Sept 18, '09 - email to Rob McKenna on UN Israel-Gaza mission

Dear Attorney General McKenna,

I am sure that by now you must have seen reports of the UN's mission concerning recent actions between Israel and Gaza.

I wish to point out three paragraphs relevant to the letter you co-signed, to our meeting, and to my subsequent request.

In the letter your office received from me at the start of this week, I asked this question: "What is the basis for your belief that the restrictions on supplies to the people of Gaza had anything to do with preventing the movement of weapons?

The position of the UN mission on this issue is stated below:

"The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip."

There is no mention of preventing smuggling of weapons. This would be very strange, especially given that Judge Goldstone is a self-described Zionist and lover of Israel.

(He is, in my judgment, a greater lover of truth and fairness.)

I ask again, Do you still believe restrictions on humanitarian supplies by Israel at its border with Gaza had anything to do with stopping weapons from entering? If so, on what basis?

I thank you again for your prompt reply to this question.

Sincerely,

Bert Sacks

bert.sacks@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

PRESS RELEASE

15 September 2009

UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict; calls for end to impunity

NEW YORK / GENEVA - The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

...

In compiling the 574- page report, which contains detailed analysis of 36 specific incidents in Gaza, as well as a number of others in the West Bank and Israel, the Mission conducted 188 individual interviews, reviewed more 10,000 pages of documentation, and viewed some 1,200 photographs, including satellite imagery, as well as 30 videos. The mission heard 38 testimonies during two separate public hearings held in Gaza and Geneva, which were webcast in their entirety. The decision to hear participants from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva rather than in situ was taken after Israel denied the Mission access to both locations. Israel also failed to respond to a comprehensive list of questions posed to it by the Mission. Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated with the Mission.

The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip.

Full UN press release at: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=20090916110713735

Sept 12, '09 - Letter back to Rob McKenna with key question

Bert Sacks

6550 Greenwood Ave N, #11

Seattle, WA 98103

September 12, 20098

The Honorable Rob McKenna

Washington State Attorney General

1125 Washington Street SE

Olympia, WA 98501-2283

Dear Attorney General McKenna:

Thank you for your letter of August 31, 2009 to all of us who met with you on July 15^th to voice our concerns regarding your sign-on to the NAAG letter regarding Israel.

In that letter to us you wrote, “I share your concern for the innocent people of Gaza – the women, children and others harmed during the military action and by the restrictions on supplies that were put in place to prevent the movement of weapons.”

I am writing to ask you: What is the basis for your belief that the restrictions on supplies to the people of Gaza had anything to do with preventing the movement of weapons?

Of course we are speaking of restrictions on supplies at the Israeli border to Gaza (not the Egyptian border). In the two articles from the Israeli press I supplied you – and in the many pages of material your office received from the Israeli Consul General – I am not aware of any reference at all to a concern to stop the smuggling of weapons from Israel.

Additionally, data from the IDF itself shows that during Israel’s military incursion into Gaza, 577 shipments of food were allowed to cross from Israel into Gaza. Yet during the ceasefire with Gaza (referred to as the “period of the lull”), Israel allowed an average of 92 shipments of food into Gaza. If there was a concern about movement of weapons with food, how could six times more food be allowed to cross to Gaza during the fighting?

If I am mistaken in my understanding, I welcome more information – just as you were open to hearing from us. I thank you again for your willingness to engage in this exchange of information and concerns. And I await your prompt reply to my question.

Sincerely,

Bert Sacks

Reference: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_206c4g42khm is a link to the IDF data I mentioned. I supplied this to you during our July meeting and in a previous letter.

Sept 9, '09 - "McKenna and Israel" in Real Change

Just Heard

by: Adam Hyla , Editor

McKenna and Israel

Sep 9, 2009, Vol: 16, No: 40

State Attorney General Rob McKenna is getting some heat on a rare front: U.S. relations with Israel.

In the first 100 days of the Obama administration, the top lawyers of 10 states sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a group letter defending that country’s actions in the Gaza Strip. They asked that Clinton view Israel’s retaliatory actions as taken “in furtherance of its right to self-defense.”

Among the signers-on to that March 31 letter: McKenna, the state’s foremost Republican elected official.

