Sean (00:00):
Let's start again with South Korea. I'm not sure everybody wants to start there. In the past couple of days since the martial law was imposed and rescinded, has there been any conversations, have there been any conversations from the State Department or others in the administration with the South Koreans?
Vedant Patel (00:13):
So I'm going to keep private diplomatic conversations, private, Sean, but we have continued to engage with our appropriate counterparts of the ROK, both here in the United States and in Seoul. I don't have any specific calls to read out, but to take a step back, we were concerned, are concerned, about the situation we saw unfold earlier this week on December 3rd. There are many questions that need to be answered, regarding the decisions surrounding those developments. We're encouraged by the democratic resilience of the Republic of Korea during a period of testing and, candidly, uncertainty. And we're continuing to expect that the Republic of Korea's democratic system and democratic process will prevail. And most importantly, we reaffirm the accomplishments we've made in our bilateral relationship and we'll continue to advance all of those priorities with the ROK as well as advance our robust trilateral partnership with Japan, as well. These efforts, in our point of view, they're at the core of our shared values and we think that they're vital to prosperity and stability in the Indo-Pacific. In our viewpoint, our alliance remains rock solid and the American people stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of the Republic of Korea, and we warn against any provocations or threats to that alliance.
Sean (01:41):
You said that many questions need to be answered. To follow up on that, obviously President Yoon was the one who imposed the martial law and rescinded it. Is it going to be business as usual with him? I know there's an impeachment proceeding against him, and presumably you're waiting for that as well, but from the U.S perspective, can you carry on with him the same way that you did before the martial law?
Vedant Patel (01:58):
So, first, the impeachment process that you mentioned, that is an internal process within the ROK, which we expect will be handled in accordance with the ROK constitution. We continue to support the rule of law and democracy in the ROK, which we think are the foundational pillars of our alliance. Most importantly, Sean, this relationship, this alliance, this partnership that we have with the Republic of Korea, it transcends any particular president or government on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. This is an alliance and partnership that has transcended Republicans, Democrats, different administrations in our government, and as continues to be the same in the Republic of Korea. And so what this is about is our shared values, our shared values of a free and open Indo-Pacific, our shared values of managing our relationship responsibly with the PRC, our shared value of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Those are some of the values that we share, that we think that are at the heart of our relationship, and we will continue to pursue those and work hand-in-hand on those issues.
Sean (03:13):
Just to [inaudible 00:03:14] that slightly, you said the shared values, democracy, obviously you had, President Yoon hosted the Summit for Democracy in March, which is a signature initiative of the Biden administration. Can there still be a relationship in the same way with President Yoon without the shared value of democracy or at least the demonstrated willingness to go against that?
Vedant Patel (03:31):
Look, Sean, you heard me say this at the top. There certainly are many questions that need to be answered regarding the decision-making surrounding these developments, and we hope and expect that those questions can be answered as soon as possible. Beyond that, we know that there's a number of processes underway within the Republic of Korea system and we expect that those processes to go about their way consistent with the rule of law and to be going about peacefully as well.
Sean (04:02):
I'll change topics, unless everybody wants to continue-
Vedant Patel (04:03):
Anything else on the Republic of Korea?
(04:07)
On Korea, [inaudible 00:04:08]?
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Yes.
Vedant Patel (04:09):
Let me do Simon, then I'll come to you, [inaudible 00:04:11]. Go ahead, Simon.
Simon (04:12):
Just wanted to follow up on a couple of things that you said to Sean. Just to understand what you say. You're saying there are questions that need to be answered. These are questions that you are asking to the South Koreans and asking them to-
Vedant Patel (04:23):
So I'm going to keep private diplomatic conversations, private, Simon. We are continuing to engage appropriately with our ROK partners, but I'm speaking about it in the broad context of the decision-making that went about, earlier this week. Certainly, the United States and I'm sure other members of the international community have questions surrounding these developments, have questions surrounding the decision-making that went into that. And those questions need to be answered, and that's something that we're continuing to engage with our partners in the ROK on.
Simon (04:59):
Deputy Secretary Campbell spoke to this a little bit yesterday and said that the U.S interlocutors that the U.S have in South Korea was surprised. Is there anything more you can tell us about this sort of… They were surprised by the Marshall Law Declaration, so is there anything more you can tell us about those engagements that he spoke to?
