State Department Press Briefing for 8/13/24

Early at the tail end of last week from President Biden, President Sisi and the emir of Qatar. So this is something that we think, for all the reasons I’ve talked about before, is just so vitally important to the region. First and foremost, it is time for the remaining hostages to be returned home, and that includes, of course, American citizens. It also has the potential to bring about much needed relief to the people of Gaza. That’s what’s at the table and that’s what’s at stake and that’s what we will continue to work towards.

(00:38)
But as it relates to the negotiations, Sean, and status and where things stand, I’m just not going to get into the specifics of the process, just given sensitivities and wanting to see this process play out.

Not to get too much of the specifics, but for example, there is… I’m sure you saw the New York Times report today, about the Israeli negotiating position [inaudible 00:00:59] that some demands made in recent weeks, for example, the Philadelphi Corridor, the border with Egypt, that Israel has demanded to have control of that. Do you think that both sides actually want a truce and are ready to make some compromises to get there?

Look, Sean, again, I’m just not going to get into the specifics of the negotiation process. That certainly would not be helpful from up here and it would not helpful to a sensitive process. Whatever the reporting that is out there, Sean, I’ve seen those reports and certainly not going to get into alleged documents or comment on private diplomatic conversations.

(01:38)
I’ll also say that the media says a lot of things, government officials say a lot of things. What I can say from the US perspective is that we are so clearly committed to this because we think it is in the vital interest of the region. As you’ve heard me say, we think that a ceasefire deal has the potential to create conditions so that hostages can release, so we can see an increase in humanitarian aid, and more broadly, create conditions for diplomacy to get the region out of this endless cycle of violence.

(02:13)
And I will also just so note what I said yesterday, that Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed that his team will be at the ceasefire talks on Thursday and that they’ll be prepared to finalize the details for implementing the deal. But I’m not going to get more specific beyond that.

Do you know where the talks would take place?

I don’t have any updates on that.

Just one more for you, before I pass on.

Yeah.

The Iranian aspect of the equation, if you will, obviously there have been talks. I know the secretary spoke yesterday with the Turkish foreign minister, with the Iraqi prime minister about this and other issues. What’s the assessment now? Is there still a fear of Iranian retaliation and expectation of that? Where do you think we stand now in dissuading the potential?

Thanks, Sean. I don’t want to speculate on what actions the Iranian regime might take, but I will say, as the secretary has said repeatedly, no one benefits from any kind of retaliation. And what we’ve been engaged on is intensive diplomacy with allies and partners who are helping us communicate that message to the region, including directly to Iran. And a number of ways in which we’re doing that is through, of course, some of the counterpart calls that you have seen the secretary participate in, not just yesterday, but over the past two weeks now.

(03:29)
We’re also communicating this message directly to Israel, and also reiterating that our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad, and we’ll continue to defend Israel against attacks from Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups, just as we’ll continue to defend American personnel. But everyone in the region should understand that further attacks only perpetuate conflict, instability and insecurity for everyone. So, what we’re focused on is intensively on deescalation through diplomacy.

(03:58)
Go ahead. Welcome.

Thank you very much.

First day.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Is there any communication between the US and Iran at the moment?

I’m just not going to speak to private, diplomatic conversations. What I can say is that we have been engaging with partners who are communicating that message directly to Iran. I’m not aware of any communication between the US.

Do you expect them to hold off from any retaliation until after Thursday’s talk?

As I just said to Sean, I certainly don’t want to speculate on any timeline. What I will say is that we have been stressing to allies, partners, like-mindeds, just how important it is that the parties not take steps that are going to perpetuate this conflict, that are going to lead to further instability and insecurity. No one benefits from any kind of retaliation, and so we want to not see any escalation or any attack take place in the first place.

You expect Hamas to be there?

We’ve seen the reports of what they have said as it relates to their participation. Our partners in Qatar have assured us that they will work to have Hamas represented. As I just said to Sean, it is far time for Hamas to release the remaining hostages, including the American citizens. But broadly, we fully expect these talks to move forward as they should.

So, regardless of whether they’re there or not, the talks happen?