Seattle activist Bert Sacks took McKenna’s stance as an invitation to clarification — seeking his legal opinion on whether the Israeli blockade of imports into Gaza was also justified.

Sacks received a letter in reply from the AG last week — a letter which expressed regret for the humanitarian consequences of the blockade following the January 2008 war with Hamas.

“I share your concern for the innocent people of Gaza — the women, children and others harmed during the military action and by the restrictions on supplies that were put in place to prevent the movement of weapons,” says McKenna’s Aug. 31 letter.

Weapons, shmeapons, says Sacks, who has found statements by Israeli military leaders forecasting massive deprivation — resembling the effects of U.S.-led sanctions in Saddam-era Iraq, where an estimated half million children died — will undermine the population’s support for its leaders.

A report last month by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says Israel’s blockade has resulted in a “protracted human dignity crisis with negative humanitarian consequences.” Israeli restrictions on industrial, agricultural and construction materials have prevented reconstruction and limited the amount of fuel coming in to power Gaza’s only power plant.

Sept 1, '09 - Bruce Ramsey column on Rob McKenna

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - Page updated at 04:16 PM

Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mailresale@seattletimes.com with your request.

JIM BATES / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Attorney General Rob McKenna cosigned a letter defending Israel's 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza

AG Rob McKenna's letter about Israel's response to Gaza ignores broader issues

By Bruce Ramsey

Seattle Times editorial columnist

Last winter, Israel shelled Gaza, rolled in the tanks, shot it up and left much of it in ruins. Some 1,400 Gazans and 13 Israelis died, a ratio of 100-to-1.

Israel was defending itself, or so it said. To persuade the new Obama administration of that, a letter was circulated among U.S. state attorneys general who had visited Israel, some as guests of the America-Israel Friendship League. The letter is addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It begins:

"The undersigned Attorneys General write to convey our strong support for the State of Israel's actions in Gaza." The letter deems it unfair to compare the dead on each side the way I just did. It says Israel was not bound to be "proportionate" in its response to Gazan rocket attacks. "Israel's acts were justified and, in our view, met the international legal standards required of a modern state."

Signing the letter were four Democrats and six Republicans, including Washington's Rob McKenna.

This is a remarkable thing. The chief legal officers of Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington — state governments, with no authority over foreign affairs — were lobbying the U.S. secretary of state on behalf of a foreign power.

I asked our attorney general about the propriety of that. "We're elected officials," McKenna said. "All the attorneys general have constituencies for which Israel is important."

They do — and on both sides. Some friends of Gaza heard about the letter and went to see McKenna in July. One was Craig Corrie, whose daughter Rachel was killed in Gaza in 2003 by an Israeli soldier. Corrie told me he objected to a state official who had supported "increased violence in the Middle East."

That is what the letter does. McKenna focused on what it says. "The letter was narrowly crafted around whether Israel has a right to self-defense," he said.

I asked him whether 1,400 deaths were not excessive in response to rocket fire that had killed no one by the time the Israelis responded.

"You have to wait until enough of your people die so that it's roughly equal to the number of people you're going to kill?" he asked. "Nobody operates on that principle."

Indeed not. But under the rules of war, surely the other side had just cause as well. After the people of Gaza had elected the Hamas government, Israel had blockaded Gaza for a year and a half, by land and sea. The Gazans could export nothing, and could not make a living in the world. Israel had reduced them to living on handouts, and only a ration of those.

A blockade of such a small place — less than twice the area of Seattle — can be more lethal to civilians than rockets. It is also an act of war. But there is nothing in the letter about any of this.

Nor was there any mention that Israel's centrist Kadima Party government was facing an election Feb. 10 and was afraid of losing to the rightist Likud Party. The Gaza incursion was part of an election campaign. (Likud was elected anyway.)

McKenna said the letter came across his desk and he turned it around in 24 hours. He is a lawyer, and he responded like one.

But in this state he is Mr. Republican, his party's brightest and most successful standard-bearer. Someday he will run for U.S. Senate, where his foreign-policy views count. He should be careful about what he signs.

Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

August 31, '09 - Response of Rob McKenna to our group

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Please forgive this email response; I had planned to send a letter but I do not have a mailing address on file for you.

