Department Press Briefing – August 14, 2024

MR PATEL: I will let our Qatari partner speak to their own engagements. What I can say is that we ware aware of those comments, and we fully expect these talks to move forward, as they should. And our point of view is that all negotiators should return to the table and bring this deal to conclusion. It is far time for the remaining hostages to be released, which of course include American citizens, and bring relief to the people of Gaza under the deal that is now on the table.

QUESTION: How can they move forward and make progress if Hamas is not there?

MR PATEL: So as I said yesterday, our Qatari partners have assured us that there will be representation from Hamas. And I will let them, of course, speak to that, but I’m not going to get into more specifics beyond that.

QUESTION: Okay. And what are the remaining sticking point or points on these ceasefire talks?

MR PATEL: So as I’ve said a number of times this week, so I’m just not going to get into the specifics of the ongoing negotiations from a podium. It certainly wouldn’t be helpful to an active and ongoing process.

QUESTION: Has language around a permanent or temporary ceasefire been resolved?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the specifics of the negotiations.

QUESTION: Okay. I’ll try to follow up on Daphne’s question. Hamas said they’d be willing to negotiate afterwards if there’s a serious response from Israel. How does the U.S. take these comments?

MR PATEL: So look, you – I spoke to this a little bit this week. When the – when the President of the United States, the president of Egypt, and the emir of Qatar put out that statement last week, we saw very quickly that the Government of Israel confirmed that their team was going to be present and will be at the ceasefire talks that are starting tomorrow, and that they are prepared to finalize the deals that are on the table. I’m not going to get into more specifics beyond that, and we’ll just leave it there.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. consider the proposals from the Israeli Government to be keeping in the spirit of what the President outlined at the end of May?

MR PATEL: So our point of view is that the contours that the President outlined at the end of May very much continues to be the – what is shaping this conversation. But beyond that, I am just not going to get into the specifics of the negotiations.

MR PATEL: Shaun, go ahead.

MR PATEL: We’ll have some readouts to offer, I’m sure, in the next hour or so. We’ll have some more to share this afternoon. But these calls are in line with the Secretary’s continued engagement on the region and the engagement that he’s been doing over the past many weeks – talking to counterparts, working to not only stress the importance and the vitality of getting this deal across the finish line, but also making clear to counterparts that any escalation is not in anybody’s interest and certainly not in the interest of the region.

QUESTION: A couple things.

MR PATEL: So, Shaun, I think the important – the way to look about this is that multiple things can be true and multiple things can be vitally in the interest of the United States. First and foremost, we are continuing to work to secure a ceasefire deal that would bring home all the hostages, that would help alleviate the suffering in Gaza; that certainly continues to be a priority for us.

Simultaneously, we have a longstanding military and security partnership with the Government of Israel. We recognize that Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorism and security threats. We also acknowledge and have talked a great deal about how Israel continues to face a myriad of threats in the region – not just from Iran, but also from its proxies such as Hamas, such as Hizballah, such as the Houthis. That’s very much in line with what we’ve been talking about this week.

And also it is true, Shaun, that there are things, there are actions, that we think are counterproductive. We think they are a detraction from peace and stability in the Middle East. We also think that they are detractions from Israel’s own security. Those things include what we saw Minister Ben Gvir do yesterday. It’s also when we see things like settlement expansions or things like that – those are things that are not just inconsistent with international law, they are also – again, detract from our stated goal of a two-state solution and cause greater insecurity in the region.

QUESTION: Sure. Especially in the arms sale —

QUESTION: — I mean, you and Matt have been asked numerous times about use of U.S. weapons in incidents in which civilians were killed. Has there been any – have there been any further assurances – I mean, is there confidence going forward with these weapons that – have there been any assurances that more care is being taken that the U.S. weapons aren’t —

MR PATEL: There of course is confidence. And as I have said a number of times when we’ve talked about this issue, there is a longstanding security partnership with the Government of Israel, one that spans decades. But that does not change the tools and the mechanisms that the United States has at its disposal to ensure that certain U.S. articles are not being used improperly. That, of course, includes the CHIRG process which we’ve talked about before; that includes the Leahy Vetting Forum; it also includes the policy and guidance that is – that lives within the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy. And we also continue to have at our disposal actions that the United States can take to hold certain entities accountable, should we need to.

