Registered user login:

Sovereignty by stealth

Ben White

Published 10 January 2008

Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation
Eyal Weizman Verso, 288pp, £19.99

Last year, I experienced at first hand Israel's new-look occupation. Intending to cross into Israel from the northern West Bank, I arrived at the Jalama checkpoint expecting the usual token passport check. Instead, I was told that it was forbidden for me to use this particular crossing point. For six hours I sat under the watchful eye of two soldiers, making calls to the British consulate, which, in turn, called various Israeli military officials.

During my extended visit, I had plenty of time to observe my surroundings. One of the new "terminals" that Israel has built, Jalama is on the "Green Line", but there are others that lie well inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). These new checkpoints are built like international borders, with metal detectors, turnstiles, winding passages and the disembodied voices of security personnel.

The occupation's architecture has undergone a number of fundamental changes in recent years. The entrance to Bethlehem is now marked by a terminal, a towering concrete wall and an Israeli sign that reads "Peace be with you". Palestinians travelling within the West Bank now pass through the equally substantial Qalandiya terminal. East Jerusalem, meanwhile, is divided by the contorted loops of the Separation Wall.

This architecture of occupation is thoroughly analysed in the Israeli-born architect Eyal Weizman's Hollow Land. The study takes us to the heart of a conflict which has always been about land, where "the mundane elements of planning and architecture have become tactical tools and the means of dispossession". Behind the headlines, the reality on the ground (as well as above and beneath it) continues to be reshaped daily.

Many new arrivals and even resident Israelis are unable to see where Israel proper ended and where the occupation began. This is especially true in occupied East Jerusalem, where the architecture of the annexed settlements has been used to "blur the facts of occupation". It is also true for other settlement blocs that often serve as commuter towns for cities such as Tel Aviv.

Much of the occupation's architecture is a message to the Palestinians. Once, viewing the West Bank colonies, Ariel Sharon remarked that "Arabs should see Jewish lights every night from 500 metres". Indeed, from Bethlehem's restaurants, the view is of the ever-expanding Har Homa settlement, while Palestinian farmers across the West Bank look up from their valleys at the red-roofed houses on the hilltops above.

One of the photographs in Hollow Land is especially striking. At the Allenby Bridge crossing between Jordan and the West Bank, Palestinians wait in line for their papers to be checked by Palestinian Authority policemen. Behind a two-way mirror, however, Israeli agents are at work, vetting every traveller. With this sovereignty charade central to the Oslo peace process, occupation infrastructure replaced "the necessity for the physical presence of Israeli forces within Palestinian cities". Israel can appear to be ceding territory generously while "still dominating the Palestinians physically, collectively and politically by remotely controlling their movements".

Back at the Jalama checkpoint, weary Palestinian men passed through as I waited, returning from work inside Israel. The new aspects of the occupation's infrastructure are often defended as examples of Israel's "humanitarian" concern despite the country's security dilemma; Weizman, however, notes that "the 'humanitarian' rhetoric of the current phase of the occupation is part of a general attempt to normalise it". In fact, "cases of colonial powers seeking to justify themselves with the rhetoric of improvement, civility and reform are almost the constant of colonial history", he argues.

Inevitably, the architects themselves end up under the spotlight. The question of their complicity and moral responsibility is a controversial one. Weizman, like the members of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, believes that those "design and construction professionals involved in projects that appropriate land and natural resources from Palestinian territory" are "complicit in social, political and economic oppression", in "violation of their professional ethics".

Critics of this position complain that Israel is being singled out unfairly, that such a campaign "politicises" a technical profession, and that the situation is too complex for "simplistic" blame to be apportioned. The Israel Association of United Architects, for example, claims it is "not for professional associations to weigh in to political debates" and that the decision by some Israeli architects to accept commissions in the OPT is "a matter of personal conscience".

While constructing the occupation's infrastructure constitutes an obviously political act, describing it as such apparently amounts to unacceptable politicisation - as does pointing out its con sequences for the Palestinians. That's according to Daniel Leon, chairman of British Architect Friends of Israel, who, in a letter to the Financial Times in August, commended an alternative approach of "mutual understanding through dialogue" more befitting the "complicated" political and physical realities.

In its detailed breakdown of the three-dimensional occupation, and faithfulness to the reality in Palestine/Israel, Hollow Land in fact suggests that ultimately, all the construction in the OPT - the bridges, tunnels, terminals, roads, colonies and walls - will be in vain:

At a time when "separation" between Israelis and Palestinians seems to be the only game in town, experiencing and analysing the architecture of occupation suggests that equitable, sustainable partition may be an impossible task.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

22 comments from readers

Cybertiger
10 January 2008 at 21:39

Nuremberg dealt justice over the crimes of Hitler's architect, Albert Speer - and spared his life. The crimes of the architects of the Hollow Land are very significantly worse. When justice finally catches up with these Zionist criminals, surely the punishment must better fit the enormity of their crimes against humanity.

mazaluk
10 January 2008 at 22:36

It is not surprising that New Statesman printsthis type of disinformation, complete with anti-Jewish, oh sorry, anti-Israel, innuendoes about the Jews, whoops, Israel, being needless oppressors of the poor Palestinians.

