Department Press Briefing – November 14, 2024 – United States Department of State

MR PATEL: There has not. We of course congratulate Senator Rubio on this announcement. To date, the incoming administration, President-elect Trump’s team, our understanding is that they have yet to sign the memorandum of understanding as it relates to some of the transition endeavors both with the White House and the GSA. I will let them and the GSA speak to that process. And as it relates to the transition between administrations, transition between secretaries, we stand ready to support that process, stand ready to assist. I have no doubt that in the weeks and time ahead there will be appropriate engagement between the Secretary, Senator Rubio, engagement between the teams, but of course the first step would be for that MOU to be signed, which —

QUESTION: So in other words, that hasn’t —

MR PATEL: Correct, yeah. That’s right.

QUESTION: Yeah. Unless anyone else wants to ask about that, I want to go to the Middle East.

MR PATEL: I think – unless – I don’t think your question’s on the transition, Ksenia. It is? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Exactly that, my question. What foreign policy changes do you expect and hope to avoid once Rubio becomes secretary of state?

MR PATEL: So —

QUESTION: I mean, is there anything Secretary Blinken would want him to stay the course on?

MR PATEL: Ksenia, I’m just going to jump in right there and just be – echo what you have heard the Secretary, the President, Matt, and others say: There is one president at a time; there is one secretary of state at the time. The kinds of foreign policy and national security objectives the incoming administration may or may not pursue, you certainly can speak to them, and to the extent that they continue to hold daily press briefings, you can certainly ask them about it after 12:00 p.m. on January 20th. Till then, President Biden is President, Secretary Blinken is Secretary, Matt and I are the ones up here doing the daily press briefings, and we’re happy to talk to you about the things that we’re continuing to pursue over these final days in the administration which we have talked about at great length.

Anything else on the transition? Otherwise, I imagine Matt and others want to get back to news of the day.

MR PATEL: So let me get to the second part of your question first. As it relates to the UN commission, I’ve seen some of that reporting, and we’ve seen some language coming out of that indicative of their belief that some of the actions could be constituted as – and this is their phrasing – “genocide.” That is something we would unequivocally disagree with. Again, we think that that kind of phrasing and those kinds of accusations are certainly unfounded.

As it relates to the humanitarian situation, I laid out on Tuesday some of the steps that we have seen taken. We expect some additional steps to take place as well over the course of this week. Particularly, we anticipate that the IDF and COGAT may make some adjustments to the list of items, the dual-use items, that would be allowed in – allowed to be categorized within humanitarian aid. Certainly progress in that space would build on the many things that I outlined the other day on Tuesday. And all in all, what we want to see is all of these things in their totality continue to contribute to an improvement in the humanitarian circumstances on the ground.

QUESTION: But they haven’t done that yet?

MR PATEL: We expect a decision to be made on that sometime this week.

QUESTION: And there’s still been no meeting of this civilian harm reduction group?

MR PATEL: That is my understanding, but again, this – these items were —

QUESTION: And the deadline for that was October 31st, even before the last – the deadline on Tuesday.

MR PATEL: Certainly. Our hope and our expectation is such an engagement happens as soon as possible. But ultimately, Matt – look, we talked a little bit about this the other day. We want to make sure that these kinds of efforts are sustained over an extended period of time. You and I and many others have – had a fairly extensive back-and-forth on Tuesday about the contents of the original letter that Secretaries Blinken and Austin sent in October, but also the results that we’re seeing on the ground. Obviously, colleagues in the humanitarian space had some perspectives and points of view on this and will.

And I say all this to say that at the end of the day we welcome criticism of the United States record. Certainly we even welcome criticism of Israel’s record when it’s warranted, but certainly it ultimately, at the end of the day, needs to be grounded in facts, and the facts are this – is that on many of the items that were outlined in this letter that was sent by the Secretaries, we have seen progress and steps in the appropriate direction. What we need to see now is these kinds of events sustained over a significant period of time, and our hope is that through the significant progress steps that we’ve seen, that the operational space has been created to see an additional inflow of trucks, see an additional inflow of humanitarian aid, that all in all contributing will hopefully help address the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

QUESTION: All right. Well, you – I mean, you keep using the word hope and the words hope and expectation. At this point, it kind of sounds like thoughts and prayers being offered for victims of tragedies, which – are you saying that all accusations against Israel are unfounded?

