Department Press Briefing – May 30, 2024
May 30, 2024
1:26 p.m. EDT
MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR PATEL: I don’t have anything off the top today. So, Daphne, do you want to kick us off?
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. So Algeria has proposed a draft UN Security Council resolution that demands a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and essentially orders Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah. What’s the U.S. stance on this resolution, and have you been engaging in Algeria – with Algeria on negotiations on it?
MR PATEL: So we are aware of the draft resolution that’s been circulated by Algeria and have provided feedback. We’re certainly not going to negotiate on the ins and outs of this in public, but I will just note that it is imbalanced and it fails to note a simple fact, which is that Hamas is to blame for this conflict and the fighting in Rafah could end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to a deal for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. It’s important that the United Nations not erase Hamas’s role from this conflict or ignore its repeated violations of international law. But beyond that, I am just not going to get ahead of the process.
QUESTION: Would you veto it as it stands now?
MR PATEL: That would me – be me getting ahead of the process, which is what I said I was just not going to do.
QUESTION: Okay. And then the United Nations said on Wednesday that the amount of humanitarian aid entering the enclave has dropped by two-thirds since Israel began its military operation in the southern Rafah region this month. What is the U.S. doing about this?
MR PATEL: Sorry, I didn’t hear that. Entering the what?
QUESTION: The amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza —
MR PATEL: Got it.
QUESTION: — has dropped by two-thirds.
MR PATEL: Right. Right. Sorry, I didn’t hear that. I just wanted to make sure.
So look, we have urged Israel to allow increased assistance into Gaza through as many points as possible and to ensure the safe and secure distribution of aid throughout the region. We’ve also called for consistent access through Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings to prevent harms to civilians reliant on aid, and we’re continuing to work with partners in Israel and Egypt to do everything we can to ensure as many of those crossings as possible are as open and can serve as conduits for additional humanitarian aid.
QUESTION: And then just one more on Gaza, if I may.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Stacy Gilbert, a State Department employee of more than 20 years, said she resigned after the administration released the NSM report this month, which she said was wrong. She said a draft of the report had said clearly that Israel was blocking humanitarian assistance but that subject matter experts were removed, and it was edited at a higher level before being published with the conclusion that Israel was not blocking assistance. What was the reason for the change to this conclusion, and do you have any comment on this?
MR PATEL: So first, let me just say I’m not going to comment on personnel issues, but we have been clear that we welcome diverse points of view and believe it makes us a stronger department and it makes and leads to a stronger policymaking process. The Secretary and department leadership will continue to seek out a wide range of views because we think it – it improves our policymaking process, as I said. We continue to press the Government of Israel to avoid harming civilians and urgently expand humanitarian access to and inside Gaza, and this includes the provision of lifesaving assistance, allowing fuel entry, and ensuring the safe freedom of movement for humanitarian workers.
What I can say on the National Security Memorandum 20 and the process – and we spoke a little bit to this about when the report was released – is that this was a joint State Department-Defense Department report. It reflected input from across the interagency, including the Intelligence Community, including our embassies and consulates in the relevant countries that are laid out in the NSM, as well as input from NGOs and nonprofits. Relevant State Department bureaus, including, of course, the Bureau of Near East Affairs as well as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration provided input.
And I will also just say is that we stand by the National Security Memorandum 20 report. We are not an administration or a department that twists the facts, and allegations that we have are unfounded. But this is, as any report and as any process that is undertaken in a policymaking process, these processes are deliberative and they involve inputs from people at a variety of seniority and expert levels.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a few other questions on other things, but —
MR PATEL: Okay. Great. Jan,* go ahead.
QUESTION: Further on the assistance to Gaza —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — with the DOD’s temporary pier out of commission, has the U.S. engaged with Israel to try to get some of that assistance that’s presumably sitting in Cyprus to come in through the Port of Ashdod and then land route?
MR PATEL: So we’re looking at what other options might be available. So first, let me just say the pier part of the overall, broader maritime corridor has proven to be crucial in delivering supplies, and we expect that the repair and the re-anchoring of this pier to happen as swiftly as possible. I know my colleagues at the Department of Defense are working around the clock, as is others across the interagency, to get that to happen.
There is, of course, the warehouse in Cyprus, there is the Port of Ashdod, there are the facilities on the beach side and other avenues like that. We think that those are viable options for the humanitarian aid commodities, and so we’re continuing to consult with donor countries, the Government of Israel, and other interlocutors on what might be feasible. But I don’t have a new process to announce.
Leon, wat that you who had your hand up?
QUESTION: Yeah, I was just hesitating – you said that the part of this pier has been crucial to distribute aid to Gaza. But In fact, since it started, it’s been having a series of issues and problems. I mean —
MR PATEL: Leon, since it started, more than a hundred metric tons of aid has been transported from the pier to a staging area where UN humanitarian groups distribute it to Palestinians. Of course, we want these repairs and the re-anchoring to happen as swiftly as possible, but it has been an important piece of our overall humanitarian aid efforts, and I know that across the interagency we are working around the clock to rectify the challenges that were found due to some inclement weather. But we are doing everything we can to continue to open this process back up. We think it’s been vital. But as I was mentioning to Shannon, there are some other components of this overall corridor, including the warehouse in Cyprus, Ashdod Port, other setups that we think are viable options for these commodities, and we’ll continue to work on that process.
