Occupying Space - meaning and symbol of the west bank separation barrier by Federico Lepre

occupying space

meaning and symbol of the west bank separation barrier

federico lepre

meaning and symbol of a wall

student federico lepre tutor ombretta romice university of strathclyde 2015

abstract This research is taking in consideration the history and the symbolic image of the border between Israel and Palestine, specifically the one of the West Bank and its wall, the West Bank Separation Barrier. The purpose is to understand the possibility to apply certain knowledge regarding urban sociology and architectural theory in order to gain an objective understanding of what this separation barrier means or represents. 0

[list of content] //introduction

//ch1 ////the beginning ////an uncertain path ////settlements influence and logic ////un—defined border ////structure of the wall

4 4 5 6 10

//ch2 ////the analysis ////XL ////L ////M ////S

12 13

//conclusion

//scenes from the west bank

//bibliography

7 8 9 10 11 15 18 21

f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8

//Checkpoint and Gate map, source: B’Tselem, 2011 //Jurisdiction in the West Bank, source B’Tselem, 2011 //Settlement in West Bank, source B’Tselem, 2011 //Separation Barrier’s plan, source Ministry of Defence, 2003 //Separation Barrier’s scheme, source Ministry of Defence, 2003 //Separation Barrier, source B’Tselem, 2011 //Separation Barrier’s relation with the land //Bethlehem checkpoint, West Bank, 31.5.2009, ph. Anna Paq, source: Activestill

21 f9

//Wall in Al-Walajeh, West Bank, 22.02. 2011, ph. Anna Paq, source: Activestill

29 f10 //Anata, East Jerusalem, 26.08.2007, ph. Yotam Ronen, source: Activestill

30 f11 //Israeli industrial settlement Nitzanei Shalom, West Bank 30.5.2012 ph. Oren Ziv, source: Activestill

31 f12 //Israel Separation Wall, Ni’lin, West Bank, 19.11.2010, source: Activestill 32 f13 //Palestinian Break Hole in Separation Wall, Al Khader, West Bank, 22.11.2013, source: Activestill

33 f14 //Eyal Israeli checkpoint, West Bank, 30.05.2012, ph. Oren Ziv, source: Activestill

34 f15 //Protest Against the Wall, West Bank, 28.02.2014, source: Activestill 35 f16 //Protest Against the Wall, West Bank, 06.01.2006, source: Activestill

[list of figures] 1

From the beginning till nowadays the West Bank Separation Barrier

architectonical artefact, how its form have affected the environment of its

gained a complex and profound meaning. This meaning is not unitarian

surroundings and how the politics that made possible its fulfilment acted

and it is related to a series of elements, interpretation, actors and realities

in shaping this project. Furthermore is relevant to notice that the symbol

it is affecting or which have affected the wall.

contains a double interpretation depending on which side is considered.

The Separation Barrier is just a wall and the loss of its simplicity during

It is emblematic how different in semantic are Palestinians and Israelis

the years will be the subject of this dissertation.

regarding the wall meaning, “Apartheid Wall” for the first one and “Secu-

The aim of this dissertation also regards the meaning related to its

rity Fence” in the other case(Ben-Eliezer 2012; 260).

relation with the land — or better the field — and its relationship with the

The historical summary, as said, will be crucial but the dissection of

territory, its function, both as a border and as an instrument of division.

the meaning and the analysis will be the major part of the work. In this

The meaning of field here is intended as the whole, both urban and non

sense the literature reviewed will be the most preeminent corpus of this

urban, an everything who includes “agriculture and city and the expan-

dissertation.

sion of the city and sprawl and infrastructure and trash and buildings

The wall’s meaning will be put apart for each different realities that are

and favelas and old villages and gated communities and agriculture and

affected by it. Due to all those influences it had on the community, on an

some more other buildings”(SanRocco#2 2011: 3). The reason is that de-

urban and regional scale the study will be addressed by specific literature

spite the partially division that the wall could have — mainly related to the

regarding each of those topics.

different functions along its trails — analysing this object without taking in

For the landscape scale the barrier will be addressed with the researches

account its relationship with the whole could be misleading. Furthermore

done by Lewis Mumford in his book “The Cultures of The Cities”, by Pier

a segregation of the field will be done and the barrier will be analyse in

Vittorio Aureli’s research in his “The Possibility of an Absolute Architec-

different contexts of a different scale — Regional, Urban, Social.

ture”, by Kevin Lynch explanation regarding the site planning and its

The wall cannot be considered as a unique entity, in fact it will be more

nature on his publications “Managing the sense of a Region” and “Site

correct to divide it in specific elements like concrete walls, electric fences,

Planning”.

checkpoints, gates, control towers. Those elements are the ones which

In this section the nature of the border will also be investigated to try to

constitute the barrier and that are positioned on its path which nowadays

understand its deep meaning regarding the relation with the physical

is the actual border between Israel and Palestine.

presence of the wall and the effected it had regarding the infrastructures

Moreover those elements present a duality in their expression. On one

on a regional scale.

side an explicit meaning — eg. the action of dividing two spaces — and

For the urban scale literature regarding the study of the term Urbicide

on the other side a series of specific significance related to its position on

from Marshall Berman, Martin Coward and Nurhan Abujidi will address

the land, the relation with topography, the interaction with urban areas as

the relation of the wall with the urban fabric and its surroundings. In this

well with communities.

section the urban scale will also be functional to connect the regional

Either way, in order to achieve a more complete understanding it will be

scale analysis with the social one. As well as Kevin Lynch’s analysis on

crucial to take also in consideration the political reality that surrounds this

site planning which will also be part of this section in order to introduce

object. It is necessary in fact to affirm that the wall, the design and the

the various issues regarding the term Urbicide.

construction are filled with political issues and that those aspects repre-

For the community and social scale the researches from Jack L. Nasar

sent a very influent character. In this sense the analysis of the historical

on the evaluative image of the city, as well as the one from Amos

events will became crucial and will be privileged, analysed and sum-

Rapoport on the human behaviour in relation with the environments will

marised in the first chapter. Regarding this topic, because of its powerful

be the key factor for a clear comprehension on how the wall acts and

and symbolic meaning that the Separation Barrier represents, it is import-

affects those realities.

ant to say that this dissertation wants to avoid any political judgement.