MR PATEL: No. What I am saying is the accusation of genocide specifically in that – in that UN commission —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PATEL: — those accusations are unfounded. Also, in the point that I was making about criticism of Israel needing to be grounded in facts, our viewpoint is that some of the metrics that were outlined by some of these humanitarian groups in their scorecard released the other day are inconsistent with what we’re seeing on the ground. And just some examples of that. That scorecard said that humanitarian aid had been cut off in the north. That is not accurate, not accurate from our reporting and not accurate from our engagements with people in the region. Food and supplies had been delivered to Gaza City for weeks now, and last week we also saw some progress in Jabalia and some of the surrounding areas. That scorecard had said the Masawi humanitarian zone had not been expanded – also not true. We have seen the humanitarian zone in Masawi expanded.

So there are just some simple things like this that we think are inconsistent with the facts on the ground. That does not mean to say that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is perfect. It’s not, as I said on Tuesday. But any criticism of the United States or Israel and our humanitarian undertaking absolutely needs to be grounded in the truth on the ground. And some of those metrics are inconsistent with what our colleagues and those who have been engaged on this deeply are seeing directly.

QUESTION: Well, I’m kind of surprised you want to get into metrics that are contained in the NGO report since you refused to – absolutely refused to – get into your own metrics when you were asked about it numerous times on Tuesday. So —

MR PATEL: We certainly were – we – there was no resistance to get into some of those metrics.

QUESTION: So let’s – so let’s get into – let’s get into the most – the most basic metric, which was the number of trucks of aid going in every day. You said 350 was the bare minimum. What is it?

MR PATEL: That certainly was the metric that was outlined in the letter. And as I said on Tuesday, the metric that we had as it related to between November 1st and November 9th – let me just pull up my notes, and I unfortunately don’t have a more updated figure for you at this time – but the metric that we had seen between November 1st and November 9th was 404 trucks. Again, I don’t make this – I don’t say this to say that we are satisfied with that number. We certainly are not. And some of the changes that I outlined on Tuesday – the opening of new gates, the waiving of the customs requirement through the Jordanian corridor, some other measures – the hope is that the Government of Israel, the UN, and other regional partners can utilize those changes to see an influx of trucks go in. That is what the United States certainly expects, and it’s what we’re going to continue to push for as well.

Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Human Rights Watch said today that Israeli authorities have caused forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza to an extent that constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity. Have you seen anything that would make you agree with that assessment?

MR PATEL: We have not. Certainly forced displacement is something that continues to be inconsistent with the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo. And again, I will let our partners in the IDF speak to the specific military tactics and operations. But it is wholly consistent and acceptable to ask civilians to evacuate a certain area while they are conducting certain military operations, and then for them to be able to go home. We have not seen any kind of specific forced displacement, but as you’ve heard us say consistently, this is something that we’re going to pay incredibly close attention to, and if we see kind of – if we see actions that are not just inconsistent with that but inconsistent with what is expected of our partners and expected of how we effect U.S. law, we’ll take appropriate action as well.

QUESTION: So you don’t agree that there’s been forced displacement to the extent that constitutes war crimes or —

MR PATEL: We have not made such an assessment.

QUESTION: And how can you say that you’ve not seen crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, anything like that if there’s still assessments that are going on within the State Department?

MR PATEL: What we have said is that these assessments are ongoing, and we’ve been very specific. We have not closed the door on necessarily coming to that conclusion; what we are talking about is that these are ongoing assessments, and we are going to continue to pay attention to the kinds of actions and behavior that we’re seeing.

QUESTION: And can I ask on Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Sure, yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. Israel launched airstrikes on Beirut’s Hizballah-controlled southern suburbs today, keeping up its unusually intensive bombardment of the area for a third consecutive day. Lebanon’s health ministry said Israeli attacks killed 21 yesterday. Do you have any concerns about these airstrikes? Does this hinder ceasefire efforts?

