Department Press Briefing – April 18, 2024

1:23 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR PATEL: I do not have anything off the top, Matt, so if you would like to kick us off.

QUESTION: Yeah. Before we get into what’s going on at the UN and then with Iran and this other kind of thing, can you clear up – either to kill or keep alive – these persistent reports that you guys have told the Israelis that you’re okay with them going ahead with the Rafah operation as long as they don’t attack Iran?

MR PATEL: So we’ve been pretty clear, Matt, that any kind of operation into Rafah requires some pretty serious planning, because of the three main components that you’ve heard me, Matt, the Secretary outline pretty seriously before: first and foremost, of course, the more than 1 million people seeking refuge in Rafah; the region itself continuing to be an important conduit for humanitarian aid and an important conduit for the safe departure of foreign nationals. So any kind of operation into Rafah would require serious planning, and we would seriously oppose anything that is done without factoring in those various pieces when considering how to conduct a military operation into Rafah.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s an excellent answer to a question that I don’t think I asked. I asked you whether or not the U.S. has told the Israelis that you’re okay with a Rafah operation as long as they limit or don’t attack Iran in response to what happened over the weekend.

MR PATEL: So Matt, I don’t want to – the devil is in the details here. It would require what kind of operation into Rafah we’re talking about. If it is one that is reflective of these three very serious concerns that we have – I’m not going to preview or get into hypotheticals, but those are some serious areas of concerns that our continued engagement with our partners in Israel continues to be that when it comes to Rafah, these three things need to be addressed and you need to have a plan for them.

QUESTION: Okay. Well —

MR PATEL: And so that’s going to continue to be our message. And that is separate from our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and their self-defense and their ability to defend themselves.

QUESTION: All right. So regardless of whether Israel does anything with – in response to the Iranian attack over the weekend, you still would oppose a Rafah operation, unless what you’ve just mentioned are – so why can’t you just say, no, that it is not true that you have —

MR PATEL: It’s not true. It’s not true. But I’m speaking – it’s not —

QUESTION: Well, why couldn’t you have just said that at the beginning instead of going on for —

MR PATEL: Because you’re – I am —

QUESTION: I thought the question was pretty clear.

MR PATEL: It wasn’t that clear. I’m trying to be specific. And I’m trying to be specific in response to your question.

QUESTION: All right. And then as it relates to Rafah, this call today – is it over?

MR PATEL: The White – our colleagues at the White House will have a readout later in the afternoon. I don’t have a sense on the status, but Admiral Kirby spoke briefly about this on Air Force One.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PATEL: National Security Advisor Sullivan is going to be conducting this meeting happening today. We will have participants from the State Department tuned in and joined for that conversation. But I will leave it to colleagues at the White House to —

QUESTION: Okay. But as far as you know, the call is not over? Or has it even started?

MR PATEL: I just – I don’t have a sense on timing.

QUESTION: All right. Last one. At the UN right now, I think the Security Council is voting or about to vote on this Palestinian recognition resolution. How are you guys going to vote?

MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.

We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.

And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: Okay. Again, you buried the lead again.

MR PATEL: As an expert of the UN, Matt, I will also just so note that, due to statutory requirements, such an admission of statehood would also require the United States to cease its funding to the United Nations. But the U.S. is committed to intensifying its engagement on this issue with the Palestinians and the rest of the region, not only to address the current crisis in Gaza, but to advance a political settlement here that we think can create a path to Palestinian statehood and membership in the United Nations.

QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?

MR PATEL: It’s been —

QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not —

MR PATEL: We don’t think so.

QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.

MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.

I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?

MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to —

QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.

MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.

QUESTION: Right. But you see, you have – you’re pursuing this mega-deal in the Middle East, like Saudi-Israel normalization, and then tied to that is PA reform and the creation of a two-state solution, and let’s assume for a moment that all of that would go swimmingly. Netanyahu has to agree to that, and he has repeatedly rejected to the creation of a Palestinian statehood. So can you explain how your alternative approach is going to prevail, expeditiously or not?