In this part the aim would be to evade, or at least getting around, the

The main goal taken in account to do this research will concern only the

political aspect of the wall and focus on what sociology and theory re-

introduction

garding the city could be capable to extract from the barrier. Furthermore the object is to try to understand better the nature of some certain objects and their relationship with the city and the landscape reality. Specifically when this two get mixed together or are forcedly mixed by an external element, and what kind of character or meaning those objects might represent. Finally the wall will be addressed as Architecture. Its character and meaning will be analysed using an article from Rem Koolhaas regarding the Berlin Wall. In this section a comparison between the two objects and the description from Koolhaas will be the key to summarised the main features of the Separation Barrier. Some references will be shared by all the four different scales like in the case of the comprehensive book of Eyal Weizman “Hollow Land” on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Other works and researches will be capable to cover more than one topic and to interlace different arguments together. The conclusion will try to summarise the object in itself.

ch1

the beginning The West Bank Security fence is the biggest infrastructure in Israel(Israel Ministry of Defence, 2003). The project of the wall was announced in April 2002 and it did not involved any architect, urban or landscape planner. The administration in charge was Israel’s Ministry of Defence that developed it in partnership with the Department of Regional and Strategic Planning(Weizman 2012: 161). Its primal aim was to provide security in Israel(Ministry of Defence, 2005). This kind of need came after the period of the Second Intifada when Israel was facing a series of terroristic attacks and the urge to solve this situation lead the government to build a physical barrier along the border between Israel and the West bank(Ben—Eliezr 2012: ). This strategy was not new to Israel after building the wall that separates Israel from the Gaza Strip, built almost ten years before in similar circumstances and, as stated from Israel’s government website page of the West Bank Barrier it had “proven its defensive robustness and the vast majority of infiltration attempts through it, were discovered and thwarted”(Ministry of Defence, 2005). The proposal for the wall development was approved by the Defence Cabinet in July of 2001. The project in the beginning was significantly smaller than what it turned out to be nowadays, in fact the proposal was basically composed by a 80 km long wall, split in three separate areas that are Um el Fahem, Tulkarem and Jerusalem. Afterwards, a year later it was extend due to the incapability of the IDF and police to control the gap between those areas. Due to that the project started following a “principle of continuity”(Ministry of Defence, 2003). The construction started in June of 2002, even knowing that they did not have a proper planning strategy. Its construction, in fact, was divided in subsections of twelve kilometres and was undertaken incrementally. While building those segments others were planned(Weizman 2012; 162). There was not an— accurate path

to follow although a sort of path was recognisable — and it became more evident while the wall was being constructed — and it is called the Green Line. This line was the official border between Israel and the West Bank. It was the outcome from the 1949 Armistice Agreements, a series of agreements to set peace between Israel and the Arab countries who play a role in the first Arab—Israeli War. The West Bank Separation Barrier did not have an overall plan and because of that the path of the wall had been subjected to multiple changes during its construction. Those changes were the result of the multiple actors who played different key roles and who were able, in both explicit or implicit way, to influence the final outcome of the wall. This is a crucial issue regarding the barrier. Those multiple actors — other than the Israeli government — where composed by “Palestinian ‘popular farmer’ committees’, Israeli real estate developers, settler association and other political lobbies, environmental activist, Jewish religious organisation, political and human rights groups, armed paramilitaries, local and international courts and international diplomacy”(Weizman 2012; 162). They all played different roles and in some cases they have gained from the uncertain nature of the project itself.

an uncertain path A parenthesis has to be open regarding the geopolitical situation that Israel was facing. There were settlements along the Green Line that were in fact pretty stable — either in a legal or illegal way. Those settlements where composed and placed on the land by a wide range of different actors and reasons(Weizman 2012) and they played a key role in the decision of the final path for the wall. Some of them wanted to be included in the protection the wall had to offer, while others had used the wall as an instrument to expand their estates or for the purpose

of expanding their businesses, some other actors were facing the opposite perspective and desire to be excluded from the path in order to avoid an interference with what was for them a profitable situation(Weizman 2012; 163). Nowadays more than 85% of the Israeli settlements are located in an area between the Green Line and the barrier(OCHA Barrier Report July 2013). Some theories, like the one of Eyal Weizman, investigated this topic deeper. Weizman results proved that the Israeli government used the wall as a tool to apply a certain kind of “colonial regionalism”(Weizman 2012; 27) taking advantage by the path of the wall in specific areas. In each case the path continue to be build and more land was gained from the West Bank territory, nowadays 9.4% of this land is included inside the separation barrier. Other numbers — quite significant during the analysis of this object — regards the final outcome of it. Total length will be 712 kilometres — twice the length of the Green Line — 85% will run in the most fertile and prosperous land of the West Bank(OCHA Barrier Report July 2013). In any case, the route of the wall had some sort of guidelines who were basically a set of “security and operational considerations, examining topography, population density and threat assessments, taking into account humanitarian, archaeological and environmental concerns”(Ministry of Defence, 2007). The planner was a civil engineer, Danny Tirza, head of the Department of Regional and Strategic Planning of IDF’s Central Command from 1994 to 2007. He was in charge of the project and planned most part of it. Tirza stated that the route of the wall was decided and generated by a calculation that took into account functionality factors regarding the design of the wall and its elements, topography of the West Bank land, density and distribution of different settlements, present infrastructure and, finally, the location of the settlements. In addition to those reasons there where some military issues regarding the materiality of it and its orientation. In

fact the wall is mainly constitute by a fence barrier in order to let the army aim trough it — 90—95% of it is made like that(Barahona 2013; 47). The concrete wall is running only in the urban areas, where there’s no need to fulfil this sort of strategic need(Bard 2005). In addition, most of the cases the wall is sided by a road, either a highway or a military street, this extra function had a great influence on the wall’s design.

