Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2024 April 29, 2024 1:10 p.m. EDT

Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2024

April 29, 2024

1:10 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Starting early.

MR PATEL: Try – always like to keep you all on your toes. I have a little bit of a hard out today, guys, so I will try to get through as many of you I can, but I’m going to be mindful of the time.

Ellen, would you like to kick us off?

QUESTION: Sure, thank you. On – Secretary Blinken has made a decision to give Israel more time to rectify the situation with the IDF unit that – after deeming that it was guilty of gross abuses of human rights, and that Israel has not held it accountable. And separately, there are the four other cases where there was, I believe, a staff recommendation, according to ProPublica, that these other groups had also committed gross human rights violations and should – the Leahy Law should apply to them. And Secretary Blinken waited five months, according to the ProPublica article, to make a decision on that.

So this – is there – the one unit, Netzah Yehuda, is, according to the Israeli military, still operating, and operating in Gaza sometimes. There’s not much of a sign of urgency from the State Department that there are these Israeli units accused of gross human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, killing – torture, rape, and the death of a U.S. citizen.

MR PATEL: Is there a question there, Ellen? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes, I’m getting there. There doesn’t seem to be – that there needs to be any urgency to protect the Palestinian civilians who are being exposed to these gross human rights violations, including with the postponed decision on Netzah Yehuda.

MR PATEL: So to take a step back, I take it you are referring to some of the things that were publicly reported at the tail end of last week in reference to some correspondence that the Secretary had with congressional leadership? Is that what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Yes. Yes.

MR PATEL: Okay. So let’s – I think important that we take a little bit of a step back here. First, when it comes to the Leahy Law, we have a careful and very deliberate process when it comes to implementing the Leahy Law. And I want to reiterate what you’ve heard me, the Secretary, Matt, and others say before, which is that the same standards when it comes to the implementation – or, sorry, the same standards of the application of this law applies to every country that receives U.S. security assistance.

What I can say in terms of where the process is right now is that after a careful process, we found five Israeli units responsible for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights. All of these were incidents much before October 7th, and none took place in Gaza. Four of these units have effectively remediated these violations, which is what we expect partners to do. It is consistent with what we expect all countries whom with we have a security relationship with. For a remaining unit, we continue to be in consultations and engagements with the Government of Israel; they have submitted additional information as it pertains to that unit. And we’re continuing to have those conversations consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel that was entered into in 2021.

When conclusions are made under actions that fall under the auspices of the Foreign Assistance Act, we are required to consult with officials from the Government of Israel, and that is ongoing. We are engaging with them in a process, and we will make an ultimate decision when it comes to that unit when that process is complete.

I would also just want to note that the remediation standard is consistent, and it is the same for all countries. And what we ask of host governments in that situation is effective steps being taken consistent within their processes and systems to bring respective parties to justice. So as it relates to the process here, that’s all of the update that I have for now, but we’re going to continue to engage with the government on that and we will have more to share, I’m sure, at some point in the future.

QUESTION: There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in the meantime; concern for Palestinian civilians exposed to these units doesn’t factor into the timeline of —

MR PATEL: Let me just – I would 100 percent dispute the premise of that question. This is a deliberate process, it is a detail-oriented process, and it is a rigorous process. It is easy to sometimes want things to happen as quickly as possible, but it is more important to ensure that these processes are happening in the most robust and rigorous way possible, because we are ultimately dealing with facts, and we want to make sure that we can follow the facts and make sure that we are appropriately engaging with appropriate stakeholders, including, in this case, the Government of Israel. There is a clear process on this that we intend to follow, and that is the same process for determining these things, the standards of which are consistent with all countries.

Go ahead, Kylie.

QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you’ve been saying about the standard being a typical process that you follow and remediation being standard across the board. So what is the remediation standard here? How long are you going —

MR PATEL: So that’s the point that I was making, is that the standard of remediation is that the – these respective countries take effective steps to hold the accountable party to justice. And that is different on a country-by-country basis. I’m not going to be prescriptive of that on here, including in this incident. But it is —

QUESTION: So then – I’m sorry, but then it’s not a standard if you’re saying it’s different on a country-by-country basis.