MR PATEL: Well, officials in Israel also know that further integration into the Middle East region can reap benefits for them and for the people of Israel, and so they recognize the work that is at hand and what is at stake. So we’re going to continue to work at this, and in every conversation with our partners in Israel and other partners in the region who share a convergence on this idea, we’ll continue to engage on this.

QUESTION: One last thing on this.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, do you think that the creation – like, the path for a Palestinian state at the UN – U.S. would veto this regardless of the timing? If this would come up again in three months’ time, you would still veto it, or does it have anything to do with this particular moment in time?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to preview our actions on Security Council resolutions down the line or get into hypotheticals. I think that would be pretty irresponsible. Speaking in the context of the text and the iteration that was on the table today – but again, I would echo what we have said pretty consistently, is that we do not think that actions in New York, even if they are the most well-intentioned, are the best, appropriate path. We think the best path forward is direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, supported by the United States and other regional partners.

QUESTION: And the final thing is on aid.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So over the last couple of days, both you and Matt this week have talked about an improvement on the overall humanitarian aid picture from Gaza, but Guterres and other UN officials have been still talking about limited progress. They are giving pretty specific examples – for example, one is, like, Israeli authorities have cleared more aid convoys, but apparently those clearances are often granted when it’s too late in the day to make the deliveries and return safely. They don’t want their personnel to operate in darkness in a war zone littered with unexploded ordnance. So are you aware of these difficulties? Because it does sound like, while you guys are talking about improvement, on the ground that improvement doesn’t seem to be happening.

MR PATEL: I’m not sure you caught the totality of Matt and mine’s briefings, because both of us were —

QUESTION: How? I’ve been here.

MR PATEL: I don’t know about that. Both of us have been incredibly clear on two fronts. There has been some measurable progress that we’ve seen when it comes to humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, but the circumstances within Gaza continue to be dire, and more absolutely needs to be done. The crisis that we’re seeing demands rapid expansion of these efforts. We are talking about making sure additional aid gets into Gaza, making sure additional steps and measures are taken towards deconfliction and appropriate humanitarian access. We’ll continue to work at these and push for these kinds of things, but we have talked about both of these issues, Humeyra, that we are seeing steps taken, steps that we believe are in the right direction, but both things can be true. We can see positive steps, but we can also feel sincerely and strongly that more absolutely needs to be done.

And again – I talked a little bit about this yesterday – it’s why we’ve so unequivocally supported a multiplicity of modalities of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, whether it be land routes, whether it be air drops, whether it also be the maritime corridor that President Biden spoke about at the State of the Union as well.

Go ahead. I’ll come to you after.

QUESTION: So – thanks, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: To that point, Secretary Blinken and others said earlier this month if we don’t see changes that are – that we need to see, there will be changes in our policy. And this is referring to Israel and their operations in Gaza and not doing more for humanitarian aid. So should we expect any changes in policy? And if not, why not? How soon would we see those changes in policy if Israel doesn’t do more, as you said, at such a dire situation?

And then also on – second question – on Rafah, we’re hearing from Israel that they have a plan; that it involves tents in central Gaza. They are trying to do more to address the civilian need there. Is that plan satisfactory to the U.S.?

MR PATEL: Let me – let me answer the second first. I think we have been clear about this since October 7th, is that any kind of forced relocation or displacement of the Palestinian people within Gaza cannot and should not be part of any plan for an operation. That has been one of the principles that Secretary Blinken has been fairly clear about since the onset of October 7th.

But dating back to your – going back to your first question, the Secretary and the President were very clear about – it was about a week and a half ago when the Secretary spoke to this in Brussels, is that we expect there to be changes, otherwise there will be changes when it comes to our policy within Gaza. Like I said, there have been measurable and important, positive steps in the right direction, but important work continues to be – needs to be done. Not just in the context of additional humanitarian aid, but also when we talk about deconfliction and the protection of civilians as well.

So I don’t have a timeline or an assessment to preview on this, but the President and the Secretary spoke quite clearly – and this is something we’ll continue to be clear about with Israeli officials as well.

