Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024 May 14, 2024 1:16 p.m. EDT

 

Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024

May 14, 2024

1:16 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR PATEL: That was great; in unison again. I love it.

I have one very brief thing off the top, and then happy to dive into your questions.

So as many of you are tracking, Secretary Blinken is in Kyiv today. He just completed delivering remarks at Kyiv’s Sikorsky Polytechnic University. There he shared a very clear message to our partners in Ukraine, that they are not alone. In fact, the United States has been by Ukraine’s side from day one, and we will remain by Ukraine’s side until its security, sovereignty, and ability to choose its own path is guaranteed.

About one year ago, the Secretary spoke in Helsinki – and I know some of you were on that trip – about how Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has proven to be a strategic failure for Russia. Today he is back in Kyiv, and spoke about Ukraine’s strategic success. The Secretary outlined how we are working together with Ukraine and a wide network of partners.

First he talked about the recent passage of the $60 billion supplemental bill, and how it demonstrates what we’re doing – what we’re doing to help ensure Ukraine has the military it needs to succeed on the battlefield, and the military it needs to secure a just and lasting peace and deter future aggression. Second, he talked about what we’re doing to ensure Ukraine’s economy not only survives but thrives. And finally, he discussed how we’re helping the Ukrainian people realize their democratic aspirations.

For decades, Putin has caused unspeakable grief for the people of Ukraine. And for the past 811 days, Ukrainians have denied Putin his goal of erasing Ukraine from the map and subjugating its people. The Secretary is in Kyiv to reaffirm what President Biden has said, which is that we want Ukraine to win, and we’re committing – committed to helping Ukraine to do just that. And with the support of the United States, our partners and allies, the Ukrainian people can and will achieve their vision for the future: a free, prosperous, and secure democracy, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community and fully in control of its own destiny.

So with that, Shaun, do you want to kick us off today?

QUESTION: Sure. First of all, you’re exactly on time starting us off, which is quite —

MR PATEL: Try – I try to be – I try to be punctual, so yeah.

QUESTION: Sure. I’m sure there are lots of things we want to ask about. Can I actually start on Georgia?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: The – I know there have been lots of statements over the – over recent days about what is happening there. But the parliament is actually – has actually pushed through the foreign entities law despite the mass protests and the warnings from the U.S. and the EU. Do you have any comment on that and how this would affect the relationship with the United States?

MR PATEL: So we are aware of the status of this legislation. We’re continuing to watch closely about further developments in Georgia. Assistant Secretary Jim O’Brien is Tbilisi; he spent the day meeting with Georgian officials. And I imagine he’ll have more to say after the conclusion of his engagements.

But you heard me talk a little bit about this yesterday: More than 80 percent of the Georgian people want EU membership, and we support that aspiration. We also know that the Georgian Government has said it wants to join the EU and have a relationship with a transatlantic organization such as NATO. This is something that is consistent with Georgia’s own constitution. But things like this legislation, they are inconsistent with that stated goal.

So we value our relationship that – and partnership we have with Georgia, one that has existed for more than 30 years, and we would like to continue to deepen that collaboration. And there is still time to work collaboratively, but it’s our point of view that the Georgian Government needs to change course from the one that it’s on. But again, I imagine Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others will have more to talk about about their engagements.

QUESTION: Okay. And just to clarify, “needs to change course” – that means on this law specifically and more broadly as well?

MR PATEL: Right. So we have been clear that as it relates to this legislation, it is indicative of the kinds of things that we see in the Kremlin and elsewhere – legislation that targets civil society, legislation that targets media organizations, legislation that targets nonprofits. All of these things are not just inconsistent with the values that we have with the United States, but they’re also inconsistent with the aspirations of the Georgian people.

QUESTION: Just to follow up very quickly.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: The briefing just ended in Tbilisi; James O’Brien just finished a briefing. And I don’t think the purpose of his visit in Tbilisi was achieved, based on what he said. He said again – he reiterated himself that if this law moves forward against the European standards and norms, the relationship between Washington and Tbilisi will be under review. So I don’t think the reason he was there was reached. He met with a member of the – the officials, he met the prime minister, he met the head of the parliament. When it comes to the actual internal mechanisms, there are no other mechanisms. The law is already passed at the parliament. So when you say that – do you really think that there is still room available for – they are not backing. They want to achieve the law.

MR PATEL: So one of the things – one of the things Assistant Secretary O’Brien talked about was that if the law was revised, we have the opportunity to strengthen our partnership. So we continue to believe there are mechanisms and avenues that they can produce to make this law less inconsistent with the aspirations and values that they themselves are saying that they’re committed to through their constitution and through their own public posturing.

QUESTION: How much is the Secretary monitoring, how much is he aware of what’s going on in Georgia? Has he been briefed?

MR PATEL: He is absolutely staying in close touch with the team in Tbilisi, as well as in close touch with Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others. Obviously, we can brief and keep in touch with the Secretary as often as we need to.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And lastly – thank you, Vedant. Maybe lastly, I know you don’t preview any sanctions, any measures.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: But however, can you provide any clarity on what is at stake, what type of mechanisms will be putting forward?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to preview any sanctions or actions that the United States Government might take, but again, we have enjoyed a successful partnership and relationship with Georgia that has existed for more than 30 years, and we want to continue that work. And there is still time, in our opinion, to work collaboratively to do that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Coming back —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: I’m going to come back. On this topic?

