American's can't learn from Israeli history if it can't have a memory longer than a gnat. The symbols that are so valuable to maintain this nation are laden with short memories and lack of insight. If not for the good nature of American citizens, who knows what this country would be like, but the ability to forsee the tragedy in Iraq was blinded by hatred for Muslims and rage over 9/11/01. Many had no previous contact with Muslims.

Further, Israel's occupation of Palestine makes little sense to Americans overall, if you read blogs, polls, listen to the Pavolvian screams of Anti-Semitism if you even get near the issue.

Iraq's occupation will not make sense because it occurs almost halfway around the world and is viewed thru 8 eyes (abc,nbc,cbs,cnn,fox,cspan,..) ok, 6 eyes or so.

Because people don't have a engaged relation with their citizenry, it seems to me I should say, they don't take responsibility for their government's actions.

A nation that does not take responsibility for its government's actions...is lost.

I had a former Ranger get all in my face at a bar just after Mar 19, 2003, and told me "you don't understand what those boys are going thru!", blah blah...

I pointed out simply that the metaphor fitting this was to go up to a homeless man who has been beaten down, robbed, and hogtied, and then pissing on him, putting your foot on it and calling it victory.

"Want a real fight?" I said to the former Ranger, "China now owns most of our debt, get us out of that war, genius."

point being, he was all gungho to beat up Iraq, a country that met us with no navy, airforce, organized force, tanks, or anything more, than determination, a beatup Toyota truck with a gun mounted turret, and home court advantage.

The stupidity of our leaders is akin to what the Israeli govt expects from Palestine, with her back up against the wall, facing dozers and Catapillar logos.

Just to note: a comparative and lively discussion on this essey can be read at the guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_levy/2007/04/isreal_and_the_wall.html

I think that one of the reasons that American Jews were, from the start, largely opposed to the Iraq invasion/occupation is that they had been keenly watching the Israeli/Palestinian entanglement.

Especially on the heels of the blow-up following the 2000 Camp David attempts at peace, most American Jews knew on a gut level that good intentions and a superior Army were no type of guarantee that things would just work out.

I think George Bush couldn't really conceive that the the Iraqis would rather fight us for 1000 years, losing all the way, than submit to American rule, no matter how temporary the Americans claimed that rule would be. Again, after watching the Palestinians' choices over the years (and especially those following the summer of 2000) American Jews were aware that deep resentment in the Middle East does not likely lead to peaceful and rational nation building.

You again, thank you, make my point about occupation exactly. When a foreign force occupies, one has no choice but to fight, no matter how long it takes.

I want to be clear, which perhaps I was not, I agree with most of what csampson wrote in the first post of this listing. Additionally, I'm in no position to know whether he himself has had to deal with ultra-sensitive folks who claim to see anti-semitism at every turn. Certainly some of those folks exist.

A more careful reading of what he wrote (and that which I chose to comment on) actually distances himself from emotionally laden Israeli/Palestine discourse. So , to the extent that it seemed I was lumping him in with that, I apologize.

However, I really do think that it has become so commonplace to point to the problem of being labeled anti-semitic, that more often than not, the complaint precedes the actual offense/annoyance.

Here's the thing, if I make an argument, in a public forum, that economic resources should be shared more equally, some fool out there (maybe 1 in a thousand) will respond by calling me a "communist". If I were to support Bush's domestic surveillance program, some fool would call me a "fascist". If I voice the opinion that G-d should not be mentioned in classroom pledges of allegiance, I'd get called a "godless atheist".

If I say something supportive of Israel, I'm a "Zionist". If I say something critical of Israel, some folks may call me an "anti-Zionist", some may even call me "anti-Semitic". But it ain't necessarily so.

For the most part, it is just immature name calling. I realize that an unfair accusation of "antisemitism" stings more than being called a "communist" (which is basically laughable), but I have found that most folks know the difference between criticizing Israeli policies and criticizing Judaism as a whole. Yet, there are some noisy folks, for sure, on both sides, that don't know where to draw the line.

I would urge all of us not to let a few loud mouths ruin the discussion to the extent that reasonable critics of Israeli policies (yes there is such a thing) feel hounded and unreasonable anti-Semites (yes they are out there too and when they speak out against Israel they do so with utter disrespect for Jews and history) feel emboldened.

i would urge all us us to speak our minds and to ignore the immature complaints of others.

One of the lesser known details of end of Cold War History is that when the E. Germans held their fire sale just before Unification in October 1990, they sold the plans for what was known as the Anti-Fascist Protective Barrier (in the West, known as the Berlin Wall), to Israel. What was sold was the detailed technical drawings as well as all operational specifications.

