided penalties for any man, Muslim or not, who “instigates” or “entices” another man to commit an act of “sodomy” or “immorality.” Under the penal code, “leading, instigating, or seducing a man by any means for sodomy or dissipation” and “inducing or seducing a man or a woman by any means to commit illegal or immoral actions” was punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment.Violence and Harassment: There were confidential reports of arbitrary detention of LGBTQI+ persons, including the use of violence and being held without access to legal representation.Discrimination: LGBTQI+ persons faced discrimination under the law and in practice. There were no government efforts to address potential discrimination, nor were there antidiscrimination laws to protect LGBTQI+ individuals targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. In July the Ministry of Interior released an extension of its Metrash2 app, permitting anonymous reporting of perceived violations of “public morals, negative phenomena, being threatened, violations in tourist places, administrative corruption.” Social media users publicly interpreted this announcement as a means for them to report gender-nonconforming individuals.Information was not available on official or private discrimination in employment, occupation, housing, statelessness, or access to education or health care based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Legal gender recognition was not available.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: State-sponsored and private institutions offered behavioral health services for adults and minors. There was limited information detailing if all services offered were voluntary. There were no reports that medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: Due to social and religious conventions, there were no LGBTQI+ organizations, Pride marches, or LGBTQI+ rights advocacy events.																																				Persons with Disabilities										The law prohibited discrimination against, and required the allocation of resources for, persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental disabilities in employment, education, access to health care, the judicial system, and other government services or other areas. By law, persons with disabilities had the right to equal access to education, health services, public buildings, and transportation. The government was charged with acting on complaints from individuals; the NHRC had responsibility for enforcing compliance and generally did so. Few public buildings met the required standards of accessibility for persons with disabilities, and new buildings generally did not comply with standards.Private schools and government-funded schools under the Qatar Foundation generally provided most of the required services for students with disabilities. There were also government-sponsored centers for children with disabilities that offered services but not school diplomas.The law required reserving two percent of jobs in government agencies and public institutions for persons with disabilities. Private-sector businesses with 25 or more employees also were required to hire persons with disabilities as at least two percent of their staff. Employers who violated these employment provisions were subject to moderate fines. There were no reports of either infractions or government enforcement of the hiring quota requirement during the year.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										There was discrimination against HIV-positive individuals. Authorities deported foreigners found to be HIV-positive upon arrival. Mandatory medical examinations were required for residents. Since health screenings were required for nonresidents to obtain work visas, some HIV-positive persons were denied work permits prior to arrival. The government quarantined HIV-positive citizens and provided treatment for them.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law did not provide for the right of workers to form and join independent unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively.The law permitted the establishment of voluntary “joint committees” with an equal number of worker and management representatives to deal with a limited number of workplace problems. Foreign workers could join these joint labor-management committees. The law offered a means to file collective disputes. If disputes were not settled internally between the employees and employer, the Ministry of Labor could mediate a solution or refer to a labor dispute settlement committee. A 2017 agreement between the ministry and the ILO included provisions to create these committees with ILO supervision and assistance. Following the formation of joint committees, the ILO provided extensive training to the committee members on how to manage committees, establish open channels of communication with workers and management, and submit complaints to the competent authorities. There were documented reports of onerous, six-month-plus timelines for Labor Dispute Settlement Committees to settle labor complaints.The law required approval by the Ministry of Labor for worker organizations to affiliate with groups outside the country. The government did not respect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining outside of the joint committees.Due to the absence of independent trade unions, there were no reports of government enforcement of laws respecting their establishment or operation. For the few workers covered by the law protecting the right to collective bargaining, the government circumscribed the right through its control over the rules and procedures of the bargaining and agreement processes. The labor code allowed for only one trade union, the General Union of Workers of Qatar (General Union), which was composed of representative groups known as general committees for workers in various trades or industries. Trade or industry committees were composed of worker committees at the individual firm level. The law excluded all noncitizens and government employees from the right to join general committees that then consolidated into the General Union, effectively banning these workers from bargaining collectively or legally striking. The General Union did not operate during the year.Employees could not freely practice collective bargaining, and there were no workers under collective bargaining contracts. Although the law recognized the right to strike for some workers, restrictive conditions made the likelihood of a legal strike extremely remote. The law required approval for a strike by three-fourths of the general committee of the workers in the trade or the industry, and potential strikers also were required to exhaust a lengthy dispute resolution procedure before a lawful strike could be called. Civil servants and domestic workers did not have the right to strike; the law also prohibited strikes at public utilities and health or security service facilities, including in the gas, petroleum, and transportation sectors. The Complaint Department of the Ministry of Labor, in coordination with the Ministry of Interior, had to preauthorize all strikes, including approval of the time and place.The International Labor Organization had an office in Doha. Several Global Union Federations, including Building and Wood Workers’ International, the International Domestic Workers Federation, the International Trade Union Federation, and the International Transport Workers Federation, had official representatives in the country and focused on labor rights with the permission of the government.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited and criminalized all the worst forms of child labor and provided for the protection of children from exploitation in the workplace, including limitations on working hours, occupational safety, and health restrictions. The law set the minimum age for employment at 16 and stipulated children between ages 16 and 18 could work with parental or guardian permission. Children could not work more than six hours a day or more than 36 hours a week. Employers had to provide the Ministry of Labor with the names and occupations of their child employees and obtain permission from the Ministry of Education and Higher Education to hire a child. The Education Ministry prohibited the employment of children in jobs judged dangerous to their health, safety, or morals. The government generally enforced the applicable law, but penalties for violations were not commensurate with those for analogous serious crimes, such as kidnapping. There were no confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: In 2020 the country introduced a monthly minimum wage, which came into force in 2021. As of year’s end, these reforms had not yet been fully enforced. The labor law provided for a 48-hour workweek with a 24-hour rest period and paid annual leave days. The labor law and provisions for acceptable conditions of work, including overtime pay provisions, did not apply to workers in the public sector or agriculture, or to domestic workers. Some employers did not pay workers for overtime or annual leave. Penalties for abuses were less than those for similar crimes, such as fraud.Occupational Safety and Health: Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were appropriate for the main industries