U.S. Department Press Briefing – July 31, 2024 July 31, 2024 1:05 p.m. EDT

 Department Press Briefing – July 31, 2024

July 31, 2024

1:05 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything off the top. Daphne, do you want to kick us off?

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So on the attacks in Beirut and Tehran – are you concerned that this complicates the ceasefire talks?

MR PATEL: So first, to take a little bit of a step back, we have, of course, seen the news and the statement from Hamas, but I don’t have anything additional to offer on that. And I don’t want to speculate at this time about this incident or possible reactions. We, of course, continue to be in touch with governments in the region. You all have seen calls from the Secretary, readouts of calls that he’s had with regional partners. Our priority continues to be to promote diplomatic solutions for a more peaceful, secure, and integrated region. And that, of course, includes continuing to engage and work very hard to close the remaining gaps as it relates to a ceasefire in Gaza.

Getting this deal done, bringing the hostages home, getting an influx of humanitarian aid, ending the violence in Gaza – it remains incredibly important and I’m not going to speculate on any potential impacts. It continues to be a priority for the United States. We know it’s a priority for regional partners. We know it’s a priority for Israel. And so we’ll continue to work at it.

QUESTION: Both Qatar and Egypt, which have acted as mediators in talks, suggested that the killing of the Hamas leader in Tehran could further jeopardize efforts to secure a truce in Gaza. Do you share that concern?

MR PATEL: So I – as I just said, I’m just not going to speculate on any impacts here.

QUESTION: How can you move the talks forward at this point given everything that’s gone on in the past 24 hours?

MR PATEL: We spoke a little bit about this yesterday, Daphne. I’m not going to speak to the specific inner workings of the ongoing negotiation process and the effort that is continuing to be done, underway to close these gaps and to get this deal done. It’s something that we’re going to remain focused on, but I’m not going to get into more specifics beyond that.

QUESTION: And then we reported that the U.S. was seeking to deter Israel from striking Beirut in retaliation for the attack over the weekend. Do you feel Israel has ignored your warnings? And what conversations have you had with Israel today?

MR PATEL: So just to reiterate what you heard the Secretary say in an interview in Singapore, we were not involved in this mission or operation, and certainly I’m not going to get into specific private diplomatic discussions. What I can say is that our priority regionwide continues to be promoting diplomatic solutions for a more peaceful and secure region. That’s what we’re going to continue to remain focused on. Those have been at the core tenets of the conversations that the Secretary has had in the past half a day in the region, continuing to talk to counterparts about ways we can continue to push and make a ceasefire happen, and that’s what we’ll keep focus on.

QUESTION: Has he spoken with or will he speak with Israeli counterparts?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any calls to preview at this time, Daphne. As you guys have saw, he had the opportunity to speak to his counterparts in Qatar as well as Jordan and, per usual, any other call readouts that we have, we’ll make sure to share those with you.

Olivia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. We understand that the Israelis provided a heads-up ahead of the Beirut strike. Was a heads-up provided to the United States ahead of the targeting of Haniyeh?

MR PATEL: So what I can just say, Olivia, is that this is not something that we were involved in, and I’m not going to get into more specific diplomatic conversations beyond that.

QUESTION: Okay. And I know that you’re not speculating about the fallout from here, but does the U.S. view this as a step as conducive to finalizing a ceasefire deal?

MR PATEL: Again, I think that’s asking me to speculate on something in another way. I am just not going to speculate on this. We are clear-eyed and focused on what the United States priorities are and what we would like to see happen, and that is a continued focus on the diplomacy. Our team is continuing to work very hard to narrow and close the gaps. We continue to believe a deal is possible. Getting a deal done is of vital importance for so many reasons that I’ve spent much of this week talking about, whether it be bringing hostages home, whether it’s getting an influx of humanitarian aid, being able to partake in diplomacy to get this cycle – this region out of endless cycles of violence. So for all those reasons and more, this is incredibly important, and we’ll remain focused on that.

QUESTION: So without looking ahead, looking backwards, how essential had Haniyeh been in these discussions? I mean, we know that ultimately, Yahya Sinwar was signing off on decisions that Hamas was making, but how essential was Haniyeh in the discussions to this point?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of that kind of – of those kinds of negotiations in terms of the pertinent actors and interlocutors. What I can say is through appropriate channels, we have been able to continue to communicate with Hamas and Israel, of course, as it relates to the contours of the deal, of the negotiations that’s on the table. And we continue to have confidence in our ability to do so and our ability to participate in these talks and work around the clock to get this deal done.