QUESTION: I’ll let other people (inaudible).

MR PATEL: Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just to – actually where Shaun left off, on the weapons – I mean, you’re saying that Israel’s right to defend itself. We’re talking about $20 billion on top of $3.5 billion last week or the week before, paid for by American taxpayers, and that’s larger than many, many countries, maybe 70 percent of all countries in the world – I don’t know, I’m not an expert – to be used against defenseless people. Can’t you tell the Israelis that they should not – not lower down the amount of damage, but they should not be bombing the places like Tabeen school or UNRWA schools or hospitals and so on? Can you tell them that you must not use these weapons against —

MR PATEL: In every engagement, Said – in every engagement, Said, we stress the importance and the strategic and moral imperative our partners in Israel have to minimize impacts on civilians and to minimize civilian casualties. That being said, Israel absolutely has every right –

MR PATEL: — to defend itself. It has every right to hold to account the terrorist actors of Hamas that undertook the horrific October 7th terrorist attack. And Israel has also every right to defend itself from other malign actors in the region, whether it be Iran, whether it Hizballah or the Houthis, or otherwise.

QUESTION: Does Israel have a right to use Palestinians as a human shield, as was reported in Haaretz? Are you aware of that report?

MR PATEL: I’ve seen that report. I’ve seen that report, Said.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that report? Is there any way for you to confirm it?

MR PATEL: So I’ve seen that report, Said. They are incredibly – these reports, they are disturbing, and we would urge Israel to immediately and transparently investigate these allegations and hold any potential perpetrators accountable. Israel has a responsibility to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law; but I also just want to stress, Said, that they are just reports at this point, and that is why we would encourage Israel to look into what’s going on.

QUESTION: All right. Well, many of these weapons used were actually designed for – as bunker busters in Afghanistan, but that’s another issue. Let me ask you something. The President said that he expects Iran to hold off on an Israeli attack if Gaza ceasefire is reached. How did the President arrive at this, or how did the government at this? Through direct negotiations? Has there been, like, a promise by the Iranians: If you guys go effectuate a ceasefire, then we are not going to attack?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything else to offer on the President’s comment, Said, beyond just saying that getting a ceasefire deal is of vital importance to the region. It could help release the hostages, including the remaining American citizens. It could create the conditions for an increased influx of humanitarian aid. And more importantly, it will help get this region out of these endless cycles of violence that we keep finding ourselves talking about.

QUESTION: And – yeah. On the talks, my final topic, where Jennifer left off on the talks – now Hamas is saying, look, we’re not going to – we already agreed to what was proposed to us back in 31 and so – May 31. Now the Israelis are changing their terms. Are you sure they are not? I mean, are – The New York Times reports, and authenticated, that in fact Prime Minister Netanyahu has already changed and has added more demands. Is the proposal still – does it still maintain the same integrity as it was submitted back on May 31?

MR PATEL: So Said, I am just not going to comment on purported or alleged leaks of documents and on private diplomatic conversations. What I can say is that the ongoing conversations have and continue to have the contours of the plan that President Biden laid out at the end of May that had support from the Arab world, has support from the UN Security Council, has support from allies and partners like NATO and the G7. And that’s what we’ll continue to remain focused on.

QUESTION: But you would agree that if the proposal was changed, then it’s a no-go, right?

MR PATEL: I am just not going to get into the specifics of the process, Said.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you.

MR PATEL: Thank you. Alex, go ahead.

MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I am not going to do that, Alex, for the very reason that these are – issues are sensitive. What I can say, and I will just echo what the Secretary said, is that for more than a quarter of his life, Austin has been separated from his family and held in unknown conditions. We know that the Syrian Government has held Austin, and we have repeatedly offered to find a way to bring them home. We also believe that the Syrian Government can help end Austin’s captivity and provide an accounting of not just his whereabouts but the fate of other Americans who went missing in Syria. And this is something that is so personal to not just Secretary Blinken but also personal to President Biden, and this is something that we’re going to continue to work around the clock.

QUESTION: Just so we understand the timing, by saying “we,” you mean this administration has offered during the past three and a half years; is that the case?

MR PATEL: That is – that is correct.

QUESTION: Thanks so much.

MR PATEL: Look, Alex, our engagement with Kyiv and Assistant Secretary O’Brien’s visit is – continues to be in line with this administration’s long support of our Ukrainian partners. I understand he had a number of government-to-government engagements on ways in which we can continue to support our Ukrainian partners. As you saw I think late last week, we announced another Presidential Drawdown Authority. And I expect we’ll continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian partners. I don’t have any announcement or anything to preview right now, though.

QUESTION: On the issue of the question of untying Ukrainian hands I’ve been raising the past couple of days, and your answer has been, basically, this is based on the situation on the ground, the military situation. Now, with Ukraine changing the frontline well back into Russia the past couple of days, why still letting Putin enjoy sanctuary inside Russia?

MR PATEL: So I am just not going to preview any actions, Alex, and I will let the – our Ukrainian partners speak to their own military operations.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR PATEL: One on Ukraine, and then I’ll go back to that row. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just on the Ukrainians say – said today they’re going to have some sort of buffer zone in – particularly in Russia, but the Russian-Ukrainian area. I mean, this is something that’s tried in other parts of the world.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any stance on this, particularly when territorial integrity is what the U.S. has called for?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any immediate reaction, Shaun. I’d have to have our team look into further what the – exactly our Ukrainian partners are referring to and what the contours of such a plan would be. So I’m happy to check and get back to you.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Ukraine.

MR PATEL: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you able to say whether U.S. weapons are being used in the offensive in Kursk?

MR PATEL: I will let our Ukrainian partners speak to their own military operations.

QUESTION: And what concerns, if any, does the administration have about U.S. weapons potentially being used in the offensive?

MR PATEL: Look, Daphne, I think we’ve danced around this issue this whole week, and I will echo what I said to Alex and a couple others. Again, the only reason that you and I are even having this exchange is because Russia is a country that in February of 2022 attempted to subjugate Ukraine’s borders illegally and in total violation of the UN Charter. And so our responsibility as the United States is to continue to stand with our Ukrainian partners. That’s what we’ll do. As it relates to some of these specific activities, the U.S. has not been engaged or involved in any of the planning or preparation for that, but we continue to have a responsibility and will stand with our Ukrainian partners as they defend themselves.

QUESTION: So is the U.S. okay with it if Ukraine does use U.S. weapons in this incursion?

MR PATEL: Our policy has not changed, Daphne.

MR PATEL: Shannon, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Russia, an American national, Joseph Tater, was detained by Moscow for allegedly starting a fight in a hotel. Do you have any information on this case? I mean, is there any indication that Russia is looking to pick up another American for —

MR PATEL: I don’t have specifics, Shannon, given privacy concerns. What I can say is that we’re aware of these reports of another American citizen being arrested in Russia, and we’re working to get as much information as we can, working to ascertain the consular situation, and see if consular access is available. But I don’t want to speculate beyond that.

QUESTION: Then on a separate topic if I can.

MR PATEL: So look, I will – the department would defer to Mr. Biden’s representatives on any questions as it relates to his correspondence. I will say that the documents that you’re referring to were released as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act request. And as consistent with longstanding department policy, we will be – those documents will be made available to the public in the coming weeks. We do not have any additional perspective to offer on the production of these documents given that it is tied up as part of ongoing litigation. But broadly let me just say, individuals of – from all over the world and from varying sectors seek counsel, advice, information from ambassadors and principal officers at our embassies and consulates around the world. The department takes every responsibility to evaluate those requests on their merits, and we act appropriately.

