Department Press Briefing – November 12, 2024 – United States Department of State

MR PATEL: Sure. So I’m sorry that you found it unsatisfactory, but —

QUESTION: No, I didn’t say it was unsatisfactory. I just said it didn’t say a whole lot.

MR PATEL: Let me make a couple points. So over the past 30 days, Israel has taken a number of steps to address the measures laid out in the letter that Secretaries Blinken and Austin sent earlier in October. We continue to be in discussion with our partners in Israel about these steps that they have taken, which they took as a result of U.S. intervention, as well as additional steps that we feel that still need to be taken.

Ultimately, Matt, the U.S. continues to be the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to surge humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza. And ultimately, our view continues to be that the only long-term solution to alleviating the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is bringing this war to an end, and we’re going to continue to work to achieve that. The Secretary raised all this with Minister Dermer yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay. But I didn’t – don’t believe I heard an answer to my question in there.

MR PATEL: Look, Matt —

QUESTION: Are they – have they met – you guys, yourselves, set this 30-day deadline. Today is the deadline. Did they meet it or did they not?

MR PATEL: So I think, first, when it comes to assessing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the region writ large, I think it’s important to remember that we have constant evaluations ongoing and constant assessments ongoing about the circumstances. And first, let me just say specifically before I answer your question that we’ve seen some steps being taken over the past 30 days. Specifically, we have seen the reopening of the Erez crossing. We have seen a new crossing at Kissufim open. As it relates to the Jordanian armed forces corridor, we have seen a waive of – a waivement of certain customs requirement that humanitarian organizations had previously said was an obstacle. We’ve also seen some additional delivery routes open within Gaza, including Bani Suheila Road, expanding the use of the Israeli fence road, as well as repairing the coastal road. We’ve also seen some deliveries resume and restored in the north, first to Gaza City, and in this most recent week to areas surrounding Jabalia. We’ve also seen the expansion of the Mawasi humanitarian zone, and we have seen the institution of periodic operational pauses.

This is all to say, Matt, we at this time have not made an assessment that there – that the Israelis are in violation of U.S. law. But most importantly, we are going to continue to watch how these steps that they’ve taken, how they are being implemented, how that they can be continued to be expanded on. And through that, we’re going to continue to assess their compliance with U.S. law. We’ve seen some progress being made. We would like to see some more changes happen. We believe that had it not been for U.S. intervention these changes may not have ever taken place. But most importantly, we want to see continued progress, and that’s what we’re looking for.

QUESTION: All right. So essentially, there isn’t going to be any consequence for Israel not meeting the —

MR PATEL: I don’t have – I certainly don’t have a change in U.S. policy to announce today, Matt. But as you just heard me say, we are constantly going to assess the circumstances on the ground. We are looking for these – some of these steps that we’ve made, we want to make sure that they are sustained and expanded upon. And certainly, if we don’t see that, if we don’t continue to see steps in the appropriate direction, we certainly are – will enforce U.S. law. There’s no doubt about it.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. But you guys were the ones that gave them the 30-day deadline. It’s hard to see your answers today, such as they are, as anything other than kind of giving them a pass for not meeting the criteria that was laid out in the letter.

MR PATEL: Certainly, Matt, I would not view it as giving them a pass. Because, one, no one is up here – certainly I’m not – saying that the situation in Gaza or their humanitarian circumstances are rosy. It is a very dire circumstance. And what we need to see is we need to see these steps acted on. We need to see them implemented. And the ultimate hope is that through these steps some conditions have been created in which we can see things like additional aid, additional food trucks, additional measures being taken that ultimately will be beneficial to the Palestinian people in Gaza. That’s what we aim to see.

And as you’ve heard me say, and as you’ve heard Matt and the Secretary say previously, if we don’t see steps being taken, we, of course, will appropriately enforce U.S. law. But today —

QUESTION: But – correct me if I’m wrong – isn’t that what you guys said a month ago?

MR PATEL: That is what we said a month ago.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: And that is why we have laid out —

QUESTION: And they have not – and they have not yet met them, because you say that they have made some – taken some steps, but more needs to be made. In other words, they have not —

MR PATEL: That letter —

QUESTION: — met the criteria by the deadline.

MR PATEL: Matt —

QUESTION: And you are giving them a pass. Is that – I don’t – there’s no other way to look at it, from —

MR PATEL: No, I don’t think that is true. That letter was specific about some specific areas where we wanted to see them take some additional steps.

QUESTION: Yes. And have you seen those steps that you wrote out in the letter —

MR PATEL: We have seen some of those steps being taken.

QUESTION: Some. Some.

MR PATEL: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: It didn’t say some. It said all, right?

MR PATEL: Matt, the point is more than any singular step, we outlined a number of steps that we wanted to see taken. What matters most is not just a specific action or a specific item but the totality of the progress that we see.

QUESTION: Well, then I don’t understand why you sent the letter in the first place, but I’ll let others have a crack at this now.

MR PATEL: The point is, Matt, that we want to see the totality of the humanitarian situation improve, and we think some of these steps will allow the conditions for that to continue to progress.

Go ahead, Jenny.

QUESTION: But, I mean, if it’s the totality of the humanitarian situation, we have eight aid groups who came out today and said that the situation has not only not gotten better, it’s gotten worse over the past 30 days. So I just – how do you square that with this assessment that they – you have – or non-assessment that they are in violation?

MR PATEL: Jenny, I can’t speak to the kinds of assessment that these groups made. Certainly have seen that reporting. But to Matt I just laid out some of the metrics that we saw. We saw the reopening of Erez. We saw a new crossing opening.