MR PATEL: It’s a standard in the sense that we expect to see remediation in – but each country in which we have a security relationship is different. There are different protocols and procedures in place in those respective countries, and those respective countries can speak to what accountability measures they have within their systems. I’m not a spokesperson for those components.

QUESTION: So you won’t speak to what the process you’re expecting to play out here is? How long you’re giving Israel for remediation in this?

MR PATEL: Correct. Absolutely. I’m not going to get into that, beyond saying that we are engaging with the Government of Israel on these things. And I’m sure we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.

QUESTION: And then the Secretary said ten days ago that a determination on the Leahy front with Israel had been made, and that we would see results. So I’m wondering if the determination that he made ten days ago is this determination that you guys are now making public, or if that changed due to engagements with the Israelis.

MR PATEL: What we were talking about was the gross violations of human rights. As it relates to this one particular unit, I will say that this process continues to be ongoing, given this additional information that we’re engaging with the Government of Israel consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR PATEL: Simon.

QUESTION: Okay —

MR PATEL: I’ll get to you, I’m sure.

QUESTION: So no answer as to if it’s changed?

MR PATEL: What – sorry, what?

QUESTION: The determination ten days ago. Is this – you won’t say if it’s the same determination as —

MR PATEL: What we were speaking about was the gross violations of human rights. That’s what the – the Secretary was alluding to. I will say that this process, though, with the Government of Israel broadly, continues to be ongoing, especially as it relates to this one unit.

QUESTION: Just to clarify —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — where we are, because this is a bit complicated: The U.S. Government has concluded that five different Israeli units committed gross human rights violations, but as of now all of those units can still continue to receive U.S. arms, weapons, ammunition.

MR PATEL: Well, in the – in four of those instances, as I just said, we have seen remediation of those violations. And that is, of course, what we expect of partners. Beyond that, as it relates to this fifth unit, that is a process that is still ongoing.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: But let me just say, Simon, since you gave me the opportunity, when we’re talking about the Leahy Law, what we are talking about are unit and component restrictions when they are found in violation. It does not have bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a country, especially a country like Israel in which we have a longstanding security relationship, the provision of bulk assistance that’s gone back many, many years.

QUESTION: But as of now, even the fifth unit, where you’re unsure whether there’s been remediation, they are still eligible to receive U.S. arms?

MR PATEL: That is – that is – that is the interpretation of the law, correct.

QUESTION: Okay, yeah. And to sort of – I wonder, the public might listen to you say that you’ve concluded that that there are gross violations of human rights, but is there any detail you can give us? What are these incidents? What kind of things are we talking about? Some of the reporting has involved sexual assaults, murder. Are these – is there anything you can tell us about what this conclusion is that —

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of these incidents from up here because overall, the totality of the situation continues to be an ongoing process. But I am – have no doubt that we will have more to share in the time ahead that is consistent with the appropriate congressional pieces as well as the engagements with the host government on this going forward.

QUESTION: And you’re not going to tell us – you’re not going to tell us what the units are in question?

MR PATEL: Again, that is not something that we generally make public beyond through appropriate consultations with legislative bodies as well as the host government.

QUESTION: So the U.S. Government has conducted a process, found these units have conducted grave violations of human rights; that sounds very serious, but you won’t tell us what those violations were, who committed them, and you’re going to continue to send weapons to them?

MR PATEL: That is a process that is consistent with the standards that we have with other countries as well. You have to remember, Israel is a country in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. Other countries similar in this grouping, I would say, would include the government – in terms of the kinds of relationship we have – include Ukraine, include Egypt. And in those kinds of countries, there is a proactive vetting of the whole security universe, a constant evaluation in close consultations with our embassies and consulates, NGOs, civil society, media reporting on the ground, as to assess what is happening in those countries. And so consistent with that process, we – not in a place to share publicly the specific components of their security services that – in which this is applicable to.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Sorry, hold on. Is this on this, or —

QUESTION: On this.