Vedant Patel (05:22):
I don't have any other perspective to offer beyond what the Deputy Secretary said. Certainly, should we have more calls or engagements that take place, we will certainly read those out. But I will reiterate what you've heard me, the Deputy Secretary and others say over the course of this week, that the United States had no knowledge or pre-notification of this decision-making.
Simon (05:45):
And just to be clear, I haven't seen a readout, so Secretary Blinken hasn't had a minister-level engagement with his-
Vedant Patel (05:58):
That is correct. He's not had the opportunity to speak to his counterpart yet. But I think in talking to your very own colleague yesterday, he indicated this is a counterpart he is in touch with regularly and expects to talk to at some point very soon.
(06:13)
[inaudible 00:06:15] go ahead.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Thank you, Patel. I mean Vedant.
Vedant Patel (06:16):
All good. You can call me whatever you want.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Okay. In the public statement announcing the martial law, President Yoon said the following about the reason for declaring martial law. "Due to the opposition party's legislative monopoly, state affairs are paralyzed, preventing the president from doing anything, and the impeaching, even the constitutional institutions, the [inaudible 00:07:00] inspection, and the Central District Prosecutor's office to protect liberal democracy against the opposition party, it is losing state functions and putting national security at risk." He said that martial law, which is the president's authority, was implemented within the law. My question is, Secretary Blinken said he believes in the resilience of South Korean democracy. What does the United States think is the cause of the resilience of democracy in South Korea and what is its assessment of the martial law declared by the President Yoon to protect liberal democracy?
Vedant Patel (08:01):
So, certainly, I'm not going to try to opine or, it's certainly not for us to come draw any conclusions on what caused some of this decision-making. And as I said to both Sean and Simon, there's a number of questions that both we and the international community have, and those questions certainly need to be answered. And the issuance of martial law and then the implications that such a measure would've had for individual rights and liberties, certainly is a matter to be taken incredibly seriously. And the rescinding of martial law in accordance with the National Assembly vote, in our view, was a demonstration of the ROK's democratic resilience during a period of uncertainty. And as I said to Sean, just before, there are processes underway within the Republic of Korea. We expect those to be handled in accordance with the ROK constitution. As you heard me even say on December 3rd, we support the rule of law and democracy in the ROK. That is, these are and continue to be, and will be the foundational pillars of our alliance with them.
(09:11)
Did you want to go ahead and change topics? Yeah, I think we're good on ROK stuff.
Sean (09:16):
Can I go to Syria?
Vedant Patel (09:17):
Sure. Yeah.
Sean (09:18):
The situation obviously is changing quite rapidly. The city of Hama has fallen to the Islamist rebels. I know you gave your explanation the other days about what you want to see, about a political process, et cetera, but what's the level of concern right now? Is there concern that this is getting out of hand, that the humanitarian consequences, the political consequences, could be further reaching?
Vedant Patel (09:40):
So that is certainly, the humanitarian impact is certainly one that is front of mind as we see these events unfold, and we, with our partners, are urging allies to protect its civilians, including members of minority groups. And again, I think, not to sound like a broken record of what I said
Vedant Patel (10:00):
… said the other day, but I don't have specific assessments on individual battlefield updates, Sean. But all of those together just continue to reflect in our point of view that the time is now to return to a serious UN-facilitated political process, and the constant refusal to engage in this process, candidly has led to directly some of the events that we're witnessing. And some of these escalatory events over the past 72 hours, demonstrate that the only way to truly end this conflict once and for all is through inclusive political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254.
Sean (10:40):
Just to [inaudible 00:10:41] a couple of points. Iran of course has allied with Assad and has said that it's willing to consider sending more troops. Obviously the US is critical on the Iranian involvement. What's your take on that? I mean, is there a sense that there needs to be prevention of Damascus falling even? What's your assessment of a greater Iranian role?
Vedant Patel (10:58):
Well, look, this goes back to what we've long said that we think the Iranian regime has been and continues to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism and instability since 1979. We want to see Iran stop its destabilizing activities inside Syria and in the broader region writ large. And we think a key to that, at least in the context of Syria, is a UN-facilitated process that is consistent with UNSCR 2254.