QUESTION: Same topic, yes.

MR PATEL: All right, Alex. I’m going to hold you to it. If you ask something off topic, I’m going to go somewhere else.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you so much. Can you please confirm that oligarch Ivanishvili refused to meet with Assistant Secretary O’Brien, and why?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to the specific scheduling of the assistant secretary. Obviously, when he was on the ground, he met with a number of Georgian officials. I am sure he also engaged appropriately with other entities within Georgia as well as appropriate consultations with our embassy, but I don’t have his schedule more specifically than that.

QUESTION: And do you have an update on American citizens that have been arrested yesterday?

MR PATEL: I have no updates on that, Alex. We continue to be monitoring the situation. We’re aware of some arrests and detentions of American citizens in light of some of the protests that we’re seeing. Obviously, when an American citizen is detained anywhere, we do our best to request consular assistance and stand ready to provide all appropriate other assistance to the – any affected individuals.

QUESTION: Given the fact itself that American citizens have been detained, do you have any call, any, let’s say, warning to American citizens in Georgia that they are in danger?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer as it relates to Travel Advisory warnings as it relates to Georgia, Alex, which would be the mechanism by which we do that.

QUESTION: Thank you. Couple more —

MR PATEL: I’m going to —

QUESTION: Just to clarify a couple more things on the —

MR PATEL: I’m going to – I’ll come back to you, I promise, Alex.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you so much.

MR PATEL: I’ll come back to the front row. Shaun, anything else you had before we go to Daphne?

QUESTION: I was going to change topics, unless you want to —

QUESTION: I was going to go to Gaza.

QUESTION: Gaza. Go ahead, do it —

QUESTION: Okay. You said yesterday that you are aware of reports of U.S. citizens unable to leave Gaza. Do you have an update on how many, and any progress on that?

MR PATEL: So I think specifically yesterday we were talking about the question as it relates to a group of American citizens who were doctors and medical professionals that have been stuck in Gaza since the closing of the Rafah border, so we’re continuing to monitor that situation. We’re aware of those reports. As I said yesterday, this isn’t a border crossing that we control, but we are continuing to engage directly and actively with the Governments of Israel, with the Governments of Egypt to advocate for their safe departure from Gaza. We believe that there is more that can be done here, and this is a – just another example of why it is so crucial and important that the Rafah border crossing be open, not just for the appropriate flow of humanitarian aid but also for the safe departure from – for foreign nationals.

I will also – just want to use this opportunity to reiterate our advice to U.S. citizens to heed our Level Four Travel Advisory warning as it relates to Gaza. Given the fact that it is a region in armed conflict, the security environment within Gaza is extremely dangerous and volatile.

QUESTION: And then on the aid, do you have an updated number on aid trucks getting into Gaza, and how much has Rafah being closed impacted that?

MR PATEL: So a couple things. First, I just want to say as it relates to Rafah, the border crossing, we are continuing to do everything we can to ensure that the border crossing can be opened. Specifically, we’re engaging with the Governments of Israel, the Governments of Egypt to do so. When it comes to humanitarian aid, we are also specifically trying to do what we can to ensure that Kerem Shalom and other crossings are being utilized as a maximum throughput for some of this humanitarian aid. As it relates to aid that has been flowing this week, we’ve seen 50 trucks enter Gaza on May 12th. This is not nearly enough. More needs to be done, and it’s another example of why the Rafah border crossing needs to be opened, so we can see further, sustained humanitarian aid flow into Gaza.

QUESTION: Okay. And has the Israeli Government been receptive on that? What’s been —

MR PATEL: So I talked a little bit about this yesterday. In order for the Rafah border crossing to reopen, we need to see operational and some security circumstances which would allow it to make it safe to do so, and we’re continuing to have those conversations and engagements to make it so. But we continue to believe that it needs to be reopened as swiftly as possible.

QUESTION: And then has the U.S. finalized a deal with the UN to distribute the aid from the pier in Gaza? And where in Gaza will the UN take possession of the aid?

MR PATEL: So as it relates to any role that the UN might play, I’d let my colleagues at the United Nations speak to that. And on the operational status of the JLOTS or the pier, I will just let the – my Department of Defense colleagues speak to some of the operational updates.

QUESTION: So you can’t say if a deal has been reached?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you on that.

Go back to Shaun.

QUESTION: Sure. Back on Gaza, the – still on Gaza, the Qatari prime minister today – I’m sure you saw his comments, but he was quite downbeat on the prospects for further negotiations and was blaming Israeli actions and words going to Rafah. I mean, do you still believe that talks are possible? Do you think – is diplomacy ongoing on this?

MR PATEL: So we continue to believe that a hostage deal is the best way to save the lives of the hostages, avoid a full-scale military operation where more than a million people are sheltering. And despite reports of the contrary, talks continue to be ongoing and we’re continuing to do everything we can to focus on getting these conversations done.