QUESTION: But this just seems like a box-ticking measure. You’re saying okay, they did this. But we were told – you guys said – it would be based on the results of the ground that have not borne out here. So can you talk us through the deliberation here?

MR PATEL: I am not going to get into the deliberative process, Jenny. But specifically, when we’re talking about specific metrics or specific actions or things on the ground, the hope is that the operational changes that have been made through some of these things – things for example, just the waiving of the customs requirement in the Jordanian corridor or the reopening of certain crossings, the additional internal routes that we’ve seen open up – the hope and the desire is that things like that will make it possible for an additional increase in humanitarian aid and trucks to get to the places where it needs to go.

And, of course, if that doesn’t end up being the case – this is something that we are constantly evaluating and constantly assessing. And if that doesn’t be the case, we, of course, are going to make sure that how they are conducting themselves is in compliance with U.S. law. There is no doubt about that. But we also have seen some steps taken that we think will address things like throughput, that will address things like capacity, that will address things like the flow of aid, and we’d like to see how that plays out.

QUESTION: And how do you make those assessments, though, that these steps would be enough? Who are you consulting, if not for the aid community who is actually working on the ground there?

MR PATEL: We are consulting closely, of course, with the aid community. We are, of course, consulting closely with the United Nations, with the Government of Israel, with the Jordanians, with other partners in the region, with our embassies and consulates in the region that are on the front lines of some of this work. This is a deliberative process that is all-encompassing, that includes a lot of perspectives. And it is also one that did not start when this letter was sent, and it certainly does not stop today, whenever the 30-day mark is up. This is something that we are constantly assessing and evaluating. And should we see something that is inconsistent with U.S. law, we will take appropriate action.

QUESTION: Is it not – this is my last one. Is this not inconsistent with U.S. law that you had to send this letter and lay out this timeline because they had withheld so much aid up to this point?

MR PATEL: Jenny, the point of this letter was to raise some areas of concern and to lay out some steps in which we thought that addressing some of these areas would lead to steps in the right direction when it comes to humanitarian assistance. We have seen some steps being taken. There need to be some additional steps that are also taken. But most importantly, we need to see this – these kinds of efforts sustained over a long period of time, and that’s what we hope to see.

Humeyra.

QUESTION: Vedant, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I think you’re going to get this question a lot. Where I think we’re trying to understand why the administration, Secretary, Matt – I think it was November the 4th he said from this podium we are going to look at the results, and the results so far – that was the little assessment by him that day – are not good enough. And then here you are about a week later, you’re effectively giving Israel a pass on this.

MR PATEL: We are not giving —

QUESTION: Please help us understand.

MR PATEL: We’re not giving Israel a pass. First of all, the efforts and the things that we had seen in place a week ago certainly were not satisfactory, but I am standing here before you with new and additional information. It is up to you to intake it or process it however you like. But when we were talking about this last week, just again, the new crossing at Kissufim, that had not been opened. Erez had not been reopened. This waiving of a customs requirement in the Jordanian corridor had not been in place. These additional routes within Gaza had not been in place. So these are the kinds of resultant steps that we were talking about a week ago. These were the kinds of things we were talking about when out outlined that letter.

There is nobody in this administration saying that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is pristine. It is a humanitarian – it continues to be a crisis, and it continues to be dire circumstances. And the point is we want to see changes like these being made consistently and over an extended period of time. Our hope is – is that things like these have created the operational throughput, they have created the capacity, they have reduced some barriers that will make it so that the aid can get to the places where it needs to go. And if we do not continue to see steps like this in the right direction, then certainly we would find the government out of compliance with U.S. law.

QUESTION: And when —

MR PATEL: But Humeyra, the important thing – and I’m not trying to – I am not trying to harp on this – is that there are things, there are new things that have been done. You can choose –

QUESTION: No, I mean —

MR PATEL: — to disagree with whether it’s enough or not. And humanitarian groups can choose to disagree whether it’s enough. And we certainly are not saying that it is a silver bullet. But there are new progress markers that have been made in terms of trying to be responsive to what is happening in the humanitarian context.

QUESTION: We have seen those steps. But what we’re trying to tell you is that you – the U.S. Government has explicitly said the steps themselves is not going to be enough; we need to see the results on the ground. So you keep telling me they have taken steps, and whether or not I find them satisfactory, I think that’s very – that’s quite irrelevant. The relevance is that – what is the situation on the ground? And you are describing it as dire. That’s why we’re trying to – but I don’t want to stay on this. I —

MR PATEL: We couldn’t agree more, Humeyra. We couldn’t agree that the situation is dire.

QUESTION: I have a – I actually have a question.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You keep talking about ongoing assessment. When do you intend to do this? This administration has less than 70 days in office, and the humanitarian aid situation is a problem that’s been going on over a year. You – I mean, it’s clear that you have – you had trouble convincing Israel to boost measures to improve humanitarian aid. What makes you think that you’re going to achieve that in the remaining time, if at all?

MR PATEL: So first, let me just say assessing the humanitarian situation and assessing steps and ways that we can continue to support that line of effort is not something that starts or stops. So to your question about timing, we were looking at the humanitarian situation in Gaza before October 7th, in the time since, and we’ll continue to be engaged on this.

When it comes to the letter, we were looking at the humanitarian situation in Gaza before this letter was sent, and we will continue to look closely at the humanitarian situation in Gaza after this 30-day period is up. We are constantly assessing and evaluating, and if we do not see consistent progress, if we do not see the results on the ground, then we will of course make appropriate assessments about their compliance with international law, and compliance with U.S. law. And that’ll continue to be the case.

