(AGENPARL) – gio 15 agosto 2024 You are subscribed to Department Press Briefings for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Department Press Briefing – August 15, 2024 [ https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-august-15-2024/ ] 08/15/2024 04:52 PM EDT
Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson
Home [ https://www.state.gov ]Department Press Briefing – August 15, 2024 hide
Department Press Briefing – August 15, 2024
August 15, 2024
11:48 p.m. EDT
*MR PATEL:* Good morning, everybody.
*QUESTION:* Good morning.
*MR PATEL:* We’re still before noon. I think I can get away with saying that, right? I don’t have anything off the top, so Shaun, do you want to kick us off?
*QUESTION:* Sure. Actually, maybe before we get to the Middle East, can we talk about Sudan?
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* The Secretary – I saw that you put out a readout last night. The Secretary spoke with General Burhan. First, I mean, can you say how it’s going in terms of the process of getting the Sudanese Armed Forces into the talks in Switzerland?
*MR PATEL:* So that is – that continues to be an ongoing effort, and we’re continuing to stress how vitally important it is for them to be there. Look, for any kind of negotiation – then when we’re talking about the ultimate goal here being a cessation of hostilities, a cessation of violence – you certainly need both military actors to be part of that conversation. We are continuing to engage with both parties separately.
The RSF delegation is in Switzerland and are ready for negotiations, but outside of that there is far too much additional work to be done, specifically in talking about some of the humanitarian issues and technical concerns, so that process has begun. And discussions as it relates to humanitarian actors, ensuring humanitarian access, achieving a ceasefire, that has proceeded with international partners and technical partners on what that roadmap will look like. And simultaneously, we’re continuing to press to make sure that both of these parties can participate in negotiations to get this process moving forward.
*QUESTION:* Sure. I know that’s the language you’ve been using, that both parties need to participate. I mean, did you see any headway with the Sudanese Armed Forces in the call with —
*MR PATEL:* I don’t have any specifics to offer beyond the Secretary’s call, beyond just saying that this is something that we are working around the clock. The Secretary obviously had the chance to speak with General Burhan yesterday. In Switzerland itself, Special Envoy Perriello, Special Envoy Hammer continue to be deeply engaged in representing the United States. Outside of that, I don’t want to get ahead of the process.
*QUESTION:* Sure. Just one more on Sudan.
*MR PATEL:* Mm-hmm.
*QUESTION:* The Sudanese Army said today that it’s going to open the crossing with Chad. I don’t know if you have any reaction to that human right – humanitarian groups who’ve been pushing for that crossing.
*MR PATEL:* So I mean, this is something that the Secretary spoke to General Burhan about yesterday, and it’s certainly a welcome announcement. We’re aware that the – Sudan’s Sovereign Council has agreed to reopen the Adre border crossing with Chad for humanitarian deliveries for three months. We are going to continue to call on both the SAF and the RSF to facilitate unrestricted humanitarian access through all available channels. We think that’s vitally necessary, and we think that, specifically as it relates to that border crossing, restoring access from that point is an important step in providing humanitarian aid to the many impacted Sudanese people.
*QUESTION:* Sure. Let’s go to Gaza —
*MR PATEL:* Okay.
*QUESTION:* — then I’ll – I’ll turn to my colleagues as well. But I know that Admiral Kirby over at the White House spoke at length on this today. I wanted to ask – one of the things that he’s – he kept saying was that this is – the negotiations and the discussions in Doha right now are very much about implementation at this point, that the broader framework has been agreed. Could you explain that a little bit?
*MR PATEL:* Sure.
*QUESTION:* I mean, if I’m not mistaken, Hamas has actually said that we need to implement what the President proposed on May 31st. I know you’re not – you wouldn’t say you’re taking the Hamas position on this. But is there a sense that it needs to be implemented, that there isn’t, like, room for more negotiations on —
*MR PATEL:* So I would very much echo what Admiral Kirby said. And I spoke a little bit about this earlier in the week in response to, I think, a question Said had and a number of you as well. It is our view – and it continues to be the case – that the broader framework of what the President laid out at the end of May has generally been accepted. But of course, this is a negotiation with two parties, and this is a process, and you sort of see what the text of the agreement is, and there’s a back-and-forth, and there’s an exchange, and there is engagement.
And so we feel confident in saying that the contours of what the President outlined on May 31st has been accepted. And what we are focusing on now and what the talks are focusing on is working on the details of the implementation. There, of course, are still gaps when it comes to some of the details. There are gaps when it comes to execution. There are specific implementing measures that need to be agreed upon. But beyond that, I’m just not going to get into the specifics, Shaun.
