(AGENPARL) - Roma, 15 Maggio 2024 - (AGENPARL) – mar 14 maggio 2024 You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024 [ https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-may-14-2024/ ] 05/14/2024 07:07 PM EDT
Home [ https://www.state.gov ]Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024 hide
Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024
May 14, 2024
1:16 p.m. EDT
*MR PATEL:* Good afternoon, everybody.
*QUESTION:* Good afternoon.
*MR PATEL:* That was great; in unison again. I love it.
I have one very brief thing off the top, and then happy to dive into your questions.
So as many of you are tracking, Secretary Blinken is in Kyiv today. He just completed delivering remarks at Kyiv’s Sikorsky Polytechnic University. There he shared a very clear message to our partners in Ukraine, that they are not alone. In fact, the United States has been by Ukraine’s side from day one, and we will remain by Ukraine’s side until its security, sovereignty, and ability to choose its own path is guaranteed.
About one year ago, the Secretary spoke in Helsinki – and I know some of you were on that trip – about how Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has proven to be a strategic failure for Russia. Today he is back in Kyiv, and spoke about Ukraine’s strategic success. The Secretary outlined how we are working together with Ukraine and a wide network of partners.
First he talked about the recent passage of the $60 billion supplemental bill, and how it demonstrates what we’re doing – what we’re doing to help ensure Ukraine has the military it needs to succeed on the battlefield, and the military it needs to secure a just and lasting peace and deter future aggression. Second, he talked about what we’re doing to ensure Ukraine’s economy not only survives but thrives. And finally, he discussed how we’re helping the Ukrainian people realize their democratic aspirations.
For decades, Putin has caused unspeakable grief for the people of Ukraine. And for the past 811 days, Ukrainians have denied Putin his goal of erasing Ukraine from the map and subjugating its people. The Secretary is in Kyiv to reaffirm what President Biden has said, which is that we want Ukraine to win, and we’re committing – committed to helping Ukraine to do just that. And with the support of the United States, our partners and allies, the Ukrainian people can and will achieve their vision for the future: a free, prosperous, and secure democracy, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community and fully in control of its own destiny.
So with that, Shaun, do you want to kick us off today?
*QUESTION:* Sure. First of all, you’re exactly on time starting us off, which is quite —
*MR PATEL:* Try – I try to be – I try to be punctual, so yeah.
*QUESTION:* Sure. I’m sure there are lots of things we want to ask about. Can I actually start on Georgia?
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* The – I know there have been lots of statements over the – over recent days about what is happening there. But the parliament is actually – has actually pushed through the foreign entities law despite the mass protests and the warnings from the U.S. and the EU. Do you have any comment on that and how this would affect the relationship with the United States?
*MR PATEL:* So we are aware of the status of this legislation. We’re continuing to watch closely about further developments in Georgia. Assistant Secretary Jim O’Brien is Tbilisi; he spent the day meeting with Georgian officials. And I imagine he’ll have more to say after the conclusion of his engagements.
But you heard me talk a little bit about this yesterday: More than 80 percent of the Georgian people want EU membership, and we support that aspiration. We also know that the Georgian Government has said it wants to join the EU and have a relationship with a transatlantic organization such as NATO. This is something that is consistent with Georgia’s own constitution. But things like this legislation, they are inconsistent with that stated goal.
So we value our relationship that – and partnership we have with Georgia, one that has existed for more than 30 years, and we would like to continue to deepen that collaboration. And there is still time to work collaboratively, but it’s our point of view that the Georgian Government needs to change course from the one that it’s on. But again, I imagine Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others will have more to talk about about their engagements.
*QUESTION:* Okay. And just to clarify, “needs to change course” – that means on this law specifically and more broadly as well?
*MR PATEL:* Right. So we have been clear that as it relates to this legislation, it is indicative of the kinds of things that we see in the Kremlin and elsewhere – legislation that targets civil society, legislation that targets media organizations, legislation that targets nonprofits. All of these things are not just inconsistent with the values that we have with the United States, but they’re also inconsistent with the aspirations of the Georgian people.
*QUESTION:* Just to follow up very quickly.
