1 Both City and Village: The ‘Communal Settlement’ 2 as Architecture and Planning Lab 3 4 5 Yael Allweil 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2019 15 16 17 distribution 18 Intellect 19 for 20 21 Not 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 69 06/05/19 3:05 PM 2019 distribution Intellectfor Not

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 70 06/05/19 3:05 PM 1 1 Introduction 2 3 In 2013, Netanyahu’s government approved the construction of 673 housing units in the 4 West Bank settlement of Itamar, legalizing Itamar’s 137 housing units, accumulated illegally 5 since 1984, and declaring the addition of 538 more units within a proper plan.2 Itamar is not 6 the exception to the rule of West Bank settlements, rather the rule itself, in that based on a 7 seed settlement, it can be easily expanded to take in an undetermined number of additional 8 settler families. What makes West Bank settlements, known as ‘communal settlements’ to 9 distinguish them from other settlement types, so easily expandable, based on the house unit, 10 to the extent that they can multiply seven-fold while maintaining their integrity? As a 11 settlement type, what makes the communal settlement a distinct planning typology? 12 The communal settlement is a surprisingly flexible spatial model when positioned vis-à- 13 vis Zionism’s two leading – and opposing – housing and settlement types: the communal 14 agricultural kibbutz framework, duplicated2019 to produce a network of settlements across the 15 country while remaining small in scale and size; and the capitalist Hebrew city framework, 16 which produced dense population clusters and expanded concentrically.3 In-between 17 typologies – most significantly the ‘new town’distribution typology of post-independence immigrant 18 ‘development towns’Intellect – were explicitly planned to mitigate urban size with ‘agricultural’ 19 layout, but are unanimously consideredfor as failures on both counts.4 This study traces the 20 early history of West Bank housing and settlement in order to trace the development of 21 its specific communalNot settlement typology (1967–77), and points to the ingenuity of this 22 typology as a unique settlement model capable of producing tiny, isolated outposts as well 23 as large, urban, populous settlements based on the single-family home as a building block. 24 This chapter thus examines Israel as a modern laboratory of planning and architecture 25 by inquiring into a phenomenon that unsettles established narratives regarding the nature, 26 agents, and time frame of experimentation: the West Bank settlement project of 1967–96. In 27 general, the historiography of Israeli architecture and planning is confounded primarily by 28 the conception of the state mechanism as a key actor in planning, design, and construction, 29 conceiving planning and architecture as tools for nation building. The dominance of the 30 Ministry of Housing – the central government’s arm for direct and consistent intervention 31 in housing and settlement – as a building patron has cemented the period of socialist 32 central government as one of state-sponsored experimentation (1948–77). Discussion of 33 the 1977 regime change to the political right, still in effect, has largely conceptualized an 34 all-encompassing transformation of the built environment due to the receding state and

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 71 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Figure 1: Aerial photograph of Mizpe Dani, 2014. Photograph 12 by Dvir Raz. Accessed January 21, 2019. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2019 21 22 23 distribution 24 Intellect 25 for 26 Figure 2: Aerial photograph of Leshem and Pduel, 2017. 27 PhotographNot by Elad Raviv. Accessed January 21, 2019. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Figure 3: Aerial photograph of Ma’ale Edumim, 2014. Source: 40 Leitersdorf Ben-Dayan Architects. Accessed January 21, 2019. 41

72

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 72 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 the relegation of design and construction to the open market, producing a profit-driven 2 landscape replacing the experimental period of Zionist nation-building.5 3 Pointing to the experimental attributes of the West Bank settlement project, initiated 4 and executed by citizens rather than the government, this chapter questions the limits of 5 experimentation. As the settlement project commenced in 1967 and operated both before 6 and after the 1977 regime change, initiated and enacted by citizens in manipulation of state 7 mechanisms, the project transcends our scholarly focus on the state apparatus and challenges 8 a historiography distinguishing the period of state planning (1948–77) from the period 9 of market-driven planning (1977–present), proposing that experimentation and design 10 laboratories are not limited to the 1948–77 period but are ongoing. 11 Historical accounts of Israel’s settlement project in the West Bank and its communal 12 settlement character can be placed on two distinct strands. The first, focusing on early 13 settlement (1967–77), studies the ideological evolvement of ‘religious Zionism’ as a political 14 theology and its capacity to penetrate and effect state actions.6 The second, focusing on the 15 architecture and planning of settlements by the state and the military, identifies the period 16 of settlement consolidation (1977–present) and its use as a tool for political negotiations 17 over the future of the West Bank.7 Nonetheless, the communal settlement type was not 18 developed by professional planners but was produced as a result of a long process of 19 settlement experimentations by settlers in search of a model that would prove viable vis- 20 à-vis state authorities (left and right) as well as the general public in view of its explicit 21 illegality. This chapter will focus on the communal2019 settlement typology as an unlikely mesh 22 between ‘the village’ and ‘the city’, bridging the long-debated divide between the rural and 23 the urban in Zionist architecture, planning, and historiography. While the kibbutz has been 24 declared ‘neither town nor village’, this chapterdistribution will claim that the communal settlement is 25 both city and villageIntellect, a quality that renders it flexible, independent from scale, and adaptable 26 to change. for 27 28 Not 29 ‘Both City and Village’: The Flexible Typology of Communal Settlement 30 31 Much of the scholarly inquiry into the planning of Zionist settlements is devoted to study 32 of the urban–rural divide in Zionist ideology and practice. Troen, Kahana, Azaryahu, 33 Cohen, Katz, Chyutin, and others have discussed the deep divide between socialist and 34 capitalist Zionism as a deep divide between these ideologies’ built environments, namely 35 the communal framework of agricultural kibbutz and moshav settlements versus the 36 capitalist Hebrew city of Tel Aviv.8 Yet, while the ‘rejection of the city’ as degenerate indeed 37 reflected some of the discourse in socialist-Zionist circles, the fact remains that the 38 leadership of socialist Zionism pre-statehood operated from Tel Aviv, whose ‘old north’ 39 neighbourhoods of the Geddes plan were developed by urban workers as part of their 40 struggle with capitalists over the city.9 Moreover, Zionist rejection of both the city and the 41 traditional village should be viewed beyond the geographical context of Palestine, in the