MR PATEL: We certainly – we would have concerns. Look, you’ve heard us say, time and time again, that we do not want to see these kinds of consistent operations in Beirut, especially as it relates to densely populated areas. This is something that we’re going to continue to stress with our partners in Israel.

Ultimately here, Daphne, why we have been pressing so aggressively for a diplomatic resolution is because we want to see the conditions created that allow for civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to be able to return home. And we also want to see 1701 – sorry, UN Security Council 1701 – effectively implemented, which would require Hizballah to disarm and withdraw to north of the Litani River. Certainly, we have not seen that yet.

QUESTION: And just on that, a senior Lebanese official signaled that Hizballah is ready to pull its forces away from the Lebanon-Israel border in any ceasefire, while rejecting Israel’s demand for freedom to act against Hizballah in Lebanon in the future. What do you make of this? How much of a sticking point is it at this point, and how can you resolve it?

MR PATEL: I’m certainly not going to get into the specifics of the negotiations, Daphne. But consistent with 1701, of course, is that Israel is also required to withdraw to a certain point as well. But beyond that, let’s not lose sight of the fact or forget that Hizballah is a terrorist group, a terrorist actor, and certainly, we would need to see some significant progress in the implementation of 1701 as part of this.

QUESTION: Can I —

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Human Rights Watch report.

MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In addition to, or as part of this, they’re pointing out that large parts of Gaza are now completely uninhabitable because of the Israeli military campaigns. Does the State Department take issue with the facts behind that, that the military operation has done that?

MR PATEL: Shaun, I’m certainly not going to stand up here and dispute the fact that there are – of course, there has been damage done to civilian infrastructure and numerous civilian facilities across Gaza and have certainly made some of them inhabitable. Ultimately, though, that is why one of the things that Secretary Blinken and others have been so deeply engaged on is finding an end to this conflict and ultimately pivoting to a conversation that is related to what happens the day after. And at the crux of that is what steps are we going to undertake to make sure that Gaza can rebuild, that it is no longer a springboard for terrorism against the Israeli people, that it is no longer under the control of Hamas. All of those things we think are vital.

QUESTION: And the – I mean, you mentioned that there was, of course, damage done – you, the State Department acknowledges that – to civilian infrastructure. How is that distinct from what Human Rights Watch is talking about, their conclusion being that this amounts to crimes against humanity and, in their view, ethnic cleansing? Why do you dispute that (inaudible)?

MR PATEL: So look, I’m not going to get into the specifics of this – of the report specifically. I haven’t had the chance to read it in detail. Simply was asking – Daphne’s question – if we agree with the conclusions that we’ve seen some kind of forced displacement, which we have not. That being said, that certainly would be a red line for the Secretary and certainly would be a red line for us, which is something that we laid out pretty clearly in Tokyo almost a year ago. And those principles that the Secretary laid out in that speech continue to be the pillar of how we view the ongoing conflict, but ultimately what we want to see – what we want the building blocks of the day after to look like.

Yeah. Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR PATEL: Unless, Shaun – unless you had anything else, Shaun.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR PATEL: We’ll come back to you.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: On the letter itself, I mean, two days after the deadline or whatever it is, do you consider the letter to be nullified, canceled, or fulfilled, the content of the letter? I mean, what is the status of the letter today?

MR PATEL: Said, none of the above. I hope you were paying attention to the very extensive —

QUESTION: I was. I was. I was struck —

MR PATEL: — back-and-forth we had on this on Tuesday.

QUESTION: I asked the question. Yeah.

MR PATEL: The point of what we said was that these are issues that we’re going to continue to pay close attention to. We’re going to continue to make assessments on them. And should we see things that we believe are inconsistent of how we expect a major partner like Israel to conduct itself, we’ll appropriately raise those things and we’ll appropriately enforce and take action as it relates to U.S. law. Our intense focus and our close looking and our assessments of the humanitarian situation in Gaza did not start when the Secretary sent that letter.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: It did not end after that 30-day period. This is something that we have been intensely focused on, certainly in the context —

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: — of this conflict since October 7th. But even more broadly, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is something that, of course, the United States has been deeply engaged on for many time before that.