The fact is that up to the second Intifada none of this so called "Architechture of Occupation" was in place so what changed? No prizes for guessing that it was Islamic terrorism against the citizens of Israel, inspired by Fatah under Yassir Arafat and culminating in the slaughter of 29 Jews celebrating the Passover in Natanya in 2003.

Perhaps the Arabs should consider that every action has its consequences, and Israel has every right to protect its citizens against Islamic terrorism - and that the price to pay for the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria are the safety wall and enhanced security checkpoints.

jed nightingale
11 January 2008 at 00:11

Interesting that critics of Israel always focus on the separation wall, occupied land, checkpoints, Israeli retaliations, Palestinian refugees, etc. How come they do not address the real issue..... Palestinians (Fatah & Hamas) want the destruction of Israel , its citizens, its institutions, one state solution, etc .....

Jed Nigtingale - New York

Abe Hayeem
11 January 2008 at 10:58

Well done, Ben for giving concrete examples of the architecture of oppression that Israeli architects are complicit in, and so brilliantly exposed by Eyal Weizman in this book. One cannot say that Israeli architects are not acting politically, that they just build what they are commissioned, and that they are not responsible for the the political outcome and the extreme suffering of its users. The UIA (International Union of Architects) Code of Conduct clearly requires:

"Principle 2 - Obligations to the Public

"Architects have obligations to the public to embrace the spirit and letter of the laws governing their professional affairs, and should thoughtfully consider the social and environmental impact of their professional activities."

Despite exhaustive studies of the planning and design of the never ending expansion of the illegal settlements

and towns on expropriated Palestinian land both in Hollow Land and the earlier book "A Civilian Occupation", architects in Israel have never stopped their knee deep complicity in the military and state policies of Occupation. Attempts at 'dialogue' have brought no change. This activity incidentally has been going on since the foundation of the Israeli state - the aim has always been to 'design out' the Palestinians.Israeli architects involved must simply stop these projects (e.g. E1, Lifta, Silwan, Har Homa -see www.apjp.org) they are involved in for there to be any progress towards a just peace.

Abe Hayeem

Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine.

mitchy
11 January 2008 at 12:58

Whats interesting and not at all surprising is the dogged determination of the zionists (that this type of article inevitably attracts), to ignore what is obvious to the rest of the planet, but not, apparently to them.

And they wonder why the Jewish people are reviled across the globe?

Give yourselves a bloody shake.

The situation in Israel/ Palestine is a humanitarian disaster in which both sides are clearly suffering. Until both sides start accepting their role in this misery, nothing will ever change, and if Israel continues to sidestep its responsibilities it will only help to perpetuate this appalling and frankly embarassing state of affairs, Mazaluk & Jed.

Cybertiger
11 January 2008 at 13:19

"The situation in Israel/ Palestine is a humanitarian disaster ..."

... and is an escalating disaster that threatens the rest of the planet.

davka
12 January 2008 at 14:24

Eyal Weizman takes a on-sided view. For a more balanced picture look at the writings of Israel Kimhi, former Jerusalem city planner and currently with the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, and Justus Reid Weiner of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (author of “Illegal Construction in Jerusalem; A Variation on an Alarming Phenomenon”), authorities on Arab and Jewish construction in Jerusalem and the territories. Kimhi, in “Arab Building in Jerusalem: 1967 - 1997,” noted that Arab housing construction in Jerusalem grew at a rate of 122 percent, compared to 113.5 percent for Jewish construction. Weiner has documented a wave of illegal Arab building in the city, subsidized by the Palestinian Authority and other Arab governments, despite the fact that Israeli authorities have issued housing permits to more than meet the Arabs' housing needs. He notes in his recent book (http://www.jcpa.org/jlmbldg.htm ) that:

— Illegal [Arab] construction has reached epidemic proportions. A senior Palestinian official boasted that they have built 6,000 homes without permits during the last 4 years, of which less than 200 were demolished by the city.

— This frantic pace of illegal construction continues despite the fact that the city has authorized more than 36,000 permits for new housing units in the Arab sector, more than enough to meet the needs of Arab residents through legal construction until 2020.