As I said, Qatar has assured us that they will work to have Hamas represented there, and we fully expect these talks to move forward.

Thank you.

All right. Shannon? And then [inaudible 00:05:33].

So, Qatar has assured that they will work to have Hamas there, but it’s still not guaranteed that Hamas will participate. A lot of members of the group have been saying that’s because of reluctance that they perceive from Israel to commit to a deal, to implement a deal. Do you think that’s the message the world should get from Hamas’s lack of participation if things go forward as they stand, or is Hamas unwilling to commit to a deal?

I am not going to get into the mind of Mr. Sinwar. Let me just say a couple things. First, this whole process started when President Biden, in the late May, laid out a very clear proposal of the contours of a ceasefire deal. A ceasefire deal that was very quickly endorsed by the G7, quickly endorsed by the UN Security Council, quickly endorsed by the Arab world, endorsed by Israel, and so on and so forth. We continue to believe that a ceasefire proposal in lines with that is achievable.

(06:30)
And that’s exactly why you saw President Biden, President Sisi and the Qatari emir put out that trilateral statement last week. It is imperative that these talks continue, that we get this process across the finish line, because of what we believe it can achieve when it comes to the hostages being released, when it comes to humanitarian aid, and when it comes to greater diplomacy for the region. And I will just note again that in light of that trilateral statement, Prime Minister Netanyahu quickly confirmed that his team will be at the ceasefire talks on Thursday and that they’ll be prepared to finalize the deals for implementing this.

(07:08)
And simultaneously, our Qatari partners have assured us that they’re working to ensure that there is Hamas representation as well. We’ll let this process play out, but we fully expect these talks to move forward as they should.

And on the anticipated Iranian attack on Israel, do you still see a broad level of support among the coalition of particularly Middle Eastern countries that helped defend Israel in April, or do you think that has waned at this point?

I’m not going to speak to other countries’ efforts and how they might be adjusting or not adjusting any security posture they’re taking. What I can say is that no one is naive about Iran’s malign, destabilizing behavior, particularly through its proxies, particularly in the Middle East region. And what I can say on behalf of the United States is that we certainly won’t hesitate to defend Israel as well as our personnel from not just attacks from Iran, but Iranian-backed proxies as well.

(08:04)
Camilla?

Thanks. A couple of questions about other figureheads that could create potential obstacles. Wall Street Journal reported that Sinwar had said through Arab mediators that if Israel’s serious about negotiations and wants Hamas to participate in this week’s talks, then they need to stop all military operations in Gaza. As you know, Hamas have made Sinwar their head of their political bureau, whatever that means.

(08:33)
Are you guys taking what he says seriously? Do you see what he says as just bluster or is it potential to… Does he have any kind of potential to stop Hamas’ participation? How should we read this?

You saw the secretary speak to this last week in Annapolis with the appointment of Mr. Sinwar as Hamas’ political bureau chief. From our point of view, that designation didn’t change anything. Over the course of this whole process, over the course of this whole conflict, it has been clear to everyone that Mr. Sinwar continues to be the decision maker. And when it comes to the future of the Palestinian people, when it comes to the ability to alleviate some of the suffering and to alleviate some of the dire situations that we’re seeing in the Gaza Strip, ultimately that is also up to Mr. Sinwar.

(09:32)
In response to the trilateral statement that was put out last week, the Israelis have confirmed that they will have a team present, ready to continue and carry forward these stocks. It is imperative that Hamas do the same, because it is far time for these hostages to be released and to bring relief to the people of Gaza. And we fully expect these talks to move forward. As I said just a moment ago, our Qatari partners are also working to ensure that there is Hamas representation and I will let the process play out.

(10:01)
[inaudible 00:10:02].

Perfect. Thank you. And then on Israel, you guys have a lot at stake all the time in the region, particularly this week, with these talks that you guys are really helping push into place and you… But you also have figures like the national security minister in Israel, Ben-Gvir, going up on the most explosive piece of real estate in the region, again, the Temple Mount, to what can only be perceived as something that he thinks is his right to impose his policy on something. But that is not the status quo policy, that Netanyahu has come out and said, this is not-

Yeah.

… our government policy.