QUESTION: Just a few more things.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: What was Legal Bureau’s input in this? Did —

MR PATEL: I am just not going to get into the deliberative process or speak to specifics. What I can say, and what we have said before as it relates to this, these are deliberative processes that include input from not just across the State Department but across the interagency, as well as those individuals who are on the front lines of working on these very serious humanitarian issues.

QUESTION: Right. But given this is an assessment or – on whether or not a country is violating U.S. law, could we assume that State Department’s Legal Bureau concluded that Israel is not violating U.S. law?

MR PATEL: I’m not here to offer an assessment or even a legal assessment on how a particular bureau made or didn’t make a recommendation. What I am here to say and what we have said, again, is that we’ve seen some steps taken. I outlined them in detail to you, to Jenny, to Matt. What we want to see now is that we want to see these steps sustained over time, and we’re going to continue to remain in close touch with our Israeli partners, the United Nations, other partners in the region to make sure that these steps have a lasting impact on the result on the ground.

QUESTION: Final one —

MR PATEL: And if that doesn’t be – if that doesn’t end up being the case, we’ll – the United States will also take appropriate action.

QUESTION: Final one. U.S. Ambassador to UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield last month said U.S. was watching to ensure that Israel’s actions on the ground needs to show that it doesn’t have a policy of starvation. Given that you have had an assessment going on on all of the humanitarian aid measures, can you say that’s the case, that they don’t have a policy of starvation?

MR PATEL: I don’t – I don’t have a specific assessment to offer, Humeyra. What I can say is that doesn’t – that there has not been a conclusive finding of that, or at least I don’t have one to offer from this government. What we are hoping is that these steps, and them contributed with the additional steps that we would like to see happen, can again, as I said to Jenny, create the space, these operational changes create the space and the capacity to increase the number of trucks, the types of aid, and to make sure that the product can get where it needs to go. And it is absolutely incumbent upon the Government of Israel and the United Nations and other partners to ensure that it actually does that, and we are going to take our responsibility in this incredibly seriously, and we’ll be making sure to work hard with all the relevant interlocutors to see that happen.

Let me go to Shannon, and then I’ll come to you, Shaun. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Assuming this is on topic.

QUESTION: Yeah, same topic.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just can you – backing up a little bit – explain the logic of setting a 30-day deadline if the end result was going to be that we’re hoping to have these continuous assessments, continuous improvements, even though all of those demands haven’t been met? Why set the 30-day deadline? Because when this letter did surface, there was a lot of speculation that perhaps this was a way to kind of kick the ball back beyond the election.

MR PATEL: So the – look, we make foreign policy and national security decisions because they are in the interest of the United States and the interest of the American people and the interest of the region, not for any electoral, political reason. This letter was sent because the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense had legitimate and serious concern about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This department and the Pentagon had some specific concerns about the lack of progress in some specific areas, and it had some recommendations on what steps we think specifically the IDF, COGAT, the Government of Israel writ large could take to further enhance the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

It’s been 30 days. We have seen some of those steps being taken. Again, I outlined those already. There are a number of steps that we think also additionally could be taken and we’ll continue to remain engaged on those issues. But again, 30 days ago, much of the things that I outlined to Shaun, to Jenny, to Humeyra – those things had not happened yet, and so those are important steps in the right direction. We need to see more, we want to see more, and we’re going to continue to be engaged on making sure that more happens and ultimately, though, that these steps have a tangible result. That’s what this is about.

QUESTION: Talking about the operational changes, so far in the month of November, only 624 trucks have entered into Gaza according to COGAT, and the letter calls for 350 a day. So are these operational changes that you’ve seen – can you reasonably assess that going forward in two days the amount of trucks that had been able to enter in almost two weeks will be —

MR PATEL: I’m – so I’m not going to speculate on a specific metric, Shannon. But that is our absolute hope. Our hope is that these kinds of changes will make it possible for these kind of increased metrics to be seen. Now it is inherently incumbent on the Government of Israel, on the United Nations, on other partners to put that into action, and we certainly are ready to stand at the ready to be – continue to engaged on this to get that across the finish line also.

Yeah, Shaun, go ahead.

QUESTION: Could I follow up on a couple points?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said one thing – you said that where we were last week, that it certainly was not satisfactory a week ago. Should the interpretation be that things in the ensuing week, that it’s now satisfactory? I know you said it’s dire, that it’s not pristine, but are these satisfactory measures, essentially?

MR PATEL: These are steps that we think that are responsive in part to the letter that the Secretaries sent. It addresses some of the specific concerns that that letter raised. Again, I’ll use the Jordan corridor as an example. That letter from Secretary Blinken and Austin expressed some areas of improvement that can be made on the Jordan corridor. One of the steps that I shared with you today was an example of such a metric. There’s also been additional border crossings opened and additional routes opening, so there have been new things that we’re seeing.

The overall humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be – to remain unsatisfactory, but in the context of the letter, it’s not about whether we find something satisfactory or not, it’s that – what are the actions that we’re seeing. These actions that we have seen, we think that these are steps in the right direction. We want to see more steps. We want to see these steps sustained over a significant period of time, and ultimately we want to see these steps have an – a result on the situation on the ground. And that’s what we’re going to continue to be engaged on.

