[WCUSP] important: Tom Hayden on the Israel Lobby: "Things Come Round"

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

I am please to see that after 24 years, Tom  Hayden has publicly apologized 
for the trip he made to Lebanon in June, 1982 to  support the Israeli invasion 
of Lebanon as a genuflection  that every  Democratic politician is obliged to 
make to the lobby, as he explains in  unusual and important detail.  In fact, 
on that trip, he and Jane sat with  Israeli gunners as they shelled Beirut 
and, appropriately intimidated, refused  to meet with any Israeli peace activists 
who opposed the Lebanese invasion.  


_http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/_ 
(http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/) 

Things Come Round
 
By Tom Hayden 
Editor’s note: In this essay, veteran social  activist Tom Hayden, drawing 
upon his own rude political awakening to the  reality of Israeli and Middle East 
politics during the 1980s, warns that the  U.S.-Israel lobby and its 
neoconservative supporters will likely try to use the  current Middle East crisis to 
ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah,  Syria and Iran.  
 
____________________________________


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 of Israel.”  

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) establishment. 

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 the  equation. 

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 
November elections? 

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 occupation. 

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 
acceptable. 

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.  

 
____________________________________
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor,  Robert Scheer. Publisher, 
Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2006 Truthdig,  L.L.C. All rights reserved. 
_Web site design & development by Hop  Studios_ (http://www.hopstudios.com/)  
| _Hosted by  NEXCESS.NET_ 
(https://nexcess.net/affiliates/idevaffiliate.php?id=536) 
 (http://www.statcounter.com/)   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20060719/d9338a4a/attachment-0001.html