*QUESTION:* I’ll defer to my colleagues.
*MR PATEL:* Great. Jenny, Camilla, while I stick with the front row? Go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Yeah. I mean, Kirby called this a promising start. But why? Just because they resumed talking? Is – has there been more progress made —
*MR PATEL:* So as I said – look, I will let the White House offer any additional characterization to the admiral’s comments. But what I would echo is that this is – it is an important step, as we’ve said, that in the lead-up to this meeting there – we have already narrowed some gaps, and the focus now is on some of the more specific implementation and specific issues as it relates to the agreement. There of course is a lot of work that remains ahead. This is a complex situation and a complex agreement. But the work is so important, and we’re very pleased that these – this process has taken place again.
*QUESTION:* Do you have a sense of how quickly these negotiations could wrap up, or —
*MR PATEL:* I don’t want to put a timeline on it, Jenny. I don’t anticipate that coming out of the talks that there will be a deal today. We expect this process to continue, but I’m just going to avoid putting a timeline on it.
*QUESTION:* Then on Gaza —
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* — the health officials there say that this death toll has surpassed 40,000 people. I was wondering if the State Department has any comment on that.
*MR PATEL:* So I would echo what I have said a number of times this week, which is that any number above zero, when it comes to the number of civilians who have lost their lives over the course of this conflict, is saddening, is troubling, is heartbreaking. I think, as President Biden himself said earlier this month, the Palestinian people have endured sheer hell, and since October 7th too many men, women, children, civilians, who have had no role in – are just impacted by a crossfire of Hamas’s making. We’ve urged and will continue to urge the Israelis to conduct their military operation in a way to avoid civilian casualties. As I’ve said, there’s a moral and strategic imperative there.
But Jenny, since you asked the question, I want to highlight, though, that the fastest way to create improved conditions for all, including the Palestinian people, including Palestinian civilians, is for parties – the parties to accept and finalize this deal for an immediate ceasefire, hostages released, and increased humanitarian aid, and safe civilian return. And we really hope that, with the process that restarted today, that that is what is awaiting for us at the other side of the finish line.
Camilla.
*QUESTION:* Thanks. I know that you’ve spoken about this yesterday.
*MR PATEL:* Yep.
*QUESTION:* I guess I’m just following up to just check that this is still the case, that Qatar has said that they will make sure that Hamas participates in this round of talks. Obviously, we’ve seen a lot of statements coming from Hamas saying that they won’t participate. We know that they’re not meant to be in the room with U.S. and Israeli negotiators to begin with. So it doesn’t seem like there’s a whole lot of difference this time around anyway, but just wanted to ask — is that assurance still there from the Qataris about today’s —
*MR PATEL:* Talks are moving forward in Doha. That is – that process is happening, and there are representatives on the ground there from Israel, from the United States, from Qatar, and Egypt. And Qatar and Egypt are – as part of that process, are mediating with Hamas. And so you heard me say a number of times this week that our partners assured us that Hamas would be representative in one way, shape, or form, and they certainly would be part of the ongoing conversations, which is probably necessary when we’re talking about negotiations between two sides. And so we have no doubt that the current modality will be able to serve the purpose it’s designed to.
*QUESTION:* Okay. And I have a couple questions on another part of the world.
*MR PATEL:* Okay. I’ll come back to you.
Said, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Thank you, Vedant. Very quickly, on – just following up on my colleagues, on the talks, I mean, what is really perplexing is the fact that the President laid out the plan on May 31; you guys took it to the Security Council, UN Security Council; you got a resolution and so on. Why is there a need to have more talks? Why can’t you just find a mechanism to implement what you have already agreed to with the rest of the world? Explain that.
*MR PATEL:* Said, for anybody who’s actually probably been part of a negotiation process, it’s probably not perplexing at all. This is a process; it is a complicated process. And as I said to Shaun and as Admiral Kirby said just an hour ago at the White House, the focus now is working on the details of the implementation and details of execution and specific implementing measures.
There is no question as it relates to the contours that President Biden laid out at the end of May that was then quickly supported by the international community, including the UN Security Council and much of the Arab world. And it is one – the contours of the plan that was echoed last week in the trilateral statement by President Biden, the amir of Qatar, and the president of Egypt. So this is a process, and we’re going to let this process play out. I’m not going to get into the specifics beyond that.