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* The briefing just ended in Tbilisi; James O’Brien just finished a briefing. And I don’t think the purpose of his visit in Tbilisi was achieved, based on what he said. He said again – he reiterated himself that if this law moves forward against the European standards and norms, the relationship between Washington and Tbilisi will be under review. So I don’t think the reason he was there was reached. He met with a member of the – the officials, he met the prime minister, he met the head of the parliament. When it comes to the actual internal mechanisms, there are no other mechanisms. The law is already passed at the parliament. So when you say that – do you really think that there is still room available for – they are not backing. They want to achieve the law.
*MR PATEL:* So one of the things – one of the things Assistant Secretary O’Brien talked about was that if the law was revised, we have the opportunity to strengthen our partnership. So we continue to believe there are mechanisms and avenues that they can produce to make this law less inconsistent with the aspirations and values that they themselves are saying that they’re committed to through their constitution and through their own public posturing.
*QUESTION:* How much is the Secretary monitoring, how much is he aware of what’s going on in Georgia? Has he been briefed?
*MR PATEL:* He is absolutely staying in close touch with the team in Tbilisi, as well as in close touch with Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others. Obviously, we can brief and keep in touch with the Secretary as often as we need to.
Yeah.
*QUESTION:* And lastly – thank you, Vedant. Maybe lastly, I know you don’t preview any sanctions, any measures.
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* But however, can you provide any clarity on what is at stake, what type of mechanisms will be putting forward?
*MR PATEL:* So I’m not going to preview any sanctions or actions that the United States Government might take, but again, we have enjoyed a successful partnership and relationship with Georgia that has existed for more than 30 years, and we want to continue that work. And there is still time, in our opinion, to work collaboratively to do that.
*QUESTION:* Thank you.
*MR PATEL:* Coming back —
*QUESTION:* (Off-mike.)
*MR PATEL:* I’m going to come back. On this topic?
*QUESTION:* Same topic, yes.
*MR PATEL:* All right, Alex. I’m going to hold you to it. If you ask something off topic, I’m going to go somewhere else.
*QUESTION:* Yes, thank you so much. Can you please confirm that oligarch Ivanishvili refused to meet with Assistant Secretary O’Brien, and why?
*MR PATEL:* I’m just not going to speak to the specific scheduling of the assistant secretary. Obviously, when he was on the ground, he met with a number of Georgian officials. I am sure he also engaged appropriately with other entities within Georgia as well as appropriate consultations with our embassy, but I don’t have his schedule more specifically than that.
*QUESTION:* And do you have an update on American citizens that have been arrested yesterday?
*MR PATEL:* I have no updates on that, Alex. We continue to be monitoring the situation. We’re aware of some arrests and detentions of American citizens in light of some of the protests that we’re seeing. Obviously, when an American citizen is detained anywhere, we do our best to request consular assistance and stand ready to provide all appropriate other assistance to the – any affected individuals.
*QUESTION:* Given the fact itself that American citizens have been detained, do you have any call, any, let’s say, warning to American citizens in Georgia that they are in danger?
*MR PATEL:* I don’t have any updates to offer as it relates to Travel Advisory warnings as it relates to Georgia, Alex, which would be the mechanism by which we do that.
*QUESTION:* Thank you. Couple more —
*MR PATEL:* I’m going to —
*QUESTION:* Just to clarify a couple more things on the —
*MR PATEL:* I’m going to – I’ll come back to you, I promise, Alex.
*QUESTION:* Okay. Thank you so much.
*MR PATEL:* I’ll come back to the front row. Shaun, anything else you had before we go to Daphne?
*QUESTION:* I was going to change topics, unless you want to —
*QUESTION:* I was going to go to Gaza.
*QUESTION:* Gaza. Go ahead, do it —
*QUESTION:* Okay. You said yesterday that you are aware of reports of U.S. citizens unable to leave Gaza. Do you have an update on how many, and any progress on that?
*MR PATEL:* So I think specifically yesterday we were talking about the question as it relates to a group of American citizens who were doctors and medical professionals that have been stuck in Gaza since the closing of the Rafah border, so we’re continuing to monitor that situation. We’re aware of those reports. As I said yesterday, this isn’t a border crossing that we control, but we are continuing to engage directly and actively with the Governments of Israel, with the Governments of Egypt to advocate for their safe departure from Gaza. We believe that there is more that can be done here, and this is a – just another example of why it is so crucial and important that the Rafah border crossing be open, not just for the appropriate flow of humanitarian aid but also for the safe departure from – for foreign nationals.
