MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for being a little tardy. I do not have anything off the top. So Simon, since you’re in that chair, I’m
going to ask if you’d like to kick us off. QUESTION: That is quite intimidating. MR PATEL: What’s that? QUESTION: It’s quite intimidating to be
in — MR PATEL: I don’t think so, no. (Laughter.) QUESTION: Yeah, I want to – first of all,
there’s some reporting about two American citizens in Gaza who appear to have been detained
by the Israelis. Is th
ere anything beyond just the fact you’re
aware of reports? Have you’ve been in touch with the family? Can you tell us anything about their cases? MR PATEL: I don’t have any other updates,
Simon, than what you said. As you know, we have no higher priority than
the safety and security of American citizens overseas. We are aware of these reports, and we are
currently seeking additional information, but I don’t have any additional information
to share and would not be able to at this point, given th
e privacy considerations. QUESTION: I just wondered – the Israeli
Defense Forces did say today that they have been operating in Khan Younis and have apprehended
dozens of suspected militants. If – have there been any cases where American
citizens have been accused by the Israelis of being militants involved with Hamas in
Gaza? MR PATEL: I’m not aware and I just wouldn’t
want to speculate on such a hypothetical situation. As it relates to the questions that you asked,
we are seeking out additiona
l information. Broadly, as it relates to American citizens
in Gaza, we continue to be communicative to them through online and through our consular
channels for avenues and options for safe departure, specifically through the Rafah
crossing, and we’ll continue to have those resources available. QUESTION: And I believe the same family involved
in a lawsuit against the State Department about – regarding this very issue of whether
you’ve done enough to help Palestinian Americans who want to evacuat
e from Gaza, is your understanding
that there are still Americans in Gaza who would like to leave who haven’t been able
to? And what has stopped you from being able to
get them out? MR PATEL: So let me say a couple things. First, I am just not going to comment on any
kind of litigation matter. But since October 7th, we have assisted nearly
1,600 individuals, including U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other eligible
family members with entry into Egypt from Gaza at the – from the Ra
fah border crossing. We will continue to be in close touch and
make ourself available to U.S. citizens seeking to depart. We believe that the vast majority of U.S.
citizens so far who are seeking assistance have reached out. And our expectation continues to be that we
expect the number of American citizens, LPRs, and eligible family members who are able to
depart – we expect that number to continue to grow, as long as the crossing remains open. Again – you’ve heard me say this before
– this is n
ot a crossing that the United States of America has any control over. It’s not one of our ports of entry. But we’ll continue to work closely with
the Egyptians, the Israelis, and others on the safe departure of foreign nationals. QUESTION: Can I follow up on this, please? MR PATEL: On the region broadly or on the
consular question? QUESTION: On this, on this issue. MR PATEL: All right. Go ahead. Then I’ll come to you, Jenny. QUESTION: Thanks. There’s also a young Palestinian American
woman in th
e West Bank that was arrested by the Israelis. How do you – what mechanism do you use to
follow up on these things? Do you do it through the embassy, or you go
directly to the – how do you do it? What is the mechanism? MR PATEL: Well, Said, there are appropriate
channels that exist in the respective governments’ foreign ministries to talk about consular
issues. I’m not going to get into the specifics
of those, but those channels exist. And specifically on the issue that you’ve
raised, we are als
o trying to continue to get more information as we can. We are aware that a U.S. citizen from the
West Bank is detained in Israel, and we are in direct contact with the family and Israeli
authorities and providing all appropriate consular assistance. QUESTION: So it is something that is done
through the American security coordinator, a military general who’s in the West Bank? Is that how it’s done? I mean, for instance, there was a young man
that was shot a couple weeks ago. We don’t know what h
appened. It seems like you go into some sort of a never
neverland. What happened afterward? MR PATEL: Said, I — QUESTION: How are you following up with that
particular case? MR PATEL: So on that — QUESTION: Which we raised here. MR PATEL: On that specific case, as you heard
me say, the investigation into that matter was referred to the INP, and that process
continues to be underway. And we hope and expect that that investigation
to be conducted expeditiously, and we’re eager to hear and learn of
the findings of
that circumstance. Broadly though, Said – I’m not going to
speak specifically about one country – when it has made – it has been made to our attention
that an American citizen is detained, we work through the appropriate consular channels
that exists in the consular conventions that we have with that country to assess information,
ask for consular access to that individual, and that continues to be in the case here. QUESTION: Yeah. I have a couple of follow-ups on Secretary
stat
ements. MR PATEL: Okay. I’m going – is it okay if I come back
to you? Because Jenny had her hand up and — QUESTION: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I’ve been — MR PATEL: We’ll – don’t worry, Said. No doubt we’ll get to you. QUESTION: I understand you’ll come back
to me. QUESTION: Can I get a quick follow-up on Said’s
question, though? When do you expect the INP investigation into
this person’s case to be wrapped up? MR PATEL: I don’t have a sense on a timeline. QUESTION: Have you given them any timeline,