MR PATEL: Okay. Let me get to Olivia, then I’ll come to you, Leon. I’m so sorry.

QUESTION: Can you talk about within what timeframe this new information from the Israeli Government reached the State Department?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to that specificity on diplomatic engagements. What I can say is that they provided additional information to us, and that is a process that’s going to continue to be ongoing.

QUESTION: But was that additional information supplied after the Secretary made his – revealed that some determinations had been made (inaudible) —

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the diplomatic engagements that we have. What I can say is that this is consistent with the memorandum of understanding and which we have with Israel to talk about these things, prior to any conclusions that are made under things that fall under the Foreign Assistance Act.

QUESTION: Generally speaking, are governments under Leahy that we have relationships with bound by a certain amount of time —

MR PATEL: They are not.

QUESTION: — with which they need to provide evidence or sort of confirm that they have taken steps on accountability or —

MR PATEL: They are not. They are not.

QUESTION: So this is a completely open-ended process —

MR PATEL: Correct.

QUESTION: — and violations can stretch on for an indeterminate amount of time? And at what point then does the department actually take any punitive measures?

MR PATEL: Well, again, you have to – it’s important to remember, Olivia, that each country is different, so it’s difficult to talk about these circumstances with a broad-brush stroke. What I can say is that there is not a stipulation on timing, but we’ll continue to have these engagements and we will press directly with governments and countries about sharing applicable information.

Again, in the context of Israel, this is a government in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. There is constant around-the-clock evaluation and vetting ongoing as it relates to the security parameters and circumstances on the ground. So we are looking at reports, we are looking at public reporting, we are looking at media reporting, just as we would do in any conflict zone, ensuring that there are no violations of international law, no violations of humanitarian law.

QUESTION: But that seems to be at the core of the problem here, is that Israel is a unique country being offered unique treatment in this circumstance.

MR PATEL: They are not being offered unique treatment. There is nothing that I have outlined here that is inconsistent with the Leahy process that is – when it comes to the countries that which we have security relationships with.

QUESTION: You’ve cited the longstanding security relationship and how it might —

MR PATEL: Because there are some countries in which the relationship we have with them would require us to approach this just slightly differently – Ukraine being an example, Egypt being an example, Israel being another example. But there is not a special treatment. There is not a different standard to —

QUESTION: So what does “slightly differently” mean?

MR PATEL: So Israel is a country that – in which we have a longstanding security relationship. There is a lot of bulk assistance that is going whether – to use an example, things like bulletproof vests or something – in which the Government of Israel may choose to want something like that. And then it is then on the central government to disseminate that to specific units or components within their security system.

So for countries in which we have that kind of longstanding deep relationship – in Israel’s case, it’s called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum – there is around-the-clock, proactive, constant vetting and evaluation of the circumstances that are on the ground to assess whether there are international – there – whether there are violations of international humanitarian law, violations of international law. That is a process that is ongoing. There is no such thing as special treatment or double standards here. The standards of the Leahy Law are applied consistently to all countries.

Now, in some countries, like the ones that I stipulated, the security relationship is such as that there is this additional forum vehicle, but that is not a double standard or any kind of special treatment.

QUESTION: I want to defer to my colleagues, which is – I mean, it just seems hard to countenance there’s no double standard with this as a special arrangement and set of circumstances that Israel —

MR PATEL: It’s not a special arrangement, the standards of which – in fact, it is taking a closer look at the situations on the ground. It’s not a double standard; the standards are the same. It is a forum created to allow for the – for an assessment that is comparable to the kind of security relationship that we have with that particular country. Israel is not the only one that – in which this model exists.

QUESTION: My last question on this is that – does the State Department believe that actually taking punitive measures under Leahy in this instance with regard to this one unit would somehow damage diplomatic relations with Israel?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get ahead of that process, Olivia, and we would certainly hope not, because throughout this whole process, we have been clear-eyed and consistent. You’ve heard the Secretary, you’ve heard the President, you’ve heard me, you’ve heard Matt – that throughout the course of this conflict, you have – we have reiterated our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. That was true then; it is true now. And is Leahy unit-specific. It is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we have with that particular country.