I will also – just want to use this opportunity to reiterate our advice to U.S. citizens to heed our Level Four Travel Advisory warning as it relates to Gaza. Given the fact that it is a region in armed conflict, the security environment within Gaza is extremely dangerous and volatile.
*QUESTION:* And then on the aid, do you have an updated number on aid trucks getting into Gaza, and how much has Rafah being closed impacted that?
*MR PATEL:* So a couple things. First, I just want to say as it relates to Rafah, the border crossing, we are continuing to do everything we can to ensure that the border crossing can be opened. Specifically, we’re engaging with the Governments of Israel, the Governments of Egypt to do so. When it comes to humanitarian aid, we are also specifically trying to do what we can to ensure that Kerem Shalom and other crossings are being utilized as a maximum throughput for some of this humanitarian aid. As it relates to aid that has been flowing this week, we’ve seen 50 trucks enter Gaza on May 12th. This is not nearly enough. More needs to be done, and it’s another example of why the Rafah border crossing needs to be opened, so we can see further, sustained humanitarian aid flow into Gaza.
*QUESTION:* Okay. And has the Israeli Government been receptive on that? What’s been —
*MR PATEL:* So I talked a little bit about this yesterday. In order for the Rafah border crossing to reopen, we need to see operational and some security circumstances which would allow it to make it safe to do so, and we’re continuing to have those conversations and engagements to make it so. But we continue to believe that it needs to be reopened as swiftly as possible.
*QUESTION:* And then has the U.S. finalized a deal with the UN to distribute the aid from the pier in Gaza? And where in Gaza will the UN take possession of the aid?
*MR PATEL:* So as it relates to any role that the UN might play, I’d let my colleagues at the United Nations speak to that. And on the operational status of the JLOTS or the pier, I will just let the – my Department of Defense colleagues speak to some of the operational updates.
*QUESTION:* So you can’t say if a deal has been reached?
*MR PATEL:* I don’t have any updates for you on that.
Go back to Shaun.
*QUESTION:* Sure. Back on Gaza, the – still on Gaza, the Qatari prime minister today – I’m sure you saw his comments, but he was quite downbeat on the prospects for further negotiations and was blaming Israeli actions and words going to Rafah. I mean, do you still believe that talks are possible? Do you think – is diplomacy ongoing on this?
*MR PATEL:* So we continue to believe that a hostage deal is the best way to save the lives of the hostages, avoid a full-scale military operation where more than a million people are sheltering. And despite reports of the contrary, talks continue to be ongoing and we’re continuing to do everything we can to focus on getting these conversations done.
Look, to take a step back, we’ve long said that a ceasefire that is coupled with a deal to release all hostages, one that is coupled with the additional flow of humanitarian aid, is something that can help create the space for additional diplomacy in the region.
*QUESTION:* And when you say talks are ongoing, does that mean like in virtual form or —
*MR PATEL:* I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of – yeah.
*QUESTION:* Not – I see. Could I ask you one other thing about Gaza?
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* There was some attention – yesterday’s statement by the deputy secretary regarding Israel. He was speaking in Florida, Kurt Campbell, saying that – that Israelis talk of “sweeping victory in the battlefield, a total victory. I don’t think we believe that is likely or possible.” Another day before, the Secretary, Secretary Blinken, he said on one of the talk shows that it’s perhaps not possible for Israel to eliminate all of Hamas. Are they saying the same thing or – I mean, Kurt – Deputy Secretary Campbell’s remarks might have implied that perhaps there’s not – there’s not a possibility of victory in some form by Israel. Can you clarify what Deputy Secretary Campbell —
*MR PATEL:* So what Secretary Blinken and also Deputy Secretary Campbell are talking about – to take a bit of a step back, the President and this administration have been clear that the U.S. wants to see Hamas defeated and we want to see justice delivered as it relates to the perpetrators of the October 7th terrorist attacks. There can be no equivocation on that.