Sean (11:30):
Just one more, [inaudible 00:11:33] related but on Iran. Domestically in Iran, Narges Mohammadi was released but only temporarily. This is, of course, the noble laureate. Does the US have any take about whether this is a positive development or [inaudible 00:11:47]
Vedant Patel (11:47):
So we're aware of the reports of Narges Mohammadi that she's been temporarily released from prison for medical treatment. It continues to be deeply troubling and unfortunate because she should have never been incarcerated in the first place, and her deteriorating health is a direct result of the abuses that she's endured at the hands of the Iranian regime. We call again just as if we'd done before, the immediate and unconditional release of Narges and other political prisoners who continue to be detained without just cause is. This is another long example in the long line of examples of the Iranian regime's campaign to silence its critics, silence journalists, silence human right activists, and this includes Narges Mohammadi, and this kind of behavior needs to stop.
Jalil (12:40):
What about Iran, please?
Vedant Patel (12:40):
Go ahead, Jalil.
Jalil (12:43):
Pakistan is neighbor of Iran, and I don't know if this makes sense that the world's richest man, it's great that he meets the Iranian diplomat in New York, but for a journalist like me, that makes me more concerned that in future, is these people are going to be dealing with Iran. Because for me as a journalist, it's very complicated to understand Iran. Why does it make sense to you diplomats?
Vedant Patel (13:09):
I'm not sure the premise of your question, Jalil, and honestly this has nothing to do with the topic that we're talking about and I'm going to move to Sayeed, because that was really disrespectful to your colleagues. Go ahead, Sayeed.
Sayeed (13:20):
Thank you, Vedant, and apologies for walking in late.
Vedant Patel (13:23):
No, all good.
Sayeed (13:23):
I wanted to ask you about the Amnesty International Report.
Vedant Patel (13:27):
Sure.
Sayeed (13:27):
I wonder if you saw this. Amnesty International concluded that Israel is in fact committing genocide in Gaza. First of all, have you reviewed the report?
Vedant Patel (13:37):
So I've seen the reporting about the report and I will let Amnesty International speak to the details about it. As you've heard us say, previously, Sayeed, we disagree with the conclusions of such a report. We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded, but there continues to be a vital role that civil society organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Groups and NGOs play in providing information and analysis as it relates to Gaza and what's going on. But again, as I've said before, that we do not and have not concurred with these past findings regarding genocide.
(14:22)
That does not change or alter the continued concern that we have as it relates to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It does not change the continued concern that we have as it relates to this conflict's impact on civilians and civilian casualties. And we continue to stress at every turn that there is a moral and strategic priority for Israel to comply with international humanitarian law. And that is something we're going to continue to raise with partners in the region and directly with Israel, but ultimately, Sayeed, truly the best thing that can happen if we want to see improvement in the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, if we want to see the remaining hostages return home and if we want to see an end to the conflict, is for the parties to work towards an agreement to stop the war. And that's what we're continued to be focused on.
Sayeed (15:14):
So let me just follow up on this because now we have Amnesty International. Before that we had Human Rights Watch. We have all the UN organizations, all the human rights organizations probably throughout the world, B'Tselem, the Israeli Human Rights Organization, every other organization saying that Israel is committing genocide. And it depends. I mean, it says it here, I know that genocide depends a great deal on intent. And it says it bases its conclusion on statement time and time and time again by Israeli commanders, by Israeli officials, by certainly the president of Israel, by many, many other people that said they are committing genocide. And then we see that they have killed 44,000, 45,000 people, 17,000 children. It deprives food from going in. It deprives anesthesia from going on. CNN reported yesterday that Israel disallowed anesthesia from going into Gaza. What is it going to take for you, for the United States of America, that really holds the moral higher ground on these issues, on human rights issues to say, "What is happening, is genocide"? Because what we see today, what we witness in Northern Gaza is basically starvation by intent.
Vedant Patel (16:30):
Sayeed, that's an opinion, and you're certainly welcome and you are entitled to it, as are all the organizations that you listed. They're entitled to make their own analysis of the situation and come to their own conclusions. What I can say, as a spokesperson of the US government and as a spokesperson of this administration, is that the findings of the accusations of genocide, we continue to believe those to be unfounded. That does not change, and that does not change the prioritization and the stress and the emphasis that we are placing on ensuring that there is appropriate access to humanitarian assistance, ensuring that every possible measure is taken to protect civilians, ensuring that we're doing everything possible to bring this war to an end. People, organizations, groups are entitled to draw their own conclusions. The US conclusion is that these allegations of genocide are unfounded. There are, and their continue to exist, a number of avenues within the US government in which we are looking at what's happening on the ground, where those assessments continue to be ongoing. But I don't have any update to provide [inaudible 00:17:41]
Sayeed (17:41):
Sorry, if you'll indulge me just a little bit.