QUESTION: I’m not asking a humanitarian question; I’m asking a technical question. The letter had a time limit. I mean, it had very specific things. That part of it, is that nullified? Is that over? Is that canceled? Is that shelfed? What is it? The 30-day period, is it extended?

MR PATEL: Said, the letter was designed to inject a strong sense of urgency and produce action, and we believe it has done that.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: We are now going to continue to stay – remain engaged on this. And if we see actions that we think are detracting from these steps of progress – if we see actions that are inconsistent with the kinds of things that we want to see – we, of course, will appropriately make the relevant assessments that we need to make within U.S. law. The letter is not void; it is not null; it is not canceled.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: The letter was a – it is one piece of the puzzle as it relates to how we are approaching the issue relating to the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

QUESTION: Just one last on —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — the issue of the letter. But the part that expired on the 12th of this month – is that over?

MR PATEL: What part are you talking about, Said?

QUESTION: The part – it was – it had a definite time limit (inaudible).

MR PATEL: Said, there was the —

QUESTION: So that – I mean, I understand it can be renewable.

MR PATEL: It laid out – it laid out – I think you’re focusing a little too intensely on the letter. It laid out some specific steps that —

QUESTION: Well, you – yeah. And it was the government that did it, not me.

MR PATEL: Let me finish. Let me finish. It laid out some specific steps that we wanted to see. It laid out some progress areas that we wanted to see. We believe that we have seen some progress in some of those areas. We’re going to continue to assess and see what happens. And if we see a detraction or steps backward as it relates to that progress, we’ll take appropriate action. It’s as simple as that.

QUESTION: Okay. So let me ask you about the number of trucks. You said 404 trucks entered since – between November 1 and November 9. That is like 43, 44 trucks a day. That’s way, way below —

MR PATEL: And in talking to Matt – I will echo what I said again – that number is incredibly and deeply unsatisfactory and certainly inconsistent with the goals that we’ve set out. But with the changes that have been made, the operational changes – some additional border crossings, some routes that have been opened up and repaired within Gaza; some changes that have been made to the Jordanian corridor; the work that is ongoing with our partners in Egypt and our partners in Israel relating to throughput and capacity issues at Kerem Shalom – our goal and our hope is that we will be able to reach that number. And that’s what we’re going to continue to press for.

QUESTION: And you said that you disagree with the term “genocide” to describe what’s going on in Gaza. I mean, you’ve done – you guys have done that time and again now. We know that there are 44,000 dead, as of now, at least what the ministry of health says from Gaza. The Lancet Group says maybe 186,000; there are 10,000 under the rubble, presumed dead and so on. Do you have a definition for what genocide is? Can you tell me what is the definition of the Government of the United States of America in describing genocide?

MR PATEL: Said, I’m not going – I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not going to offer a legal definition for you.

QUESTION: What —

MR PATEL: What I can say and what I’ll reiterate again is that the allegations of genocide we continue to believe are unfounded, in the context of the ongoing conflict. Now, that certainly does not minimize the moral and strategic imperative and responsibility that our partners in Israel have to conduct their operations and conduct their activities with civilian protections in mind and taking possible – every possible effort to minimize the impacts on civilians.

And certainly, it also calls into question Hamas’s role in this, because time and time again we have found that Hamas has been a – resistant to this war coming to a close. They’ve been resistant to a ceasefire deal or proposal. They have yet to – a number of hostages continue to remain in Gaza, including American citizens. And so certainly that is a component of this as well.

QUESTION: But let me understand you correctly. I mean, I’m not disputing any of what you’re saying. I’m saying that the Government of the United States does have a definition as to what genocide is. And we’ve seen that in the ‘90s.

MR PATEL: It certainly does. It certainly does.

QUESTION: We’ve seen that in many places since. So you do have —

MR PATEL: I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have it – I don’t have it for you. But —

QUESTION: I understand. But you —

MR PATEL: But what – but again, what – we would find those allegations to be unfounded.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you please give us a definition of the United States Government —

MR PATEL: I’m happy to. I’m happy to.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me – I have a couple more questions, if you’ll allow me.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And if my colleagues indulge me. I want to ask you about the West Bank.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: There are growing restrictions, Israeli restrictions, that trap Palestinians not only in Hebron but in many other places. In fact, there are communities now that literally get locked in. I know you guys get offended at the term “apartheid,” but that’s – when you lock people in and allow them out to go to school or work or anything like this, according to your own calendar, what do you call that? What is that? When you trap people literally, you disallow them from, let’s say, cultivating their olive trees, going to work, building their – whatever. I mean, they are literally locked in. What do you – how do you describe that?