QUESTION: Can I have a quick follow-up on that?
MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. But the UN – the United Nations has said that aid has dropped by 67 percent – that’s a lot of aid – I mean, since the – since the operation in Rafah began. Doesn’t that tell you that these – I’m sorry what – to call it this way, but band-aid kind of solutions like the pier and so on, they really – they have no long-term effect. They’re subject to all kinds of weather or mishap or whatever it is, and the only way are really the land crossings. Isn’t that the case now? Isn’t that the proof?
MR PATEL: As I said when answering Leon’s question, when the pier was anchored and functioning it allowed the provision of a thousand metric tons of humanitarian aid. Also I was pretty clear up here – as has Matt, as has Secretary Blinken when we were talking about the JLOTS process and it being established – that this administration is one in which we are pursuing an all-of-the-above approach when it comes to humanitarian aid.
At no point since the onset of this conflict have we tried to make the case that a maritime corridor or a pier – establishment of a pier system was meant to replace or supersede land route crossings, and that’s why we continue to work around the clock to make sure that those land crossings are open as swiftly as possible as well.
QUESTION: But I mean, you guys said time and again that it’s not an alternative to land crossings.
MR PATEL: Correct. But that continues to be the case.
QUESTION: Then why? Why not? Then why not bring to bear whatever abilities you have, whatever pressure you have on the Israelis, to allow more aid to go through the crossings, the land crossings, or your Egyptian – your ally – Egyptian allies, or whatever? I mean, whatever land crossing there is available or can be available.
MR PATEL: We are continuing to engage exactly in that kind of diplomacy to turn on and to open as many crossings as we can. We’ll continue to pursue that.
QUESTION: And do you feel that we can see the reopening or the resumption of aid through these crossings anytime soon? Do you have a —
MR PATEL: Said, it’s important to note that aid is flowing among the crossings that exist. On May 29th, a total of 325 trucks crossed into Gaza. Certainly I’m not indicating that that is enough or enough to alleviate the dire situation in Gaza, but aid is flowing and we are continuing to work around the clock with partners in Egypt and Israel to do what we can to make sure other vital crossings are open and can open as swiftly as possible. Simultaneously, we’re doing everything we can to repair and retrofit this pier and make sure that it can be re-anchored as swiftly as possible as well. And I’m sure my colleagues at the Department of Defense can speak to you a little more precisely about that process.
QUESTION: Now, the – there is a CNN – New York Times investigation that determined that the weapons used in Rafah were American weapons, the GBU-39 or whatever. Do you have any comment on that? Because yesterday I think the Secretary said he was not sure yet whether it was American-made weapons or something like that, so what is your position today?
MR PATEL: So I’m going to let the IDF speak to their investigation, including what pieces —
QUESTION: I’m asking you about the – is this a U.S. weapon as far as you know?
MR PATEL: Again, it is – it is not for us to speak to. We can’t speak to individual weapons loadouts to Israeli aircraft, so I will let the IDF speak to their investigation findings and indicate – including anything that they have to share about what weapons were used. I just don’t have an assessment for you that on, Said.
QUESTION: And lastly —
MR PATEL: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Does it bother you guys when former officials, high-profile officials like the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, writes on a bomb, “Finish them off,” or when someone that’s still like a senator, a U.S. senator says drop a nuclear bomb on them and so on? I mean, like in a final solution kind of thing. Does that really bother you that – do you feel disgust? Do you feel that maybe you ought to issue a statement? If somebody said this about any other group of people and so on, I think you would probably be disgusted. You would say this is terrible, this is awful. What is your position on what they say?
MR PATEL: Said, Ambassador Haley is a private citizen, and what we are focused on is the diplomacy and the task at hand. We’re focused on doing everything we can to get this conflict to end, to secure a ceasefire; a ceasefire that is coupled with the release of hostages; a ceasefire that can be coupled with an additional influx of humanitarian aid; one that ensures Palestinians in Gaza are protected, have their humanitarian needs met; a ceasefire that will help identify a vision for the post-conflict of Gaza – a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard of terrorism and a Gaza where Palestinians and, in a separate state, Israelis can live with equal measures of security and prosperity. That’s what we’re focused on.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Said’s question?
MR PATEL: Sure, and then I’m going to go to Abbie because she’s had her hand up patiently, unless Abbie wants to go – I’ll let you —
QUESTION: No, go ahead.
QUESTION: I mean, why can’t you comment on whether or not this was a U.S. bomb? Is that a matter of policy or is it because you don’t know?
MR PATEL: Tom, we just can’t speak to individual weapons loadouts on Israeli aircraft. That’s not something for us to speak to. This is – this was not a U.S. operation, and we are not – we don’t have boots on the ground as it relates to this conflict. And I will let the IDF speak to their investigations and their findings.