Vedant Patel (17:43):
Sure.
Sayeed (17:43):
I mean, look, we have seen almost two million people being forcibly moved from one place to another. This morning, Al-Mawasi was bombed. An area that Israel designated as safe haven for people to go to, they bombed and they killed 20 people. What does it take? Do the whole population of Gaza has to be annihilated for you to determine genocide? What are we waiting for on this issue?
Vedant Patel (18:08):
Sayeed, I am just not going to get into this rhetorical hypothetical. Let me just say that on the specific piece that you mentioned, we recognize that localized evacuation orders could be necessary to avoid civilian harm and they could be necessary as IDF could be carrying out particular operations. But you've heard us say before that any kind of permanent displacement of Palestinian civilians would certainly be inconsistent with the principles that the secretary laid out in Tokyo about a year ago. We have been and will continue to be clear about the fact that we do not want to see any reduction in the territory of Gaza, and we'll continue to press Israel that it needs to maximize and streamline crossings and other efforts around humanitarian assistance.
Sayeed (18:55):
But you yourself, you say that Israel is not allowing anywhere near what is needed in terms of humanitarian aid. They're not allowing it. Would you call on them to allow [inaudible 00:19:07], would you call on them to allow the anesthesia that children need, amputees need and so on, those kids that are being torn apart day after day?
Vedant Patel (19:16):
Sayeed, at every interval, we have worked tirelessly to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have, even in the immediate days and hours following this conflict breaking out, we have stressed the importance of humanitarian aid getting in. We spent a lot of time in these very briefings talking about the progress on humanitarian issues. I spent a good chunk of a daily press briefing a number of weeks ago talking about how we have seen some areas as it relates to humanitarian assistance improve, but other areas where we continue to need to see improvement. That will continue to be the case and it's something that we will continue to stress.
Sayeed (19:54):
Thank you.
Vedant Patel (19:54):
Tom, go ahead.
Tom (19:55):
Just to follow up. I mean, you said that the US State Department, that you find
Tom (20:00):
… find that the allegations are unfounded. You're also talking about the US conclusion that these allegations are unfounded. I mean, is that a formal conclusion then at the end of the process?
Vedant Patel (20:06):
I'm not going to speak to that. There's no formal conclusion of a process that I'm certainly speaking up from up here. There continue to be a number of deliberative processes as it relates to the situations on the ground, tools that we've spent a lot of time speaking about up here. Things like CHIRG, things like Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, things like the Leahy process. I wouldn't speak to those processes in detail, but these allegations of genocide continue to be unfounded.
Tom (20:33):
I mean, people might see a contradiction because when you've been asked previously about alleged violations of international humanitarian law, you said, I mean in the NSM-20, for example, you say it's reasonable to assess there may have been violations, but you can't make a final conclusion because of a lack of information. That's basically what you said in that report.
(20:52)
So you say there is a lack of information in terms of what you know about what's going on in Gaza, and yet you can say that you can conclude, and you have found that the allegations of genocide are unfounded. So how is it you can conclude that but not conclude to something-
Vedant Patel (21:07):
So I perhaps used a too stringent of an adjective in conclusion. I'd said that not to imply that there has been some sort of formal process that has concluded through the department. What I am simply saying is that these allegations of genocide continue to be unfounded. It is not a reference on any process. And, again, I'm not a lawyer, so can't speak to the definition and how that feeds into this, but I will leave it at that.
Tom (21:37):
But can I just push a bit on the information element of this-
Vedant Patel (21:41):
Sure.
Tom (21:41):
… about the data, the information from the ground that you have, because you sound still very definitive that you believe those allegations are unfounded. And this is an extremely serious allegation. But yet you have said in all other cases when you said it's reasonable to assess there have been violations of international humanitarian law, but you can't make that finding conclusively because there's not enough information. So I'm just confused about whether or not you do have information because you're saying definitively the allegations of genocide are unfounded. But in every other case, you don't have enough information to say whether violations of international humanitarian law are conclusively found.
