A Line in the Sand.

From a recent article in the New York Times, summarizing architecture’s role in creating the wall serving to cordon off the West Bank:

In certain respects, the proposed 450-mile barrier is a model of planning reduced to its most primitive – the desire to divide black from white, us from them. Conceived in 2002 to protect Israel from terrorists, it has been extolled as a necessary tool for self-preservation. It has also been assailed as a formula for ghettoization and a symbol of colonialism.

But on a fundamental level, it is also a piece of architecture. And its construction has generated an architectural debate as charged as any in the political realm.

I found this article especially interesting given the context of the urban design class I took last spring; makes me wonder what LeFebvre would write about it if he were alive. For it’s really a testament of how design in the form of architecture really dictates the way humans interact (or in this case, choose not to). And I also wondered about the ethics of it all. How must the Palestinians feel to see this large concrete barricade, an overt symbol of their being viewed by the Israelis as vermin, infectious creatures that need to be kept out? And how at night, the Israeli side of the wall is lit and well-kept in comparison to the dark, neglected Palestinian side, an obvious visual reminder of the material grass being much greener on one side of the wall than the other.

While this wall may prove to be a short term solution in preventing Palestinians from crossing over onto Israeli territory, my guess is that in the long run, it will serve as a visual catalyst for hatred and resentment that will only serve to prolong the conflict.