Look, to take a step back, we’ve long said that a ceasefire that is coupled with a deal to release all hostages, one that is coupled with the additional flow of humanitarian aid, is something that can help create the space for additional diplomacy in the region.

QUESTION: And when you say talks are ongoing, does that mean like in virtual form or —

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of – yeah.

QUESTION: Not – I see. Could I ask you one other thing about Gaza?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: There was some attention – yesterday’s statement by the deputy secretary regarding Israel. He was speaking in Florida, Kurt Campbell, saying that – that Israelis talk of “sweeping victory in the battlefield, a total victory. I don’t think we believe that is likely or possible.” Another day before, the Secretary, Secretary Blinken, he said on one of the talk shows that it’s perhaps not possible for Israel to eliminate all of Hamas. Are they saying the same thing or – I mean, Kurt – Deputy Secretary Campbell’s remarks might have implied that perhaps there’s not – there’s not a possibility of victory in some form by Israel. Can you clarify what Deputy Secretary Campbell —

MR PATEL: So what Secretary Blinken and also Deputy Secretary Campbell are talking about – to take a bit of a step back, the President and this administration have been clear that the U.S. wants to see Hamas defeated and we want to see justice delivered as it relates to the perpetrators of the October 7th terrorist attacks. There can be no equivocation on that.

But while of course military pressure is necessary, it is not the only sufficient thing to fully defeat Hamas. If Israel’s efforts are not accompanied by a political plan for the future of Gaza, for the future of the Palestinian people, the terrorists will keep coming back and Israel will continue to remain under threat and we will continue to find ourselves in this continued cycle of violence.

So what the Secretary and the deputy secretary are talking about how Israel has a responsibility to connect their military operation to a clear strategic endgame about a holistic, integrated strategy to ensure the lasting defeat of Hamas and for a better alternative future for Gaza – one that is consistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. We’re talking about things like a Gaza reunited under the Palestinian Authority, a Gaza that is not under the control of Hamas and can no longer be a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people; and we are talking about a region that in our hope has a negotiated two-state solution that is reflective of the will of the Israeli and Palestinian people. And that’s what we’re talking about here.

QUESTION: I have some things on other topics, but I imagine they’ll come up —

MR PATEL: Sure, I’ll work the room. Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Here I have a copy of my newspaper exactly 20 years ago, the 13th of May 2004, and in it I have my full interview with the then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in which she says, “Maybe by next May” – 2005 – “we’ll have a Palestinian state.” And the irony is I was probably here that day asking Richard Boucher about it later on. And the irony is had the United States kept – come through on its promises, we would not have October 7th, we would not have any of the dozen wars that the Israelis —

MR PATEL: Said, are you trying to imply that —

QUESTION: Let me finish – that Israel had waged on the Palestinians. And I’m asking you do you ever – guys, do you ever exercise introspection? Do you look back and say all this wreckage, all these problems, all these (inaudible) that you cast, all these rules at the UN, including last Friday, was it wise?

MR PATEL: Said, I hope that you are not trying to imply that somehow the United States is responsible for October 7th, because there was only one perpetrator of the October 7th terror attack —

QUESTION: You know quite well that is not exactly my point.

MR PATEL: — and it’s Hamas. That’s —

QUESTION: That is not my point, Vedant.

MR PATEL: That’s – that doesn’t sound like the question that you’re asking.

QUESTION: No. My question to you is do you ever reflect on all the promises that you guys have made – administration after administration after administration reiterating its commitment to the two-state solution – and you’ve never come through on that. Do you ever – do you ever reflect on that? That is my question.

MR PATEL: Said, we are working tirelessly to make it so. It is the for the – this exact reason that the Secretary has been engaging in the shuttle diplomacy that he has, taking an unprecedented seven trips to the region to engage directly with Israeli officials and others in the region on getting a ceasefire, on getting a hostage deal, on getting additional humanitarian aid, so we can get to a place where the conditions are created for some additional diplomacy to happen, to get us to a two-state solution, to get us a region that is reflective of the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo, to get us to a region that is not caught up in this same cycle of violence.

QUESTION: Well, let me ask you a couple more questions —

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: — if you allow me. Yesterday, you talked about human shields and how Hamas embeds itself and so on. Well, there is a report today – or yesterday – on how Hamas used – I mean how Israel, the Israeli occupation army, used Palestinian teenagers as human shields. I wonder if you are aware of the report. I wonder if you have any comment on it.

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports, Said, and we’re looking into these as well as other allegations. And you’ve heard me state repeatedly – and you’ve heard Matt and the Secretary say it also – Israel and any country has an obligation to thoroughly investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. I don’t have any other updates on this specifically, though.

QUESTION: Yeah, and lastly, yesterday somebody said something about the number of Palestinians dead and so on, and the United Nations came out and corrected that. I hope that you’re aware of this report.

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen that, Said, and I will just echo what you heard me say yesterday, that the bigger issue here is that thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. Any number above zero is heartbreaking, it’s tragic, and it is reflective of more needing to be done to mitigate civilian harm.

