Israeli, Palestinian and international rights groups have long said that Israel’s administrative detention practices are unlawful, but Adnan – whose hunger strike was the longest of any Palestinian prisoner –gained particular attention. Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and members of Palestinian political factions had gone on solidarity hunger strikes, and demonstrators in the West Bank, Gaza and in Tel Aviv called for Israel to end arbitrary administrative detentions. Security forces dispersed protests outside the Ofer military jail in the West Bank with rubber bullets and tear gas.

Minutes before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Adnan’s emergency appeal, according to a statement by his lawyer, Israel agreed to release him on April 17 unless it found new evidence of wrongdoing. Israeli authorities should immediately respect the fundamental due process rights of all administrative detainees, not just Adnan.

Today, more than 300 Palestinians are in administrative detention, some for four years or more, none of them charged with any crime. Israel says the Geneva Conventions allow it to detain Palestinians without charge for “imperative reasons of security,” but the convention’s official commentary states that “such measures can only be ordered for real and imperative reasons of security; their exceptional character must be preserved.”  In Israel’s case, the exception has become the rule.

Israel said that Adnan, for instance, is a member of Islamic Jihad, a banned Palestinian group whose armed wing has conducted deadly, illegal attacks against Israeli civilians, but no one told him or his family why armed soldiers arrested him at his home at 3:30 a.m. on December 17. “We have no idea why it happened,” his wife said.  Israel had arrested Adnan eight times over the years, but the only known “evidence” against him this time, his lawyer said, was that an interrogator accused him of participating in a graduation ceremony at a kindergarten supported by the banned group.

As of last week, Adnan’s wife estimated that he had lost a third of his body weight, and doctors said that even if he ended his hunger strike, his life could still be in doubt. The Israel Prisons Service transferred Adnan to a series of hospitals, but refused to allow him to meet in private with his doctor, lawyer or his family. His sister said that prison guards were stationed in Adnan’s hospital room and had been drinking juice and snacking in front of him, and had shackled him to his hospital bed.

Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that the military may not use administrative detention as punishment but only as a preventive measure against suspected security threats. Yet in practice it is impossible to determine whether that rule is followed.  Because the military does not indict them for any particular offense, detainees are unable to defend themselves against specific charges. The standard of evidence is also lower than in a criminal proceeding – not proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but merely “reasonable grounds to assume” that the detainee might pose a security risk.  That malleable standard allows the military to detain Palestinians for indefinitely-renewable periods of up to six months, without any meaningful way to know whether genuine security threats are involved.

Further, Israeli military laws allow military judges to consider evidence against the detainee without allowing him or his attorney to see it, or even disclosing to them that it exists. Military prosecutors often justify the use of secret evidence on the basis that it comes from Palestinian collaborators whose lives could be endangered if the evidence were disclosed. Yet in practice, military courts do not even entertain alternatives that would give the semblance of balancing such concerns against due process rights, such as by redaction or partial disclosure of the confidential evidence.

According to the Israeli rights group Yesh Din, which has monitored hundreds of military court trials, “In practice, in most hearings on administrative detention the detainee is not aware of the content of the evidence against him, if any, and cannot defend himself.”

Administrative detention violates Israel’s human rights obligations to inform detainees promptly of the reasons for their arrest and of any charges against them. Israel, which seems to have partly recognized its due process obligations in Adnan’s case, should end the procedure immediately.

Lana, my wife, is from Jenin in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.  She has a diploma in economics from Al-Najah University in Nablus. We met and fell in love in Jenin in late 2002 after Israel’s destruction of the Jenin refugee camp during the second intifada. She moved to Israel in 2005 to live with me. We now have two children, Adnan, who is 4 and a half years old and Yosra, who is 3 and a half years old.  My family means the world to me and yet our standing in Israel is extremely tenuous because of my ongoing failed effort to secure citizenship for my wife.