Vedant Patel (22:23):
Well, Said mentioned this. Again, at the crux of when we're talking about genocide is this role of intent. And again, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to get into a back and forth or spend copious amounts of time on the legal definition. There are processes that we have in place as it relates to the humanitarian conditions and situations on the ground. We've spoken a great deal about those. Again, CHIRG, Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, things of that nature. But on these allegations of genocide, we continue to believe that they are unfounded. And I don't have any other assessment to offer.
Tom (23:01):
Okay.
Vedant Patel (23:01):
Camilla, go ahead.
Camilla (23:02):
Thank you. I'm also following up on that.
Vedant Patel (23:04):
Yeah.
Camilla (23:04):
So Tom's point, the secretary said yesterday in a Reuters interview that he said, "We don't have people on the ground and there's also not a lot of media on the ground, and it's very difficult to gather those facts to make sure that we actually get it right." So that sounds like the secretary is, again, he has said this before about having to struggle with the real-time analysis of this that this department has. So my question is really that even if you don't agree with the conclusions of Amnesty's report, a lot of the findings within that report, will you be factoring that into this department's ongoing assessments?
Vedant Patel (23:39):
I can't speak to this specific report itself, but certainly when we talk about these various processes, whether it be CHIRG, whether it be Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, whether it be the other deliberative processes that we have in place, certainly the perspective of NGOs and the perspective of civil society actors and humanitarian organizations absolutely are part of that process. And they are part of the factors that feed into that.
Camilla (24:06):
But not just the perspective, but it's from the actual evidence that they are gathering from eyewitnesses on the ground. So there is … we rely on-
Vedant Patel (24:12):
That is what I mean, the perspective and analyses that are done by some of these groups certainly are things that we factor and discuss. And they are tools that we utilize as it relates to whatever decision-making we may or may not take as it relates to any particular foreign policy issue.
Camilla (24:31):
And this is quite a specific question to part of the report, but they looked at the result of 15 Israeli airstrikes that took place in northern, central, and southern Gaza between October 7th and the 20th of April. So that's notably ahead of the NSM report being released. They took this as a snapshot of what they say is a pattern that has happened throughout Gaza over the past nine months that led to the killing of civilians and that there was no evidence that there were, in fact, any Hamas military assets or fighters in those locations. And that those strikes killed over 300 civilians, including over 140 children. Again, what they've done is apparently a snapshot of what's been happening.
Vedant Patel (25:18):
Sure.
Camilla (25:19):
So what is your response to that given the NSM report came out shortly after that? Are you guys not looking at the same evidence that they're looking at?
Vedant Patel (25:28):
So I will leave it to the IDF to speak specifically to its operations. What I can say is that we are talking about a belligerent in Hamas that has a long track record of co-locating itself with civilians and civilian infrastructure, using civilian facilities as bases and operating centers. That's not hyperbole. There's plenty of open-source public reporting on that.
(25:53)
As it relates to these specific incidents, I am not in a place to get into a technical tit-for-tat of what those particular incidents were or were not and I will defer to the IDF to speak to its specific military operations.
Camilla (26:06):
You're saying that the US findings and the NSM report are just based on what the IDF is saying?
Vedant Patel (26:12):
That is not at all what I'm saying. There's a lot of factors that fed into the NSM-20, these particular data points. And as it relates to that, that's not a level of detail that I'm able to get into. Simon, go ahead.
Simon (26:28):
Just to follow up on one of the things that Tom raised.
Vedant Patel (26:34):
Yeah.
Simon (26:35):
You talked about the different avenues for assessments that are going on. This department, this building often does an assessment of whether genocide has happened in certain cases, whether crimes against humanity have happened in certain cases. There's a specific laid-out process for that. Has one of those processes been even initiated on this, on Gaza?
Vedant Patel (26:59):
So these are the exact kinds of things, Simon, that we wouldn't speak to whether they have started or not, because these are ongoing deliberative processes. And you'll see, if you look back to the number of daily press briefings in which this has come up, we have not spoken to the status, the conclusivity or whether processes have started or stopped as it relates to any of these issues.
Simon (27:18):
Right. But I'm just trying to understand the conclusivity, I guess, of this determination that you've made. You're dismissing these allegations out of hand, but saying they're unfounded. So that suggests that you've looked into them and come up with a conclusion.
