U.S. Department Press Briefing – September 9, 2024

 

Department Press Briefing – September 9, 2024

September 9, 2024

1:09 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

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

QUESTION: Yeah, sure. Could we go to the West Bank?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: And the killing of an American citizen. Could you tell us a bit more – after the statement that was put out on Friday, is there any more you can tell us about this incident and what you’ve been able to find out about it?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any additional information for you, Simon. We – as we said on Friday, we are aware of the very tragic death of an American citizen, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, in the West Bank, and we offer our deepest condolences to her family and her loved ones. We have urged a swift, thorough, and transparent investigation, and our urgently working to get more information as possible as it relates to the circumstances of her death.

We have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens, especially those that are abroad. Our understanding is that our partners in Israel are looking into the circumstances of what is – what happened, and we expect them to make their findings public, and expect that whatever those findings are, expect them to be thorough and transparent. But I don’t have any additional information around the circumstances beyond that, Simon.

QUESTION: And you said you’re urgently working to get more information. What does that involve? What – who are you talking to?

MR PATEL: So obviously, having conversations with partners in the Israeli Government and – as well as the deceased individual’s family. But I don’t have any – I didn’t say that to mean that there is some sort of separate American investigation or anything like that. We are simply just trying to gather some more information as – and understand that there is a sort of formal process that we expect our partners in Israel to announce their findings of.

QUESTION: What – why wouldn’t there be an American investigation into the killing of an American?

MR PATEL: So that – that process would not live at the State Department, should there be one. Of course, when there is a – when American citizens are killed, especially abroad, that is something that would happen at the Department of Justice. I’m certainly not going to speak to that process or speak for another agency. We have focused our efforts on providing appropriate consular services for this individual’s family and supporting them in that process, while also working with our partners in Israel to try to get any additional information that we can as it relates to what transpired. And we’re hoping that that can be made public as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Just – a lot of people looking at this incident have pointed out the – what seems to be a double standard or a different treatment of this death, death of an American citizen at the hands of Israeli forces, to other incidents where Americans have been killed in the conflict in the Middle East or are injured. Obviously, there are different circumstances. But the President, in relation to some – an attack by Iranian proxies earlier this year. said, “If you harm an American, we will respond.” Does that apply in this case, or are we talking about a different standard?

MR PATEL: Well, it’s clear to anybody, Simon, that what the President was talking about in that context was a terrorist attack or a direct attack from a state or non-state actor that intentionally was conducted to put Americans or American citizens in harm’s way. And of course, when it comes to the protection of our citizens and our personnel and if they are targeted, we of course will take appropriate action.

In – as it relates to the events on Friday, we are still gathering information as it relates to what transpired, what happened. And as tragic as it is – and it is tragic; it is tragic any time anybody loses their life, any civilian loses their life – for people who work at this department, it is especially tragic when an American citizen loses their life. But we still don’t know with full certainty what transpired and what happened, and that’s why we are working to get as much information as we can as well as encouraging our partners in Israel to quickly and robustly conduct and conclude their process and make their findings public so we can understand what happened. And should whatever happened deem that there be appropriate accountability, the United States would certainly expect that as well.

Going back to what I was saying before, it is – it is of course tragic when any civilian loses their life. But it is important to note what you said, Simon, which is that each circumstance is different, and it is really important to keep that in mind in these processes.

QUESTION: Can I —

QUESTION: The way —

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: Just the way – the way that you’re describing that sounds like you haven’t – you haven’t sort of – obviously, you don’t know exactly what transpired. But do you have doubt that it was an Israeli bullet that killed her?

MR PATEL: I am not going to get ahead of a process here, Simon. Obviously, there has been a great deal of open source and public reporting and eyewitness reporting about what transpired on Friday. And I certainly will let those comments and those reportings be. But I think most important is to let this process play out for the facts to be gathered and for those to come to light. And I will just leave it at that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: I’m going to go to Nadia in the back and then you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Vedant. So you say you are still seeking more information regarding killing of Aysenur three day after her killing in the West Bank. Actually, all the information available indicate that she was killed by an Israeli sniper. Eyewitnesses say that she was killed by an Israeli sniper. Autopsy report say that she was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper. Your ally, NATO Ally Türkiye, says that she was murdered by Israel. So what sort of information you are looking for? Do you have any doubt that she was killed by Israel?

