RIBA calls for suspension of Israeli Architects

4/11/2014

Has anyone been following the RIBA motion for the suspension of the Israeli Assocation of United Architects from the UIA? I need architects to support the withdrawal of the motion.

Ron Gonshaw, the new SPG chair and I have sent a response to the president of the RIBA demanding Portland Place abandon its controversial motion against Israeli architects. (I stepped down as chair at last week’s AGM at the end of my 2 year term)

Here’s some background taken from the RIBA’s initial press release…

RIBA Council on 19 March 2014 passed a motion for the Institute to call on the International Union of Architects (UIA) to suspend the Israeli Association of United Architects’ membership until it acts to resist projects on illegally-occupied land and observes international law and accords.

The RIBA Council vote was passed with 23 for, 16 against, 10 abstentions.

The full RIBA motion, proposed by RIBA Immediate Past President, Angela Brady, was:

Since the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) has paid no regard to the UIA resolution 13* of 2005 and 2009, the RIBA calls on the UIA, as the international guardian of professional and ethical standards in our profession, to suspend the membership of the Israeli Association of United Architects, until it acts to resist these illegal projects, and observes international law, and the UIA Accords and Resolution 13.

*UIA's Resolution 13 (2005 and 2009) states that “The UIA Council condemns development projects and the construction of buildings on land that has been ethnically purified or illegally appropriated, and projects based on regulations that are ethnically or culturally discriminatory, and similarly it condemns all action contravening the fourth Geneva Convention”.

And here’s our response as reported in the Architect’s Journal….

The Solo Practitioners Group (SPG) has demanded Portland Place abandon its controversial motion against Israeli architects

The linked society of the RIBA has written to institute president Stephen Hodder calling for a U-turn on demands for the International Architects Union (UIA) to suspend the membership of the Israeli architects’ representative body.

The North West of England-based organisation spoke out against the motion after its annual general meeting on 1 April ruled the policy was ‘not representative’ of its membership.

Adopted on 19 March, the motion tabled by past president Angela Brady followed the IAUA’s continued failure to punish architects breaching the UIA’s 2005 Resolution 13 condemning the building of settlements on occupied land.

The letter from SPG chair Ron Gonshaw said the agreement failed to support the RIBA’s aim of promoting architecture and that insufficient time had been given to debate the issue and gain a balanced view from members.

He added: ‘The RIBA in this motion is involving itself in the complexities of international politics [but] the first debate should be to establish if it is the wish of the membership to examine and scrutinise the civil rights records of every country.’

The letter continued: ‘This motion implies that the RIBA is partisan in the complex political situation in the Middle East, which is more damaging to the perception of RIBA and it’s members than the likely effectiveness of any possible resulting outcome.

‘We believe that the motion is ill judged for the above reasons and should therefore be withdrawn.’

The SPG’s criticism comes shortly after the Israeli Association of United Architects called on Prime Minister David Cameron to block the motion.

In addition, the issue was raised at the RIBA regional council meeting, where I held a seat as chair of the Solo Practitioners (until our AGM last week) and the following will be minuted…

NW Regional Council noted the concerns around this motion and would make known these concerns formally through Nations & Regions Council (and through Matt Brook’s representation on Nations & Regions Council).

And at the MSA where I also hold a seat, I raised the issue and we will invite local members of the RIBA council to a Q and A.

If you are an architect or know of any architects, who like me, thinks the motion should be withdrawn, please let me know and we can organise another letter.

The issue made front page of the Jewish Telegraph this week - 11th April 2014

13 Comments

John Sutcliffe

4/11/2014 11:41:04 am

I agree with the motion. I believe that Israel has persecuted the Palestinian Arabs, often dividing towns and villages, preventing farmers from accessing their fields. I suspect that some Israeli architects have been complicit in illegal occupation and that we, as part of the international community should make a clear statement that we do not find this acceptable. I would be equally vociferous about China's persecution of the Tibetan people,

Will more

4/12/2014 11:38:56 pm

What you said is the same as saying: a black man did something bad so let's punish all black people.
Your clearly a big thick. Whilst also being pompus. Well done for using the word vociferous. Don't bother posting anything else online.. It will only show people what a thicko anti-Semite you are.

Denis MacEoin

4/13/2014 01:09:34 am

Here is the text of a letter I wrote to members of RIBA a few days ago. Needless to say, no-one has bothered to reply. I hope it helps you understand better why this motion is disgraceful.

Denis MacEoin

Dear Sirs

Forgive me for writing to you without invitation, but I hope you will recognize from the subject line of this e-mail that the matter on which I wish briefly to address you is of considerable importance, and I do not doubt that you will have the patience to read what I have to say.