I will also note that this is – continues to be an ongoing process. And if at any point remediation efforts or things like that are found to be inconsistent with the standards that we find, there of course will be restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. We intend to be an administration that’s going to follow the law as prescribed.

QUESTION: Vedant?

MR PATEL: Tom – oh, sorry, let me go to Leon, because he’s had his hand up, and then I’ll come to you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Said —

QUESTION: Just —

MR PATEL: — of course you’re going to get a question. Has there ever been a briefing where you’ve not gotten a question on this issue?

Leon.

QUESTION: Thank you. We agree that all this is pre-October 7 and involves the West Bank, abuses in the West Bank, okay? So quite a while ago – I don’t know exactly how long depending on which of the units you’re talking about, but I find it a little bit strange that in four of those units, you – they have the remediary corrections that they did, and you accept that evidently. And in this fifth unit, what sort of additional information could have come through all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks that would make it that you are not able to make the determination yet?

And then second question: What kind of remediary decisions are we talking about? I mean, disciplinary – or what kind of corrections? Can you speak to that?

MR PATEL: So on the second point, that’s up to the host government. The standard that we expect is that they bring the relevant parties to justice. We cannot have some kind of prescriptive metric given that each country is different and their procedures as it relates to their own government systems and military systems are different, but our standard for remediation, we expect that of all countries in this case. But beyond that, Simon – I’m sorry, not Simon, Leon – it is an ongoing process so I’m not going to get more prescriptive or specific on the relevant details.

Tom, go ahead.

QUESTION: To follow up – can I just follow up on that?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, I’m confused. Do you know whether or not the Israelis have remediated this unit?

MR PATEL: That is – that is essentially what we are engaging with them on as it relates to this. Again, I can say that in these five individual incidents of gross violations of human rights, for four of these units they have effectively remediated those violations, which is, again, something we expect and want from the countries that – which we have security relationships with. It’s what we expect of our partners. As it relates to this remaining unit, the Government of Israel has submitted additional information. We are currently reviewing it, which is consistent with the memorandum of understanding we have with them. We’re engaging with them in a process, and we’ll make a decision from there when that process is complete.

QUESTION: Okay. But the answer is you don’t know. You don’t know if they’ve remediated this unit on these places and we don’t know what the cases are because you’re not —

MR PATEL: When I say something is mid-process, it’s safe to assume that. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the law – the law is really clear. So the law says, “No assistance shall be furnished…to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” So you’ve made that determination that they have committed a gross violation of human rights. The exception is that that prohibition “shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports” – to the appropriate congressional committees – “that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring responsible members of the security forces to justice.” So has the Secretary notified Congress that they are taking effective steps?

MR PATEL: So I’m not a legal or technical expert.

QUESTION: No, because you don’t – you don’t know, and you just said you don’t know if they’ve remediated so —

MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on the specifics of the legal process for you, Tom, and get back to you.

QUESTION: But that is the legal process. So according to the legal process, you’ve determined that they have carried out gross violations of human rights, but you haven’t determined that they’ve remediated. And yet the Secretary said on April the 19th you had made the determinations. So I’m – I’m just really confused about what changed after April the 19th?

MR PATEL: As I was pretty clear, what I shared was that the Government of Israel has shared additional information with us, and we are —

QUESTION: But that – according to the law, that is not an effective remediation. So at the moment, you have a situation where you have – you have determined there was a gross violation, but you don’t have remediation. And I can’t see any part of the law which says you might decide over a couple of days that it’s been remediated and therefore keep security assistance going.

MR PATEL: So like I said, this is an ongoing process. I’m not going to speak to it more specifically, but consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel, we are engaging with them, consulting with them as it relates to not just this broader process but additional information that they’ve shared. And we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you – thank you, Vedant. By the way, did – can you share with us the outcome of the investigation of the death of Omar Assad that was – that actually died while in the custody with this unit, Netzah Yehuda? Do we know what was the outcome of that investigation?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer right now.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into it?

MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Said.

QUESTION: Yeah, please, thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The other thing is it seems that Israel has rebuked the United States call or your call the other day for investigating the mass grave, the mass burial and all these things. Do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: So Said, there has been some – and if you’ll allow me a quick second, I don’t have – make sure this is the right thing here. As it relates to this Said, the IDF has been pretty public in that in its search for Israeli hostages —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — they uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously buried their dead.

QUESTION: They excavated – you mean excavated – yeah.

MR PATEL: There has been some pretty consistent public reporting dating back to January that that is an area that Palestinians had to bury some bodies, but the IDF can speak more specifically about that process. But you heard me speak to this, you heard the National Security Advisor say – and consistently across this administration, I’d say that the facts matter and, of course, if there is any kind of inconsistency that needs to be looked into – but I believe that the IDF has spoken publicly about what this is and what this isn’t.

QUESTION: Okay. So you accept their answer? I mean, their answer was we did not do that; we don’t do this. I mean that’s what – and they consider the matter to be over. Do you consider the matter to be over?

MR PATEL: Said, I just said if there are in fact any inconsistencies, then that should be looked into. But based on even just the public reporting, the IDF has been clear about what this is and what this isn’t. That being said, we engage with the Government of Israel and the IDF around the clock. This is something we’ll continue to discuss with them if we need to raise any further issues.

QUESTION: Okay. A couple more questions, if you allow me. It has reported that the U.S. is working with Israel to prevent any kind of ICC warrant of arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Are you aware of that? Is that true? Can you confirm that?

MR PATEL: It’s important to take a step back here, Said, that since this president has come into office, we have worked to reset our relationship with the ICC. And we are in contact with the court on a range of issues, including in connection to the court’s important work on Darfur, on Ukraine, on Sudan as well. But on this investigation, our position is clear. We continue to believe that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Palestinian situation.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you did welcome the warrant of the arrest for Vladimir Putin, correct? I mean, you welcomed that. I’m just asking. You did.

MR PATEL: Said, these are two very different – first of all, I actually – I really – I don’t appreciate —

QUESTION: I’m not making a comparison. I’m —

MR PATEL: You literally are, though. You literally are. There is no moral equivalency between the kinds of things that we see President Putin and his – and the Kremlin undertake in comparison to the Israeli Government, Said.

QUESTION: I’m not asking for a justification. I’m saying you did – you did welcome it, right? Okay.

MR PATEL: This is also not – the ICC, as you know, is not – we are not party to the Rome Statute on this.

QUESTION: Right, that’s true. Let me ask you one last question on the Saudi trip.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip to Saudi Arabia. It has been said that the Saudis suggested or came up with a proposal that basically said let’s focus on the security issues, arrangement on security issues and the civilian nuclear program, whatever, and leave the normalization, the Palestinian state, to another time when things are more propitious to discuss these things. Can you confirm that to us?

MR PATEL: Said, I’m —

QUESTION: Did the Saudis submit a new proposal that delinks —

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to set into the specifics of our ongoing diplomatic engagements, but we remain committed to the long-term goal of a more stable and prosperous and integrated Middle East region, including through normalization and of course also including through the advancement of a two-state solution. The Secretary just addressed this in Capri that this is something that we have continued to be working on as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s been something that he himself has been intensively engaged on. But beyond that, I’m – we’ll just defer to our Saudi partners to speak to that.

QUESTION: Yeah. As far as your – you know, there has been no proposal delinking these issues, focusing on the security issue versus the Palestinian normalization issue?

MR PATEL: Said, we think that an integrated Middle East region should include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia but also the advancement of a two-state solution as well.

Go ahead, Guita.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the ceasefire aspect of the Gaza war, the Secretary in Riyadh today said that, and I quote, “…between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas,” unquote. He met with the Arab foreign ministers. He met with the Turkish foreign minister there. Does the State Department see a role for the Islamic Republic of Iran on this decision by Hamas that everybody is waiting on whether to take the proposal or not, one way or another?