Broadly, of course, the United States has a broad and robust security relationship with the Government of Israel. That is certainly no secret. But when it comes to speaking as it relates to individual operations, we’re just not going to do that from the U.S. Government and I’d defer you to our partners in Israel to speak to that.
QUESTION: I mean, it matters, though. You’re the – you’re a spokesman for the U.S. Government. This is a – if this was a U.S. weapon, as has been widely reported and all the publicly available images are suggesting, there’s obviously a locus of interest for you and potential responsibility given catastrophic deaths and the way that people were killed in this incident after an Israeli airstrike. So I’m just trying to understand why. I mean, have you looked at the pictures? Do you have —
MR PATEL: Tom, let’s – it’s important – let’s not conflate multiple things here. First, as it relates to the origin of the weapon that was used, that is something that the IDF can speak to as it relates to their own investigations and its – and whatever findings it chooses to make public or share or not.
Separately but related, regardless of the origin of this weapon and regardless of what the weapon was that was used, it is devastating to see the images and the videos and the imagery that we saw from over the weekend. And that is why we have – we went to the Israelis as soon as we were made aware of this about answers about how this incident happened, why the level of civilian harm took place, even though it was not necessarily the intent. We need to understand how this transpired, and we believe that understanding that will also continue to help the Government of Israel and the IDF as it continues to conduct its operations. That is true. That is our belief regardless of whatever the weapon of origin is. And that is something that our Israeli partners can speak to in their own investigation.
QUESTION: I think my question is more about whether you know the origin of this weapon and you can’t and won’t talk about it, or whether you don’t know. So —
MR PATEL: I – that’s just not something I’m going to speak to, certainly not from the State Department. What you’re talking about, if you want to get very technical, is what this specific weapon used in a specific operation —
QUESTION: No, it’s not technical. It’s because it – every weapons expert that’s looked at these images has established that it’s an American weapon. So it just seems a slightly peculiar position not to be able to talk to that.
MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to specific weapons payloads on specific operations.
QUESTION: Okay. And just on the – I think there was a bit of confusion perhaps on Monday about the location of the tents and the fire and where the bomb or the bombs were dropped. And certainly the aerial images that have emerged since then appear to show the structures that were attacked very close to quite a lot of tents. The Palestinian journalist that took the photos of the tailfin and the electronics board of the weapon says that a child told him he found the electronics board in his tent, which would suggest a close proximity of the tent to the strike. So have you got any further, three days on now, about proximity?
MR PATEL: We don’t have – we don’t, unfortunately, have any additional information, Tom. That’s something we’re continuing to engage with our partners in Israel. We have been told by the Israelis that it is conducting an investigation. We want to see that happen thoroughly, swiftly, and transparently. And as I said, looking into these kinds of things, making these kinds of assessments, are critical to ensuring that the IDF avoids similar tragedies in the future.
Abbie. Sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you. The Secretary said yesterday that in light of the horrific consequences, further actions within Rafah, they have to consider whether the incremental gains made against Hamas are worth those unintended consequences. Is the administration – does the administration believe that Israel is moving closer to that red line that they drew for reconsidering supplying U.S. weapons?
MR PATEL: So look, as it relates to a major military operation in Rafah, we have yet to see such a one transpire. There has been an uptick in military operations along the Philadelphi Corridor on the outskirts, but we have not seen a major operation as it relates to Rafah. We’re going to continue to monitor conditions on the ground and see what happens.
But Abbie, to take a step back, what the Secretary was referring to is something you’ve heard him say before, in that over the course of this conflict, it is imperative that our partners in Israel have a vision for what the day after this conflict is going to look like, and steps are taken to do whatever we can to help get the region out of this endless cycle of violence. That is in line with what the Secretary laid out in Tokyo last December, where we were talking about some of the key tenets of our vision for this region: a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people; a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority with the West Bank; and we’re looking for real – a real plan for progress for the Palestinian people, one that will bring the equal measures of dignity and justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
To put it more candidly, a military operation here we have never felt is enough. We of course support and encourage every effort to defeat Hamas, but without some plans for some broader or greater diplomacy, we will continue to find ourselves in this endless cycle of violence.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
QUESTION: I have one more.
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR PATEL: No, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, please.
MR PATEL: Better – one of you can go ahead.
QUESTION: I just had one more related question.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you confirm some of these reports that U.S. and Israel and Egypt will be meeting next week to discuss opening the Rafah crossing and securing the border between Egypt and Gaza? And what does the U.S. hope to see as far as who would be administering the Gaza side of the border?
MR PATEL: Well, Abbie, I’m not going to speak to specific reports and diplomatic conversations. What I can say is that we are engaged in this work around the clock. We have been working tirelessly with our partners in Egypt and partners in Israel to do what we can to get the Rafah border crossing open. I’m not going to preview or hypothesize on logistically or technically what that can look like. We will let this process play out.
