---- Bert On Gaza ----

letter to A.G. Rob McKenna

2011-06-20T10:56:00.000-07:00

Bert Sacks
6550 Greenwood Ave N, #11
Seattle, WA 98103

June 16, 2011

The Honorable Rob McKenna
Washington State Attorney General
1125 Washington Street SE
Olympia, WA 98501-2283

Dear Attorney General McKenna:

I hope that you will choose to read beyond the first page of my attachment – and that you will decide that I have been fair to you in what I write. I have been three times to Gaza and the issue I write about is a very serious health matter for the million inhabitants of that small area.

The great majority of water there is unsafe to drink, sewage processing is virtually non-existent, and adequate and varied food is either not available or not affordable for most of the people of Gaza. The Israeli blockade is a principle cause of these conditions – a blockade put in place to punish the Gazans.

I have lived in Israel for five years and was raised in the Jewish tradition. I am deeply concerned about the current government policies of Israel for what they portend for the future of Israel. Just as so many of us who protested the Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 were not anti-American, so my protest of Israel's blockade of Gaza is not anti-Israeli; it is done out of a deep concern for Israel's legitimacy.

You last wrote us in August 2009, “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." (my emphasis)

You may be aware that the The Israeli mainstream newspaper Ha'aretz wrote on February 25, 2009: “When Senator John Kerry visited the Strip, he learned that many trucks loaded with pasta were not permitted in. When the chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee inquired as to the reason for the delay, he was told by United Nations aid officials that "Israel does not define pasta as part of humanitarian aid - only rice shipments."” Macaroni became a minor cause célèbre of the blockade.

Macaroni is not a weapon. Macaroni is not a security threat to the State of Israel. Denying macaroni – and halva and jam and coriander, cardamom and cookies – is done only as collective punishment.

I would be very happy – and quite satisfied – if you would change your position on the matter of the blockade. If you correct what you have previously stated I will simply post your statement on my website and consider the matter closed. In any event I welcome any comments you might offer.

Sincerely,

Bert Sacks

Enclosures: June 11,2011, posting to IraqiKids.org

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

2009-09-22T09:20:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-09T21:54:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-01T12:00:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-08-31T20:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-14T08:11:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-21T19:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-20T09:10:00.001-07:00

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

2009-07-19T16:42:00.001-07:00

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.

June 23, '09 - reply from the AG to my 2 requests

2009-07-19T16:34:00.001-07:00

Rob McKenna

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

1125 Washington Street SE • PO Box 40100 • Olympia WA 98504-0100

June 23,2009

Mr. Bert Sacks

6550 Greenwood Ave N, #1 1

Seattle, WA 98103

Dear Mr. Sacks:

Thank you for your letter regarding Israeli actions in Gaza. You asked Attorney General McKenna to respond to two questions:

1 . In my previous letter (enclosed) I ask your opinion whether the Israeli denial of food,
medicine and water is legal under international law. I am again asking you for a response
to this question before our meeting. Response — he 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.

2. My friend and neighbor Bruce Ramsey, who works for The Seattle Times and who has met with you, would like to join the meeting. Would that be agreeable? Response — it is our preference that Mr. Ramsey not attend the meeting because he represents the press. If he attends, we feel obligated to invite other press members and then the meeting will become a press event. The mere presence of the press will interfere with candid discussions between you, other attendees and Attorney General McKenna. We want this meeting to be with constituents and not the press. Thank you for asking and understanding.

Mr. Sacks, I will be retiring next week and suggest that you contact my replacement (Mr. Randy Pepple) with further questions regarding this matter. ... Thank you and good luck in your endeavors.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL L. BIGELOW Chief of Staff MLB/sr

June 16, '09 - my reply to AG with two requests for July meeting

2009-07-19T16:10:00.000-07:00

Bert Sacks

6550 Greenwood Ave N, #11

Seattle, WA 98103

June 16, 20098

The Honorable Rob McKenna

Washington State Attorney General

1125 Washington Street SE

Olympia, WA 98501-2283

Re: Your letter regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza

Dear Attorney General McKenna:

Thank you for the invitation to meet with you (and the Corries and others) on July 15^th. I have two specific requests that I respectfully ask for a reply to before that meeting.

(1) In my previous letter (enclosed) I ask your opinion whether the Israeli denial of food, medicine and water is legal under international law. I am again asking you for a response to this question before our meeting.

(2) My friend and neighbor Bruce Ramsey, who works for The Seattle Times and who has met with you, would like to join the meeting. Would that be agreeable?

In addition to the two supporting documents I originally sent with my earlier letter (which are available online) I enclose part of an op-ed by Kate Pflaumer; it has relevance to the issue we are discussing in Gaza.

Thank you. I look forward to a reply to my two requests.

Sincerely,

Bert Sacks

Attachment: my earlier letter, dated May 18, 2009, sent to you at your office in Olympia.

Excerpts from an opinion piece in the Seattle P-I, June 21, 2001, by Kate Pflaumer.