QUESTION: Sure. A number of people have asked you about the 30-day deadline.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: How that obviously came after the election and how the administration doesn’t have much time left. I mean, is there a sense that perhaps this is a sign that the leverage is gone that this current administration has? It’s not so long before —

MR PATEL: Again, Shaun, the 30-day time period was not about any particular day on a calendar, and it certainly wasn’t about electoral politics. It’s that things take time. It’s that processes, especially in such a volatile region, sometimes take time to unearth and to move forward. And so today we have seen some progress in that space. We’ve seen some additional crossings, we’ve seen some additional routes within Gaza, we’ve seen the adjustments made to the Jordan corridor. We are – intend to continue to work at this and see more.

QUESTION: And just – just a second. I mean, the – but in terms of – even if it was not part of the electoral calendar, I mean, it’s – but we’re saying – but in terms of if the U.S. isn’t taking action at this point and the clock is ticking anyway, what makes you think that there’d be any leverage that the U.S. has at the end – toward the end of —

MR PATEL: Well, Shaun, I’ll just say that we all know what the election result was and don’t need to point that out to anybody, but here we are about a week and a half after that with some new progress points that we can point to, with some actions that the Israeli Government has taken, that we think would not have happened had it been for U.S. intervention. So we continue to think that our role, our engagement, our diplomacy has a space. It has a role to play. It has a serious role to play. That is at the core of what this Secretary and this President believe, and we’re certainly going to continue to engage and work really hard at this. Ultimately, it’s at the end of the day not up to us, but we think that it was U.S. engagement that led to these progress points being met, and we’re going to continue to work at it.

QUESTION: Could I just do one slightly – (inaudible) ask more specifically on this. Could I just ask you one additional aspect on the conflict?

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: So first, Shaun, let me say a couple things. We have, going back as far as we all can remember, have been explicitly clear with countries around the world that certainly it can no longer be business as usual with Hamas. As it relates to decisions and things that are being discussed between our Qatari partners and Hamas, I will defer to Qatar to speak to that, and I’m not going to get into those private conversations.

We’re continuing to pursue a number of initiatives to secure the release of hostages. That work is ongoing. We have not given up hope, and it’s critical to us to get a deal done as soon as possible, especially so that we can bring the remaining hostages home to their families. They have now been held in captivity for over a hundred days in what can only be unimaginable conditions. And so ending the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza also is tantamount and we’re going to continue to work at this.

And our view is that if Hamas wants a ceasefire, which they claim they do, they need to engage. And right now, they’re not.

QUESTION: So just a final one from me. I mean, do you – is your interpretation that the – or is it your view that the mediation by Qatar is basically done for the moment? I mean, is it – do you actually see things that are ongoing, or is it —

MR PATEL: So let’s – I mean, let’s not forget, Shaun, that going back to – I want to say even before the summertime, Qatar, the United States, Egypt have played immeasurable mediating roles that I have no doubt will continue the role that they are going to play. I’m not going to speculate on what the potential location of Hamas may or may not mean. Again, that is not something I’m going to speak to. I will let others – I will let the Qatari Government speak to their own decision making and their own engagements.

Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Going back now to the letter, last week when I asked Matt whether it included a figure, a number of trucks and so on. So do you believe that these trucks were – met the number of the trucks that were stipulated and that were met?

MR PATEL: So I answered this question already, Said.

QUESTION: Well, in the interest —

MR PATEL: I literally answered that question —

QUESTION: Okay. So you feel that it was met?

MR PATEL: — five minutes ago.

QUESTION: Right? It was met?

MR PATEL: That is not what I said.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: What I said was that our hope is that the steps that we have seen taken —

QUESTION: Okay, right.

MR PATEL: — will create the operational conditions to allow such a figure to be able to enter.

QUESTION: Okay, right.

MR PATEL: It is incumbent on the Government of Israel and the United Nations and others to make that we’re doing everything we can to get there. And the United States is going to continue to play a role when it comes to that. It is not about one singular step or one singular metric specifically, Said. This is about all of these actions coming together and what that means for the humanitarian situation on the ground.

QUESTION: But okay —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the letter really says either/or. I mean, it was very stark, very clear in its approach and so on. So would you say that this element of it, either/or, is no longer operative? It’s null?

MR PATEL: Said —

QUESTION: So there would be no action taken if Israel – if Israel backed down on the aid and so on?

MR PATEL: That is the opposite of what I just said, Said, in that this is an area that we are going to continue to pay close attention to.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: And if we do not see consistent progress in this space, if we do not see progress that we find to be satisfactory, we, of course, are going to continue to – and we will enforce U.S. law, and we will make sure that we’re doing so appropriately. This is not at all an announcement that the United States finds the humanitarian situation in Gaza satisfactory or that it’s great or significantly improved. That is not the case. That’s not the reality of the ground.

The letter that the two secretaries sent was specifically about areas that we had some specific concern, some suggested steps that – which we outlined that we thought would help address the humanitarian situation. We have seen some of those steps being taken. Some of those steps have not been taken yet, but this is not about a singular step or not. What this is about is that – the totality of actions, including actions that were not included in the letter.

And ultimately, our goal is we want to see all of that, whether it was in the letter or not, whether it was something that the United States suggested or not, we want all of those things to contribute to an increased and a positive humanitarian situation. That continues to not be the case.

QUESTION: Okay. So let me ask you something. This aspect of the letter that says if you don’t do this, we will do this and so on, is it still operative or has it been canceled – or has it been expired, not canceled?

MR PATEL: Said, we will always be effective implementers of U.S. law.

QUESTION: Right, okay.