MR PATEL: I appreciate all that you’re sharing, but there is a process that we have to respect and let play out here. Our partners in Israel have indicated that they are conducting a process and that they will make public their findings. Again, we expect that to happen as swiftly as possible, and we expect that process to be thorough. We expect that process to be transparent. Of course eyewitness reporting and facts from those that were there are of course important, but there are, of course, other factors that go into such a finding, and we’re going to let that process play out. I understand how troubling this news was, is, continues to be. It’s troubling for all of us as well. But it’s also important that we not get ahead of the processes that are laid out.

QUESTION: But you were – you were very quick to determine that Israeli American Hersch Goldberg was killed by Hamas in Gaza. And have you ever sought further information regarding his killing? And if – why haven’t you shown the same quick response and reaction to the killing of Aysenur?

MR PATEL: So respectfully, Rabia, I understand that – how tragic this loss of life was and how deeply heartbreaking it is for so many people. But as I said to Simon, each circumstance is different, and let’s be really clear and make sure that we are not conflating the murder, the direct murder, of American and Israeli citizens, hostages being held by a terrorist group, being murdered by members of Hamas. Each circumstance is unique and different, and any time an American citizen or civilian loses their life, it is incredibly tragic. But the circumstances around how those – that happens is important. The facts matter. And I am just not going to get ahead of the process as it relates to this.

Said.

QUESTION: Aysenur’s family calls for an independent investigation. Would you support this goal?

MR PATEL: So look, what you just heard me say to Simon, we expect Israel to make their findings public. We expect those findings to be shared transparently and as thoroughly and as soon as possible. Beyond that, I’m just not going to get ahead of what those findings determine, and should that – those require any additional steps needing to be taken.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you actually condemn the actual act of killing an American citizen protesting the aggression of, let’s say, the Israeli occupation army?

MR PATEL: Said —

QUESTION: Do you condemn the act of the killing itself?

MR PATEL: Let’s —

QUESTION: Do you condemn that act?

MR PATEL: Let’s just be very clear. Of course we would condemn the death. We would – we – the death of any American citizen is heartbreaking.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: But let’s be just very precise and clear that I am not going to speculate on what transpired on Friday as those facts and those processes are still being determined and adjudicated. And we’re going to let that process play out. It is troubling. It is tragic.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: And it’s certainly – there is a responsibility here to share as much information as possible so that Ms. Eygi’s family has the most appropriate accounting of what exactly transpired and what happened here. But Said, there is a process, and I’m just not going to get ahead of that. And I will – I’m not going to speak on behalf of our partners in Israel.

QUESTION: So you actually condemn the act of the killing or the murder of an American citizen?

MR PATEL: Of course, Said. The murder of any American citizen we would take issue with.

QUESTION: Okay. So let me just follow up. In Beita, there is – there are protests in Beita every day. And in fact, 14 have been killed in the last maybe 12 months or so in Beita. It’s a very peaceful protest. There is never any stones thrown out and so on. There are actual eyewitnesses that saw exactly what happened. So do you suspect that maybe there is some entity or some other person that fired the shot other than an Israeli soldier?

MR PATEL: Said, I think you and other colleagues – of course, this is your briefing. You can ask as many questions as you would like. You can ask the same questions as many times as you would like. That’s not going to change my answer, which is that, one, around the specifics of what transpired, work, important work, is continuing to – being done to ascertain what exactly happened, and we are going to let that process play out. As I’ve said, as it relates to making those findings public, we expect that to happen as soon as possible. We expect that process to be thorough, transparent, and to be as robust as it can be. But beyond that, I am just not going to speculate from up here what happened or why or any of the reasoning, Said. I – as I said to Rabia, eyewitness accounts are of course helpful, key, informative to all of this, but there is a process in place and we will let that process play out.

QUESTION: So would you rely on the eyewitness accounts, or you just rely on the Israelis?

MR PATEL: I am not going to speak to the process, Said.

QUESTION: Okay, that’s fine.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: That’s fine. I just want to take you back —

MR PATEL: And again, I just want to reiterate again that we are working closely —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — to ascertain the facts. But there is not – there is not a State Department-led investigation that is going on as it relates to this.

QUESTION: Yeah, because the record, Vedant, is really quite abysmal and when it – and when it comes to Israeli investigating – Israel investigating itself on the killing of Americans. I mean, I can take you back to March 16, 2003, when Rachel Corrie, a Jewish American, was killed by a bulldozer in plain sight of everybody, and it was – the Israelis only came back with an answer in 2012. And it was just like, I mean, none – I mean a nothing there answer kind of a thing. And we saw this happen with Omar Assad. We saw this happen with Shireen Abu Akleh, when it was killed, and you guys came out on July 4th, 2022, on a holiday and you said that the intention was not there.