Saying that, maybe we should thus examine some of the details of a "wall" that worked pretty much as planned. Operational and Maintence costs increased every year, from 1961 on, and eventually it became one of the largest industries in E. Germany, even though most of the actual personnel were conscript soldiers selected for their ideological trustworthyness, and thus very poorly paid. All portals however required much better paid Stasi officers, with 24/7/365 coverage -- 3 and a half shifts at all times. Over the years it was in place, it required an average of 1/4th of the Cement production in E. Germany. (The wall had 3 generations, with no "model" lasting more than about ten years before necessary replacement.) The final model consumed about two years production of re-bar...one of the reasons the E. Germans were so slow re-doing their parts of the autobahn. The anti-grab feature that topped the wall -- was sewer pipe slit to fit over the moduels, and it slowed down sewer construction by an estimated two years, mostly in smaller towns and outlying areas.

Efforts to "automate" things over time were quite unsuccessful. In the 70's they installed automatic shooting devices in the no-mans-land, and these were quite successful in killing deer and rabbits, and thus were eventually removed. Some of the deer were dressed and used to feed the conscript border guards. (roadkill)

In the last couple years of the Berlin Wall hand held lazars became available cheaply, and security services on both sides were using them to transmit code -- much like morse code. But on the West Side some of the Berlin Youth were involved in blinding border guards in the towers and in the death strip. The thing came down before anyone figured out defense.

All this suggests to me that Anti-Fascist Protective Barriers may be a little too expensive for our taste, and perhaps not all that effective in the end.

csampson,

When a foreign force occupies, one has no choice but to fight, no matter how long it takes.

When viewed in the context of the comment to which you had responded upstream by TonyForesta...,

Iraq is America's Palestine.

...the narrative that develops is often based on a false comparison.  The more Israel is accepted as an illegitimate presence in the region, the better the Israeli occupation of Arab Palestine works as a metaphor for the US occupation of Iraq.  Further, the argument that Zionism was and remains an imperialist colonial movement works best the less one recognizes a legitimate Jewish national identity with a rightful place among the nations of the region.  Too often, progressives tend to limit Jewish identity strictly to its religious component, and seem content to characterize Jews as just another white European "Judeo-Christian" sect.  Correspondingly, criticisms of Israel tend to be lumped in with such mischaracterizations, and broad accusations of antisemitism are leveled.

[Update] I should be more clear in that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories itself is not wholly legitimate, and should not be confused with a legitimate Jewish national presence in the Middle East.  Jewish and Arab national rights in the former British Mandate are not mutually exclusive.  Meanwhile, Palestinians remain as stateless now as they did prior to June of 1967 when Israel advanced on Egyptian forces in Gaza and Jordanian forces in the West Bank.

Sara! Thank you for that. What a facinating tale! One of the best examples of "the simplest solution is always the most expensive" that I've read in a long time.

Perhaps building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico will indeed work. In 30 years our economy will look like theirs and Mexicans will have no incentive to come here.

Perhaps that is why al-Maliki objected to the Baghdad wall, he could see a Halliburton make-work project deep into the century.

Where in the world did you did up that gem?

The main question for me has been the validity of the Balfour ideals, or more specifically, the nation state drawings post WWI that after WWII brought more instability and hostility. Iraq and Israel are two of the major examples of nation state drawing gone wrong.

I personally support having a homeland for Jewish people because as a Bohemian and Scot mix, I want an independent Scotland, and am satisfied with the direction of my Czech people. I want the same for Tibetans, E. Timorese, Puerto Ricans, et al. So of course the Palestinians are forfront in my mind because of the cameras and the religious nature of the region, but they are also one of many who have no home. Ask our Bihari brothers and sisters in Bangladesh in their Geneva camps.

The tribes of Abraham aren't rooted in Fiji, nor Nepal that I know of, so seems that the area between Mesopotamia and Judea are the areas that will be considered home.

Why doesn't anyone discuss this from the method and map to our current dilemma or who outside of Israel/Palestine benefits? Putting it all on Israel or Palestine limits the discussion too much.

Who, not including the above mentioned, benefits from this ongoing tragedy of cousins?

I can understand the linking to Apartheid by critics but only because I'm very well versed in the history of Apartheid and British and Dutch rule systems there, and they are not much different than the bantustans.

The feeling of humiliation led to violence. It robbed human beings of their dignity long enough that they lashed out.

Whether it be the Sharpeville Massacre or the beginning of the Second Intifada, these comparisons will continue until the country with the power, Israel, changes its course and the Palestinians show a united force that isn't steeped in violence as a recourse.

But we have to change the US involvement in the region it seems to me, and I know that AIPAC and evangelical Christians are working overtime to keep the policy at the forefront of DC's policy making.

I support a wise balance that preserves the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians, and the removal leaders who can't attain that goal.