that you need answers by X date? MR PATEL: I’m going to keep those diplomatic
conversations private. We – of course, our hope is to have answers
and clarity as soon as possible. And like I said, we want this to happen expeditiously,
but I don’t have a timeline to prescribe or offer. QUESTION: Got it. And our understanding is the Secretary was
briefed on the Israeli forces’ plans for Rafah. What can you tell us about their intended
military operation there? Are you confident that they are going t
o be
able to take steps to protect more than the one million people who have now had to flee
to Rafah for safety? MR PATEL: So specifically on Rafah and on
the Secretary’s meetings broadly, I’m not going to get more descriptive than how
you heard the Secretary himself describe his engagements with Israeli officials, including
Prime Minister Netanyahu, over this past week. But on Rafah, we have seen those reports. We have yet to see any evidence of serious
planning for such an operation. And to d
o – conduct such an operation right
now with no planning and little thought in an area where there is sheltering of a million
people would be a disaster. And you’ll note that I spoke a little bit
about this on Monday: Rafah is also a region that is a key conduit for access of humanitarian
aid. The Rafah border crossing is where foreign
nationals, including American citizens and LPRs, are able to safely depart. So this is not something that we’d support,
and the Secretary made that clear in his m
eetings with — QUESTION: You would not support a military
operation in Rafah? Is that what you’re saying? MR PATEL: And the Secretary made that clear
with the prime minister. QUESTION: Just so I’m understanding your
message correctly, the U.S. does not support a military operation in Rafah? MR PATEL: We would not support the undertaking
of something like this without serious and credible planning as it relates to the more
than a million people who are sheltering there, as well as without conside
ring the impacts
on humanitarian assistance and the safe departure of foreign nationals as well. QUESTION: And so you say there are – you
have not heard any plans for a military operation. Is that what Halevi and other Israeli officials
— MR PATEL: I’m just – I’m not going to
— QUESTION: — relayed to the Secretary yesterday,
or is this just based on the public – what – what is being said. MR PATEL: I am not going to get more specific
on the Secretary’s engagements, beyond what you’ve heard him r
ead out in his own press
conference yesterday. QUESTION: And then he also mentioned in this
press conference the need for Erez to be open for humanitarian goods. Is that something the Israelis have indicated
they are open to, and when might we see that opening? MR PATEL: I’ll let the Israelis, of course,
speak to their own planning and operations. But you’re absolutely right; he did raise
that in his press conference, and we think that it could be an important and vital step
for continuing to in
crease the humanitarian aid that flows into Gaza. QUESTION: Can I just follow up specifically
on Rafah? MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: I mean, you’ve talked about without
a serious undertaking of how it relates to more than a million people there. Presumably, if they want to carry out a military
operation there, that means those people have to be evacuated and moved, but where are they
supposed to go? There is nowhere left to go, and they’re
not allowing them back to the north. Khan Younis is another
center of military
action. So just if you could flesh out what that means. MR PATEL: These are legitimate questions that
we believe that the Israelis should answer. I mean, it’s not for us to be prescriptive
about these things. But what you so exactly raised is why it is
important to be – make sure that these kinds of operations are fully thought out, especially
in an area that, like I said, there are more than a million people sheltering, continues
to be an important conduit for humanitarian a
id, as I’ve said, as well as the safe departure
of foreign nationals. QUESTION: Sorry, let me just – on the same
topic. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: It’s 1.4 million. That’s the estimates. It’s a lot of people. And it doesn’t seem to have much military
value, so – and I know the Secretary said that October 7th should not – should not
be a license to Israel to dehumanize others. I assume he’s talking about this looming
catastrophe. So why can’t the administration just issue
a very firm statement on
Rafah? Because obviously, until most recently, it
had no military value, none whatsoever. MR PATEL: Said, it’s really not — QUESTION: That’s what the Israelis kept
saying. MR PATEL: It’s really not for me to stand
up here and speak to what has military or strategic value or not. What I can just say and reiterate what I just
said is that such an operation needs to be conducted with planning and factoring and
taking the things into consideration that I laid out, specifically the more than a millio
n
people sheltering, the impacts on humanitarian assistance. And we have not seen such kind of planning
take place yet, and therefore, as I said, the Secretary made clear that this is not
something that we would support. QUESTION: The Secretary also — QUESTION: There’s been just so — QUESTION: Just to follow up — MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: The Secretary also said something
akin that we want an irreversible path to Palestinian statehood. What does that mean? MR PATEL: Said, you have heard — QUESTI
ON: What does that mean? I mean, can you explain to us in whatever
the understanding of this building, what does it mean? MR PATEL: Said, you have heard the Secretary
talk about this quite clearly since October 7th and even before. We believe that there is an avenue and an
opportunity here to get us out of this endless cycle of violence, to work towards and make
credible progress towards a two-state solution, a Palestinian state. And we believe that that is a key factor in
how we look at regiona