QUESTION: So the Qataris have not signaled that they are no longer going to take part in these talks?

MR PATEL: I am certainly not going to speak for another government. I’ve said that a couple times this week. But – so from the United States perspective, we continue to remain laser-focused on this. Qatar has been an irreplaceable partner throughout this whole conflict, dating back to even October 7th and beyond, and that continues to be the case.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Vedant?

QUESTION: One more, sorry.

MR PATEL: I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: The supreme leader of Iran put out a tweet essentially saying it is our duty to take revenge. What does the United States know about possible retaliatory steps taken by Iran or its proxies?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on what the supreme leader may or may not be referring to, and don’t want to speculate on the actions that the Iranian regime may or may not take. We are continuing to urge restraint to all parties to avoid an escalation into a wider regional conflict. And as the Secretary said in Singapore, the United States was not involved in the attack in Tehran, but the United States, of course, will take every possible measure to appropriately and accurately protect our personnel, our interests in the region and beyond should we need to.

QUESTION: What about those of the Israelis? Is there a commitment to come to Israel’s defense should Iran —

MR PATEL: So you have heard me say this a number of times this week. Our commitment to Israel’s security and defending them from malign attacks like those from reckless regimes like the Iranian regime – that is unwavering and ironclad, and that continues to be the case. Israel is, of course, a country that faces a number of threats purely based on just where they are in the world. And so that – our security relationship with them is unwavering, our commitment to them is unwavering, but again, I’m not going to speculate on any actions that may or may not happen.

QUESTION: Vedant? Vedant?

QUESTION: Thank you, I have one more on Russia.

MR PATEL: We’ll come back. Yeah. Go ahead, Said. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I – thank you. Just to follow up on Olivia’s question, now, you said – let me – to understand clearly, you’re saying that if Iran responds, the U.S. will be there to defend Israel, correct?

MR PATEL: What I am saying is that our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. And of course, part of that includes the defense of Israel in – as it – when it faces threats from malign actors like the Iranian regime. That is – should be no surprise to you, Said.

QUESTION: So you often speak of the right of every nation to defend itself. Do you acknowledge that this was an Israeli aggression against Iran?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any information for you, Said, on this incident or possible reactions, and certainly don’t have anything to offer —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: — as it relates to attribution, and would let the Israelis speak to any operation of theirs that – that they may be undertaking. I don’t have a perspective to offer from –

QUESTION: Okay, well, I mean, it seems that the whole world acknowledges that this was an Israeli aggression on the capital of Iran. But suppose when you develop the proper information to say that Israel was behind this aggression on the Iranian capital, it is within Iran’s right to defend itself?

MR PATEL: I am not going to speculate on this, Said.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: I don’t have an update or an assessment to offer for you as it relates to attribution.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: And so I will just leave it at that.

QUESTION: Okay. In principle, as a sovereign nation, does Iran have the right to defend itself?

MR PATEL: Said —

QUESTION: It’s a simple question. Does Iran, as a sovereign nation, as any other nation, does it have the right to defend itself?

MR PATEL: Iran is a regime that time and time again, since 1979, has, one, been the largest and greatest exporter of terrorism, not just in the Middle East but broadly; and it has a clear track record of not just suppressing its own people but also funding, promoting, encouraging malign, destabilizing actions across the region.

QUESTION: Okay. Okay. Okay.

MR PATEL: And our opinion and point of view on the Iranian regime is quite clear, and we will not hesitate to not just stand with our allies and partners when it comes to defending against threats from Iran, but also taking appropriate action from the United States as it stands.

QUESTION: Okay. Okay. So you’re saying that the nature of the Iranian regime strips it of the right to defend itself and to defend its sovereignty?

MR PATEL: Said, I just don’t have any —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: — assessment to offer on this – on the —

QUESTION: No, you just said that, and I just wanted to understand you correctly.

MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer on this incident.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment on attribution or anything like that.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you something. You talked about the deal that is underway, the negotiations. Now, is there any doubt that the Israeli prime minister have taken almost every step to scuttle the negotiations over the past few months?

MR PATEL: So —

QUESTION: Do you have any doubt in your mind —

MR PATEL: I am not going to —

QUESTION: — that he has taken those —

MR PATEL: I am not going to speak for Prime Minister Netanyahu, Said.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: And I will let him speak for himself.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: But in general, what I can say is that we have seen the Israelis engage in constructive – in conversations that we have been having about a ceasefire deal. And so we continue to believe both that a ceasefire deal is both achievable and urgent, and it is something that our partners in Israel want. I am not going to speak to the specificity of the ongoing process beyond that.