There were no Jews in 'occupied East Jerusalem' for the simple reason that they were all killed or expelled in 1948 by the Jordanians. Israel had never relinquished the original site of the Hadassah hospital and the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus (in 'Arab' east Jerusalem).

Avihu
12 January 2008 at 18:58

Here is another celebration, put up by the New Statesman for participants who actually do not even recognize Israel's right to exist! Neither the reviewer nor several of the posters at this thread would state that Israel, a member state of the UN, has the right to exist and its people, based on the universally concept of the right of peoples to self-determination, has the right to determine its nature, that is the nation-state of the Jewish people.

I write the above because any discussion about nearly every topic related to Israel, when conducted by people who don't even accept its right to exist must be viewed in the proper context of their views!

Cybertiger
13 January 2008 at 09:48

Israel exists. In 1947, the UN gave Israel the right to exist. Israel will go on existing (atomic bombs permitting) until the UN removes that right of existence.

PS. I now think the UN made a terrible mistake over Israel - but that does not mean that I do not recognise Israel's right to exist under international law.

PPS. I just wish Israel would now take its existence to Texas.

Avihu
13 January 2008 at 15:30

"The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." - US President George W. Bush, 10 Jan 2008

This sentence may seem like nothing new, just another restatement of the two-state vision. But the last 10 words are the key to resolving the conflict, a missing element whose absence has caused the peace process to oscillate between stalemate and war rather than move steadily toward lasting peace.

These words are critical because they signal an end to the Arab world's double game. On the one hand, the Arab states and the Palestinians have claimed to embrace the two-state plan. On the other, the Arab side has demanded something that completely negates the most fundamental prerequisite of the two-state concept, namely mutual recognition of each side's national rights.

The Arab demand for a "right of return" is utterly asymmetrical; according to this demand, Palestinians have a right to move to Israel, while Jews not only have no right to move to a future Palestinian state, but those who live now within the future borders of that state must leave.

This is no ordinary demand. It cannot be solved by drawing different lines on a map. It has nothing to do with borders, but whether the Jewish people have the national right to sovereignty anywhere in the Land of Israel.

If Palestinians have a right to move to Israel, and Jews or Israelis can't move to Palestine, then the Palestinians are saying: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. They are denying Israel's sovereignty and therefore the Jewish state's right to exist.

This Palestinian position came to the fore in the run up to Annapolis, when Israel was pressing for a Palestinian statement recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. To some this sounded like an absurd demand - why do the Palestinians need to say anything about Israel's Jewishness? But this Israeli requirement did not come out of thin air, but from the fact that if Israel is not a Jewish state, meaning a state with a large Jewish majority, then it will become another Arab state.

For Israel, its Jewish character is not a matter of religious preference - unlike the Arab world, Israel protects religion freedom and respects all holy places - but of existence. In this context, the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state, along with the denial of Jewish history and of Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, is tantamount to rejecting Israel's existence.

In April 2004, in a letter to Ariel Sharon as Israel was preparing to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, Bush made a similar commitment: "It seems clear that... a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue... will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."

But this statement was only rarely repeated, and came across as squeezed out under duress in the context of disengagement, rather than a fundamental change in the US position. The significance of Bush's 10 critical words, uttered in Jerusalem on Thursday night as the president declared his confidence that a peace treaty could be signed before the end of his term in January 2009, may be that he has realized that it is not enough for the US to leave the "right of return" as a final-status issue. This demand, he was making plain, must be taken off the table now, because it stands in fundamental contradiction to the entire two-state concept.

The more clearly and forcefully Bush repeats these 10 words, the better the chances that the agreement in whose achievement he professes such confidence will indeed be reached. This is so because no Palestinian leader can reach agreement with Israel without preparing his people and the Arab world for abandoning the demand of "return." And why would Mahmoud Abbas do that if even the US will not routinely explain that this demand is not just another negotiating item but a denial of Israel's right to exist?

In his weekly radio address Saturday as he continued his swing through the region, Bush said he would be pressing Arab leaders "to do their part" for peace.

The Arab states could change the climate completely if they would do two things: meet Israeli leaders and say, as Bush did, that the Jewish people has a right to a state just as the Palestinians do. Such actions cannot wait for an agreement because, without them, there will be no agreement, only more stalemate and war.

dorfyperce
13 January 2008 at 20:52

Once I used to think the zionists had the right to a piece of land but no longer. The Americans love them so much then why not have them all there, those who wish to go, and let the land of Palestine return to it's proper owners. The zionists say that they are the chosen people--then what does that make the non zionists like myself and others???

Avihu
14 January 2008 at 03:47

"Once I used to think the zionists (that is Jews of course) had the right to a piece of land but no longer. The Americans love them so much then why not have them all there, those who wish to go, and let the land of Palestine return to it's proper owners. The zionists (Jews that is) say that they are the chosen people--then what does that make the non zionists (Jews that is) like myself and others???"