in the country, such as construction, but the government did not always enforce them. Responsibility for laws related to acceptable conditions of work fell primarily to the Ministry of Labor as well as to the Ministry of Municipality and the Ministry of Public Health. The law did not provide workers the right to remove themselves from a hazardous workplace without jeopardizing their employment, with the exception of a 2020 ministerial decision allowing workers to leave worksites in case of heat stress. Authorities did not effectively provide protection to employees exercising this right.Some elements of the kafala employer-based sponsorship system – such as the exit requirement and legal requirement for the no objection certificate – were removed in 2020, but the sponsorship system gave employers broad control over foreign workers, and the government did not consistently implement reforms and ensure access to justice.A 2020 legal change eliminated exit visa requirements for 95 percent of government workers and all domestic workers. The abolishment of the no-objection certificate was effective immediately; however, media sources, Human Rights Watch, and the NGO Migrant Rights reported employers still required no objection certificates, which were included in official job change requests in the Ministry of Labor portal. Media also reported on several instances of employers retaliating against employees who initiated a transfer by canceling their visa or filing an absconding charge, rendering the worker out of legal status and at increased risk of exploitation, detention, or deportation. Employers could request the Ministry of Interior require up to 5 percent of the company’s employees obtain approval before leaving the country due to their type of work. These workers who were still required to seek their employers’ permission to leave the country could request an exemption from a grievance committee jointly operated by the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labor in cases where an employer refused to grant permission.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The government did not effectively enforce wage, overtime, and OSH laws in all sectors. Despite a system to monitor for payment abnormalities (the Wage Protection System), workers reported cases of wage theft and difficulty obtaining restitution of wages through mediation or courts. Working conditions for citizens were generally adequate because government agencies and the major private-sector companies employing them generally followed the relevant laws.The lack of full enforcement of the minimum wage law exposed migrant workers, especially domestic workers, to potential abuse. In August the Gender in Geopolitics Institute reported on the persistent lack of attention paid to abuses suffered by domestic workers, in contrast to the more visible work done by other foreign workers, such as in construction or other public spaces.The government restricted work during the hottest hours of the day during the summer, and general restrictions related to temperature during the rest of the day as well. Employers often ignored working-hour restrictions and other laws with respect to domestic workers and unskilled laborers, the majority of whom were migrants. Penalties for violations of occupational safety and health laws were less than those for crimes such as negligence. The government took limited action to prevent abuse. If a company had not brought conditions up to standard within one month of being notified of the need for action, the Ministry of Labor imposed fines, blacklisted the company, and on occasion referred the matter to the public prosecutor for action. Blacklisting referred to an administrative hold freezing government services such as processing new visa applications from a company or individual. Firms had to pay a moderate fine to be removed from the list, even if the dispute was resolved, and the ministry reserved the right to keep companies on the list as a punitive measure after the fine was paid.Ministry of Labor personnel conducted inspection visits to work and labor housing sites. Officials from the ILO joined labor inspectors on several inspections. A strategic plan for strengthening the Labor Inspections Unit, developed with ILO assistance, went into effect in 2020 and focused on upgrading inspectors’ skills in evaluating living accommodations and raising awareness regarding heat stress; however, there was no concrete output to report as of year’s end. Employers in most categories had to pay their employees electronically via the Wage Protection System to provide a digital audit trail for the Ministry of Labor. Employers who failed to pay their workers faced penalties, but the government did not effectively enforce these laws, and penalties were less than those for similar crimes. Infractions of wage, overtime, and OSH standards were relatively common, especially in sectors employing foreign workers in which working conditions were often poor. The government served eviction notices to property owners whose residential and commercial buildings were not up to code. Throughout the year international media reported the existence of abusive working conditions, including work-related deaths of young foreign workers, particularly in the construction and delivery sectors.The government prosecuted business owners and executives for suspected labor law infractions. The Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Interior, and the NHRC conducted training sessions and distributed multilingual, written explanations of migrant workers’ rights under local labor and sponsorship laws. Compliance by employers was lacking in attaching contract terms and rapid access to data when addressing labor disputes.The law prohibited employers from withholding workers’ passports and penalized employers who did so, but noncitizen community leaders and officials from labor-exporting countries stated that passport confiscation remained a widespread problem with insufficient enforcement of penalties. Employers housed many unskilled foreign laborers in cramped, dirty, and hazardous conditions, often without running water, electricity, or adequate food. The government did not enforce labor laws in the informal sector, particularly for domestic workers.Domestic workers often faced unacceptable working conditions. Many such workers frequently worked seven days a week and more than 12 hours a day with few or no holidays, no overtime pay, and limited means to redress grievances. Some employers denied domestic workers food or access to a telephone, including their own cell phones, according to news reports and foreign embassy officials. NGOs found that foreign workers faced legal obstacles and lengthy legal processes that prevented them from seeking redress for abuses and exploitative conditions. Noncitizen community leaders also highlighted migrant workers’ continued hesitation to report their plight due to fear of reprisals. This included threats by employers to report workers as “absconding” and not renew local identification documents, forcing workers out of legal status and raising their risk of being deported.The size of the informal economy was estimated to be 16.5 percent. The government did not enforce labor laws in this sector.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																								Qatar
- Department Press Briefing – April 16, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing – April 16, 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 16, 2024																																																					April 16, 2024																																																								1:20 p.m. EDTMR MILLER: Hello, everyone. Sorry to be a couple minutes late. Let’s get set up here.I do not have any comments from the top, so Matt, do you want to kick us off today?QUESTION: Sure, yeah. So have the Israelis told you what they plan to do in response to what happened over the weekend, or &#8212;MR MILLER: They have not. We have been in close communication with them, as well as other partners in the region, over the past few days. The Secretary has continued his consultations. In the past 24 hours, he has talked to Benny Gantz, the – a minister in the Israeli war cabinet. He has just in the past couple of hours completed a phone call with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar, Minister al-Thani, and he continues to send the same messages in all of his conversations, which is we do not want to see further escalation of the conflict.QUESTION: Okay. And have you gotten any response that leads you to believe that the Israelis will heed your advice?MR MILLER: I think I will let the Israelis speak for themselves about what decisions they will make. Obviously, these are their sovereign decisions. But we have been clear that we are committed to Israel’s defense but we do want to see, as you’ve heard multiple members of the administration say, no escalation of this conflict.QUESTION: All right. And then you just said he spoke to Gantz, and the prime minister of Qatar. But does he have other &#8212;MR MILLER: Of Qatar.QUESTION: Yeah, Qatar.MR MILLER: He is continuing to make calls. I don’t have any other calls to read out or announce at this point.QUESTION: Well, does he plan to speak to Netanyahu, or does he plan to speak to Gallant, or &#8212;MR MILLER: I don’t have any other calls to announce. He typically doesn’t speak by – with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone. As you know, the President usually handles those phone conversations, and he talks to the prime minister when we’re in Israel on trips.QUESTION: All right. Can you say – at the current moment, where we are right now, do you – are your concerns still as high as they may have been over the weekend for escalation?MR MILLER: They continue to be high. It’s always tough to assign an exact percentage or say if they’ve gone up or gone down, partially because we have been at risk of escalation of this conflict really since October 7th. And it’s been something that we have been working to avoid, and something that we have been working to contain, and there have been various periods where the risk of escalation has gone up. Obviously, over the weekend we saw the risk of escalation increase dramatically. And of course, the Iranians did escalate the conflict. This was clearly an escalatory act – the launching of 300 missiles and drones from Iranian soil directly targeted at the state of Israel.And so what we’re going to continue to do is try to de-escalate the conflict. But as long as the war in Gaza continues, we’re not going to be back at the place we were before October 7th. It is an ongoing process of trying to keep tensions in the region – to reduce tensions in the region and try to maintain as much calm as possible, knowing that there is an ongoing conflict that obviously exacerbates tensions in Israel and around the region.QUESTION: Okay, last one. I just want to know if – have any of these developments affected the Secretary’s travel plans?MR MILLER: No. He still intends to leave tonight for the G7 foreign ministers meeting in Capri and Italy and be there tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday.QUESTION: Thank you.QUESTION: All right, Matt. I know you said they didn’t give you any sense of what their plans are, but did they give you any timeline of when they might respond? Hours, days?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to speak to those private conversations. And as I said, those are really decisions for the Israeli Government and questions best posed to the Israeli Government.QUESTION: Has there been any exchange of messages between the U.S. and Iran in the wake of this weekend’s –MR MILLER: There has not been, and I’ve seen some false reporting about messages exchanged between the United States and Iran, reports claiming that we have delivered messages to them. There have not been such messages delivered. It’s been days since we have communicated, since we have sent messages to the Government of Iran.And I say that as a reminder of something we’ve said before: Oftentimes the Iranian Government has misled the world about either messages they’ve passed to us or messages that we have passed to them. And some of those reports over the past few days have been false.QUESTION: And do you have any plans to engage with the Iranian foreign minister when he’s in New York this coming week?MR MILLER: I do not anticipate any such engagements.QUESTION: Can you confirm the U.S. has granted him a visa for his visit to the UN?MR MILLER: So a few things about that. Number one, visa records are confidential as a matter of law. They’re not something I can speak to from this podium. Number two, we do take our obligation as the host nation of the United Nations quite seriously, and that includes allowing diplomats from other countries – even countries with whom we have significant disagreements – to attend UN meetings and UN functions. But number three, we do have the ability to restrict – and in fact, severely restrict – the movements of certain diplomats while they are in New York for legitimate UN meetings. So should the foreign minister of Iran attend this meeting at the United Nations, I would not expect to see him at very many locations outside the United Nations.QUESTION: But there were already restrictions. So this is a further restriction?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to speak to that in detail, other than to say we do have the ability to impose very severe restrictions on the movements of certain diplomats, and I would not expect to see him very many places outside the United Nations.QUESTION: Well, have you? Because one of the first things you guys did – like, in February just after you came into office – was to remove the restrictions that were put on Iranian diplomats in New York. So have you restored those?MR MILLER: So as I stand here today &#8212;QUESTION: And those &#8212;MR MILLER: &#8212; hold on &#8212;QUESTION: Those restrictions – if I am correct, and I think I am – precluded them from going anywhere outside of the UN building, the Iranian mission, and like, a five-block radius of the east side.MR MILLER: So as I stand here today, a day before this scheduled meeting when he is not here – the Iranian foreign minister is not here in New York – I’m not able to speak to that question or answer it in detail. But I will just say should he attend, you can expect very severe restrictions on his movements inside New York.QUESTION: Well, your Office of Foreign Missions puts out – it did when the Trump administration did this; it was public. It came out. So I mean &#8212;MR MILLER: So I would just – I would just say &#8212;QUESTION: And then you guys rescinded them very deliberately.MR MILLER: And I would say stay tuned, but I would not expect to see him, for example, snapping selfies on top of the Empire State Building should he attend – should he travel to New York to attend this meeting.QUESTION: Well, how about snapping selfies on the East River at the UN building?MR MILLER: Obviously, that goes back to the thing I said at the beginning, which is we do take our &#8212;QUESTION: Yeah. So you guys won’t &#8212;MR MILLER: We do take our &#8212;QUESTION: You guys won’t say anything until he actually shows up.MR MILLER: We do take our obligation as the host of the United Nations seriously, but we have the ability to impose restrictions for people to travel outside of attending United Nations meetings and, say, hotels and airports and such things – the ability to travel to and from United Nations meetings.QUESTION: Israel?MR MILLER: Go ahead.QUESTION: Just to follow up on – you mentioned it’s been days since you’ve sent any messages. What – so are you talking about – sorry, messages to the Government of Iran. You’re talking about the indirect messages that are sent through – through other countries, right?MR MILLER: Correct.QUESTION: And the – and when you say days, you mean this is before the attacks on the weekend, the last time that that happened?MR MILLER: I am not going to get into the detail. I’m going to try to go back to what has been our usual posture, as you’ve – usually what we have done is not publicly discuss those messages. There have been a few times in the past week where we have communicated about these messages because we’ve seen the Iranian Government mislead the world about what we have said or what they have said to us. So I wanted to make public the fact that we have not sent a message in the last few days, because I have seen this reporting about messages that we supposedly sent to them in the past few days that has been – is completely false and is not true. But I’m going to get back to our usual posture of keeping those communications private.QUESTION: Before that begins, is – (laughter) – are there any messages received since the attack?MR MILLER: I don’t have any further messages to read out.QUESTION: And is there a U.S. assessment on whether if, in the event of an Israeli response, if it, as expected, the Israelis – or as – as might be expected, the Israelis strike in Iran itself, does the U.S. have an assessment of how Iran would react to that, and is that part of these discussions that the Secretary &#8212;MR MILLER: I think that gets me into a double hypothetical, and I’m going to decline even to engage with the first part of that hypothetical question, let alone the second. I’ll leave it at that.Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. The IDF has &#8212;QUESTION: The infamous double hypothetical.MR MILLER: What’s that?QUESTION: The infamous double hypothetical. (Laughter.)QUESTION: I’ll keep it to one next time. (Laughter.)MR MILLER: Fair enough.QUESTION: The IDF has confirmed that they’ve eliminated a senior Hizballah commander who was part of their coastal operations. Should we read that as in any way a retaliation or the beginning of something to do with Iran? And then I have another question on Gaza.MR MILLER: So I’m reluctant to tell you how to read it or to try and provide any guidance about how to read it. I would note, of course, that Israel has been engaged in conflict and exchange of fire with Hizballah back – well, obviously before October 7th but in a significant way since October 7th. That’s not – that in itself is not an unusual activity to have occurred.QUESTION: Thank you. And do you have any update since yesterday on conversations with the Israelis about Rafah, their Rafah operation, any – anything from them about a humanitarian plan on Rafah? And do you also have an update on the number of Americans who may be still – American citizens who may still be in Gaza who want to leave Gaza, including their non-American family members?MR MILLER: So with respect to the second question, that’s a good one. It’s been some time since I’ve checked. I will take that back and get you an answer. I’m not sure if we have an assessment. For a while we were working to facilitate the departure of American citizens and family members and we still are, but the demand that we have seen from American citizens and their family members has declined dramatically over time – as you would expect, right? A lot of people leave out the outset of the conflict and then others make decisions to stay for various reasons, so the demand has gone down significantly over time. But I’ll check and see if we have an assessment of the number remaining.And then in terms of –QUESTION: Rafah.MR MILLER: &#8212; a Rafah operation, I don’t have any – we have not yet had the follow-on meeting to talk in detail about the Government of Israel’s plans, and we have still not been briefed in detail on their plans either for a humanitarian evacuation or humanitarian considerations, or on the military side.QUESTION: On Israel?MR MILLER: Let me go here. I’ll come to you – I’ll come to you next, Janne. Go ahead.QUESTION: Matt, I want to go to about the Shifa Hospital. Today a UN team entered and the – what they are saying is what they are witnessing is horrific scenes. Yesterday a mass grave been discovered in the outskirts of al-Shifa Hospital that contains so many unknown bodies. Did you see this reports and do you have any comment on it?MR MILLER: I’ve seen the report. I don’t have any independent assessment to offer at this time. I’d want to look into – I’d want to look into it in detail before I can offer any kind of reaction.QUESTION: But did you reach out to the Israelis? Did you – are you opening an investigation on that? It’s a mass grave.MR MILLER: So again, we don’t have American personnel in Israel who can open such an investigation or conduct any kind of inquiry. We don’t have people on the ground who can look into it, what happened. These are the types of things we raise with the Israeli Government regularly. With respect to this specific one, I have just seen the report; so before I offer any kind of detailed comment on it, I want to be able to look into it and confer with my colleagues about what any follow-up steps might be.QUESTION: My last question will be any updates on how many trucks are entering Gaza now daily? Are they still at the 400 level?MR MILLER: We have seen a significant increase in the number of trucks, have gotten up to 400. Some days they’ve dipped back below. For example, late last week there were a few days during Eid when it was hard to find truck drivers, so the level of deliveries dipped. We have seen, however, a steady increase in the number of trucks that are going into Gaza.I would say it is not just the number of trucks, however, that we’ve focused on. It’s also where the trucks are going, ensuring that they get into northern Gaza. As you heard me say yesterday, on Sunday 65 trucks had gone into northern Gaza, and there were more planned for yesterday. I believe those trucks did move into northern Gaza. It’s been ensuring that Ashdod Port is open. It now is open for humanitarian deliveries. It’s ensuring that bakeries, including bakeries in northern Gaza, can reopen. And in the past 24 hours, we have seen bakeries reopen, which is important for getting food directly to the Palestinian people.And so with all of these mechanisms, we are – have been working to increase their capacity and make sure they are sustained. And we have seen improvement – not yet to the level where it needs to be, and certainly once it gets to that level, we need to see it sustained over time, and that’s how we’re going to judge things. But we have seen some steady improvement over the past 10 days or so.QUESTION: Follow-up?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead. I said I’d come to Janne next, but go ahead. Go with the follow-up, and then I’ll come to you, Janne.QUESTION: On trucks going into Gaza – is these numbers – are these numbers based on Israeli figures? This is my first question. And secondly, UNRWA released a report today saying that there has been no significant change in the volume of humanitarian supplies entering Gaza or include access to the north. Since the beginning of April, they said an average of 881 aid trucks have crossed into Gaza per day. What is your assessment on this? And it seems that maybe Israel has taken some steps in this regard, but it seems it’s not enough. Do you agree? And also – will follow up on that.MR MILLER: Sure. So first of all, with respect to this dispute over trucks, part of it is counting different things, and not just counting in a different way, but there are some deliveries that happen that are commercial deliveries that the UN doesn’t count because they’re not part of the relief efforts that the UN monitors. So two things happen. Number one, there are trucks that come in through Rafah and through Kerem Shalom that then are offloaded at Rafah and Kerem Shalom and loaded onto UN trucks. And UN uses different size trucks, so the UN counts their trucks, not the number of trucks that are coming in. It is a different way to actually measure the number of trucks.However, even that said, the UN number itself doesn’t capture the entire daily volume, because there are commercial trucks that are coming in, in some cases coming in directly through the north, through Erez, or are coming in through the 96 gate crossing that they opened, or are coming in through the south and driving up – and are driving up internal roads. And those aren’t counted, to my understanding, in the UN numbers, because they’re not being delivered through any of the UN agencies, through UNRWA or through the World Food Program or others. So the UN number does not count the total amount of delivery that goes in.That said, I would agree with the overall assessment that we are not yet at the level we need to be – very much agree with that. But we have seen steady progress, and there are other things that are coming online. For example, this thing you’ve heard me talk about before, where there are trucks now that are making deliveries directly from Jordan, coming through Israel and then delivering directly into Gaza. That is happening; it’s going to be increased as Israel makes certain improvements to traffic and clearing rubble and other debris that’s blocking other – the ability to sustain further traffic through some of these crossings that have recently opened.So we’ve gone up. We see the pathway to going up more. We want to ensure that that’s what actually happens, and that’s what we’re working every day to do. That’s a long-winded answer, I know, but it’s a complicated question.QUESTION: Thank you. I appreciate – some reports say that quantity changed, increase. Quantity of trucks changed, increased, but trucks are not fully loaded. Is this something that you also observed or raised with the Israelis?MR MILLER: I’m sure it’s – I’m sure it is the case that some trucks are not fully loaded. I have a hard time kind of litigating this exact dispute, where you – looking at every truck that goes on. But our – I will say, our humanitarian experts, who are on the ground, have seen an increased volume not just of trucks but of humanitarian assistance going in. We have seen that over the past 10 days. But that said, it’s not enough, and it needs to continue, and it needs to be sustained. And that’s what – that is absolutely what we are working on every day.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Two questions on Israel and Iran. It was reported that director general of IAEA has said there were concerns that Israel would attack Iranian nuclear facilities. What is your opinion on this possibility?MR MILLER: Again, I’m not going to engage with hypotheticals at all, other than to say that we want to continue to avoid further escalation in the region.QUESTION: On &#8212;QUESTION: Just – no, just before we leave this, have you guys decided yet or made a determination about whether what Israel hit in Damascus was a diplomatic facility or not?MR MILLER: We have not. We have not.QUESTION: Well, how long is this going to take?MR MILLER: I can’t answer that question. We’re continuing to look into it. I don&#8217;t have a timetable, but it’s something that we’re &#8212;QUESTION: What more do you need to &#8212;MR MILLER: We need to gather enough information that will allow us to make an actual determination.QUESTION: And how? You’ve got – you have no one on the ground in Syria.MR MILLER: We have a range &#8212;QUESTION: At least overtly.MR MILLER: As I said to you when – the last time you engaged with me on this question, we have a range of abilities – a range of ways to gather information. There are partner countries of ours who are on the ground. We have intelligence capabilities obviously, and we’re continuing to gather information, but we’ve not yet been able to make a determination.QUESTION: Yeah, I get it, but you were pretty quick into condemning the invasion of the Mexican embassy in Ecuador.MR MILLER: That was a very clear, well-established embassy.QUESTION: And this was not very clear, where they blew – they &#8212;MR MILLER: This is something that is taking a little bit more time to determine.QUESTION: No one died in that incident.MR MILLER: That’s not the question. The question was, what is it – is it – was it an embassy or consulate or not, and it was very clear &#8212;QUESTION: How hard is it to figure that out?MR MILLER: &#8212; in the case of the case of the Mexican – it’s something that we’re gathering information on.QUESTION: It’s been like two weeks.MR MILLER: And we continue –QUESTION: More.MR MILLER: &#8212; to gather information. We don’t have a determination yet.QUESTION: Let me get to my second question on Iran.MR MILLER: Certainly.QUESTION: What are the United States concerns about Iran working with North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?MR MILLER: Certainly that’s something we’d be incredibly concerned about.Stay in the region?QUESTION: Yes.MR MILLER: Yeah. Where? Who said yes? Back there. Go ahead. I heard a yes; I couldn’t see it. Go ahead.QUESTION: So the content of the trucks going into Gaza, are you talking to Israel about the contents of these trucks? Medical supplies are in – Gaza is in major need of medical supplies, and some people on the ground are saying, yes, we’re getting food, canned food, but we’re not getting medical supplies. And one question about the West Bank. Two Palestinians were killed in Israeli settlers attack on the – some villages on the West Bank. Are you pressuring the Israeli Government in regards to that, especially in light of being there’s open arming of settlers?MR MILLER: So two things. First of all, with respect to your first question, we have been engaged with the Israeli Government – and not just with the Israeli Government, but with our partner countries in the region, as well as the various United Nation agencies – about the importance of getting medical supplies into Gaza. They are very much needed, and there have been medical supplies going in, but not nearly enough. And it’s been something that we’ve been incredibly focused on. We’ve also been working with those partners to talk to the Government of Israel to make sure that items that are legitimate medical items aren’t excluded from deliveries into Gaza, and that’s something we’ll continue to do.And with respect to the West Bank, we do remain incredibly concerned about the increase in violence in the West Bank. I put out a statement on that yesterday. We’ve seen tensions continue since then. We have made absolutely clear that the Government of Israel has a responsibility to police extremist settler violence. It has the responsibility to hold extremist settlers responsible when they commit acts of violence. And as we have done in the past, if we don’t see sufficient action, we are prepared to take actions of our own.QUESTION: But do you expect it to go out of hand?MR MILLER: I’m not going to make any predictions about what will happen in the future. We’re incredibly concerned. One of the things that we have impressed upon Israel since October 7th is the importance of maintaining calm in the West Bank and that failing to properly hold settlers accountable for their violence risks an escalation that isn’t just harmful to the Palestinian people in – that live in the West Bank, but it’s harmful to Israel’s ultimate security and that it risks broader regional de-escalation. And so we’ve made the case of why it’s in Israel’s interest to take this matter incredibly seriously and to hold people accountable for violent attacks, and we’ll continue to do that.Michel.QUESTION: Do you expect Israel to alert the U.S. when they decide to retaliate?MR MILLER: I’m just not going to deal with that hypothetical question. We are engaged with them closely about the need to avoid escalation in the region, but I’ll keep those conversations quiet – or confidential.QUESTION: It’s been about a week and a half since the IDF turned over its findings on the World Central Kitchen convoy strike. The U.S., you said, was reviewing it at the time. Has there been any assessment made on that &#8212;MR MILLER: There hasn’t been a final assessment. We are continuing to review the results of their investigation, and we’re also continuing to engage not with the Government of Israel about this question, but with humanitarian organizations to see what questions they have, and that process is ongoing.QUESTION: Are you still not calling for a separate, independent investigation?MR MILLER: We are not at this time. We’re continuing to review those results and engage with humanitarian partners.QUESTION: When do you expect this review process to wrap up?MR MILLER: I don’t have a timetable.Go ahead.QUESTION: The United States emphasized it’s unwilling to escalate the region, and at the same time you support – United States support Israel, which occupy the Palestinian territories. And in the same – and it’s – which is the main and direct cause of the escalation and instability in the region. Why don’t you – why are you ignored this reason and you work in different direction?MR MILLER: I’m sorry. I think I missed – why do we ignore what?QUESTION: Why United States ignore this reason, that the occupation is the main reason and direct reason for the escalation and the violence in the area?MR MILLER: So first of all, I would say that it has long been our policy to see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. That pre-dates October 7th. But the pursuit of that policy has been something we have been engaged in vigorously since October 7th. You’ve seen the Secretary travel to the region to engage with Arab partners about putting on the table a real plan for normalization between Israel and its neighbors that would include a pathway to an independent Palestinian state and would establish real security for Israel. That said – and I think it’s always important to emphasize this when this question comes up, as it has before – nothing that happened before October 7th justified the attacks of October 7th, and I think it’s always important just to make that clear.QUESTION: Excuse me.MR MILLER: Yeah, one more.QUESTION: I wonder if you heard about what’s happened today in Maghazi camp in Gaza, the massacre, what’s happened, and today more – the most who killed are children and women – today, this morning, in Gaza.MR MILLER: I have not yet seen that report. I’m happy to look into it.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. Shifting region, I have different questions on &#8212;MR MILLER: Sure, go ahead.QUESTION: Thanks so much. Let me start with a question on the report that you guys have submitted to the Congress yesterday on compliancy for arms agreement. There’s a line in there saying that the United States continues to provide Russia with pre-launch notifications of ICBM and SLBM launches and notifications of heavy bomber exercises in accordance with proper agreements, obviously, which remain separate from New START. Is this a two-way road? And when last time this exchange had occurred. Can you detail that &#8212;MR MILLER: So, Alex, I’m going to make an admission here which – I have not read that report or am fully tracking the details. I am happy to take that back and look into the report’s language and get back to you on it.QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Georgia, if I may. I want to follow up on your previous comments that were particularly directed to the Georgian Dream government. You were discouraging them from moving forward, but they did act anyway. But there are protesters out there – second day in a row – they’re trying to save their democracy. What is your message to the protesters? Do they have your sympathy? I realize I’m asking the bare minimum.MR MILLER: So I would just say, first of all, with respect to that draft legislation, it does still remain draft legislation. And the last time this draft legislation was proposed, we saw it take several steps forward but ultimately not pass into law. And so I don’t think you – we’re at any point where we can make any predictions yet about what’s going to happen. But I will just reiterate that we do remain deeply concerned about that law.And with respect to protesters in Georgia or anywhere else in the world, of course, the United States supports everyone’s right everywhere in the world to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.QUESTION: As you know, this is not the first time the initiators – same folks are initiating this Russian law. And what is your reaction to those who believe that those initiators are acting in impunity? While you are waiting for other shoes to drop, they are already taking action that you can’t reverse if you act later.MR MILLER: So Alex, I would say, as I – I would just refer you to the comments I made one moment ago, which is we have seen this legislation proposed before and not make it into law. It is still currently draft legislation. We’ve made very clear that we are concerned about it. And as – as it pertains to any possible steps, I’m not going to preview anything here. But I would say that is always the case where we do not preview potential sanctions or other measures that we might impose before we do so.QUESTION: Thank you. And final one on Ukraine – wanted to go – our back and forth yesterday. I’m sure you have seen President Zelenskyy’s comments yesterday in which he made it clear that we can now see how unity can work truly, a hundred percent, and how almost a hundred percent of Shaheds and missiles can be intercepted. Factor Ukraine officials don’t really