So what is there – what guarantee do we have that this investigation, this particular investigation that saw the murder of a 26-year-old American Aysenur Eygi – so we saw her murder. Everybody – there are a lot of accounts and so on. What guarantee do you have that this will be carried out, the investigation will be carried out thoroughly, fairly, transparently, and would lead to the proper result, as far as you’re concerned —

MR PATEL: Said, I am not going to —

QUESTION: — in terms of protecting American life.

MR PATEL: I’m not going to color any of these findings until we see them. So I will just leave it at that and not going to get ahead of the process here.

QUESTION: Do we have – I mean, I’m sorry but let me just – do we have any evidence from the past that Israel actually comes through on these investigations?

MR PATEL: I will let the IDF and the Israeli Government speak to their own accountability processes, Said. I’m not going to get into that. But at every possible measure we raise, we reiterate the reminder to – that civilian deaths need to be minimized, not just in Gaza —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — but also when actions are being conducted in the West Bank that it is critical and vital to peace and stability in the region taking that moral and strategic imperative.

QUESTION: My last thing on this, I mean, when it comes to the Israeli killing of Americans, Americans that are being killed by Israel and their families, they feel that these Americans are the children of a lesser god because Israel is committing the crimes, Israel is committing the murder. Is that true?

MR PATEL: It’s not. Look —

QUESTION: It’s not true?

MR PATEL: Said, Said, I’m not sure I fully understand your question —

QUESTION: I mean that they are less American than, let’s say, when Israel is commit – it’s really the identity of the killer rather than the identity of the killed, so to speak.

MR PATEL: So again, I’m not sure I fully comprehend what you’re asking, but let me just be pretty clear about this. In this context, in any context, to this government, to this State Department, an American citizen is an American citizen. A blue passport holder is a blue passport holder, whether they are a Palestinian American citizen, a Turkish American citizen, an Israeli American citizen. The front part of that – the front part of that nomenclature is not nearly as important to us as the second half and the fact that an American citizen is an American citizen, and we take this – and we take the safety and security of American citizens incredibly seriously. It is – we spend a lot of time up here talking about foreign policy priorities and national security and our hopes for the world when it comes to foreign policy priorities, but I will tell you that for Secretary Blinken, for President Biden, there is nothing more important than the safety and security of American citizens.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So Israel gets no exceptionalism?

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Prem.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. You said you’ll look for more information from an independent Israeli investigation. That’s been the same U.S. posture for Hind Rajab, who was killed 224 days ago. To Rabia’s question, how can people, how can Aysenur’s family, take an investigation seriously if it’s conducted by a perpetrator and moreover they’ve continued to delay and reportedly lied to the U.S. about their investigation into Hind Rajab?

MR PATEL: Well, that is exactly why we have called and have continued to call for these processes to be as swift and as thorough as possible. And we have that same expectation here as well, and we’ll continue to press —

QUESTION: But we’ve seen now it’s been 224 days since Hind Rajab was killed. In the same instance, for example, we’ve seen open-source reporting, eyewitness accounts that evidently show a potential human rights violation, you say you’re pushing for a swift investigation. If that’s the same posture with this, when can Americans expect a conclusion?

MR PATEL: Any American can expect that this administration and this government will do everything we can to ascertain and gather whatever information is required, and I’m going to let that process play out.

QUESTION: Does that include conditioning arms to Israel?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any policy announcements to make, Prem, but we will continue to raise this directly with our partners in Israel, and that work has been ongoing.

QUESTION: Okay, wait. One more question.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. To Said’s question, the U.S. says it demands respect for press colleagues. Then Israeli forces kill our colleague Shireen Abu Akleh and scores of Palestinian journalists. U.S. says it supports aid worders. Then Israeli forces kill American Jacob Flickinger and plenty of other aid workers, including Palestinians. U.S. says it condemns illegal settlement activity, and then Israeli forces kill Aysenur Eygi, Rachel Corrie, and scores of Palestinians subject to settler violence. Another New Jersey teacher last month was shot by Israeli forces as he did the same thing Aysenur was doing. How many more Palestinians and how many more Americans killed, violated, will it take before this administration actually does announce a policy change?

MR PATEL: So Prem, I will say this, that one of the reasons we are so squarely focused on working to get a ceasefire deal is because of the calm and the stability and the potential it has for that, not just in the immediate Gaza Strip and the surrounding areas but the region broadly, and the benefits that it could have when it comes to peace and stability and calm and the reduction of tensions in the West Bank as well.

