This is war in an age of agoraphobia, a fear of open spaces, seeking not the division of territory but its abolition.
Christian Salmon. The Bulldozer War, 2002
2007, Jerusalem, a segregated city: Jews celebrating 40 years of unification, and Palestinians commemorating 40 years of the Occupation. 1967, Cairo: My father, a student at the University of Cairo, lived the Six Day War and the fall of the West Bank ad Gaza Strip under the Israeli occupation, and learned his right to return to Jerusalem was denied. Jerusalem, a divided city since 1948 became one again, for Israelis a capital for the Jewish people and for Palestinians a city under Israeli occupation. 1987: I was 10 years old when my family returned to Jerusalem. 2002, the government of Israel decided to erect a physical barrier to separate Israel and the West Bank, separating Palestinians from Israelis and other Palestinians. 2004: the International Court of Justice deemed the Wall and the Israeli Settlements in the West Bank illegal.
In this paper I discuss the transformations of urban space in Jerusalem: a continuous destruction and construction of land that affects the social and cultural life within public space. I explore the spatial productions of ethnocracy where segregation is visibly defined and collision with the other is avoided or violent. In Jerusalem, planning and architecture merge with politics to delineate power where architects play the role of war leaders, and differences generate antagonism and suspicion. What is the role of architects in Palestine and Israel? Can architecture facilitate dialogue and conflict? Can architecture help end the Occupation?
In this paper I rely on different publications whose authors present and analyze space production in the West bank within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and clearly define the practices of the architecture of the Occupation and their affects on the everyday and urban life. The authors highlight the major point in the discourse of space and conflict in Israel and Palestine. City of Collision: Jerusalem and the Principles of Conflict Urbanism, edited by Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets, addresses Jerusalem’s urban transformations. A Civilian Occupation, edited by Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman, addresses the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank, and the politics of their architecture. And Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, Eyal Weizman’s most recent publication on analyzing and critiquing the architecture of the Israeli occupation.
Israel uses planning as a major tool to control, fragment, and seize more Palestinian land. “It is spaciocide”, states Sari Hanafi, a Palestinian sociologist, describing Israel’s planning. He further explains that spaciocide is a three-dimensional process that controls not only the land but what’s underneath it and the air above—the natural resources, water, archeological strata, and military control in the air. Hanafi stresses that spaciocide denies Palestinians access to development and expansion. Borders are constantly changing and moving, drawing two different spaces for two different peoples, and producing non contiguous enclaves for Palestinians . Similarly, Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman believe that “the terrain dictates the nature, the intensity, and the focal points of the confrontations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” not only by the destruction, but also by the construction of the landscape and built environment.
In Jerusalem, roads, walls, settlements, neighborhoods, or houses can be constructed or demolished virtually overnight. The dramatic changes in the built form are parallel to changes in the population. Israeli population growth is encouraged by government incentives and massive housing projects, while Palestinians are forced to migrate due to discriminating planning policies known as ‘silent transfer’. To maintain the 70% Jewish majority in Jerusalem by 2020, indicated in Jerusalem’s master plan, Israel imposes planning and building policies that facilitate acquiring the greatest area of land but the fewest number of Palestinians. Palestinian population growth is understood in Israel as a ‘demographic time-bomb’. The head city planner at the Jerusalem Municipality explains that the 40% Palestinian percentage of Jerusalem’s population expected by 2020 would disturb the ‘demographic balance’. The city planner noted that political planning will keep Palestinians population at 30%. In Hollow Land, Weizman analyzes the architecture of the Occupation and accordingly the responsibility of the architect. He introduces two architects, an architect that takes active part in displacing Palestinians and seizing their land, and an “activist-architect” whose architecture turns against the architecture of the Occupation. Weizman notes that architects and planners at the Jerusalem Municipality have been taking active parts in Israeli’s national policy of ‘silent transfer’ of Palestinians.
Examples of the architecture and planning of the Occupation:
Jewish Settlements and Green Areas:
The landscape and urban fabric of the West Bank have been radically changing since 1967 through extensive construction of Settlements and their infrastructures. In A Civilian Occupation Segal and Weizman note that Israeli planning decisions do not often follow economic sustainability, ecology, or efficiency, but instead serve strategic and national agendas. Israeli Architects planning and designing in the West Bank serve to oppress and disturb the lives and livelihoods of Palestinians. As Segal and Weizman note, “space becomes the material embodiment of a matrix of forces, manifested across the landscape in the construction of roads, hilltop settlements, development towns and garden suburbs.” Through Israeli land planning, Palestinians have been pulled away from the experience of their city spaces into confined “enclaves; an archipelago of isolated islands” , as articulated by Weizman.