understand why is it that United States is not helping them directly to prevent Russian attacks at least to the – targeting their energy infrastructure.MR MILLER: So a few things. Number one, I saw the comments from the President – very much understand where he’s coming from. I would expect the president of any country who is under such withering attacks to look for any way possible to defend his people. Fully understand that.Number two, I think it is important to note the context that we have an entirely different relationship with Ukraine and Israel in that our relationship with Israel goes back decades and – in terms of a security partnership. We have had a decades-long security partnership with Israel where we have been providing them direct military aid – not just going back two years of a conflict but for decades – and have had long, broad-standing communications between our military and the Israeli military that goes back decades.Israel is a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Ukraine is just in a different position in that we did not have that kind of agreement with them prior to the immediate months before this conflict. But what you have seen us do since this conflict is provide them with the equipment they need to defend themselves, and that includes, of course, air-defense systems, Patriot systems, and other air-defense systems that we have either provided the Ukrainian military ourselves or we have sourced from other partner and ally countries around the world so they can defend themselves. And much of the reason that they have been able to successfully defend themselves against barrage after barrage after barrage of Russian attacks is because of those air-defense systems that we have provided.Now, that said, you’re right that we are not in armed military conflict with Russia, which is what it would require for U.S. planes to be in the skies over Ukraine engaging with Russian attacks. And we are not going to be in direct armed conflict with Russia. The President of the United States has been – has made that very clear. I think it’s in the interests of the American people that we not be in direct armed conflict between the United States and Russia because we do not want World War III.That said, we are entirely committed to the defense of Ukraine. We have proved that over the past two years; the President has proved that by providing American support. And if you want to ask the question about what more we can do, the question is one to put to the United States Congress – because we have a supplemental spending bill that would allow us to provide more equipment, including more air-defense systems, to Ukraine that they very much need, and we hope that bill will pass.Go ahead.QUESTION: On sanctions, do you have any update on reimposing Venezuela sanctions? The deadline for a decision, I believe, is this Thursday.MR MILLER: It is Thursday. It’s two days from now, the 18th – I – in my mind I had it as tomorrow, but you’re right, it is on Thursday. So we have made very clear – you saw when we allowed one of the licenses that we had given them with respect to the gold industry to expire in, I believe, it was February. We made clear that there was another license on their oil industry that was set to expire on April 18th. We are two days from April 18th. We have been – we have made very clear that if Maduro and his representatives did not fully implement their agreements under the Barbados Agreement, we would reimpose sanctions, and I would just say stay tuned.QUESTION: Do you think he’s been moving towards free and fair elections, which is part of that Barbados Agreement?MR MILLER: We – he has upheld certain aspects of the Barbados Agreement, including setting an election timetable and inviting international observation missions. At the same time, you’ve seen him block candidates from the opposition from the ballot. So those are things that we take very seriously, and I don’t want to make any announcements ahead of their time, but you should certainly stay tuned over the next few days to see what more we will have to say in advance of this deadline.QUESTION: Is there any concern that reimposing these sanctions could have some sort of impact or exacerbate irregular migration from that country?MR MILLER: So irregular migration is something we continue to work – to work on with our partners in the region, but I don’t want to answer that question in detail because it sort of presumes a policy choice that I’m not ready to announce it at this time.QUESTION: Same topic?MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Last week there was a meeting in Mexico between U.S. officials and Venezuelan officials. Do you have any details of what was discussed there or &#8212;MR MILLER: I’m not going to comment on private diplomatic exchanges.QUESTION: Venezuela too, regarding &#8212;MR MILLER: I would just say – I was going to say – but we have made very clear, directly to Maduro and his representatives, that we expect them to uphold the things they agreed to under the Barbados Agreement.QUESTION: And on another meeting today here in Washington with Cuban authorities on migration, do you have any comments on what is being discussed and what is this meeting for?MR MILLER: So these were bilateral discussions between the United States and Cuba. They are bilateral discussions on migration that take place biannually, twice a year. They reflect the commitment by the United States to regularly review the implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords, which date back to 1984. Ensuring safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration between Cuba and the United States remains a primary interest of the United States, consistent with our interest in fostering family reunification and promoting greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So what are some of the diplomatic measures that the U.S. is doing to de-escalate tensions since the Iran attack?MR MILLER: So we are engaging in – so first of all, I’d want to say two things about that. One, we are engaging in diplomacy to make clear that we don’t want to see de-escalation, so that’s a message you’ve – the Secretary has delivered in his direct conversations with his counterparts in the region. It’s the message that others have delivered in their conversations with counterparts in the region, others from both our building and broader inside the administration.But there’s another thing that we are doing too when it comes to diplomacy, and that is ensuring a coordinated diplomatic response to the unprecedented escalatory actions that Iran has taken, and you’ve seen the Secretary engage in conversations with his G7 counterparts – the President of course held a video call with the leaders of the G7 countries on Sunday, and it’s something that we will continue to coordinate on in the days ahead.QUESTION: And as far as the Arab countries like Jordan, is there a strategy to help bolster them since they took action in shooting down those drones and missiles?MR MILLER: So I’m going to let – I’m going to let any country speak to its own actions.Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: There’s a new Washington Post report today about a six-year-old girl in Gaza City was killed, and the paramedics who went to rescue her, and that report finds that the ammunition matches that of Israel. Does the State Department have a new comment? You’ve spoken to it before, said you’ve been in touch with the Israelis. Are you satisfied with their explanation?MR MILLER: So I did read that report right before I walked out here to the podium, and I just want to say again that the death of Hind Rajab is really an unspeakable tragedy, something that never should have occurred and never should occur. When this – when she first died and we saw the reports of her death, we raised the matter with the Government of Israel directly. They told us that they had conducted an investigation and found that there are no – there were no IDF units in the area at the time of her death. I read the Post report, and the Post has concluded something to the contrary. So what we’re going to do is take the information that is contained in that Washington Post story, we’re going to go back to the Government of Israel and ask them for further information. We would still welcome a full investigation into this matter and how it occurred in the first place.QUESTION: You’ve said repeatedly that there are processes that the State Department has. Admiral Kirby’s referred to them as well. Is this one of those such processes where the United States has – could you do something independently here?MR MILLER: So we do have processes ongoing to look at various incidents. I have made it a practice never to confirm when a specific incident is under consideration as part of one of these processes, but there are a number of incidents that continue to be under review at the State Department, and that will continue to be the case. That is a separate matter than raising the question with the Government of Israel and asking what they have found, and that’s what we’ve done in in this case, and that’s what we’ll be going back to them to do with the new details that were raised by The Washington Post.QUESTION: I’ve got one more on aid, with the humanitarian pier that DOD is leading on. Are you facilitating relationships with NGOs to make that – to get that aid into Gaza?MR MILLER: We have been in conversation. Obviously DOD is the lead for the construction of that pier and the operation of that pier, but our special envoy, David Satterfield, as well as officials in our embassy in Jerusalem, have been engaged in conversations with the Government Israel – of Israel and various United Nations agencies and private relief organizations about the operation of that pier and how to ensure that aid that is delivered into Gaza over that pier can then be properly and efficiently distributed inside Gaza, which of course has been one of the difficulties over the past couple of months once aid actually is delivered. That was – that’s been true for the delivery of aid over land routes, and what we are working to ensure that is not a problem for the delivery of aid through this new maritime corridor.