But while of course military pressure is necessary, it is not the only sufficient thing to fully defeat Hamas. If Israel’s efforts are not accompanied by a political plan for the future of Gaza, for the future of the Palestinian people, the terrorists will keep coming back and Israel will continue to remain under threat and we will continue to find ourselves in this continued cycle of violence.
So what the Secretary and the deputy secretary are talking about how Israel has a responsibility to connect their military operation to a clear strategic endgame about a holistic, integrated strategy to ensure the lasting defeat of Hamas and for a better alternative future for Gaza – one that is consistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. We’re talking about things like a Gaza reunited under the Palestinian Authority, a Gaza that is not under the control of Hamas and can no longer be a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people; and we are talking about a region that in our hope has a negotiated two-state solution that is reflective of the will of the Israeli and Palestinian people. And that’s what we’re talking about here.
*QUESTION:* I have some things on other topics, but I imagine they’ll come up —
*MR PATEL:* Sure, I’ll work the room. Said, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Thank you, Vedant. Here I have a copy of my newspaper exactly 20 years ago, the 13th of May 2004, and in it I have my full interview with the then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in which she says, “Maybe by next May” – 2005 – “we’ll have a Palestinian state.” And the irony is I was probably here that day asking Richard Boucher about it later on. And the irony is had the United States kept – come through on its promises, we would not have October 7th, we would not have any of the dozen wars that the Israelis —
*MR PATEL:* Said, are you trying to imply that —
*QUESTION:* Let me finish – that Israel had waged on the Palestinians. And I’m asking you do you ever – guys, do you ever exercise introspection? Do you look back and say all this wreckage, all these problems, all these (inaudible) that you cast, all these rules at the UN, including last Friday, was it wise?
*MR PATEL:* Said, I hope that you are not trying to imply that somehow the United States is responsible for October 7th, because there was only one perpetrator of the October 7th terror attack —
*QUESTION:* You know quite well that is not exactly my point.
*MR PATEL:* — and it’s Hamas. That’s —
*QUESTION:* That is not my point, Vedant.
*MR PATEL:* That’s – that doesn’t sound like the question that you’re asking.
*QUESTION:* No. My question to you is do you ever reflect on all the promises that you guys have made – administration after administration after administration reiterating its commitment to the two-state solution – and you’ve never come through on that. Do you ever – do you ever reflect on that? That is my question.
*MR PATEL:* Said, we are working tirelessly to make it so. It is the for the – this exact reason that the Secretary has been engaging in the shuttle diplomacy that he has, taking an unprecedented seven trips to the region to engage directly with Israeli officials and others in the region on getting a ceasefire, on getting a hostage deal, on getting additional humanitarian aid, so we can get to a place where the conditions are created for some additional diplomacy to happen, to get us to a two-state solution, to get us a region that is reflective of the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo, to get us to a region that is not caught up in this same cycle of violence.
*QUESTION:* Well, let me ask you a couple more questions —
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* — if you allow me. Yesterday, you talked about human shields and how Hamas embeds itself and so on. Well, there is a report today – or yesterday – on how Hamas used – I mean how Israel, the Israeli occupation army, used Palestinian teenagers as human shields. I wonder if you are aware of the report. I wonder if you have any comment on it.
*MR PATEL:* So I’ve seen those reports, Said, and we’re looking into these as well as other allegations. And you’ve heard me state repeatedly – and you’ve heard Matt and the Secretary say it also – Israel and any country has an obligation to thoroughly investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. I don’t have any other updates on this specifically, though.
*QUESTION: *Yeah, and lastly, yesterday somebody said something about the number of Palestinians dead and so on, and the United Nations came out and corrected that. I hope that you’re aware of this report.
*MR PATEL: *So I’ve seen that, Said, and I will just echo what you heard me say yesterday, that the bigger issue here is that thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. Any number above zero is heartbreaking, it’s tragic, and it is reflective of more needing to be done to mitigate civilian harm.
Nadia, go ahead.
*QUESTION: *Thank you, Vedant. As we speak now, there is almost 400,000 people forced to leave their homes from Rafah with no shelter, no food, no fuel, and no safe place to go. So how could this be different than the – your insistence, the administration’s insistence that we have to see a viable plan to evacuate people, because you’re doing it incrementally? What’s the difference between moving half a million people as we speak today? We don’t know if they’re going to move more later on. But basically, they’re doing in – on stages. So what difference for – from the position you were till now? I mean, it’s – the consequences are the same, aren’t they?