settlements influence and logic Nowadays it became a fact that one of the purposes of the wall was the conquering of new land. Tirza in 2006 was suspended from his position directly from The High Court of Justice which ruled that due to a legal action from a Palestinian farmer whose land was requisitioned to build a section of the wall. An expansion of several settlements was planned and various investors were planning to build in the area and to gain advantages from the barrier presence(Weizman 2012; 167). Besides those sequence of events, a certain kind of modus operandi could be recognisable in the construction of the wall that became also an influent issue in the development of the meaning and the symbol that represents nowadays. This modus operandi carried different interests inside the Israeli community and — in some cases Palestinians interests were not taken into consideration. An emblematic explanation are the example of the settlements Alfei—Manashe and Matan. Those settlements are placed in the region of Tel Aviv, and were planned to be inside the wall following a government decision coming directly from Israel’s prime minister Ariel Sharon. The residents of Matan protested strongly against that, afterwards they engage into a legal battle against the government

which they succeeded. As a consequence the wall had to include just Alfei—Manashe but not Matan, in order to achieve that, the wall’s path was forced to pass across two Palestinian towns neighbouring the area. Those two towns did not have the same power and the assets that Matan was able to show. As a consequence, residents of the two Palestinian settlements which were against this decision end up not having a choice as the Israeli settlements did, proving that Israel did not take them into consideration. The route of the wall affected negatively the day life of this small tows populations(Weizman 2012; 168). This kind of politics was the modus operandi seen in the development of the wall. Furthermore, in most of the cases this process had affected Palestinian economy. A consistent number of Palestinians nowadays are trapped inside the wall path and this is disrupting working conditions for them. In addition to that the palestinian farmers are forced to cross the West Bank Separation Barrier in order to work their farms. Palestine agriculture GDP decreased significantly since the beginning of the wall’s construction(Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS) April 2010) while the Israeli saw significant increment(Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). In this sense the occupation is a factor which will be difficult to deny or to underplay as Tirza stated in a 2006 article(Tirza 2012). Furthermore the ICJ — International Court of Justice — in 2004 published an Advisory Opinion stating the illegality of the wall under the circumstances described before. The document was also implying Israel as an “occupying Power” and should be “under an obligation to return the land, orchards, olive groves and other immovable property seized from any natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Pressure from international organisations and authority was constant during the developing of the wall. In order to ignore this kind of pressure the government used an unplanned project and its uncertain development to state that the wall was a temporary solution(Weizman 2012; 167).

un—defined border

As well as the semi—planned building of the wall, the management of the border was a strategic game of politics than can be call a legacy regarding the occupation of the land. It was a not new procedure to Israel. This kind of legacy started years after the War of Independence in 1949. The common issue at that period was the control over the land — and its resources — which became one of the most preeminent, the control over the water resources it is an example (Bernard 2012: 77; Weizman 2012: 17). As Weizman stated, after the declaration of independence — and the consecutive creation of Israel — a more stable political and geographical situation was needed. This was found in what Weizman called the “Israeli Project”, a state—centric master plan with the aim to reach a “centralised political control, governed by principles of rational organisation and standardisation”(p.87). The first sketch was in fact prepared by an Israeli architect who studied at Bauhaus, Arieh Sharon(p.88). He got his degree in the Dessau period of the school and was deeply influenced by the teaching of Hannes Mayer and Walter Gropius. As an architect he was one of the most prolific of the modern movement in Israel and Palestine(Dursthoff 2010). Either way his plan counted only as a primal suggestion. The major difference with what was done later is that it had the aim of achieving fixed border between the two states. It was not applied but it later became a reference for architects and planners who worked from 1950 until 1960, in the planning of a new plan(Weizman 2012; c). In the period between the end of the Six Days War and the Oslo Accords the direction of this plan was taken under control by the government and generals from the IDF. At the time Ariel Sharon was the Minister of Agriculture — Menachem Begin’s first government in 1977—81 — and he was the first who sees the border of Israel in an “elastic way”(Weizman 2012: 90), giving the chance of Israeli citizens and companies to start building settlements

military base completed barrier

approved barrier route

final checkpoint before israel internal checkpoint agricultural gate in separation barrier

route requiring further approval

barrier under construction

tunnel entrance. underpass or sunken road

f1 7

over the border of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. They were established illegally against the general government guidelines by a group of settlers — part of an independent political organisation — with a aim to expand their influence and power. Only after they were settled in an area, they would declare it to the government in order to ask protection or inclusion. The control of the government over those dynamics — and the geopolitical situations as well — was partial. Indeed there was not only an actor behind it, but a wide series of interests on different levels, both political and economical.

built-up area (settlement)

area within municipal boundary (settlement)

regional council jurisdictional area (settlement)

area annexed to israel

completed barrier

approved barrier route

route requiring further approval

barrier under construction

completed barrier

approved barrier route

route requiring further approval

barrier under construction

area A

area B

f2 8

area C

f3 9

structure of the wall The West Bank Separation Barrier is not homogeneous. The barrier shows specific elements on all its path based on the site it is placed on and the strategic needs and limits, like the respect of the topography, limits regarding the design process — e.g. the slope of a road(Weizman 2012; 167) — and military needs. Its common image is usually related to the concrete walls that, due to their materiality and location, became the scenarios of different manifestations and, more than that, during the years tend to be represented as the whole of the barrier(Bard 2005). This is due to the fact that they are located in cities, on the side of some highways and also by its height. This is because of two similar features, which constitute the reason of the way that are placed and they are designed. Both features regard the possibility to avoid a direct attack from the ground or from the top to Israeli civilians — e.g. from snipers(Ministry of Defence 2003). In relation to that the concrete wall is opaque and has an height of eight meters. Furthermore, in order to avoid the chance to create tunnels underground to get across, the barrier has at the bottom, a ledge of a meter and a half(Cook 2003). On specific segments it is also distant from Palestinian side — houses, hills,etc. — three hundred meters. The concrete wall constitutes about 5% of the total separation barrier. The other section of the barrier is mostly made of a fifty meters wide section that has four elements, barbed wire, electric fence, military road and surveillance camera. The section, from the Israeli to the Palestinian side, works with the sequence of: surveillance camera behind all the other elements in order to spot intruders, barber wire fence followed by a fine sand pavement in order to spot the passage of intruders, paved roads for border police to patrol, fine sand and electric fence, a dirty road for army movement, a ditch two meters and a half deep as well barbed wire fence as the final element. This section,