Despite the might of the Israeli government arrayed against us, Lana and I persevere because love is a force far more powerful than the state.  No matter the government responsible for repression, whether in apartheid South Africa, the Jim Crow South, or elsewhere, love has always been more powerful.  We knew the risks when we married after the law passed in 2003. But we were determined not to allow an apartheid state that discriminates against Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line to disrupt our love.

Lana’s residency has so far been possible only through yearly extensions of her permission to stay in Israel. Yet these have been entirely subject to the arbitrary discretion of Israel’s Interior Ministry and its security services. She has no legal or social rights, nor the possibility of obtaining health insurance or social security. She is not allowed to hold a job or drive a car. She is, by any fair reckoning, a third-class resident of Israel.

Lana used to be an independent woman – having worked for four years in the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Jenin – but today, in “modern” Israel, she is now totally dependent on me. Our home, rather than a haven, has become her prison.  She is stuck and there is no immediate prospect of release. This situation causes her and us permanent frustration. “I feel my freedom was stolen from me by this racist law,” she says. “It doesn’t matter where you live, you are always controlled and denied rights by the state of Israel, [merely] because I am Palestinian.”

We are not alone. There are tens of thousands of other Palestinian families targeted by the so-called Citizenship Law.  Originally promulgated in 2003, it prohibits Palestinians without Israeli citizenship from joining their spouses in Israel or seeking eventual rights of residence. There is no comparable prohibition against family unification for non-Palestinian citizens of Israel, i.e., the country’s present-day Jewish majority.

The law explicitly discriminates on the basis of race.  Notwithstanding this fact, the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice earlier this year rejected a final appeal against the law. As a result, my wife could well be denied the right to live with me, a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, and our two children in my hometown of Akka.

As many as 30,000 Palestinian-Israeli families (approximately 130,000 individuals) are under a similar threat of separation. On either side of Israel’s unilateral line of separation, many are already living apart from their spouses and children. They have no voice in Israel and face a Supreme Court that seems to think allowing them into Israel, and upholding human rights, is akin to “national suicide.” Israel’s nonstop security emphasis has turned all members of its Palestinian minority – and their spouses – into would-be security threats.  Of course, settlers who have repeatedly employed violence from Gaza (prior to September 2005) to the West Bank to Israel face no similar restrictions on their married lives. Violence against Palestinians counts very differently in Israel.

The recent Israeli Supreme Court decision means that Lana can no longer hope, however tenuously, to acquire citizenship, or even permanent residency.  In the best case, she might obtain further extensions of her present status. Meanwhile, the threat of those extensions being suspended will hang all the more ominously over us. Each time we go to the Interior Ministry to renew her permission, and each time Lana goes to renew her permission from the Israeli military administration near Jenin, we face the possibility of being told the permit will not be renewed due to security reasons or some other excuse. It is a dreadful climate in which to raise a family. There is no certainty and stress pervades our lives.

The would-be harmony of family life is further disrupted by the fact that we cannot choose to live in Jenin. According to laws introduced after the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israeli citizens are not allowed to live in or even visit Palestinian cities in Palestinian Authority-administered areas of the Occupied Territories. We, and tens of thousands of our compatriots, are caught in a truly Kafkaesque dilemma. The fear of being torn apart as a family has become a daily part of our lives.

While many of us have since childhood suffered discrimination, dispossession and violence at the hands of the Israeli state, and have watched with dismay as the international community fails to hear and address the difficulties of Israel’s non-Jewish minority, we see the new “Citizenship Law” as marking a particularly ominous regression for Israeli society. It is clear, and explicitly acknowledged in the Israeli public arena, that the purpose of this law is to further compound the difficulties confronting the country’s Palestinian minority, to make that community ever less viable, and ultimately to secure an Israel empty of Palestinians. In recent years, and especially in this current Knesset, more that 25 laws and law proposals were passed or advanced that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel.  Many Palestinians affected are convinced that the law aims to make life so unbearable for families that they will permanently leave Israel.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who met last week with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is a proponent of the legislation.  So far as I know, Secretary Clinton said not one word to him on behalf of the Palestinian families negatively affected by the “Citizenship Law” Lieberman touts. Thanks to the American silence, the United States abdicates its position as self-described “leader of the free world.”