QUESTION: Okay. But Mr. Haniyeh was the chief negotiator. He was the chief negotiator involved in these negotiations. So when Israel first killed his grandchildren, then killed all his children, then kills him, does that send, like, a clear message that they don’t want these negotiations? He is the chief negotiator, correct?

MR PATEL: Said, I will say again, as I’ve said to Daphne and others, I’m not going to speculate on this as it relates to how it may or may not impact a ceasefire deal. What I can say is that the United States unequivocally is focused on continuing its work to close the gaps. We think that getting a deal done is not just in the United States interest; it’s in the region’s interest, it’s in Israel’s interest, it’s in the interest of the Palestinian people. We are talking about creating the conditions so that remaining hostages can return home, that there can be an influx of humanitarian aid, and getting this region out of this endless cycle of violence. So that’s what we’re going to remain focused on.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: And as I said to Olivia and others, when it comes to continuing to engage in these conversations, there continue to be ways in which we can continue to engage with Hamas and Israel appropriately as it relates to the contours of the deal. And that work I have no doubt will continue.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a basic question. As far as the negotiations are concerned, is the killing of Mr. Haniyeh good, bad, or indifferent in your view?

MR PATEL: I am not going to speculate. Again, for what is probably now the 15th time: I am not going to speculate on —

QUESTION: I’m just saying, how is it likely to impact —

MR PATEL: Again, I am just not going to speculate on that.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: What I can speak to is what the United States is doing and what the United States is focused on. And what we are doing and what we are focused on is working to close the gaps. We continue to believe a deal is achievable, we think it’s urgent, and we continue to work at this around the clock.

QUESTION: Okay. My last – I promise. I promise that —

MR PATEL: I’m going to move on, Said.

QUESTION: — it’s my last. My last. My last.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you feel that killing Haniyeh complicates the negotiations further?

MR PATEL: Said, you literally just asked me a version of that question.

QUESTION: I’m just asking you. Is this likely an event that could possibly —

MR PATEL: Willy, go ahead. Go ahead, Willy.

QUESTION: I’m going to ask a very similar question to Said’s.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Willy. It’s fine.

QUESTION: I mean, you mentioned that Israel in your eyes has shown a willingness or that it is a priority to get a deal done. But I mean, certainly eliminating the person that you’re trying to get a deal done with suggests that it’s not a priority.

MR PATEL: So look, Willy, I don’t have an assessment to offer as it relates to attribution, and I’m certainly not going to speak for the Israelis or any other government or entity as it relates to this. What I can say is that the United States is squarely focused on is getting a deal done. It is the message that the Secretary is carrying and the conversations that he’s having with world leaders and counterparts, some of which that we just talked about. And that’s what we are focused on. We continue to believe a deal is achievable and urgent, and we’re going to have our team continue to work tirelessly to close those gaps.

QUESTION: Just shifting, in the wake of the Haniyeh killing, is there any posturing or concern of embassies in the region or elsewhere right now, security-wise?

MR PATEL: So look, take this situation – put this situation aside for a second, Willy. We take the safety of all our personnel, not just State Department personnel but any personnel, American personnel, incredibly seriously. We take the safety of our embassies and our facilities and our installations incredibly seriously. And constantly, around the clock, we are always assessing circumstances on the ground. We are assessing what risk levels are, what threat levels are. And appropriately, we will make adjustments on those as we need to. We certainly aren’t going to read out that operational process from here; that would kind of be counterproductive.

But what I can say is that this is not just tantamount of importance to the Secretary of State. I know it is also of importance to not just the President but Secretary of Defense and other executives across this interagency who may or may not have personnel abroad. So this is something that we are paying very close attention to.

QUESTION: May I just follow up on something?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead, Daphne.

QUESTION: You said you’ve seen – you said that you’ve see Israel engaged in constructive conversations about a ceasefire deal. Is it still your assessment today that they’re engaging constructively?

MR PATEL: That is still our assessment. I am not going to speak to specific negotiation processes, but that continues to be our assessment.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So saying nothing about the eventual outcome of the talks or progress towards a ceasefire/hostage-release deal, can you say if, given the response from key mediators, from Hamas, will the assassination lead to at least a pause in the talks?