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me about the National Association of Attorneys General sign-on letter concerning the conflict in Gaza. I am grateful for the effort you made to prepare for our meeting, and for your willingness to travel to our office in order to communicate your views. I have had the opportunity in the two meetings I've hosted recently to hear a wide range of views on the letter specifically and Israel-Gaza issues generally.

During these conversations, many questions and views were expressed about aspects of the conflict that go well beyond whether or not Israel was justified in its military response to rockets fired from Gaza. However, the letter that we signed was narrow in focus, responding only to Israel’s right to defend itself from these rockets. I stand by Israel’s right to self-defense. Israel was justified in responding with military force to the thousands of rockets being fired into its civilian areas from Gaza.

I share your concern for the innocent people of Gaza – the women, children and others harmed during the military action and by the restrictions on supplies that were put in place to prevent the movement of weapons. I share your deep regret that many innocent Gazans were hurt, both by Hamas’ positioning of weapons in densely populated areas and by Israel’s subsequent bombing of those locations.

It is critical that the people of Gaza receive relief and opening up supply lines will bring the food, medicine and rebuilding materials urgently needed. Achieving this will require a concentrated international effort by Israel, Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, neighboring states, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations.

Regardless of one’s point of view on this longstanding conflict, we can all agree that our focus today must remain on the plight of those caught in the crossfire who have suffered through no fault of their own.

Again, thank you for the effort you made to educate me on many aspects of this conflict. I look forward to future conversations.

Sincerely,


Rob McKenna, Attorney General

(emphasis added)

August 14, '09 - Op-ed on our meeting with Rob McKenna

Op-ed on our meeting with A.G. Rob McKenna -- by Bert Sacks

At noon on June 4th, our Washington State Attorney General’s office sent an urgent email to the Israeli NW Consul General asking for help: “We would like advice about how to counter certain arguments, most prominently, the accusation that Israel has blocked the entry of humanitarian supplies into Gaza.”[1]

Two hours before this, I had asked that question of our Attorney General Rob McKenna during a call-in radio show. Since even the Israeli government admits that it does restrict humanitarian supplies into Gaza, my actual question was: Does our Attorney General believe it is legal for Israel to do this?[2]

This issue began when Rob McKenna signed an unfortunate and ill-informed letter with nine other Attorneys General. The letter begins “The undersigned Attorneys General write to convey our strong support [for all of] the State of Israel’s actions in Gaza.” (The forty other AGs chose not to sign on.)[3]

On July 15th, I joined 13 other critics of his letter to meet with Rob McKenna. Despite the 60 pages of material provided by the Israeli Consulate to his office, our AG did not offer an answer to my question.

Here is the evidence I supplied to Attorney General McKenna:

• a statement from Dov Weissglas, the official head of the Israeli team responding to Hamas' election victory in 2006. He said there will be an embargo and made a joke that Israel will put Gazans on a diet, saying that they will "get a lot thinner."[4]

• data the Israeli Consulate sent to the AG which (inadvertently) showed that humanitarian shipments to Gaza during the months of the ceasefire -- which Hamas abided by, but Israel did not – were restricted by Israel to 20% of normal.[5]

• a statement by the former head of the Israeli Mossad intelligence service: “If Israel’s goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured quiet for a generation.”[6]

• Barack Obama’s statement that “if the people of Gaza can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then [it’s not a recipe for] peace.”[7]

• a letter from ten international lawyers and legal scholars confirming: "This siege [of Gaza] -- an act of war under customary international law -- violates Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as a form of collective punishment."[8]

• a New England Journal of Medicine report that studied the results of a similar embargo on child mortality: When scaled to Gaza, the data suggest ten Palestinian children die every day in Gaza as a result of water-borne and opportunistic diseases due to their malnourished condition.[9]

What does our Attorney General not understand?

Legally, this is a “no-brainer.” What basis is there to believe that denying civilians including children any amount of food is legal – let alone 80% of what is considered essential?

Rob McKenna has egg on his face.

When confronted with a serious, legitimate issue over Israel’s actions, he looked for an answer only to the Israeli consulate. In effect, he acted as an agent for a foreign government.