Previous attachments:

Richard Falk article, “Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe” (Jan. 2, 2009) available at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-falk/understanding-the-gaza-ca_b_154777.html

Gideon Levy article, “As the Hamas team laughs,” Ha’aretz (Feb. 19, 2006) available at:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=684258

July 11, '09 - letter from ten international lawyers and legal scholars to the AG

2009-07-19T16:00:00.001-07:00

The Honorable Rob McKenna

Attorney General, State of Washington

1125 Washington Street SE

PO Box 40100

Olympia,WA 98504-0100

Dear Mr. McKenna:

We are a group of international lawyers and legal scholars, writing in our individual capacities, who have studied, and in some cases, litigated, issues pertaining to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have read with concern your letter of March 30, 2009, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supporting Israel's December-January attack on the Gaza Strip. We find numerous factual and legal errors in the letter, and write to share our analysis of the letter with you and to ask you to publicly repudiate its claims. Below is a list of our principal concerns.

1. The first paragraph of the letter asserts that Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip involved an exercise of the right to self-defense. Israel is a recognized state within the international community, and enjoys the right of self-defense as any other state. Even when properly triggered, however, the right is limited. The exercise of self-defense must be necessary and proportional to the harm it seeks to redress. We find Israel's claim of self-defense invalid for at least three reasons. First, Israel did not suffer an "armed attack" within the meaning of international law in the period immediately preceding its aerial, sea, and land bombardment of the Gaza Strip beginning on December 27, 2008. For five months, from June to early November, both Israel and Hamas had observed a truce along the Israel- Gaza border that had brought substantial calm to the area. Israel violated this truce on November 4 by launching a raid into the Gaza Strip, killing six Palestinians. Hamas responded with rocket fire — yet no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against rocket fire following the collapse of the truce, because it was provoked by Israel's own violation. Second, Israel's assault was not necessary to preserve the security of its citizens. Innocent Israelis have undeniable rights to be free of indiscriminate attack. Yet their government failed to explore negotiating a renewal of the truce, which had brought the greatest calm to the region in years. Hamas had offered to extend the truce in public pronouncements in the days immediately preceding Israel's attack, as long as Israel abided by its terms - including ending its blockade of the Gaza Strip. Israel ignored those offers. Third, even were Israel's assault otherwise justified, its scale was vastly disproportionate to the goal of stopping rocket fire. That goal might have authorized strikes at Hamas military targets - but certainly not at a university, schools, mosques, the justice, education, and housing ministries, civilian police stations, fire stations, courts, prisons, and other institutions that were the very backbone of Gaza society.

2. The second paragraph of the letter contains several errors of fact and misleading statements. First, Hamas did not take exclusive control of the Gaza Strip in June,2005, as the letter alleges. Rather, Hamas gained the right to form a government in the Occupied Palestinian Territories by prevailing in lawful democratic elections in January, 2006. Hamas attempted on more than one occasion to form national unity governments with members of Fatah, but such attempts were either unsuccessful or short lived. In June 2007, Hamas forces, apparently acting to pre-empt a feared coup attempt, expelled fighters loyal to Fatah from the Gaza Strip. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas then dissolved the Hamas government, as he was lawfully entitled to do. But Abbas then violated the Palestinian Authority's Basic Law by appointing a new government of his own supporters. Under the Basic Law, the previous cabinet should act as a caretaker government until a new government can be formed. Under Palestinian law, therefore, the former Hamas government had legal claim to continuing governing authority in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

3. The third paragraph of the letter makes claims that have no grounding in international law. Hamas has been designated a "terrorist organization" in the domestic law of a handful of nations, but not a "terrorist regime" - a phrase that has no accepted meaning in international law. In any case, this designation in no way relieves Israel of its responsibilities to abide by international law. The claim that Hamas "acts under the cover of a 'sovereign state'" is devoid of legal meaning. Hamas has never declared statehood in the Gaza Strip nor anywhere else, nor has any nation in the world recognized Hamas or the Gaza Strip as an independent state. It is true, however, that non-state actors such as Hamas are subject to the rules of customary international humanitarian law and human rights law in the conduct of warfare.

4. The fourth paragraph of the letter correctly identifies the standard of proof in international criminal tribunals as "beyond a reasonable doubt," and also correctly cites the principle of distinction (the obligation of warring parties to distinguish between civilian and military targets). Yet the presumption of innocence is also a facet of international criminal law. Thus while the available evidence suggests strongly that some individuals within Hamas (not "Hamas" as a collective entity) may bear criminal liability for indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians, no trials have yet been held. To declare Hamas "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" without benefit of trial violates the presumption of innocence that is part of both the U.S. and international legal tradition.

5. The fifth paragraph of the letter reiterates common Israeli claims that Hamas has used Palestinian civilians as "human shields." In fact, no evidence has yet emerged that Hamas intentionally used civilians to protect armed fighters from attack, in the manner barred by international law. Merely fighting from inhabited areas, as some Hamas troops apparently did, does not, in itself, constitute illegal conduct. We note, moreover, that during the fighting, Israel categorized Palestinian civilian police as "combatants," killing over 300 of them. Needless to say, these police officers, charged with directing traffic and maintaining public order, were, indeed, positioned in heavily populated areas, as their jobs required. Israel's definition of Palestinian police officers (and other civil servants who were employed by the Hamas-led government) as "combatants" violates well-grounded principles of international humanitarian law. Ironically, there is ample evidence that Israeli troops, in fact, used Palestinian civilians as human shields in the invasion of Gaza, as they have repeatedly in the past. It is disturbing that Israeli troops persist in a practice which has been repeatedly held to be illegal even by the Israeli High Court.