(10:45)
Netanyahu can only say so much. This is all rhetoric when you condemn actions like that, but these actions have real potential to escalate things in the region. What is your response to what he’s doing, that he’s doing this again?

And also, is this something the US can do? Can you sanction a figure like Ben-Gvir, you are able to sanction other figures in the region. It doesn’t matter that he’s an Israeli government official. Is there anything that you guys can do to stop this continuing to happen?

So on the second part of your question, Camilla, I’m certainly… I’m just not going to preview or get into what’s possible or not possible. But I would say that we certainly are paying close attention to actions and activities that we find to be a detraction from Israel’s security, a contributor to greater insecurity and instability in the region. And that would certainly be the actions that we saw today that Mr. Ben-Gvir participated in. Even the Prime Minister’s office itself made clear that the events of this morning are a deviation from what is Israeli policy and a deviation from the status quo. And let me just say clearly that the United States stands firmly for preservation of the historic status quo with respects to the holy sites of Jerusalem. And any unilateral action, which this would be that, any unilateral action like this, that jeopardizes such a status quo is unacceptable.

(12:16)
And not only is it unacceptable, it detracts from what we think is a vital time, as we are working to get this ceasefire deal across the finish line. It detracts from what our stated goal is for the region, which is a two-state solution, a Palestinian state and an Israeli state that’s side by side, living with dignity and harmony. We recognize how important the holy site is, so we urge all sides to respect the status quo, but certainly actions like this… They detract from that. And not only do they detract from that, we find them to be unacceptable. Sayid, go ahead.

Thank you Vedant. First on the Secretary’s trip, what does he hope to achieve this time around that he was not able to achieve in the past eight trips?

Well Sayid, I don’t have any travel for Secretary Blinken to preview at the moment. What I can say is that as it relates to the Middle East region, the Secretary is laserly focused and engaged on the region through calls with his counterparts, through calls with other leaders. He has been working the phones for the past number of weeks continuing to echo the same message, which is we are close to getting the ceasefire deal across the finish line. It is vital for the release of the remaining hostages, including American citizens. It is vital for a surge in humanitarian assistance, which we believe will help alleviate the suffering that we’re seeing in Gaza. And it is vital to help get this region out of this endless cycle of violence. He made that clear to a number of counterparts that he’s spoken to in the past few days, and I expect those kinds of conversations and diplomacy to continue, Sayid. But I don’t want to preview or get ahead of any potential travel.

I know you talked about the attack on the Al-Tabin school yesterday, but the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Guterres, condemned in no uncertain terms what happened. The attack, the massacre of Al-Tabin school. Would the United States do the same thing? Do you agree that such an act is thoroughly condemnable

Sayid, we of course, mourn the loss of any civilian life. And over the course of this conflict, too many civilians have been killed. But also, as I said yesterday, the reason that we are even having this conversation is because Hamas continues to have a track record of not just using civilians as human shields, but co-locating itself among civilian infrastructure. Co-locating itself among what normally would be facilities that have protected status. But when they become fronts for potential militant operations, certainly they have the possibility to lose their status. That does not minimize or diminish the moral and strategic imperative that our partners in Israel have to take every possible step to ensure that civilian casualties are minimized. Both of those things can be true.

So do you have any evidence that actually militants were there at Al-Tabin school?

As we said yesterday Sayid, we have been in close touch with the IDF on this and continue to discuss with them. But I will also let them speak to their own military issues.

I understand, but you’re saying that they have a track record, but that is dependent on what the Israeli Army says, correct?

This is their operation, I will let them speak to it.

Okay. Now a couple more questions on, the New York Times is reporting that Israel is flexible now on the negotiations, seems that, and in fact, by statements by the Prime Minister himself and statement by the Defense Minister, you have from Gallant saying that the Israeli Prime Minister really backtracked from the position on the proposal that you mentioned on May 31 by the President. So do you think that the Israelis have backed down, or at least the Prime Minister has backed down from what he’s agreed to earlier?