My concern originates here, in the fact that I am not an architect and therefore cannot speak to you directly in terms you might more easily understand. However, I am aware that RIBA has ventured in this instance onto my own territory. Over many years, I have taught Arabic-English translation in Morocco, Arab and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University in the UK. I have been a Fellow in Middle East and Islamic Studies at Durham University. I have edited a major international journal in this field, the Middle East Quarterly, I am currently a Fellow in the Middle East Forum and a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

I do not parade these credentials to gain any merit for myself. We all have our areas of expertise. But it does give me cause for deep concern to find that a group of people without expertise in my field has taken action on the flimsiest of grounds on a matter that requires a serious knowledge of events, personalities and history to be grasped to a level that might justify your action in boycotting Israel. I do not think you have that knowledge, whether collectively or individually. I would not expect to pass judgement on the RIBA or any other body on a matter that lies outside my field of expertise. I would not expect to sign a petition for a boycott of medical doctors, even though I have met and know several of them. I am not a doctor, I cannot make balanced judgements on medical matters.

At the root of your action against Israeli architects lies a profound misunderstanding on your part. You characterize Israeli building in the West Bank (Judaea and Samaria) as illegal. That is a reasonable understanding of the situation, but from one side only. I can introduce you to many academics and international lawyers who would say exactly the opposite, and who would back their statements by reference to a host of documents from within the international legal context. Are you, as a body, aware of the UN resolutions and many other documents that characterize the Israeli occupation as legal (they do not occupy the land of any sovereign state, UN Resolution 242 makes it clear that Israel does not have to remove itself from all territories and is allowed to remain in occupation until the Palestinians agree to mutually agreed and secure borders). Thus, the settlements are not illegal in any proper sense. They may be mistaken, they may be unjust, and they may irritate the Palestinians, but I assure you that reliable people who understand more of this situation than you or I are adamant in characterizing your boycott as unbalanced in more than one way.

If you are not in a position to have access to both sides of the argument, you ought not place the matter before colleagues who appear to know even less. Israel has suffered over the years from egregious misrepresentation, and many organizations and individuals have acted against Israel on the basis of claims that are flatly wrong. Many call Israel an 'apartheid state' when it is precisely the opposite of that: Israeli Arabs have more rights and better standards of living than Arabs in any Arab country. Others have the temerity to call Israel a 'Nazi state'. I cannot say too strongly how much that is the complete opposite of all that Israel stands for. Israel's human rights record is one of the best in the world and much greater than any other country in the Middle East. By that I mean the rights Israel extends to all its citizens, to women, gay men and women, and to religious minorities.

Is a country that is a thriving democracy and a human rights champion really the sort of country that merits characterization as an apartheid state, a Nazi state, or an illegal state? RIBA has clearly decided against Israel, and I criticize it for that. Since RIBA clearly knows little of the arguments either for or against Israel, I think the only honourable action it can take is to cancel its boycott decision. At the very least, RIBA is obliged to inform itself a lot more about the Israeli side of things, not to mention the levels of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens, Palestinian refusal to make peace for 67 years, and the defensive wars Israel has fought, out of which situations like the 'occupation' of the West Bank have arisen.

If RIBA considers itself in need of action on the international stage, I am amazed it does not pass resolutions to boycott regimes that are egregiously abusive of human rights, countries like Iran (a country to which I am close

George Drumer

4/12/2014 11:13:58 pm

@ John Sutcliffe

Taking action against someone on the basis of their nationality is totally unjustifiable, particularly on the basis of 'I suspect', which means 'based on nothing but my opinions and prejudices'. Which Chinese people are you boycotting? I'm willing to bet... none.

Andy pope

4/12/2014 11:40:23 pm

Well said mate. This guy is a jerk!

Stephen Franklin

4/13/2014 12:12:16 am

The motion is full of lies. Israel is not ethnically cleaning or breaking international law and there is no international law that forbids building in occupied land.

Strangely enough RIBA, especially the mover behind this motion, Angela Brady, celebrates building projects by RIBA members in China, which is still occupying Tibet, where some serious ethnic cleansing has been going on for more than half a century.

Harvey

4/13/2014 12:35:15 am

Hi
Please look to your private message . I will send you relevant material / contacts to help you coordinate a robust response .