Rabiyah.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: On the wording you use on Rafah, you say it’s not a major operation. But I mean, 54 people have been killed in Gaza over the past 24 hours; nearly 1 million people have already fled Rafah over the past three weeks as Israeli strikes continue. We have seen Israeli tanks in Rafah, although you deny. Are these acceptable for you? I mean, is there a line? Where is the line, the limit for you to say, okay, this is enough and this cannot continue anymore?
MR PATEL: I am just not going to preview or try to pinpoint a hypothetical like that, Rabiyah. The truth of the facts on the ground are – it is that we have yet to see a major military operation into Rafah. As I said, we have seen an uptick in military operations at the border in the Philadelphi Corridor and in the outskirts, but we have not seen a major operation into Gaza. We are – into Rafah, I’m sorry. We will continue to monitor conditions, and we will continue to see what happens.
QUESTION: What would be a major operation? I mean, what —
MR PATEL: Again, we have been – we have been clear about what this isn’t, which is not a major military operation. I’m not going to categorize it into one box or another. This is obviously a very dynamic and fluid situation. We’re going to continue to consult with our partners in Israel and engage on these issues.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — Tom and Said’s question regarding the CNN analysis on U.S. weapons.
MR PATEL: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: I mean, this analysis was based on open-source information, like footage. Why isn’t the State Department able to make a similar assessment based on – instead of relying on the IDF investigation?
MR PATEL: We’re just not going to speak to individual weapons loadouts on particular aircraft. That’s not something we’re going to get into from here, and I will leave it to the IDF to speak to anything that they want to share as it relates to their findings and in an investigation that they have underway.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on this.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Just based on your answer, you don’t – you haven’t seen a major military operation? Or – and you oppose a ground military operation in Rafah. You support Israel in going after Hamas. You’re saying Hamas is embedded within the civilian population. Obviously, this is how the Israeli can go after Hamas. And these consequences would look like what we have seen during the weekend. So just can you say on the record that what’s – you support what’s taking place now, without calling it a major military operation or a target military operation? Just can you give us an answer whether you support what’s happening and what’s taking place, the way it’s taking place now in Rafah?
MR PATEL: We support efforts to defeat Hamas, and we have supported those efforts since October 7th. Of course, at every measure we have continued to stress the moral and strategic imperative to make sure that these military operations are conducted in a way that minimize civilian casualties. Obviously, just based on imagery, the events of this past weekend failed to meet that mark. That being said, we do continue to support efforts to take out Hamas terrorists, which our partners in the IDF indicated that they did over the course of the operation this past weekend. So again, we support efforts to take out Hamas; we, of course, also continue to stress that they need to be conducted in ways that do not impede humanitarian aid access, that do not put undue risk at civilians, Palestinian civilians within Gaza.
QUESTION: One more question, if I may.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Regarding the tension. Nobody can deny that there is a tension growing between the Israeli and the Egyptians. Now we have a delegation – the White House is sending a delegation. To what extent the State Department, this department, is engaged in at least avoiding this escalation?
MR PATEL: So one of the first things that we talked about in the immediate aftermath of the horrific October 7th terrorist attacks was a necessity to ensure that all regional parties had a responsibility to make sure that this conflict didn’t spread and that tensions didn’t rise unnecessarily. As it relates to the Rafah border crossing and the engagements that are ongoing between our partners in Egypt and our partners in Israel, we’ll continue to play a role in that conversation, as we want to continue to see progress made in opening that crossing. We think that it is an important conduit for the overall humanitarian aid situation into Gaza. But I don’t have anything to preview beyond that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Willy, go ahead. Yes.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. I guess quickly, Xi’s called for a peace summit. Do you guys have any reaction to that?
MR PATEL: Not really. Look, the United States has a clear mission here on what we think that needs to happen. We have been – we have not been ambiguous about there is – that it is necessary for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages and one that is coupled with additional humanitarian assistance. Time and time again, we have seen Hamas move the goalpost or walk away from legitimate deals that have been on the table. But we also know that this is something that we’re going to continue to work at. It’s one of the things that the Secretary himself is committed to. It’s why he has engaged so directly on this with multiple trips to the region.
I will also note that beyond just a ceasefire and the cessation of this immediate conflict in Gaza – you’ve heard me say this before – it is crucial that we also talk about the kind of diplomacy and the kinds of steps that are necessary to get the region out of this endless cycle of violence, one that is, as you’ve heard me say before, will stop Gaza from being a launching pad for terrorism against the Israeli people, one not under the leadership of Hamas, a terrorist group. And so those are the kinds of things that we’ll continue to work on.
QUESTION: But we’re eight months on now. These efforts clearly aren’t – they’re not going anywhere at the moment. I mean, why not be open to kind of fresh ideas?
MR PATEL: If any country is interested in and thinking that they can play a productive role, they certainly are welcome to. But let’s not forget or lose sight of the fact that this conflict could have ended yesterday if Hamas were to just stop hiding behind civilians, put down its arms, and leave Gaza. And we have yet to see that happen.
QUESTION: Leave Gaza? You want them to leave Gaza? These are Gazans. Most of these people that are —
MR PATEL: We’re talking about —
QUESTION: Where do you want them to go?