I’m just not going to categorize it Sayid, and answering Sean’s question or our new colleague’s question, I said that I’m not going to get into the specifics of this ongoing negotiating process. I can tell you that the reason that the United States continues to lead on this and engage on this is because we believe it is vitally important to the region. And again, I will just note that when it comes to our partners in Israel, they’ve indicated that they will have a team present to continue to finalize on implementing this deal. But beyond that, I’m just not going to get into specifics. You are welcome to ask, because of course it’s your time, but I’m not going to address them.

Okay, that’s fair. Now, the Hamas is saying that they have agreed to the proposal as it was proposed and there is nothing else to negotiate. Is there anything else there is to negotiate? Are there details that still need to be negotiated?

So me answering that question would be me speaking about the negotiating process from a podium like this, which I think is wholly unhelpful to the process. So I’m just not going to do that.

Thank you.

Yeah. Alex, go ahead.

Thank you. Very quickly on the region and then I’ll move on to Ukraine. Mahmoud Abbas popped up in the Kremlin today. How close are you following this trip and what’s your best guess about what’s going on between the two? And how involved or not involved has Russia been in the latest situation in the Middle East?

So from my vantage point, I don’t think Russia has really played a role, not in working to get the parties to get to the ceasefire stage, but also beyond that working to be a source of humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people. As it relates to President Abbas’ travel, I don’t have anything to offer there. I would let the PA speak to his own engagements.

Thank you. On Ukraine, we were told since last week that you were not entirely clear about Ukraine’s objectives in its cross-border operation. Well today, Ukraine Foreign Ministry undoubtedly said that their aim is to neutralize threats coming from Russia on Ukraine territory, not to gain land. Is it satisfying enough?

So Alex, it’s not about anything being satisfactory or not. I think what we’re talking about, and again, the only reason that you and I are even talking about this subject is that the only country at war in Ukraine is Russia. President Putin is the one who invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine is defending itself from that aggression. This has been Kremlin’s War of Aggression from the start against Ukraine, pure and simple. And I just want to reiterate what some others across the administration have said, which is that we were not engaged in any aspect or planning or preparation for this operation. I will let the Ukrainian military speak to their own operations. But our role and what we are focused on is supporting Ukraine be able to defend itself, which we believe is common sense, especially when it comes to defending itself against attacks or operations that may be immediately across the border. And so we will remain focused on ensuring that our Ukrainian partners have what they need to do that.

There are reports that Putin pulled out from Ukraine today, basically to focus on homeland. Are you in a position to verify this?

I’m just not going to speak to specific operational updates, Alex.

On this, President Zelenskyy [inaudible 00:19:42] react to latest legislation [inaudible 00:19:45]. We have seen the video how Russia occupies through fire in the area. Do you have any reaction?

So I mean, Alex, I think you and I have been talking about this, gosh, for who knows how many months now. But as I said in 2022 and 2023, any kind of violent, military kinetic activity, so close to a nuclear power plant, certainly not only is it dangerous, but it creates the potential for enhanced risk. And that’s something we certainly don’t want to see.

I have one more on Iran if I may. We have seen-

You got four. I promise I’ll come back to you.

Final one.

Okay.

Please come back to me.

Okay. Anke, go ahead.

Thank you. If we may switch to public health emergency, given the multi-nation outbreak of monkeypox, does the State Department has any plan to update it’s travel advisory with the new information? And what is the US message to travelers?

So I don’t have any updates on travel advisories Anke, but we are tracking closely on the spread of M-pox in Central Africa. We are pleased to see international leadership in this area this year. I will note the United States has provided more than 17 million beyond our regularly programmed health assistance to support M-pox preparedness and response efforts in central and Eastern Africa. We’ve been collaborating with partners to build capacities to combat infectious diseases including M-pox, but also HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and Ebola. And that line of effort has been continuing for more than 20 years. We are in close coordination with the governments of the DRC and other affected countries. We’re also in close engagement with the WHO, the Africa CDC and other entities.

Thank you. And a quick follow on [inaudible 00:21:34] talk. Do you have any updates? Should we expect any virtual talks from SAF?

So in terms of format Anke, I am not in a place to speak to that. Unfortunately, though the SAF yet have not agreed to participate in talks in Switzerland. We are disappointed that that is causing a delay of beginning talks with both parties participating.