Certainly, the death of any journalist, aid worker, civilian – whether they’re an American citizen or not – is heartbreaking. And it is a – there are no words – there are no words for the pain that it brings, especially for these individual’s families. But we will continue to stress directly to all that there is a moral and strategic imperative to minimize the impacts on civilians. And we will continue to press on that as aggressively as we need to.

Go ahead. You had your hand up.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I want to stay in the West Bank, but I will go to the current escalation there.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And today, the Israeli finance minister put a tweet on X, if that expression is correct now, but he said literally that it’s the mission of his life is to create reality on the ground to block any future Palestinian state. So I mean, what he means about two-state solution, he want to kill it. And during the latest security operations – Israeli security operations in Jenin and then in Nablus, there – it was accompanied and in parallel by settlers violence, seizing of land, et cetera. And I looked through my e-mails this morning to see if there is any response from the State Department regarding Smotrich, and I didn’t find any. Are you okay with his statements?

MR PATEL: Certainly not. Look, that is the kind of rhetoric we would take issue with because a two-state solution and the work being done to get there is so vital to our approach to the Middle East and what we hope to see for the region. Our focus, however, is on the policies and on engaging with this government – the – its government – this government in its totality, not just one-off colorful characters who might make up certain sectors of this government. And so that is the task at hand and what we’re focused on.

But more specifically —

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR PATEL: More specifically, as it relates to destabilizing actions in the West Bank – whether it be additional sanction – additional settlement activity, whether it be additional outpost activity, whether it be settler violence – we have not hesitated to call those out for what they are. When it comes to settlement and outpost activity, we continue to feel strongly – vehemently – that these kinds of actions, not only are they inconsistent with international law, they are detractions from Israel’s own stated goal of wanting more security. They are detractions from our own goal of wanting security for Israel in the region. And so we have over the course of this administration taken steps to hold those who incite violence to account, and we’ll continue to do that should that be necessary.

QUESTION: I mean, I assume that you refer to the visa restrictions and visa blocking for some – for settlers, but this was regarding violence. I’m talking about land seizure here. I mean, it’s been going on for decades now. You calling it out doesn’t seem to stop it, and you’re blocking anybody else from taking any action toward that, whether it’s the UN Security Council or any other countries. So do you – do you see that you are – by not doing anything except calling it out, you’re allowing it in a way?

MR PATEL: I would absolutely take – I would take issue with that characterization. We have and will continue to have tools in our disposal. Whether it’s visa restrictions or not, they are actual levers that this government can pull. And when we see things like settlement activity or outposts, we’re not – we’re not hesitant to raise them and raise them immediately and just make clear how problematic this kind of behavior is, not just for Israel’s overall security but for what we are trying to focus on right now, which is getting a ceasefire deal across the finish line.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Alex, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions on Ukraine. In light of reports that some citing very credible sources, some even citing Iranian officials —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — that Tehran has already sent hundreds of short-range ballistic missiles – Fath-360 – to Russia to use in Ukraine. First of all, how alarmed are you? And secondly, is it time to allow Ukraine to destroy those warehouses storing in Russia to (inaudible)?

MR PATEL: So look, Alex, no new policy changes to announce, but we’re of course incredibly alarmed by these reports. Any transfer of Iranian ballistic missiles to Russia would represent a dramatic escalation in Iran’s support for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. We have been clear, our partners throughout the G7 and the NATO summits have been clear that we’re prepared to deliver significant consequences. I’m not going to get ahead of that or preview them from here, but Alex, you and I going back – I don’t know how long now – I have talked about the increasingly concerned about the deepening security partnership between Russia and Iran since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. It is something that we are continuing to pay close attention to.

But to put the focus on Iran for a second, President Pezeshkian continues to say publicly that improving his country’s failing economy depends on improving his foreign relations and Iran’s standing in the world. At the same time, though, you cannot have it both ways, as such a reported missile transfer would basically threaten international safety and the international order. So we will continue to judge Iran by its actions.

QUESTION: But in terms of my point about letting them strike the arrows rather than striking the shooter, not only the U.S. administration is refusing to change policy, you also are not allowing the UK to use – to let Ukraine use its own weapons. Why? And secondly, is the Secretary discussing this topic in London?