In 1967, border lines of the Palestinian neighborhoods and villages in Jerusalem were drawn around the already built-up fabric, prohibiting any further expansion, and in so doing, controlling the number of Palestinians allowed within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries. Vast expanses of lands land around Jerusalem’s eastern villages have been legally confiscated, designated as green public zones, blocked from Palestinian construction, and often rezoned for the construction of Israeli settlements. These practices are accompanied by an unexplained Israeli policy of issuing a limited number of building permits to Palestinians. In addition, the process of issuing the building permits is long and costly. Between 1967 and 2007, only 3100 building permits were issued to Palestinians in East Jerusalem while about 20,000 buildings were built. Palestinians resist the discriminatory building policies by building ‘illegally’ resulting in unplanned neighborhoods growing inwardly resulting in great density, altering the built environment with new architectural forms, and producing areas with limited open space. Many of these ‘illegal’ buildings have been demolished and others are under threat of being demolished.
Roads:
The same road connecting settlements in East Jerusalem to West Jerusalem separates and divides Palestinian neighborhoods from each other and from Israeli neighborhoods. The planning of the road systems is used as a tool to bisect and squeeze out Palestinian populations. Shmuel Groag notes that “the quality, size, and nature of each road, one might say, is a fair indicator of whether Palestinians or Israelis move along it.” The differences in the two parallel but different infrastructures are indications of inequality in spending of municipal resources and, as a result, “urban space becomes treacherous and unreliable, fueling biases and mistrust.”
Check points:
Palestinians and Israelis cross paths everyday. An area of contact and entanglement include involuntary encounters between Palestinians and Israeli soldiers at military checkpoints. A checkpoint cannot be described simply as a path; it is an obstruction or a denial of continuity, spatially, socially, and economically. A checkpoint possesses a hierarchical nature, an occupying armed, oppressive, threatening soldier in the way of an occupied, oppressed, disempowered civilian.
Crossing checkpoints is part of the daily routine of thousands of Palestinians. Hundreds of checkpoints exist to separate Israel from the Palestinian Territories, East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, and Palestinian cities and towns in the West Bank from each other. Israel started establishing checkpoints in 1991 following the Madrid Conference when the International Community wanted to establish peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis. Checkpoints increased in number and level of strict passage laws with the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000. As a result, many people suddenly found their jobs, schools, family members, and relatives on the other side of a checkpoint, leaving them having to cross checkpoints everyday if they are allowed to, moving to different homes or changing jobs and schools, or living disconnected. Checkpoints are places of humiliation, where Palestinians are denied a basic human right of free movement, and places for resistance where Palestinians resist them by their very presence, by their body and facial expressions, and their continuous trying after being denied access many times.
The Wall:
Another important factor that has altered physical and socioeconomic realities is the Wall: the “Separation” or “Apartheid Wall” as described by Palestinians or “The Security Wall” as described by formal Israeli rhetoric. The current route of the barrier is 1200 km, of which about two thirds are completed. Approximately 162 km of the barrier are being constructed in Jerusalem, of which 89 km have been completed. Most of the barrier built around Jerusalem is a 6-8 meter high concrete wall. The Wall follows the June 4th 1967 borders in some areas and penetrates deep in the West Bank in other areas, to include Israeli settlements and open areas, effectively annexing 10-16% of the West Bank area to Israel, or 40-45% of the West bank according to the PLO Negotiations affairs Department. The Wall will separate East Jerusalem completely from the rest of the West Bank and will have a strongly negative impact on the political, social, and economic connections between the separated Palestinians. Its meandering contours, combined with electronic fences with dirt paths, barbed-wire fences, and trenches on both sides, with new roads and tunnels, “fulfills the two (at times contradictory) principles of securing a unified city for a Jewish Israeli population while at the same time excluding many thousands of Palestinian Jerusalemites.”