Lieberman, who is a staunch advocate for the ethnic transfer of Palestinians out of Israel, regularly employs language that reminds Israel’s Palestinian population of the climate of violence in which our parents and grandparents were evicted from their homes in 1948, while those who remained were reduced to clear minority status.  In fact, the “Citizenship Law” has been forced upon us by a Supreme Court put in place by an Israeli democracy that holds hegemony only because over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled and never allowed to return at the time of Israel’s creation in 1948.  Such is the reality of the Middle East’s self-proclaimed “only democracy.”  It is a democracy built on ethnic cleansing that to this day is pulling apart Palestinian families from either side of the Green Line.  Meanwhile, Jewish couples from inside Israel and the illegal settlements of the West Bank face no such fears.

This Valentine’s Day I hold little hope for a steady and certain future with my wife and children.  Even venturing to share our situation – and that of thousands of other couples – endangers my family by exposing us to the whim of that faceless bureaucrat who may consequently be leaned on by an elected official unhappy that Israel is being exposed for its discriminatory laws.

This is a far cry from the Israel that Prime Minister Netanyahu described last year to Congress.  In his make-believe Israel, the one delightedly indulged by an out-of-touch Congress, Palestinians enjoy full rights equal to those of Jewish Israelis.  This is a lie as the state’s discrimination against me and my family attests.

The United States has some experience with such laws through its own miscegenation laws of previous decades.  That American racism was best addressed by the civil rights movement and its success in guaranteeing equality for all citizens without regard to their race, religion or ethnicity.  On Valentine’s Day it is long past time for Israel to address its own racism by promulgating similar laws that will promote the legal equality of Palestinians and Jews alike.

Here’s the video, via Mondoweiss:

Koppel: But there has to be a so-what at the end of it. So if you win, what does Adelson get out of it?

Gingrich. Well, he knows I’m very pro-Israel. And that’s the central value of his life. I mean, he’s very worried that Israel is going to not survive.

That’s in line with what we know about the Adelsons, who have supported Israeli settlements in the West Bank and once pulled their money out of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) because of that group’s putative softness on the concept of a peace deal with Palestinians.

ABC, meanwhile, reports that “a source close to” Adelson says he wants “nothing” in exchange for his contributions. That claim doesn’t amount to much, especially coming from an anonymous source.

The latest $5 million to the pro-Newt super PAC was donated by Miriam Adelson, who is reportedly a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. And here, as reported in the New Yorker, is a small but telling example of how Miriam previously interacted with the recipients of the Adelsons’ largesse:

The Adelsons seem not to take their power for granted. Recently, Miriam told an associate, “I had a CD on Islamic jihad. I brought it to the [Bush] White House and told the chief of staff, ‘I would like the President to see this.’ It really is amazing that we have this influence.”

And here is another episode from that New Yorker article in which Sheldon personally leaned on the president:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was organizing a major conference in the United States, in an effort to re-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and her initiative had provoked consternation among many rightward-leaning American Jews and their Christian evangelical allies. … A short, rotund man, with sparse reddish hair and a pale countenance that colors when he is angered, Adelson protested to Bush that Rice was thinking of her legacy, not the President’s, and that she would ruin him if she continued to pursue this disastrous course. Then, as Adelson later told an acquaintance, Bush put one arm around his shoulder and another around that of his wife, Miriam, who was born in Israel, and said to her, “You tell your Prime Minister that I need to know what’s right for your people—because at the end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not Condi’s. But I can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.”

So the idea that the Adelsons expect “nothing” from the recipients of their millions is belied by their previous behavior.