Incidentally Brady tweeted congratulations on a cooperation with Shanghai on new developments . No boycott despite 50 years occupation of Tibet and serial human rights abuses . But as they say
#youhavetostartsomewhere

Harvey

4/13/2014 12:59:34 am

Abe Hayeem anti Israel polemicist whose family were expelled from Irak as part of the total ethnic cleansing of the Jewish community . Hayeem blames the establishment of Israel rather than overt Arab antisemitism / apartheid .
http://cifwatch.com/2014/04/01/factual-errors-behind-the-anti-israel-vote-by-royal-institute-of-british-architects/

Raymond

4/13/2014 02:02:16 am

http://cifwatch.com/2014/04/01/factual-errors-behind-the-anti-israel-vote-by-royal-institute-of-british-architects/

The vote was based on misinformation

Mark Iddon

4/13/2014 06:48:13 am

This motion is completely out of the remit of a professional body in representing the interest of British Architecture in it’s proposal to intervene in international political matters. Not only is the proposal out of order but that the motion was passed by the RIBA council without consulting its members on such a contested issue is surely not a good etiquette for any organisation, but it seems democracy is not what is driving this initiative. If we hold freedom and democracy in high esteem then let us have a debate and if some want to set up a protest / campaign group to convince others of their claims then that is their prerogative. The hijacking of a professional body to drive through this self serving illiberal motion is wrong and should be dismissed outright.
The motion actually represents a re-emerging of ant-semitism masquerading as anti imperialism but there is nothing radical, democratic, liberal or progressive about this motion. Instead, I suggest that it is a self righteous moral posturing for it’s advocates to try and claim some sense of moral purpose by wading into a complex situation which can only be resolved by political diplomacy by the relevant parties in the dispute.
The next question to ask is, why now? The territory disputed by Israel and Palestine is not a new problem and there have not been any significant events that would bring it to the fore at the moment when there are so many other conflicts that are in the news headlines presently.
By all means let us have some intelligent debate and discussion and form some opinions about political issues but stop this ridiculous notion that bans, sanctions and injunctions can play a constructive role is resolving conflict either in the Middle East or anywhere else. We should rather uphold debate, free speech, universal human values, progress and development.

David Bitan

4/13/2014 08:54:03 pm

I fully endorse the call for the RIBA to withdraw this motion calling for the suspension of the IAUA from the IUA. The RIBA is involving itself in a complex dispute that the finest minds and most powerful diplomats in the world have grappled with for decades and still struggle to solve. I’m intrigued how the RIBA think the motion will affect the situation on the ground for the good. I’m also curious to know what other international territorial and other conflicts the RIBA has sought to effect through motions etc. As the demonization of Israel gathers pace in the world, my feeling is the RIBA are jumping on the bandwagon to come out against Israel without giving due consideration to its own role as a members organisation for Architects and Architectural Practices and for the actual facts and nuances of the situation in Israel and the wider Middle East. For me it is very telling that the RIBA felt it necessary to say in its own press release, that the motion is not Anti Semitic – I believe that the motion has been so badly conceived and researched that the motivation for this motion is definitely Anti Semitic.

Sharon

4/15/2014 06:33:22 pm

Most people take what they read in the press as gospel. For sure few of those supporting this racist endeavour have bothered to do some research beyond the headlines. The nature of propaganda is that it relies on lazy people willingly led by the few who wish to promote a falsity to bolster their cause. This is what is happening to people like Brady who learned all she knows about Israel at breakfast with the PSC and BDS. Both these organisations are funded by Iran to promote the creation of the Arab Palestinians as a weapons with which to spread the Ummah. People like Brady are really gullible probably based on the innate Jew hatred many people harbour as a result of the idea that Jews killed Christ, a notion that lies subliminally in the seat of their gut, tearing away at any common sense cells in their brains. Its beyond them to grasp the foundation of a very complex situation that ultimately will destroy the West in the same way it infiltrated and destroyed Christian Iraq, Egypt, and so on. If you care about freedom and western civilisation you will not support the boycotting of Israel, a beacon of democracy in an otherwise totalitarian region dominated by a replacement theory ideology.

emeff

4/15/2014 07:22:31 pm

Any person or group that decides to single out only one country for boycott, from among all the states in the world, must leave themselves open to question as to why only THAT particular country?

Any one who keeps current will be aware of the most appalling human rights abuses that take place on a daily basis right across the globe. So why is Riba calling for boycott of just one country?

Is Israel guilty of actions so inhumane, so appalling, so much worse than any other country in the world, that it alone is worthy of sanction?

Israel is a democracy, open to ALL it's citizens, regardless of race, colour, creed or sexual preference. There are any number of states that cannot claim any of those advantages. Why does Riba not seek to sanction them?

The motion is a nonsense. It was proposed on the basest of intentions. It deserves to be thrown out and its proposer shown up for the type of person she is.

RIBA calls for suspension of Israeli Architects

Leave a Reply.

Author

Categories

Archives