(AGENPARL) – gio 18 luglio 2024 You are subscribed to Collected Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2024 [ https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-july-18-2024/ ] 07/18/2024 06:05 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
Home [ https://www.state.gov ]Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2024 hide
Department Press Briefing – July 18, 2024
July 18, 2024
1:03 p.m. EDT
*MR PATEL:* Good afternoon, everybody. I have one very brief thing at the top, and then I’m happy to dive into your questions.
So over the last nine months, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has been dire. And from the beginning of the war until now, the U.S. Government has been committed to getting aid into the Gaza Strip through every possible means – whether by land, air, or sea. The creation of the maritime pier was – helped to address the situation. Despite weather-induced limitations, nearly 19 million pounds of assistance – including food and shelter supplies – entered Gaza through the pier. This is equivalent of enough assistance to feed 450,000 people for one month.
The platform was helpful in allowing more aid to enter Gaza, both directly via the pier and through the Ashdod port, and demonstrated the value of having enhanced communication and coordination between the United States, the Israelis, and humanitarian organizations to improve deconfliction mechanisms.
This coordination cell, which supported humanitarian maritime operations, has demonstrated that ongoing coordination between multinational and humanitarian organizations is vital – it is vital to the efforts of – to improve aid worker safety. In turn, creating a safer environment for aid workers will help humanitarian partners get assistance to people in the greatest need across Gaza. This model of coordination has now been agreed upon by the Government of Israel and to be extended to all of Gaza. This new process will allow for safer movement of aid deliveries through all crossings, to include the vital land crossing we desperately need to be fully operational.
The needs in Gaza are staggering and the humanitarian conditions in Gaza are unacceptable. And very significant challenges remain for delivering sufficient lifesaving humanitarian assistance to Gaza, including the closure of multiple land crossings, insecurity, and logistical and capacity constraints.
From the early days following October 7th, the President, the Secretary of State, and the U.S. Government worked to open crossings and to facilitate humanitarian assistance. And we will continue to press for the conditions to ensure the safety of humanitarian actors and activities, open additional land crossings, remove impediments to the delivery of humanitarian aid, and do far more to prevent the innocent loss of lives and the killing of innocent civilians – including, of course, humanitarian workers. We know that more aid needs to get to civilians in Gaza, which is why we are continuing to work around the clock to broker a ceasefire agreement that would allow for a massive surge in aid to all in need and to see the hostages come home.
So with that, Matt, I am happy to dive into your questions.
*QUESTION:* So yeah, just on – just on the pier.
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* So is the view of the State Department that this initiative was cost-effective?
*MR PATEL:* Matt, we believe that this was a successful initiative. It was able to provide —
*QUESTION:* Well, I didn’t ask if you thought it was successful. I mean, delivering one loaf of bread would make it a success. But was it cost-effective?
*MR PATEL:* In terms of the technical breakdown, Matt, I am sure my colleagues at the Department of Defense would be happy to speak to that. They, I know, are briefing in a – a little bit later this afternoon. But what I can say is that we believe that this effort was successful, and specifically because the pier and its existence and the work that happened through it impacted aid delivery to northern Gaza; it successfully delivered millions of pounds of aid to the people who need it – nearly 19 million, as I mentioned; and its use helped overall the increased flow of aid and alleviate conditions in northern Gaza. Not at all to say that the situation is resolved or conclusive or anything like that, but overall it was a effort that we believe was successful.
*QUESTION:* Okay. And then just at the very top of what you said —
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* You said, “over the last nine months, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has been dire.” Is it the view of the administration that prior to nine months ago, prior to October 7th, the humanitarian situation in Gaza was just fine?
*MR PATEL:* No, Matt, not at all.
*QUESTION:* Oh, okay. Well, then —
*MR PATEL:* I was, of course, speaking in the context of the months following October 7th. Of course the Gaza Strip has long been an area that has needed consistent humanitarian access, consistent humanitarian aid, and I didn’t mean to imply the otherwise with my comments.
*QUESTION:* Okay. Thank you.
*QUESTION:* Could I just follow up on the pier? I mean —
*MR PATEL:* Can I – sure. I’ll come back to you, Jenny. I’m sorry.
*QUESTION:* Yeah, yeah, then I’ll defer to Jenny.
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* But on the pier —
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* Did it meet its goals? I mean, its goals as defined and so on – you believe that it met its goals? I know you mentioned that it fed 400,000 Palestinians for one month. That’s one-fifth of the population for one month. But that was exactly the intended goal, that it will feed 400,000 Palestinians for one month?