MR PATEL: I cannot think of any actions in the past I don’t know how many years that the Iranian regime has taken that – one, that has been actually beneficial to the Palestinian people. What I would just say broadly, any country is welcome to play a positive role, but actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to the actions of the Iranian regime, the track record is pretty clear: they continue to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism; they continue to be a backer and funder of groups that have been focused on destabilizing and bringing violence to the region. So their actions are pretty clear here.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Friday, State Department strongly commended the attack on the on the Khor Mor gas field in Kurdistan, but my question is how the United States can protect Kurdistan Region from militia groups where there is also U.S. investment in the region.

MR PATEL: So we do strongly condemn the attack on the Khor Mor gas field, and we offer condolences to the families of those who were killed, and we wish for a quick recovery of those who were injured. And as we’ve said previously, attacks like this on civilian infrastructure, they’re an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that?

Go ahead, Sam.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Let me try to approach the whole Leahy Law thing in one or two different ways. You say that U.S. law is applied systematically throughout. Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Because there is U.S. law that says that there should be a funding cutoff under the Arms Export Control Act and the Glenn-Symington Amendments that says that there shouldn’t be aid to nuclear proliferators, and Israel is a damn sure nuclear proliferator. But last time I asked, you folks won’t even acknowledge the existence of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.

MR PATEL: Yeah, I don’t – I still don’t have a comment for you on that, Sam.

QUESTION: But U.S. law is applied systematically, but you won’t even acknowledge the existence of —

MR PATEL: Of course U.S. law is applied systematically.

QUESTION: But you won’t even acknowledge the empirical reality of a nuclear weapons arsenal.

MR PATEL: Don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let me try a different fact then. Tomorrow there will be a decision issued by the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – not just simply to punish genocide but to attempt to prevent it in real time. Nicaragua’s lawsuit says that it is, quote, “enabling Israel to genocidal acts.” Quote, “Germany has provided political, financial and military support to Israel fully aware at the time of authorization that the military equipments would be used in the commission of breaches of international law by this State and in disregard of its own obligations.”

As I understand it, Nicaragua is doing this against Germany and not the U.S. because the U.S. has a reservation in the Genocide Convention saying that it will not adhere to any judgments by the International Court of Justice. But it doesn’t have to invoke that. My question to you is: Would the United States invoke that; or, if a state wanted to go to the International Court, will the United States actually adhere to international law and say we will not invoke this way of bailing out of the legal system, we will actually abide by a court decision?

MR PATEL: Sam, let me say a couple of things there. First, we’ve been incredibly clear on this dating back to a number of months that we find allegations of genocide in this current, ongoing conflict in Gaza to continue to be unfounded. That was the case previously when similar matters were brought before the ICJ, and that continues to be the case. And let me just say when it comes to our partners in Germany, they share our convergence on the importance of doing everything we can to make sure hostages are released, to make sure that there is more humanitarian aid going into Gaza, and that everything can be done possible to make sure that this conflict ends as quickly as we can.

QUESTION: But I’m not asking you for your alleged assessment. I’m asking you: Will you adhere to a court ruling from the world court?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals, Sam.

Go ahead, Ellen.

QUESTION: No, no, it’s not a hypothetical.

MR PATEL: Ellen.

QUESTION: It’s a “will you adhere?”

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ellen.

QUESTION: I was just wondering if the – Secretary Blinken himself has made clear that there is not remediation by this unit. The letter to the House Speaker says that Blinken will work to identify steps to get Israel on a path of remediation for this unit. And as my colleague here pointed out, that’s not in the Leahy Law. The Leahy Law doesn’t say you can enter one – you enter negotiations to try to bring a country into remediation.

MR PATEL: First, I would not call it negotiations. We are engaging with the Government of Israel on facts and on information that is consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them. I think it’s also important to remember we want to see remediation when it comes to our partners and countries in which we have longstanding security partnerships with.