l stability and security for the overall region and to get us out of
this endless cycle of violence. We are not – I am not – no one here is
being prescriptive about what exactly that policy is. As the Secretary said in Tel Aviv, part of
this diplomatic process is engaging in a variety of these ideas and engaging in a lot of these
policy proposals. QUESTION: So is it conceivable to go to the
UN Security Council and say – talk – or maybe recognize a Palestinian state although
it may not be impleme
nted, let’s say, in the immediate future? Is it conceivable that the United States would
not veto it if such a resolution is proposed? MR PATEL: Said, I’m not going to entertain
or get into hypotheticals. You’ve heard us say before that a Palestinian
state should be realized through direct negotiations. That’s not a position that has changed. But what the Secretary said was that there
are a number of policy options that people may propose as part of that process, and our
focus continues to be on
the diplomacy needed to bring all of this about – getting ideas,
getting proposals from concerned and appropriate regional parties, and putting together a credible
and clear plan. That’s part of what the Secretary is doing
on his travels to the region. QUESTION: Is it fair to assume — MR PATEL: Go ahead, Rosiland. QUESTION: — that if the Israelis describe
to the U.S. why they needed to go into Rafah, what they would be doing in Rafah, what the
targets would be, would the U.S. be in support of s
uch a mission? And – echoing what my colleagues have already
raised – where would people go? Egypt has already indicated it does not want
people coming into the Sinai. It does not want a refugee problem in the
Sinai. So two parts. MR PATEL: Rosiland, I’m just not going to
get ahead of a hypothetical or a process here. I’ve seen these reports about a military
operation into Rafah. As I said in answering Jenny’s question,
we have not seen evidence of serious planning for such an operation. And to
do any kind of – such thing right
now with no planning and little thought in an area where more than a million people are
sheltering, an area that is a key conduit for humanitarian aid entering Gaza, a key
conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals, that would be a disaster. It’s not something that we would support,
and the Secretary made that clear to the prime minister. QUESTION: Yeah, and — MR PATEL: Leon, go ahead. QUESTION: Yeah, I was wondering, because from
this podium you’ve alw
ays been very clear that you are not involved in operational planning
— MR PATEL: We are not. We are not. QUESTION: Yeah, of course. Yes. MR PATEL: That is – that is absolutely correct. QUESTION: And they didn’t – they didn’t
give you a heads-up with Gaza. They’ve never given you a heads-up really
on the operational planning, and you’ve always been very clear that you are not – obviously
not involved and not – so now you’re saying you want to see those plans before they do
what they do in Rafah?
MR PATEL: That’s not what I’m saying,
Leon. What I am saying is that we have not seen
evidence of serious planning around this operation. And of course — QUESTION: Well, what kind of evidence are
you waiting for — MR PATEL: — when it comes to — QUESTION: — are you expecting? MR PATEL: We’ve just spent the past, I don’t
know, 15 minutes talking about how there are a million people sheltering in this region,
how it’s a region that is a key conduit for humanitarian aid and the safe departure
for f
oreign nationals. I’m answering yours and your colleagues’
questions about what our viewpoint would be on this. And so we’ve been pretty clear that we’ve
not seen any evidence of any serious planning around this, that we’ve seen these reports
and we’ve also reiterated what the Secretary laid out when it came to his concerns, which
you saw him address in Tel Aviv as well. QUESTION: Just quick on the evidence thing,
though. So did the IDF and everyone Blinken met with
yesterday say we are not goin
g into Rafah? MR PATEL: I am not going to speak to the specifics
of the meetings and engagements that the Secretary has had beyond what we have already wrote
out. And he gave a pretty lengthy press conference
that your colleagues on the road attended and asked questions in which — QUESTION: Yeah, we all watched the press conference,
but we’re trying to figure out — MR PATEL: — he spoke to this pretty clearly. QUESTION: — how you are saying there is
no evidence you have seen if he had an entire b
riefing yesterday with top Israeli officials. Did – yes or no, did they tell him we are
not going into Rafah? MR PATEL: I am just not going to get into
the specifics of the engagement that he had on the road. QUESTION: Yeah, Vedant — MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: — the Israeli prime minister said
yesterday that he directed the army to prepare for an operation in Rafah. MR PATEL: Again, when I’m saying that we’ve
not seen these reports, Michel, what I am speaking about is that – reports around
the se
rious planning for such an operation. And we believe that planning for such an operation
should require and – some thought into the more than a million people who are sheltering
in the area. It’s also an area that is a key conduit
for humanitarian aid and the safe departure of foreign nationals. Conducting an operation without thinking these
pieces through is not something we’d support, and the Secretary made that clear to the prime
minister. QUESTION: And what’s your assessment or
the departmen
t’s assessment for the Secretary’s trip? Was he able to achieve the goals that he set
before he went? MR PATEL: Michel, in all of our travels to
the region, we go with some broad goals in mind and broad goals that we hope to continue
to push forward: one of those, of course, continues to be doing everything we can to
ensure that hostages can come home and that the hostages that are being held and continue
to be unaccounted for can be released and come home. Additionally, we continue to do everyt
hing