MR PATEL: Currently, we have not made an assessment that they are in violation of U.S. law. That, of course, can change at any time. We are watching these circumstances closely, and we will make appropriate changes within our own policy, should we need to, if we assess that their compliance with U.S. law has changed. It’s as simple as that.

QUESTION: I wonder if I can get you to comment on what Mr. Smotrich said, the minister of finance, about once the new president is sworn in they’ll be able to annex the West Bank. Do you – do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: This President – President Biden – and Secretary Blinken have reiterated consistently the clear position of the United States in support of a two-state solution as part of a negotiated process that ultimately will provide an independent Palestinian state with appropriate security guarantees for Israel. The comments that were made by this minister certainly are not conducive to building an enduring peace, and they are incredibly inconsistent with the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo last year.

QUESTION: Well, the Kan news agency, an Israeli news agency, also quoted the prime minister himself as saying exactly that in a closed-door meeting. So is it something that you raise with the prime minister or something that – is the President likely to raise as one of his last actions and so on to impress upon this prime minister that the settlements are illegal, that settlements ought to stop, that the West Bank should remain a viable land for a Palestinian state?

MR PATEL: Said, at the corner of our approach to policy when it comes to this region, specifically policy that we think impacts the Israeli people and the Palestinian people – at the center of that is a constant and clear position of the United States commitment to a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: I will let other people speak to their own points of view.

Tom, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I just press you on the trucks? Because I didn’t hear – you said you’ve answered questions about trucks, but how many trucks per day have entered Gaza over the last 30 days?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a specific number over the past 30 days for you, Tom.

QUESTION: But isn’t that – that was a pretty profound part of the letter, which said surge all forms of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza by enabling a minimum of 350 trucks per day.

MR PATEL: So over the course from November 1st through November 9th – I don’t have an updated metric beyond that, but at least from November 1st to November 9th, we have seen 404 trucks cross into Gaza. Again, Tom, the point is not that this number is satisfactory. We certainly don’t feel it is. But the point here is that some of the steps that we’ve seen taken, it is our hope that those steps have created the operational conditions to allow for an additional influx of trucks, to allow for an additional influx of aid.

QUESTION: But I mean, that’s – it’s not what the letter said. The letter says enable a minimum of 350 trucks per day to enter Gaza, and this is in the context of a letter says you’ve got 30 days to do it and failure to demonstrate commitment to this may have implications under U.S. law. The United Nations says an average of 37 trucks a day have entered in the month of October. That’s one tenth of what you asked for.

MR PATEL: Certainly there needs to be more progress in – when it comes to the metrics for trucks, Tom. But again, the point that I was making – and I’ll reiterate it here – is that we – our hope is that these kinds of changes have allowed for the operational adjustments to see an additional influx of trucks and to see if that metric can be met or not. And if it is not, of course we’re going to press and continue to raise this with our partners in Israel. And ultimately, as you’ve heard me say, the Government of Israel and the United Nations have a responsibility to do everything they can to make sure that that number is met. As you just heard me say at the top of this, we have seen this reopening of Erez, this new crossing at Kissufim. We’ve seen some additional routes open up within Gaza. These things, we think, will help – will hopefully help create the space to allow that to happen.

QUESTION: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I’ve heard that about the measures, but I’m just asking about what you demanded in the letter. So then we had: end the isolation of the north. That was a specific demand in the letter. Have the Israelis ended the isolation of the north?

MR PATEL: We have seen some restoration of deliveries to the north that had been closed for a few weeks – first, as you heard me say, to Gaza City, as well as this week into the area surrounding Jabalia as well.

QUESTION: Yeah, Jabalia as well – Jabalia – well, you said around Jabalia, you didn’t say in Jabalia.

MR PATEL: Areas around Jabalia and first to Gaza City.

QUESTION: Yeah, but not – so that’s not inside Jabalia, which presumably remains under siege.

MR PATEL: Tom, I – I’m not going to get into a specific tit for tat on every item in the letter. The letter was a suggestion of steps that we think that they should take.

QUESTION: It didn’t say it’s —

MR PATEL: We outlined a number of steps that we wanted to see take place. We have seen them take significant actions. Ultimately, what matters is not one specific step but the totality of actions, including actions that, as I said to Said, were not even necessarily laid out in the letter or not, and whether all of those together lead to an increase in humanitarian assistance that will – that’s what we’re looking at and that’s what we’re going to continue to play close attention to.

QUESTION: But it’s important, isn’t it, because there’s 100,000 people trapped in that besieged area, according to the United Nations, where they say there’s been no food, there has been no water, there have been daily and repeated denials of humanitarian convoys by the Israeli authorities, which seems in stark contrast to what you’re suggesting.

On UNRWA, the letter also says that the Israeli authorities should do everything to prevent this legislation that would ban UNRWA and prevent contact with UNRWA. Now they’ve clearly plowed ahead with that and ignored that, too. So are you – are they listening to you in the letter on that point? Have there been any —

MR PATEL: On the UNRWA legislation specifically, Tom, there are over two months to go until the legislation is implemented. We continue to have ongoing conversations about it, and we’re going to continue to discuss the implementation of this law with the Government of Israel and make clear that steps that deny vital assistance to civilians could have implications under our law and policy. I’m not going to speculate on what exactly that may or may not look like, given that, as I said, the law isn’t being implemented yet. There’s still two months to go. But certainly it continues to be an area of concern and one that we’re continuing to raise with the Government of Israel, and we’ll continue to do so.