MR PATEL: So that is not our understanding at the moment, and – but beyond that I’m not going to speculate on the impacts here – to say for, also, probably the 15th time. Our focus is on working to close this gap, the gaps that exist, and continuing to work to get this deal done. When we say that this is of vital importance to the region, that is not hyperbole, that we legitimately think that to be true. Not just in the context of Israel and Gaza but also when we are talking about de-stability across the region, we think that a ceasefire deal has the potential to be beneficial in addressing that situation writ large as well.

QUESTION: Has there been any direct or indirect conversations between the U.S. and Iran following the assassination?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of any diplomatic conversations.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up?

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Yeah, a couple —

MR PATEL: Actually, before I come to you, does anybody else have any – go ahead, Rabia. I know – I’m sure you have a wide geography to cover. (Laughter.) So I just want to close out this region of the world before we come to you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Follow-up on the assassination of Haniyeh and its implication on the Gaza ceasefire talks, actually, one of the mediators – Qatar – Qatar’s Foreign Minister Al Than today said – I mean, asked a question, which is that: How can mediation succeed when one party assassinations the negotiator on the other side? What is your response to this?

MR PATEL: So look, again, I’m not a spokesperson for the Qatari foreign ministry. I will let the prime minister and minister of foreign affairs speak to his own comments. What I can say is that the Secretary and the prime minister had a constructive call earlier today, where the Secretary reiterated again the need for getting a ceasefire, for getting a ceasefire done. The Secretary reiterated the United States commitment to continuing to work to close these gaps and to get a deal across the finish line for all the reasons that I talked about.

QUESTION: One more, please, on the Middle East. Do you have any comment on two Al Jazeera journalists, Ismail and Rami, who were killed in an Israeli airstrike today in northern Gaza? This raises to – the number of journalists and media personnel killed in Gaza to 165. What is your reaction?

MR PATEL: So we’ve seen our reports and are tracking the details. We’re also – have asked our counterparts in the region for additional information should they have it. Look, as the Secretary himself has said, we offer our deep condolences to the many Palestinian journalists in Gaza killed or injured during this war, and for all that they are suffered. As I said, we are continuing to engage with the Government of Israel and the IDF on the importance of protecting journalists and all civilians during the conflict. We believe that journalists have been integral to shedding a light on the dire – dire circumstances in the Gaza Strip right now. And we have been absolutely clear that Israel has a moral obligation and a strategic imperative to protect civilians, and of course part of that includes journalists.

QUESTION: Just —

MR PATEL: But I don’t have any more as it relates to this specific —

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said you asked Israel for more information. There have been many incidents over the past nine months that you asked Israel to provide more information. Can you give us one example of how Israel gets back to you when you ask this?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into the – I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to get into specific diplomatic conversations. There have been a number of instances in which we have asked our partners in Israel for additional information in – and in which they have provided it, they have shed light on the nature of those operations and how they were conducted. We will continue to engage with those conversations privately with our partners in Israel and publicly when needed.

Prem, go ahead.

QUESTION: I will have a non-Middle East question later, if you can get back to me.

MR PATEL: I’m sure you will. Prem, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: On this journalist’s death —

MR PATEL: Said – Said – Said —

QUESTION: — this journalist who was actually arrested – was arrested and tortured by the Israelis (inaudible) —

MR PATEL: Said – Said – I understand that you are very passionate about these issues. It is not helpful for you to interrupt your colleagues.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m sorry, but I’m saying – I’m just making a point —

MR PATEL: I —

QUESTION: — that this particular journalist was taken away and tortured by the Israelis.

MR PATEL: I understand. I understand. I appreciate your flag, but you interrupting your colleagues is not productive to the daily press briefing process.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Prem, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. So perhaps this is a good follow-up here. It’s been 184 days now since Israeli forces killed Hind Rajab, her family, and medics sent to save her. Last month when myself and other colleagues asked about the investigation into this, the department said Israel – Israel said that they’re still investigating, and that Israel also said that the UN and Red Crescent did not respond to outreach from the Israeli Government. I reached out to the Red Crescent and they said that no, the Israeli Government did not reach out. So has the Biden-Harris administration followed up on this alleged lie by the Israeli Government or sought to confirm any of Israel’s claims on the half-year-old killing now of this girl and her family?

MR PATEL: So we are in touch with our partners and Israel’s around the clock on a variety of issues. I don’t have any specifics to read out as it relates to this conversation. I’m happy to check if there have been any additional updates, but to my understanding, this investigation is still ongoing. And I will leave it to them to speak to the details of it.