we can to try and push for additional humanitarian assistance to flow into Gaza. That continues to be something the Secretary
raised. You saw him talk about how important we feel
that Erez be opened for humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. And additionally we’ll continue to coordinate
appropriately with regional parties on two fronts: first, taking every step we can to
ensure that this conflict does not expand, does not grow and wade into other parts of
the region; and additionally, of cours
e, as Said was talking about, beginning to lay the
groundwork and have conversations about a solution here that gets us out of the endless
cycle of violence and closer to a two-state solution, which we believe is integral for
peace and stability in the region. QUESTION: Any progress that has been made
on any of these points that you – that you already (inaudible)? MR PATEL: You saw the Secretary lay out a
number of these things in his press conference yesterday as it relates to how we are talkin
g
to our partners in Israel and other regional interlocutors about humanitarian aid and some
of these other issues, and we’ll continue to work at them. Go ahead, Simon. QUESTION: Just a follow-up on this. You’ve sort of given this warning of it
would be a disaster to go into Rafah with no planning. Does the U.S. – the U.S. is the main supporter
of Israel in terms of military aid and weapons. Would you do anything if they go ahead and
do something that you just said would be a disaster? MR PATEL:
I’m not going to speculate or
hypothesize on something, Simon. QUESTION: And just – just – so more than
two months ago, on the same theme, but more than two months ago the administration sort
of said – started saying that there have been too many deaths in this conflict. That was when about 15,000 Palestinians had
died. And there was a warning that Israel faces
strategic defeat if they continue down a path of conflict, which is – which was creating
so many civilian deaths and kind of – they wer
e basically losing the longer-term fight
through these – this tactic. Now, like, more than two months later, that
number of deaths has almost doubled. We’re – I think we’re around 29,000
now. Can you just continue to give these rhetorical
warnings without any actual consequences for Israel, or aren’t they just going to continue
doing the same thing? MR PATEL: We continue to believe that the
daily toll of this military operation is too high, especially the toll that it is taking
on innocent civil
ians, specifically women and children. And so what we are doing is we’re having
very specific conversations with Israel about steps that can be taken that we believe would
help alleviate some of that. You saw the Secretary talk about some of those
things yesterday – first, of course, opening Erez so that the assistance can flow into
northern Gaza, where hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to survive under
dire conditions. We also believe that steps could and should
be taken to expedit
e the flow of humanitarian assistance from Jordan. There are steps that can be taken to strengthen
deconfliction and improve coordination with humanitarian providers. And we also believe that Israel should take
any step possible to ensure that the delivery of lifesaving assistance to Gaza is not blocked
for any reason by anyone. QUESTION: Can I follow up on — MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you. Alex, go ahead. QUESTION: Just on the same region. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: When it comes to retaliation
for
the killing of three Americans in Jordan, is your objective still deterrence or, as
we’re hearing from the opposition officials recently, degrading their capabilities? Has there been any shift on that front? MR PATEL: Both things can be true, Alex. Of course, my colleagues at the Pentagon,
I’m sure, would be happy to talk to you in greater detail about some of the contours
of the military operation, but the focus continues to be both: to deter these Iran-backed malign
proxy groups from taki
ng dangerous action against our servicemembers while also degrading
their capability and their ability to do so down the line. And so both can certainly be true. QUESTION: Can you please come back to me? QUESTION: Follow-up? MR PATEL: Yeah, sure. Go ahead. QUESTION: (Off-mike.) MR PATEL: I’ll come back to you, I promise. (Inaudible.) QUESTION: Thank you. Follow – following up on the civilian deaths
in Gaza. There have been some reports in Israeli media
suggesting that during their meeting, Blink
en told Netanyahu that he will think about thousands
of children killed in Gaza all his life. Can you provide any confirmation or clarification
on that? And what was the nature of the conversation
between Blinken and Netanyahu regarding the civilian deaths in Gaza? MR PATEL: So I don’t have anything to offer
to further characterize the Secretary’s meetings in Israel beyond what you heard him
say. What I can just say broadly is that we believe
that the civilian death toll in Gaza has been far too
high, and the impact that this military
operation has had on civilians is far too high, and there continue to be steps, we believe,
that can be taken that we believe are a moral and strategic imperative to minimize the impact
on civilians. And that’s something we’ll continue to
work towards. QUESTION: So you have been urging Israel to
take some steps to minimize civilian harm – and you have been urging them for maybe
past four months. And have you determined that Israel has taken
any of these s
teps? And if you determine that Israel is not taking
those steps, what will be the consequences? MR PATEL: Look, I am not going to Monday morning
quarterback this – the operation from here or specific incidents that are reported in
the media. We believe that there are more steps that
can be taken. We also believe that over the course of this
conflict, when we have raised the need to take certain steps that we believe will have
a positive impact on civilians, our partners in Israel have done so.