MR PATEL: So, Said, first of all, it is not lost on this department and this administration how vital economic activity is to the West Bank being able to be viable and certainly being able to be sustained on its own. And things like the olive harvest and other economic endeavors no doubt are integral to that.

In specific reports as it relates to some of what you said relating to communities and villages, we’re aware of those reports, and we’re asking our partners in Israel to – for more information. We are very concerned about these kinds of reportings and certainly are concerned about what that could mean for maintaining stability in the West Bank. We’re going to continue to urge Israel to take all feasible measures to protect civilian lives in the West Bank, but not just protect civilian lives, allow for what is required so basic economic functions like you described are able to go about and happen unimpeded. We also recognize that there are very real security challenges that Israel faces, and it has a legitimate right to defend its people and its territory.

QUESTION: And finally, on UNRWA, now, mister – the director of UNRWA said that basically it is catastrophic. I mean, the agency is facing catastrophic end or consequences. I want to ask you, because I remember this from way back in the ‘90s when Congress imposed a – the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem. The president the United States would go every six months and have actually a waiver. So why cannot the President the United States, in his last two months in office, I guess, issue an executive action that would actually do the same thing for UNRWA, that would continue aid and allow it to function and help – although there is a congressional legislation?

MR PATEL: So Said, I am not going to engage in hypotheticals, and I certainly don’t have any new policy or endeavor to announce. What we have stated before is that we continue to be deeply troubled by the passage of these bills in the Knesset, and we’re going to continue, along with other members of the international community, to press upon the Israelis the ramifications of this bill being implemented. UNRWA has played a critical role in providing millions of Palestinians access to basic health care, basic education, food, and other essential services, and it’s essential that there be no disruption to those services.

As you heard me say on Tuesday, there continues to be about two months before that bill, we believe, is required to be implemented. So we’re going to continue to press and raise this with our partners in the region, and it continues to be a top priority for us.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Doc. Harper. Doc Harper, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know you said on numerous occasions that UNRWA is an essential humanitarian organization that puts their lives on the line delivering food, water, medicine to Palestinians. My question is to you is how could UNRWA be an essential humanitarian organization when they indoctrinate children in their schools to kill Jews and aid and abet Hamas to terrorize Israel? And a couple quick follow-ups?

MR PATEL: So I just don’t think that characterization is true, Doctor. Certainly we share concerns that Israel and others have that a small number of UNRWA’s personnel were involved in the October 7th attacks, and that – those may or may not have had ties to Hamas and other armed groups. We’re also concerned that UNRWA’s facilities may or may not have been, some of them, compromised by Hamas, which also we believe to be unacceptable. But let me be clear: The vast majority of the group and the vast majority of the people working within the organization, they play a critical role to providing lifesaving aid to millions who need it.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, then two quick – two follow-ups?

MR PATEL: I’ve – we’ve got to move. Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant – I’m sorry – Vedant.

MR PATEL: All good. People get my name wrong all the time. You’d be – still, still. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Janne.

MR PATEL: So as it relates to our Ukrainian partners and any security assistance we may or may not provide additionally, I just don’t have any policy changes to share. But in the context of DPRK troops in the region, you’ve heard me talk a little bit about this on Tuesday, Janne. And in terms of what our action will be, at the center of this will be dealing with it in close coordination with our allies and partners.

Secretary Blinken’s comments, you have to remember, were at NATO, so of course we’re going to be talking about this in our – with our partners at NATO. But also the DPRK’s involvement in such thing, no doubt, causes great concern and consternation for the Indo-Pacific region. And so part of this is working on this collaboratively with our partners in Japan and the Republic of Korea as well.