MR PATEL: So look, support for Ukraine I expect to be a major topic of conversation when the Secretary has his government-to-government meetings tomorrow. I’m not going to get ahead of that process. I’m sure you all will hear from him early, for those that plan on tuning into his press conference. Beyond that, Alex, I’m just not going to speculate on potential actions the United States may or may not take. Let me just say we have been clear and consistent about our support for Ukraine and making sure that they have what they need to defend themselves and defend themselves from attacks just immediately across the border as well, and we’ll continue to take a look at what is required so that our partners in Ukraine can do that.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have one more on Iran, if I may.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Next week will mark two years since the killing of Mahsa Amini. Is it time to move forward in terms of implementation of MAHSA Act? Why is it taking this long?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have any updates for you there, Alex, but of course the human rights atrocities in Iran is something that we are paying close attention to, and of course it continues to be inconsistent with what we find to be President Pezeshkian’s own stated goal, and we’ll appropriately take action should we need to.

Shannon, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. The House Foreign Affairs Committee latest report on Afghanistan and the withdrawal says that droves of classified material were left at the U.S. embassy in Kabul. The State Department responded by saying it’s standard operating procedure to reduce the amount of sensitive material that remains, and that Embassy Kabul’s drawdown was conducted in accordance with standard operating procedures, but doesn’t clearly answer whether classified material was left behind. Can you say if it was and how much?

MR PATEL: So I certainly would not get into something like that from up here but can say confidently that the drawdown in – at Mission Kabul was conducted not just by the book but appropriately, consistent with the standards and the protocols that are in place for appropriate drawdowns and NEOs.

And since you’ve opened up the question, Shannon, if you’ll allow me, there’s – a lot of you have interest today in Chairman McCaul’s report, so I just want to say we should be very clear about something, which is that when President Biden took office he was faced with a choice: ramp up the war in Afghanistan and put more American troops at risk, or finally end our involvement in America’s longest war after two decades of American presidents sending troops to fight and die in Afghanistan. We are stronger today because of this decision that President Biden made. The one that he made was the right one.

And it’s also important to understand that this exercise that the House majority is undertaking is about scoring political points. This investigation had the potential to truly be bipartisan and produce real legislative proposals to better prepare the United States – for future presidents and for future parties – for future challenges. Instead, the majority chose to seek scandal over substance, and this quote/unquote “investigation” seems to not actually have uncovered anything new, and instead is a collection of cherry-picked comments from various transcribed interviews and interviews designed to paint an inaccurate picture of this administration’s efforts. This exercise is a – it’s a disservice to Afghanistan policy and a disservice to the lens that we try to look at the region through by turning it into a hyper-partisan debate.

QUESTION: Can I do a follow-up —

QUESTION: So just – can I follow quickly? It’s just —

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: So just so I’m clear, the State Department’s position is you can’t say publicly yes or no whether classified —

MR PATEL: I just wouldn’t get into those kinds of operational specifics when it comes to how we draw down our presence in any – at any diplomatic post, but what I can say is that the drawdown in Kabul was conducted in a manner which is consistent with our department’s and our country’s standards and protocols when faced in those circumstances.

QUESTION: And lastly, just do you have a figure on how many Americans still in Afghanistan that the State Department is in contact with right now?

MR PATEL: I’m happy to check. I don’t have a number at my fingertips, but I’m happy to, like, check and get back to you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: But let me just say, Shannon, since you’ve asked the question on our efforts in Afghanistan, we are issuing – I know your question was about Americans, but let me just say, as it relates to our broader resettlement efforts, we are issuing SIVs to our Afghan partners in record rates. In Fiscal Year ’23 we issued more than 18,000 Afghan SIVs, the most in a single year, and in this fiscal year we’ve already surpassed that figure. And as a reminder, when the President took office the State Department inherited a backlog of more than 17,000 SIV applicants.

Kylie.

QUESTION: Follow-up on that?

QUESTION: Can I just —

MR PATEL: We’ll get to everybody.

QUESTION: Given that the Republicans’ report is out today, I think it’s worth asking you guys questions about your own after-action report that was done more than a year ago now. I’m just wondering if you have updates for us as to the recommendations that were made in that report and which of those recommendations have actually gone into effect.

MR PATEL: So Kylie, for operational specifics, I – not going to get into some of the specific recommendations that have been made, but I can say —

QUESTION: It was an unclassified report. We all read it.

MR PATEL: I understand. I understand. I’m happy to see if we have more specifics for you. But on some of the preparedness aspects and the aspects involving American citizens, I know that we have been able to successfully implement those in previous iterations in circumstances in Ukraine, in Sudan, in Ethiopia. But I’m happy to check if we’ve got a more exhaustive list of where some of these actions are in true effect.