According to Issam Nassar, a Palestinian history professor, the Wall is becoming to some degree a new monument that dominates the landscape. The Wall makes it impossible to see the other. Palestinians cannot see other Palestinians, and Israelis and Palestinians cannot see each other. Nassar further describes the hostile environment created when urban fragments of the two neighbors collide. In such collisions an edge of fear and denial of the other is created, a no-man’s-land where garbage is dumped and landscape is depleted.
The Integrity of Archeology:
In Hollow Land, Eyal Weizman stresses that “archeology has been central to the formation of Israeli identity since the establishment of the state”. Weizman explains how Israeli biblical archeologists had national rather than religious purposes. Archeology’s national role was “to remove that visible layer and expose an Israelite ancient landscape and with it the proof of Jewish ownership of the land”, “…providing an alibi for new colonization that could be argued as a return to sacred patrimony.” During archeological digs, layers of histories of hundreds and thousands years old have been bypassed because the Israeli biblical archeologists were interested only in the periods mentioned in the Bible. Traces of cultures and lives were ignored, including the upper layers of the different Muslim periods which were mostly left alone to disintegrate. In Jerusalem, many archeological sites and museums open to the public misrepresent the history of the city where archeology is politicized to serve Israeli national agendas, and support one historical narrative while dismisses many others.
The Paradox of a ‘United Jerusalem’:
In Jerusalem, xenophobia is heightened and space is divided into that of us and them, resulting in islands of cultural containment and social exclusion. Wherever possible, the crossing of ethnic boundaries is avoided. But a complete physical disengagement is equally impossible.
Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets. City of Collision, 2006
Despite the official Israeli rhetoric of Jerusalem as a unified city, Palestinians and Israelis do not experience the city as a continuous whole but as fragmented multiple smaller cities or semi-cities, spatially and psychologically disconnected from each other. In his article “Integration, Segregation, and Control”, Michael Romann, an Israeli Urban researcher, considers Jerusalem an extreme case of segregation where Jews and Arabs conduct their daily lives in two different social, economic, and spatial realities; “different ethnic identities are clearly marked and there is no place allowed for a mixed Jewish-Arab identity.” At the same time, daily exchange is inevitable especially in economy as about half of the Palestinian workforce of East Jerusalem crosses over to the west side of the city for employment. Differences are marked in language, fashion, lifestyle, social behavior, and the built environment. They reflect the different cultures and the struggle for identity in a polarized and segregated city. The extreme polarized case of the city reflects the paradox of “United Jerusalem” as the Israeli government claims the city is unified, but exercises division of civil rights and citizenship.
In East Jerusalem, open spaces normally believed to encourage connections between different social groups are exploited as means of disempowering communities and advancing spatial domination. Consequently, inequality in public areas fuels hate and mistrust between the two separated neighbors. For example, West Jerusalem has 1,000 public parks while East Jerusalem has only 45 parks. Amir Paz-Fuchs and Efrat Vohen-Bar discuss the laws of inclusion and exclusion in Jerusalem. In order to maintain a united Jerusalem, Israeli planning aims at achieving a continuous experience for Israelis in the city without being distracted by the Palestinians. They note that “powers of exclusion could be threatening to fundamental values of community and democracy.”
Nazmi J’ubeh, a Palestinian archeologist and historian, portrays the severe underdevelopment of East Jerusalem’s neighborhoods as rapid “Ghettoization.” J’ubeh stresses that without urgent and vigorous intervention to deal with the “Ghettoization” process, not only Jerusalem as a capital for a Palestinian state is threatened to disappear, but furthermore, the Palestinian state itself. These neighborhoods get very little municipal spending. They are surrounded by Israeli settlements, disconnected from the experience of the city, and from other Palestinian neighborhoods spatially and socially. They are becoming slums, with enormous density and little expansion.
Powers in space:
Oppression and liberation are the two sides of the power coin.
Kim Dovey. Framing Places: Mediating power in Built Form, 1999
Tim Cresswell explains how the distribution of power defines places. According to Cresswell, certain powers manipulate the properties of place to impose ideological and political practices, while powers that include people in the practice of decision-making and placemaking can be a form of the exercise of democracy. In Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form, Kim Dovey discusses two different forms of power, “power over” and “power to”, manifest themselves in architecture, urban planning, spatial behavior, and public life. The different powers over are exploited in different parts of Jerusalem—from visible architectural practices of the Occupation to invisible practices transmitted in public and private spaces to acquire control over powerless subjects.