6. This sixth paragraph criticizes Hamas for its failure to establish "a flourishing, independent Palestinian state." Yet under the Oslo accords, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization agreed that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were to be treated as an indivisible unit, and that their final status would be subject to negotiation. Thus, for Hamas to have declared an "independent state" in the Gaza Strip would have entailed a violation of the Oslo accords - which Hamas is under international demand to respect. Moreover, as Israel's government has now made clear in words as well as in deeds, it is firmly opposed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It has done everything within its power to foil effective government by Hamas, including withholding tax revenues due the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo accords, kidnapping and jailing without trial 27 Hamas legislators, including the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and placing the Gaza Strip under virtual siege for almost two years. This siege - an act of war under customary international law - violates Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as a form of collective punishment.

7. The seventh paragraph misleadingly analogizes Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip to the behavior of the Allies in World War n, ignoring the development of international humanitarian law and human rights law over the last sixty years. Arguably, however, Israel remains an occupying power in the Gaza Strip, by virtue of its continuing "effective control" of the Gaza Strip exercised from the outside. As such, Israel owes a duty of protection to the residents of that region. It has violated this duty by employing massive force against an occupied population and largely defenseless population. The proper legal paradigm, in short, is not warfare between the organized militaries of independent nations, but rather the law of military occupation provided in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

8. Although the international legal system does not function, strictly speaking, as an extension of the "common law," the eighth paragraph correctly notes that intent is an element in establishing international criminal culpability. It is partly for that reason that we would not convict "Hamas" for its rocket attacks on Israeli civilians without further evidence, even though it seems likely that at least some of Hamas's rocket fire violated international law. We note that Israeli military censorship of press references to base locations, troop movements, and other security-related information complicates evaluation of the intent behind Hamas rocket fire, which in some cases may have been directed toward military targets. We note further that other Palestinian organizations have also fired rockets and mortars into Israel, and Hamas leaders may bear no culpability for those acts by other groups and individuals. In contrast, statements by Israeli military and political leaders make quite clear that they intended to strike civilian infrastructure and to kill civilian individuals (such as the aforementioned police officers). Other statements and reports by observers strongly suggest that Israel deliberately employed disproportionate force in violation of international law, knowingly attacked medical and other emergency responders, used weapons illegally (including white phosphorous), and abused Palestinian detainees. We believe that this evidence would be sufficient at a minimum to justify further investigation of Israel's acts, although we would reserve judgment at this stage as to the culpability of any particular Israeli military or political leaders.

9. The ninth paragraph describes the impact of the visits of numerous attorneys general of the states to Israel. Among them seems to be a willingness to overlook Israel's illegal acts with respect to territories it has occupied in its various wars. Under the United Nations partition plan of 1947, the city of Jerusalem was slated to be governed by the UN as a "corpus separatum," and not to be part of either the Jewish or Palestinian state. Israel occupied the western portion of the city in 1948, but its sovereignty there has never been recognized by the international community. Israel occupied the eastern half of the city in 1967, and extended Israeli domestic jurisdiction there, effectively annexing it. Israel has also repeatedly extended the municipal boundaries of the city eastward, incorporating portions of the West Bank. All of these acts have been declared legally "null and void" by the United Nations Security Council. Israel also purported to extend domestic jurisdiction to the Golan Heights - part of Syria - in 1982, effectively annexing that territory as well. That act has been similarly condemned by the international community as a violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

We do not question the right of attorneys general for the states of the United States to hold and express political opinions as private individuals. But you have signed this deeply flawed and intemperate letter as the highest legal officer in your state. We wonder about the propriety of state officials, elected to perform limited functions under the constitutions of their states, endorsing the tendentious legal positions of a foreign state in an international armed conflict. We have not studied that issue, and ultimately that may be a political question to be resolved between you and your constituents. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage you to withdraw your name from the letter and publicly repudiate its contents.

Sincerely,

Lama Abu-Odeh, Georgetown University Law Center

Susan Akram, Boston University Law School

Asli Bali, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law

George Bisharat, University of California Hastings College of the Law

Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College, University of London

Zaha Hassan, Esq., Attorney at Law, Oregon

Victor Kattan, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Department of Law

Ugo Mattei, University of California Hastings College of the Law and Torino University, Department of Law

Steve McCaffrey, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law

Tom Nelson, Esq., Attorney at Law, Oregon

June 8, '09 - humanitarian aid allowed into Gaza per the IDF

2009-07-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

…. Humanitarian aid has provided a range of essential supplies, including foodstuffs, medical equipment, fuel and cooking gas, and domestic electrical appliances, to residents of the Gaza Strip.

Chart 4 demonstrates the sharp increase in the volume of shipments from the international community following Operation Cast Lead.

Chart 4**

Donations from the international Community (shipments)

The following figures demonstrate the high level of aid entering the Strip during the three-week period following the Operation (as of February 7, 2009): 4,915 shipments of humanitarian aid (123,663 tons) from the international community; 169 new donation applications were submitted to Israeli customs -134 applications were approved during the three week period following the Operation. In the following months (by mid-May), approximately 250 additional donation applications were submitted, of which roughly 80% were approved. In addition, until the end of February 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Health put in place special procedures to expedite the transfer of all food, medicine and medical equipment into the Gaza Strip, Thus, a mechanism for solving blockages in the transfer of aid was decided upon and approved by all the relevant official parties in Israel.

The Gaza Strip has received humanitarian donations from a number of different sources, including NGOs and international relief agencies, the private sector, and the international community. A total of 25,935 trucks carried donations from NGOs, international relief agencies and the private sector from January 1, 2008 to December 28, 2008, amounting to 629,393

31 ** As of May 17.2009.