Nadia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. As we speak now, there is almost 400,000 people forced to leave their homes from Rafah with no shelter, no food, no fuel, and no safe place to go. So how could this be different than the – your insistence, the administration’s insistence that we have to see a viable plan to evacuate people, because you’re doing it incrementally? What’s the difference between moving half a million people as we speak today? We don’t know if they’re going to move more later on. But basically, they’re doing in – on stages. So what difference for – from the position you were till now? I mean, it’s – the consequences are the same, aren’t they?

MR PATEL: So Nadia, when we talk about a Rafah operation that we would take issue with, we’re talking about an operation that is major, that is a direct invasion into Rafah, that is targeting and invading into the urban and dense centers. Again, I will leave it to the IDF to speak to their own operation. We have yet to see a major operation into Rafah. But the concerns and criticisms that we have, those continue to persist, and it’s something that we are going to continue to work at with our partners in Israel. These are conversations that are ongoing.

And to date, this operation has not happened in large part due to the ongoing conversations that we’ve been having with the Israelis. And again, just absent a credible plan to get civilians out of harm’s way, we’ve been clear that this is not a major military operation we’d support.

QUESTION: But isn’t forcing half a million people to move with – forcing them to move out of Rafah to nowhere, where there’s nowhere is safe – isn’t it by itself a violation of international law?

MR PATEL: So we have been pretty clear, Nadia, that there can be no forcible relocation of the Palestinian people. That continues —

QUESTION: But if they stay, they’re going to die. I mean, they’re moving because they have to move.

MR PATEL: That continues to be a tenet of our approach. But ultimately, we do support efforts to support Israel’s goal of dismantling Hamas. But like I said, we do not want to see a major operation into Rafah, and we have not seen one yet that we would take issue with.

QUESTION: Okay —

MR PATEL: We are continuing to have those conversations with our partners in Israel, though.

QUESTION: Okay, two quick questions.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On the UN worker who was killed yesterday, the UN said that they clearly communicated to Israel where they moving, the exact movement, and yet one UN worker was killed, and that will bring the total to almost 250. Do you still believe that Israel is not targeting aid worker, considering what happened yesterday with a clear communication and what happened with the World Central Kitchen?

MR PATEL: So the reports from yesterday evening, Nadia, are incredibly disturbing. And we are very concerned by what we’re seeing of the reported strike on a UN vehicle in Gaza that killed one aid worker and injured another. You’ve heard me say this before, you’ve heard the Secretary say it: UN and humanitarian workers must be protected, and they need to be able to continue their lifesaving work. And we join calls for a full investigation into this incident.

I will also say that, in these kinds of circumstances, a viable medical evacuation process for humanitarian staff injured in military operations, accidents, or illness is also essential. I will also say around the specifics of this incident, we continue to be in contact with our partners to understand what transpired and how this happened. We still don’t have the full details, Nadia, but we expect Israel to follow through with the new IDF coordination cell for real-time humanitarian efforts. And we emphasize that there needs to be a focus on safeguarding designated sites, safeguarding aid personnel and civilians. And we urge Israel to expedite the deconfliction cell full operationalization, which we have not seen that yet.

QUESTION: Okay, and finally, just to follow up what you told Said, you said that the administration work effortlessly to establish a Palestinian state, and you give example of the Secretary’s visit to the region.

MR PATEL: We are working —

QUESTION: You’re working towards it.

MR PATEL: This is something we are working towards.

QUESTION: Sure, you’re working towards that.

MR PATEL: This is something that we remain deeply focused on, and it has been something that I know is a goal of this Secretary’s and a goal of this President’s.

QUESTION: Yeah. I haven’t asked you my question yet.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So can you tell us before October 7, what exactly the administration did to make sure that the two-state solution is viable and they’re working on it?

MR PATEL: Nadia, I’m happy to follow up with a clear list and – of actions that we’ve taken. But if you just want to look at the focus on this before October 7th – you’ve heard the Secretary talk about this previously before – before the October 7th terrorist attacks, many of you are aware the Secretary was intending to go to the region. He had a trip scheduled to visit Israel, to visit the West Bank, to visit Saudi Arabia and some other countries, to talk about these very issues, to talk about the issue of normalization, to talk about the issue of Israel’s further integration in the region, one that we hoped could be coupled with a two-state solution, one that could be coupled with serious progress for the Palestinian people.

Obviously, this brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on the Israeli people derailed some of those efforts in the immediate term, but that is something we continue to remain focused on. And that is why you saw the Secretary, almost six months ago in Tokyo, lay out some clear principles of what the day after this conflict needs to look like and what we expect to see from our partners in Israel, from our partners in the Palestinian Authority, and other partners in the region.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Diyar. Actually, hold on, Diyar, real quick, because I —

QUESTION: Switching to —

MR PATEL: Yeah, anything else on Gaza before we go away?

QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah.

MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back.

QUESTION: Would you – would the United States consider an all-out attack on Rafah as being a strategic error by Israel?

MR PATEL: We would. We would. We would. We – we have not been – we have not parsed our words on the fact that a major ground operation into Rafah, one that does not address serious concerns of humanitarian aid, the serious concerns of more than a million people seeking refuge – and now we are seeing it – potential complications of the safe departure of foreign nationals – a plan that does not address these things we would take serious concern with.

QUESTION: Do you have a —

MR PATEL: We have yet to see any kind of major operation into Rafah.