QUESTION: And on those documents, the timing – The New York Times has been seeking them for quite a while. They were only released after the President announced he won’t seek re‑election. Is there anything to that timing? And the initial letter from Hunter Biden was never released by the State Department. Will that document be made available?

MR PATEL: I would not read into anything – into the timing. These FOIA processes are long, robust processes, and they are, frankly, independent of what else is happening in the world. But I am happy to check if we’ve got anything else to offer on the timeline.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that point?

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: It – would you just say generally speaking – I know you went into some of that detail. Would you say generally speaking that that is a common practice that individuals here in the U.S. would reach out to embassies internationally and seek their guidance?

MR PATEL: Are you asking me if American citizens reach out to embassies and consulates around the world?

QUESTION: For guidance and for – specifically for introductions or meetings, et cetera.

MR PATEL: So, as I said, American citizens of varying backgrounds, of varying – from varying sectors of the world, reach out to our embassies – either directly to staff, either directly to our ambassadors or our principals, officers, seeking advice, seeking help, seeking a question, looking for information, looking for a question answered. And the department, we look at that and we act on those based on the merit, and we act appropriately in every instance.

QUESTION: — again? I know that Mr. Hochstein works for the White House, but he was in Beirut today. Did he make any progress in his discussions there, and did he bring to the table any new ideas or offers?

MR PATEL: Again, I will let – I’ll let – as you so note, Mr. Hochstein works at the White House, and I will let them speak to any specifics as it relates to travel. But senior administration officials across this government are laser-ly focused, whether they work here at the State Department or elsewhere, on doing everything they can to get this ceasefire deal across the finish line or doing everything they can to de-escalate tensions and make clear to any relevant actor that escalation is not in anybody’s interest.

QUESTION: A cyber attack targeted the central bank of Iran today and the banks sector. Do you know who was behind the attack and do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any – any information there, Michel.

QUESTION: And on Sudan too.

QUESTION: Can we stay in the Middle East?

QUESTION: If you don’t mind. What do you expect from the Switzerland talks on Sudan in the absence of the SAF? And why did the U.S. insist on inviting UAE to the talks when SAF considers it involved in the conflict?

MR PATEL: So today’s opening session included international and technical partners that included representatives from Switzerland, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, the African Union, the United Nations, and we are there with a laser focus on ensuring that the SAF and RSF comply with their Jeddah commitments. In the Jeddah Declaration, both the SAF and RSF committed to expanded discussions to achieve a permanent cessation of hostilities. We call on both sides to honor these commitments and to participate in Switzerland. What is happening in Sudan right now is one of the most dire humanitarian situations in the world, and so there is a moral responsibility for the United States and other likeminded partners to try and come together and see what else can be done to help alleviate that situation? I’m not going to get ahead of the talks beyond that, but these talks are going to move forward and we expect them to continue.

MR PATEL: There’s a couple more on the Middle East. Let me get to that and then we can come back to —

QUESTION: What about UAE, Vedant? Like, why did the U.S. invite the UAE?

MR PATEL: Michel, there are a number of relevant countries who have a vested interest in seeing a cessation of hostilities in Sudan, and so it’s – we welcome any country that is – shares that likeminded goal to participate.

QUESTION: Do you – just (inaudible).

QUESTION: Do you expect the Sudan Armed Forces to come eventually?

MR PATEL: We have stressed that they have a responsibility to be there, and we’ll continue to make that clear, but I don’t have any updates on that.

MR PATEL: Well, the United States doesn’t think Hamas is an honest broker.

QUESTION: Okay. So basically if he says that, and he said that he – they accepted the President proposal, but you guys are not willing to publicly criticize Israelis, especially Netanyahu, who obstructed these deals many times. Why do you believe that Hamas now – it’s the onus on them to show up in this negotiation? What makes you confident that they have to come?

MR PATEL: I am not going to —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) they’re not going to come?