*QUESTION:* Right. I mean, just – logic tells me that everybody will be spared the heartache if they say okay, this is what we have, now let’s find a way to implement it. And instead of going back to square one, instead of having Mr. Netanyahu basically —
*MR PATEL:* Don’t think there is anybody going back to square one, Said. This is a process —
*QUESTION:* Well, I mean —
*MR PATEL:* And as I have said for what is probably now the fourth time that this is – there is broad agreement on the contours of what President Biden laid out at the end of May. What we are talking about now is some specific details, some specific implementing factors. There are, of course, still gaps and things that need to be bridged in that space. But when we’re talking about the overall framework, that has been generally accepted, and that continues to be the case.
*QUESTION:* Well, the point, Vedant – I mean, I know what you said yesterday about whatever is attributed to Mr. Netanyahu is basically allegation – alleged – you said alleged. In fact, it was the title of my article about what you said. But the Israelis, different Israeli sources, different Israeli media, and so on – they insist that Mr. Netanyahu wants to renegotiate the Philadelphi Crossing; Mr. Netanyahu wants to negotiate the Netzarim Crossing. He wants to insist on a system that it’s almost impossible to vet whoever goes to the north and so on. He’s saying basically it’s like an impossible situation to arrive at.
*MR PATEL:* Said —
*QUESTION:* Now, I know you said that it was alleged, but it seems that Mr. Netanyahu insists on these restrictions.
*MR PATEL:* Said, I know you all have a job to focus on these things, but I try not to spend a lot of time worrying about unnamed sources and documents that may or may not have veracity. What we’re focused on is playing a constructive role in the talks that began today. And beyond that I am just not going to get into the specifics of an ongoing process.
*QUESTION:* A couple more questions on the – on the West Bank. It’s – there’s been a settlement on a UNESCO site and so on. I wonder if you’re aware of the report, and if you have any comment on that.
*MR PATEL:* I’ve seen those reports, Said. And again, the – this administration has spoken out against Israeli actions that undermine territorial continuity for a future Palestinian state. Something like this would certainly be that. Every single one of these new settlements would impede Palestinian economic development and freedom of movement, and undermine the feasibility of a two-state solution.
Simultaneously, Said, what we have said a number of times continues to be the case, which is that the Israeli Government’s settlement program – we find that to be inconsistent with international law. And we certainly oppose the advancement of settlements in the West Bank, and this would certainly be an example of that.
*QUESTION:* If you indulge one more, Vedant.
*MR PATEL:* Mm-hmm.
*QUESTION:* Just to follow up on what Jennifer mentioned —
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* — about crossing the 40,000 mark – I mean, this is more than 10-to-1 as far as the – and all lost life is precious, and so on. But now we have at least 10-to-1 Palestinians have died. When will enough be enough? Because I know you say one more, we don’t want to see it, but the fact of the matter is that you’ve been saying this since last December, and we have killing every single day. Every single day, no 24 hours goes by without killing at least 36, 40, 50 Palestinians – most of them children. So I mean, when will enough be enough?
*MR PATEL:* Said, what we are exactly focusing on is trying to have a resolution that would allow the fighting to stop. That’s why we have time and time again – and again, just a moment ago I said that the best thing for the parties to do to minimize impacts on all, including the Palestinian civilians, is to accept and finalize a ceasefire deal, one that is encompassing of the hostages being returned, an influx of humanitarian aid, and broader diplomacy to happen for the region to get out of this endless cycle of violence.
Tom, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Just to follow up on the settlement announcement —
*MR PATEL:* Yeah.
*QUESTION:* — that Minister Smotrich made yesterday, do you think your opposition to it will stop the settlement being built?
*MR PATEL:* That is not really for me to speak to, Tom. These are obviously unilateral Israeli actions. And when it comes to the United States, not only have we had made our perspective and our point of view on this incredibly clear – how it is a detraction from Israel’s security, how it takes us away from a two-state solution – but we also continue to have tools in our toolbelt to hold to account individuals who we may think be contributing to greater insecurity in the West Bank.
*QUESTION:* But that —
*MR PATEL:* I’m not going to speculate on that from here, though.
*QUESTION:* Okay. I mean, that’s a separate point, but this is a government-announced settlement; this isn’t an outpost. So I mean, it’s the same question, really. If you oppose it, I don’t quite see why you can’t stop it.
*MR PATEL:* The – I’m sorry, I don’t really follow, Tom.
*QUESTION:* I mean, you’ve opposed hundreds of settlement announcements, and they are all then built. So what’s the point of repeatedly saying you oppose them?
*MR PATEL:* It is important for us to make clear our perspective and our point of view, as well as to raise these sometimes tough and difficult conversations with our Israeli partners. And we’ll continue to do so.