Gingirch himself seems to have gone through a transformation on the Israel-Palestine question. As Wayne Barrett recently documented, Gingrich was as recently as 2005 praising the Palestinians, referring to “their ancestral lands” in historic Palestine, and, amazingly, inveighing against “the desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land.”

That’s the type of language – Gingrich even used the phrase Israeli “land grab” in that 2005 essay – one wouldn’t hear even from alleged anti-Israel radical Barack Obama.

Fast forward to the current election cycle, of course, and Gingrich has veered way to the right, famously questioning the very peoplehood of the Palestinians and blasting calls to end Jewish settlements as a “suicidal step” for Israel. (Adelson, by the way, personally praised Gingrich’s claim that the Palestinians are an “invented people.”)

It’s very difficult to determine whether the Adelsons’ money prompted the shift or has simply reinforced it. In any case, you can be sure Gingrich won’t be talking about the Palestinians’ “ancestral lands” any time soon.

Such unorthodox thinking has made the Polish-born Brzezinski arguably the greatest living scholar-practitioner  in Democratic Party ranks. As a scholar, he was erratic but he also foresaw the Soviet Union’s crack-up long before it occurred. As Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, he was controversial and even reckless, but he imbued the president with strong doses of reality concerning the Soviet Union and the Middle East. Since the end of the Cold War, he stayed relevant presciently opposing the Iraq War and supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama at a crucial, early date.

In a telephone interview from his office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Brzezinski has both praise and criticism for the president: “He was an improvement by a very large score over his predecessor, but he could have been better.” He thinks the Obama administration “should have stuck to its guns in promoting a fair settlement” in the Middle East. A longtime foe of Israel’s partisans in the United States, he says the Obama team “fumbled by getting outmaneuvered by the Israelis.” Then he gets blunter: “Domestic politics interceded: The Israelis have a lot of influence with Congress, and in some cases they are able to buy influence.”

Brzezinski is still a believer in the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, and is hopeful that Obama will again take up the cause if he gets a second term. “He would have time and the historical immunity to do so, because he wouldn’t be facing an election.” He also thinks space has opened up in the United States to be more critical of Israel. “The American public is becoming more discriminating, and the Jewish public in America is becoming more discriminating,” he says. “They realize that extremist sloganeering and warmongering are not the most helpful approaches.” Brzezinski is careful to note that he was never an official advisor to either candidate or President Obama but lets it be known they are still in touch: “I have a relationship where from time to time I am able to share my views with him,” he says.

The focus of “Strategic Vision” is not on the Middle East, but further to the east. Unlike other adherents to the foreign-policy school known as realism, Brzezinski does not see war between China and the United States as inevitable. Conflict, yes, but war, no. “You can have conflicts but avoid a real collision,” he says, arguing there is only a “remote possibility” of war between China and the U.S. over the next 10 to 15 years.

What makes Brzezinski relatively optimistic for the chances of Sino-American cooperation are his views on history. Many times when great powers have shifted positions in the international hierarchy, they have gone to war. Those predicting China and the United States will inevitably come to blows are relying on history and international relations theory, Brzezinski says. “That’s fine as long as there is historical continuity,” he says, but he thinks the world has changed. “I think major wars have become too prohibitively costly for both sides” for states to want to engage in them, he says.

Two things could potentially ruin the chances for good relations between China and the United States, he suggests: a technological-military revolution, and ineffective leadership. “If there are fantastic breakthroughs in military capabilities that allow one side to neutralize each other’s,” Brzezinski says, the delicate balance necessary to maintain stability would be thrown off. Fortunately, there isn’t much chance of such a technology developing in the foreseeable future, he believes.

The quality of leadership is Brzezinski’s real wild card. Prudent leaders from both countries that prepare their respective publics for the compromises that will inevitably have to be made are badly needed. But the “mindless hypocrisy” of the Republican presidential candidates gives little ground for hope. He won’t single out any of them, finding all of them deeply flawed and uninspiring. Noting the Republican names attached to the blurbs for  ”Strategic Vision” — among them former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft — Brzezinski believes there still is the “possibility for consensus.” But men like Scowcroft and Gates, who come from the center-right of the political spectrum, are no longer much welcomed in today’s Republican Party. “That is part of the problem,” he laughed, not sounding entirely amused.