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

as said before, will constitute the major part of the final outcome. The elements to pass across the border are checkpoints and agricultural gates. The first one is mainly placed in cities while the second one gives the chance for farmers to reach their lands. The last elements are the most iconic ones, control towers. While all the other are developed on a horizontal way the towers are growing in a vertical direction. They are place along the path of the wall mostly in the urban fields

ch2

analysis

The West Bank Separation Barrier acts in different and varied context, and affects both the landscape and the townscape, at the regional and the urban scales. It covers and separates hills and cities, it bounds, encloses and creates spaces. It protects and oppresses and it is open to multiple interpretation inside and outside those two extremities. Its elements lie on various levels on the field and, even if by a primal reading could seem so, it is not a wall, it is not even just a barrier. The multitude of interpretations and misunderstandings are part of its political expression and due to that constitute its strength and its weakness point(Mumford 1938: 309). It intimately includes several realities and different objectives. It is partly legal as illegal, part of a project and part not. It has different levels of action, it affects realities, communities, economics, politics. It is an expression of all of those mentioned previously together and at the same time it is part of their propellant. All those characteristics are living in coplanarity and simultaneously inside this object. Because of that, unitarian analysis will be avoid while a fragmentation of the artefact in smaller scenarios will be prefer. The criteria and logic regarding this fragmentation will be trackable in inductive processes expressed by the scale of analysis. The reason beside this act is merely arbitrary and doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to hide its nature. Furthermore its aim lies in a trial of clarification of the topic itself and in the impossibility to find specific concepts regarding the whole project together and able to explain it. Consequently the chapters will be four,XL, L, M, S corresponding to different common scales functional to the argumentation and to be interpreted in Landscape/Regional, Urban, the Social environments and, finally the overall Image of the wall. Everything will be developed through division and comparison between each organ and characters of the wall in relation with the appropriate scale, with the usage of theory regarding the correspondent befitting topic.

XL The wall didn’t involved any architects or planners during its design but was developed by different actors mixing different influences regarding urbanism, topography and military tactics. Because of that the issues regarding security — derived from the inclusion of certain Israeli settlements and military prospectives — adapted the project to be functional, firstly, to a strong and military logic and, later, to a series of practical issues(Weizman 2012: 163). This kind of modus operandi is part of the nature of the plan — more precisely the act of planning itself — and could be explained in two common basic characteristics: functional adequacy and the optimum communication. Both of them constitute an integral part of the general objectives that Kevin Lynch pointed out in his analysis of site planning(1962). The first one refer to the original motives regarding the making of a plan — eg. enough exposure of the light, space issues, etc. — while the second one focuses on the possibility to give to the information ability to circulate easily within the boundaries of the plan. In this sense the description from Pier Vittorio Aureli in his book “The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture” (p.30) regarding the nature of the political and domestic space constitute a key passage in the interpretation of the barrier. He starts from the original distinction from Aristotele regarding politics and economics. Which are techné politiké and techné oikonomiké, the first one regarding the set of action that must turn conflict into coexistence, while the second the act related to the administration of the private space. Aureli then introduces two model cities that develop from Aristotele’s concepts, the Greek one and the Roman one. The first one found its expression in the term polis, while the second one presents in its definition the dichotomy of urbs and civitas. In the Greek city—state the politics and economic

spaces live in contrast and are expressed by two basic elements who constitute the city; the house and the agora. The polis includes those two characters and, inside that, its materiality is expressed by a wall that encloses the urban fabric. The space is regulated by the nomos, the law, which organises the interaction between political and private space inside that wall. On the other hand the Roman model puts before the concept of city, the need for expansion of that latter. Due to that the two terms of urbs and civitas are able to express their complete meaning. In fact urbs represents an agglomerate of houses and the materiality of the city with no political qualification while the other one stands for the political status of the habitants inside the urbs. This status is given by the law — lex — and it is the leading condition which a civvies should accept in order to become part of the civitas. Inside those settings the urbs is able to acquire the status of structure and, from its meaning, to convey the need of expansion that was mandatory for the Roman Empire. The space where this structure lies is the infra, which in reality became the infrastructure. The infra, in politics, is a “trace of the impetus toward separation and confrontation within the city”. While, inside this concept, the urbs gain the function of connecting and integrating the city itself. The wall could be seen as the infra inside this condition, an object capable of fulfil its primary function, but at the same time, achieve the opposite of it(Al—Haq 2012). Lynch’s thoughts go hand in hand with this concept of infrastructure and in his analysis of the site planning(1962: 37) he investigates the nature of, what he called, the system of circulation. “The access”, he said, “is the prerequisite of the usefulness of any block of space”, stating that the inability to interact with a certain space leads it to losing its value. The communication net is the primarily characteristic of a large

scale site because through that comes the possibility of receiving informations as well as goods. Moreover this system of communication is divided in different types regarding the kind of information or goods they are transporting. For example, the one for the vehicles constitutes the most critical in the site plan due to the demand for space and sensitiveness to alignment. As well as the water supply which represents the most critical one regarding a large scale community. Finally, in his book, a section explains how those networks are placed on site. The very common setting is the grid — rectangular or triangular —, while a more rare one is the linear. The linear could consist of a single line or a parallel series. It mainly connects two points, and it may be used “in conformity with the limitation of a some linear site along a water or topographic edge”. It will follow then an alignment, an “usual characteristic and a centre section located along a continuous centreline proper of the path”. This centreline has a specific location in the space imposed by design convenience and applies itself in the horizontal and vertical direction. The wall acts in congruity inside this concepts, following a linear alignment and creating a new system of circulation on the field. The wall is a vector of point attractor. On this vector a series of elements are placed, those elements constitute the point served by the linear alignment. Those elements are recognisable as the checkpoints, the towers, the various gates, the change of materiality, while the vector is physically represented by the concrete wall — or the metal fence. New alignments and direction are developed on this vector which collapsed and merged with the old one. The new directions are functional to the army/barrier police movements, the security issue, the government/ settlers/company interests — both economic and political. All those characters are orthogonal to the “old

direction” — the one used by terrorist to enter Israel, or by farmer to reach their land — and this interaction is physically expressed in the agricultural gates and checkpoints. As a fact this kind of places — intersection between this two orthogonal direction — are the one where tension between civilian and army is more evident(Zeedani 2007, Weizman 2012: 149). Finally, the wall acts in a Regional scale. A Region here is intended in the definition that Lewis Mumford gave to that term(1958: 312). A Region is a portion of space which shows specific characteristics, that Mumford lists in three main groups. The first regards the specific geographical character composed by the climate, the vegetation, the topography, while the second group is related to the “dynamic equilibrium” that a region tends to maintain balance between its various parts — which the man is one of them but acts in a more complex way compared with the nature who composed the region itself. The third characteristic is that a region has no defined boundaries. Those latter are arbitrary and they do not present any certain definition. Mumford had stated also that in order to defined an area “one must seek not the periphery alone but the centre”. Whit this sentence He is expressing the concept that the “urban spheres of attraction” is the geographical facts who tend to influence, in a radial way, the surrounding.