And so we’ll continue having these very
tough and frank conversations. I’m going to do Guita because she had her
hand up, then I’ll come to you, Rosiland. Guita, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. My question is about the CENTCOM attack against
the KH member in Baghdad last night. Number one, is there a fixed list of targets,
and is the DOS in any way involved in identifying the targets? MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to
the operational specifics around this operation. What I can say
is that the individual killed
was a commander of KH, which as you know, is an Iran-aligned militia group and a designated
terrorist organization. This commander was directly responsible for
planning and participating in attacks on U.S. forces in the region, and we have said that
attacks against U.S. and coalition forces by groups who call themselves the Islamic
Resistance in Iraq need to stop. And so if we continue to see threats and attacks
from these militia groups, we will respond. We’ll take
appropriate steps to hold them
accountable. QUESTION: You just said that the goal is to
degrade their capabilities. But they could easily replenish with Iran’s
help. MR PATEL: Again, I’m – the specifics around
the operation, I’m happy – I’m sure my colleagues at the Department of Defense
would be happy to speak to you about this. But as I said to Alex, our goals can continue
to be dual fronted on this. QUESTION: One more — MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: — on this. Politico is reporting that the U.S.
intelligence
agencies have started – after the October 7th, they started warning about possible attacks
on U.S. interests in the Middle East, military and diplomatic facilities. Are you confident that all diplomatic facilities
are secure in the region? Because there’s very – when they get to
Tower 22, they could easily do, I mean, Baghdad. MR PATEL: So the safety and security of our
facilities, our embassies, our consulates, as well as our American personnel operating
there is of the highest pr
iority for the Secretary and for this department. I am just not going to speak to threat assessments
or security assessments from here, but it is something that is of the highest priority
for the Secretary. And we will take appropriate precautions and
steps as the risk circumstances and the threat tolerance changes. QUESTION: Did you change anything in the U.S.
embassy (inaudible) — MR PATEL: No updates to offer. Rosiland, go ahead. QUESTION: Let me just ask this very plainly. The U.S., Qatar, E
gypt, other interlocutors
worked out some kind of deal to try to bring this war to an end. Hamas came back with its concerns. Netanyahu yesterday said: absolutely no way,
no how. Where is the space to try to negotiate an
end to this war? MR PATEL: Well, first and foremost, I think
it’s important to remember that the negotiations and the specifics and the sensitive conversations
around these things are, of course, often best kept to be done in private. But I think the Secretary was pretty clear
y
esterday that while certainly there were some clear nonstarters in the proposal, that
we believe that there is space to continue to pursue negotiations and see if we can get
to an agreement, and that’s what the United States will intend to do in hopefully a constructive
role. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we
have seen this work earlier in the conflict, where we have seen a pause take place, where
we saw approximately 100 hostages released, we saw a pause in the conflict which allowed
the
additional entrance of humanitarian aid into Gaza. So we know that there is a clear track record
of this working, and we believe that there continues to be space to pursue and engaged
on this. QUESTION: Is the U.S. trying to temper expectations
because, as the war continues, it becomes easier for Netanyahu and for his government
to maintain a hard line? MR PATEL: I don’t think we would be saying
that there is a – there is space for some progress here if we were trying to temper
expectations. Th
at’s not hyperbole; that’s just legitimately
where we believe things to be as it relates to this conversation. Diyar, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Going back to the – Alex and Guita’s question
— MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: You said that the U.S. goal is to
degrade the capabilities of these groups and also to deter these groups. Does that meaning that the U.S. will continue
with their attacks on these Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, even if they stop attacks
on your personnels in Iraq, in
Syria, and elsewhere? MR PATEL: So I think the important thing to
remember is that we are not going to hesitate to defend our people and hold responsible
all who harm U.S. personnel at the time and place of our choosing. And as I just said, if we continue to see
threats and attacks from these militia groups, we will respond to them and we will hold those
responsible to account. What you also have to remember is that absent
attacks against U.S. personnel for many of these groups based in Iraq, th
ere certainly
would be no reason for these kinds of strikes. QUESTION: But you are working to degrade their
capabilities until – to that end? MR PATEL: I am not going to speculate or offer
a timeline here. QUESTION: One more question. Two days ago, the Iraqi foreign ministry said
that there were a phone call between the Iraqi foreign minister and Secretary Blinken, and
they touched two issues: The U.S. strikes in Iraq, which there is a lot of reactions
to that, which they see that this is a viol
ation to the Iraqi sovereignty; and also they said
that the U.S. sanctions on the Iraqi bank is – there’s no explanation for that. Is there any political reason behind that,
or is there any legal issue the U.S. are not giving as details? And I haven’t seen any readout from the
State Department for that phone call between Dr. Fuad Hussein and Secretary Blinken. MR PATEL: So first and foremost, let me just
say we fully respect Iraqi sovereignty, and the Iraqi Government itself has rejected attacks
on U.S. and coalition advisors by these Iran-aligned militia groups. I don’t have any policy updates for you
on our sanctions regime, and I’m happy to check back on a readout between the Secretary
and the foreign minister to see if we have any updates there. QUESTION: My last question, Vedant. MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: Do you think that your attacks in
Iraq is not violating the Iraqi sovereignty, which they say that? MR PATEL: We have fully respect for Iraqi
sovereignty. And the Iraqi Governmen
t itself has rejected
these kinds of attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. What these strikes are about — QUESTION: (Off-mike.) MR PATEL: I’m answering his question, Said. What these strikes are about are holding those
who attempt to harm – and in some cases have lethally harmed – our personnel and
our service members doing important work in the region. QUESTION: And this is not violation to the
Iraqi sovereignty? MR PATEL: It is – it is not. It is us holding Iran-backed malign groups