Ivey had raised about $150,000 while Edwards had taken in about $230,000, according to the latest available numbers reported by the Baltimore Sun. Part of the fundraising fight centered on the contentious issue of American policy toward Israel.

Edwards has long been associated with J Street, and she has, for example, been much more critical of Jewish settlements in the West Bank than most members of Congress. In 2010, she raised money from a group, New Policy PAC, that is open to the idea of a “democratic secular state” in historic Palestine – in other words, a one-state solution. Edwards describes herself a strong supporter of a two-state solution to the conflict.

In the past few months, J Street raised more than $40,000 for Edwards, the group tells me. Federal election filings show that virtually all of the money J Street raised for Edwards came from outside of her district, from places like New York and California.

American activists who are more aligned with the hardline positions of the American Israel Public Affairs Council than with J Street have long opposed Edwards and sought to unseat her. Ivey first explored a primary challenge to Edwards in 2009 with the backing of right-wing activists on the issue, who were angered by Edwards’ “present” vote on a resolution supporting Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

This time around, Ivey was “rumored to have the backing of several wealthy members of the local Jewish community who live outside of Edwards’ district,” Washington Jewish Week reported in November.

A December invitation to an Ivey fundraiser, which I’ve posted in full below, focused almost exclusively on U.S. policy toward Israel.

“Glenn [Ivey] has made it clear that he is unwavering in his support for the State of Israel while his opponent’s voting record, public positions and comments on Israel related issues have been of major concern to the Jewish community,” writes Barbara Goldberg Goldman of Rockville in the invitation, adding in a follow-up:

“His opponent, Donna Edwards, has demonstrated by her absolute actions on multiple occasions that her ideas about Israel’s safety, security and right to defend herself, is vastly different from how we believe as a people and as a community. We now have an opportunity to make an important change and difference. It doesn’t matter whether or not you reside in Glenn’s district. Let’s do it!”

Checks for Ivey were to be sent to Michael Gelman, the chairman emeritus of the hardline Israel Project and chair of the Executive Committee of the Board of The Jewish Federations of North America.

The invitation also contained a lengthy and detailed Ivey position paper on Israel and Iran, in which Ivey pledges to support increased U.S. military aid for Israel, despite the deficit-cutting fever In Washington, and tightened sanctions on Iran.

In the end, though, the effort to raise money for Ivey apparently fell short. JStreetPAC President Jeremy Ben-Ami argues that Ivey’s decision not to pursue a challenge against Edwards says something significant about the current moment.

“For too long, the conventional political wisdom has been that the most hawkish within the Jewish community had the fundraising ability to defeat candidates whose views on what it means to be pro-Israel did not comport with their own,” he says. “The assumption was that because these voices were the loudest that they spoke for the majority. Donna Edward’s ability to raise nearly $50,000 from pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans tells a very different story.”

It’s also possible that AIPAC-oriented donors decided Ivey was a bad investment. An internal Edwards poll from November showed her with a wide lead over Ivey. In any case, Edwards is now expected to win easy reelection in the solidly Democratic district. And given the failure of hardline activists to unseat her for two cycles in a row, it seems unlikely that Edwards will retreat from her progressive position on the Mideast.

Here’s that full invitation, with some personal contact information deleted:

From: barbara goldberg goldman
Date: December 20, 2011 12:49:30 PM EST
To:
Subject: POSITION ON ISRAEL: GLENN IVEY

Friends,

We thought you might be interested in reading Glenn’s recent position paper outlining his stance on Israel. As we said in our earlier email/invitation to you, we strongly believe that Glenn will make a wonderful Member of Congress not just for the residents in his Maryland congressional district, but also for the entire Jewish community. We need to send him to the Hill.