QUESTION: Yeah, if you could just update us as to if any of those recommendations have been implemented, I think —

MR PATEL: Sure. I can say certainly that a number of them have been implemented, particularly when it comes to the planning for crisises, when it comes to the planning for crisises as it relates to coordination between the department here and folks at the field. There have been a number of steps that have been taken in relation to how we handle American citizens who do not – are not under chief-of-mission authority. So there are a number of steps that I know we have seen come to light in some other parts of the world, but I’m happy to see if we’ve got a more specific litany for you.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Nick, go ahead.

QUESTION: A follow-up to the report – is there any resolution now to the threat to hold the Secretary in contempt from Chairman McCaul if he doesn’t testify before September 19th? Or is that —

MR PATEL: So I think that’s a better question for Chairman McCaul. What I can say is that – to say that this department and this Secretary haven’t engaged with the committee and haven’t engaged with Congress on its legitimate oversight responsibilities are inaccurate. We have been in near-constant communication with the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have provided more than two – 23,000 pages of documents to Congress, conducted nine high-level briefings for committees and members of the House and Senate. We have made available or engaged 15 senior officials for transcribed interviews to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and staff members. Secretary Blinken himself has already testified before House and Senate committees 14 times on Afghanistan, including four times directly before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The majority isn’t truly interested in legislating on Afghanistan policy. If they were, they would have sought to speak to the Secretary long ago. They would have sought to speak to him, to get his input as it makes this report, which is purportedly supposed to be this big reflection on Afghanistan policy and work being done in the region. Instead, they waited until the report was completely finished to come back to us. So I will let you draw your own conclusions to what that means.

QUESTION: But will he comply with a subpoena?

MR PATEL: So I know that we spoke to this a little bit last week as it relates to continuing to engage with Congress on possible alternative engagements. I know Matt Miller spoke to that a little bit. I don’t have any updates for you beyond that.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, can we go back to the Middle East?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: First, do you expect any changes on the Israeli-Hizballah front, especially that Prime Minister Netanyahu urged his government yesterday to prepare for changing the situation on that front?

MR PATEL: I have no changes to preview or predict, Michel. What I can say is that one of the reasons we are – continue to be so committed to a ceasefire and getting one across the finish line is because the benefits that it could have in the north for creating the conditions so that both Israeli and Lebanese civilians could be able to return home. But I don’t have anything to predict beyond that.

QUESTION: On Iraq, should we expect any announcement soon regarding the future of U.S. military presence there?

MR PATEL: So Michel, we’ve held discussions with the Government of Iraq on the future of Operation Inherent Resolve since last year. President Biden and Prime Minister Sudani spoke about this in April during the prime minister’s visit. In that joint statement between those two leaders, they affirmed that these conversations would be ongoing and they would review these factors to determine when and how the mission of the global coalition in Iraq would end and transition in an orderly manner to a more enduring bilateral security partnership. Those conversations are ongoing. I don’t have anything to get ahead of on that process.

QUESTION: Reports said that there will be announcement this month regarding the start —

MR PATEL: I have no – nothing to offer as it relates to the timeline beyond just saying that that is work that’s ongoing.

QUESTION: And lastly —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — reports said that the U.S. Government told Iraqi official or officials that Iraqi banks exploited their access to U.S. dollars to support the Qods Force and the militia groups operating in Iraq. Do you have any comments on that?

MR PATEL: So I’m sure my colleagues at the Treasury Department would be happy to speak to you a little bit more about this. But from here, what I can say is that we’ll continue to collaborate closely with our partners in Iraq, as it relates to their banking and finance system, to move them away from a cash system, to make them more resilient against terrorist and counterterrorism threats and cyber activities and things of that nature. But I don’t have anything to speculate on that.

QUESTION: But are these reports accurate?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything – I don’t have anything to offer on that.

Jalil.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the Gaza negotiation?

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just very quickly.

MR PATEL: Then I’ll come to you, Jalil. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Washington Post reports that – I believe Friday or Saturday, that the U.S. now at – its assessment that there will be no ceasefire during this presidency and they are putting in (inaudible) whatever new proposals you are working on to the – to both parties and the belief now within the administration that neither Hamas or Israel are seeking this. Can you confirm that?

MR PATEL: So look, I’m not going to comment on purported speculation on a diplomatic process. What I can say is – echo what President Biden and Secretary Blinken and Vice President Harris have said, which is that we are pursuing all efforts to secure a deal that would release the hostages being held by Hamas, that would create the conditions for additional humanitarian aid to get into Gaza, create the conditions for greater diplomacy to happen to bring about peace and stability in the region. That line of effort continues, and I am just not going to speculate or get into the process beyond that.