According to Dovey, the most obvious form of power over is “force,” which is an overt exercise that strips the subjects of any choice of non-compliance. Examples of force in the built forms are the Israeli Settlements forcing Palestinian enclaves, fences, security devices, walls, and checkpoints.
Another form of power over is “coercion,” and could be defined as “the threat of force to secure compliance.” It is a latent force that operates under voluntarism and implies sanctions so the subjects anticipate its actions and behave accordingly. Under coercion, public and private spaces are transformed into spaces with sets of rules for programmed actions. In these spaces the freedom of subjects is subverted and their lives are disconnected from social life. In Jerusalem, Palestinians are enclosed in small discontinuous areas where the other is invisible, the sense of orientation in space and time is eliminated, and actions are arranged into right or wrong.
Along with coercion comes “seduction.” Dovey explains that seduction is conducted by manipulating the desires and interests of subjects, making them accept their role in the existing order of things and consequently preventing them from complaining because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural. Dovey notes that the built environment shapes perception and cognition when it structures the taken-for-granted order of things and makes them seem unchangeable. Seduction manipulates desires against the subject’s real interest and, as a consequence, the subject cannot find the distinction between real and perceived interests. The Occupation often advocates its actions by claiming they are temporary. Later, these actions become permanent, and sadly, they seem to be natural. There are generations of Palestinians that have always lived as refugees, generations that have always been denied freedom of movement, and generations that have always lived in cantons surrounded by walls. The Occupation strips them of the ability to imagine life without being occupied. When David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, was asked about the problem of the Palestinian refugees, he answered; “the old will die and the young will forget.”
Dovey also introduces “authority”. It is related to the institutional structure of societies where certain forms of authority are recognized and are not questioned. Most importantly, authority is realized by the absence of argument. Arguments disappear under the role of an oppressive authority unless there is a public political consensus against it. Although resistance of the authority might imply more repression and marginalization, staying invisible could be considered complying with the oppression. Architects should resist the oppressive authority and realize their role in building and encouraging spaces that nurture arguments, a major component of democratic spaces.
In Spaces of Uncertainty Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen note that “oppression through control, armed control most of the time, defeats the public power and fragments public life in social spaces into scattered private lives, culturally or ethnically connected, without presence to urban life.” They stress that this growing erosion of public life indicates the gradual decline in the city’s capacity to digest conflicts or to reflect social differences. Today, people’s understanding of the role of public and private spaces is distorted, and their idea about public life and democracy is confused. Public spaces are considered showcases rather than public platforms.
Since most powers over gain their control from being hidden, people need to be empowered with a capacity to perceive real interests and connect them to an imagined future to resist those powers. According to Dovey, “the struggle over power is the struggle to make its operations visible”. That implies an important role of architects and artists to stimulate imagination to help people recognize their real desires.
Architects as war leaders:
In Hollow Land, Eyal Wiezman gives examples of Israeli architecture of political and national agendas, architecture that serves the Occupation. After 1967, the Jerusalem Municipality had to deal with complex building, planning, and restoration issues. The challenges included having an Israeli identity for the ‘united’ city. In 1968, Mayor Kollek established an advisory Committee to help deal with these issues. The committee included prominent international characters including architects Louis Khan, Isamu Noguchi and Christopher Alexander, the architectural critic Bruno Zevi, the American historian Lewis Mumford, and the philosopher Isaiah Berlin.
The passionate academic discussion of the Jerusalem Committee never challenged the political dimension of the municipal plan and Israel’s right or wisdom in colonizing and “uniting” the city under its rule, nor did it discuss the dispossession of Palestinians that it brought about. Rather, it argued about the formal and architectural dimension of this colonization. The history of the occupation is full of liberal “men of peace” who are responsible for, or who at least sweeten, the injustice committed by the occupation. The occupation would not have been possible without them.
In1974, a group of young Israeli architects, among them Ram Karmi, the architect of the Ministry of Construction and Housing at the time, influenced by Jerusalem Committee, carried on major housing projects in Jewish Settlements in East Jerusalem. The young architects “may have been aware that their projects were built on expropriated Palestinian lands, and precipitated personal and national tragedies, but they suppressed such thoughts, pretending to engage with these projects in a ‘purely’ professional way.”
