Yes, they should decorate it a bit and make it into a tourist attraction a la The Great Wall Of China.

Perhaps the most basic take American Jews can assume is one of reflexive support for the safety and prosperity of the Jewish state of Israel.

This is a conflict that puts Jews at the center and on a precipice--if the community at large cannot simply and clearly demonstrate support for Israel--it will have a much harder time of survival in the future.

Time and again, people can sense that the Arabs have a greater interest in the heart of the Jewish homeland, Jerusalem, than the Jews. It is because young secular Jews like the writer of this thread have become shamed by propaganda into thinking that Israel is the problem and the Arabs are victims.  Further, they have been assured that there is nothing in Judaism to be proud.  What could be worse than the suggestion contained in this thread than for Jews who have never been to Israel to first see Israel as "socially responsible" by taking a tour of the barrier--in the same way one might visit social dissidents in China?  Huh?  What an outrage!   

This is surely an Arab propagandist's dream.  Get young Jews to protest Israel and actually have them come to Israel--not to find their Jewish roots or the Jewish souls--but to make common cause with those who wish to destroy them! Under the banner of being socially responsible--the argument that it is vital to see how the Arabs have been harmed is quite a contortion.  Indeed, news of Arab suffering at the hands of the Jews is such a commonplace accusation--we hardly need it to come from the Jews themselves--wanting to give the phony accusation needed credibility. 

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are so popular, what would happen if Jews started to announce that the book was actually partially true?

I have some suggestions. The writer of this screed should include taking tourists to family members of terror victims and have them throw stones and ridicule the family members. This would make everyone feel good and self-important

This is interesting. While the concerns that each of the above comments raise are certainly merited, I hardly think that socially responsible tourism should be equated with Arab propaganda. Indeed, both sides of the wall/barrier should be equally considered,. However, I would venture to say that the situation is so complicated and heated that one would have to look at each of these tour groups and figure out what type of ideology is driving the tour itself. That's the responsible thing to do I think. Shneer mentions this as quality of the most sophisticated tours, which seems to be ignored by the rest of the commentators.

That said, it would be good to remind us all that Israeli statehood emerged not only under a microscope, but also at a time when many of the founding practices that most countries engaged in, whether it's violence, the displacement of people, the (re)structuring of borders, or the establishment of laws that often favor the new members of the nation etc, were not readily acknowledged or at least "kept behind closed doors." It wasn't really until post-1967 that Israel lost its favor with the left. So when the culture wars that emerged in the US in the 1960s that paid particular attention to counter-narratives, the demythologization of the founding narratives and conception of terms like the "West," as well as the large scale complicity of say, colonialism in the Western world, Israel found itself lumped into that category. Zionism (as if that's one thing) suddenly appeared as a colonizing ideology supporting and driving the state of Israel. I note all of this because it is crucial to tease out three related, but wholly different terms, Zionist, Israeli, and Jewish.
Shneer writes

<i>"And for American Jews who usually
see travel to Israel as a form of identity travel,
the tours are a way of showing them the implications of racialized
occupation, as well as the harsh reality of what Israel as a state
does in the name of the Jews."<i>

This is somewhat problematic and perhaps I read too much into this passage. In the name of the Jews. Really? This from an author who problematizes the monolithic use of the term "Jew" and suggests variant expressions of Judaism worldwide as an expression of the new Jew. I only point this out because much of the criticism that Israel receives, sometimes correctly (ongoing settlement construction during peace talks) and sometimes unfairly (why is Israel always under a microscope? certainly other countries are doing far worse things). This is based upon a conflation of the three terms, Jewish, Zionist and Israeli. All of this generally forces the banal slogan that "anti-Israel equals antisemitism" and produces some of the more reactionary comments seen above.

If socially responsible tourism--whether in Israel or America's history of slavery--is going to be taken seriously by anyone other than say, people who already agree with the objectives/principles of the tour itself then it's not very progressive nor is it actually doing anything except preaching to the choir. More attention should be given to the dual sided tours that seek to address the situation as a real and well, complicated, rather than simple ideology.

To those so angered by David Shneer's take on how tourism is shifting in Israel, I would suggest that we *also* include a tour of Palestinian-owned homes that have been overtaken by Israeli settlers (and nothing done by Israel or the IDF) ... and how about a visit to Palestinian areas with little to no water because Israel has diverted the water away from the area ... and I can easily take you to a friend's former home in Ramallah - or what's left of it - because it was destroyed by the IDF ... and we can also meet her young daughter suffering from PTSD as a result of being repeatedly woken up in the middle of the night by the IDF pointing guns in their faces. 

This doesn't deny - nor would I speculate that David Shneer does - that Israeli citizens have suffered and died as a result of bombings.  But the situation's just not so simplistic, heh?

which is also socially responsible.

Oh, wait they'll cut your head off if you take you teddy bear with you or if you want to enter Saudi Arabia and are a Jew.

I am not surprised that David Shnoor a man who wrote a book with the title "the end of the diaspora" would engage in wishful thinking.

What is "socialy responsible" about swallowing Arab propaganda about the supposed injustice of the barrier and of checkpoints and calling them israel's "dark side"? If the Arabs/Muslims weren't so wedded to their deatch cult of suicide terrorism against Jews, there would be no need for the barrier. Israel could, and would, take down the barrier in a second if the Arabs and Muslims were serious about peace and stopped their endless terror. Causing people some delays and hardships at checkpoints is a small price to pay for stopping terrorism. And those who suffer the delays and hardships have only their fellow Arabs and Muslims to blame, not Israel.

Personally, after seeing that Maxim photo shoot, I'd like to expand "socially responsible" tourism to the female IDF barracks! 

Can someone tell me where I can tour the tunnels that the Pals smuggles arms from Egypt? Can I take a peek at Yassser Arafat's medical record so I can find out where he got HIV? Can I visit Josephs Tomb in Nablus? Can I visit the building where two Israeli reservists were lynched-perhaps their blood is still present? Can I visit the Al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho? I have no sympathies with the Pals. If you choose war, you cant expect economic development as a consequence. General Sherman said "War is hell". Why should it be hell for the Israelis as well. Perhaps the writers of the garbage column above should try homoerotic comeones in al Aqsa mosque.

Umm, excuse me, but have any of the folks who put up the hostile posts above, especially the ones attacking the author of the article, ever heard of the phrase "shooting the messenger"?

The author was writing about this phenomenon, not necessarily urging people to take these tours. This was an essay on a site devoted to opinion pieces, so it wasn't an objective piece of reporting, but it wasn't an advocacy screed either. If your head is stuck so far in the sand that you don't realize that LOTS of Israelis and travelers to Israel do in fact view the situation the way Shneer describes, then well, that's just sad for you. Shneer didn't come up with the idea that people debate what they consider "the implications of racialized occupation, as well as the harsh reality of what Israel as a state does in the name of the Jews." If you've never engaged with the ideas of the Israeli and American Jewish left on this, well, then that's your fault. Whether you agree with it or not is a separate question. The point is, Shneer is talking about something that very much engages a relatively large number of people.

This brings me to the second point, "hijacking the conversation." How much more interesting this thread would have been if people actually talked about the substance of his essay - about what motivates this sort of "tourism" and why it's so popular at this moment. And maybe someone could have brought up the "right wing" tourism that is also very common in Israel - such as the helicopter tours that AIPAC-inspired hawks give to foreign correspondents so they can see, visually, how narrow Israel is at it's mid-point. Both sides use "facts on the ground" to argue their points. The interesting conversation here is about how that plays out, not about the general dynamics of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There are plenty of other opportunities to rant on about that.