MR PATEL: We are talking about a —
QUESTION: Who would take them?
MR PATEL: We’re talking about a terrorist group, Said.
QUESTION: Who would take them?
MR PATEL: Diyar, go ahead.
QUESTION: Changing of the topic?
MR PATEL: Anything else on the Middle East before I – go ahead. Go ahead. I don’t think your question’s on the Middle East, Janne.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) —
MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. I promise. Go ahead.
QUESTION: You never know.
MR PATEL: I’ve – (laughter) —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR PATEL: I’m – that – okay. (Laughter.) I think I’ve been doing this long enough to know.
QUESTION: I do —
MR PATEL: (Laughter.) Go ahead. And I promise we’ll get to you, Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks, Said*. So you’ve mentioned these transparent investigations and sort of allowing Israel to conduct those investigations. Obviously, you’ve mentioned – or rather, Matt mentioned on Tuesday – that lawyers have been integrated with the IDF to make sure that things are going in a way that’s in accordance with international humanitarian law. Then we’ve also mentioned how images from this past weekend are devastating. And then the NSM-20 report that you put a lot of trust in just now says specifically that the Intelligence Community, quote, “assesses that Israel could do more to avoid civilian harm.” So at what point would the department see a pattern of civilian harm rather than just individual incidences that they allow for investigations to continue?
MR PATEL: So let’s take a step back here. I think the – I dispute the premise of your question. There has not been any indication over the course of this conflict of any kind of intentional targeting or harm of civilians. What we’re talking about is a primary belligerent, Hamas, that has a clear track record of co-locating itself among civilians and civilian infrastructure. And so that – thus that has created an incredibly complicated and complex warfare scenario in Gaza right now.
That does not, however, minimize the strategic and moral imperative that our partners in Israel have to ensure that when they conduct military operations, that risk and casualties to civilians are minimized as significantly as possible. And over the course of this past weekend, the images and the videos that we’ve seen have been incredibly heartbreaking, and we are trying to get as many answers as we can as to what transpired and how this incident unfolded and how this incident failed to meet even our Israeli partners’ own stated goals of wanting to minimize civilian casualties as often as they can.
Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Thanks very much. A couple of questions. First of all, you say that there are ongoing diplomatic moves to try and get more aid into Gaza. But the U.S. has been talking since November about getting more aid into Gaza. So is the fact that there isn’t more aid getting into Gaza a failure of U.S. diplomacy, or is it just empty rhetoric?
MR PATEL: Over the course of this conflict, it is because of U.S. engagement that we have continued to push the ball forward on humanitarian aid. No one has ever stood up here and tried to make the case that the humanitarian aid that we’re seeing has been sufficient, enough, or a silver bullet to address the dire consequences that the Palestinian civilians are facing in Gaza right not. But it is because of American diplomacy and American engagement, specifically by this President and this Secretary of State, that we have continued to see progress on humanitarian aid.
No one across this administration has ever made the case that it is enough. I am not saying that today. But it is because of American engagement that we are seeing some small steps in the right direction, and we have. And we will continue to press our partners in Israel when we have seen things that do not meet the mark. As I was answering Said’s question earlier, or it might have been Tom’s, we saw more than 300 trucks enter Gaza on May 29th. I’m not at all saying that that is enough, but that is aid flowing into Gaza.
And we are continuing to work around the clock to do what we can to make sure that this pier and the overall maritime corridor can be re-anchored to Gaza as swiftly as possible. Simultaneously, we continue to have warehouses in Cyprus and other components of the maritime corridor that can be used for humanitarian aid commodities, and we are looking into what might be feasible in those aspects as well.
QUESTION: And if I can – sorry, a follow-up to Said’s question.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: If Nikki Haley’s comments are made by a private citizen and therefore don’t require any comment from you, why did this administration criticize people who spoke out in favor of those in Palestine demanding a ceasefire and were quite vocal? What’s the difference?
MR PATEL: When did we do that?
QUESTION: Well, do you want to talk about the number of times that they were described as antisemitic even – any time there was a pro-Palestinian protest, it seemed to be that the administration was quite happy —
MR PATEL: I think you are conflating six different things —
QUESTION: Don’t think I am.
MR PATEL: — and your question is a little bit not on the level. Let’s talk about the facts here. Protests, whether they be on college campuses or elsewhere – they inherently are not antisemitic. There have been, of course, over the course of these protests, been imagery – there have been chants; there have been slogans; they’ve been signage – that has been antisemitic. Also, what we are talking about in those circumstances is protesters, who – in some instances – have broken the law. Taking over buildings, occupying certain areas within specific municipalities – those are not expressions of free speech. That is illegal in some places. So these are very – two different things, and I really don’t appreciate you conflating them.
QUESTION: Well, one more point on this.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: The fact is you have said that a lot of the things said by the likes of Nikki Haley and others are simply rhetoric. Yet when you call for the destruction – annihilation of people, that’s against international law. Why is that not being condemned from the platform, from the podium?