We do hope you will agree with  and join us along with Michael Gelman, David Butler, Danny Abramowitz, Louis Mayberg, Paul Berger, Benham Dayanim, Ron Glancz Eric Kassoff, Danny and Jocelyn Krifcher, Andy Stern and John Verstandig, and many others in our efforts to get Glenn elected to Congress. His opponent, Donna Edwards, has demonstrated by her absolute actions on multiple occasions that her ideas about Israel’s safety, security and right to defend herself, is vastly different from how we believe as a people and as a community. We now have an opportunity to make an important change and difference. It doesn’t matter whether or not you reside in Glenn’s district. Let’s do it!

So, please attend our event on January 3, 2012. But, if you are unable to be with us in person, we ask that you make a donation. Below Glenn’s position paper, please find the original email. And attached please find the January 3rd invitation. In the invitation you will find the details.  And, feel free to forward the information to anyone who you believe would like to join us!

Checks, by the way should be sent to: Michael Gelman,  Chevy Chase, Md Attn: Ivey For Congress Event.   Again, we would like to receive the funds in time to meet theDecember 31st filing deadline. Think of it as a wonderful Chanukah gift to our entire community!

Thanks so much. We look forward to hearing from you and seeing you on January 3, 2012!

Have a healthy, happy, safe and fun Chanukah and New Year!

Cheers,

Barbara GG and Mike Goldman

GLENN’S POSITION ON ISRAEL

In Congress, I will continue to strongly support the vital and vibrant relationship between the United States and Israel.  Because Israel is America’s strongest and most reliable ally in the turbulent Middle East, it remains the centerpiece of America’s foreign policy in that region.

When I visited Israel in 2005, I quickly realized the challenges of living with the constant threat of terrorist attacks.   At the Hadassah Hospital, I saw first hand shrapnel from a bomb a former patient used to blow up the doctors and nurses who had treated him just days before.  In Jerusalem, I saw restaurants with armed guards and security gates, heavily armed soldiers, and checkpoints at nearly every turn.

At the same time, I saw a nation that had decided to risk its very own security by turning over the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority-even though that meant the forcible removal of more than 9,000 Israeli citizens who had lived there peacefully.   I saw the meticulous restoration of sacred religious sites that had been neglected for centuries.  Most importantly, I saw a people wrestling with the challenge of balancing the command of self-preservation with the ideal of an open, democratic society governed by the rule of law.

Military Support for Israel

A strong Israel bolsters American strength and security internationally, while creating new economic opportunities for American businesses and workers. Most of the U.S. funds supporting Israel are spent here in America buying military equipment that helps protect the Middle East – a joint goal of Israel and the United States. The United States should continue to work with Israel in its development of defensive weapons systems designed to protect against ballistic missile and rocket attacks from Iran, their terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas as well as other potential attackers. Such weapons help both Israel and America alike. It is critical for Israel to maintain a significant military edge over enemies of Israel and the West.

As a Member of Congress, I would support the ten-year security agreement committing the United States to help Israel address growing and evolving threats to its existence.  Israel is America’s strongest and steadiest strategic ally in the Middle East.   Yet, Israel is also surrounded by threats including a potential for an Iran with nuclear capability, and increasing military capability by terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah. American military cooperation and aid bolsters Israel’s ability to defend itself in a dangerous region and sends a clear signal to these foes that our support for Israel is unwavering.  Moreover, helping Israel maintain a military advantage over potential adversaries serves as a deterrent to military conflicts and has enabled Israel to take risks for peace. Therefore, it is critical that America continue its support for Israel. Congress provided the full $3 billion in security aid to Israel for 2011. While it may be necessary to trim federal spending in many areas, including on foreign and security programs, I will fight for critical funding of our assistance to Israel, at the level of $3.075 billion for 2012, in accordance with the 10 year plan. Israel typically spends most of its aid money buying U.S.-made items.

