Things Come ’Round in Mideast
Editor’s note: In this essay, veteran social activist Tom Hayden,
drawing upon his own rude political awakening to the realities of
Israeli and Middle East politics during the 1980s, warns that the
Israel lobby in the U.S. aims to “roll back the clock” and “change
the map” of the region and that its neoconservative supporters will
probably try to use the current Middle East crisis to ignite a
larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
By Tom Hayden
07/21/06 "Truthdig" -- -- Twenty-five years ago I stared into the
eyes of Michael Berman, chief operative for his congressman-brother,
Howard Berman. I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly
in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them.
“I represent the Israeli defense forces,” Michael said. I thought he
was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine himself the
gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political
interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews
represented one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters,
Berman held a balance of power.
All that year I tried to navigate the district’s Jewish politics.
The solid historical liberalism of the Westside was a favorable
factor, as was the strong support of many Jewish community leaders.
But the community was moving in a more conservative direction. Some
were infuriated at my sponsorship of Santa Monica’s tough rent
control ordinance. Many in the organized community were suspicious
of the New Left for becoming Palestinian sympathizers after the Six
Day War; they would become today’s neoconservatives.
I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting
officials from all parties, studying energy projects, befriending
peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with
Palestinians and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As
a result, a Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an
attempt to discredit my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in
the California state capital.
This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother
were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named
Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But
they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name recognition,
so they were considering “renting” me the Assembly seat, Berman
said. But there was one condition: that I always be a “good friend
This wasn’t a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had
favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local
Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and
participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. I
wanted to take up the cause of the aging Holocaust survivors against
the global insurance companies that had plundered their assets.
While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination,
I didn’t share the animus of some on the American left who
questioned Israel’s very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the
politics of Israel’s Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists
and human rights activists who accepted Israel’s pre-1967 borders as
a reality to accommodate. I disliked the apocalyptic visions of the
Israeli settlers I had met, and thought that even hard-line
Palestinians would grudgingly accept a genuine peace initiative.
I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about
the existence and power of an “Israel lobby.” It is not as
monolithic as some argue, but it is far more than just another
interest group in a pluralist political world. In recognizing its
diversity, distinctions must be drawn between voters and elites,
between Reform and Orthodox tendencies, between the less observant
and the more observant. During my ultimate 18 years in office, I
received most of my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and
less observant voters. But I also received support from conservative
Jews who saw themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and Democratic)
However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the
question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would
never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or
pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified “kosher,” not once but over
and over again.
The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of
the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s
Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the
American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely
associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli
ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene
with statements declaring someone a “friend of Israel.”
In my case, a key to the “friendship issue” was the Los
Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin Navon. Though politics drew
us together, our personal friendship was genuine enough. I think
that Benny, as he was called, wanted to pull me and my then-wife,
Jane Fonda, into a pro-Israel stance, but he himself was an
old-school labor/social democrat who personally believed in a
negotiated political settlement. We enjoyed personal and
intellectual time together, and I still keep on my bookshelf a
wooden sculpture by his wife, of an anguished victim of violence.
The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly,
in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an
American election. We would be seen and photographed together in
public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be
quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared
“kosher” by the ultimate source, the region’s representative of the
state of Israel.
Nevertheless, throughout the spring 1982 campaign I was accused of
being a left-wing madman allied to terrorism and communism. The
national Democratic leader Walter Mondale commented jokingly during
a local visit that I was being described as worse than Lenin. It was
a wild ride.
I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed
neutral. Willie Brown, Richard Alatorre and the rest of the
California Democratic establishment were quietly supportive. I
easily won the general election in November.
But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The
Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane
and me to be supportive. It happened that I had visited the
contested border in the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian
Israeli homes, and interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots—crazies,
I thought, who were preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border
rocket attacks and naively favored a demilitarized zone.
Ever curious, and aware of my district’s politics, I decided we
should go to the Middle East—but only as long as the Israeli
“incursion,” as it was delicately called, was limited to the
10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against
rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the “incursion” was
limited, and would be followed by negotiations and a solution. I
also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs
in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what
Israeli Peace Now would say.
There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that
still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon
border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly.
Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and
occupying all of Lebanon—with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy
militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in
Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along,
and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been
deceived along with everyone else.
For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s “right” to
self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I
was becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing,
with ardent Jewish support in America.
Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave,
took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: “Tom, you can’t do
this. You have to stop.” He was right, and I did. In the California
Legislature, I went to work on Holocaust survivor issues while
withdrawing from the bind of Israeli-Palestinian politics. When the
first Palestinian intifada began, I sensed from experience that the
balance of forces had changed, and that the Israeli occupation was
finished. Frictions developed between me and some of my Israeli and
Jewish friends when I suggested that Israel must make a peace deal
immediately or accept a worse deal later.
It is still painful and embarrassing to describe these events of
nearly 25 years ago, but with Israel today again bombing Lebanon and
Israeli officials bragging about “rolling back the clock by twenty
years” and reconfiguring the Middle East, I feel obliged to speak
out against history repeating.
How do I read today’s news through the lens of the past?
What I fear is that the “Israeli lobby” is working overtime to
influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel’s military
effort to “roll back the clock” and “change the map” of the region,
going far beyond issues like prisoner exchange.
What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement
against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for
now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of
What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S.
neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas,
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives’ 1996 “Clean Break”
memo advocated that Israel “roll back” Lebanon and destabilize Syria
in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of
the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the
“Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of
nation states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects,
tribes, regions and parties.”
This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s
British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America
overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its
militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for
Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become
a justification for American troops to remain.
What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters
and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially
Democrats, who last week were moving gradually toward setting a
deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present
crisis favor the Republicans and the White House in the short run.
How many politicians will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq
under present conditions? Isn’t this Karl Rove’s game plan for the
What I know is that I will not make the same mistake again. I hope
that my story deepens the resolve of all those whose feelings are
torn, conflicted or confused in the present. It is not being a
“friend of Israel” to turn a blind eye to its never-ending
One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that
Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative
kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is
the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and
have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the
Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of
this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of
Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in
1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges
or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas
altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even
Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government
will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather
harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO
sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that
Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts
even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as
safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I
remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and
carry out collective punishment because, they told me
matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs
understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on
Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.
It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by
President Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to
snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in
Lebanon and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the
Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to
intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a
prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the
following for now:
Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic
nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the
Israeli troops and bombs.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit
plan is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as
the White House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent
bases in an occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently
eliminating their enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be
further occupation, resistance and deeper quagmire.
The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing
the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not
be stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional
insistence on denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital
first step. Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between
Israel and the U.S. to dominate the Middle East militarily.
Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was
25 years ago. Silence is consent to occupation.
Copyright © 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.