But these talks will continue. We expect them to move forward. In the Jeddah Declaration, both the SAF and the RSF committed to expanded discussion to achieve a permanent secession of hostilities. And I know that is what Special Envoy Perriello, Special Envoy Hammer are hoping to see come out of this as well.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Vedant.

Yeah.

I know you’ve been asked about the Iranian aspect in the negotiations. Today there were reports that the Iranian may send a delegation to the negotiations. They disputed that, but were they offered to be on the table of the negotiations?

So I’m just not going to speak to the specifics of the negotiation process. So I would just leave it at that. I don’t want to get into the details.

And on Hezbollah and Israel, should a retaliation happen now? I know you are trying very hard to avoid an escalation, but if there is a response from Hezbollah, do you have a sense that Hezbollah or Israel understand the red lines at least to not go on a wide-scale war?

We are taking every possible effort to ensure that all relevant actors understand that any kind of activity that we think is going to cause further instability, insecurity, cause further escalation is wholly unhelpful, certainly at a time like this.

(23:23)
I will also just note, though, that we, of course, stand ready to defend our partners in Israel and defend them from attacks from either Iran or Iranian proxies. But we are working around the clock, Secretary Blinken is through engagement, through diplomacy to try and de-escalate and try to ensure that something doesn’t happen. But this is a process that we’re working around the clock.

One more question on Sudan. What outcome are you, I mean, aiming to achieve if the Sudanese Army aren’t on the table?

So look, these talks will go forward without them. It is our hope that maybe they have a change in decision, and they find a way to have a representative in Switzerland. We certainly would welcome that. But, again, the ultimate goal here continues to be a cessation of hostilities nationwide.

Thank you.

Diyar, go ahead.

Thank you, Vedant.

Yeah.

Going back to Secretary Blinken’s phone call with the Iraqi Prime Minister. So was this call just to talk about concerns over the Iranian-backed groups in Iran to attack the US forces? Or does the Secretary Blinken send any message to Iran through the Iraqi Prime Minister as they are enjoying a very good relations with Tehran?

So the message was pretty clear in the readout. I don’t have more specifics to offer than that. They spoke about a number of issues, including issues affecting the region and a commitment that they both shared to doing whatever possible to send clear messages about de-escalation and not wanting to see any kind of conflict or violence spread or grow out of hand.

And then, last time when Secretary Blinken spoke with the Iraqi Prime Minister, they were discussing the protection of the US forces in Iraq. But in less than 24 hours, the Iraqi militia groups attacked the US forces in Iraq and injured seven US personnels in Al-Asad base.

(25:15)
So do you trust the Iraqi government that they have the power to rein the militia groups to not attack the US forces? Has the Secretary Blinken and the State Department shared this concern with the Iraqi government?

So look, first, let me just say broadly that, of course, we continue to believe the Iraqi government is a important partner in the region. But as we have said a number of times before, that they also have a role to play in holding and helping hold, I should say, some of these malign proxy groups accountable. And I will also just note that when it comes to the United States, we certainly won’t hesitate to take appropriate action to hold those to account who may put our personnel in harm’s way.

(25:59)
Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Vedant.

Yeah.

I have a question on South Asia, but before that, I have one on the deadliest Israeli strike on Gaza. You talk about this in detail and express your concerns, but at the same time, it looked like you’re also supporting the slaughter of innocents in the name of self-defense.

(26:17)
New polls show that majority of Americans, especially the young Americans, disapprove Israeli actions in Gaza. How do you explain these to Americans? Because they are taxpayers’ money, US government is providing bombs, small arms and other forms of aid to Israel.

So, I-

And secondly, sir, how would you define the current policy of this administration, which is like keep expressing concerns and keep providing bombs?

So first, I think I would just reject the overall premise of that question. I could not disagree with it more.

(26:54)
Let me just be very clear. Any number above zero of civilian lives lost is wholly unacceptable to us. It is deeply, deeply troubling and unfortunate that we find ourselves in a scenario where we have a belligerent like Hamas that continues to use civilians as human shields, that continues to utilize civilian infrastructure and what should be protected facilities as safe haven. But that does not minimize the strategic and moral imperative that Israel has to minimize those civilian casualties, and this is something that we take incredibly seriously.