f6 15

L Two features of the Lynch’s site planning analysis(1962) have already been quoted. From Lynch’s work another useful element is the inherent criteria that a regional plan has to supply, the character he defines as Choice. He stated that a common goal, “where the individual is highly valued”, is to maximise the freedom of the users to choose the habitat, facilities, services, activities and neighbourhoods. This character of choice is also recognised in urban environments. Moving deeper into the subject, P. L. Knox had defined as opportunity what a residential location has to give in order to contribute to people’s welfare(Cox and Johnston 1982: 63). The net of accessibilities “to the whole set of opportunities” in an urban reality is determinant to the “use value” of residential property. Moreover the accessibility to a set of services and amenities, in his view, is a crucial element for bringing the chance, for different socio—cultural groups, to find fulfilment regarding the “distinctive life style aspiration” held by them. Knox’s view on accessibility to facilities also corresponds of two features, saving on resources to achieve a certain service — the proximity from, or to, the latter — and the ability to have a choice to reach those facilities. Moreover he also recognises the presence of the element of choice and states that it will be “almost as significant as the actual use of facilities in some circumstances”. In this sense the wall is acting and interfering with this elements. Its construction is blocking a series of accesses to certain facilities as stated by the United Nation (UN) in a report by Richard Falk regarding the consequences of the occupation(Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 2012). An example on how the project of the barrier affected urban realities could be seen in the city of Beth-

lehem. The wall’s path passes about 50 kilometres along side the city, cutting the access to — and from — the city itself. The Rachel’s Tomb is enclosed in the westside and, as consequence, its tourism and economy were affected in a relevant way. In October of 2000 the amount of tourists per month were 90.000 while in 2004 the data registered was a decline to only 7.250(Irin 2006). As a side effect the migration rate had increased and the population was leaving Bethlehem — 30.000 habitants in 2006 and 25.000 in 2007(Palestinian Central Bureau of Statics index). This kind of destruction regarding not only physical components of the city but also its reality was described as Urbicide(Abujidi 2014, Coward 2009,Berman 1996). Urbicide is to be intended as the act of destroying a build environment with a political effort. Marshall Berman stated that the city includes in itself a substrate which contains identity. In the act of destroying a city this kind of substrate gets lost and the city itself loses its capability of containing the identity. The urbicide could also be seen as the act of “destroying the city in order to destroy the urbanity itself ”(Coward 2009: 37). In this sense, regarding Israel and Palestine, Stephen Graham had argue that the destruction of the refugee camp by the IDF on April 2002 was an act of urbicide(Graham 2003) The analysis of Weizman in reference to this topic goes much further. He implies that the urban warfare was part of the Israeli occupation — and in early stages also of the construction of the wall — had achieve a deeper meaning regarding the reorganisation of spaces instead of partly destruction of the cities, villages and urban realities. He is referring to this term as a tactic of “inverse geometry”(2007: 218). In his analysis the term acquires the meaning of a deliberate act to shift the public and private hierarchy. Martin

Coward (2009) had describe the urbicide as an act that can also lead to exclusion. He suggested that the destruction of urbanity or urban fabric has not a random character but aims to specific places and spaces, like, for example, the common/shared one. The goal is to destroy diversity and heterogeneity in order to bring a certain kind of homogeneity. Furthermore the urbicide can be divided in two elements, the direct and the indirect one(Abuijidi 2014). The direct one is also divided in three types, the extreme urbicide, the deliberate and the wanton ones. The extreme urbicide means the “complete annihilation of the urban”, the destruction, for instance of a collective or national identity. The deliberate urbicide is more specific and aims to certain realities inside the urban fabric in order to destroy, for example, a specific symbol like a religious one. The wanton on is the destruction of the whole urban environment as a symbolic act itself. Manifestation of power is the goal and the destruction of a “political body and place of identity” is the way it is expressed. The indirect urbicide is different from the previous ones. It is not expressed only by destruction but also by laws, political measures and actions. It is not an immediate act, it is slow and it is evolving during the time. Coward(2002) had described the West Bank Separation Barrier as part of this kind of urbicide. The wall is the expression of the division and the separation that the Israelis want to achieve from the Arabs. In this sense is interesting to focus on the result the Institute for National Security Studies discovered regarding the public opinion of Israelis on the Separation Barrier(Strategic Survey 2013—2014: 159). Their analysis concluded that most of the Israelis want the separation from the Palestinians and that, from a survey they conducted in 2012, the 69 percent of the Israeli population support the solution of “two

states for two peoples”. The same survey discovered that the 59 percent is also in support to the possibly of establishing a Palestinian state. Although the Israeli population is favourable in finding a solution they do not believe that a peace agreement can be possible. Anyway, the majority of the population desires for an agreement to be reached if brought by a referendum, 51 percent of Israel’s population is in favour of this of solution. In order to achieve separation the majority of Israel’s population will be in favour to give back to Palestinians certain areas currently occupied by Israel.

f7 18

M Amos Rapoport had theorised regarding the urban environment what he defined as the ambiance of the city and could be identify in the sensor quality, the character that each user of the city can feel by experiencing its space. From that it is possible to derived the capability of how the environment is able to influence the consciousness of the users(1993). Furthermore this character could be summarise in the meaning of the place itself(Nasar 1997). This capability of influencing the experience of the users and the users itself contains also a passive component, the possibility to being influenced, in return, by him. Rapoport, in his analysis, goes further and synthesise that in the “Recognisable Urban Landscape”, the space which is build and derived from its usage by man. The duality of being the influencer and the influenced is experienced both from the singular being and from the landscape. Directly derived from that logic stands the argument of the evaluative image of the city by Jack L Nasar, who expressed the theory regarding the Likability. He is referring to this term as the probability that an environment will be able to evoke a “strong and favourable evaluative response among the groups or the public experiencing it”. Its usage then, as Nasar expressed it, would be in order to achieve a measure to determine whether or not an area, part of a certain urban reality, is liked or disliked by the user. Moreover in order to clarify the argument in his theory he also adds that the users do not constitute a passive actor. In fact we are able to adapt themselves to different specific environments as — he says — the Americans who were “experiencing a visual disorder” had in some cases learned how to accepted it — or to adapt to it. In each scenarios, he later specify, there is always a distinction between an organised environment and one who is not. In