Rob McKenna’s office wrote me that he did “not know if [denial of food] was illegal,” but the Israelis “led him to think” it wasn’t. If he asked only Hamas if their rockets were legal – and then accepted what they led him to believe – what would we think?[10]

And true, we all heard, “What how would we act if rockets fell on us? But did anyone ever hear, “What would we do if we were denied 80% of our food, medicine, fuel and water?

I have proposed to his office that the best way out of this dilemma is to make a clear, honest statement that he was ill informed about Israel’s actions in Gaza. He does not need to withdraw his legal opinion that sending rockets into civilian areas was illegal. But – since he’s publicly weighed into this conflict – he needs to decide whether it is legal to deny civilians including children basic humanitarian aid.

I hope this opinion piece will encourage Mr. McKenna to do just that.

###

[1] Email document obtained by FOIA request of the AG’s office: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_190ch98xqhn

[2] See transcript of KUOW “Weekday” radio interview: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_179dx4n62c4

[3] letter to Hillary Clinton: http://www.cpjnews.com/State%20Attorney%20General%20Letter%20March%202009.pdf

[4] See article in Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz by Gideon Levy: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_164hj5p5vzf

[5] Chart provided to the AG by the Israeli Consul from the IDF: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_206c4g42khm

[6] See article from The Guardian (UK) quoting the Israeli press: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_208cj46frhm

[7] See Press Release from the White House website: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_211fsb9k9gn

[8] See letter from international lawyers and scholars: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_197gsw569cf

[9] See New England Journal of Medicine survey: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_212hrcjcwcc

[10] Letter from Chief of Staff Mike Bigelow to Bert Sacks: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_191c8gdrmgw

July 21, '09 - HOW TO CONTACT THE A.G.'s OFFICE

See this link for Online, Mail, and Phone ways to contact the Attorney General's Office:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/ContactUs.aspx

July 15, '09 - Our Meeting With Rob McKenna and Chief of Staff Randy Pepple

On July 15th, I joined a group of 14 invited guests to speak to Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna. We’d come to discuss our objections to a letter he co-signed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That letter began, "The undersigned Attorneys General write to convey our strong support for the State of Israel's actions in Gaza. The State of Israel's actions are taken in furtherance of its right to self-defense ...."

While 80% of the state Attorneys General offered the letter did not sign, Mr. McKenna joined nine other Attorneys General to sign a letter fully supporting all of Israel’s recent actions in Gaza. The first of our speakers raised the most obvious question: Why is Rob McKenna offering his legal opinion, as the Chief Legal Officer of our state, on the question of Israel's actions in Gaza?

In my turn, I gave Rob McKenna an article from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, February 19, 2006. It begins, “[The Israeli team responding to Hamas’ election] had not laughed so much in a long time. The team, headed by the prime minister's advisor Dov Weissglas ... agreed on the need to impose an economic siege …, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: 'It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians [in Gaza] will get a lot thinner, but won't die'."

This is conclusive public evidence – from the top Israeli official in charge of responding to Hamas’ election victory – that the Israeli response would involve denying food to a civilian population.

Next I gave Mr. McKenna one page – from among 60 pages the Israeli consul provided his office –showing data provided by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) of the amount of humanitarian aid allowed into Gaza. The purpose of the bar graph is to show Israel’s allowing 2,560 shipments of food after the Gaza military operation; however it shows only 92 shipments during the ceasefire.

This is conclusive evidence – from the Israeli military itself – that humanitarian aid allowed into Gaza even during a successful ceasefire with Hamas – amounted to 20% or less of normal.

How bad is the "economic siege" promised by Dov Weissglas? This is President Barack Obama:

"On the other hand, the fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can't even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel's long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward."

President Obama was speaking to the Israeli Prime Minister, May 18, 2009, at the White House. He is testifying to the seriousness of the Israeli border closures that affect even safe drinking water.

Finally, I read to Mr. McKenna a quote from Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Israeli Mossad intelligence service. Writing in the Israeli press on January 4, 2009, Mr. Halevy said: "If Israel's goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured quiet for a generation."