*MR PATEL:* Said, there was not a technical goal or a logistics or a flow – inflow or a throughput goal. What we are talking about, and when the President announced this at the State of the Union, what we were talking about was a all-of-U.S.-Government effort to ensure that we were leaving no stone unturned and that we were looking at the issue of getting more humanitarian aid into Gaza through every angle. That includes land crossings. That includes air drops. That included this pier option as well. That’s what this is about, is us trying to pursue every possible alternative to ensure that we can get humanitarian aid into Gaza. And in that effort, this pier was successful for all the reasons that I laid out.
Now certainly, as I said to Matt, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be dire, and we will continue to work with humanitarian partners, with partners in Israel, partners across the region, to look at what other avenues are at our disposal to get humanitarian aid into Gaza. I believe Ashdod port will continue to play an important role, especially for aid that is moving through Cyprus. We’ll continue to work closely with our partners in Israel and others in the region to do everything we can to get more land crossings open. So this is not at all —
*QUESTION:* Are the —
*MR PATEL:* — not at all to say that the humanitarian picture in Gaza is perfect. What I mean to say is that this pier served a purpose. We believe that purpose was successful in what it was able to accomplish, and we will continue to work hand-in-hand with partners at USAID, at the Pentagon, and in the region to make sure that there are other avenues being looked at also.
*QUESTION:* I defer to Jennifer, then I’ll take my turn afterward.
*MR PATEL:* Sure. Jen, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Was this aid actually distributed within Gaza, Vedant? Because WFP had to suspend its operations due to security issues, and I know they did a one-off thing to move it all to their warehouses, but was it actually distributed to the people in —
*MR PATEL:* My understanding is that there has been – some of the aid has been able to be distributed. I would defer to USAID and humanitarian partners to, again, speak to the specific throughput. But yeah, I don’t have any updates on that beyond —
*QUESTION:* And then the coordination cell you mentioned, when did the Israeli Government agree to —
*MR PATEL:* I don’t have any specifics on diplomatic engagements on that, Jenny. I will just – know that this is – this is separate than the cell that we have talked about previously when we talked —
*QUESTION:* So this is an – this is a new cell?
*MR PATEL:* Correct, correct. This is specifically catered around humanitarian aid and as a out-product of this pier.
*QUESTION:* Isn’t this something that the Israelis had said they were going to be working on after the deadly strike on the World Central Kitchen convoy?
*MR PATEL:* It’s something that we – it’s something that we continue to engage on with the Israelis when it comes to ensuring that there is clear coordination. And like I said, this is a separate endeavor than —
*QUESTION:* And then —
*MR PATEL:* — what was being talked about then.
*QUESTION:* Are there any updates on the opening of the Rafah crossing? Where do those discussions —
*MR PATEL:* I have no updates for you. Again, we’ve talked about this before. Obviously, the closure of the Rafah border crossing is a logistical hurdle but also – we’ve talked about this before – was an important conduit for humanitarian aid. We’re continuing to work and have discussions around that. But broadly, we are doing everything we can to get a ceasefire agreement across the finish line because we continue to believe that it is the most potent way to get a surge of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.
*QUESTION:* And then my last question on Gaza. There was a very disturbing BBC report earlier this week about a man who had Down syndrome whose mother said he was attacked by IDF dogs and left to die. Is the State Department tracking this report? Have you asked the Israeli Government to investigate —
*MR PATEL:* I’m not – I’m not aware of this specific report, Jenny, and I’d let the – defer to the IDF to speak to it specifically. Broadly though, not speaking to this specific instance, it has been our clear call that rules of engagement, that protections for civilians be respected and abided by throughout the course of this conflict. But I don’t have or – much about these – this specific incident, but I’m happy to check.
Said, then I’ll come to you, Nick.
*QUESTION:* Yeah. The Israeli Knesset yesterday voted against a Palestinian statehood ever. Do you have any comment on that? Would that sort of make you adopt a different approach, or would you have to, like, looking to ensure that there is going to be a Palestinian state despite now it is legislated into law, or will be legislated —
*MR PATEL:* I —
*QUESTION:* — into law, that no Palestinian state will ever emerge?
*MR PATEL:* So look, Said, I’ll let Israeli officials speak to their own legislative chamber and the actions that that chamber takes. But the United States is committed —
*QUESTION:* Right.
*MR PATEL:* — to advancing enduring peace and security for Israeli and Palestinians alike. And we believe that the practable – practical and – way for that is a two-state solution, a Palestinian state that is standing side-by-side with Israel. We believe that is the only way to advance an enduring peace, and it is also something that we believe it is in Israel’s security. To realize this vision Israel must be a partner to the Palestinian people and Palestinian leaders. And as we have said before, we will continue to engage Israeli leadership at the highest levels on making this clear.