QUESTION: And we have Israeli politicians saying that they want to see Gaza being erased off the map. We have Israeli politicians saying that they are going to move back in and recolonize Gaza with the people of Gaza or not. Do you hear any echoes on that from language that you’ve used about other conflicts from that platform?

MR PATEL: So we have been pretty clear that that kind of rhetoric has really no place in the discourse as we talk about this region of the world. I will also say that some of those things, they are inconsistent with what our viewpoints and beliefs are for the day after this conflict. We are not for a reoccupation of Gaza by Israel.

Ultimately, what we want to see is a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority, a Gaza where Hamas is no longer a threat to the Israeli people, and a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard for terrorism. And that is what we are working towards.

Rhetoric is simply that – it’s rhetoric. It’s a distraction, and sometimes the language and the verbiage and the word choice that is used is incredibly problematic. But that is not what we’re focused on. We’re focused on the facts and we’re focused on doing whatever we can to bring a conclusion to this conflict.

QUESTION: Vedant?

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. In light of President Biden’s decision last week to halt aid and munitions to Israel, what are President Biden’s reasons for criticizing Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East, for their use of munitions in their war with Hamas in Gaza but not criticizing Ukraine for their use of munitions in their war with Russia? And a couple of quick follow-ups.

MR PATEL: I’m sorry. I didn’t fully understand that. What exactly are you asking?

QUESTION: Well, the issue is dealing with Hamas and Iran as a greatest threat, and I just was wanting to know about the concern that many people have about the criticism of Israel versus the criticism with Ukraine.

MR PATEL: So it is fully legitimate for the United States to be concerned about the use of certain security assets of ours in an urban and dense setting. It’s as simple as that. That does not mean we do not support efforts to defeat Hamas. That does not mean we don’t want to see Hamas being held accountable. But in the midst of all that, we also believe strongly that every step possible needs to be taken to minimize civilian casualties. And it is fully reasonable for the United States to feel strongly – and you heard me talk about this before; you heard the National Security Advisor say it yesterday – have concerns about certain security systems being used in dense and urban settings.

And I will just say, again, that there is no comparison between Hamas and the security forces of Ukraine, and to even try and make that comparison is unacceptable. I will also just say that the Government of Ukraine, the security forces of Ukraine, did not commit or unleash a terrorist attack on Russian forces.

QUESTION: Okay. A couple of quick follow-ups. Does President Biden believe that halting munitions to Israel will make it more likely for Hamas to stay in power in Gaza? And what is President Biden’s response to the exaggerated Gaza death statistics provided by Hamas?

MR PATEL: So first, we have been pretty clear that we believe a major operation into Rafah will not – is not beneficial towards Israel’s security and it is not beneficial towards the ultimate goal of defeating Hamas. The Secretary was pretty clear about that this past weekend. We support efforts to defeat Hamas, but we continue to be in consultations with our partners in Israel about alternative ways to do that, including into Rafah.

And I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your second one.

QUESTION: What about President Biden’s response to the exaggerated Gaza death statistics provided by Hamas? I know that earlier you had made a comment here about there is a question about Hamas inflating their statistics.

MR PATEL: Let me just be pretty clear about this – this has come up a couple times today – that the facts on the ground are pretty clear. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives, and any number above zero is tragic, problematic, heartbreaking, and indicative of the fact that more needs to be done to protect civilians in Gaza. It is also true that we are dealing with a belligerent, Hamas, that has a track record of co-locating itself and embedding itself within civilian infrastructure.

Anything else on Gaza before we close out this topic?

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Sorry, but on this one, can you clarify something?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Is the number exaggerated or is the UN number – it’s based on the people they can prove —

QUESTION: Identify.

QUESTION: — actually that they have identified with – with the birth certificate, with ID, while others —

MR PATEL: So I will —

QUESTION: — that’s added to the (inaudible) this number has not been identified.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Nadia, I will leave it to the UN and OCHA to clarify any discrepancy that have —

QUESTION: They did. They did that.

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s misleading from here to say it’s exaggerated.

QUESTION: They did.

MR PATEL: I’m not saying it’s exaggerated.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: Your colleague is. And you’re – frankly, that’s the way that this works. You all get to say whatever you want and then I have to —

QUESTION: Okay. Good. Just want to clarify that.

MR PATEL: — I have a response. I – we have not – what I’m – what I am simply saying is that I will leave it to the UN and OCHA to offer any clarification on – I know that there has been some interest in how they’ve outlaid those numbers. I’ll let them speak to that.

What I can say – and will just use this opportunity to reiterate it again – is that we’ve seen tens of thousands of civilians lose their lives, and that is unacceptable, that any number above zero is heartbreaking. We’re talking about women; we’re talking about children. And even those that – who have not lost their lives, many are starving, living in impoverished conditions. It’s unacceptable.

Victor, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. You said we’re working on the two-state solution. Can you elaborate? In another word, do you have a plan for it? Or do you intend to introduce a plan? If not, why not?