Kylie, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just sticking in the region —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Qatar said today – the prime minister said that they’re considering – what’s the exact phrasing here? Sorry. They’re considering basically pulling out of their role of mediating between Israel and Hamas, saying that they have been subject to political exploitation because of that role. What’s the U.S. response to that? Are you guys encouraging them to stay as mediators, or allowing them to walk away if they want to?

MR PATEL: So ultimately I would refer to the Government of Qatar and let them speak to their own decisions. But let me just say that in our viewpoint, Qatar has been an indispensable mediator. When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza, the prime minister in specific has had an immeasurable role in the ongoing effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire, release hostages, safeguard civilians, and ensure the delivery of appropriate humanitarian aid.

We also were very clear with our partners, including Qatar, that after October 7th it no longer can be business as usual with Hamas. But in terms of any decisions that the government makes, I will defer to them.

QUESTION: But you’re saying that they’re indispensable in their role; it sounds like you don’t want them to walk away from —

MR PATEL: This is a decision for – this is a decision for the Government of Qatar to make. I am simply speaking to the role that they have played thus far in the broader region. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. And then ProPublica had a report out today that I wanted to ask you about, saying that the State Department – a panel – the Leahy Vetting Forum – recommended months ago that Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses. Is that accurate?

MR PATEL: So the department takes the requirements under the Leahy Law very seriously, and we have taken extensive steps to implement the Leahy Law, and – for all countries in which this is applicable, not just Israel; all countries where this is applicable as it relates to U.S. assistance. Any Israeli security force that has been nominated as a potential recipient of U.S. assistance is subject to Leahy vetting via the normal process. There is a deliberative process in place; I am not going to get ahead of our process as it relates to these ongoing determinations and decisions. And I will just leave it at that.

QUESTION: But typically – I mean, you don’t want to have to get into the specifics of this allegation, but can you just walk us through how long it would typically take for an allegation like this to be reviewed and then to be acted upon if it was presented in this forum?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have a specific metric to offer, Kylie, but what we are talking about is a official policy and legal determination made on a specific unit or component of any particular state that is a recipient of a U.S. assistance. So these are processes that can take time, especially in ensuring that we’re reviewing all appropriate facts, we’re reviewing all appropriate details, and we’re also reviewing the various components exist that under the various tools that we have at our disposal. In this instance, we’re talking about Leahy, but there are, of course, other levers that we have as well. And these are deliberative processes, and we want to make sure that we’re doing the work appropriately. And so I’m just not going to get ahead of that process.

QUESTION: Okay. But – so it would be normal for this process to take months, even if it could have impact on an ongoing crisis on the ground right now?

MR PATEL: What I can say unequivocally is that units in Israel are subject to the normal vetting process that is consistent with the application of the Leahy Law. I’m – again, I’m not going to offer a metric on how long these processes take because various countries are different and various circumstances even within countries can be and are different. So I will just leave it at that.

QUESTION: Iran. Iran.

MR PATEL: I’m going to stick to the – I’m going to make – go – and I’ll come to you. Go ahead, Diyar.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m not sure if you saw the – Iraqi prime minister’s comment about the Iranian attack to Israel. He denied if any drones or missiles were launched from the Iraqi territory during the Iranian attack. And the U.S. Government, including the President Biden statement, they said that there were attacks on Israel from Iraq. How did you get to that conclusion, and have you shared these facts with the Iraqi Government?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the details of our assessments from up here, but the vast majority of Iran’s attacks on Israel were launched from Iran. They were unprecedented and reckless, and we condemn them in the strongest terms. We agree with our partners in Iraq that it is critical to avoid regional escalation, and it’s something that we’re continuing to work on with our Iraqi partners. It’s also why we’ve urged the Iraqi Government to continue to take action against militants and weapons that are outside of their control. Over the past few days, the President and Secretary Blinken have had a number of consultations with partners in the region and around the world, and we’ll continue to push this engagement forward with world leaders on a way forward in the face of Iran’s destabilizing and malign behavior.