(27:40)
And when it comes to the use of our security articles, the State Department pays close attention and is reviewing very closely potential reports of alleged international human rights law and gross human rights violations through the various existing policies that we have at our disposal, which I’ve spent a lot of time up here talking about them, as Matt has. Examples include the Leahy Vetting Forum, for example, guidance that is detailed under the US Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, reviewing credible reports of civilian harm potentially caused by US-origin end items through the CHIRG process and other designations and actions that we have at our disposal. And we’ll continue that line of effort.

The former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina accused the United States of orchestrating mass protests that led to her ouster after weeks of violence. Do you have any comment on that?

Oh, that’s laughable. Any implication that the United States was involved in Sheikh Hasina’s resignation is absolutely false. We have seen a lot of disinformation in recent weeks, and we remained incredibly committed to strengthening information integrity across the digital ecosystem, especially with our partners in South Asia.

(28:59)
Got ahead in the back. Yeah, you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Me?

No, you, in the red.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Yeah.

So yesterday Secretary Blinken spoke to the foreign minister of Colombia. How are the efforts advancing? As we know, it’s supposed to be a call between Maduro and the presidents of Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil. That hasn’t happened. It’s supposed to happen this week. What are the advancements on that relationship that is being formed as a region?

So I think, first, one of the key things that the secretary spoke about with the foreign minister was the topic of what we are currently seeing play out in Venezuela. And so two weeks after the elections in Venezuela, it has become abundantly clear, not just to the majority of Venezuelans, but the United States and a growing number of other countries, that Edmundo González Urrutia received the most votes on July 28th, and Nicolas Maduro must accept it. More than 80% of the voting tally sheets published by civil society and the opposition and corroborated by independent observers, including the Carter Center, indicate that he received the most votes by an insurmountable margin.

(30:13)
And so what we are focused on, the US, along with other international partners, including countries like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, have called for transparency and called for the release of detailed vote tallies. And we urge Venezuelan parties to begin discussions to a peaceful transition back to democratic norms.

And during the call, they talked about the role of the OAS, and as your statement reads, they wanted the region to speak with one voice and have the OAS as a center of group. Is that possible?

(30:45)
The foreign minister of Colombia released in a statement just a few hours ago in which he says that he made clear the position of Colombia on the OAS. And we know that during the vote, the US-led resolution with Uruguay and other countries failed to pass with 17 votes, and Colombia actually abstained. Is it possible to go back to the OAS to have a conversation?

That is our hope and that is our goal. And that’s what we hope to use the OAS as a vehicle for.

And final-

Prem, go ahead.

… Just Haiti.

Okay, go ahead. Go ahead.

During the call, it was also Haiti. What is the role that Colombia will play? According to the foreign minister they offer to help the United States in their efforts to civilize Haiti.

So I don’t have any specifics to share beyond the readout. Look, Haiti continues to face dire insecurity and certainly any country willing to play a productive role in helping with that would certainly be a welcome thing. But I will let the Colombians speak to their own engagement.

(31:41)
Prem, go ahead.

Thank you, Vedant.

Yeah.

Yesterday, the department commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions. It said, quote, the anniversary is a fitting occasion to reaffirm our commitment to respecting international humanitarian law. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, where violations of the Geneva Conventions are often addressed, seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Hamas leadership.

(32:03)
Netanyahu was just welcomed by Washington. Just in recent days, the department said it wouldn’t sanction a unit accused of war crimes, including binding, gagging, and killing a 78-year-old Palestinian American. Israeli forces, as has been discussed, killed over 90 people as they prayed at a school and mosque. Israeli forces shot an American citizen as he protested illegal settlements in the West Bank. Nevertheless, the US released 3.5 billion to Israel to buy more US weapons.

(32:27)
So how does the Biden-Harris administration expect Americans and the rest of the world to take such commitments towards the Geneva Conventions seriously, given just the past few days?