13 of these donations were intended for the West Bank,

CC-00062

PRR-2009-00226

For an actual image of this page supplied by the Israeli Consulate from the Israeli IDF (Israel Defense Forces) to the AG's office: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RhiDXnme730/SmP1Z3klDOI/AAAAAAAABwA/RawYJ2OtgSI/s1600-h/DonationsOfAidToGazaPerIsraelPg33-FOIAJul09.jpg

June 4, '09 - email to Israeli Consul General immediately after radio interview

2009-07-19T15:56:00.000-07:00

Akivs Tor

Consul General

Consulate of Israel to the Pacific Northwest

456 Montgomery St.

San Francisco, CA 94104

Web: wwwIsraeliconsulate.org

From: Sytman, Dan (ATG)
Sent,- Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:01 PM
To: Israeli Consulate, Consul's General Office

Subject: Meeting request

Mr, Tor,

I am writing to request a phone call in the next few weeks between you or someone you recommend and Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna.

In March, AG McKenna co-signed a letter to Sec. Clinton, The letter supports Israel's actions in Gaza. The letter may be found here: http://www.cpjnews.com/State%20Attorney%20General%20Letter%20March%202009.pdf

Since March, AG McKenna has been criticized by anti-Israel groups in our state. Here is some of the criticism that has been posted online:

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6150

http://www.maxajl.com/?p=1276

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/8604/34/

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. We are aware that Israel has actually done quite a bit to ensure that medica! supplies are able to enter. However, we'd love to have supporting data. AG McKenna will be meeting some of these groups - including the parents of Rachel Corrie - in July, He would love to speak with you before that meeting.

Thank you for your time,

Dan Sytman

Olympia Media Relations Manager | Office of State Attorney General Rob McKenna

1125 Washington Street SE | PO Box 40100 | Olympia I WA I 98504-0100

Join Attorney General Rob McKenna's Listserv for the latest news from the AG's office or visit our Web site at www.atg.wa.gov

COOOQQ2 PRR-2009-Q0226

June 4, '09 - AG McKenna's Interview on KUOW Radio

2009-07-19T15:54:00.001-07:00

Unofficial Transcript - Excerpted

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna’s Interview

with Radio Host Steve Scher

on KUOW 94.9FM’s

“Weekday”

June 4, 2009 at 9:00AM

Re: Gaza Letter

Transcribed below is the portion of the radio interview that relates specifically to the letter that Attorney General Rob McKenna signed, along with nine other state Attorneys General, in the spring of 2009 defending Israel’s military actions in Gaza. The original audio recording can be heard via the link on KUOW’s website at http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17684

The program was recorded live on June 4, 2009 at 9:00AM on the show “Weekday” with radio host Steve Scher. All attempts were made to transcribe the Gaza section of the interview verbatim. However, only the Gaza portion of the interview was transcribed and thus, this document represents only an excerpt of the full interview that aired. The times listed next to each comment below are associated with the times on the “RealAudio” recording as posted on KUOW’s website. You should be able to use the times to skip forward to any specific portion of the interview you would like to listen to.

Steve Scher: 1:11 - Did you get a chance to hear any of President Obama’s speech to the Egyptians today? Did you hear it?:

McKenna: 1:16 - Cairo University. Yes I did. I saw a long excerpt from it on CNN this morning and a little bit on King 5. And you know, he’s very, very good... he knows how to reach an audience, whether it is an audience in the United States or in Egypt. And I’ll tell you that, I don’t think you know this, but I was in Egypt in the Spring of 2008 as part of trip with the Aspen Institute to Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. And I was really struck by how excited every Egyptian we met was about Obama’s candidacy. It’s very powerful to see somebody who looks like you, who might be the President of the United States. And I noticed how many standing ovations he received, at least from people the camera was on, on the CNN coverage today.

Steve Scher: 2:01 - I hear people saying well that’s fine to give a speech but we want to see changes in policies. Did you hear anything in the speech that indicates policy shifts?

McKenna: 2:13 - I only heard excerpts. What I heard didn’t indicate policy shifts, because what they were focusing on in the excerpts that they ran on the news were, you know, the more empathetic statements, the bridge building, common ground building statements. But I didn’t hear any reports from news anchors that he indicated any significant policy shift and I don’t think you’d expect that in that kind of speech. I don’t think he intended it to be a major policy speech. I think it was much more about outreach and empathy and building common ground.

Steve Scher: 2:40 - Ok, why am I asking the Washington State Attorney General about Foreign Affairs? Attorneys Generals from ten states defended Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip in a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The letter sent last month, this is a May 6 press release, also condemned Hamas for what it called war crimes for its bomb attacks on civilian targets in southern Israel. Why are you, Rob McKenna, Washington State Attorney General even signing a letter, getting involved in foreign policy?