QUESTION: And one more question. During the last few days, you met the Iraqi prime minister and Iraqi delegation from different levels. So the Iraqi is looking to get some sanctions relief from the U.S. Government, especially, they said we meet the requirements and we did some change and we removed some things from the banks and the companies. But as I learned from the Iraqi sources, that the U.S. has rejected their requests. Are you going to consider the Iraqi request to give them some sanction waivering or lifting some sanctions and removing some Iraqi banks or companies from the sanctions?

MR PATEL: So I’m just going to defer to my colleagues at the Treasury Department to speak to information regarding specific sanction issues and any petitions that may or may not be in place for de-listing. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So yesterday Israel attacked south Lebanon, specifically Hiram, along with 100 strikes, including phosphorous. And this is not the first time or second or tenth time; phosphorous has been used in Lebanon much more. And we know that this is like – it’s banned against civilians. So do you have any comment on that? Do you condemn that?

MR PATEL: I’d refer to the IDF to speak to any particular operation that they are conducting.

QUESTION: Have you seen these reports about the use of white phosphorous?

MR PATEL: I – so I have seen the reports, but I will defer to our partners in the IDF to speak to specific operations. We have been incredibly clear with our partners in Israel and others about the need to avoid regional escalation as it continues to conduct operations in its self-defense.

QUESTION: Yeah, but it has been used more and more. So do you condemn the use of that? And I have another question.

MR PATEL: Again, I don’t have any specifics to offer as it relates to this report.

QUESTION: Okay. One more question.

MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.

QUESTION: So the Jerusalem court ordered the eviction of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah on Monday. You always talk about a long-lasting peace in the region and a two-state solution. How do you see these evictions working towards a peace?

MR PATEL: So I’m not familiar with the specifics as it relates to this circumstance, but broadly we have been very clear that these are the kinds of actions that we think incite tensions and cause escalation and further take us away from the two-state solution that we started this daily press briefing talking about. But again, I don’t have the specifics on this case to comment specifically.

Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Donald Lu and Elizabeth Horst met with the Pakistani finance minister. Could you share some details? And what kind of support Pakistan is asking from U.S. in terms of investments in economic growth?

MR PATEL: So I will let the Government of Pakistan speak to any issues or topics that they may have raised in their engagement. But to take a step back, the minister of finance is in the United States for a part of a series of engagements with – not just within the U.S. Government interagency, but also engaging in – with non-governmental organizations. And he met with senior State Department officials here. During the meetings from our end, we encouraged Pakistan to prioritize and expand economic reforms, to address its own economic challenges.

QUESTION: The Saudi foreign minister was in Pakistan and now Iranian president coming to Islamabad next week, and the leadership of all these countries – Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – are calling for a ceasefire and agreed for joint efforts to bring peace in the region. How you see these trips of Iranian and Saudi relationship with Pakistan and their joint efforts for the peace in the region?

MR PATEL: Well, to – first let’s just talk about Iran in that context. I’m pretty confident in saying that unleashing hundreds and hundreds of UAVs and ballistic missiles on Israel is certainly not any kind of action that is actually in the interest and in the – for the benefit of the Palestinian people.

But look, as it relates to any visits that other foreign ministers or leaders might have, I will let their governments comment on that specifically. Broadly, we are – continue to remain focused on de-escalation. And as it relates specifically to the crisis in Gaza, we have continued to call for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages and the additional serious influx of humanitarian aid.

QUESTION: But what would you say about the joint efforts of these other countries, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia?

MR PATEL: I will let them speak to any joint efforts that they might have. I think it’s – from our vantage point, we remain fairly skeptical about Iran’s intentions given its continued and ongoing destabilizing and malign behavior as recently as just this past weekend.

QUESTION: In the region?

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Wait, sorry, what? Did you want to —

QUESTION: No, I’m going to a new topic.

MR PATEL: Okay. All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Let me ask on Georgia.

MR PATEL: All right.