QUESTION: Is Ukraine winning the current war? What is the current status in the Ukraine? Because they winning, or Russia winning this war? What – what happens if —

MR PATEL: Janne, you – what you – you have to look back at the totality of this picture. And since February of 2022, we have seen immense bravery from our partners in Ukraine, from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. We’ve seen immense bravery from President Zelenskyy and his team in leading the people of Ukraine, in leading the country, utilizing with great vigor and utilizing with great – with great strategy the kinds of security assistance that the United States and its allies and partners are helping provide over the course of this great conflict.

And ultimately, at the end of the day, what President Biden is committed to – and Secretary Blinken reiterated this yesterday in Brussels – is that we are committed to making sure that every dollar that we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th. That is one of the things he discussed with NATO leaders, and we want to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to continue to effectively engage on this in 2025 or negotiate from a place of strength. Ultimately, that is up to our Ukrainian partners to decide. And we’re also going to be counting on our partners in Europe and others to strongly support Ukraine’s mobilization with additional artillery, air defenses, munitions, and other kinds of training for Kyiv’s forces.

QUESTION: Quick, quick – lastly.

MR PATEL: Okay, go ahead. And then we’re going to – yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea – I mean, it was reported that North Korean troops dispatched to Russia are mercenary and the salary they received from Russia in return will be used by Kim Jong-un to fund the development of nuclear weapons and WMD. I mean —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any reaction to offer to that, Janne, beyond the closening of —

QUESTION: Are you concerned?

MR PATEL: What we’re concerned about is the closening of relations between the DPRK and Russia, and we continue to see these kinds of actions which are of great concern.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: And he had a press conference. I hope you followed a part of it. So he also said that he’s going to visit Fordow nuclear facility and Natanz. This it the first time happening. What is your take? Is it a sign of Iran changing behavior?

MR PATEL: I think we’re hesitant to interpret anything as signs of whether Iran is wiling to change their behavior or not, because ultimately what we want to see from Iran is actual behavior change and action, not just signs of something or indications of something.

And as it relates to Director Grossi’s comments, we agree with the IAEA director general. The time is of the essence in ensuring Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA to resolve the longstanding issues of concern. The President and the Secretary have been clear about this. We want to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, and we’re going to continue to use a variety of tools to pursue that goal, and all of our options remain on the table.

But given that we have seen Iran’s escalation across the board – including its nuclear escalations, its track record of a failure to cooperate with the IAEA on longstanding issues – we think that it is appropriate that Director Grossi undertake this.

QUESTION: So E3 also, in the next weeks, IAEA Board of Governors, are going to push for a resolution against Iran. Is the U.S. on board given that some Iranian officials are indicating that they would reciprocate by getting out of NPT?

MR PATEL: Well, we’re tightly coordinated with our E3 partners in advance of this Board of Governors meeting, and we strongly support these kinds of efforts to hold Iran accountable. And I will just leave it at that. We’re going to continue to work with fellow IAEA board governors to ensure Iran’s full cooperation with the IAEA.

Goyal, and then I’ll come back to you guys. Go ahead.

MR PATEL: Yeah, let me say a couple things. First, what the incoming administration may or may not pursue as it relates to their relationship with India, again, I’m going to let them speak to that. I am not a spokesperson for the incoming administration.

President Biden and Secretary Blinken continue to view India as a vital partner. There are a number of areas which, over the course of the past four years, you have seen tangible ways in which we have deepened that cooperation – whether that be trade issues, whether that be security cooperation. India continues to be an important, vital partner when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, when it comes to global regional stability, and we are very thankful to have been able to deepen that cooperation over President Biden’s four years in office.

And look, on the topic of immigration, certainly fully recognize how important this is to so many people around the world, whether it be visitor visas, whether it be formal legal immigration channels. And this is something that we take incredibly seriously, and certainly as it relates to the State Department’s remit on this, we’ll continue to work and find ways in which we can improve processes.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Gina Raimondo at the Department of Commerce talked about ways in which they have been able to streamline processes for tourist visa processing. We recognize how vital that is to the U.S. economy, and we look forward to continuing to build on that.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR PATEL: Daphne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. We’re reporting from sources that the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon submitted a draft truce proposal to Lebanon’s speaker of parliament today. Do you – can you confirm this?