McKenna: 3:10 - It’s a rarity, I doubt it will happen again. This is, I think, fairly extraordinary. The background on it is that the Democratic Attorney General of Rhode Island, who is the President of our National Association of Attorneys General, and the Republican Attorney General of Nebraska issued this letter, asked their colleagues to sign on to it. They had been to Israel with the American Israel Friendship League. I have not been to Israel as a guest of Israel or as any of its support groups. But I did go there with the Aspen Institute and I’ve been to the West Bank. I’ve been in Ramallah. I’ve met with the Foreign Minister for the Palestinian Authority. Visited with Israeli leaders. Been in Jordan and Egypt. And I frankly felt that Israel didn’t have to put up with 388 rockets being fired into Israel without trying to stop it. Now here is an interesting result of all of that. I’ve received lots of contacts from people who believe that I was unfair to the Palestinians, including Rachel Corrie’s parents. So I’m meeting with them, Rachel Corrie’s parents and some others next month. And I’m very happy to hear them out, and listen to them, and learn from them, just as I was happy to meet with Palestinian leaders in Ramallah. But, we’ll continue the conversation as a result of that. I felt as a matter of international law Israel was entitled to stop the rocket attacks on them. But what was interesting about that, the fact that I am going to meet with Rachel Corrie’s parents, is that I asked the Attorney General of Rhode Island and the Attorney General of Nebraska and others that signed it, I said gosh are you gettin’ a lot of calls from people who are really upset with you. And they said “no”

Steve Scher: Really.

McKenna: So we have a very active group of citizens in our state who pay a lot of attention to these issues and are really activated on them and apparently I’m the only AG who is being contacted at this point.

Steve Scher: 5:04 – Well, that’s fascinating. I mean once you open up the can of worms that is International Law don’t we have to look at Israel’s actions in terms of international law?

McKenna: 5:12 - Sure. Absolutely. You bet. And this letter was focused on whether as a matter of International Law we believe it was legal for Israel to defend itself, to stop the rocket attacks by going into Gaza and of course then withdrawing.

Steve Scher: 5:26 - It was pretty loaded though. Condemned Hamas for what it called war crimes for its bomb attacks on civilian targets in southern Israel.

McKenna 5:31 – Yeah, I think that bombing civilians with random rocket fire falls into that category.

Steve Scher: 5:38 – Yeah, but bombing civilians with random rocket fire could also be a charge leveled against Israel in its fight in the Gaza.

McKenna: 5: 45 - Yeah, when you’re in a war there are going to be civilians who are harmed once the war starts. Just as there are civilian casualties occurring in Afghanistan and Pakistan today caused by both sides. But that’s after the war starts. Look, here is what I believe after visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories. I believe that Israel has to stop building settlements on the West Bank. I think they need to withdraw from some of those settlements. And that you cannot have peace if you have people on both sides, whether it is Hamas or settlement extremists, who are determined not to let peace take root. I think you have to have a two state solution. And none of this is original or novel. Secretary of State Rice was saying the same thing. Secretary of State Clinton is saying the same thing.. is saying that now. You have to have a two state solution but you can only have a two state solution if both sides stop taking actions at the extremes that undermine that peace.

Steve Scher: 6:41 – Alright, well, and here are some people that have a reaction to that. A few quick reactions to that. Okay?

McKenna: Sure

Steve Scher: Sherams (?sp) in Snoqualmie. Hi Sherams.

Caller: Hi there.

Steve Scher: Thanks for calling. And I didn’t even ask for calls yet, but that’s good. Go.

Caller: 6:54 - Ok, I wanted to know whether you signed the letter as a representative of Washington State, if so, what gave you the mandate to sign it? If you signed it as a private individual, did that letter go in on the letterhead of the Washington State? And if so, I want you to justify that. And finally, I want you to say, you clearly said it was ok in war to have collateral damage and it is ok for Israel to kill civilians on the Palestinian side. Did you write a letter to the Secretary of State condemning the action of Israel killing civilians on the Palestinian side?

McKenna: It’s look

Caller: Its clearly one sided. And I don’t think you stopped to think in this matter.

McKenna: 7:28 – Look, in my opinion, it is entirely disingenuous for Hamas to point to civilian casualties when they put their own military facilities in among the civilian population and appear to use civilians for human shields, number one. Number two, no, we didn’t send the letter in on Washington State Attorney General letter head. I put my signature on it, my title was on it which I’m entitled to use when I take a stand on an issue. But I sent it in as a lawyer, who happens to be the attorney general, who believes that our legal analysis is correct. It was not an opinion of my office but rather was a position I took as an individual.

Steve Scher: That our legal analysis was correct, can you expand on that.

McKenna: 8: 06 - Yeah. Well, the lawyers who wrote the letter, working with the Attorney General from Rhode Island and Nebraska did the analysis and I think it was the correct analysis. But your caller makes a very fair question and I want to be clear that I signed it as an individual, not as a representative of the State of Washington.

Steve Scher: Sheram, your response.

Caller: 8:28 - Yes, one, can you justify what analysis was done and could you also justify how you came by saying that you would sign a letter that would condemn the actions of Hamas because of civilian casualties on the Israeli side, but not on the reverse?

McKenna: 8:46 - Look, I don’t agree with what Hamas is doing. So, I have no sympathy for Hamas’ leader. I think that they are taking actions which are resulting in the impoverishment and deaths of their own people. I think the Palestinian leaders in the West Bank, who certainly are no angels themselves, are working in better faith to achieving a two state solution and I don’t think its credible to say that Hamas wants peace when they seem to do everything they can to undermine the potential for peace. The legal analysis is a straightforward analysis of International Law based on the facts of Hamas breaking the truce that was entered into by Israel and Hamas when Hamas [sic] withdrew from Gaza and gave up its outposts there. So that is the legal analysis in the letter, I think it’s correct. It is a narrow analysis focused on the question of whether or not one country is allowed to defend itself when it is being attacked from another country and I think that analysis is correct as a matter of international law.

Steve Scher: Ok. Sheram thanks. Two more and then we’ll move on. Bert’s in north Seattle.