QUESTION: Your statements are becoming more and more pointed and clear towards the Georgian officials. If I may ask you one more, clearly, do you – I mean, partners – have a feeling that today the Georgian Government is acting in favor of Russia’s interests in Georgia?

MR PATEL: Well, if you’re talking about specific legislation – and let’s just talk about the foreign agents draft law for a moment – our viewpoint is that similar legislation has been used by the Kremlin and elsewhere to stigmatize and repress civil society organizations, media organizations, and so such kind of legislative activity, it’s not appropriate if your intended goal is to foster transparency.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Jalil, and then I’ll come to you, Michele. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Patel. Only two questions. As my friend mentioned, the Iranian president is coming to Pakistan. Yesterday a former Pakistan intelligence very popular officer, Major Amir, on a TV interview stated that in the ‘80s they had report that Israel was going to attack Pakistan nuclear weapons. Finance minister is here, as you mentioned. Imran Khan is in jail because when the Ukraine war started he – the day he was there in Ukraine. In all this scenario, what’s your, like – and the finance minister is asking for money here. Do you see Pakistan with any independent policy or do you have any suggestions for them what kind of route they should take?

MR PATEL: So first let me just say Pakistan continues to be an important partner in a number of areas. Particularly, it’s a country we have an immense security cooperation with, and we of course are looking to continue to collaborate and work with the Government of Pakistan. As I said to your colleague, they were – the finance minister was here to participate in a number of meetings, not just across the interagency but with NGOs and other outside groups. And from the State Department’s perspective, during our engagements with them we encouraged them to prioritize and expand economic reforms to address its economic challenges.

QUESTION: One more, sir.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Yesterday Pakistan’s largest political party, the PTI, one of its parliamentarians said that Pakistan has given bases to the U.S. I have been a journalist 25 years; I do not know whether they have. At the same time, we have this river in Pakistan which is called the Justice Cleansing River where people go and they get corrupt, and then when they come out they get cleansed.

Former prime minister who was convicted for corruption charges yesterday got cleansed in that river, so now he’s a clean guy. I’m just trying to understand that – a little senior journalist is confused about the whole situation in the region where you have corrupt rulers coming to power, finance minister begging for financial institutes’ help. Do you see these sort of leader – and state institutions fighting with each other, by the way. Just last —

MR PATEL: Yeah, Jalil, do you have a question?

QUESTION: So are you satisfied that such leadership will make the kind of decisions which are in the interest of the U.S. who are corrupt leaders, basically?

MR PATEL: Our partnership with Pakistan – our partnership with any government and with Pakistan – is rooted in what is of course in the interest of the American people and the people of Pakistan, and governments that are committed to working for the people of Pakistan. That’s always been the case.

QUESTION: And —

MR PATEL: Michele, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. I’d like to follow up on the decision yesterday on Venezuela.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. at all worried about the impact of these sanctions on the migration crisis? And secondly, what kind of incentive now do you have? What’s the incentive for Maduro to get back on a transition to democracy?

MR PATEL: So first, as it relates to any concerns about migration, I think important to take a step back that in any places where we have sanctions restrictions or export controls, things like that, there is always a space and a carve-out for appropriate humanitarian products and goods – things like food, medicine, water, et cetera. But beyond that, I will just say broadly, of course, the United States is always going to enforce its immigration laws, but any additional steps or preparation that is happening, should that even be the case, I will defer to my colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security to speak about.

But on the broader political context, Michele, full implementation of the Barbados Agreement, in our viewpoint, offers the best path to restore democracy that Venezuelans deserve. We think it will help improve economic and humanitarian conditions, and also address the migration crisis. We welcome that Maduro representatives have invited participation of international election observer missions. But we also call on the Maduro representatives to grant those missions the access and other requirements that they need to effectively perform their work.

We’re going to continue to support Venezuelans’ aspirations for a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Venezuela, while remaining fully committed to working with all parties interested in competitive elections. We’re also going to continue to coordinate with regional and international partners in support of this Barbados Agreement that we continue to think is key to get Venezuela on a democratic, stable, and prosperous path.