*MR PATEL: *So Nadia, when we talk about a Rafah operation that we would take issue with, we’re talking about an operation that is major, that is a direct invasion into Rafah, that is targeting and invading into the urban and dense centers. Again, I will leave it to the IDF to speak to their own operation. We have yet to see a major operation into Rafah. But the concerns and criticisms that we have, those continue to persist, and it’s something that we are going to continue to work at with our partners in Israel. These are conversations that are ongoing.
And to date, this operation has not happened in large part due to the ongoing conversations that we’ve been having with the Israelis. And again, just absent a credible plan to get civilians out of harm’s way, we’ve been clear that this is not a major military operation we’d support.
*QUESTION: *But isn’t forcing half a million people to move with – forcing them to move out of Rafah to nowhere, where there’s nowhere is safe – isn’t it by itself a violation of international law?
*MR PATEL: *So we have been pretty clear, Nadia, that there can be no forcible relocation of the Palestinian people. That continues —
*QUESTION: *But if they stay, they’re going to die. I mean, they’re moving because they have to move.
*MR PATEL: *That continues to be a tenet of our approach. But ultimately, we do support efforts to support Israel’s goal of dismantling Hamas. But like I said, we do not want to see a major operation into Rafah, and we have not seen one yet that we would take issue with.
*QUESTION: *Okay —
*MR PATEL: *We are continuing to have those conversations with our partners in Israel, though.
*QUESTION: *Okay, two quick questions.
*MR PATEL: *Yeah, go ahead.
*QUESTION: *On the UN worker who was killed yesterday, the UN said that they clearly communicated to Israel where they moving, the exact movement, and yet one UN worker was killed, and that will bring the total to almost 250. Do you still believe that Israel is not targeting aid worker, considering what happened yesterday with a clear communication and what happened with the World Central Kitchen?
*MR PATEL: *So the reports from yesterday evening, Nadia, are incredibly disturbing. And we are very concerned by what we’re seeing of the reported strike on a UN vehicle in Gaza that killed one aid worker and injured another. You’ve heard me say this before, you’ve heard the Secretary say it: UN and humanitarian workers must be protected, and they need to be able to continue their lifesaving work. And we join calls for a full investigation into this incident.
I will also say that, in these kinds of circumstances, a viable medical evacuation process for humanitarian staff injured in military operations, accidents, or illness is also essential. I will also say around the specifics of this incident, we continue to be in contact with our partners to understand what transpired and how this happened. We still don’t have the full details, Nadia, but we expect Israel to follow through with the new IDF coordination cell for real-time humanitarian efforts. And we emphasize that there needs to be a focus on safeguarding designated sites, safeguarding aid personnel and civilians. And we urge Israel to expedite the deconfliction cell full operationalization, which we have not seen that yet.
*QUESTION: *Okay, and finally, just to follow up what you told Said, you said that the administration work effortlessly to establish a Palestinian state, and you give example of the Secretary’s visit to the region.
*MR PATEL: *We are working —
*QUESTION: *You’re working towards it.
*MR PATEL: *This is something we are working towards.
*QUESTION: *Sure, you’re working towards that.
*MR PATEL: *This is something that we remain deeply focused on, and it has been something that I know is a goal of this Secretary’s and a goal of this President’s.
*QUESTION: *Yeah. I haven’t asked you my question yet.
*MR PATEL: *Yeah.
*QUESTION: *So can you tell us before October 7, what exactly the administration did to make sure that the two-state solution is viable and they’re working on it?
*MR PATEL: *Nadia, I’m happy to follow up with a clear list and – of actions that we’ve taken. But if you just want to look at the focus on this before October 7th – you’ve heard the Secretary talk about this previously before – before the October 7th terrorist attacks, many of you are aware the Secretary was intending to go to the region. He had a trip scheduled to visit Israel, to visit the West Bank, to visit Saudi Arabia and some other countries, to talk about these very issues, to talk about the issue of normalization, to talk about the issue of Israel’s further integration in the region, one that we hoped could be coupled with a two-state solution, one that could be coupled with serious progress for the Palestinian people.