Caller: 9:50 - Yes, hello thank you Steve. I have the letter that Attorney General McKenna sent to Hillary Clinton in front of me. That his office sent to me. At the head of that letter it says, quote... “a communication from the chief legal officers from the states of Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, etc.... Washington”. So I think it’s disingenuous for Attorney General McKenna to say even though he put Attorney of the State of Washington at the bottom of the letter, that this doesn’t imply to Hillary Clinton that this is a statement coming from, as it says at the top, a communication from the chief legal officers of these states.

McKenna: 10:28 - Well, it correctly identifies us by our role. But of course we don’t have jurisdiction here. I think Hillary Clinton is sophisticated enough to understand that. She was after all married to the Attorney General of Arkansas and still is. So, I understand what you are saying, but we were not attempting to create a position for our states but rather were taking a position just as elected officials take positions on other current affairs. So, again, I will say for the record, we were not, I certainly was not, representing a legal position of the state because our office would not take a position on that question as an office.

Steve Scher: 11:01 – Bert you had a statement about humanitarian aid.

Caller: 11:04 – If I could get back, I sent your office a letter, and I spoke to Mike Bigelow, your chief of staff, just a week ago about it and I have not received an answer, my question is this Mr. McKenna, I’m not raising the issue that has been raised up to now. I’m raising the issue of if you are going to speak about the legal and international law implications of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, why have you not spoken about the denial of humanitarian aid, food, medicine, water, essentials for the Palestinian people, and my point, that I make in the letter is that I have not received a....

Steve Scher: Let me get, let me... alright, make it quick Bert.

Caller: Let me finish my statement and then you can please go ahead... which is I’m not asking did Israel allow some humanitarian aid into Iraq [sic], I’m asking according to International Law, what basis is there for denying civilians any amount of humanitarian aid, using food as a weapon essentially.

Steve Scher: 12: 06 - Into the Gaza. A legal question.

McKenna: 12:08 - Well, first of all Bert you’ll receive an answer, we have received a number of communications and are putting together a response so that we can answer them all at once. So, you will hear back. And as you already pointed out, my Chief of Staff did talk o you and took your call, and that’s great. I’m looking forward to my meeting next month with the folks I’m meeting with as well. Regarding the use of food as a weapon. I think that is a loaded statement that the pro-Palestinian side uses when the Pro-Israeli side will point out that Hamas is using ambulances, food shipments, and other means to smuggle rockets and other weapons of war into the Gaza Strip, which they then use to break the truce. So, as you well know, and as I know, there are two sides to that story.

Steve Scher: 12:49 – Two illegalities don’t make a legality?

McKenna: 12:51 - Well, I think you’re allowed to defend yourself. Which means if you stop shipments that contain weapons, you’re stopping the shipments to stop the weapons. That’s the argument.

Steve Scher: Alright. We’ll finish that after the break. This is Weekday.

RETURN FROM BREAK at 14:00

Steve Scher: 14:10 - Rob McKenna along with other Attorneys General from nine states signed a letter defending Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip. Got a few reactions to that letter. I want to get you to finish the comment and get one more call in, and then we’ll move on from that. Bert’s point was that Israel is being charge with withholding humanitarian aid. Israel has made their arguments and as you said, Hamas is charged with using ambulances and other humanitarian trucks to get weapons into the country. But the fact that Hamas has done something illegal, doesn’t justify, and as you said they [Israel] have a right to defend themselves. But does it justify, if they’re cutting off humanitarian aid, is that against International Law?

McKenna: 15:00 - I think that is a question of fact and it should be weighed in international courts and by international bodies. The question will probably come down to whether or not it was reasonable for them 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. That is the question of fact. And I’ll be interested to see how those facts come out. Let both sides present and let’s do so in the appropriate bodies.

Steve Scher: 15:26 - Alright, so when that happens what’s your response?

McKenna: Well let’s see what the outcome is.

Steve Scher: Well, either way, would you have a response?

McKenna: 15:34 - Yeah, possibly, I mean I would talk to the other Attorneys Generals to see what they think. But, unlike some of the callers, I’m not prejudging the outcome of that particular inquiry. Lets see where that inquiry leads and whether or not Israel provides the evidence that they say they have that they had to stop some shipments in order to stop weapons.

Steve Scher: 15:51 - Will you in your travels to Latin America or Asia be signing other letters on foreign policy that go to Hillary Clinton or another Secretary of State?

McKenna: 16:08 – Its hard to imagine that we would come across an issue this pointed and in the midst of the kind of crisis that emerged in Gaza that we saw earlier this year. So, I think it’s unlikely. And, the letter wasn’t my idea. The Republican and Democratic Attorneys General who came up with it asked some of us to sign it. So, you know, I felt enough about it that I would sign it. But this is not a main focus area for me, you know I have a lot of other things to do.

Steve Scher: 16: 40 - What value does it have? What value does it offer to the world?

McKenna: 16:41 – Sometimes elected officials need to stand up and talk about issues that are not strictly within their main course of work. And I think that is why my colleagues drafted the letter and why a bunch of us signed on to it. In my case, because I had some personal experience with the region and some experience with the issues. So, again, this isn’t something that is going to happen very often, if ever again. But it was important at the time and I think our analysis was correct.

Steve Scher: 17:08 - Alright, one last comment on that. Jeff’s in Ballard. Hi, Jeff.

Caller: Hi.

Steve Scher: Go ahead.