QUESTION: And have there – has there been any follow-up with the Venezuelans, with the Maduro government since this decision yesterday by Treasury?

MR PATEL: So there was – the White House spoke a little bit about this earlier in the month, but U.S. officials met with Maduro representatives in Mexico City on April 9th to express our concern about Venezuela’s electoral process and the path that it was on. But I’m not – I don’t have any additional updates to offer.

Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have my own questions, but before that let me quickly press you on Georgia. You just said a good statement, but it – starting the – it still reflects your reaction, not action. I mean, you do recognize that the draft law is Kremlin-inspired. There are some 80-odd parliamentarians who have already voted for that. Where is the beef? Where is the sanction or any action that would discourage the rest from voting for it?

MR PATEL: Alex, I spoke pretty forcefully about this yesterday. We continue to remain deeply troubled by this draft law and its passage in the first reading, particularly the way that it targets and stigmatizes civil society organizations and media organizations. We think that they are cornerstones of any democratic system. We are closely monitoring the situation, particularly closely monitoring the protests. And we call on all parties to respect freedom and peaceful assembly, and exercise restraint and avoid any escalatory or violent actions and respect the rule of law.

QUESTION: But can you – with due respect, can you imagine any of these Russian parliamentarians who voted for this draft law being able to travel to the United States?

MR PATEL: Alex, I’m just not going to speculate on hypotheticals. As it relates to Russia, I believe what I said was that we have seen similar kinds of legislation be used by the Kremlin – not just the Kremlin, but other repressive governments – to stigmatize and systematically repress civil society and media organizations. We don’t think that this kind of legislation is in line with the stated goal of fostering transparency.

QUESTION: Thank you. I want to move to Alsu Kurmasheva —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — a Radio Free Europe reporter arrested in Russia six months ago today. Can you update us on where you’re standing in terms of designating her arrest as wrongful? Have you advanced at all?

MR PATEL: So we are deeply concerned about Alsu Kurmasheva’s detention, and we are looking closely at her case. We continue to press directly for consular access to Alsu, but I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how we designate wrongful detentions or compare different cases.

QUESTION: I mean, imagine being deprived of your basic rights for six months, not being able to talk to your daughters, in jail, not having – there’s poor conditions; she spoke about that herself last month. Should her mistreatment itself be good enough to move forward with her designation? We are talking about an American citizen, Vedant.

MR PATEL: So Alex, first of all, in any detention circumstance in – around the world in any country when it happens, whether it is wrongful or not, we are quite clear that those who are detained need to be treated with respect, dignity, and consistent with appropriate humanitarian law. That being said, on the issue of Alsu, we are continuing to look at her case and we’re continuing to press for consular access to her. But I’m not going to get into the deliberative process of how these cases are determined. Obviously, to say just broadly, journalism is most certainly not a crime, and certainly no one should be imprisoned for just doing their job.

QUESTION: Let me have one more, if I may.

MR PATEL: I’m going to work the room, Alex, because you’ve gotten, like, three already.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So concerning the issue of the Chinese-owned ByteDance being forced to divest from TikTok, can you share any communications or strategies that the U.S. has been in contact with the Chinese regime, especially in light of this divestiture?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any updates to offer on that.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Chinese foreign ministry said they welcome Secretary Blinken’s visit to China. I wonder if you can confirm his visit to China next week.

MR PATEL: I don’t have any dates or specific travel to preview. Obviously, when President Biden spoke to President Xi a number of weeks ago, they spoke about continued high-level engagement and diplomacy between both sides. You saw Secretary Yellen conduct her trip. And as we said previously, we expect Secretary Blinken to visit again very soon.

QUESTION: And as you mentioned, there was a summit and a few high-level exchange between U.S. and China. Do you feel there is more – the groundwork is more solid than he visited China last time?

MR PATEL: Well, it’s important to remember that what we are talking about is follow-on visits, diplomacy, actions from the historic summit in San Francisco, or Woodside, rather, in which you saw a number of steps be taken in coordination between our two countries, specifically around mil-mil communication as well as steps being taken to address the fentanyl crisis. So I have no doubt that these are the kinds of things that we are going to continue to press and raise directly with the PRC in the event of any potential forthcoming travel.