QUESTION: So I had reached out to the Israeli Government as well, and while I was reaching out to the Red Crescent they said they would get back to me with an answer, and they did not. After we reported, the Red Crescent said that the Israeli Government hadn’t reached out to —

MR PATEL: Well, it’s really – I’m not a spokesperson for the responsiveness —

QUESTION: I’m just wondering – no, of course —

MR PATEL: — of another foreign ministry.

QUESTION: Just given that this government gives them billions of dollars in aid, I imagine that such claims want to be fact-checked?

MR PATEL: So we will continue to engage with our partners in Israel. We ask them for additional information. We ask questions when we see incidents unfold, and we’ll continue to do that. As it relates to this incident, I’m not aware of any updates, and I believe this investigation is ongoing.

QUESTION: Okay. And one quick one, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: With the 2024 election around the corner, how has the U.S. followed, I believe, a month and a half ago-ish – forgive me if I’m wrong – of Israeli Government-sponsored influence campaigns attempting to influence American politics?

MR PATEL: So I’m not aware of – I’m not aware of this report specifically. You raised this previously —

QUESTION: The New York Times reporting — the New York Times reporting —

MR PATEL: Right, right. Sorry, sorry – no, I understand what you were speaking to.

QUESTION: That’s okay. Yeah.

MR PATEL: So look, any foreign entity is aware of U.S. laws and the confines in which they should or should not be allowed to operate in the United States. When it comes to disinformation and things targeted at the United States, I will say that that is not necessarily something that lives in this department. And I am happy – I’m sure my colleagues at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security would be happy to talk to you about efforts that are underway as it relates to election integrity and things like that, including the office of the ODNI.

QUESTION: Are there any other nations who receive billions of dollars from the United States that are alleged to conduct such foreign influence campaigns?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate on what was a nongovernment assessment report cited in that reporting, but I’m happy – I am sure that these other entities who deal on this very important issue would be happy to speak to you in greater detail.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So I know you said that you wouldn’t comment on the impact of Haniyeh, but the U.S. Government had a $5 million reward on the head of Fuad Shukr. I was just wondering if you had any comment on his killing and —

MR PATEL: So first, we spoke a little bit about this earlier in the week. We’ve seen some conflicting reports on whether Fuad Shukr survived the strike. But the latest information out of Beirut suggests that he did succumb to his injuries after being taken to a hospital for treatment. Let’s also remember that this was an individual who was involved in the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing and certainly has American blood on his hands. And as it relates to our Reward for Justice program, I just don’t have any additional information. Confidentiality is a key aspect of the way in which the department’s Reward for Justice program operates, and as a rule we don’t publicly disclose specific information submitted into responses as it relates to things like this.

But I think an important thing to note, again, is that the U.S. was not involved in the planning of the attack, and this was an action taken by the IDF based on Israeli intelligence.

Let’s – Diyar, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. You just said that the U.S. is not involved in this act, but the Iranian Government sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council, and they clearly says that the U.S. has the responsibility for that act, which they say that this act could not have occurred without the authorization and intelligence support of the United States. What’s your comment on this?

MR PATEL: So again, I just don’t have any assessment to offer for you as it relates to attribution, and our message to any country, to any entity, whether it be the Iranian regime or otherwise, is the call for de-escalation and not take any actions that would lead the region into wider conflict. That has been our message since October 7th, and that continues to be the case.

QUESTION: And then yesterday the U.S.-led global coalition attack on PMF, the Iranian-backed groups in Iraq – so and then the Iraqi Government condemned this and they said that despite all the efforts through political and diplomatic channels, and that the U.S.-led global coalition, they attacked the PMF and they want to drag Iraq into the wider conflict in the region. So why did —

MR PATEL: So let’s —

QUESTION: Why did you – why did you conduct this attack, and what’s your comments on the Iraqi Government reaction?

MR PATEL: Let’s be a little bit clear about what this is, is that U.S. forces carried out a defensive air strike in Iraq on July 30th. These actions were taken to address an imminent threat posed to U.S. and coalition forces. And we have a commitment to the safety and security of our personnel, and we won’t hesitate to defend our people or hold responsible those who may potentially harm U.S. personnel, and it’s as simple as that.