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything to offer on that from up here, beyond just saying what we continue to remain deeply engaged and focused on is wanting to see a diplomatic resolution, one that will ultimately allow civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to be able to return home.

QUESTION: And has Israel given its okay on this proposal?

MR PATEL: Again, I just don’t have anything to offer as it relates to this proposal.

QUESTION: On the region?

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Shaun.

QUESTION: Sure. Could I ask about COP29?

MR PATEL: Sure.

MR PATEL: So the specific engagement you might be describing I’m not fully familiar with, but what I can say is that we do have a robust delegation at COP29 led by Senior Advisor John Podesta. That team is working to mobilize issues surrounding climate finance and building on vulnerable communities’ resilience to climate impacts. There’s a lot of important work that’s been done over the four years under President Biden that we think that we can continue to build on in the time ahead, and so that’s what we’re focused on. As it relates to this specific kerfuffle, as you described it, I’ll have to check and we’ll get back to you, see if we have anything else to offer.

QUESTION: Sure. And an obvious question – I know you can’t speak for the incoming administration.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: But climate, to put it mildly, is one issue where there’s a lot of disagreement between the Biden administration and what we expect from the Trump administration. How can the U.S. – I mean, I realize that Podesta has spoken himself.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: But from the State Department’s perspective, how could the U.S. engage in this meaningfully when everything could be torn up?

MR PATEL: Well, I think, Shaun, what you have to – there’s two points here. First, U.S. climate leadership over the past four years has delivered some clear results. There – it has created more than 300,000 clean energy jobs. We have seen more than 450 billion new private sector clean energy investments. It is a tool that we think is helping hardworking families save on money, on energy, on transportation costs.

The other thing, Shaun, is – something that people don’t think about is that when addressing things like the climate crisis, when you are investing in tackling that challenge, there is a physicality to it when – whether it be in the United States or whether that be in countries around the world, when countries invest in clean energy sources, when countries invest in alternative fuel sources and things like that, there is a physicality to that infrastructure that is hard to just undo with the wave of the pen.

So again, I cannot predict or preview what a future administration may or may not do, but the EV chargers and offshore wind infrastructure and things like that that we have seen built up under this administration – and not just in the United States, but in areas around the world – there is a physicality to that, and we know that that is going to persist and continue, and that it’s going to continue to play a role in addressing the climate crisis.

Go ahead.

MR PATEL: So firstly, we strongly condemn the BLA Majeed Brigade’s November 9th bombing at a railway station, and we extend our deepest condolences to the victims and their families. We have a shared interest in combating these kinds of threats with Pakistan. We have a shared commitment to regional security. The U.S. itself has designated the BLA as a specially designated global terrorist organization. We did that back in 2019. And at the end of the day, we’re going to continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Pakistan in its fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

MR PATEL: Well, I can’t imagine that the Taliban are experts when it comes to leadership, under a woman or not. Look, I’m not going to preview – I’m not going to – it’s not for me to speak to what an incoming administration chooses to pursue or not pursue at it relates to Afghanistan policy. But the Taliban are hardly credible voices when it comes to the role women play in their society and the role that women leaders play. And what you’ve heard us say time and time again is that for as long as the Taliban continues to essentially hold back 50 percent of its population from fully integrating in society, fully participating in society, it certainly is not going to be able to reach the international recognition that we know that they – that they’re seeking.

QUESTION: The last question, if I may.

MR PATEL: Sure, yeah.

QUESTION: There is a big cricketing event – cricketing in Pakistan – Champions Trophy – Champions Trophy.

MR PATEL: Cricket. Oh, I did not – didn’t have that on my bingo card. Go ahead.

MR PATEL: So look, first, as it relates to relations between India and Pakistan, that is certainly for them to speak to, whether it be through sports or other things. I will let them speak to their own bilateral relationship. Certainly not something for us to get in the middle of, but sports is certainly a potent and connecting force. You have seen this Secretary, this department really prioritize the role that sports diplomacy has in connecting people. It is something that I know is incredibly important to our current Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Lee Satterfield; it’s something that our former Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Liz Allen really championed. And at the end of the day, sports connects so many people, and it’s a great way for those human-to-human and people-to-people ties that this administration has really prioritized.