addition the goal of understanding the way that the process of image evaluation works has to be located in the possibility for a planner to improve his comprehension and, consecutively, the environment itself, as well its ability to convey desirable meaning to visitors. In this sense and with this features the planner could be interpreted as a figure loaded with power and possibilities to use this tool in both a positive or negative way. Furthermore the planning of certain environments could be filled with awareness regarding his position or the usage of this knowledge — or both — in order to apply specific scenarios and to change certain realities with a positive or negative outcome. As an example it will be possible for an urban designer to use those technics — described in their materiality as “tool of possession”(Cullen 1971: 23) — in order to render — explicitly — a goal of occupancy and to “announce the existence of territorial claim”(Altman, Rapoport, Wohlwill 1980: 189). Moreover the planning of certain environments at a regional scale, could not involved a single actor and as Kevin Lynch asserted(1976: 7) could be described as the “inability to control a real estate development due to internal factors like the chaos of local government or the private exploitation of land”. In the project of the wall this condition is well expressed by the historical facts(Weizman 2012: 167). This duality of actors and factors which are able to influence the design process and its final outcome has to be taken in consideration regarding the perception of the project itself — in fact in the design of the wall they are evident. The wall divides communities both Palestinians and Israeli. It is affecting diverse urban realities and leading to a series of division of its fabric. As a consequence to this facts the developing of its path had changed due to several issues regarding, mainly, pressure from UN about the respect of Inter-

national Law on Human Rights, and also in the meeting of different interests from the actors involved(Weizman 2012: 167). The wall could be divided in different elements and each of those elements could be taken in their singular consideration — or episode — regarding the effect on both community, urban and landscape context. The majority of them develop their property within an horizontal layout — concrete wall, barbed wire, fence, checkpoints and gates — even thought some, as example the control towers, are also growing with a vertical one in order to gain other specific functions. Recent researches had stated how this latter vertical elements are perceived as surveillance — they are usually higher than the average urban skyline — and how the whole together is affecting not only the migration of Palestinians from urban areas nearby but also the lives of Palestinians still living in those areas(Ben— Achour 2007, ). This process was recently described as spacio—cide(Hanafi 2009), an appropriation of the land by the usage of architecture and its potential destructive character involved in his construction. On the other hand recent surveys(The Israel Democracy Institute — Peace Index — January 2015) have pointed out how the Israeli community is still sensible regarding security issues — which were the primary reason regarding the construction of the wall. For example to the question “In your opinion, which government is better suited to deal with Israel’s security issues?” 57.5% of Jews have found themselves in favour of a government headed by Binyamin Netanyahu — notoriously in favour to conclude the construction of the wall(Perry & Federman 2014)This different perspectives and opinions — to the previous question, the Arab community had opted for a left—wing leader, in favour to find a meeting point in oder to start a peace plan — could be partially explainable with the

elements of Likability described by Nasar(1998; 59). He stated that, even if there is some sort of singularity in each experience by the users, it is possible to distinguish five kind of environmental attributes — Naturalness, Upkeep/Civilities, Openness, Historical Significance and Order — of the space. The areas liked more by the users are the ones who tended to respect those kind of attributes, while, the one that show negative results are Obtrusive, Humanmade uses, Dilapidation, Restriction, lack of Historical meaning and Disorder. The Naturalness stands for the presence of vegetation, water, or mountains in certain environments; the presence of built content is generally seen as a negative factor. Adding vegetation to a scene usually increases the preferences of the users, as well as the tendency of prefer natural scene than scenes who show human intervention. A scenario who shows intense development, high—rise buildings, commercial or industries uses tend to be disliked. In this sense it will be possible to argue that the wall represent a presence which interfere with this attribute. In fact its design did not provide any attention to its inclusion in the context. This lack of inclusion was felt in the past by Isreali planners and architects. As proof of that, during the years, some proposals regarding its aesthetics have been made — making the wall plastic transparanr, using the terrain instead of the wall in a manner similar to the Ha—Ha fence(Weizman 2012: 170). The Upkeep/Civilities referred to caring and up keeping of a certain environment. Nasar recognises in this attribute the primarily prediction of evaluative response. The areas disliked where the ones who showed presence of dilapidation, poles, wires, signs and vehicles. All of this characteristics are ascribable to presence of incivilities and, if present in a certain

area, could increase a sense of disorder. The wall in the process of construction and growth could be seen as an object who creates all those negative connotations mainly in Palestinian than Israeli side(HEGP, OCHA, UNRWA Report March 2005). The Openness refer to the spaciousness or constriction of the street. The changes between this two elements are related to the evaluation of the image. Anyway the openness has not to be intended as the infinite space. Nasar’s research has pointed out also that a moderate and defined openness is generally more pleasant than a wide open one. The most significant symbol of that is the piazza, a place that presents a distinctive and defined space with open view only on the street. Regarding this topic the wall created a situation where the segregation of the space had destroyed certain views(Weizman 2012: 170). The Historical Significance regards the presence of historical content in the area. Nasar stated that the content does not have to be authentic, it has to be recognised as that. Authenticity is not important, it is having an historical appearance, or style, that matters. Furthermore the meaning of this evaluation is f8 the possibility of find the image of an area/building legible. In an historical style is always possible to recognise a evident pattern, even if inside that style deep variations are possible. In this sense the wall, and its construction, had compromised areas with historical value. Furthermore the wall was officially declared by the government — in more than one occasion — as a “temporary” solution(Weizman 2012; 173). A movable object with an uncertain path and no real relation to the field. An object who did not want to achieve any historical significance. The Order states for “clarity”. Nasar’s research have found that the character of this value could be seen as similar to the Upkeep/Civilities one. Order stands also

for legibility of a certain scene and, furthermore, its coherence. Moreover, to not appeared boring, this value has to come with Complexity. This latter is intended as the richness of the urban scene, the presence of variety, diversity and contrast in it. In this sense the wall — in specific its construction — is destroying and changing urban realities as well as increasing fragmentation of the West Bank(Weizman 2012; 179).