QUESTION: Just, I mean, isn’t there a profound point of what you were trying to do was end a siege around northern Gaza that was trapping a hundred thousand civilians, to prevent them starving to death? And we’ve heard now Josep Borrell, EU foreign affairs representative, saying the use of hunger as a weapon of war is against international humanitarian law in relation to northern Gaza. We’ve had multiple aid agencies saying that they’re concerned about starvation in the north.

So you may – you set this letter out with a clear objective, which was about the north of Gaza. And all I can see that you said today is an extra crossing has opened up; one-tenth of the trucks that you asked for are entering Gaza, but not getting to the besieged area. So as far as I can see from what you said today, absolutely nothing that you’ve asked for is actually happening.

MR PATEL: Well, first, Tom, I think it’s important to remember that these objectives and our strategic goals don’t start and stop just because these – this 30-day window is up. This is something that we’re going to continue to work at and engage closely with our Israelis on – with our Israeli partners on.

Additionally, it is more than just opening up a number of crossings, though, yes, that is part of this. We have seen the reopening of Erez; we’ve seen a new crossing at Kissufim; we’ve seen this adjustment being made with the Jordanian corridor; we’ve seen some additional delivery routes within Gaza; we’ve seen deliveries restored to northern Gaza and areas surrounding Jabalia; we’ve seen the humanitarian zone in Mawasi expanded; and we have also seen the institution of periodic operational pauses.

There are absolutely more additional steps that we would like to see, and we’ll continue to press and make sure that those are happening as swiftly as possible.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. I have one question about Gaza, and can we move to Lebanon after that?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: I just want to also circle around what my colleagues here said regarding the assessment. You are now saying that your assessment is there is no violation, there is some steps been taken. And I keep going back to what Matt said in earlier, in the few weeks ago in his comments about the results on the ground. But I will go with you, that you are satisfied with the steps that Israel is taking. You’re demanding more. You’re demanding more of aid to come inside Gaza.

But my question: What makes you assess that the current condition in Gaza is not because Israel is preventing aid from coming in? Because you are dismissing what the aid agencies is saying as their own assessment, that you don’t share it. But what is the reason, then, for the situation, especially in northern Gaza, to be this dire if it’s not Israel violating U.S. law or international humanitarian?

MR PATEL: What we can speak to is what we are seeing. And what we’re seeing is some steps being taken. Certainly, the humanitarian situation writ large in Gaza continues to be dire, and we’re going to continue to work at this as aggressively as we can.

The point of the letter was that – the Secretaries laid out that in this letter that, as we’ve made clear in previous engagements with the Israelis, that it is our responsibility to continuously assess Israel’s assurances as it relates to the facilitation of humanitarian aid. We’re going to continue to make those assessments on the actions Israel takes or doesn’t take, as we have done since the beginning of this conflict.

And based on some of the small steps that I have laid out for you today – first, again, I would just stress that this is work that continues and is ongoing, and it does not start or stop. But based on some of those steps, as well as additional steps, we have not made an assessment that they are in violation of U.S. law. We are going to continue to watch this space, though, and pay close attention, and we will effectively implement U.S. law. And if we see actions or steps that are inconsistent with the responsibility and assurances that Israel has to facilitate the delivery of U.S. aid, we of course will appropriately implement U.S. law.

QUESTION: But if they are not in violation – so from November 1st to November 9 there was 404 trucks come in, right? It’s like 45 to 44 trucks a day. This is way beyond, as Tom said, well beyond the —

MR PATEL: Absolutely.

QUESTION: — 350. Why it’s not 350, according to your assessment?

MR PATEL: So, again, I don’t want us to go down a rabbit hole of specific truck numbers. What – our point of view is that some of these operational changes that they have made, that I have outlined in great detail now at this point, we believe that it should be possible to increase the number of trucks that makes it into Gaza every day. It is now incumbent upon the Government of Israel, the United Nations, and others, now that there are these operational changes that we think can help with throughput, can help with delivery within Gaza, that can help with getting the aid where it needs to go – our hope is that with those changes, we can see that number achieved.

QUESTION: Just before we —

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Before we move to Lebanon, can I just ask you —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — why did you bother to put in 350 trucks a day, if it doesn’t matter?

MR PATEL: I’m not going to speak to the —

QUESTION: I mean, you keep saying you’re not going to speak to specific metrics, but you guys are the ones that made this specific – we didn’t. We didn’t give the Israelis 30 days to do all this stuff. You guys did. And now those 30 days are up. And as you’ve heard from everyone so far – and these aid groups that came out last night – they haven’t met them, and all of a sudden you say that the metrics that you put out don’t matter.

MR PATEL: We have never said – I never said that they don’t matter.

QUESTION: Well —

MR PATEL: What I said was —

QUESTION: You just said rabbit hole. I mean, this are metrics exactly like you’ve put out. It’s not a rabbit hole.

MR PATEL: I – meaning I don’t want to take up time getting into a specific tit for tat on, like, truck numbers. But —

QUESTION: Well, but then why did you put them in the letter?

QUESTION: But you can take time. It’s really – you can take time. It’s really important.

MR PATEL: Those metrics – the metrics and the number of – let me just be very clear. The metrics and the number of trucks getting into Gaza every day absolutely matter. It is – I said that to him because I did not want to get into a specific technical conversation on inflows and outflows. I don’t have more updated numbers for you beyond the ones – what I said to Tom. Matt, the metrics absolutely matter. The point that we are making – the two broad points that we made is that, one, on specific truck numbers, we think these operational changes that we’ve made can help get us to that goal. That’s the first point.