In the back, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The question is on Mexico.

MR PATEL: Uh-huh.

MR PATEL: So Ambassador Salazar was pretty clear that there is certainly still work and still important work that needs to be done. U.S.-Mexico security cooperation remains a top national security priority for us, and what we are focused on is looking forward to deepening our cooperation with the Sheinbaum administration and to make communities and ultimately people on both sides of the border feel safe. I don’t have anything else to opine on as it relates to the ambassador’s comments.

Go ahead, in the back. Pink tie.

QUESTION: Oh, hey. The one in pink. All right, good.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, good afternoon. Pro-democracy advocate Jimmy Lai – his trial resumes in Hong Kong November 20th, just a week from now. I know President Biden will be speaking with President Xi in a few days in South America. I presume Anthony Blinken will be in the room at that time – not sure, but you can correct me if that’s wrong.

MR PATEL: It’s Antony, just to be clear.

QUESTION: Sorry, Antony. Sorry. My apologies.

MR PATEL: Yeah, all good.

QUESTION: But the question, simply: Will the issue of Jimmy Lai – will President Biden and Antony demand China and President Xi release Jimmy Lai?

QUESTION: So I’m a little – I’m sorry, I’m a little confused. So Jimmy Lai’s name will come up or won’t come up?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to – I’m not going to speculate or preview what gets discussed in the meeting or not beyond just saying that human rights issues and certainly the treatment of dissidents and the treatment of human rights defenders will certainly be at the crux and part of that conversation.

QUESTION: And then if I – just one more, please. Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Many have described this trial as a sham trial, this national security trial. If he is convicted, what will the United States do?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals on that.

In the back, go ahead. Yeah.

MR PATEL: Wow. A couple things. So first, I would hope that the senator is not implying that wanting to take care of your mental health or wanting to care for your mental health or take appropriate efforts to address mental health issues are childish, because that’s certainly not what we believe. And whether it be a domestic election result, whether it be COVID-19, whether it be some of the protests that took place over the summer of 2020, whether it be in the immediate days and weeks and months following October 7th, this department has prided itself on the – one, the resources that we have made available to our workforce in dealing with these very complex, challenging, mentally difficult topics. Part of that is as managers creating the space to engage on some of these challenging topics, creating the space for your employees to share their legitimate feelings about any event. And we would want to make sure that these kinds of resources and spaces are utilized regardless of who was president and regardless of what the election results may or may not have been.

QUESTION: Did State or – offer similar sessions four years ago after the election?

MR PATEL: I’m sure that there were. I’m sure that there were. I did not work here at the time, so I certainly can’t speak to that, but the point that I’m making is that regardless of what the domestic political event was – and we fully recognize that we’re a country of differing voices and people may have different points of view on any event, including election results – certainly no doubt that there are differing viewpoints within the own workforce of who may – should or should not be president. The point is is that we want these kinds of resources and spaces to be available should our employees need them.

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant. Thank you very much. This British national, Ms. Ellis, recently went to Pakistan to meet the family of Ajab Khan Afridi, who had kept her captive. And she went there just to pay respect the time that she spent there as a captive. I promise that this couple of weeks that you and Matt are here, I will fully respect you as I always have and I’ll treat you with kindness. I just have two questions.

Number one, I’ve never seen a Pakistan leader of opposition in this congress, leader of opposition – congress means in Pakistan national senate – leader of senate, opposition in the senate, leader of Punjab assembly, leader, speaker of the – all of them being arrested in one day. Do you have any comment or —

MR PATEL: So these seem to be largely internal issues for Pakistan. I’m not familiar with this, so I just don’t have anything to offer on it.

MR PATEL: So look, on internet freedom issues, which I think is the crux of what you’re asking about, these are the kinds of things that we raise with countries around the world, including, of course, our bilateral relationship with Pakistan. And I am just not going to opine on what Mr. Musk may or may not know. But look, internet freedom is something that we’ll continue to raise around the world.

QUESTION: Wanted to follow up?

MR PATEL: Thanks, everybody. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:07 p.m.)

# # #