Iran’s Nuclear Threat

Iran’s nuclear program and support of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are a threat not only to Israel, but to all who care about security and peace. According to U.S. Courts and other key sources, Iran has been behind bombings that killed many Americans. Iran poses an existential threat to the security of Israel and its citizens.  Led by  President  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has openly called for Israel to be “wiped of the map”, and an unelected cleric, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran is recklessly pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  Clearly, Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.  The United States must be willing to enforce and expand a rigorous sanctions regime that deters Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and should not eliminate the possibility-however remote-of military action to eliminate the threat.  My specific plan for stopping the threat of Iran is to be clear that they cannot get access to nuclear weapons and must stop their state sponsorship of terror. We must:

1.     Put Serious Sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran

The Central Bank of Iran (CBI) conducts the bulk of Iran’s international transactions and is the key financial facilitator for Iran’s proliferation and terrorist activities. UNSCR 1929 notes the potential connection between Iran’s revenues derived from its energy sector and the funding of Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities. To stop the flow of the petroleum commerce, the international community should pursue sanctions on the CBI as well as on oil companies, shipping firms, insurance providers and banks that are involved in such activity.

These sanctions will dramatically increase pressure on Iran’s leaders to change their course and end their illicit activities. Could such steps tighten the world’s supply of oil, putting pressure on the world economy? This is possible, although other suppliers could increase production to fill at least part of the shortfall. But the impact would certainly be tiny compared to the price we would all pay if Iran got nuclear weapons or if military action was ultimately used to stop them.

2.     Adopt more aggressive approach towards the Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps

The Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) are in charge of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and have been involved in serious human rights abuses. In recent years the IRGC has been playing an increasingly crucial role in Iran’s economy. Washington has already listed the IRGC as a “specially designated global terrorist” and Europe has taken some important measures too, but that is not nearly enough.

What is required now is a comprehensive campaign to map and sanction the hundreds of front companies and agents that operate on behalf of the IRGC. Multinationals who engage in commerce with the IRGC should be penalized, and travel bans and asset freezes should be applied to IRGC officials and members by all responsible members of the international community.

3.     Enact new sanctions legislation and eliminate loopholes

Nations around the world should take the lead from the U.S. Congress and increase pressure on Tehran by taking steps similar to those that recently were adopted unanimously by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The Iran Threat Reduction Act closes loopholes in energy and financial sanctions, including sanctioning parent companies for the activities of a foreign subsidiary that violates current US sanctions. The bill also targets the Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps and senior Iranian regime officials.

Demonstrate commitment for human rights

Last month, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for human rights in Iran filed his first report, revealing a pattern of systemic violations of fundamental human rights.

All responsible members of the international community have a duty to show their support for universal human rights by imposing financial and travel sanctions on human rights abusers. Europe, while waving the banner of human rights, should not have anything to do with the Iranian regime, and governments must punish companies that provide goods, services, and technologies that enable the regime to oppress its people.

4.      Isolate Iran diplomatically

Senior Iranian leaders have enraged the international community with their fierce and hateful rhetoric towards Israel, the U.S. and the West, as well as their defiant stand on their country’s nuclear weapons program.  Iranian officials repeatedly have vowed to wipe Israel off the map and their country is considered by the U.S. State Department as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeatedly has questioned and denied the Holocaust.

The international community must make it clear that Iranian leaders are not welcome in their countries or in international forums, and world leaders should not visit Tehran. Clearly, the U.S. cannot enforce this step on other nations, but we can lead by example in ostracizing Iranian officials around the world.  It is abundantly evident that the regime in Iran has no interest in unclenching its fist in response to the President’s offer of an open hand; the door to productive engagement has been slammed shut by Tehran.