QUESTION: And lastly, last week during his call with Wang Yi, was it mainly on Middle East? Did they talk other subjects?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any other specifics to read out about the call. When it happened, and as Matt spoke about, the primary purpose was to raise with the PRC on any influence it may have with the Iranian regime to not take further actions that we would be viewing as destabilizing or malign.

Go ahead, Sam.

QUESTION: India (inaudible).

QUESTION: China (inaudible).

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Biden has recently said, and he’s said many times in the last year or so, quote, “Were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe.” Isn’t that both false and antithetical to the First Amendment? Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whoever, are safe in the United States because of the First Amendment, because of the nature of U.S. society. How can this administration stand behind a remark like that, particularly about a foreign power that itself stands accused of not only genocide but being an apartheid regime? Isn’t that statement – were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe – antithetical to the First Amendment and false?

MR PATEL: I don’t have – I’m not sure which – these comments from the President you’re referring to, but I have no issue or reason with the way that those – with how – with what the President said. And I think what we are talking about historically since the founding of the state of Israel as a Jewish state is, I’m sure, what the President was referring to. Of course, we have freedoms within our own country under the First Amendment, but I don’t have anything else to offer on that beyond that.

Goyal.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s said this several times. It wasn’t a one-off. He said it when he met Netanyahu at the UN, I think last July or August, and he’s said it since then. I think he said it once he arrived in Israel.

MR PATEL: It’s —

QUESTION: But it says “in the world.” Jews are safe in the United States and have been safe in the United States way before Israel existed; isn’t that correct?

MR PATEL: That is true, but you’re also – I think your comments are essentially forgetting to take into account the deeply troubling and horrific history that the —

QUESTION: Excuse me? Excuse me?

MR PATEL: I’m talking about this in the context of the historical.

QUESTION: My comments are doing what?

MR PATEL: I’m not – Sam, what I am saying is that you are – you are taking the President’s comments out of context, and when it is clear he is speaking about it in a historical context given the very horrific and troubling and terrible history that there has been of the Holocaust.

QUESTION: He said it over and over again.

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

QUESTION: Two questions on India, sir, please.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. For the last over 75 years India has been conducting largest democratic open elections, and tomorrow India will make another history by going the largest democratic and largest elections on the globe from starting tomorrow through June 1st, and over 600 million Indians will choose a new government in the second week of June. My question is here now that is U.S. sending any observers or any delegation for this election, and what comments do you have on this largest democracy and largest election on the globe?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of the United States sending any observers. We generally don’t in the case of advanced democracies like in the case of India. We, of course, are eager to continue to deepen and strengthen our cooperation with our partners in India, and we’re just going to let the election play out. I don’t have any assessment or comment to offer on that.

QUESTION: And second question, sir.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: We have so many conflicts going on around the globe and we have UN, we have NATO, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi is very famous among global leaders and they listen to him. Even in the Middle East he’s very famous. My question is that how U.S. or the global community can use his influence to end this war, sir, bring peace in those conflict nations.

MR PATEL: Well, Goyal, specifically in the first – in the context of Russia-Ukraine, if any country is interested in using its voice to further deter Russian aggression on the people of Ukraine, we certainly would welcome that. And in the current ongoing context in Gaza, any country that believes that they can play a positive role in helping us get to a release of hostages, helping us get additional humanitarian assistance into Gaza, helping to defeat Hamas, they certainly should and are welcome to play that role.

Go ahead, in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. A couple of questions. First, as you know Iran’s Foreign Minister Abdollahian is in New York now. So I would like to know which kind of restrictions have been issued on his activities in particular, whether there was any message exchanged between the U.S. and him or his team regarding the latest conflict in the region. And then I have another question.

