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

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

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

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

…. 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,

33

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: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqP4JBhXzQuWNmZEeowktx6yI-xa_u5nW68JN1rYT4Dqkah_-AcaYGAYHsuipT83ZLcGkC7EyoeGBjJD3-uc2Lp3G0TkRUbVdL66IeRmFn4IJT0DRZJ3o_XxY3Y0lkwkVrvTX_CeCWFJ1a/s1600-h/DonationsOfAidToGazaPerIsraelPg33-FOIAJul09.jpg

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

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

2

COOOQQ2 PRR-2009-Q0226

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.