The Peace Process

There is no doubt that over time, a two-state solution with both a homeland for the Palestinians and a homeland for the Jewish people and all Israeli citizens should become a part of the landscape of the Middle East. It is critical to have a with a secure Israel living side by side a democratic state of Palestine.  However, this must not come at the expense of the security of Israel and can only occur when the Palestinian Authority represents all of the Palestinian territories and is able to negotiate towards a lasting two-state solution.  The ability of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate is conditioned on its acceptance of the right of Israel to exist, an acceptance of the Jewish character of Israel, and a rejection of violence against the citizens of Israel.

As we work towards peace, leaders must incorporate a bottom-up, grass-roots approach as the “Arab street” has immense power. U.S. policy should focus on mutual respect and recognition between the Israeli and Palestinian people, and between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Confronting the conflict’s fundamental issues – mutual recognition and respect, ideology, dignity – requires working with people on both sides and presenting each side’s narratives and wishes to the other.

The culture of hate being taught in Arab textbooks, public television and other culture must stop. This work must also entail such fundamental activities as rewriting textbooks, eliminating hate-filled speech and television programs, and developing civil societies among both peoples that prepare them to accept the other’s humanity. Any group getting US foreign or military aid should work towards hope and not hate, jobs and not jihad. This includes both Egypt and the Palestinians.

ORIGINAL EMAIL LETTER:

Dear Friends,

It is very exciting when a friend who shares your values and priorities runs for Congress. Such is our case with

GLENN IVEY,  former State’s Attorney for Prince George’s County. He is emminently qualified to be a real leader in Congress as the Representative in Maryland’s recently reconfigured 4th Congressional District. GLENN is challenging incumbent Donna Edwards in a Democratic primary election scheduled for April 3, 2012. And, as you can imagine, we have no time to lose. ( (http://iveyforcongress.com/about-the-candidate/).

While primary races are not normally the focus of excitement and concentrated fundraising activity, this race presents a special circumstance. Quite simply, there is no comparison between the two candidates. Here in Maryland as elsewhere throughout the Country, we are very concerned about the myriad of issues facing our elected officials, and their abilities to address constituent services.  Of course, one important issue to all of us is Israel’s safety, security and lasting peace with her neighbors. GLENN has made it clear that he is unwavering in his support for the State of Israel while his opponent’s voting record, public positions and comments on Israel related issues have been of major concern to the Jewish community. His record as State’s Attorney demonstrates his absolute commitment to the safety, concern and responsiveness to his constituents. We now have a real, strong possibility of helping a true friend of Israel get elected to the United States Congress.

GLENN IVEY is an intelligent, personable and  a very popular figure in Prince George’s County. He has a distinguished public service record dating back to the time after his college (Princeton) and law school (Harvard) graduations.  He has strong connections with the political leadership of Prince George’s County, and with most state and federal officials in Maryland. He has a track record of working well with his colleagues as he builds strong coalitions.  And, he has strong ties to our community — having visited Israel on a JCRC mission several years ago, and maintaining close relationships with many leaders within our community here in Maryland.

Our fundraiser for GLENN IVEY will be held at 6:00pm on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 in downtown Washington, DC.  Attached is your invitation. We so hope you will be able to attend.  But whether or not you are able to join us on January 3, we hope you will join us by contributing to our fundraising effort.  And, because a report must be filed by December 30, 2011,  we would like to show additional resources by then.

We sincerely believe that this is the most important primary race for the pro-Israel community in the greater Washington area as well as our broader Jewish community.  Please join us, and please do what you can to support this effort.  We look forward to hearing from you.

Seriously…if you are unable to attend, we would so appreciate your making a contribution to GLENN’s campaign. This would mean a great deal to Glenn’s campaign as well as to us.

Information on where to send your donation is in the attachment. But, if you would rather do it on line, please let me know asap.  We are confident that you will agree with us that GLENN IVEY is a very formidable candidate who will make us proud as a United States Member of Congress

Thanking you in advance, and Most Sincerely,

Barbara GG and Mike Goldman

Barbara Goldberg Goldman