MR PATEL: Nadia, I know you were a couple minutes tardy. I’m not going to get into the specifics of the negotiation process. What I can say is that our partners in Qatar have spoken to us about making sure that there is representation from Hamas so that these talks can go forward. I’m not going to get ahead of that process. I spoke a little bit about that this week as well.

More importantly though, what is vital here and what no one should lose sight of – whether it’s Israel, whether it’s Hamas, whether it’s an entity – is that this deal is so vitally important for the region and its future. When we are talking about the release of the remaining hostages, including American citizens, we’re talking about doing whatever is possible to get an influx of additional humanitarian aid, but also creating the diplomatic conditions to have serious conversations about the future of the region and getting us out of these endless cycles of violence.

QUESTION: Okay. Considering that you – we’ve seen so many U.S. diplomats in the region, including Brett McGurk in Cairo and Hochstein in Beirut and William Burns in Doha, and there was talk about the Secretary adding into this trip – how do you see success and failure, considering the intensive efforts that the U.S. Government is putting on the situation?

MR PATEL: Nadia, what we are laser-ly focused on is doing everything we can to get this deal finalized, agreed upon, and across the finish line, and you have officials across the administration focusing on that. I will let various other entities speak to their own principals’ travels. But the Secretary, as you know – we spoke a little bit about it as you were walking in – he’s had a number of calls this morning that we’ll read out in more detail later, but also has been working the phones over the past many weeks with a clear message to anybody who he’s on the phone with that this ceasefire deal is of vital importance and we need to do everything we can to get it done, and that escalation is in no one’s interest and certainly not in the interest of the region.

QUESTION: Okay, and just finally.

QUESTION: I don’t know if you answered this question or not, but you often condemn Hamas for using Palestinians as a human shields, and there is this big investigation by an Israeli newspaper saying that the Israeli army has systematically used Palestinians as a human shield because they believe their lives is superior to the Palestinians. So do you condemn the Israelis for using Palestinians for the same purpose that you condemn Hamas?

MR PATEL: So your colleague Said raised this issue before you walked in, and I will just echo that these reports are incredibly disturbing and we urge Israel to immediately and transparently look into these allegations and hold any perpetrators accountable. But I also just want to stress, as I did with Said, that these are just reports at these – at this point, and so what we would call on is for Israel to look into this and ascertain what’s actually going on.

QUESTION: So what’s make these reports and Israel – then Hamas using Palestinian as human shields as fact on the ground?

QUESTION: Because you’re not there and you don’t really verify.

MR PATEL: Nadia, we have – we have with – we know with incredible certainty that Hamas has a clear track record of using civilian infrastructure and protected facilities as areas of operation, as bases, and using as – civilians as human shields. That is not hyperbole.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: On this Hamas using civilians as human shields. Two weeks ago, I ask you about a photo of Israel soldiers posing in front of the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, and there were also reports that the IDF was using this hospital as their military base. I ask you about this and you responded by saying that you asked Israel for further information. Did they get back to you? Do you have any updates on this?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer as it relates to that at this time, but I will just echo what I said then, in that any kind of violent or kinetic activity so close to a hospital we certainly would take issue with. But Hamas of course does have a track record of using civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as bases of operations. As it relates to what is happening in that picture or the specifics around that operation, I will let our partners in Israel speak to.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on some of that?

QUESTION: In the absence of this ceasefire for hostage release agreement, can you give us an update on what you think the achievements of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza are?

MR PATEL: Pardon, Tom? Sorry, I couldn’t hear.

QUESTION: Do you have an update on what you believe the achievements of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza are?

MR PATEL: So, Tom, it’s really not for me to speak to the Israeli – the IDF’s achievements or not. They have every right to not just defend themselves but to hold the terrorist perpetrators of October 7th to account. They also – we share their stated goal of defeating Hamas, and that continues to be what we’re focused on as well. And part of when we talk about the future of the region, when we talk about what we want to see for the region and the diplomacy that we hope a ceasefire can unlock, we talk about ensuring that the Gaza Strip can no longer be a springboard of terrorism on the Israeli people. And part of that includes the defeat of Hamas, and that is a line of effort we of course support.