accountabl
e for their reckless and dangerous behavior. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Yeah, but for the record, Vedant,
these guys were not underground. They were not fugitives. They could have – the United States still
wields a great deal of influence in Iraq on the government, on the security forces. Why not arrest them instead of resorting to
an assassination – assassination, and then compromising Iraqi sovereignty? MR PATEL: We have urged them, Said. We have urged the Iraqi Government to take
appropri
ate action against these groups who we believe, when they undertake these kinds
of actions, they are undermining their own country’s sovereignty and drawing Iraq into
a violent conflict. Go ahead. QUESTION: Yes. We learned that Amos Hochstein has been handling
Lebanon’s file in all aspects, not just the negotiation to stop the war or expand
the war in south of Lebanon – also the presidential file, to maybe the cabinet in the future. Is it because the State Department failed
to do so, or why this
shift of responsibilities to a special envoy and not for NEA office? MR PATEL: So the State Department continues
to be integrally involved in our engagements around Lebanon as well as making sure that
this conflict does not spread further, specifically as it relates to Israel’s northern border. Of course, Senior Advisor Hochstein also plays
an integral role, and we – this is a collaborative effort involving a lot of key players across
the interagency. Janne. QUESTION: Okay, one more question. M
R PATEL: All right. QUESTION: This ongoing negotiation, maybe
it’s direct talk or indirectly between Israel and Hizballah mediated by U.S. – and other
European countries helping out – to find a solution, a diplomatic solution, on the
border – maybe back up Hizballah forces on the Blue Line and maybe apply 1701 in future. Can you – some reports came out that – soon
that we are going to hear a ceasefire at the Lebanese border despite if there is any ceasefire
in Gaza. Is it something that you can
give us extra
information about the ongoing negotiation? MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates for you
on that, but I’m happy to check and see if we have anything to share. Janne, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on — MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: — Russia and North Korea. The Russian ambassador to North Korea said
that if the United States continues to take provocative actions against North Korea, North
Korea will conduct its seventh nuclear test. How would you react to this? MR PA
TEL: Well, this kind of rhetoric is just
another example of the kind of behavior that we believe to be just incredibly destabilizing,
risky, and dangerous. And so we have repeatedly said that the United
States does not harbor any hostile intent towards the DPRK. We continue to be willing to engage with Pyongyang
without preconditions, and we simultaneously will continue to consult closely with the
Republic of Korea and Japan trilaterally, as well as other allies and partners, on how
to continue
to best engage the DPRK and deter this kind of aggressive behavior. QUESTION: One more, quick. The New York Times reported that Russia released
$12 million in frozen funds from North Korea and allowed North Korea to use its own bank
account. How concerned are you about Russia violating
UN sanctions? MR PATEL: Of course it is something that we
are deeply concerned about – not just this specific event, but we spend a good amount
of time in this briefing room talking about the closening of relation
s between the DPRK
and Russia. There continues to be a clear track record
of that, and so it’s something that we’re continuously monitoring. And like I said, we will continue to consult
closely with allies and partners on how to best deter this kind of aggressive behavior. QUESTION: Thank you. MR PATEL: Cindy, go ahead. QUESTION: Yeah. I have a couple questions on Ukraine. Do you have any reaction to President Zelenskyy
firing his army chief? MR PATEL: That is a sovereign decision for
the Govern
ment of Ukraine to make, and I will defer to them to speak to that. QUESTION: Right. And closer to home, with foreign aid at an
impasse in Congress, can you talk about the consequences if aid for Ukraine in particular
dries up? There have been some assessments that Russia
could win the war outright within weeks or months. And is there any way that the Biden administration
has to bridge the gap if there’s just a more permanent — MR PATEL: So let me start with the second
part of your question. I t
hink you’ve heard the Secretary say this
a number of times before. There is no magic second pot of money. There is no other alternative here when it
comes to this, and that’s why you have seen this administration come out strongly for
the text of the supplemental funding bill that was made public over this past weekend. There is not another alternative than for
Congress doing its job and passing this, and the effects that it could have on our partners
– not just on our partners, on Ukraine, but
there is – there are broader national
security implications of not getting this done. Of course, part of that conversation continues
to be supporting our Ukrainian partners. Passing this will allow us to continue to
support them in their effort to protect their sovereignty and to protect their territorial
integrity. They’re also – not funding this would
severely limit our ability to get humanitarian aid to some of the places where it is needed,
including in Ukraine but also in Gaza. Of course, a
lso, it would have dire impacts
on our ability to support our Israeli partners as they hold these Hamas terrorists accountable
for October 7th. So the consequences are surely cross-cutting,
and that is why you’ve heard the Secretary say, in the clearest terms, there is not another
alternative here. QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, Vedant. MR PATEL: Sure. QUESTION: Senate just approved the supplemental
– Senate Appropriations – back to Congress, but more broadly speaking, the past few days,
U
kraine has been facing assault – increasing assault – from Russia. Given that and also given increasing criticism
from allies, most notably today from Polish PM, how concerned are you about the U.S. – the
state of – current state of U.S. leadership? MR PATEL: Well, look, Alex, I think it’s
important to not link these two things together. While we will continue to work tirelessly
to get the supplemental across the finish line – I think you saw the President speak
about this quite clearly earlier
in the week – simultaneously, though, Alex, in the various
conflicts that are currently taking place around the world, what there continues to
be in common is this desire for the United States to continue to play its role as a key
diplomatic partner on a lot of these endeavors. Countries around the world are seeking further
U.S. engagement in preventing these conflicts from spreading and holding malign actors accountable. And so that is a role we’ll continue to
play and we’ll continue to engage.