MR PATEL: This is something that we’re working around the clock. We, first and foremost, are trying to get a conclusion to this conflict. We’re trying to get a ceasefire, one that is rooted in the release of hostages and one that is rooted in the increase of additional humanitarian assistance, one that we hope can create the condition for further diplomacy. We’re also continuing to have conversations about other things, like the integration of Israel, the further integration of Israel in the Middle East, that we think can help and further contribute to our ultimate goal of the two-state solution. But I’m not going to get ahead of that process.

QUESTION: You mean your plan? You’re working on your plan or their plan?

MR PATEL: I am – we are working on a plan with the parties.

QUESTION: With the party?

MR PATEL: With the parties, to help us get to that end goal. This is not something new, Victor. This is something we have talking about pretty consistently. We have long believed that a two-state solution is necessary to get us out of this cycle of violence.

QUESTION: But also —

MR PATEL: And what October 7th showed us – and what October 7th showed us is that it can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, and that is why we also reiterated that Hamas can no longer be a springboard for terrorism; it can no longer be under – the leading entity within Gaza. And we need to see a Gaza that is reunited with the Palestinian Authority.

Any —

QUESTION: But also experience —

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Quickly on – one more quick question on Georgia. I want to move to Ukraine, if I may.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: Message to protesters. We have heard from European allies. They have all said – multiple statements actually came out and said that we hear you, we stand with you. Is there anything that prevents you from saying the same thing?

MR PATEL: So Alex, again, when it comes to protests, we certainly believe in people’s ability to – their ability and their right to free speech and their right to self-expression. As it relates to this particular scenario – again, there’s a limit to what I can say, given privacy considerations. We’re aware of the media reports of some U.S. citizens being detained in Tbilisi, but that’s all I have for you.

QUESTION: But the protesters, do they have your backing? Can they —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any – again, Alex, I’m not going to get into the specifics of detentions. I understand that this is something you are quite passionate about. But we’re talking about a consular issue at the end of the day, and so there is a limit to what I can get into, given privacy concerns.

QUESTION: Fair enough. On Ukraine, thank you for the readout on Secretary’s trip, with the caveat that still – the trip still continues.

MR PATEL: Right.

QUESTION: Is it fair to expect any announcement from the Secretary when it comes to material support?

MR PATEL: Well —

QUESTION: I mean, don’t get me wrong. The speech was powerful. He spoke about everything, about the past tense, future tense. But President Zelenskyy actually said that Kharkiv urgently needs two Patriots to protect its citizens. Did the Secretary go all the way there emptyhanded?

MR PATEL: So I think, as you so noted, Alex, the trip is not concluded yet. And so I’m just not going to get ahead of the Secretary or the process here.

QUESTION: And I have one more, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: You can take it for me, if you want. It’s about Kakhovka Dam. The Secretary made a speech and he mentioned Russia that as – caused the damage. I remember we have discussed that since last year, and it is the largest manmade disaster that’s – I think you guys had your own investigation. The fact the Secretary finally mentioned that Russia made this damage, is it a conclusion of the investigation? Or how can we —

MR PATEL: I would not interpret the Secretary’s comments as offering an assessment on the investigatory process. I mean, what we’re talking about here, Alex, is the fact that Russia has infringed on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, that much of this – all of this – is Russia’s doing. Their sheer existence and presence in Ukraine is the cause of so much of this heartbreaking damage and destruction that we’re seeing. But continuing to support our partners in Ukraine, including to support some of these kinds of critical infrastructure projects, we believe are – feed into some of these key tenets that the Secretary talked about, ensuring that we can support and revitalize not just Ukraine’s economy but also support it democratically as well.

Diyar, go ahead.

QUESTION: I’m asking because the European Parliament has – just to clarify.

MR PATEL: I’ve gotten you, like, four questions. Go ahead, Diyar.

QUESTION: Just one final —

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Diyar. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Today my question is a bit long, but I’ll try to give you a clear image.

MR PATEL: Today it’s a bit long? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The question is – (laughter) – a bit long, yeah. A question on Rojava, northern Syria. After years of occupation of Afrin by Türkiye and Turkish-backed Syrian National Army, SNA, factions, the human rights situation in Afrin is deteriorating further. And a new report published today and submitted to the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria by Ceasefire Centre and YASA Kurdish Centre – the reports finds that the continuation of cutting down olive trees and burning all of the fields, illegal settlement and demographic change, destruction of cultural heritage, violation of housing, land, and property rights, kidnapping for ransom, and last but not least, in Afrin, much of the civilians’ population, the Kurdish population in particular, lives in a constant state of fear due to the threat of the violence. My question is that: What’s the U.S. State Department reaction to these violations and demographic change? And what actions this building has taken to make those groups responsible for their actions and atrocities?

MR PATEL: So we believe that the rights of all Syrians should be respected, and we urge continued respect for international law, applicable legal protections, and the protection of vulnerable communities. We also encourage all parties to act in a manner that promotes peaceful coexistence and respect for human rights, and we’ll continue to shine light on human rights violations and abuses throughout Syria. We also want to promote accountability for those responsible.

QUESTION: And have you ever reached to your Turkish partners on that issue?

MR PATEL: Our partners in Türkiye are important, key NATO Allies, and we talk to them about varying issues all the time.