S “The wall is not stable; and it is not a single entity, as I thought. It is more a situation, a permanent, slow—motion evolution, some of it abrupt and clearly planned, some of it improvised”(Koolhaas 1995: 215) With these sentences Rem Koolhaas described his first impression regarding the Wall of Berlin in a report he made for the AA in 1970. Koolhaas later affirms in the text that the wall is composed by different elements that are working together and relating themselves to the context, their function, the space they are dividing and creating. Koolhaas stated that the wall is decision. It is a series of meanings and symbols applied with architecture on the urban fabric of Berlin. The difference between the Berlin Wall and the West Bank Separation Barrier are evident. They are dividing different kind of sides — German with German, Israeli with Palestinian. They are acting in different kind of environments — urban regarding the first one, regional the second one. They are different on various aspects, they have very different sizes — the West Bank Barrier is about five times longer and twice taller. They are composed by different kind of elements and different materiality — the West Bank Barrier is mainly composed by a fence, what could be seen as an opaque wall corresponding just to the urban area, while, on the other hand the Berlin Wall has both elements together. Acknowledging the differences between those two walls it is recognisable that the they are similar in their basic characters. They are what Koolhaas define as “absolute architectural minimalism”. But this absolute architectural minimalism is able to contain a wide variety of meanings and symbols in itself. In its minimalism it is also a situation, a series of scenarios evolving across the space. The slow movement that Koolhaas described offers a series of images regarding his reportage. He is walking crosswise this

object and the object changes the meaning, communicating different symbols. Its communication is expressed by its elements and their composition while their position in the space is their medium. Their composition in the space is influenced by the space itself and their context. Koolhaas had described two kind of walls, the “high” one and the “low” one. The first one is the iconic. It is passing through the city centre, emphasising the division of it and expressing its deep meaning in relation to the whole. Koolhaas refers to this moment as the expression of its “shameless imposition”. The “low” one it is “relaxed”, he is referring at this section as the one who presents a “casual” and “banal character”. This kind of difference between the elements that composed the Berlin Wall can be applied as well to the West Bank Separation Barrier. The concrete walls are the “high” one, they represent the more discussed image of it. Those sections have gained the attention from the media, they are the part who where painted — either by graffiti artists as Banksy or directly by the official contractor who built part of them(Levy 2005). They are the ones which could be related to the image of “ruin” that Koolhass is describing for the Berlin Wall. They are acting in an urban environment, cutting the space of it and creating new realities. They are leaving a sign on the landscape with their height. They are also the stage for various scenarios, from exuberant and violent ones like the various manifestations, as well the more common and usual ones like the daily life of people living nearby the wall and adapting to it. The other sections, the series of fences, barbed wires and routes are the “low” ones. They show a powerless image mainly transparent, short and with a weaker relationship with the field they are placed on albeit they show a static and military composition. They do not

deeply cut the landscape nor interact with the urban fabric. The characters that define this two kind of walls as Architecture is justified by their action on the field. As Koolhaas stated the Berlin Wall is dividing, enclosing and excluding, in the West Bank Separation Barrier this elements are present as well. Those actions are part of their intimacy nature and behaviour that can lead them to the status of Architecture. “It was clearly about communication, semantic maybe, but its meaning changed almost daily, sometimes by the hour”. Koolhaas(p.227) recognised a temporal value to the Berlin Wall. It is changing the meaning in relation to, affected by “events and decisions thousand of miles away than its physical manifestation”. The Separation Barrier faces the same reality. The wall itself is not the significance, the wall is just an object, the “lightest object”. Its significance and meaning are the events that surrounds it

conclusion The West Bank Separation Barrier is an object which carry in itself a lot of issues. The simplicity that characterised the entire architectural element is unmistakable as well as its complexity considering the whole together. The powerful image that is capable to held derived entirely from the different significances applied to it. Its ancient and basic functions are part of its winsome appeal. It has the capability of being both an innocent victim and a brutal agent. It is able to be both a tool and a character. It is playing both the starring and the supporting role. It is the communication medium of and for different voices. The analysis done in this dissertation had not cover its all spectrum of colours, all its undertones. Robert Venturi in his book “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” defined different aspects relating to architecture. In those aspects the phenomenon of “both—and” — the ability of architecture of containing multiple meaning and interpretations — will be a helpful for summarising the wall. Venturi stated that “If the source of the both—and phenomenon is contradiction, its basis os hierarchy, which yields several levels of meaning among elements that are both good and awkward, big and little, closed and open, continuous and articulated, round and square, structural and spacial”. The West Bank Separation Barrier fits in this meaning. It is capable to contain all those feature and, into this definition, to express all its ambiguity. As affirmed in the previous chapter the wall is not just a wall. Its scale leads it to different levels of analysis. The architectural one is its most intimate of this levels but cannot be described using the Venturi’s statement.

In order to summarise it in a more wide element the definition of boundary from Marshall McLuhan in his book “The Global Village” will be comprehensive. “We all know that a frontier, or a boundary, correspond to the space between two worlds, and creates a sort of two—fold network, or parallelism, that evokes a sense of multitude or universality. When two cultures,two events, two ideas, are placed side by side, there is an interaction, a magical change. The more different the interfaces, the greater the tension of interchange”(McLuhan 1989; 22).

scenes from the west bank 27

Anata, East Jerusalem, 26.08.2007, ph. Yotam Ronen, source: Activestill

f10

Israeli industrial settlement Nitzanei Shalom, West Bank 30.5.2012 ph. Oren Ziv, source: Activestill

f11

Israel Separation Wall, Niâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;lin, West Bank, 19.11.2010, source: Activestill

f12

Palestinian Break Hole in Separation Wall, Al Khader, West Bank, 22.11.2013, source: Activestill

f13

Eyal Israeli checkpoint, West Bank, 30.05.2012, ph. Oren Ziv, source: Activestill

f14

Protest Against the Wall, West Bank, 28.02.2014, source: Activestill

f15

Protest Against the Wall, West Bank, 06.01.2006, source: Activestill

f16

[bibliography] [Books]