Here a former Mossad head is putting a lie to the central claim of Mr. McKenna's letter: that Israel’s actions in Gaza were an unavoidable – and therefore a legal – act of self-defense.

In my first letter to Mr. McKenna, May 18, 2009, I wrote this: “The question I wish to ask you is not, Did Israel allow some humanitarian aid into Gaza? – but rather, What legal justification exists for Israel to have restricted any amount of available humanitarian aid to civilians?”

On June 4th, Rob McKenna’s appeared on KUOW’s Weekday program. I called in to ask him this question. He replied: “The question will probably come down to whether or not it was reasonable for [the Israelis] to interdict humanitarian aid in order to stop weapons from being shipped in, as opposed to interdicting international aid just to cause harm to the civilian population.”

Immediately after the interview – perhaps realizing that Mr. McKenna’s response was, at best, inadequate – his office sought to get more information. His office went to only one source – not an impartial aid provider such as the ICRC – but to the Israel Consul General to the Pacific Northwest.

And the question asked was not did Israel restrict humanitarian aid and, if so, on what legal basis. Instead his office wrote: “We would like advice about how to counter certain arguments, most prominently, the accusation that Israel has blocked the entry of humanitarian supplies into Gaza. … AG McKenna will be meeting with some of these groups – including the parents of Rachel Corrie – in July. He would love to speak with you before that meeting.” (emphasis added. Here our FOIA request found that the AG’s office, in effect, was acting as an agent for the Israelis.)

The contact with the Israeli Consul General was to “counter certain arguments” to answer us. Yet in our meeting Rob McKenna said nothing about this. But I personally did eventually receive an answer: “[Mr. McKenna] doesn't know if [the restrictions on aid] were illegal. Information provided to him by the Israeli people he talked to led him to think Israeli actions were legal.”

As a final point in our meeting, I corrected one part of Dov Weissglas' joke – that Palestinians in Gaza would "get a lot thinner, but won't die." The restriction of food (and medicine and safe drinking water) is a weapon that discriminates against the most vulnerable, children under five.

It is a well-known medical fact that young children who are denied adequate and varied nutrition – who lack calories and/or a reasonable variety of foods – suffer a physical, mental and emotional lack of development. They are also the most vulnerable to opportunistic diseases because their immune system is less developed and unable to fight off simple diseases that a healthy child can.

The epidemiologist with us (yet another Jewish member in our group) confirmed to Mr. McKenna what I had said: Young children are particularly at risk from a food embargo. Using data from The New England Journal of Medicine about a similar embargo, but scaling the number of expected deaths to the smaller population in Gaza, I said the data could leave one to conclude that ever day, on average, ten more children in Gaza would die as an result of this economic siege.

A letter from ten international lawyers and legal scholars sent to Rob McKenna contained this statement: “This siege - an act of war under customary international law - violates Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as a form of collective punishment.” I ask: Why can’t Attorney General McKenna offer a judgment whether it is legal or not to deny food to a civilian population as a tool of coercion or punishment?

###

June 29, '09 - my email back to AG regarding his non-judgment of withholding of food

Dear Tammy Teeter,

I am emailing you to ask if you would please pass all this along to Mike Bigelow so that he'll be able to look it over (before he leaves) and discuss it with Rob McKenna.

Thanks, Bert Sacks

P.S. I've just left you and Mike Bigelow voice messages about this. If you're not able to pass this along, please get back. And if you can, please also please just let me know. Thanks again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Attorney General McKenna:

I appreciate the chance to meet with you to discuss my concerns regarding Gaza.

However, for the meeting to be useful from my perspective, I am asking you to familiarize yourself with articles I have already sent -- and reply again to my request.

In particular, I ask you to read the concern President Obama expressed to the Israeli Prime Minister about Gaza during Mr. Netanyahu's recent visit. It is in the email (below) that I'd sent Mike Bigelow to pass on to you about a month ago.

I appreciate that your motivation to co-sign the letter to Secretary Clinton was a desire to support Israel. But, as President Obama pointed out, politically supporting Israeli policies doesn’t necessarily help Israel. I ask for your legal opinion of these policies.

If my first letter to you is not in your files, I am attaching an electronic copy and its two enclosures. I especially ask you to re-read that first letter to you, followed by the attached article by Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus of Int'l Law at Princeton).