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you. So you’ve been talking about – with increasing concern about the Chinese support for Russian military-industrial base. And so have you warned the Chinese against doing that like you did a while ago with – when it comes to lethal aid, or are you planning any actions to address that?And separately, if I may, Polish President Duda said today that he will meet with former President Trump. That’s obviously another meeting after David Cameron met with him, and then the Ukrainians expressed interest in that. Are you concerned at all about these meetings, that there might be some shadow diplomacy or something like that?MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on those meetings, other than to say that we have seen over the course of years of American elections where foreign governments engage with the nominees of major parties here, just as American diplomats and American leaders often engage with foreign opposition leaders. The Secretary has regularly engaged with the opposition leader in Israel. He met with the opposition leader from the United Kingdom when he was in Munich in February. So that’s something that has happened over decades between governments of various parties in the United States and in other countries.With respect to your first question, remind me?QUESTION: Chinese.MR MILLER: Oh, with China. So we have long made clear to the People’s Republic of China that we would have concern with any actions that they took to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, and that did not include – that doesn’t – that doesn’t have to just be direct military support, but that we would be incredibly concerned about them – about any steps taken by Chinese companies to reconstitute Russia’s defense industrial base. And so what we have seen over the past months is that there have been materials moving from China to Russia that Russia has used to rebuild that re-industrial base and produce arms that are showing up on the battlefield in Ukraine, and we are incredibly concerned about that. And you saw the Secretary engage with NATO foreign ministers about that week before last. It will certainly be on the agenda when he travels to the G7 tomorrow to meet with G7 partner countries.And then the only thing I will say further about that is the Secretary does plan to travel to China in the coming weeks, and you can certainly – without getting too far ahead of those meetings, you can certainly expect that that is an issue that he would be expected to raise.Go ahead.QUESTION: Regarding Venezuela again, because we have seen that President Gustavo Petro from Colombia, he has been engaging with Maduro. For instance, last week, at the same time that the U.S. officials were meeting with representatives from the Maduro government in Mexico, he was meeting with Maduro in Venezuela. How important has been the role of President Gustavo Petro? And do you believe that he’s aligned with the U.S. towards Venezuelan sanctions?MR MILLER: Let me take that back and get you a comment.All the way in the back, yeah.QUESTION: Can you provide any information or comment on the assurances that the U.S. has given the high court in London on the proposed extradition of Julian Assange?MR MILLER: I would defer to the Department of Justice on that question.QUESTION: Is the U.S. working on a possible plea deal in his case? And is that something that the Australian Government has asked for?MR MILLER: When it comes to plea deals or any other matters of ongoing cases, I am going to defer to my colleagues at the Justice Department, who should be the ones to comment on that, although I expect what they’ll say is you can look to their court filings for any comment. But still, still what I &#8212;QUESTION: Is this something that the U.S. has been discussing with the Australian Government?MR MILLER: Again, I’m just going to defer to the Department of Justice.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Pakistan has initiated discussions with the IMF for – or a new multi-billion-dollars loan agreement. Pakistani foreign minister is here and seeking U.S. help in terms of investment. Is U.S. supporting or can support Pakistan in these challenging times?MR MILLER: So we welcome last month’s announcement that the IMF has reached a staff-level agreement with Pakistan. We understand the – as you said, the Pakistani minister of finance is in town here in Washington for meetings at the IMF and World Bank. Pakistan has made progress to stabilize its economy, and we support its efforts to manage its daunting debt burden. We encourage the government to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges. Our support for the country’s economic success is unwavering, and we will continue to engage with Pakistan through technical agreements, as well as through our trade and investment ties, all of which are priorities of our bilateral relationship.QUESTION: Sir, Indian Prime Minister Modi and his defense minister has said – have said in a campaign speech that the new India will not hesitate to cross borders to kill terrorist. They are kind of confessing to the assassination of Nijjar in Canada, Pannun’s murder-to-hire plot in New York, and killings in Pakistan. Is this statement a concern for Biden administration?MR MILLER: So as I have said before, the United States is not going to get in the – into the middle of this, but we do encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid escalation and find a resolution through dialogue.QUESTION: Sir, in the past, United States has imposed sanctions on individuals from foreign countries involved in assassination attempts here in United States. But we don’t see similar actions against India. What is the reason of this apparent relaxation?MR MILLER: So I am never going to preview any sanctions actions, which is not to say that there are any coming, but when you ask me to talk about sanctions, it’s something that we don’t discuss openly.Go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Matthew. I wanted to ask about Qatar. It sounds like they had prior ties to Hamas. So does the Biden administration see them as a reliable mediator with Hamas now?MR MILLER: So you have heard the Secretary speak to this on a number of occasions, and you heard the President speak to this after we achieved the humanitarian pause back in November that got more than 100 hostages out. We were able to achieve that in great effect because of the work that Qatar did to help us get those hostages out. Qatar has played an incredibly important role in helping get hostages out already, and they have played an incredibly important role in the back-and-forth negotiations with Hamas over the past few months to try and reach a further ceasefire deal that would get the remaining hostages out. So I would just say with, respect to Qatar, they have been a close partner in this process. They continue to be, and it is because of their work that we’ve already seen hostages come home.QUESTION: Do you feel like they’ve done the most they can do?MR MILLER: They have done an incredible amount of work. Yes, they have done everything that they can do to try and get these hostages home, and we continue to engage with them. As I said, the Secretary spoke with the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar earlier today to talk about the latest iteration of a possible hostage deal.And when it comes to the impediment to a hostage agreement, it’s not Qatar, not Egypt, it’s not Israel right now. It is Hamas. It is Hamas that has refused to agree to the deal that is on the table, despite the fact that it would achieve much of the things that they have publicly claimed in repeated statements that they are trying to achieve.Go ahead.QUESTION: Just want to follow up on a question I asked yesterday. Today Reuters reported that some Palestinian residents are expressing – in the West Bank – are expressing concern that – they’re expressing a lack of trust in the authorities meant to protect them. So my question is: They’re saying that the Palestinian Authority is not protecting them. Does the Palestinian Authority have not only a right but a duty to protect them? And I’m talking about within the areas of their jurisdiction.MR MILLER: So I would say – let me just ask this – answer this question. It’s really the same answer I gave yesterday, is that we want to see the appropriate law enforcement authorities in those areas where they have jurisdiction to