QUESTION: I mean, I ask the question because it was the 29th of May that the Secretary said it was appropriate to ask how incremental gains against Hamas stacked up against what you described as the unintended but horrific consequences of military action when you’re going against people who are embedded with civilians. That was after the deaths of at least 45 people in a tented encampment after an Israeli airstrike. We’ve now had reportedly more than 100 people killed in a school in al-Tabeen on – over the weekend. So are the Israelis making anything more than incremental gains? I mean, it’s two and a half months since then.

MR PATEL: Tom, I will let our partners in IDF speak to their own operations and any progress they’re making.

QUESTION: Well, that was the Secretary of State that – that used that —

MR PATEL: What I can say, though, is that the points you raise just further underscore the critical nature of why we’re so focused on getting a ceasefire deal across the finish line. It’s important that – we think that it is truly the only lever left when it comes to stopping this – stopping the suffering, stopping the endless loss of life.

QUESTION: Is it the only lever, a ceasefire? It’s not – I mean, you have leverage in terms of stopping arms to Israel, so it’s not —

MR PATEL: Well, Tom, we have a longstanding security relationship with Israel, and it’s totally appropriate if you and others feel that maybe that perhaps shouldn’t be the case, but Israel is in a – faces threats from not just Hamas but Iran and other Iranian proxies, and this is a security partnership that is going back decades. And I will just stress again, and Shaun rightfully added it at the onset of his question, that the security systems that were notified yesterday – we are talking about systems some of which would really have no use in a – such a conflict in Gaza in the first place, but also we’re talking about systems that the earliest some could be delivered is 2026, with the vast majority of them falling somewhere between 2027 and 2029.

QUESTION: Okay, but I mean, when you say it’s the only lever, I – the – I’m just asking a question, but – and the point is that the Secretary two and a half months ago said – described incremental gains against Hamas. So that’s why I’m asking the question. Two and a half months later when you’ve continued a military assistance relationship that funds Israel’s campaign in Gaza, I’m just asking the question: Are the gains anything more than incremental against Hamas?

MR PATEL: Tom, we have come to the conclusion that what – the best thing, the best path forward is for this ceasefire deal to get across the finish line, and that’s what we are laser-ly focused on.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on —

MR PATEL: Go ahead, sure.

QUESTION: So sorry. Several U.S. officials have said that it’s actually not possible to – to achieve total victory in defeating Hamas. Given that, does the U.S. really share Israel’s goal of defeating Hamas?

MR PATEL: We do. We do. And we think that a ceasefire deal is the first step in a direction of ensuring that the Gaza Strip can no longer be used as a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people.

QUESTION: And do you think it’s achievable?

MR PATEL: Again, I will let our Israeli partners speak to their own operation, but we are committed to doing everything we can to make sure that we get this region out of this endless cycle of violence, and that, again, the Gaza Strip can no longer be used as a launching pad for terrorism against Israel.

QUESTION: And how would you —

MR PATEL: Diyar, go ahead. Daphne, you’ve gotten, like, six questions. I’m going to work the room. Diyar, go ahead.

MR PATEL: So we have held discussions with the Government of Iraq on the future of Operation Inherent Resolve since last year. This includes when Prime Minister Sudani met with President Biden here in D.C. in April. And at no point did we discuss the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but we continued to discuss a – the transition to a – what we would say a bilateral security partnership, as highlighted in president – in Prime Minister Sudani’s readout of his call with Secretary Blinken. These discussions are ongoing and it is a process that builds on previous bilateral strategic discussions, and it’s rooted in what I would say – which is our mutual commitment to security cooperation and a shared interest in regional stability, but I don’t want to get into more specifics beyond that. And I’m sure my colleagues at the Pentagon can talk more.

QUESTION: And no – no agreement’s been reached between you and Iraq sort of —

MR PATEL: I have no conclusive assessment to offer.