Caller: 17:16 - Well, my concern was, and he just touched on it again, he made this comment as a citizen, he signed on not as an official Washington representative but just as a citizen. But I mean now that it has been done, how much has his staff time and resources and writing responses to all the controversial reaction to this, like how much time is this taking up now? I mean this is taking up time that should just be spent on, you know, doing your job. And now...

Steve Scher: State resources being used now to deal with this issue and in the initial were state resources used?

McKenna: 17:57 - Yeah, sure. Well, initially it was just a matter of getting the letter into my hands so I could review it and think about it. That was all. Now, people have questions about the issue, they want to meet with me, so sure, there are some resources being expended. But it’s not a huge part of what we are doing right now.

Steve Scher: Alright, well let’s leave it with the question of dialog. You are meeting with Rachel Corrie’s parents?

McKenna Yeah.

Steve Scher: Other people, others from the Palestinian side asked to meet with you, will you meet with some of them?

McKenna:Yeah. Yeah, I am. I’m meeting with a group of them next month. And I look forward to it.

Steve Scher: Jeff, thanks for your call.

THAT ENDS THE SECTION OF THE INTERVIEW RELATED TO THE GAZA LETTER.

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS SECTION WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT RANDY PEPPLE, THE INDIVIDUAL NEWLY APPOINTED TO FILL THE ROLE OF MCKENNA’S CHIEF OF STAFF AT THE AG’S OFFICE..... AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPOINTMENT SIGNALS MCKENNA’S RUN FOR THE WA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE IN 2012. MCKENNA DENIED THIS WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE APPOINTMENT. MCKENNA NEITHER CONFIRMED NOR DENIED WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL RUN FOR GOVERNOR IN THE FUTURE AND INSTEAD SPOKE TO THE FACT THAT HE IS CURRENTLY THE AG AND IS FOCUSED ON THAT.

May 18, '09 - Bert Sacks letter to Rob McKenna in response to his sign-on of letter to Hillary Clinton

2009-07-18T22:53:00.000-07:00

Bert Sacks

6550 Greenwood Ave N, #11

Seattle, WA 98103

May 18, 2009

The Honorable Rob McKenna

Washington State Attorney General

1125 Washington Street SE

Olympia, WA 98501-2283

Dear Attorney General McKenna:

I am writing concerning the letter you co-signed – along with nine other state attorneys general on March 30, 2009 – to Secretary of State Clinton, “conveying strong support for the State of Israel’s actions in Gaza.” Your office has kindly sent me a copy of the letter.

I have lived five years in Israel and was married for over ten years to an Israeli woman. As you might expect, I am deeply concerned about Israel and her future. However I believe the letter that you co-signed is not helpful for that future.

I am asking you to please consider my reasons and then respond to my concerns below.

I am sure you have already heard from other Washington State residents regarding whether it is appropriate for our state attorney general to weigh in on a matter of foreign affairs. However, in as much as you have chosen to do so, you have an obligation, I believe, especially writing as a representative of our state, to present fairly all of the facts.

Regarding those facts, I include a report on Israel’s recent actions in Gaza from Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories.

Professor Falk’s article discusses the Israeli-Palestinian situation in Gaza from the perspective of both human rights and international law. He is certainly a qualified and credentialed observer, arguably a pre-eminent expert in both of these areas.

I wish to focus on one aspect of what Professor Falk writes: “For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel” which has “restrict[ed] the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.”

I also include an article by Gideon Levy in the major Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz from over three years ago. It begins with a joke – a rather infamous joke – by Prime Ministerial adviser Dov Weissglas about Israel’s impending economic siege on Gaza.

Moving forward in time to about a year ago, “Last April, UNICEF reported that more than 50% of children under five in Gaza are anemic, and that many children are stunted due to a lack of vitamins” – conditions the Red Cross has called “devastating”.

I have read that the number of trucks carrying humanitarian aid into Gaza was limited to one-seventh of the number previously allowed. 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?

In your letter, you cite the Geneva Convention requirement, which provides that “… the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.” You cite this as the basis of a war crime committed by Hamas, firing rockets which don’t discriminate between military and civilian targets. I quite agree!

But restrictions of food, medicine and fuel (essential for running electrical generators, for hospitals, and to pump and process water and sewage) also fail to satisfy this same Geneva Convention requirement. Trucks with food, medicine and fuel were all waiting at the Israeli-Gaza border. Denying humanitarian aid clearly also fails to discriminate.

Further, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, Article 23, states that even in war, parties to the treaty: “shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores … even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.”

This denial of essential humanitarian aid over such an extended period – including during the cease-fire, when rocket attacks had stopped and when Israel had agreed to end its blockade of Gaza but refused to do so –was an act that Richard Falk called “a crime against humanity” and a “flagrant and massive violation of international law.”

Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, recently in Gaza, said, “There was not enough food for families, not enough healthcare.” Jimmy Carter called the siege “an atrocity, a crime, an abomination.”

I am glad to put you in touch with doctors from Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility (WPSR) who have traveled to Gaza and know the situation – and with the Israeli group, Physicians for Human Rights. Physicians from both groups will be able to testify as to the potentially lethal consequences of a blockade of humanitarian goods.

As I indicated earlier, I certainly agree that firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas constitutes a war crime and terrorism. I often heard on American media the question, How would we react if rockets were fired on U.S. civilians across a border? But I never heard, How would we react if food and medicine were being denied us?