Cybertiger
14 January 2008 at 09:32

Avihu (aka Katz) seems to be a parrot rather than the cuckoo I took him for.

PlanetStarbucks
14 January 2008 at 10:48

How can Zionists still make the claim that any argument against Zionism is actually an argument against Jews?

By blurring the lines between Zionism and Judaism, Zionists do create anti-semitism as people cannot distinguish between those who believe in an Apartheid regime and those who follow an ancient religion.

Avihu
14 January 2008 at 16:14

As I have demonstrated above, PlanetStarbucks, some of those out to discredit everything-Israel and to contribute to its annihilation do the mixing themselves! How, for instance, do you explain the statement posted above by one named "dorfyperce"?

Ergo
14 January 2008 at 21:27

There are Jews who don't believe in Zionism or Israel.

As to Palestinian recognition of Israel, you are on tenuous ground. Israel has never defined its borders while encroaching on Palestinian land. Demanding unqualified support for the "state" of Israel under those circumstances seems an unreasonable and very disadvantageous to Palestinians.

mazaluk
14 January 2008 at 23:04

Which planet are you from, Starbucks? You and your lefty facisto-lefty friends are all for the annihilation of the only Jewish state in the world. I don't see you advocating hatred against the genocidal Islamist regime of the Sudan, criticising the human rights records of Albania, Saudi Arabia red China or the other 'non-white' totalitarian entities. Why? Is it because of some ancient hatred or is it just because you view the Jews as white and therefore dispensible?

PlanetStarbucks
15 January 2008 at 16:33

Mazaluk,

I would first like to congratulate you on your exemplary use of English prose in the form of "lefty facisto-lefty", this term will surely enter the lexicon of political discussion for years to come.

I am “up for” the destruction of all state religion and any state that differentiates between its citizens by ethnic, religious or racial means. This broadly includes the entire political structure of the middle-east. Do I think I have the right to effect this change? No, I’m a softie liberal, I only have the right to question this change and take indirect action to attempt to affect it (such as political discussion, refusing to purchase goods which I think are amoral, etc). With Israel I have the right to question its authoritarian nature and suppression of the Palestinians (as even Bush admits to now). I voted for Palestinian solidarity measures during my tenure at university, as I did with measures regarding to recognising the horrors in Sudan. I also question the rise of radical Islam in the UK and the totalitarian nature of ID cards. Would you care for me to list every human rights case and liberty infringement I comment on and petition against? This is a thread about Israel and its relation with Palestine so don’t bring up other topics in an attempt to mask the subject at hand.

Avihu,

While I do not agree with your views I agree with your right to argue them. As Orwell wrote, if liberalism means anything it is the right to tell people things they do not wish to hear. Dorfyperce’s comment does blur the lines but he is one commentator, do not paint others with the same brush. We are all meant to be intelligent people, let us argue facts and try and stay away from the attempts of those on both sides of the argument to make this a matter of race.

mazaluk
15 January 2008 at 22:18

Hey Starbucks (another great firm in Israel!),

Glad to read that you are anti-Pakistan, anti-Saudia Arabia, anti-Syria, et al, as they declare in their constitutions "The state religion is Islam".

Kol Ha'Kovod to you!

Robert Powell
24 January 2008 at 14:03

Nadav why do you now post as Mazaluk and Avihu? Was it because no-one liked you?

mazaluk
26 January 2008 at 22:17

Robert, don't be a silly billy!

I don't even know Nadav!

You lefties get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions, don't you?!

Olive Co-op
01 September 2008 at 15:46

Olive Co-operative are running an Architecture, History and Culture Tour to Palestine and Israel from the 11th - 18th October 2008.

The tour group will explore the ways in which architecture is being used in the current conflict, with the construction of hill-top settlements, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the annexation of important religious and architectural sites behind the Wall.

The trip will include guided tours of the ancient cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nablus, by expert local grassroots organisations such as the Alternative Tourism Group and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. The group will also visit villages where Palestinians are being dispossessed of some of their cultural and religious heritage, as well as fertile agricultural land, through the construction of the Wall.

Designed for those with a particular interest in architecture, the tour will also suit anyone wanting to gain a general understanding of the current situation in Palestine and Israel, giving them the opportunity to see the Wall, visit refugee camps and meet inspiring Palestinian and Israeli individuals and organisations.

For further details and a full itinerary please see www.olivecoop.com

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Ben White

Ben White is a freelance journalist specialising in Palestine/Israel who has written for Comment is Free, the New Statesman, and Electronic Intifada among others. He can be contacted at ben@benwhite.org.uk

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?