Jalil, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. I’m sorry – I originally had three questions, but just one extra added because of Shannon’s question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So you said the Afghanistan withdrawal was – the State Department did good. But there was no ambassador at the time of the withdrawal, right? That is correct, that there was no U.S. ambassador, but the U.S. military personnel were left there, right?

MR PATEL: I’m not sure how you mean, Jalil.

QUESTION: There was no ambassador, U.S. ambassador, at the time of the U.S. withdrawal under President Biden.

MR PATEL: Sure. At the onset of this administration, yes, there was not a Senate-confirmed ambassador to Afghanistan. But that is, frankly, a little bit besides the point, because when it comes to any diplomatic facility that we have around the world, not only do we have robust teams in place, but when there is not an ambassador there, there is a chargé d’affaires that is the seniormost diplomatic person on the ground leading the efforts, leading the chief of mission. That continued to be the case in Afghanistan, and there were a number of individuals who actually came out of government – who came out of retirement, rejoined government service to help lead these final months, including Ambassador Ross Wilson, who was the last and seniormost civilian on the ground in Afghanistan prior to the withdrawal.

QUESTION: Just today, a few hours ago, the leader of the opposition in Pakistan parliament Mr. Gohar, another parliamentarian Marwat, another – a few parliamentarians are already arrested. A few – that resulted, first, that they are going to be arrested. I have mentioned to you several times that the democracy in Pakistan is under threat. Do you have anything about – to say about these arrest on the —

MR PATEL: I will let the —

QUESTION: Do you still see the democracy bright in Pakistan?

MR PATEL: I will let the Pakistani justice and law enforcement speak – system speak to any of those issues.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. Just one last one, Vedant, please?

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room a little bit.

QUESTION: Just one about the journalists.

MR PATEL: You got – you got two already.

QUESTION: About journalists, other journalists.

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions, on in Venezuela, one in China.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: The first one is – over the weekend, Edmundo Gonzalez seek asylum in Spain. What’s the reaction from the United State and the worries?

MR PATEL: So look, let’s not forget that the Venezuelan people overwhelmingly voted for change. But the repression and crackdown on human rights – and threatening of opposition officials that we’re seeing all around Venezuela – has forced the winning candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, into exile as Maduro has – and continues to kill or jail thousands of Venezuelans. Our intention, the United States, is going to – is to continue to support the winners of the July 28th presidential election and collaborate closely with our international partners to achieve the goal of peaceful restoration of democracy, in Venezuela. That is the Venezuelan people’s aspirations.

QUESTION: On China, late June, four American instructors were stabbed in China. Yesterday the Chinese Communist Party singled out a member of the U.S. mission in China for attack. What actions is the U.S. Government taking to protect American citizens and diplomats in China?

MR PATEL: So look, any threat against chief-of-mission personnel, this is something the U.S. Government would take seriously, and any potential threat against other U.S. personnel, we would take that incredibly seriously. Again, we take the safety and security of American citizens overseas to the highest priority, and that includes, of course, those working in our department.

Nick —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Simon. And I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Yeah, just to follow up on the Venezuela questions.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: After the election you said that Gonzalez was the winner. But you haven’t said that he – you haven’t said you recognize him as president-elect. Is that still the case?

MR PATEL: So look, when we’re talking about what happens next here, Simon, or what should happen next here is that the regime needs to form and have some sort of transition back to democracy. What that exactly looks like needs to reflect the will of the Venezuelan people – i.e., we’re not going to be prescriptive about it from here. Certainly, though, from our assessment, Mr. González was the winner, and that is why for so long leading up to this point, Simon, we called for the tabulations and the vote counts as it relates to this to be made public.

QUESTION: Obviously, those tabulations don’t seem to be forthcoming. You’ve been kind of referring to the regional countries to try to get some movement on this, but it doesn’t – the fact that the winner – the person you say won the election has now fled the country, does that sort of mark that your approach to this has basically not been successful and maybe you need to switch to a new approach?

MR PATEL: Not at all, Simon, because nothing is off the table. And in close coordination with our partners, including those that we engage with regularly on this, we’re considering a range of options to demonstrate to Maduro and his representatives that their misgovernance, their crackdown on human rights, their disregard for democracy and free and fair elections, has real and legitimate consequences. I am not going to preview or get into those from here, but we have and will continue to enforce appropriate action in Venezuela consistent with the actions and non-actions taken by Maduro and his people.

Go ahead, Nick. Yeah.