Therefore my request to you, Mr. McKenna, is to ask you to reply to these concerns:

Do you have any doubt that Israel restricted the entrance of food, medicine and fuel to Gaza? Do you believe there is a legal basis for any denying of humanitarian aid? Isn’t it a violation of the Geneva Convention and the rules of discrimination and proportionality? In fact, isn’t it an act “dangerous to civilian human life” done to “coerce or intimidate”?

I trust by this point you’ll understand why I believe condemning Hamas rocket fire – a condemnation with which I agree – without also condemning the Israeli policy of humanitarian siege, is not a proper position for the legal representative of Washington State. It is simply not helpful in promoting a peaceful future for Israelis or Palestinians.

If you disagree with my view, I respectfully ask you to please explain your disagreement. If you agree with (at least some of) what I have argued, would you please state that too?

Thank you. I look forward to your response to my concerns.

Sincerely,

Bert Sacks

Attachment:

Richard Falk article, “Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe” (Jan. 2, 2009)

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_162fc67x7zf

Gideon Levy column, “As the Hamas team laughs,” in Ha’aretz (Feb. 19, 2006)

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfjj4rpq_164hj5p5vzf

March 30, '09 - Rob McKenna letter to Hillary Clinton as Washington State Attorney General

2009-07-18T22:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.cpjnews.com/State%20Attorney%20General%20Letter%20March%202009.pdf

is a pdf image of the actual letter with all the signatures; the text of letter is below.

A Communication From The Chief Legal Officers From The States Of Colorado * Florida * Kentucky * Louisiana * Michigan * Nebraska * Ohio* Rhode Island *Utah * Washington

March 30, 2009

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20002

Dear Madam Secretary:

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 provided under Article 51 of the United Nation Charter that provides that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual...'self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..."

Since June 2005, when Hamas militarily expelled the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in a coup d'etat, Hamas has launched more than 6,300 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians, killing and wounding 730, while disrupting the lives of hundreds or thousands of citizens. [Wall Street Journal December 29, 2008.] With the increased range of its recent rockets, more than 500,000 people in Israel have been included within their reach, with rocket attacks targeting not only Sderot, but also Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Be'er Sheva.

While Hamas is an acknowledged terrorist regime - recognized as such by Israel, the United States, and the European Union - it acts under the cover of a "sovereign state."

Hamas War Crimes in Violation of Article 48 of the Geneva Convention

By intentionally targeting 6,300 rockets against Israel's civilian population, Hamas is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a war crime in that it has violated Article 48 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention of 1949 which provides that "...the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations: only against military objectives.

In addition to its war crimes committed against the Israeli civilian population, Hamas has also committed atrocities against the Palestinian civilian population under its control in Gaza by using these civilians as shields for its criminal conduct. As recently noted by the Wall Street Journal, "...Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended to both deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack."

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but Hamas, instead of establishing a flourishing, independent Palestinian State, has used this occasion to cause a civil war with the Palestinian Authority, leading to a coup d'etat in 2007 - a1l to the detriment of the Palestinian civilian population living in Gaza.

Conclusion

Hamas's continuous rocket and mortar attacks on Israel's civilian population are a casus bellum. As in all wars, the appropriate response is not a "proportionate one," but one measured to bring an end to the acts of war. The United States did not bomb Tokyo Harbor and the Japanese fleet as a response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Seventh Fleet. It declared war on Japan. To Israel's credit, it launched a limited and directed action against the source of Hamas's military acts white allowing the entrance of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

It is an essential element in the common law that intent is a crucial element in the commission of all acts. Hamas's intentional acts of launching rockets at civilians were in no way comparable to Israel's acts in directing its response to the source of Hamas's military attacks that unintentionally caused harm to Palestinian civilians; Israel's acts were justified and, in our view, met the international legal standards required of a modern state.

Since 1988, many attorneys general have been members of delegations visiting Israel through the America-Israel Friendship League, an educational organization that organizes a lega1 exchange program in conjunction with the government of Israel and NAAG. Those of us who have been fortunate to embark on one or more of these missions have had memorable experiences, meeting with top Israeli officials to address issues of mutual concern, such as anti-terrorism initiatives, cyber crime, civil rights, criminal law, crimes against women, and youth crime, as well as encountering the people of this magnificent land, from the Golan Heights to Nazareth and from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

We are firmly supportive of your current efforts, Madam Secretary, and the work of all in the Obama administration involved in maintaining the cease-fire and sustaining a lasting peace in the region while upholding our nation's strong and enduring bonds to the State of Israel. In furtherance of NAAG's goals to "increase citizen understanding and law enforcement's role to ensure both protection of individual rights and compliance with the law," we did feel compelled to express our condemnation of Hamas' acts in Gaza and our support for the State of Israel.

Sincerely,

(Signed by the Attorneys General of the ten states listed above)

This will become a blog on Gaza

2009-06-29T11:05:00.000-07:00

I am creating this blog to report on the results of the Israeli restriction of food, medicine, fuel, even the means for safe drinking water and sanitation, against the civilian population of Gaza. This policy is used as a lethal tool of coercion against civilians in Gaza as a means of attacking Hamas.

Until I am able to post more to this blog, please look at BertOnIraq.blogspot.com -- because the use of an economic blockade to force the overthrow of a government is what the U.S. tried to do over the span of 12 years with the U.S./UN economic sanctions against the people of Iraq.

I fear that the results -- political, legal and moral results -- will be the same in Gaza as in Iraq.