QUESTION: And —

MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you. Always in the same Middle East issues. I want to bring you back to Al Jazeera, please. Al Jazeera, the network, now assures or confirmed that it was a targeted killing. The crew of reporters were reporting by the house of Haniyeh, and they have been struck by that missile. What would you have to say? We know you are talking to the Israelis, but what are you specifically asking them? You have 22 Arab countries who need an answer.

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates as it relates to this particular circumstance. As I said to your colleague, we are aware of these reports and we have communicated with our partners in Israel for more, additional information. But I don’t have anything to share beyond that at the moment.

Okay. Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Shifting regions.

MR PATEL: Yes, I —

QUESTION: On Georgia.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: The statement the Secretary put out today.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: He was referring to the comprehensive review of the bilateral relationship.

MR PATEL: Yup.

QUESTION: I think he said that today’s action is a result of that review. Does it mean that you guys have concluded the review? Have you landed into conclusion? And if that’s – if so, should we view today’s action as an isolated action or is it part – a little of – more often this is – steps you are ready to take?

MR PATEL: Let me widen the aperture a little bit, Alex, because I’m not sure others in your – others in the room may be tracking. So earlier this morning the Secretary announced that the United States will pause $95 million in assistance that would have benefited the Government of Georgia. The U.S. is taking this step due to the Georgian Government’s recent anti-democratic actions and false statements that are incompatible with membership norms both in the European Union and NATO.

Let’s remember that nearly 80 percent of the Georgian people support EU membership, but the Georgian Government through its own actions, including this spreading of disinformation about its allies and partners, is moving the country further from European aspirations of its citizens. We’ll continue to urge the Georgian Government to return to the path of democracy and Euro-Atlantic integration by repealing the foreign influence law, withdrawing other problematic legislation, ending its disinformation campaign, and committing to conduct the elections and pre-election season transparently and allowing international and domestic monitors. These actions would be consistent with receiving support from the United States as a democratic partner.

Though our bilateral ties are at a uniquely challenging moment, the United States commitment to the Georgian people and their aspirations is absolutely enduring. We will continue to support programs and activities that benefit the people of Georgia by strengthening democracy, rule of law, independent media, and economic development.

As you – this review, Alex, that you asked about at the beginning, that review is ongoing and we of course stand at the ready to take any additional and appropriate action should we need to.

QUESTION: On the line that the Secretary is drawing to make a distinction between the funding that was supposed to go to the Georgian Government – although I’m surprised that they are – they had an access given everything they have done – and the funding that you available – is still available for Georgian people, is that a reflection of the Georgian Government – when you announced the sanctions previously – their pushing propaganda saying that – because of ambiguity behind the sanctions – saying that you were targeting the Georgian people – is that a reflection of your messaging, that you are not, this is distinctly about Georgian Dream government —

MR PATEL: Alex, this – the assistance programs that benefit the Georgian Dream government will be paused while we continue to assess the broader bilateral relationship. In some cases, assistance programs may be modified to redirect resources to nongovernment entities working within a particular sector.

QUESTION: Thank you. You also probably have seen the Helsinki Commission leaders’ letter to the Secretary from July 26 in which they are asking for sanctions against Ivanishvili and his inner circle. Is there any —

MR PATEL: Certainly would not preview any actions from up here, Alex.

QUESTION: I have one Ukraine, if I may.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you in a position to confirm the reports that Ukraine has received F-16s?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any assessment to offer on that, Alex. I’d let my colleagues at the Pentagon to speak to that.

QUESTION: Thank you. And finally on Hungary, if I may.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Their leadership, they have been – we have seen some (inaudible) actions coming from Hungary. But the latest action they have taken to allow Russian and Belarusian citizens without any screening to enter the European territory, isn’t it concerning that Ukraine – Hungary might become a part of hybrid warfare against the West, Western allies?

MR PATEL: So look, Alex, I think it’s important to remember two things here. First, when it comes to the context – when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine and very serious issues that we have with the Russian Government, our issue and our problem and the conduct that we are seeing in Ukraine, it is not a reflection of the Russian people. It is a reflection of the Russian Government, and the same could be said about Belarus. So I will let Hungary speak to any border or migration action that they might be taking as it relates to their own border, but the United States, I can say unequivocally, is not at odds with the people of Belarus or the people of Russia. Our issue is with the actions of those governments, and specifically with Russia the barbaric, aggressive, illegal, and inconsistent with international law aggression that we are seeing as they infringe on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty.