Obviously, this brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on the Israeli people derailed some of those efforts in the immediate term, but that is something we continue to remain focused on. And that is why you saw the Secretary, almost six months ago in Tokyo, lay out some clear principles of what the day after this conflict needs to look like and what we expect to see from our partners in Israel, from our partners in the Palestinian Authority, and other partners in the region.
Yeah.
*QUESTION:* Thank you.
*MR PATEL:* Go ahead, Diyar. Actually, hold on, Diyar, real quick, because I —
*QUESTION:* Switching to —
*MR PATEL:* Yeah, anything else on Gaza before we go away?
*QUESTION:* Yeah. Yeah.
*MR PATEL:* Go ahead in the back.
*QUESTION:* Would you – would the United States consider an all-out attack on Rafah as being a strategic error by Israel?
*MR PATEL:* We would. We would. We would. We – we have not been – we have not parsed our words on the fact that a major ground operation into Rafah, one that does not address serious concerns of humanitarian aid, the serious concerns of more than a million people seeking refuge – and now we are seeing it – potential complications of the safe departure of foreign nationals – a plan that does not address these things we would take serious concern with.
*QUESTION:* Do you have a —
*MR PATEL:* We have yet to see any kind of major operation into Rafah.
*QUESTION:* And we have Israeli politicians saying that they want to see Gaza being erased off the map. We have Israeli politicians saying that they are going to move back in and recolonize Gaza with the people of Gaza or not. Do you hear any echoes on that from language that you’ve used about other conflicts from that platform?
*MR PATEL:* So we have been pretty clear that that kind of rhetoric has really no place in the discourse as we talk about this region of the world. I will also say that some of those things, they are inconsistent with what our viewpoints and beliefs are for the day after this conflict. We are not for a reoccupation of Gaza by Israel.
Ultimately, what we want to see is a Gaza that is reunited under the Palestinian Authority, a Gaza where Hamas is no longer a threat to the Israeli people, and a Gaza that can no longer be a springboard for terrorism. And that is what we are working towards.
Rhetoric is simply that – it’s rhetoric. It’s a distraction, and sometimes the language and the verbiage and the word choice that is used is incredibly problematic. But that is not what we’re focused on. We’re focused on the facts and we’re focused on doing whatever we can to bring a conclusion to this conflict.
*QUESTION:* Vedant?
*MR PATEL:* Go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Yeah. Thank you, Vedant. In light of President Biden’s decision last week to halt aid and munitions to Israel, what are President Biden’s reasons for criticizing Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East, for their use of munitions in their war with Hamas in Gaza but not criticizing Ukraine for their use of munitions in their war with Russia? And a couple of quick follow-ups.
*MR PATEL:* I’m sorry. I didn’t fully understand that. What exactly are you asking?
*QUESTION:* Well, the issue is dealing with Hamas and Iran as a greatest threat, and I just was wanting to know about the concern that many people have about the criticism of Israel versus the criticism with Ukraine.
*MR PATEL:* So it is fully legitimate for the United States to be concerned about the use of certain security assets of ours in an urban and dense setting. It’s as simple as that. That does not mean we do not support efforts to defeat Hamas. That does not mean we don’t want to see Hamas being held accountable. But in the midst of all that, we also believe strongly that every step possible needs to be taken to minimize civilian casualties. And it is fully reasonable for the United States to feel strongly – and you heard me talk about this before; you heard the National Security Advisor say it yesterday – have concerns about certain security systems being used in dense and urban settings.
And I will just say, again, that there is no comparison between Hamas and the security forces of Ukraine, and to even try and make that comparison is unacceptable. I will also just say that the Government of Ukraine, the security forces of Ukraine, did not commit or unleash a terrorist attack on Russian forces.
*QUESTION:* Okay. A couple of quick follow-ups. Does President Biden believe that halting munitions to Israel will make it more likely for Hamas to stay in power in Gaza? And what is President Biden’s response to the exaggerated Gaza death statistics provided by Hamas?