*QUESTION:* Yeah, but the Knesset makes the laws for Israel like our Congress makes the laws for us in this country. So I mean, with all due respect, if it remains contained to a rhetorical commitment, I mean, it doesn’t make any difference. Would it make any difference? Is the United States, in other words, willing or able to take some steps to actually make this happen?
*MR PATEL:* Said, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that neither you nor I are experts in Knesset law and legislation and things and products that come out of the Knesset, so I will leave that analysis to others. What I can say is that the United States’ approach to a two-state solution has not changed. Our prioritization of that has not changed.
*QUESTION:* So can I just – sorry to —
*QUESTION:* Go ahead, no problem.
*QUESTION:* So you have no opinion at all on this?
*MR PATEL:* We certainly have an opinion, Matt. I just —
*QUESTION:* Okay. What is it?
*MR PATEL: *What I don’t have is an —
*QUESTION:* What is it? What is the opinion?
*MR PATEL: *Our opinion is that we believe that a two-state solution is necessary —
*QUESTION:* No, no, no. What is —
*MR PATEL: *— not just for Israel’s security —
*QUESTION:* I know what your opinion on a two-state solution is. What’s your opinion on the legislation?
*MR PATEL: *It – I think it can be safely implied that a piece of legislation that is in opposition to a two-state solution is not something that we would be thrilled about. But again, I don’t have the expertise or the analysis of this legislation to know what —
*QUESTION:* Okay. Because —
*MR PATEL: *— bearing it would have on the overall process. What I can say though, Matt, is that this is something that we’re going to continue to engage directly with Israeli leaders on. We believe that this is the direct and most credible and real path forward for Israel’s security, to get the region out of an endless cycle of violence. And that’s why we have continued to call on a two-state solution being a cornerstone of every iteration and conversation that we have when we talk about the future of this region and the future of the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
*QUESTION:* Okay. But I’m just – it’s interesting to me that you don’t want to come out – you wouldn’t come out and say right —
*MR PATEL: *This —
*QUESTION:* — off the top, off the top in response to the first question that this is something that you oppose and that —
*MR PATEL: *This is not —
*QUESTION:* — because I can recall less than two months ago you guys weighing in very significantly on Georgia’s parliament passing a law that you didn’t like, on Uganda’s parliament passing an anti-LGBTQ law that you didn’t like. And there was no reticence at all —
*MR PATEL: *Matt —
*QUESTION:* — for you guys to call it out. And now —
*MR PATEL: *We —
*QUESTION:* — it’s like pulling teeth to get you to say something on this.
*MR PATEL: *I don’t think it’s like pulling teeth. This – first, this is something that my understanding is just passed earlier today or within the past 24 hours. What the full contents of this legislation are – I certainly haven’t had time to read it. I can’t imagine Said or – has – or you have either, Matt. Correct me if I’m wrong.
That being said, our longstanding position on a two-state solution is quite clear, and we believe it continues to be the only way to advance enduring peace. And it’s something that we have made clear with Israeli officials across its government, and it’s something that we will continue to make clear —
*QUESTION:* Okay.
*MR PATEL: *— across —
*QUESTION:* All right. Fair enough.
*MR PATEL: *Yeah.
*QUESTION:* But I don’t think that you can cite chapter and verse of the Georgia law or the Uganda law either. So – and so don’t – when you throw it back and say, well, you haven’t read it, we know what’s —
*MR PATEL: *Matt, the —
*QUESTION:* — the essential outline is —
*MR PATEL: *These —
*QUESTION:* — which is basically what you knew about the two laws that I’ve just mentioned in other countries so —
*MR PATEL: *These are different circumstances, different countries.
*QUESTION:* Of course they are.
*MR PATEL: *These are a little bit apples and oranges.
*QUESTION:* But the point is, is that you are not shy about weighing in —
*MR PATEL: *And we are —
*QUESTION:* — about other countries’ legislatures’ decisions or votes —
*MR PATEL: *And we —
*QUESTION:* — and in this case, you are.
*MR PATEL: *We are not shy about making clear that how vital we believe a two-state solution to be —
*QUESTION:* Okay.
*MR PATEL: *— about being the only way for an enduring peace.
*QUESTION:* I have a follow up.
*MR PATEL: *Nick’s patiently been waiting, Said.
*QUESTION:* I have a couple more questions. I’m sorry.
*QUESTION:* It’s a different topic, so —
*QUESTION:* Sorry about that.
*MR PATEL: *All right. Go ahead, Said.