MR PATEL: Okay. So the United States has imposed additional travel restrictions on the delegation of Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who is in New York for meetings at the UN. This restriction permits the delegation to move only within a two-block radius of the UN Headquarter district, between the UN and the Iranian mission to the UN, and the residence of the Iranian permanent representative to the UN and to John F. Kennedy International Airport. We take our obligations as hosts of the UN seriously, along with our continued concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities and support for terrorism.

QUESTION: Any message exchange?

MR PATEL: We have appropriate ways to send messages to the Iranian regime, and we will continue to be clear to them about the fact for the need to further de-escalate and for them to cease their reckless and destabilizing behavior.

QUESTION: Yeah. Another question, sorry.

MR PATEL: You just got two questions. Anything else? If not —

QUESTION: A very quick question.

MR PATEL: All right. You can do one more, then we’ll wrap.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Appreciate it, sir.

MR PATEL: And then Matt’s got some.

QUESTION: So you mentioned about the security cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. So lately there are reports that apparently Pakistan allowed the U.S. to use some military bases inside Pakistan’s territory to launch perhaps some airstrikes against terrorist groups in Afghanistan. There are some reports. I would like to know whether it’s confirmed or not.

MR PATEL: I’ll let me colleagues at the Department of Defense speak to any military cooperation that might exist.

Matt.

QUESTION: So in response to that, the second to last question there, you said that you have imposed additional travel restrictions on the Iranian delegation, the foreign minister and his delegation.

MR PATEL: Yep.

QUESTION: Yeah. Basically, you’re – you’ve reimposed the Trump administration sanctions, right?

MR PATEL: Matt, I can’t —

QUESTION: The ones that you guys lifted and denied that you ever lifted any sanctions against Iran, right? The ones that you lifted back in February or March of 2021?

MR PATEL: Are we back into the debate of whether travel restrictions are sanctions or not?

QUESTION: Well, yeah. But I want to know, I mean, does this mean that those are in place for good? Or is it just this one time?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speculate or get ahead of potential further visits. These restrictions are in place for this visit. And as you know, Matt, as the host country, we have at our disposal to add or alleviate any of the parameters that are in place and as it relates to their movement.

QUESTION: Okay. And then given that everyone has seen video of him walking off the plane at JFK and speaking at the UN today, are you at least prepared to say that you granted him a visa or you didn’t rescind a visa that he already had?

MR PATEL: Well, Matt, I think it’s safe —

QUESTION: Because visa records are confidential.

MR PATEL: Visa record are, indeed, confidential.

QUESTION: But he didn’t get arrested; he didn’t get detained at the airport. He hasn’t been detained now. So why can you not just say —

MR PATEL: Visa —

QUESTION: — we gave him a visa or we allowed him to keep his existing visa?

MR PATEL: Visa records are, indeed, confidential. But I think it’s safe to assume he’s not here by magic.

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

MR PATEL: So —

QUESTION: By magic? No, I don’t think so.

MR PATEL: Thank you, everybody.

QUESTION: Hold on. Wait, wait, wait.

MR PATEL: No. You have more? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I have one more.

MR PATEL: All right.

QUESTION: One more. And that is: Did you ever – did – were you able to find out from L or anyone else if there’s any place in the world that the Geneva Conventions do not – that you do not believe the Geneva Conventions apply?

MR PATEL: I – to my knowledge, I cannot think of a region or a jurisdiction where we don’t, Matt. Our long viewpoint is that the principles reflected in the Geneva Convention – that those are principles that should be complied with.

QUESTION: Everywhere?

MR PATEL: Everywhere.

QUESTION: So it applies in Gaza?

MR PATEL: It – we have said that it’s up to both Israel and Hamas to comply with the international law, including the principles that we believe are laid out in the Geneva Conventions.

QUESTION: So is Israel the occupying power in Gaza?

MR PATEL: That is not what we believe to be the case. But we have long said it is important that both Israel and Hamas comply with international law, including humanitarian law that’s reflected in the Geneva Convention.

QUESTION: So Israel is exempt from —

MR PATEL: All right. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.

QUESTION: — the obligations of being an occupying power in Gaza?

MR PATEL: Thanks, all.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:11 p.m.)

# # #