QUESTION: Just following up on Afghanistan.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Because you mentioned Ambassador Wilson.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And this report is particularly critical of him, saying, among other things, he took a two-week vacation the last week of July and the first week of August as Afghanistan was crumbling; that he fled the embassy ahead of the embassy staff to go to HKIA, and that he had COVID during the evacuation and covered that up and got a Foreign Service officer to take a test for him in Doha so that he could return to the United States. Do you have any response to any of those accusations?

MR PATEL: So I am just not going to get into a tit-for-tat with the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But what I can say is that it is not my understanding that he was on vacation at the beginning of August. Beyond that, I will just echo what I said previously about Ambassador Wilson – that this is an esteemed individual, a decorated Foreign Service officer, decorated senior Foreign Service officer that so many colleagues here hold in the highest regard, who came back into government service to help lead this process – him, along with a number of other senior leaders across the department that stepped up in a time of need. And he should be commended.

And let’s, again, not lose sight of the fact that when we’re talking about Afghanistan, we’re talking about Afghanistan policy, what administration it was that signed the Doha agreement, what administration it was that left a backlog of 17,000 SIVs, that left Afghanistan policy in a place so that this administration could not start its transition in an appropriate time.

QUESTION: Vedant, on Bangladesh.

MR PATEL: Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Already one month that Bangladesh has a interim government. How does the U.S. plan to engage with Dr. Yunus-led Bangladesh in the aftermath on the unrest on August 5th, especially to democratic election? And secondly, there have been claims about Chinese influence in Bangladeshi recent student protests. How does U.S. assess this situation, and does it perceive any strategic concern in the region?

MR PATEL: So look, we’re continuing to monitor the developments in Bangladesh closely. We continue to be ready and eager to work with interim government that’s led by Dr. Yunus as it charts its democratic future for the people of Bangladesh. Beyond that, I’m just not going to speculate.

QUESTION: Thank you. And some Indian media outlets have suggested U.S. involvement in the anti-government protest in Bangladesh. While India has historically been a close ally of the ousted government, could this allegation strain U.S.-India relationship?

MR PATEL: So I’ve not seen those reports. But what I can unequivocally say is that they are not true. That’s probably why I’ve not seen them.

QUESTION: Then finally –

MR PATEL: Nazira, go ahead.

QUESTION: Final question –

MR PATEL: I’ve got to work the room. Nazira, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you (inaudible). As you mention a lot about Afghanistan, there are so many problem, especially regarding women, nowadays. Bunch of Afghan professor or teachers sent me a letter, bunch of signature. The Taliban don’t give them retirement, and this former retirement teacher and the other category, they want money. They are very old. I don’t know it’s related to the State Department or not. They ask me, they have a high expectation to pass their message to the State Department.

MR PATEL: So I’m not sure I totally caught that, but let me just – let me reiterate something you’ve heard me and so many others say: that when it comes to our Afghanistan policy going forward, one of the things that is key, is central, is our support for Afghan women and girls. And the – anything that the United States can do as it relates to making sure that the Taliban takes steps to change its behavior, to have – the Taliban has stated that international recognition is their own stated goal. That is not going to happen as it continues to keep 50 percent of its population behind, it continues to keep 50 percent of its population in the dark. And so we, in close coordination with allies and partners, will take appropriate action if we need to.

In the back.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Israeli foreign minister declared that the forced displacement of the people in Gaza should also happen in the West Bank. Despite all this seriousness statements, we didn’t hear any condemnation from U.S. Special —

MR PATEL: We have time and time and time again said that forced displacement of the Palestinian people, whether it be in Gaza or whether it be in the West Bank, would be inconsistent with what we want to see in the region. And it is certainly inconsistent with the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo in last December.

John, go ahead.

QUESTION: Excuse me, just about —

MR PATEL: I’ve got to work the room. Okay.

QUESTION: I didn’t – okay.

QUESTION: Both yourself and Mr. Miller have talked about these ongoing investigations when it relates both to the death of U.S. citizens as well as international humanitarian law. One of the things that was mentioned when the NSM-20 report came out was that it was inconclusive because there were no U.S. State Department personnel on the ground to verify those claims. Has that changed —

MR PATEL: In Gaza – in Gaza.

QUESTION: Correct – correct.

MR PATEL: Yes.

QUESTION: Has that changed, and what would be the conditions to put State Department personnel on the ground to actually finalize some of those reports?

MR PATEL: That has not changed. And I think when President Biden has said no boots on the ground in Gaza – is pretty clear. I’m not going to speculate on what would be required for those circumstances to change, but that is correct. We do not have personnel on the ground in Gaza.

All right.

QUESTION: So those reports can’t be concluded?

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody. I’m going to wrap there.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)

# # #