That’s what this is about. It is not about – we certainly don’t want to see adverse impact to the Russian people or the Belarusian people. And beyond that, Hungary continues to be a NATO Ally of ours, and they continue to play a crucial role in the Alliance.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Could I – she had a – had something on Russia, so I’m just going to – I will come back to you. Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, I just wanted to ask you about public reports of political prisoners in Russia being moved around, some locations unknown. Vladimir Kara-Murza, I understand his location is unknown. Does the U.S. have any information about whether these movements are happening or why they’re happening?

MR PATEL: I don’t want to speculate on any reasoning. What I can say is that the United States continues to be focused on working around the clock to work to get our wrongfully detained American citizens home, and that continues to be the case, but have no updates beyond that.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. know where its detainees are?

MR PATEL: So we continue to be in touch appropriately with Russian authorities in the case of Russia about consular access and specific location, but I don’t have any updates for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, (inaudible) from Voice of America. So it’s been two weeks since two American journalists, Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva, have been convicted. And does State Department know where they’re currently being held? And Kurmasheva also asked for a consular access. Has she been granted a consular access after her conviction?

MR PATEL: So I – Olivia just asked a version of that question, so I will point you —

QUESTION: Specifically, yeah.

MR PATEL: — to what I just said 60 seconds ago.

Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to quickly clarify what’s been said on the ceasefire talks, so you are confident that as we speak, a deal is still possible even if the leader of – political leader of Hamas is dead?

MR PATEL: We continue to believe a – we continue to believe a deal is achievable and urgent, and we are continuing to work and are committed to work to narrow those gaps and to make a deal possible. We think it’s vital and vitally of interest to the region.

QUESTION: And is it even if the – even if Haniyeh is dead, who’s been representing Hamas response and interests to that deal?

MR PATEL: So I’m just not going to speculate – one, I’m not going to speculate on any impacts here; two, I’m not going to get into the negotiation process or when it comes to relevant actors or things like that. What I can say is that we have the ability to appropriately and successfully engage with both Hamas and Israel and continue to keep this process and keep the conversation ongoing, and we’ll – we fully intend to do that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Jackson, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. With Hamas, Hizballah vowing retaliation, what’s the U.S. position how Israel should respond? Prime Minister Netanyahu just said that Israel, quote, “will exact a heavy price from any aggression against us on any front,” end quote.

MR PATEL: Are you – what are you referring to specifically, Jackson?

QUESTION: What I’m referring to is retaliation for Haniyeh’s death from Hamas, and then on Hizballah – Shukr’s death (inaudible).

MR PATEL: So what I can say, Jackson – and I would reiterate what I’ve said at the beginning – is that our priority regionwide is to promote diplomatic solutions for a more peaceful, secure, and integrated region, and that continues to be the case.

QUESTION: And then reportedly IRGC Aerospace Force Commander Amirali Hajizadeh has been killed near Damascus. Can you confirm that?

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

Goyal, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, please. One, as far as Iran supporting terrorists is concerned, who is supporting Iran? Is it Russia, China, or North Korea, or any other country supporting Iran? And second, sir, does Iran support this deal between Israel and Hamas?

MR PATEL: I can’t imagine that the Iranian regime supports a ceasefire deal given that they are the sowers of much of the instability that we see in the region, but of course I don’t want to speak for the Iranian regime. And one, there is a clear track record of the closeness of relations between Russia and the Iranian regime. We’ve seen that play out in a number of ways over the past two years specifically, including in the context of Ukraine. We’ve seen the provision of UAVs and other security articles, and so certainly that is a relationship that’s deeply concerning and one that we’ll be paying close attention to.

QUESTION: Second, sir, just diplomatic question. Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris was supported and endorsed by President Biden, and there have been name-callings against her for her ethnicity, color, and where she comes from, and all those things. Is Secretary hearing anything diplomatically from around the globe, those secretaries or foreign ministers, about – because being first woman now maybe, and also because of her look, and among others?

MR PATEL: So I for a variety of reasons, many of which you’ve heard us talk about before – I’m certainly not going to get into electioneering or campaigns from up here. But I will point you back to what Secretary Blinken said about the Vice President last week when he was asked a question about one of your colleagues. She is somebody who on the foreign policy stage has spoken forcefully on behalf of the United States. When she meets with world leaders, when she engages with them, the Secretary has been able to be part of some of those engagements. World leaders and counterparts know that she not only speaks for the President but she speaks for the United States.

QUESTION: Why, sir – sir, quickly. I’m sorry to interrupt you.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Because my community is very much disturbed, because my community – she comes from – background from India, and my community is also worried about because there are some attacks against my community here in the regional – around the U.S.