So we have been consistently clear that Israel has every moral and strategic imperative to minimize the impacts on civilians. And when we have seen actions or incidents that we deem to be inconsistent with that, not only do we raise our concerns with the partner country as appropriate, but we factor it

Into, and we factor it into however which way we may implement certain policy responses as a deterrence for these kinds of incidents to reoccur in the future. I talked about some of these tools at our disposal recently: the Leahy Vetting Forum, the guidance that’s laid out in the Conventional Arms Transfer policy, the CHERG process, as well as other things like visa restrictions and designations that we have. We urge Israel to thoroughly and transparently investigate reports of gross violations of human rights and take all appropriate action, and we’ll continue to do that.

So, I know that the department and the US issued certain statements mourning the loss of life from some of these killings, and you talk about deterrence. Just hours ago, two twins who were newborn were killed in Gaza with their mother and grandmother, as their father went to collect their birth certificates. They were four days old, born into war, experienced only war, killed by war. How is the US responding to this instance given, again, this comes a day after the US [inaudible 00:34:01]-

So I’m not going to speak to specific instances and incidents that happened. I will let the IDF speak to any operations they can take. I will say just hearing this from your reporting, this is obviously incredibly heartbreaking. And again, Israel has every moral and strategic imperative to minimize civilian loss, but I don’t have any of the other contours surrounding this operation, and I will let the IDF speak to that.

Finally, finally, just one, just on a case that you do have contours for. It’s now 197 days since [inaudible 00:34:33] was killed, her family members were killed, the medics sent to save her were killed. What’s the update on that?

I don’t have any updates for you. Go ahead.

Thank you. I have a question related to Ukraine. There was a report on The Financial Times recently about a plan from Russia to strike Europe with nuclear missiles in case of an attack of NATO. So, what is the position, or have you heard about this report from The Financial Time? And although Europe and US support Ukraine, what is the position about it, and what would be the plan?

I’m not fully familiar with this report, but let me just say that nuclear saber rattling and rhetoric is something that we have seen the Russian Federation do time and time again. But we continue to believe that there is no reason for us to change our nuclear posture.

If I can do a quick follow-up. The Ukrainian militaries are about 40 miles inside the Russian territories. Is it still part of what President Biden believed that is good to be done, like use American weapons in Russia? Or Ukraine is going too far right now?

So there has been no change as it relates to our policy. As the President has said, we of course are supportive of efforts to disrupt operations that might be immediately across the border. But beyond that, there has been no change in policy, and I’ll let our Ukrainian partners speak to any operation of theirs.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. The US Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, has indicated that there’s evidence, enough evidence about how Ismael Zambada was brought to the US against his will. And the Mexican authorities are trying to question the US authorities about the conditions of this arrest of Ismael Zambada. They don’t seem to have any answer or not the answers they’re expecting. Are you cooperating with the Mexican authorities to respond to those questions about the Ismael Zambada’s arrest?

So first, let me just say that I will defer to the Department of Justice and let them speak to the situation in more context, in more detail. But we continue to have deep cooperation with the government of Mexico under the Bicentennial Security Framework working together to dismantle criminal networks. And I can confirm that there was no law enforcement operation conducted in Mexico.

Can I follow up?

I have to wrap soon, so I want to get to a couple more people. Go ahead.

Thank you, Vedant. A few questions if I can. First of all, the Iranian mission at the UN said last week that they do have direct line of communication and are talking to the Americans. Are they wrong?

I’m just not going to … I will let them offer any clarification to what they’re saying,

So they should offer a clarification?

I just don’t have any comment to offer. What I can say is that we don’t have any direct communication with the Iranian regime. The messages that we are sending is through other countries and allies, partners, and we are continuing to stress the importance of deescalation and not partaking in any activity that would be construed as destabilizing or causing greater insecurity.

Thank you. And following on from that, it appears that certainly the reporting is suggesting that the Iranians are now suggesting that any retaliation will be dependent on the success or otherwise of the talks this week, the ceasefire talks. How does that change the framing of Thursday from your perspective?

It doesn’t, and I think I’ve answered this question a couple of times already. So, I’m happy for people to tune in, but when you are asking the same questions as your colleagues ask, you’re wasting you time. I’m going to stop there.

Can I just ask one more about the-

Thank you, everybody. I have a hard out today.