Vedant Patel (27:39):
I am not going to speak to the deliberative processes that this department may or may not have at its disposal. On the accusations of genocide, both in this instance and in previously when it's come up in the context of the ICC, we continue to find those findings to be unfounded. I'm not in a place to talk about any of the processes that we have at our disposal.
(28:02)
Prem. [inaudible 00:28:03].
Simon (28:02):
And the Israeli Foreign Ministry … sorry.
Vedant Patel (28:05):
No, you're good.
Simon (28:07):
Just a couple more. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has called Amnesty International a deplorable and fanatical organization, called it a fabricated report. Do you agree with that?
Vedant Patel (28:17):
We certainly wouldn't agree with the characterization of that. As you heard me say to Said, we think that there is an important and vital role that NGOs and humanitarian groups like Amnesty International play in the analysis work that's being done as it relates to the conditions in Gaza, and certainly would not categorize them as deplorable or any of those other words.
Simon (28:38):
And a slightly different-
Vedant Patel (28:39):
Yeah.
Simon (28:40):
… Gaza-related question. The incoming special envoy, Steve Witkoff has been meeting with Israelis, with Qataris. I wonder if you could speak to those efforts or those talks and whether that's positive for reaching a potential ceasefire in Gaza before the end of this administration.
Vedant Patel (29:02):
So I am most certainly not a spokesperson for the Trump administration. You'll have to wait till 12:05 on January 20th to do that with whomever is here. But what I can say is that we continue to work, this administration, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, continue to work day and night to secure a deal that would free the hostages and bring about a ceasefire in Gaza. I will let the Trump transition speak to any of the engagements they've had, any of their travel. But this is obviously a priority for us. We are working tirelessly to get it across the finish line, and we'll utilize every hour that we have to do so. And I'll let the incoming administration speak to their own foreign policy.
Simon (29:47):
And just one specific element of that is that Steve Witkoff apparently had meetings in Qatar, and there's a suggestion that the Qataris are now back as a mediator
Simon (30:00):
Mediator in these talks in a way that they hadn't been and that may involve Hamas officials returning to Qatar. Is there anything you can say on that?
Vedant Patel (30:09):
I don't have any assessment to offer on that beyond just saying that throughout this process, Qatar has been an indispensable partner and they continue to be so, both in the context of working to find an end to this conflict, but just the leadership role that they continue to play in the region and the Arab world.
Simon (30:29):
And the Hamas presence there?
Vedant Patel (30:30):
I don't have any person. I'll leave it to Connor to speak to that. Yeah, go ahead.
Tom (30:35):
MOU has been signed with the transition team for the State Department.
Vedant Patel (30:38):
So it has not.
Tom (30:39):
It has not. And so if there are meetings that are happening to do with the Gaza ceasefire deal with members, the Trump transition team with the Qataris for example, I mean is there not a danger here that there are duplicated messages, or contradictory messages, that might actually stifle the process?
Vedant Patel (30:55):
Well, look, you've heard me, the secretary, Matt say unequivocally, that it's our viewpoint that there is, of course, only one president at a time and such; one Secretary of State at a time, and so on and so forth. All I can stand up here and say, Tom, is that the MOU with the State Department, has not been signed. The broader MOU with the General Services Administration has not been signed. I will leave it to the Trump incoming team to speak to their process, as it relates to MOUs.
(31:24)
But to your question about the role that we have played in some of these foreign engagements or not, to my knowledge, we have not played a role.
Tom (31:36):
But just on that, I mean you don't have any knowledge basically, of any conversations that are taking place by members of the transition team, with key regional players on this issue.
Vedant Patel (31:46):
Look, appropriate officials across the Intra-Agency are in touch with the incoming administration, consistent with the MOUs that have been signed, so I wouldn't go so far to say that we don't have visibility. Your specific question was about the GSA and the State Department one, which has not been signed.
(32:03)
Go ahead.
Jackson (32:04):
Thanks.
Vedant Patel (32:05):
I'll come to you. It's on topic.