//Ben—Eliezer Uri(2012), Old Conflict, New War, Palgrave Macmillan //Castells Manuel (1977), The Urban Question, Edward Arnold Publisher //Nasar Jack L. (1998), The Evalative Image of the City, SAGE Publications //Lynch Kevin (1960), The Image Of the City, MIT Press //Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown & Steven Izenour (2010), Learning from Las Vegas, Quodlibet //Aureli Pier Vittorio (2011), The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture, MIT Press //Weizman Eyal (2012), Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, Verso //Rapoport Amos (1969), House Form and Culture, Prentice Hall //Bender Barbara (1993), Landscape: Politics and Perspective, Berg Publisher //C. Berberich, N. Campbell & R. Hudson (2012), Land & Identity: Theory, Memory and Practice, Editions Rodopi //Shepeard Paul (1994), What is Architecture? An Essay on Landscape, Buildings, and Machines, MIT Press //C. Jencks & G. Baird (1969), Meaning in Architecture, The Cresset Press //McLuhan M. (1989), B.R. Powers, The Global Village, Oxford UP, New York //Barahona, Ana (2013). Bearing Witness — Eight weeks in Palestine. London: Metete //Mumford Lewis (1968). The Urban Prospect. London: Martin Secker & Warbung Limited. 153-166. //Lynch Kevin (1976). Managing the Sense of a Region. Baskerville: MIT Press. //Coward Martin (2009). Urbicide, The politics of urban destruction. New York: Routledge. 17-54. //Koolhaas Rem (1995). S/M/L/XL. United States: The Monacelli Press. 212-234. //Cullen Gordon (1961). The Concise Townscape. Oxford: The Architectural Press. 106-111. //Shiwirian, Kent P. (1977). Contemporary Topics in Urban Sociology. Morristown: General Learning Press. 268-331. //Cox & Jonsthon (1982). Conflict Politics and the Urban Scene. Essex: Longman Group. 45-88. //Lynch Kevin (1962). Site Planning. Cambridge: MIT Press. 3-115. //Rapoport, Altman & Wohlwill (1980). Human Behaviour and Environment. New York: Plenum Press. 7-42. //Hanafi, Sari (2006). City of Collision. Beirut: Birkhäuser Basel. 93-101. //Mumford Lewis (1938). The Culture of Cities. London: Martin Secker & Warbung Limited. //Venturi, Robert (1966). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: MOMA. 20-34.

[Jurnal & Magazines]

//Antonio Tursi. (2011). McLuann spa———ce. archphoto 2.0. 01 (1), p10. //Cindy A. Sousa. (2014). Dwelling within political violence: Palestinian’s women’s narratives of home, mental health, resilience.. Health Place. 30 (1), 205—214. //Dursthoff, Wiebke (2010). Kibbutz und Bauhaus. Arieh Sharon und die Moderne in Palästina. Hannover: Dekanat Fakultät für Architektur und Landschaft. 7. //San Rocco Editorial Press. (2011). Editorial. San Rocco. 2 (1), 3.

[Online Websites & Articles]

//David Ratner. (2002). Gilboa towns build DIY separation fence. Available: http://www.7th—day.co.il/hayom—hashvie/fence.htm. Last accessed 6 Jan 2015. //Kevin Connolly. (2014). Indecisive end to Gaza conflict. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world—middle—east—28950787. Last accessed 6 Jan 2015. //Editorial Staff. (2012). Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world—middle—east—20385306. Last accessed 6 Jan

2015. //Editorial Staff. (2014). Palestinian territories profile. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world—middle—east—14630174. Last accessed 6 Jan 2015. //Cohen, Shaul E. (2006). Israel’s West Bank Barrier: An Impediment to Peace?. Available: https://www.questia.com/read/1G1—165352413/israel—s— west—bank—barrier—an—impediment—to—peace. Last accessed 6 Jan 2015. //Hart, Doug. (2007). Life Behind the Wall: Palestinian Students Online. Available: https://www.questia.com/read/1G1—159177976/life—behind—the— wall—palestinian—students—online. Last accessed 6 Jan 2015 //Wakim, Miriam. (2006). West Bank Wall: Security or Settlement?. Available: https://www.questia.com/read/1P3—1151138421/west—bank—wall—security—or—settlement Page 1 of 3. Last accessed 6 Jan 2015. //Dan Perry and Josef Federman. (2014). Benjamin Netanyahu’s years as Israel’s prime minister see surge in West Bank settlements. Available: http:// www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/15/benjamin—netanyahu—years—israel—settlements/?page=all. Last accessed 2015. //Ministry of Defence. (2003). Operational Concept. Available: http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/default.htm. Last accessed 2015. //Ministry of Defence. (2007). Route. Available: http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/route.htm. Last accessed 2015. //Ministry of Defence. (2005). Execution Aspect. Available: http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/execution.htm. Last accessed 2015. //UNRWA. (2011). Barrier Monitor Unit. Available: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/barrier—monitoring—unit?id=908. Last accessed 2015. //UNRWA. (2012). Opinion of the International Court of Justice. Available: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/bmu—opinion—international— court—justice?id=1280. Last accessed 2015. //Bard Mitchell. (2005). West Bank Security Fence: Background & Overview. Available: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html. Last accessed 2015. //Al—haq. (2012). Visiting a Ghost Town: Drawing attention to the plight of al—Nu’man village. Available: http://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/topics/wall— and—jerusalem/594—visiting—a—ghost—town—drawing—attention—to—the—plight—of—al—numan—village. Last accessed 2015. //Said Zeedani. (2007). A Palestinian Perspective on Checkpoints. Available: http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=980. Last accessed 2015. //Levy, G. (2005). Twighlight zone / Behind the scenes. Available: http://www.haaretz.com/twighlight—zone—behind—the—scenes—1.147746. Last accessed 2015. //Tirza Danny. (2012). Israel Security Fence Architect: Why the Barrier Had to be Built. Available: http://www.al—monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al— monitor/israeli—security—fence—architect.html. Last accessed 2015. //Ben—Achour Ramsey. (2007). Demolition decimating Palestinian village. Available: http://electronicintifada.net/content/demolition—decimating—palestinian—village/7227. Last accessed 2015. //Cook Jonathan . (2003). Sharon’s real fence plan. Available: http://electronicintifada.net/content/sharons—real—fence—plan/4492. Last accessed 2015. //Perry D. & Federman J.. (2014). Benjamin Netanyahu’s years as Israel’s prime minister see surge in West Bank settlements. Available: http://www. washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/15/benjamin—netanyahu—years—israel—settlements/?page=all. Last accessed 2015.