MR PATEL: That is not the kind of rhetoric that we, certainly, support from this administration, and it’s not ones that we’ve been using. But Ambassador Haley is a private citizen. She doesn’t speak for the United States.
QUESTION: It’s breaking the law. It’s against international law.
MR PATEL: She doesn’t speak for the United States. She doesn’t speak for this administration.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Said. I’m sorry. Thanks, Vedant. Sorry. (Laughter.)
MR PATEL: Said can come up here if – if you like. If you guys want a daily press briefing from Said – (laughter).
QUESTION: If you need my help, I’ll do my (inaudible). (Laughter.)
MR PATEL: I think I’m okay.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Anyhow.
QUESTION: Yeah. How much of the Indo-Pacific priorities have been affected by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Security analysts say leaving Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines to deal with China’s grey zone tactics may lead to failed deterrence. Do you agree with that assessment?
MR PATEL: We don’t at all. Let me just be very clear about this. We have not taken our eye off the ball when it comes to our efforts and our focus on the Indo-Pacific and the Asia region broadly. Let’s not forget that in the past year alone, you have seen this President convene a historic trilateral summit at Camp David between Japan and the Republic of Korea. You saw him hold a historic summit in Woodside, California with the president of the People’s Republic of China. Secretary Blinken himself in the past 12 months has been to China twice, as have other members of this administration. You saw this administration hold a historic trilateral summit between our Japanese partners and our partners in the Philippines. So when it comes to our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, we continue to put points on the board, and that’s something we’re going to remain focused on.
QUESTION: Well, (inaudible) Vedant —
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. About the North Koreans (inaudible) – I mean, balloons, about – North Korea distributed about 260 garbage balloons across South Korea. They are also attacking GPS, radio waves, and have launched about 10 ballistic missiles into the East Sea. What can you say about North Korea continuing it provocation in various ways?
MR PATEL: We continue to call on the DPRK to refrain from provocative actions and return to diplomacy. We condemn the DPRK’s May 29th ballistic missile launch, and these launches, like other ballistic missiles, are in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. They pose a threat to regional and international peace and security and undermine the global and security – the global nonproliferation regime. We’ll continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea, Japan, and other allies and partners on how to best engage with the DPRK.
QUESTION: How does the United States view China’s failure to play its role despite North Korea continuous provocations?
MR PATEL: Well, you’ve heard me say this before, Janne. We continue to believe that there are countries who have a relationship with the DPRK and have influence with the DPRK that have a responsibility to rein in and influence some of the malign and bad behavior that we are seeing, especially a country like the People’s Republic of China, which sits on the UN Security Council. When we’re talking about launches that are in violation of certain UN Security Council resolutions, it’s of course incredibly concerning.
Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah, two questions, Vedant.
QUESTION: Wait. On the topic that we —
MR PATEL: Sorry.
QUESTION: On the same topic too. Go ahead.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, Nick.
QUESTION: You – I mean, you condemned the ballistic missile launch, but you didn’t say anything about the balloons with the fecal matter. And do you have any comment on that?
MR PATEL: Nick, any kind of aerial object, certainly, we would find destabilizing and provocative, and we continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan against these kinds of malign and destabilizing behaviors.
Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah, two questions. One, do you have any reaction to Russia foreign minister’s statement that Russia will react to the deployment of any U.S. missiles in the Indo-Pacific region?
MR PATEL: So I’ve seen those reports, Michel, and let me just say that the U.S. does not assess returning nuclear weapons to the Indo-Pacific as necessary at this time, and the U.S. has no plans to forward deploy nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula. But let’s not forget that it is the Russian Federation that time and time again, dating back to the early days of its aggression into Ukraine, that it has recklessly participated in nuclear saber-rattling, talking about the use and deployment of nuclear weapons, and going so far as to withdraw from New START. So I think it’s important to have some context here.
QUESTION: And another one on the region.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: To what extent the USAID Administrator Samantha Power reflects the views of the administration when she said that the conditions in Gaza are worse now than ever before?
MR PATEL: So look, Michel, it is not hyperbole to say that the situation in Gaza is dire. You’ve heard us say time and time again that there is immense concern of the onset of famine. That is why we are doing everything we can to ensure that more humanitarian aid can flow into Gaza. We’re working tirelessly to open as many crossings as we can for that to take place.
Daphne.
QUESTION: Is it your view as the views that Samantha Power expressed?
MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I don’t have any reaction to her specific comments, but you’ve heard us say this before. The situation in Gaza is dire, it is incredibly concerning, and that is why all appropriate interlocutors need to do everything they can to get more additional humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Daphne, go ahead.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: How was Deputy Secretary Campbell’s meeting with China’s executive vice foreign minister this morning, and what was the focus of that?