MR PATEL: So look, I just – I’m not going to speculate on any kind of timeline or window as it relates to a response or any kind of retaliation. What I can say is that the – Secretary Blinken, the President, others across this administration have been deeply engaged in sending a clear message about de-escalation and sending a clear message that everything needs to be done to get this ceasefire deal across the finish line.

Jenny, I saw you had your hand up.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on Iran, is it still the case there’s been no direct engagement between the U.S. and Iran on potential retaliation?

MR PATEL: That is – that is the case. That is the case.

QUESTION: And do you feel that your deterrence efforts have worked, given that there hasn’t been a retaliatory action yet?

MR PATEL: I just don’t want to speculate, again, on a window or any possible retaliation or response, Jenny. I will use the chance to again echo what I’ve said, which is that the calls that the Secretary has had today, the calls that he’s had earlier this week, last week – he is deeply engaged on this issue and using every possible opportunity to not just stress the importance of getting the deal done, but also stressing the importance of de-escalation.

QUESTION: You called on the Israeli Government to transparently look into these. You – the State Department has called a number of times for the Israeli Government to look into reports of abuses. Have they ever gotten back to you with any sort of answers on these reported abuses that are taking place in Gaza?

MR PATEL: There is – there is a – there is a close information-sharing relationship between us and Israel. I’m obviously not going to speak to every single issue or every single incident that’s been raised, but there is a close information-sharing relationship with Israel. And we, in this instance, would welcome them sharing more information with us on what transpired.

QUESTION: Thank you. Wanted to check with you if U.S. is in touch with India on two specific issues in the region.

MR PATEL: Yeah, so first, let me start with the second part of your question. I will let the prime minister’s office speak to any of his own travel. I don’t have anything to offer there, but we of course are in touch with our Indian partners on a number of issues and of course would welcome India’s engagement in the war between Russia and Ukraine, especially as it relates to ensuring that we get to a just and durable peace that is reflective of what our Ukrainian partners are attempting to do, which is defend their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

On the topic of Bangladesh, we have been in touch with our Indian partners as well as other countries in the region to discuss recent events. I’m not going to get into private diplomatic discussions, but we continue to push for an end to violence in Bangladesh as well as continue to push for accountability and the respect for rule of law.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on Bangladesh. Over the weekend, two Indian American congressmen, Raja Krishnamoorthi and Shri Thanedar, wrote letters, two separate letters, to Secretary Blinken seeking his intervention and help in protecting the lives of Hindus in Bangladesh. Has Secretary received those letters? Is he addressing the issues raised by these two congressmen?

MR PATEL: So what I can say is that we engage with partners in Congress regularly. I’m not going to get into specific letters or engagements, but let me just note that the interim government, we welcome Dr. Yunus’s call for calm and an end to the recent violence – of the new – and as well as we welcome the new government’s focus on restoring security and the protection of members of minority communities as well.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On annual 2+2, given that the Secretary has set a very tight schedule this year, elections are happening – do you think the 2+2 will happen this year or will you push to next year?

MR PATEL: Oh, man, Lalit, it’s – you’re asking me to look into a crystal ball of what travel and engagements we might have over the next five, six months. I don’t want to speculate. What I can say is that when it comes to our partnership with India, it is robust. It is one that we are focused every day on growing and strengthening, and it’s something that I know is shared by our colleagues at the Department of Defense. But as it relates to any kind of specific 2+2 meeting or engagement, I just don’t have anything to preview or announce.

QUESTION: One final one, if I can ask you.

MR PATEL: Yeah. So to take a step back, Deputy Secretary for Resources and Management Rich Verma is going to be carrying on the work that Special Envoy Penny Pritzker has started when it comes to reconstruction and economic issues as it relates to our Ukrainian partners. And really, I think Deputy Verma is going to continue to build on the foundation that Special Envoy Pritzker laid when it comes to private sector engagement, when it comes to working with our allies and partners to marshal the economic support that we know is so critical to the future of our Ukrainian partners. Deputy Verma is an experienced diplomat with extensive experience not just in government but also in the private sector, and so I think he has a unique position and a unique perch and unique perspective to bring in continuing to build on Special Envoy Pritzker’s work.