Today, several monumental projects are taking place in Jerusalem, including: a Santiago Calatrava bridge and a Frank Ghery Museum of Tolerance. Although not being built in East Jerusalem, such projects should not turn a blind eye to the realities of the city, the Palestinian forced exile, and the Israeli segregation. Architecture in Jerusalem can not be ‘pure’ professional. It often contributes to Palestinian forced exile, advances segregation, or indicates ideological, political, or national symbols that fuel suspicion and distrust.
Architects as activists:
Architects have to play active roles in revealing, resisting, and shifting the powers that control the urban environment to help empower people and allow for democratic spaces where dialogue and conflict take place. Without the active involvement of architects in challenging the seemingly paralyzing powers that control spaces and people in space, architecture is threatened to loose its social and political significance. In Hollow Land, Eyal Weizman stresses on the importance the “activist-architect”.
Today, several organizations carry this notion in Israel and Palestine. B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, “endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.” Bimkom, Planners for Planning Rights in Israel, “strives to achieve the right to equality and social justice in matters of planning, development, and the allocation of land resources, and assists communities and minorities affected by social and economic disadvantage and by civil rights discriminations to exercise their rights.” Efrat, an architect at Bimkom, explains the difficulty, or rather, the impossibility of changing the “big ideas” of political Israeli planning. Their work in East Jerusalem involves teaching the community about their rights, working with them on possible development plans, and proposing the plans to the municipality, where discussions, arguments, and conflicts advance any possible change.
The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses, later extended its activities to include, “resistance and protest actions in the Occupied Territories like land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of "closure" and "separation," the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more; efforts to bring the reality of the Occupation to Israeli society; and mobilizing the international community for a just peace”. Eyal Wiezman explains how the “provocative intervention” of the ICAHD situates them “inside and outside: as players within the conflict, and in the position to analyze and critique it”.
Other practices of the “activist-architect” could be transformation, modification, and preservation. Such acts help empower marginalized or ignored groups to actively take place in social and political decisions and practices. Riwaq, a Ramallah based non-profit organization whose main aim is the protection and development of architectural heritage in Palestine, apply such practices to the historic and natural sites towards economic and cultural development. For example, their “job creation through restoration project, successfully created 80,000 work days through restoring thirty-six historic buildings and transforming them from dump areas into fully functioning cultural and community centers”.
Ending the Occupation in the Palestinian territories, the land occupied by Israel in 1967, only 23% of Mandate Palestine, is possible only by just international efforts. Peace agreements between the weak Palestinian National Authority and Israel fail to obtain minimum rights of Palestinians and Palestinian refugees, or achieve a Palestinian State on contiguous land with Jerusalem as its capital. The successive failure of peace agreements accompanied by forceful and accelerated Israeli domination and manipulations of realities on the land clearly indicates international injustice in dealing with the conflict. If there becomes a local and international consensus against the Occupation and the discrimination, Israel would comply with International Law and Human Rights. In order for that to happen, realities in Israel and Palestine should be made visible for people who live them and for those who live outside. Architects and other professionals should become active players in the conflict, “inside and outside,” in analyzing, critiquing, revealing, intervening, empowering and confidently changing.
1 Christian Salmon, “The Bulldozer War”, 20 May 2002, <http://www.counterpunch.org/salmon0520.html> (29 July 2007)
2 The West Bank includes the east part of Jerusalem annexed to Israeli n June 1967. The border of 1967 that the UN acknowledges as the eastern border of Israel goes through Jerusalem and divides it into east and west parts. Israel by claiming Jerusalem as a united city for the Jewish people violates the UN resolution calling it to return to 1967 border. In my paper whenever I refer to the West Bank, I mean including the east part of Jerusalem.