*QUESTION:* But I just want to ask you a couple more —
*MR PATEL: *Yeah.
*QUESTION:* — on the Mossad leader, the Israeli intelligence leader said that Netanyahu is really intent on thwarting any deal. Do you have any comment on that? Did you hear the Mossad chief, what he said and so on?
*MR PATEL: *So for obvious reasons, Said, I’m not going to negotiate or speak about the deliberative process from up here. What I can say is that we are working to get a deal. We’re working to get —
*QUESTION:* Right.
*MR PATEL: *— a ceasefire and bring the hostages home. And we continue to believe a diplomatic resolution is achievable and urgent. We are hopeful about the direction that things are progressing in, and we believe, as I said, something is achievable. But I am not going to get more specific or offer commentary beyond that.
*QUESTION:* But Mr. Barnea, the head of the Mossad, is the guy who is really heading the negotiations. So he knows. He knows exactly what’s going on. He knows that his prime minister is not allowing him to go forward with a deal. You don’t have a comment on that?
*MR PATEL: *I am just not going to negotiate on this process in public, Said. That would be unhelpful to the process. What I can say is that we are hopeful about the direction that things are progressing in. We believe a deal is both achievable. It’s something that we have been working around the clock. It’s an urgent priority for Secretary Blinken, and this is something that we’re working to get across the finish line. But I don’t have more for you.
*QUESTION:* Thank you.
*MR PATEL: *Anything else on the region before I —
*QUESTION:* Yes.
*MR PATEL: *— let Nick go?
Go ahead, Nick.
*QUESTION:* This is on Iran.
*MR PATEL: *Okay. Go ahead.
*QUESTION:* State’s re-upped the four-month sanctions waiver for Iraq to buy —
*MR PATEL: *Yeah.
*QUESTION:* — electricity from Iran without being subject to sanctions. Is now really a good time to be granting or extending sanction waivers, when Iran is plotting to assassinate the former president and others? And what, if any, ramifications will Iran face for that?
*MR PATEL: *So – oh, what ramifications it will pay – it will face for —
*QUESTION:* Plotting to assassinate U.S. officials —
*MR PATEL: *Okay. These are two separate questions. First, let me just say on the issue with Iraq, what this is about, is this is something – we have renewed this waiver for the 22nd time, and it is about the department permitting Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity while Iraq continues to develop its domestic generation capacity and continuing to create its own independence off of Iranian energy. These waivers are short-term, and they are stopgap measures to provide energy stability. That’s ultimately what this is about, is we want the Iraqi people, as we would want in any country, to have access to consistent, safe energy, which is vital to so many civilian infrastructure projects, civilian establishments. It probably would be a waste of time for me to list them off.
Simultaneously though, Nick, we are also encouraging the Iraqi Government to take meaningful steps to accelerate its effort to wean itself off of Iranian energy sources. And over the past number of years, we have also seen that. Currently our estimates are that it relies on Iran for about 25 percent of its energy. Just a few years ago, that number was 40 percent. And in recent years we have seen our partners in Iraq double its capacity for its own electrical generation. So we are seeing progress and steps in the right direction, and we want to continue to see a clear plan, including realistic and measurable milestones.
Now, Nick, separately on the other question that you mentioned, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice can speak to questions pertaining to the attempted assassination of former President Trump, as well as how other threats may or may not impact efforts that are undertaken to protect the former president.
We’re going to continue to do what is necessary to protect our people, protect our interests, from threats emanating from Iran. That of course includes protecting former officials from any threats that may potentially emanate from Iran. And you have seen us not hesitate to take appropriate actions against the Iranian regime or its proxies when American interests, its people, or American officials have been threatened or been put in harm’s way, and that continues to be the case. And for obvious reasons— it should be no surprise to you – I’m not going preview what actions and steps we would take from up here.
*QUESTION:* Can I follow up?
*QUESTION:* Follow up on that?
*MR PATEL:* Go ahead, Alex. Yeah.
*QUESTION:* Vedant, the White House this morning said that this threat is credible. So if it’s credible, getting back to Nick’s original question, what actions are you taking to, first of all, deter it; second, to make Iran pay a price?
*MR PATEL:* So in answering – I addressed this when speaking to Nick’s question, Alex. I’m not going to speak to actions from up here. I’m not going to preview them. That would be not in the interest of our national security. What I can say though is that we will not hesitate to take appropriate action to hold the Iranian regime accountable and to ensure that we’re doing whatever is necessary to protect our people, including former officials and to protect our interests from threats that are emanating from Iran – it’s simple as that.
*QUESTION:* Has the U.S. Government reached out to Iranian new leadership in order to tell them knock it off?