In previous letters, I asked for your legal judgment whether the Israeli denials of (any amount of) food, medicine, fuel and water to civilians is legal under international law.

Mike Bigelow forwarded your response: "[Rob McKenna] doesn't know if they were illegal. Information provided to him by the Israeli people he talked with led him to think Israeli actions were legal."

You might think it unnecessary to form an opinion because you believe Hamas’ firing rockets is much worse than restricting food, medicine and fuel to civilians by Israel.

The deaths of the several Israeli civilians caused by rockets from Gaza is a human-rights violation and is not excusable. But denying food, medicine and fuel to civilians can cause an amount of suffering and death that is orders of magnitude greater.

If you doubt this, please re-read the relevant paragraphs of Professor Falk's article – and do your own research on UN and Red Cross reports of malnutrition, anemia, water-borne diseases and lack of medicines in Gaza.

If you are still in doubt about the potential impact of an economic blockade on civilians, then please read the results of The New England Journal of Medicine report for the case of the US/UN economic embargo on Iraq covering just the first 8 months of 1991: the NEJM found excess deaths of 46,900 Iraqi children!**

If you had not chosen to condemn Hamas, you would have no obligation to also pass a judgment on Israeli actions. But you chose otherwise. Therefore I am asking you: If you believe these actions by Israel are legal, please explain; and if not, please explain. (I believe you have an obligation to form some opinion.)

I hope this brief discussion will begin to make clear the seriousness of the issue. The denial of any amount of food, medicine, fuel and water is potentially a grave matter of life and death. And a lack of adequate nutrition also has a devastating impact on the mental and physical development of young children, those who are most vulnerable.

I am glad to put you in touch with a number of fine medical doctors – either from Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility (WPSR) who have visited Gaza or from the Jewish Israeli group Doctors for Human Rights – who can testify to you about this.

Therefore, I am asking you for a serious consideration of what I have written -- now that the seriousness of this potential violation of international law is, I hope, made clear.

Your previous answer -- that Israelis you spoke with led you to think what they did was legal -- could be compared to asking Hamas leaders whether their firing of rockets was legal. There are serious reasons to think the Israeli blockade was – and continues to be – equally indiscriminate and equally illegal.

Before our July 15th meeting, I am asking you to please respond with your legal judgment of the Israeli actions I discuss here -- in just the same way as you offered your legal judgment to Secretary Clinton about the actions of Hamas.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bert Sacks

* Ha'aretz is the only one of three major Israeli Hebrew-language newspapers that is re-printed online in English. It's a sad commentary on the U.S. mass media that it will hardly ever cover stories that address Palestinian concerns -- as Ha'aretz does. As an example, I include a new article from Ha'aretz, "Gaza Bonanza," which gives a real insiders' view of the policy. Equally, the article I’d sent by Gideon Levy is revealing.

** That New England Journal report – which has gone virtually unreported in the media of this country – is at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/13/931

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Bert Sacks wrote:

Dear Ms. Teeter,

Thank you for passing on my voice message to Mike Bigelow. He called me yesterday and we spoke on the phone about my concerns and request for a reply.

Would you kindly pass this email on to him so that he'll have my email contact?

Also, I'll use this chance to pass on a brief paragraph from President Obama's recent press conference with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister. (Unfortunately, The NY Times failed to include it in their coverage.) It shows that President Obama is aware of the issue that I focus on in my letter -- and that he shares his own concern.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bert Sacks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(From a commentary by By David Bromwich, Professor of Literature at Yale, in the Huffington Post online, dated May 19, 2009)

Finally, Gaza was much in President Obama's mind and on
his conscience at this meeting; so much so that he
broke decorum and stepped out of his way to mention it:

The fact is, is that if the people of Gaza have no
hope, if they can't even get clean water at this
point, if the border closures are so tight that it
is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian
efforts to take place, then that is not going to be
a recipe for Israel's long-term security or a
constructive peace track to move forward.

And yet not a word from Stolberg and the Times about
these words of Obama's on Gaza. Nor was any analytic
piece offered as a supplement -- the usual procedure in
assessing an event of this importance.