The second point is that all of these steps and even the steps that have yet to be taken and even the steps that maybe were not even laid out in the letter – the point is not about specific steps. It is about what the totality of their contribution is to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. That’s what we’re focused on.

QUESTION: But just one more thing.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: When you said we’re going to continue to make those assessments, can you point us to one assessment on any kind of IHL violation that the administration has done since the beginning of Gaza war?

MR PATEL: Humeyra, since October 7th, when we have seen certain things take place that are inconsistent with perhaps maybe how we would have gone about such a endeavor or they are inconsistent with international law, we have raised those and addressed those specifically.

QUESTION: Oh, you have seen things that were inconsistent with IHL?

MR PATEL: What – what I am talking about specifically is incidents that could potentially have had components of that.

QUESTION: Right.

MR PATEL: An example I would give is the incident involving World Central Kitchen workers. When that incident happened, we were very quick to stress the importance of the need for further deconfliction mechanisms, for greater communication. So when we have seen things, Humeyra, we have raised them directly with our partners in Israel.

QUESTION: Yes, you’ve raised them, Vedant, but you’re saying we’re going to continue to make those assessments, and I’m asking you whether – like I have not seen any of these assessments. So where are those assessments?

MR PATEL: I – we – those processes, Humeyra, are ongoing and they have been ongoing. We’ve spent a great deal talking about the many lines of efforts that the United States has to assess those kinds of processes, and that work will continue.

QUESTION: Just a broad question. Are you at all worried that this will have an impact on U.S. credibility? You have clearly put out a letter, laid out specific criteria, and gave a specific deadline, and right now, you are basically not making an assessment line by – line by line or you’re effectively saying, oh, that deadline was just to encourage them to take some steps. Are you worried at all that this might hurt U.S. credibility because you don’t seem to be following through?

MR PATEL: First, I think you’re putting words in my mouth. I did not say that. Number two, let us not forget and lose sight again – and I spoke a little of this with Shaun – that some of the steps that we are seeing being taken are a direct result of U.S. intervention. Over the course of this entire conflict, we have seen steps that are undertaken because of U.S. intervention and the role and the kinds of engagement that our diplomacy has had. So that – I take that to mean that we are credible voices and we continue to be credible actors in the region, and time and time again, what we have found to be true through our engagement and our diplomacy is that perhaps interlocutors may disagree with the United States on policy, may disagree with our approach, may disagree with a policy that other countries are pursuing. But time and time again, we hear the call for the United States to continue to have a seat at the table and for the United States to continue to engage.

From the immediate onset of October 7th to now, there have been a number of instances in which our engagement has unearthed results – results as it relates to the conflict, results as it relates to humanitarian aid, what have you.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: So —

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I go to my question on Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Okay. I imagine Michel also wants to go to Lebanon, but go ahead.

MR PATEL: So look, I’m not going to speculate on what’s in the press reporting and not – what I will say is that ultimately, we feel strongly that the only viable path as it relates to Lebanon is a durable peace, is one that has a diplomatic resolution, one that gives a viable path to a durable peace and security in the region, one that – you’ve heard us say this before – creates the conditions for civilians to be able to return home on both sides of the border. But I am not going to get into the specifics of the process and the negotiations beyond that.

QUESTION: My last question —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — is that what has been reported that the Israeli demands is for Hizballah to abide by the 1701, your resolution, and withdraw above the Litani River, disarm, and the Israelis be able to be – to go back to their cities and towns in the north. Hizballah yesterday said that nobody is talking to them regarding any deal coming around. They know that there have been some diplomatic movement around, but nobody’s talking to them, and they will never disarm. Does this give you any hope that —

MR PATEL: Well, that sentiment is exactly why you and I are even having this conversation, because in 2006, 1701 was pretty explicit in what the expectation was. It was to withdraw up past the Litani River and for Hizballah to disarm. We have yet to see that, and that is why we continue to be in this place where we are.

We continue to be engaged on this. It is no secret what the United States, what the Government of Israel, what other multilateral institutions want to see happen as it relates to Lebanon. It certainly should be no secret to Hizballah. We’ve been talking about this pretty consistently for some time. We want to see 1701 effectively implemented. We want to see it in place. And we continue to believe that a diplomatic resolution that is encompassing of that certainly is the only way that we’re going to get to the conditions we need so that, as you noted, civilians can get home.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, do you see any role that Russia can play in the diplomatic solution in Lebanon, especially that an Israeli official has visited Moscow? And can you rely on Russia to prevent Iran and the Syrian regime from smuggling arms to Hizballah, to Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Look, I will let Minister Dermer speak to any of his travels. As it relates to Moscow, I’m certainly not going to get into that, and additionally I’m not going to speculate on what kind of role Russia may or may not play.

Janne —

QUESTION: And Israel has started to talk today about the second phase of the war in Lebanon. Are you aware of this phase?

MR PATEL: I will let them speak to their own military operations, but as I was speaking to your colleague, what we want to see is a diplomatic resolution, one that creates the conditions for civilians on both side of the Blue Line to be able to return home.

Janne, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Russian President Putin rationalized the dispatch of North Korean troops by signing a military treaty between North Korea and Russia, which was ratified by the Russian parliament. He also said joint military exercises would be possible between North Korea and Russia. What is your reaction of this?

MR PATEL: So you’ve heard us talk about this before, Janne. We are incredibly concerned by Russia’s decision to turn to the DPRK to supply soldiers to continue their brutal war against Ukraine. Today I can confirm that over 10,000 DPRK soldiers have been sent to eastern Russia, and most of them have moved to the far western Kursk Oblast, where they have begun engaging in combat operations with Russian forces. Russian forces have trained the DPRK soldiers in artillery, in UAV and basic infantry operations, including trench clearing, which are critical skills for frontline operations. However, Russia’s battlefield success using these DPRK troops will in large part be dictated by how well the Russians can integrate them into their military. Some of the challenges they would need to overcome are interoperability, the language barrier, command and control, and communications.