MR PATEL: So I think we’ll have a more formal readout coming later today, Daphne, but to confirm, Deputy Secretary Campbell did meet today with the PRC executive vice foreign minister. This visit follows, as you know, Secretary Blinken’s recent trip to Shanghai and Beijing, and it builds on the intensive diplomacy that has happened with the PRC over the last year to responsibly manage competition in the relationship, even in areas where we disagree. And as you heard us say, I would say on the margins of the President’s historic summit in Woodside, we expect there to be continued engagement at senior levels from both sides of the Pacific, and I expect we’ll have a more formal readout later today.
QUESTION: Campbell yesterday placed blame on Chinese leadership for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. Is the U.S. considering sanctions against Chinese leadership?
MR PATEL: We certainly would not preview sanctions from up here. You know that by now, Daphne. But this is something that we have talked about pretty clearly before, that the – this is a point of view that’s not just held by the United States but also held by the G7, the EU, and NATO countries as well, is that PRC support and the reconstitution of the Russian defense industrial base, it not only threatens Ukrainian security, it threatens European security, and we’ve made that clear in our engagements. The Secretary did when he was in the region, and if China does not curtail its support for Russia’s defense industrial base, the U.S. will be prepared to take further steps. But I’m not going to get into that from up here.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Another?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: Oh, do you have one more?
QUESTION: I’ve got a question on Sudan. I don’t know —
MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you on that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Couple of days ago, hundreds of protesters in Pakistan’s Punjab province attacked a Christian community over blasphemy charges. We have seen some horrifying images, and this is not the first time Christians in Pakistan facing such kind of attacks. Do you have any comments on that?
MR PATEL: So we are aware of recent media reports of mob violence and blasphemy charges against a Christian man over alleged desecration of the Qu’ran, and as we’ve previously stated, we are always concerned by incidents of religiously motivated violence. Violence or the threat of violence is never a acceptable form of expression, and the U.S. uniformly opposes blasphemy laws everywhere in the world, including in Pakistan.
QUESTION: Five Pakistani soldiers were killed in a gun battle with terrorists at the Pak-Afghan border region, and these terrorists who are regrouping in Afghanistan are not only targeting Pakistani security forces but also targeting girls’ schools and those who are trying to maintain peace in the tribal belt.
Pakistan and U.S. recently held counterterrorism dialogue where Pakistan is seeking for more American weapons from U.S. Do you have anything to say?
MR PATEL: So we are aware of reports concerning the deaths of Pakistani soldiers that were conducting operations along the Afghan border. And you are right; we are in regular communication with Pakistani leaders as part of our counterterrorism issues, and we’re going to continue to discuss regional security in detail, including through high-level engagements, working-level engagements, and other extensive bilateral consultations as well.
QUESTION: One last one, if I may?
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: Czech Republic is working on the extradition of Nikhil Gupta to the U.S. Gupta, as you know, accused of involvement in the plot to kill Khalistani leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York. He was named in an indictment by the U.S. prosecutors. Do you have any details on that?
MR PATEL: So I would just refer you to the Department of Justice, who can speak to that. We’re not going to comment on pending extradition matters.
Jalil, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Only two. Matt Miller had called milestone to this chief minister of Punjab. She just introduced these laws which are condemned by the International Federation of Journalists and almost every single media union in Pakistan. Do you condemn that, or do you want to take maybe that milestone statement back from her?
MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the specific policy, Jalil, so I would have to get back to you on that. Our comments that day were about the trailblazing candidacy of herself and her profile and background and what it has contributed to her getting that position. It was not a reflection of any specific policy, which, like I said, I am not aware of these. I’m not seeing these similar reports, but we’re happy to look into it.
QUESTION: Just – just one more.
MR PATEL: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, please do look into it —
MR PATEL: Sure.
QUESTION: — because she was —
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: — convicted in supreme court.
MR PATEL: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just second one is last two years I have been raising this not because I have some personal interest Pakistan’s issue and I compare it with Afghanistan. So when the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, the currency in Afghanistan was 70, now it’s 77. Pakistan rupee was 125, now it’s 270. Last week, Dubai leaks happened where $12 billion of Pakistan – the businessmen, they send it to Dubai to purchase property. Where at the same time Pakistan is begging for one billion, 12 billion went. And you have a prime minister who is openly insulting serving chief justices —
MR PATEL: Is there a question here?
QUESTION: Yes. Do you – are you at all worried about Pakistan? Like these facts that I am presenting, these are facts, like not Imran Khan related.
MR PATEL: So again, you’ve heard me say this before. We have a deep relationship with Pakistan over a number of key areas, and we’ll look for ways in which we can continue to deepen cooperation, particularly in the areas of the economy and security as well.
Guita, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you so much, Vedant.
QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.
MR PATEL: Go ahead, Guita.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Today the UN General Assembly program in honor of the Iranian president who was killed last week, it seems like it didn’t go as planned. It was much shorter. The U.S. didn’t participate. Many European allies didn’t participate. I was wondering what your take is of this low turnout in view of the fact that this was planned well in advance and everybody knew about it.
MR PATEL: I imagine that the low turnout is a reflection of the Islamic Republic’s standing in the world and its track record as the largest exporter of terrorism and its continued role in provocative and malign and destabilizing activities, not just in its immediate region but also more broadly as well.