QUESTION: Including this issue?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get more specific than that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. It’s a whole different region – it’s Mexico.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: The Mexican Government has opened a criminal case against one of Mexico’s most important anti-corruption crusaders. Her name is María Amparo Casar. Her organization has received several U.S. Government grants to fight impunity in Mexico. Most critics have denounced the case against Mrs. Casar as a move to scare independent watchdogs in Mexico, but wanted to see if you have a comment about this case.

MR PATEL: I don’t. I’d just defer to the Mexican judiciary system to speak to this.

QUESTION: But she is a recipient of U.S. grants. Should the U.S. Government stand by her?

MR PATEL: That’s – that’s nice that she is a recipient of U.S. grants. I just don’t know anything about this case, and so I will defer to Mexican judiciary system to speak to this.

QUESTION: Can we follow up? Because it’s something that should be (inaudible) of the U.S.

MR PATEL: I ultimately will defer to the Mexican Government on this.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Christian Alliance has filed a lawsuit with the federal court of Iraq. The lawsuit aims to address demands for the recognition and inclusion of these communities, including their right to special seats under the quota system in the upcoming Kurdistan Region parliamentary elections. My question is: Does the State Department support the participation of all parties in the forthcoming local elections in the Kurdistan?

MR PATEL: So we continue to support holding free, transparent, and timely elections. As a matter of principle, we encourage broad participation in democratic processes reflective of the region’s diverse communities.

Saw some hands over here. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, back on Gaza again. (Inaudible) and also Jake Sullivan said that yesterday – have been saying Gaza is not genocide. Let me read United Nations genocide definition in Geneva genocide convention: “Genocide is a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part.” According to definition of UN genocide and report happenings, seems as a genocide. How could United Nations reports and international society convince you about genocide? Because until the now, 15,000 babies and children killed in Gaza.

MR PATEL: So I will echo what the Secretary, myself, Matt, National Security Advisor Sullivan has – says: We continue to believe that we are not seeing genocide in Gaza. And I talked a little bit about this on Monday as it relates to the national security memorandum, so I will echo again: We have not seen any direct indication of Israel intentionally targeting civilians. What we are talking about, though, is more steps can be done to further mitigate civilian harm. And as I said on Monday, there – it’s reasonable to assess that there have been instances in which Israel has not met its obligation of international humanitarian law, and more needs to be done there. And we will continue to assess those matters through the tools that we have at our disposal. But we have not seen efforts or any indication of intentionally targeting civilians.

QUESTION: I have a follow up, because you says you’ll wait international law decision. But there is a different example, two years ago – this is CNN news – the Biden called genocide for Russia after two months of start of the war. What is differences?

MR PATEL: I talked a little bit about —

QUESTION: Do you think this is contradictions for United States?

MR PATEL: It’s not a contradiction. We’re talking about two very different circumstances; we’re talking about very different entities and interlocutors in this. Let’s just – I spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but I’m happy to reiterate it again.

First, let’s talk about our partners in Ukraine. Ukraine did not launch a terrorist attack onto the Russian Federation. Separately, it is apparent that the Russian Federation has committed atrocities. We’ve seen that in a number of lines of effort, most specifically in the forced relocation of Ukrainian children. Also, the Russian Federation has not – in this conflict – has not ever proven to be an entity in which it has the ability to police itself and to hold itself accountable.

Let’s talk about Israel for a second. Israel was the victim of a major terrorist attack on October 7th and is undertaking an operation to defend itself and to bring those terrorists to justice. Also, it is a country that has lines of effort within its own system to hold perpetrators and violators of international humanitarian law accountable. And it is doing so, and we made that clear in our national security memorandum.

So these are some of the key differences. I recognize that it is easy to draw a comparison to the conflict in Ukraine, but respectfully, it is just not on the level.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. Pakistani and U.S. officials have held their latest talks in Washington on how to expand cooperation in tackling the threat of terrorism posed to regional security. Can you provide some details of these meetings?

MR PATEL: So the – we confirmed with Pakistan today our bilateral intention to increase our capacity to meet emerging threats, specifically to increase communication on terrorism – specifically terrorism trends and movements of concern – in a way that is not just actionable within Pakistan but also an area that is actionable between our two countries. We also agreed about preventing and deterring terrorist groups and the work that can be done in that place, such as counter-IED investigations, technical assistance at Pakistan’s western border, and other issues.

QUESTION: Sir, yesterday a missile fired by a drone struck a house in a former stronghold of the Pakistani Taliban along the Afghan border. Would you confirm or deny the drone strike —

MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything for you on that. I’d defer you to my colleagues at the Pentagon.

QUESTION: Sir, one last question.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Iranian traders smuggled more than $1 billion worth of fuel into neighboring Pakistan annually. Is it a concern that how black market earning billions of dollars in the region?

MR PATEL: So all Iran sanctions remain in effect, and we advise anyone considering business deals with Iran to be aware of the potential risks.

You’ve had your hand up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Inaudible.) Can you confirm that the State Department did not have any personnel on the ground in Gaza for the development of the NSM20 report? And then, as a follow-up, if that’s the case, can you name what NGOs, government entities were actually collecting the – the information that the administration made their assessment off of and what the confidence level is in them?