You saw the Secretary do some of this on his
travels as it relates to the conflict in Gaza right now. QUESTION: And on flip side – don’t want
to drag you into a Tucker Carlson debate, but given the fact that the Secretary has
been on the record urging journalists, American journalists, not to go to Russia, and also
GEC came up with the special report just two weeks ago approving – confirming how Russia
has been using historically same tools to push its propaganda in the Western capitals,
what i
s the Secretary’s position on this very episode? MR PATEL: The Secretary really doesn’t have
a position on this specific episode. What I will just reiterate, Alex, is that
our message to all Americans, not just journalists, is that there is a pretty clear Travel Advisory
warning when it comes to Russia. It’s a Level Four. It’s do not travel, and the reasons for
why that is our very serious recommendation are pretty clear. And we have seen, just in the past year and
a half, American journalists b
eing detained in Russia just for doing their job. Nike, I know you had your hand up. I’m sorry for breezing past you. Go ahead. QUESTION: Right. First, going back to the Hamas response to
the hostage deal, what elements of the response makes the U.S. say that there are room for
negotiation? And then is it fair to say that Hamas asked
that it will have a governing role in the aftermath of Gaza is a nonstarter? MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into
the specifics of these conversations and these
proposals, as this continues to be something
ongoing. But like the Secretary said, we continue to
believe that there is space for progress here, and we’ll continue to play a role in moving
that forward. QUESTION: And then separately, on the Pakistan
elections, I know you have been asked several times. Now that the elections were held, does the
United States have a message to people in – not – sorry. Does the United States have a message to people
in Pakistan after their controversial elections?
MR PATEL: Well, first, millions of Pakistanis
went to the polls today to vote, and I will reiterate that Pakistan’s future leadership
is for the Pakistani people to decide, and our interest continues to be in the democratic
process. We strongly condemn all instances of election-related
violence, both in the weeks preceding elections as well as those that transpired on election
day. These kinds of election-related violence,
we believe, affected a broad range of political parties across Pakistan.
It impacted polling stations, election officers,
as well as the election commission. And as you heard me say earlier in the week,
we are concerned about the restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression. We are tracking reports of restrictions on
internet and cellphone access across Pakistan on polling day. And we, along with the international community,
will continue to emphasize the importance of democratic institutions, a free press,
a vibrant civil society, and expanded opportunitie
s for political participation of all of Pakistan’s
citizens. But I am not going to get ahead of any of
the other official election results, so I’m not going to comment on this any further. QUESTION: How would you characterize the relations
– the working relationship between the United States and Pakistan moving forward? MR PATEL: Look, you heard me say is that – what
you heard me say is that when it comes to Pakistan’s leaders, that is for the people
of Pakistan to decide. Our interest is in the
democratic process,
and we are interested in taking the appropriate steps to continue to foster our relationship,
our partnership with the Government of Pakistan, whatever it should be. QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? QUESTION: On Pakistan? MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead. QUESTION: So following up on Pakistan. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: Thank you for taking the question. So far the preliminary results have been Imran
Khan’s party, I think at this point, with leading in 136 districts. That’s the thr
ee times the next closest
one. You’re now seeing reports of Pakistan of
two separate things: one, the army is in the streets, the police are in the streets, they’re
surrounding polling stations. And you’re seeing a lot of reports and videos
of efforts to change the vote. They’re kicking election officials out. There’s a lot of concern that number – 136
– by tomorrow morning in Pakistan could be pushed down lower. Separately, you’re seeing also surface in
Pakistan an attempt by the kind of milita
ry-connected officials to take the independents who are
associated with PTI and pressure them to join other parties. So even though Imran Khan’s party might
win a majority, after torture and bribery, you could have a different government take
power. So you’ve from the podium stood up for free
and fair elections, but free and fair elections are one thing. But if you torture your way to a majority
after that, that doesn’t quite – that doesn’t quite live up to kind of the values
that you are statin
g from here. So this seems like a pretty pivotal moment
— MR PATEL: Look, Ryan — QUESTION: — for America and the – and
Pakistan’s relationship. MR PATEL: Look, Ryan, the thing about preliminary
results is that they are preliminary. And I am not going to get ahead of any official
results, and so I’m not going to comment or speculate further on what a government
could look like, what the makeup could be, or anything like that. What I will just — QUESTION: You’d be okay if — MR PATEL: What I will j
ust reiterate again
is that we condemn all instances of election- related violence, even some of the kinds that
you are describing that took place in the weeks preceding the election as well as on
election day. We also believe that these kinds of actions