QUESTION: Last week, a mosque in Maryland – right here in the suburbs of D.C. – held a ceremony for Raisi. A group of Iranian dissidents went there to protest. An individual, an Iranian individual who was – who is clearly a supporter of the Islamic Republic, showed a throat-cut gesture to one – to the organizer of that protest. I was wondering – now the individual who was threatened has taken this to court. The court is going to be dealing with it. But I was wondering what – if you have any comments on that.
MR PATEL: So I think it goes without saying that threatening anybody on U.S. soil is intolerable and something that we have taken very seriously throughout this administration, and we will continue to work across the government to respond to any threats on U.S. soil. Representatives of authoritarian regimes cannot openly threaten or attack citizens without facing consequences. And citizens and civil society groups here in the United States are protected in their rights of expression and their rights of free speech without facing any consequences.
Nick, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant.
QUESTION: Haiti.
MR PATEL: Anything else on Iran?
QUESTION: On Iran.
MR PATEL: Yeah. Go ahead, Abbie.
QUESTION: Germany and other EU countries have been pushing for the larger EU to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. What is the U.S. position on this? Are you urging your European partners to take this step?
MR PATEL: Well, let me just say unequivocally that the IRGC is a menace to the world. We absolutely support efforts to designate the IRGC a terrorist organization, and we support those efforts worldwide. As you know, this is something that the United States has done, already designating the IRGC, and it is a terrible purveyor of terrorism that we believe affects the entire world.
QUESTION: One more.
MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s been 18 months since a resolution was passed at the IAEA against Iran for their failure to comply with their investigation into their undeclared nuclear sites. Given the rapid development of their program since then, is the U.S. in support of pursing another resolution against Iran for their failure to comply? And if not, why not?
MR PATEL: We’re continuing to remain tightly coordinated on this with our E3 partners. No decisions have been taken with respect to any particular upcoming Board of Governors meetings, but I will just say is that we, the United States, are actively increasing pressure on Iran through a combination of sanctions, deterrence, and international isolation. We’ll continue to pursue those lines of efforts also.
Diyar, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR PATEL: And then Nick, I’ll come to you and we can try and wrap up.
QUESTION: I have two questions.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: One on the Kurds and the other one on Rojava. As you were closely engaged with the Kurdish political parties and also the Kurds about the election, recently the Iraqi high commission – electoral commission requested the Kurdistan Region president to reschedule the election to September 5th. How do you view this request and how do you view the IKR election overall?
MR PATEL: So we understand that the high commission requires a delay in order to implement some recent changes to the allotment of seats in the Iraqi Kurdistan parliament, and we urge the parties to reach an agreement quickly to schedule free, fair, and transparent elections as soon as feasible.
QUESTION: And secondly, a question on election but this time on Rojava, the autonomous administration of northwest Syria which have – they are going to have election on June 11th. Does the U.S. (inaudible) to Syria monitoring this election, and how do you view the process of that election in Rojava?
MR PATEL: So you’ve heard us say this before that any elections that occur in Syria should be free, fair, transparent, and inclusive, as is called for in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and we don’t think that the conditions for such elections are in place in northeast Syria in present time. And we’ve conveyed this to a range of actors in northeast Syria.
Nick, go ahead. Yeah.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you confirm reports that U.S. officials had negotiated with gang leaders in Haiti for the recovery of the two U.S. missionaries’ bodies who were killed? And then also, do you know if those bodies have been repatriated?
MR PATEL: What I can say, Nick, is that those bodies have been repatriated. They are in the United States now. I’m not going to get into the deliberations beyond that. I will just echo what you heard the department say over the weekend, which is that we extend our deepest condolences to the families of these two American citizens on behalf of the President. Our ambassador in Haiti has been in touch with the families. This department has been in touch with the families. And we know that they are experiencing unimaginable grief. I can also add that today was when those repatriations happened in line with the families’ wishes, and so our officials in Port-au-Prince worked with the families to make arrangements for those transports back to the United States.
Daphne.
MR PATEL: Yeah.
QUESTION: So Sudan’s army yesterday rejected a call to return to peace talks with the RSF following a conversation between Burhan and Blinken. Burhan’s number two, on the country’s Transitional Sovereign Council said the army would not go to Jeddah and, quote “whoever wants us to should kill us in our country and take our bodies there,” end quote. Do you have concerns about this messaging, and what was Blinken’s message in the call with Burhan about the Jeddah talks?
MR PATEL: So broadly, Daphne, I can just say is that we’re engaged in intensive diplomacy to end this war and to mitigate the humanitarian crisis and to prevent future atrocities. As you noted, the Secretary spoke with General Burhan earlier this week, and the point of that conversation was to press him to end the conflict in Sudan and to resume negotiations under the Jeddah Platform and enable unhindered humanitarian access, including cross-border and cross-line to alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people.
All right. Thanks everybody.
QUESTION: You said you’d get back to me, Vedant. You said you’d —
MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:19 p.m.)
# # #
Tags
No comments:
Post a Comment