Rabia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Gaza university protests, which have intensified across American campuses over the past week with the students making several demands, including calls for policy changes and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and according to a poll by CNN over the weekend, young Americans under 35 disapprove the administration’s handling of Israel’s war on Gaza. And many countries, including your allies in the region, also expect you to change course and put more pressure on Israel. So are these objections and protests considered on – in policymaking process in this building? And specifically I’m wondering: Will U.S. policy be changed or affected by these protests in any way?

MR PATEL: Look, Rabia, when it comes to people protesting and sharing their opinions, making their voices heard, that is something that is consistent with the First Amendment. It is consistent with things we see in this country, and certainly people have every right to do so, including people who may have differing viewpoints on foreign policy that we’re pursuing. The same would be applied to employees of the federal government. They, of course, have every right to express their opinions and points of view. I’ve said a number of times before that the Secretary, at least when it comes to the workforce, he is incredibly receptive to different points of view. He believes that that makes him a stronger policy maker, and the outcomes include better and more well-thought-out policy. And we’ll continue to encourage the mechanisms that we have for people to share their points of view.

When it comes to protests, though, people continue to have every right to do so. We would just continue to press that they be nonviolent and that they remain peaceful.

QUESTION: But will the U.S. policy be changed or affected in any way by these protests?

MR PATEL: When it comes to – when it comes to the policy that we’re pursuing, Rabia, the only real metric for us is what is in the interests for the American people and what keeps the American people safer and more secure.

QUESTION: So you don’t take into account —

MR PATEL: And in our point of view – and what – and in our point of view, more humanitarian aid going into Gaza is also good for the United States. The defeat of Hamas is also good for the United States. Ensuring that Gaza can no longer be a springboard for terrorism is also good for the United States. And a two-state solution that brings about greater peace and stability and integration in the Middle East region is also good for the United States.

We are pursuing these policies because we believe they are in the interest of the American people. It will bring about greater peace and stability in the region, and it will keep our country and other countries in the region safer. People are allowed to disagree. It is a free country and they have every First Amendment right to express their points of view and to make them heard, and we encourage people to do so in a peaceful and nonviolent way.

Diyar, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Vedant. A question on the attack on the Khor Mor gas field in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, as you could speak of moments ago about it. Last time, in January, when a field – when that field was attacked, you request the Iraqi Government to investigate and bringing to justice those who were responsible. And this time we saw the same statement from State Department on that attack. In your assessment, who was or is responsible for this attack, and have you ever get back by the Iraqi Government why they are not bringing those responsible into justice? And are they willing or they can’t do it? Is that something of your concern?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer when it comes to a responsible actor there, and so I will just refrain from commenting.

QUESTION: And one more question on that. As you are pushing or helping or wanting Iraq to get its energy independence from Iran and that’s why you are waivering the sanctions to get electricity from Iran, and this field is one of the alternates for the Iranian energy supply to Iraq, do you think that this attack – these kinds of attack – is a warning to all the stakeholders and parties, including the United States, that getting Iraq independence energy from Iran is not an easy and – it’s not easy to divest Iraq from Iranian independence? Are you considering these attacks in your – into your calculations when you’re speaking of Iraqi independence energy from Iran?

MR PATEL: So I’m certainly not going to speculate on why or why not someone chose to strike an electricity – or a gas field. What I can say, though, is that this kind – these kinds of affronts to civilian infrastructure, they are a direct attack on Iraqi sovereignty, and that’s why you saw us condemn them, but I don’t have anything else beyond that.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: On the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Secretary Blinken said that we’re getting close to an agreement on bilateral things. Can you elaborate on that?

MR PATEL: I can’t, Michel. I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, but the Secretary just last weekend in Capri was – laid out that this is something that we’ve been working on, including as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s something that we’ve been intensely engaged on, and we believe that this is something that is key to what is our long-term goal, which is a more stable, prosperous, and integrated Middle East region.

Olivia.

QUESTION: One quick question on hostages.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Public comments by the Secretary this morning – he indicated that a new offer by Israel on the table was extraordinarily, extraordinarily generous. Is there a sense that a deal is closer than it has been in recent weeks, or is Hamas the same unknown that is has been?