*QUESTION:* But doesn’t it – I mean, doesn’t it just expose the weakness of your position in that you can say something, and say it’s your policy, but clearly it doesn’t have any effect on the ground?
*MR PATEL:* I would take issue with that characterization, Tom. These are not actions that the United States is party to, certainly not ones we are involved in. Ultimately Israel is a sovereign country that’s going to make its own decisions. That does not detract or change from the fact that when we see things, when we see policy decisions, when we see actions that we disagree with that we think are not just in the interests of the United States but also not in the interests of the region, we won’t hesitate to say so. It is not dissimilar from circumstances in other countries in which the United States is not party to those decisions, but when we see something we disagree with we certainly will make our voices heard, and that continues to be the case here.
I will also say that the bigger issue here, Tom, is that we want to see these kinds of things end, and that is why we’re so committed to getting to a two-state solution, because we think that is the only path forward for the region. And when we see things like this that are inconsistent with that, we won’t hesitate to say so.
*QUESTION:* Well, you want to see a two-state solution, but I mean, Smotrich himself said in announcing the settlement, “We will continue to fight the dangerous idea of a Palestinian state and establish facts on the ground… This is my life’s mission, and I will continue it as much as I can.” So that’s what you’re up against when you’re saying you oppose the building of these settlements. Clearly, this will go ahead, and it will not just go ahead but it will go ahead in occupied territory where you are arming the military force which will facilitate its establishment. So you’re saying you oppose it, but you’re arming the military force that facilitates its establishment.
*MR PATEL:* We have a security relationship with the IDF, Tom; I don’t dispute that. That, of course, continues to be the case.
*QUESTION:* And how is – so how is building a settlement about self-defense of Green Line, sovereign Israel?
*MR PATEL:* We don’t think it is, Tom. We do not think that the expansion of the settlement program is in Israel’s security interest. We think it detracts from a two-state solution and causes further instability and insecurity. I’ve said these things a number of times. The point that I am making is that these are not actions that the United States is party to.
*QUESTION:* Can I just follow up on that?
*MR PATEL:* Yeah, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* So again, we asked – I asked about Ben-Gvir and what he’s done on the Temple Mount. And to Tom’s question, you mentioned tools and the U.S. toolkit. The U.S. hasn’t used any tools in that toolkit. And I just want to understand, is that because these are U.S. Government officials? These are also U.S. Government officials that Netanyahu is —
*MR PATEL: *You mean Israeli officials?
*QUESTION:* Oh, sorry, Israeli Government officials that you wouldn’t use – are – is that because you can’t use U.S. sanctions —
*MR PATEL: *So Camilla, I would never – I would never preview actions from up here. That would be inappropriate not just in the context —
*QUESTION:* I only bring it up because you mentioned toolkit, so —
*MR PATEL: *Of course, not – of course, not in – not just in the context of Israel but in any country I wouldn’t – wouldn’t preview actions from up here. Look, when it comes to – there are – across the world when it comes to governments that we engage with, whether they be partners, allies, or countries that we have adversarial relationships with, there are colorful characters in any government. What the United States is focused on is the policy, and the policy decisions that they pursue and the United States pursue. And particularly one when it comes to attempting to subjugate or change the status quo at Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif, we would take issue with that. And expansions of a settlement program, we would take issue with that. We find both of these things to be a detraction of Israel’s security and fuel more insecurity and instability in the region.
*QUESTION:* But —
*MR PATEL: *And we’ll raise these – and continue to have these very tough conversations. In terms of what actions we can take, Camilla, I’m not going to preview or speculate from up here.
*QUESTION:* Okay. But it’s fair to say that there haven’t been any actions taken other than condemning it verbally?
*MR PATEL: *When it comes to officials within the government, sure, that can be a fair assessment to take. But you have seen us, particularly when it comes to actors in the West Bank we have found to be sowing division, sowing instability, sowing insecurity – we have taken action. And we’ve spoken about that a number of times from up here.
*QUESTION:* And just – I mean, I would just remark that the reason that these actions are being taken by settlers in the West Bank is because they do get a green light from said government officials to be able to behave like that. But again, that’s – that – to me that seems linked and that’s why these questions are being asked, but I’ll leave it at that.
*MR PATEL: *Great. Alex, go ahead.
*QUESTION:* Thank you, Vedant. A couple questions. Can you discuss anything about Ksenia Karelina’s sentencing in Russia for exercising her First Amendment right in – on U.S. soil? And any involvement from the U.S. embassy? Are you willing to impose any measures?