Jackson (32:10):
So I mean the Trump transition has signed an MOU with the DOJ, and that does allow for FBI background checks. So couldn't the State Department be in touch with the transition? And are there plans for Secretary Blinken to meet with Senator Rubio? Because the Trump transition statements that ultimately this will afford the transition process, additional insights, and it facilitates our agency, landing teams gaining access to the information they need to prepare for leadership of the federal agencies and departments.
Vedant Patel (32:39):
I'm just going to jump in because we're short on time. Jackson, I will leave it to the Trump administration's team to speak to the MOUs they intend to sign or not.
(32:50)
What I can say again is that the one with the State Department has not been signed. The one, as it relates to the White House, is my understanding has been signed and as you so noted, it's been announced that the one with the Department of Justice has. I will leave it to the General Services Administration and the Trump transition team to speak to what that means.
(33:12)
To our knowledge, there has not yet been a agency review team for the state department that has been appointed. Should there be one, we of course stand ready to appropriately engage and do everything we can to make sure that there is a seamless transition.
(33:29)
Number two, as Matt has said previously, the secretary and Senator Rubio, had the opportunity to speak on the phone briefly a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure at some point before January 20th, they will have the opportunity to sit down and talk about some of these issues in greater detail.
Jackson (33:45):
I have a couple of other questions.
Vedant Patel (33:47):
Prem's had his hand up patiently. Go ahead.
Prem (33:49):
Yeah. So we've seen the targeting of thousands of journalists, medical staff, humanitarian workers, infrastructure workers, the total decimation of agriculture, religious sites, homes, residential blocks, the destruction of neighborhoods, memories, bloodlines, both in Gaza's, ethnically cleansed to a great extent. Doctors including from America, say that they've seen kids deliberately sniped. How many acts of genocide does it take to make a genocide?
Vedant Patel (34:13):
So look, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the way that you phrase that question, but let me just say again, unequivocally, that the allegations of genocide, we find to be unfounded.
(34:27)
That being said, a number of areas continue to be of deep concern to the United States. Most notably so, we continue to be concerned about the impact on civilians and the ways in which some of these military operations are being conducted.
(34:42)
We continue to be concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and we're continuing to have very serious conversations about what other levers can be utilized to address the humanitarian situation and that's what we'll continue to do.
Prem (34:53):
I mean, the question really is about the founding though. For instance, today, several patients and medical workers at Kamal Adwan Hospital in Northern Gaza, one of the last remaining medical facilities, was attacked by Israeli drones.
(35:04)
There's this harrowing image of a teenage boy in a wheelchair, who was killed. This is after a week of Israeli forces killing the State of the Children's staffer, three World Central Kitchen workers, a head chef of the Gaza Soup Kitchen, an ICU director shooting a ten-year-old girl. And that's in a matter of days.
(35:21)
So how do attacks like these that apparently are not an aberration, considering we've seen these over and over again, have anything to do with Hamas?
Vedant Patel (35:29):
They certainly are an aberration. When we have seen civilians impacted, when we have seen places that would be consistent with civilian infrastructure like hospitals or schools, when they have become sites for kinetic activity, those are things that have become great concern to us and are things that we raise directly with our partners in Israel.
(35:49)
I'll use the hospital that you mentioned as an example. We have been incredibly clear that fighting in and around hospitals, it should not happen and that parties are called on to respect the protective status of these kinds of facilities. And that's something that we'll continue to stress, additionally.
(36:09)
The point Prem, is that these things are not mutually exclusive. These things, we can continue to have these areas of deep concern and continue to stress and their importance and stress how there needs to be better decision making. There needs to be additional steps taken, whether it be on civilians, or humanitarian situation. That does not equate to allegations of genocide being accurate or founded. And that's the point.
Prem (36:39):
So Amnesty actually made the same point in the report that they had said that, one stated goal of attacking Hamas, for instance, does not preclude the possibility of committing war crimes or committing acts of genocide. And so I think that argument kind of goes both ways. And you had said that these attacks are an aberration and that you had been making it clear to Israel that fighting in and around hospitals is not acceptable.
(37:01)
Why is this hospital one of the last remaining hospitals in Northern Gaza then?
Vedant Patel (37:05):
I will let the IDF speak to their particular military operations, Prem. That's not for me to speak to, but we have stressed not only the fact that these kinds of facilities and their protected status needs to be respected, but also that every possible measure needs to be taken to allow in more humanitarian access. And as we're at our backstop, I got to wrap there. Thanks, guys.