MR PATEL: In the blue in the back, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: To our knowledge, there – first I – let me take a step back. I have not seen the specific video, and so I would have to look at that first. But let me just say that to date no country has publicly announced that it recognizes the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and we continue to – in close coordination with allies and partners – call on the Taliban that they need to substantially improve their human rights record before any normalizations of relations.

When it comes to any security systems in Afghanistan that may be remaining, I will let our colleagues at the Pentagon speak to that. I think Admiral Kirby, when he was at the Pentagon during the withdrawal, spoke a great deal about this, and I will not just point back to those comments but defer to the Pentagon to speak to it.

QUESTION: Going down to Central America, back in 2023 in December, 11 Nicaraguan pastors who were associated with a U.S. ministry were arrested on charges of money laundering. They’ve recently been sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison or to pay $80 million in fines, what their representatives have called as a sham trial. What’s been the State Department’s role in pressing to free these pastors? And is there any progress that’s been made since their sentencing?

MR PATEL: I don’t have any progress to offer at this moment. What I can say is that this is an issue that we are paying close attention to and deeply engaged on. The United States maintains that the Nicaraguan Government unjustly holds 13 individuals affiliated with the evangelical organization Mountain Getaway in Nicaragua and believe that they are being held solely for exercising their right to freedom of religion or freedom of belief, but I don’t have any updates for you there.

MR PATEL: Well, a report from our Office of National Intelligence would certainly say otherwise. Look, we have long spoken about how Iran has had lines of efforts to maliciously influence elections, not just here in the United States but elsewhere. It’s something that we are consistently vigilant about. As it relates to the United States specifically, I’m happy – I’m sure colleagues at the FBI and Department of Homeland Security would be happy to speak to some of those deterrent lines of efforts that are ongoing.

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to preview any actions that the United States may or may not take, but with any country we have been clear and we have been vigilant about stressing to them that they should not maliciously interfere in our elections.

MR PATEL: So let me answer the second part first. The leadership and the governance of Japan is of course up to the Japanese people to determine, and I have no doubt that whoever ends up assuming that position and office, that we will continue to deepen our alliance and partnership with Japan.

Let me just say about Prime Minister Kishida, he has been an extraordinary friend to the United States, and we deeply appreciate his steadfast partnership and his visionary leadership. Under his leadership, the Japan and U.S. alliance has been brought to greater heights, and it has truly evolved into a global partnership where we stand shoulder to shoulder with each other, promoting our shared values and interests. His April visit to Washington, D.C., where he met with the President, where he spoke to Congress, very clearly highlighted this. And we were very proud to work with Prime Minister Kishida on – during his tenure at the G7 as well as issues surrounding condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine.

All right, thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Could you do – one more on Asia?

MR PATEL: Oh, sure – sure, go ahead.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Ah, your favorite.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Everybody loves Thailand. But the – a very different political process than Japan. The constitutional court has sacked the prime minister over the appointment of a minister who had a conviction.

QUESTION: I’m not asking you whether the U.S. thinks that people with convictions can run for office, but in terms of – in terms of this and in terms of the political situation Thailand, this comes after the most popular politician, Mr. Pita, was also disqualified.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any broader concerns about Thailand?

MR PATEL: So I saw what you did there and how you asked that question. We are – let me just take a step back though to say that we are aware of today’s ruling by the Thai constitutional court to dismiss prime minister of Thailand and the entire cabinet. We are eagerly waiting and look forward to the selection of not just a new prime minister, but also a smooth transition of power. Our commitment to the U.S.-Thai alliance and partnership does not change. There is a shared history here, shared interests, and common values between both of our countries, and so we will let this process play out, and I don’t want to get ahead of that.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:49 p.m.)