Correspondence regarding Rob McKenna's sign-on letter to Secretary of State Clinton in full support of Israel in Gaza

Sunday, July 19, 2009

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

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.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

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

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

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)


Monday, June 29, 2009

This will become a blog on Gaza

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.