MR PATEL: Well, look, let’s just be – let’s certainly be unequivocal. Any kind of derogatory remarks that are rooted in someone’s appearance or ethnicity or background – not only are they uncalled for, they have – really have no place in our American democracy discourse. But again, I’m not going to get into politics or campaigning from here and would just echo what the Secretary has said just last week about being able to work with the Vice President for the past three and a half years on the world stage, engaging foreign leaders with her, and what she’s been able to bring to the table when it comes to the foreign policy accomplishments of this administration.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, sir.

MR PATEL: Nick, you’ve had your hand up.

QUESTION: Shifting to Venezuela?

MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: The Colombian president is now calling on Maduro to release detailed vote counts. Do you believe that that kind of increased pressure is going to result in anything substantive or do you think there’s anything more the U.S. can do with that problem?

MR PATEL: So look, over – since Monday, you have continued to see more and more countries echo the same call from the United States that we would like to see a public publishment of the tabulation data. The international community – the United States included – is running out of patience on waiting for Venezuelan electoral authorities to come clean and release a full, detailed data on this election so that everyone can see the results.

A number of independent observers earlier have released a report and stated that Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election did not meet international standards of electoral integrity and cannot be considered democratic. So my understanding is that the OAS is going to hold a meeting later today to address some of this. I’m not going to get ahead of that meeting, but I will just reiterate what I have said almost on a consistent basis this week, is that the international community is running out of patience. We are waiting. And there is a clear action that the Venezuelan electoral commission can take, and that is a full, detailed publish – publication of this election data.

Doc, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. This is on Lithuania and elsewhere worldwide on antisemitism issues, but what is the Biden administration’s response to the Lithuania Government’s plan to desecrate the Jewish cemetery in Vilnius, Lithuania? Just received an email from the Lithuanian ambassador to the U.S. saying they have plans to build a museum over the graves of Jewish people there. It’s in violation of Jewish law and viewed as an act of antisemitism. And I have a follow-up.

MR PATEL: So I am not tracking or aware of that incident specifically, so I’m – I honestly would refer you to Lithuanian authorities on that.

QUESTION: Okay. On another issue, is – worldwide, how is the Biden administration holding other countries as well as U.S. citizens accountable for antisemitic behavior?

MR PATEL: Throughout the course of this administration – and again, I think this is something that my colleagues at the White House can speak a great deal about – we have not been hesitant to call out antisemitism or antisemitic insults or activities when we have seen it. Certainly, it has no place in the discourse of our country. We’ve spoken about this a number of times including as recently when we have seen, as part of some of the protests around the country, very clear and vile antisemitic language as part of some of the signage and public material that some of these protesters have used. And so not only would we condemn that, that has no place in our society.

Rabia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Along with that, I – just – just follow up the issue, what you just talked about, holding the college campuses responsible, the universities responsible for antisemitism. Can the Biden administration do anything to hold universities accountable on this matter and not let them get away with this?

MR PATEL: So I appreciate your question, but respectfully, this is not really a foreign policy issue, and I am sure that my colleagues at the Department of Education, at the White House would be happy to speak to you about this at a greater deal. What I can say unequivocally is that any kind of language that is derogatory, that is rooted in antisemitism, that is rooted in Islamophobia, that is targeting of individuals purely just because of their background certainly has no place in our society.

Rabia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Turkish-Armenia normalization talks, yesterday, Turkish and Armenian special representatives met at their long-closed border for the fifth round of talks to normalize their relations. Do you have any comment on that, both on the meeting and the normalization between Türkiye and —

MR PATEL: I don’t. I would leave it to the two respective countries to speak to that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just to make sure that I have understood, you said a moment ago that the U.S. forces were the – or not behind the attack on Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and what – that was carried out yesterday. What do you have for the comments from Iraqi Government leaders that condemn any attack on Iraqi forces?

MR PATEL: So what I said to Diyar in response to his question was that the U.S. forces carried out a defensive airstrike in Iraq on July 30th. These actions were taken to address imminent threats posed to U.S. and coalition forces and we have a commitment to the safety and security of our personnel, and we will not hesitate to defend our people or hold responsible all who harm our U.S. personnel.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:47 p.m.)

# # #

Tags

Armenia Belarus Colombia Egypt Georgia Hungary Iran Iraq Israel Lebanon Lithuania Office of the Spokesperson Palestinian Territories Qatar Turkey Venezuela