The United States is consulting closely with our allies and partners and other countries in the region on the implications of this, on these developments. As you so all know, the Secretary of course is on his way to Europe for engagements at NATO and the European Union, where I have no doubt this topic will come up and be discussed, and we’ll continue to consult appropriately in close coordination with allies and partners. And at the direction of President Biden, we’re continuing to surge the security assistance that we are providing to Ukraine as well.

QUESTION: You said that 10,000 troops, but this weekend President Zelenskyy said they were fighting 50,000 Russian troops, including North Korean troops. Can you confirm this?

MR PATEL: So I will let our Ukrainian partners speak to their own assessments that they are offering, but from our end, we can confirm that there are over 10,000 DPRK soldiers that have been sent to eastern Russia.

QUESTION: Lastly, north – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the concept of North Korea’s denuclearization is already a closed issue. How will the United States achieve denuclearization on North Korea?

MR PATEL: That continues to be a – at the cornerstone of our approach to the DPRK. We want to see the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We’re continually going to engage trilaterally on this as well in close coordination with the ROK and Japan, as well as other Indo-Pacific partners on this.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Leah, go ahead. Yeah.

MR PATEL: So, look, I will let our Peruvian partners speak to any infrastructure projects that they have. Again, our longstanding belief has been that it is ultimately for countries to choose and to dictate their own foreign policy. What we are focused on in our bilateral relationships with countries around the world, whether it be Peru, whether it be someone else, is the – is what the United States and what a partnership with the United States can bring for not just the people of the United States but also the people of Peru.

The President, the Secretary look forward to heading to Peru later this week for the APEC meetings. It’ll be an important fora to discuss and engage on some really important issues, especially around trade and economic and energy issues, and we’ll let those conversations play out.

Go ahead. Yeah.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: How does the U.S. view the recent action preventing Awami League activists from organizing a political rally in Dhaka on November 10th? What message does the U.S. have for the interim government led by Dr. Yunus? And his supporters have previously advocated for freedom of speech and assembly.

MR PATEL: So we support the freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association for all, including dissenting and opposition voices. These freedoms, in our point of view, are essential elements of any democracy. We routinely communicate that support to all our partners, including the interim government of Bangladesh, and upholding and protecting these freedoms for all Bangladeshis is necessary to ensure a true democratic future for the country.

QUESTION: Recent – thank you so much. A recent report says that they have removed press credential for 184 journalists in Bangladesh, including the bureau chief of Associated Press. What step is the U.S. considering to address this restriction on press freedom to support the rights of safety of journalists in Bangladesh under these circumstances? Just to give you one information that recently the Committee to Protect Journalists already sent a letter to Dr. Yunus. What is your statement on that?

MR PATEL: So I had not seen that reporting. Of course, if it’s true, would be unfortunate. It is our strong point of view that an engaged free press is vital to covering any situation, including, of course, the situation in Bangladesh. Press freedom and media freedom is important to the President, important to the Secretary, and we would encourage and want to ensure that the rights and freedoms of all journalists are being appropriately respected.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Shannon, go ahead.

MR PATEL: So Shannon, the best thing that any American citizen who continues to be in Haiti can do is to enroll in our Smart Traveler Program and to stay in touch with the State Department about updates as it relates to how those travel restrictions may or may not change, receive updates about safety and security updates, and make it easier for the U.S. embassy to contact them in emergency.

I also would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to remind that for quite some time, even before the Biden administration, Haiti has been at a Level 4, a Do Not Travel country. We have advised U.S. citizens to not travel there since March 5th of 2020.

QUESTION: Does the State Department still support the work of the transitional council in Haiti?

MR PATEL: We do. So as many of you guys saw, we put out a statement on this earlier today. We welcome the TPC and the new prime minister and their commitment to release a joint action plan outlining their vision to improve the security and governance in Haiti. We look forward to working with the newly appointed prime minister. And the acute needs of the Haitian people, in our point of view, requires the transitional government to prioritize governance over personal and political interests, and we’ll continue to be deeply engaged on this.

Julia, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Vedant, beyond just the travel advisory to Haiti that you just iterated, what is the U.S. response to the fact that two commercial planes – JetBlue, Spirit – were struck by gunfire? And what does that speak to the conditions on the ground in Haiti and around the airport, if you have any update, and the security situation overall?

MR PATEL: So first, Julia, certainly can confirm that operations at Toussaint Louverture Airport are temporarily paused, and I will let specific airlines speak to their cadence of flights up until this restriction goes into place and to what extent they’re available for anyone wishing to depart.

I think broadly, though, we are squarely focused on continuing to do everything we can to support and address the insecurity crisis in Haiti. The MSS mission continues to make headway in refining mission strategy, focusing on interoperability with the Haitian National Police. We intend to provide nearly 628 million in financial and in-kind support to the MSS mission. This would include armored vehicles, radios, night-vision goggles, and drones. We are also pursuing the Government of Haiti’s request to transition the MSS into a UN peacekeeping effort, so the support of the MSS mission is – can ultimately be sustained over a long term. And ultimately, our hope is that it paves the way to security conditions that result in holding free and fair elections.

All right, guys. Thank you. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:33 p.m.)

# # #