act. But ultimately, the question comes back to something I said earlier, which is the Israeli authorities, the IDF, have a responsibility to police settler violence and hold settlers accountable for their violence. And that’s what we have been engaged with the Government of Israel to encourage.Go ahead. I’m just going to – we got to wrap up, so I’m going to go here and then wrap for the day.QUESTION: You have mentioned restrictions on diplomatic movements regarding the Iranian diplomats. Don’t you think (inaudible) another (inaudible) at least diplomatic conversations? And please also mention &#8212;MR MILLER: I didn’t – just repeat that last part again. I didn’t quite catch it.QUESTION: So don’t you think (inaudible) another (inaudible) at least diplomatic conversation you have with Iran, and what are the channels of communications you have? What are the level of communications that you have with the Iranian side?MR MILLER: Oh.QUESTION: Because they have mentioned several times during this crisis that did inform the United States before this attack.MR MILLER: So that is not true, first of all. As I said yesterday, that is not accurate. We do have the ability to send messages to the Iranian Government when it is in their – when it is in our interest to do so. We have done that in the past; we have done that over the past week, although we have not done so in the past few days. And let me just – and the other thing I’ll say, which I said in response to an earlier question, maybe before you walked in, which is that you cannot take at face value what you hear the Iranian Government say, either about the messages they have sent to us or the messages that we have sent to them, or about reports you see about these – those messages, because oftentimes they are either wildly misleading or completely untrue.QUESTION: And then secondly, apparently it seems like what Israel did – it is unjustified to attack a declared diplomatic mission. Before this Israeli attack, many positions in Syria by claiming that Iranian airlines are involved in the weaponizing the Syrian. But this time, this thing (inaudible) Iran to this – to the directing engagement with the Israel. We have seen that United States initiated diplomatic efforts with its Western allies to halt Iran to strike back and then to Israel to attack Iran. Why you and your allies didn’t join any condemnations to stop Israel to further continue the – this escalation that will prolong this escalation? But you are being diplomatic. You are doing ambassador-level public diplomatic measures, but not with the condemnations.MR MILLER: So I will say that we don’t – I don’t agree with every one of the premises in that question, but we have very much been engaged to try to prevent further escalation of the conflict.And with that, we’ll wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)# # #do ↑defense industrial ↑						Tags																					China																								Cuba																								Georgia																								Iran																								Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Pakistan																								Palestinian Territories																								Qatar																								Russia																								Ukraine																								Venezuela
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Call with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani				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();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Call with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani																																		Readout																														April 16, 2024																																							The following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. Secretary Blinken and the Prime Minister discussed Iran’s unprecedented air attack on Israel. The Secretary and the Prime Minster underscored the importance of a coordinated diplomatic response and the need to avoid further escalation. They also reaffirmed the strength of the U.S.-Qatar relationship and the importance of continuing to work closely together in the days ahead to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza that secures the release of all hostages.						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																																Israel-Hamas Conflict																															Office of the Spokesperson																								Qatar																								The Secretary of State
- Qatar (23-929) – Temporary Relocation Transit Agreement Office of Treaty AffairsCivil Affairs, Emergencies and Defense: EvacuationSigned at Doha September 27 and 29, 2023; entered into force September 29, 2023.&nbsp;
- U.S. Abstention from UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;U.S. Abstention from UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza				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();			}		});	}																										U.S. Abstention from UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza																																		Press Statement																														March 25, 2024																																							Today, the United States abstained on UN Security Council resolution 2728. This abstention, which comes on the heels of the Russian and Chinese veto of our comprehensive draft resolution in the Council, reaffirms the U.S. position that a ceasefire of any duration come as part of an agreement to release hostages in Gaza. While we do not agree with all provisions included in this text, adjustments made by the resolution’s sponsors over recent days are consistent with our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with text on the release of the hostages. This resolution further explicitly recognizes the painstaking, non-stop negotiations being conducted by the Governments of Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the United States to achieve such a release in the context of a ceasefire, which would also create space to surge more lifesaving humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians, and to build something more enduring.Because the final text does not have key language we view as essential, notably a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it. This failure to condemn Hamas is particularly difficult to understand coming days after the world once again witnessed the horrific acts terrorist groups commit.We reiterate the need to accelerate and sustain the provision of humanitarian assistance through all available routes – land, sea, and air. We continue to discuss with partners a pathway to the establishment of a Palestinian state with real security guarantees for Israel to establish long-term peace and security.As reflected in my most recent travels to the region, we have been working very closely with our Arab partners to realize these important outcomes. We have also been working with Israel to ensure October 7 can never be repeated, its security needs are met, and it is further integrated into a more secure and prosperous region. There is consensus on these priorities – a ceasefire, the release of hostages, a surge in humanitarian assistance, and a clear pathway planned for the future. And importantly, there is a growing consensus on the steps needed to achieve these priorities. We will continue our close collaboration with our regional partners to achieve these shared objectives.						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																								Egypt																																Hostage Recovery																																																					Human Rights and Democracy																															Israel																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Qatar																								The Secretary of State																								Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani				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();			}		});	}																										Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani																																		Readout																														March 5, 2024																																							The following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today with Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in Washington for the sixth U.S.-Qatar Strategic Dialogue.  Secretary Blinken and Prime Minister Al Thani discussed the conflict in Gaza and efforts to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas.  Secretary Blinken thanked the Prime Minister for Qatar’s coordination to pursue an agreement for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to enable the release of all hostages, safeguard civilians, and expand the provision of critical aid to Gaza.  The Secretary and Prime Minister discussed planning for a stable and secure future for the Palestinian people, and the Secretary reiterated the United States’ support for a pathway to a Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel.  They reaffirmed the strength of the U.S.-Qatar relationship and the importance of continuing to work closely on shared strategic priorities to promote security and prosperity in the Gulf and broader Middle East region and beyond, as well as to foster ties between our peoples.						Tags																					Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Qatar																								The Secretary of State