3 B’Tselem, “East Jerusalem”, <http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation%5FBarrier/> (29 July 2007)
4 Sari Hanafi, “Sapciocide”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), pp. 94-95
5 Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman, “Introduction”, in Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman, ed., A Civilian Occupation (Babel Publishers, 2003), p. 19
6 Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets , “Cities of Collision”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 29
7 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), p. 261
8 Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman, “Introduction”, in Rafi Segal and Eyal Weizman, ed., A Civilian Occupation (Babel Publishers, 2003), p. 19
9 Eyal Weizman, “Principles of Frontier Geography”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 86
10 Seventy thousand dunums (one Dunum= 1000 squared meters and 4 dunums= 1 acre) comprised of the Jordanian Jerusalem municipality and the surrounding villages were annexed by the Israeli Jerusalem municipality. The more populous village centers of Abu-Dis, Ezariya, Ar-Ram, and Bir Nabala remained outside of the municipal boundary. Nazmi Jubeh, interview with author (May 25, 2007)
11 according to Israeli law that allows confiscation of any land for security reasons without notifying or compensating the owner
12 Amir Paz-Fuchs and Efrat Cohen-Bar, “Common Grounds that Exclude”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), pp. 227-233
13 Shmuel Groag, “The Politics of Roads in Jerusalem”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 176
14 Shmuel Groag, “The Politics of Roads in Jerusalem”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 176, Groag also notes that Palestinians receive only 10% of the municipality spending
15 Ressem Khamaisi and Rami Nasrallah, “Jerusalem: From siege to a city’s collapse”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 163
16 Oren Yiftachel and Haim yacobi, “Barriers, Walla, and Urban Ethnocracy in Jerusalem”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets , “Cities of Collision”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 171
17 Ressem Khamaisi and Rami Nasrallah, “Jerusalem: From siege to a city’s collapse”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets , “Cities of Collision”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 29
18 Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets , “Cities of Collision”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 30
19 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), p.39
20 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), p.39
21 Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets , “Cities of Collision”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 30
22 Michael Romann, “Integration, Segregation, and control: Functional everyday Jewish-Arab relationships in Jerusalem,” in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 295
23 Michael Romann, “Integration, Segregation, and control: Functional everyday Jewish-Arab relationships in Jerusalem,” in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 296
24 On June 27th, 1967 Israel declared Jerusalem, with its eastern part, as unified and under its exclusive control. Just Jerusalem Competition, “The Political Geography of the City”, <http://www.justjerusalem.org/AllUsersPages/CityGeographies/ThePoliticalGeographyoftheCity/tabid/88/Default.aspx> (29 July 2007)
25 Amir Paz-Fuchs and Efrat Cohen-Bar, “Common Grounds that Exclude”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), pp. 227-233
26 According to B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, 23,378 dunums of land were expropriated from Palestinian land in east Jerusalem, from 1968 until 1991, where 44,610 housing units were built and 176,647 Israelis moved in. B’Tselem, “Statistics on land expropriation in East Jerusalem”, <http://www.btselem.org/english/Jerusalem/Land_Expropriation_Statistics.asp/> (29 July 2007)
27 Just Jerusalem Competition, “The Socio-Economic Geography of the City”, < http://www.justjerusalem.org/AllUsersPages/CityGeographies/TheSocioEconomicGeographyoftheCity/tabid/91/Default.aspx> (29 July 2007)
28 Amir Paz-Fuchs and Efrat Cohen-Bar, “Common Grounds that Exclude”, in Phillipp Misselwitz and Tim Rieniets ed., City of Collision (Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 2006), p. 227
29 Nazmi J’ubeh, Interview (06 June 2007)
30 Kim Dovey, Framing Places: Mediating power in built form (London, New York: Routledge, 1999)
31Tim Cresswell, In Place Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression (Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)
32Kim Dovey, Framing Places: Mediating power in built form (London, New York: Routledge, 1999)
33Kim Dovey, Framing Places: Mediating power in built form (London, New York: Routledge, 1999)
34Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen, Spaces of uncertainty (Verlag Muller + Busmann, Wuppertal, 2002), p. 74
35 Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen, Spaces of uncertainty (Verlag Muller + Busmann, Wuppertal, 2002), p. 74
36 Kim Dovey, Framing Places: Mediating power in built form (London, New York: Routledge, 1999)
27 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), pp.36, 37
38 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), pp.42, 43
39 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), p.261
40 <http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp> ( 08 September 2007)
41 <http://www.bimkom.org/aboutEng.asp> (08 September 2007)
42 Efrat, Architect at Bimkom, Interview (01 June 2007)
43 < http://www.icahd.org/eng/about.asp?menu=2> (08 September 2007)
44 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), p.261
45 <http://www.riwaq.org/about/about.html>(08 September 2007)
46 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land, (London, New York: Verso, 2007), p.261