have affected a number of political parties across Pakistan, and we’re also concerned
about the steps that were taken to restrict freedom of expression, specifically around
internet and cellphone use. But again, I’m just not going to — QUESTION:
Thank you. Just real quick — MR PATEL: — speculate on results or government
makeup. QUESTION: But let’s say the Pakistani people
do elect a majority of independents associated with the PTI, but then after a bunch of backroom
negotiations, which are accompanied by reports of torture, all of a sudden there’s another
candidate that has a majority. Would that be okay with the United States? MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not
going to speculate or hypothesize on — QUESTION: You can’t say that woul
dn’t
be okay with the United States? MR PATEL: I’m not going to hypothesize on
a made-up situation that you’re just describing right now. We will at some point – I have no doubt
that the United States of America will comment on the election – official election results
when they happen, but till then we will defer to the electoral process, which we believe
– we take very seriously. Nick, go ahead. QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? MR PATEL: Let’s – I’ll come back to
you. Go ahead. QUESTION: Than
k you. During the last few days, we have seen a rise
in the terrorism in Pakistan. MR PATEL: Yeah. QUESTION: A couple of bomb blasts killing
security forces and innocent people in Pakistan. Pakistani foreign ministry officials say that
they have shared some evidence with the United States and some other foreign countries regarding
the involvement of neighboring countries sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. You have seen reports or what you want to
say about that? (Inaudible) of cooperation with Pa
kistan? MR PATEL: I don’t have any – I don’t
have any comments on that, and I would defer you to the Government of Pakistan to speak
further on that. I’m sorry I missed you earlier. Go ahead. Yeah. QUESTION: So would the U.S. accept the results
of Pakistan election while they’re being tainted by rigging, violence, torture? MR PATEL: So again, I think I’m starting
to sound like a little bit like a broken record on this, but we’re going to continue to
monitor the electoral process. We’re not going
to get ahead of any official
results, and we want to see a process that took place in a way that allowed for broad
participation, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. And there were some clear restrictions of
the exercise of freedom that took place – addressed some of those in speaking to Nike and Ryan’s
questions, specifically around internet and cellphone use – and those, of course, are
concerning. We’ve also seen reports of election-based
violence in the weeks leading up
to this, as well as on election day. Those continue to be concerning, and those,
we believe, have impacted a number of political parties. But again, I’m just not going to get ahead
of this, and it is truly up to the people of Pakistan to decide their political future. QUESTION: Just last question. Some here do think the U.S. has been fairly
muted on human rights violations in Pakistan, but the focal point between bilateral talks
or the relations between U.S. and Pakistan is the Pakistan militar
y, so it doesn’t
really matter what the outcome of the election is because U.S. prefers to deal with the Pakistan
military. Is that true? That’s the question. MR PATEL: I would certainly take issue with
that characterization. We are interested in the – first, let me
take a step back. The makeup of the Government of Pakistan is
up for the Pakistani people to decide. What the United States is interested is in
deepening our partnership and cooperation with the Government of Pakistan irregardless
of
what the makeup of the government is. That is not for us to decide. There are a number of areas which we believe
we’ve got some strategic shared priorities, and we look forward to continuing to work
in that space. All right. QUESTION: Thank you. MR PATEL: Nick, I think we’re going to – that’s
all we’ve got time for anyways. Go ahead. QUESTION: So two questions, then. MR PATEL: All right. QUESTION: The first is: The U.S. embassy in
Colombia put out a security alert a couple of weeks ago warning
about the risk of using
dating apps. Apparently eight citizens died between November
and December in Medellin after being drugged on dates from dating apps. Are you aware of this issue? Any comment on it, and is it happening in
any other countries where Americans are being targeted? MR PATEL: So I would have to take a look at
every single Travel Advisory to see if others are listed as specifically, but what I can
just say broadly, Nick, is that when we update our Travel Advisories or when we add
specific
information to them – in this case dangers around cyber – a cyber presence and online
dating – it’s rooted in circumstances on the ground. As you recall, there are instances in which
we’ll update our Travel Advisories based on public health guidance, natural disasters,
other things that are happening. It’s something that we take very seriously,
and so I will just leave it at that. I don’t have any other specific contours
to offer on this. QUESTION: And then a lot lighter topic. More th
an 100 million people around the world
are going to be watching the Super Bowl this Sunday. Wondered if you had any predictions. QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.) MR PATEL: I will be one of them. I will be one of them. Look, I grew up — QUESTION: 49ers. MR PATEL: I grew up in San Jose. QUESTION: Off the record. MR PATEL: Said – Said said right – I grew
up in San Jose, California. Go Niners. QUESTION: Go Niners. MR PATEL: So I will be – I will be tuning
in. All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a sa
fe Super Bowl weekend. QUESTION: Thank you so much. MR PATEL: I will see you all next week.
Comments