MR PATEL: So we do not have personnel on the ground in Gaza. I can certainly confirm that. I don’t have a list for you of the NGOs and media organizations and civil society actors that feed into this process, but those are the kinds of entities that do when it comes to assessing and looking into these kinds of things through the various processes that – and tools that we have, whether it be the national security memorandum, whether it be Leahy, whether it be CHIRG, whether it be the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, end use monitoring. All of those things we work collaboratively with our embassies, our consulates in countries where we have consulates as well, civil society, media organizations – all of those things feed into that process.

QUESTION: So a follow-up, if I can. Since you don’t have personnel on the ground in Gaza, then, are you at all or is the administration at all concerned about the dissonance between the NGOs that are actually providing the information, saying that these things are in crisis and do violate law, versus what the report has concluded?

MR PATEL: So the fact that we don’t have people on the ground in Gaza is one of the reasons why – that coupled with the fact that we are dealing with a very dense and complex warfare setting and a belligerent that has co-located itself with civilians and civilian infrastructure is why we have not made a conclusive assessment in the national security memorandum and rather just believe it to be reasonable that there have been instances in which Israel’s obligation for international humanitarian law has not been met.

QUESTION: So confidence in those sources is low, then?

MR PATEL: The confidence in those sources is adjudicated through those processes, and those processes then output into the various tools that we have. I’m not going to paint a broad brushstroke about whether every single source is accurate or confident or not. That’s certainly not the case, but that is why we have a process for these things, for people to report, input things that they see, that they have concern, and then we have these various processes, including this newly national security memorandum to look into these various issues.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The new president of North Macedonia refuses to honor the Prespa Agreement and to use the new name of the country. As you know, President Biden has signed an executive order which lists the obstruction of the Prespa Agreement as a sanctionable offense. Can you please clarify whether the rhetoric of elected officials who refuse to use the proper name of the country meets the threshold for the sanctions that are listed in this executive order?

MR PATEL: So we’re firmly committed to the Prespa Agreement and North Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic integration. A new government is formed and a prime minister selected – as a new government is formed and a prime minister is selected, we will continue to reinforce the importance of adherence to international agreements and the benefits of full membership in the European Union.

Shaun, I saw your hand go up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sure. Can I go to Africa?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Two things. Niger.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The junta’s prime minister gave an interview to The Washington Post in which he blamed a visit by Assistant Secretary Phee for the decision to boot out U.S. troops, saying that she made threats about Niger’s relationship with Iran and Russia and called it unacceptable. Do you dispute the characterization of this? Do you have any comment on —

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of our diplomatic, deliberative conversations, Shaun, but what I can say is that the CNSP was presented with a choice based on mutual interest about whether it wished to continue its security partnership with us, a choice that was rooted in our belief of democratic principles and what was in our national security interest. And this message that was conveyed – it was a coordinated U.S. Government position and it was in response to very valid concerns about an unfolding – the unfolding situation in Niger. And after discussions with the CNSP about our concerns and its own, we have not been able to come to an understanding that would allow the United States to maintain its military presence in Niger, and we’re currently working with the CNSP to withdraw U.S. forces in an orderly and responsible fashion.

QUESTION: Do you have a timeline for that? Or are there any U.S. visits – any U.S. visits —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any visits to preview at this time, but I imagine these conversations are going to be ongoing.

QUESTION: Okay. Unless anybody else has more on Niger, could I ask about Tunisia?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s been a crackdown on lawyers and the bar association in response – some see this as a further crushing of dissent under President Saied.

Does the U.S. have any comment on the – on what’s happening with the lawyers in Tunisia?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports that Tunisian Government entities have entered the office of the Tunisian Bar Association and arrested a number of prominent media figures and detained civil society representatives in recent days. We’re engaging directly with the Tunisian Government at all levels in support of human rights, including the freedom of expression.

I will say that this kind of action is inconsistent with what we think are universal rights that are explicitly guaranteed in the Tunisian constitution, and we’ve been clear about that at all levels.

Go ahead in the back, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, can I just clarify? Given what the ICJ has said and a number of international organizations have said about genocide referring to the question earlier, is it the U.S. position that Israel can’t be committing genocide because of what happened on October the 7th?

MR PATEL: That is not what I have said or any official in the U.S. Government has said. What I am saying is that we have not assessed the situation in Gaza to be genocide.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Russia President Putin visits China later this week. It will be his first foreign trip as new term as the president. So what do you expect? Are you concerned China-Russia tie will be much closer, or not?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports. And if China purports to want good relations with Europe and other countries, it cannot continue to fuel the biggest threat to European security, and that is Russia’s aggression on Ukraine. The importance of this is not just a U.S. position, but it’s also been clearly communicated from our partners in the G7 to our partners in NATO and to – from the EU. If the PRC were to end its support for Russia, Russia would struggle to sustain its war efforts against Ukraine, and no country should give Putin a platform to promote his war of aggression against Ukraine. We cannot return to business as usual or turn a blind eye to the clear violations of international law that Russia has committed.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:08 p.m.)

Tags

China Georgia Israel Niger North Macedonia Office of the Spokesperson Pakistan Palestinian Territories Russia Syria Tunisia Ukraine