*MR PATEL:* So first, we have been pretty clear that we believe a major operation into Rafah will not – is not beneficial towards Israel’s security and it is not beneficial towards the ultimate goal of defeating Hamas. The Secretary was pretty clear about that this past weekend. We support efforts to defeat Hamas, but we continue to be in consultations with our partners in Israel about alternative ways to do that, including into Rafah.
And I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your second one.
*QUESTION:* What about President Biden’s response to the exaggerated Gaza death statistics provided by Hamas? I know that earlier you had made a comment here about there is a question about Hamas inflating their statistics.
*MR PATEL:* Let me just be pretty clear about this – this has come up a couple times today – that the facts on the ground are pretty clear. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have lost their lives, and any number above zero is tragic, problematic, heartbreaking, and indicative of the fact that more needs to be done to protect civilians in Gaza. It is also true that we are dealing with a belligerent, Hamas, that has a track record of co-locating itself and embedding itself within civilian infrastructure.
Anything else on Gaza before we close out this topic?
*QUESTION:* Yeah, yeah, yes. Yes.
*QUESTION:* Sorry, but on this one, can you clarify something?
*MR PATEL:* Yeah, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Is the number exaggerated or is the UN number – it’s based on the people they can prove —
*QUESTION:* Identify.
*QUESTION:* — actually that they have identified with – with the birth certificate, with ID, while others —
*MR PATEL:* So I will —
*QUESTION:* — that’s added to the (inaudible) this number has not been identified.
*MR PATEL:* Yeah. Nadia, I will leave it to the UN and OCHA to clarify any discrepancy that have —
*QUESTION:* They did. They did that.
*QUESTION:* Yeah, but it’s misleading from here to say it’s exaggerated.
*QUESTION:* They did.
*MR PATEL:* I’m not saying it’s exaggerated.
*QUESTION:* Right.
*MR PATEL: *Your colleague is. And you’re – frankly, that’s the way that this works. You all get to say whatever you want and then I have to —
*QUESTION:* Okay. Good. Just want to clarify that.
*MR PATEL:* — I have a response. I – we have not – what I’m – what I am simply saying is that I will leave it to the UN and OCHA to offer any clarification on – I know that there has been some interest in how they’ve outlaid those numbers. I’ll let them speak to that.
What I can say – and will just use this opportunity to reiterate it again – is that we’ve seen tens of thousands of civilians lose their lives, and that is unacceptable, that any number above zero is heartbreaking. We’re talking about women; we’re talking about children. And even those that – who have not lost their lives, many are starving, living in impoverished conditions. It’s unacceptable.
Victor, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Yeah. You said we’re working on the two-state solution. Can you elaborate? In another word, do you have a plan for it? Or do you intend to introduce a plan? If not, why not?
*MR PATEL:* This is something that we’re working around the clock. We, first and foremost, are trying to get a conclusion to this conflict. We’re trying to get a ceasefire, one that is rooted in the release of hostages and one that is rooted in the increase of additional humanitarian assistance, one that we hope can create the condition for further diplomacy. We’re also continuing to have conversations about other things, like the integration of Israel, the further integration of Israel in the Middle East, that we think can help and further contribute to our ultimate goal of the two-state solution. But I’m not going to get ahead of that process.
*QUESTION:* You mean your plan? You’re working on your plan or their plan?
*MR PATEL:* I am – we are working on a plan with the parties.
*QUESTION:* With the party?
*MR PATEL:* With the parties, to help us get to that end goal. This is not something new, Victor. This is something we have talking about pretty consistently. We have long believed that a two-state solution is necessary to get us out of this cycle of violence.
*QUESTION:* But also —
*MR PATEL:* And what October 7th showed us – and what October 7th showed us is that it can no longer be business as usual with Hamas, and that is why we also reiterated that Hamas can no longer be a springboard for terrorism; it can no longer be under – the leading entity within Gaza. And we need to see a Gaza that is reunited with the Palestinian Authority.
Any —
*QUESTION:* But also experience —
*MR PATEL:* Go ahead, Alex. Go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Thank you, Vedant. Quickly on – one more quick question on Georgia. I want to move to Ukraine, if I may.
*MR PATEL:* Okay.
*QUESTION:* Message to protesters. We have heard from European allies. They have all said – multiple statements actually came out and said that we hear you, we stand with you. Is there anything that prevents you from saying the same thing?