MR PATEL: So our hope is that – our hope is that – of course that some kind of progress can be made. We remain committed to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and takes some additional steps for the surge of humanitarian aid. To echo the Secretary, a generous deal has been put on the table, and it’s now on Hamas to accept the deal. I will just say that currently what is standing in the way between a ceasefire and some progress for the Palestinian people is Hamas.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I have a clarification on this one, please? On this?

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Now, the Secretary was talking about sustainable calm, sustainable calm. What we heard today from the foreign secretary of United Kingdom, David Cameron, he was – he was talking about 40 days of ceasefire. Could you – could —

MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about this process, Said, beyond saying that we’re committed to reaching a deal that includes an immediate ceasefire, that includes the release of hostages and additional humanitarian aid. It’s something that we’re continuing to work towards. As the Secretary said, a generous deal has been put on the table, and really the responsibility now is for Hamas to accept it.

QUESTION: But it includes no time, no 30 days —

MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about the process, Said.

Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Said’s question regarding Omar Assad now. Netzah Yehuda has been cited for violations – gross violations of human rights, including for being responsible for the death of an 80-year-old American citizen, Omar Assad. So that took place almost two years ago, 2022, and now you’re saying that Israel presented new information and that there’s a discussion of – or remediation of that military unit. What kind of new information provided almost two years later could make the family of Omar Assad, an American citizen, feel like they’ve received any kind of justice?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to the specifics of this process because it is ongoing, but remediation is what we want to see in as many of these instances as possible. That is what we expect of our partners and that’s what we expect of countries that we partner with. But beyond that, I’m not going to get ahead of this.

I will also note that if at the end of our engagements and discussions in this process with the Government of Israel it is found that processes are inconsistent with what is laid out in Leahy or if information is inconsistent with what is expected under Leahy, there will of course be a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. As I said to one of your colleagues, we intend to be an administration that follows the law, and that is also true in this case here.

Janne.

QUESTION: Are you in touch with the family to explain all this to them?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and China. It has been reported that the Russian ship transporting North Korean weapons is using a Chinese port and is currently docked. What measures is the United States taking in response to North – China’s toleration of arms trade with Russia and North Korea?

MR PATEL: So look, Janne, we have – this is something that we take incredibly seriously. You saw the Secretary and Matt and myself speak about the closening that – of the relations we are seeing between Russia and the PRC, especially as it relates to ongoing endeavors as it relates to the Russian defense industrial base. We think that that is not just risky to the region, but it is directly an affront to Ukraine. So we’re going to continue to take appropriate steps to hold relevant actors accountable.

Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: On China, quick —

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Secretary Blinken last week and urged the United States not to step on the – cross forbidden line against China’s sovereignty. What specifically does the forbidden line on sovereignty mean? Is this Chinese red line?

MR PATEL: So this is not a new position of ours, Janne. Over the course of our engagements with the PRC since Russia’s aggressive, unjust, and illegal infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, we have made clear – including to the PRC – that any kind of provision of lethal assistance from the country, from the PRC, would be unacceptable to the United States, and we would take appropriate steps to hold them account should that happen. We reiterated that and will continue to reiterate that in every engagement that we have.

Alex, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying on Russia, then I have a couple more on the South Caucasus.

MR PATEL: You can get one. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Over the weekend – yeah, thanks so much – over the weekend, Russia arrested two more international reporters – one working for AP, another one for Reuters. What do you know about their cases, and do you have any response yet?

MR PATEL: So I don’t – I don’t have specifics that I can get into, Alex, again, when – in any of these situations involving detention, we’re dealing with privacy areas as well. But to take a step back, the Kremlin has an egregious track record when it comes to its crackdown on media freedoms, its crackdown on journalists, its detention of journalists. I would point you no further than the case of Evan Gershkovich, who continues to be wrongfully detained by the Russian Federation, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure the release of both Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.

All right, thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And then – I have a couple more —

MR PATEL: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)