73

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 73 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Figure 4: View of Kfar-Eztion, 1968. Photograph by David Hirshfeld. Source: Jewish National 17 Fund. 18 19 context of the social reform movements of the late nineteenth century that are the backdrop 20 to the consolidation of the discipline of modern2019 city planning, which is facing the industrial 21 ‘city of dreadful night’ and the socio-economic deterioration of the traditional village. The 22 Garden City movement in Britain, Germany, the Low Countries, and even America, 23 proposed numerous planned models that distributionreject the traditional village as well as the 24 unplanned city, reflectedIntellect in Richard Kauffmann’s vast body of work for the Palestine Land 25 Development Company.10 for 26 The West Bank and Gaza settlement project has quite explicitly been a laboratory for 27 expanding the boundariesNot of the Israeli State by making a home for Israeli citizens beyond 28 state borders. These experiments in dwelling and settlement forms were citizenry initiatives 29 backed by segments of the general public, the military, and the political sphere, rather 30 than acts of planning. After a long series of experiments, discussed here in detail, the West 31 Bank and Gaza settlement form was consolidated as what is known in Israeli discourse 32 as the communal settlement typology. The communal settlement typology is the product 33 of numerous clashes over the legality, location, resources, conditions, and compositions of 34 settlements, in an ongoing process of negotiation between settlers and state. This chapter 35 identifies three periods in the history of the project: 1967–77, 1977–91, 36 and 1991–present. In the scope of this chapter and in the context of this collection of 37 essays, I focus on the first two periods and examine the West Bank as a laboratory for the 38 formation of the communal settlement as a significant housing and settlement type capable 39 of mitigating the urban–rural divide germane to Zionist settlement, by producing an 40 expandable typology whose main rationale is dwelling.11 41

74

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 74 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 Early Experiments in West Bank Settlement, 1967–77 2 3 Much has been written about the experimental period of settlement in the West Bank 4 (1967–77) that need not be repeated here, focusing primarily on political manoeuvring of 5 the state and on the settlement movement’s political theology of ‘Kookism’, which introduced 6 Rabbi Isaak Kook’s theology to mainstream Zionism.12 Surprisingly little study 7 investigates the experimental period’s built environment – namely the ‘design’ of experimental 8 settlement and housing – to examine how was settlement articulated and exercised by early 9 settlers and ideologues in order to sustain and hold as viable. What form, layout, and 10 materiality have served the settlement project and why? 11 Sources available for study of this question are primarily pamphlets, historical 12 photographs and videos, news reports, and oral testimonies, since settlement attempts were 13 conducted via temporary structures and were all quickly removed. Planning documents 14 prepared by professional architects and planners can be found only for the later stages of 15 the consolidation of settlement and the construction of permanent structures for dwellings, 16 public institutions, and infrastructure, starting in 1978.13 17 Between 1967 and 1974, Jewish settlement in the West Bank was limited to two specific 18 sites where Jews had previously resided, and which had played a significant role in the 19 formation of the State-of-Israel-in-the-making and the collective memory of Israelis: 20 the Jewish Quarter of , which was deserted after the 1929 massacre, and Gush- 21 Etzion Religious Kibbutz settlements, traumatically2019 lost on the last day of the 1948 War.14 22 Citizens, rather than the state, initiated the resettlement of Hebron and Gush-Etzion. The 23 Israeli government permitted ‘return’ to these limited sites, which was justified by the idea 24 of a personal return home and seemingly distributionnot disturbing to the status quo, yet it resisted 25 the formation ofIntellect any new settlements on occupied land as determined by international law. 26 The ‘children of Gush-Etzion’for were evacuated before the fall of their kibbutzim during 27 the 1948 War. Immediately after participating in the triumph of the 1967 War, now as 28 young adults, they demandedNot to ‘return home’ in unison. As the West Bank was held by 29 the (IDF) as an occupied military area according to international law, 30 Israeli civilians were explicitly barred from settling there. Gush-Etzion returnees therefore 31 argued among themselves whether they should seek a state permit for resettlement or settle 32 disregarding the state, eventually choosing the more established option. Yohanan Ben- 33 Yaacov, one of the leaders of the group, said 34 35 I claimed that in the case of Kfar-Etzion our parents fell here in defense of the State 36 of Israel, and in their honor the state should rebuild this home. If we had done this as 37 thieves in hiding it would be harming [our parents’] deep connection to this area and to 38 the state.15 39 40 The ‘children of Gush-Etzion’ met with Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, who famously said, 41 ‘Well kids, if you want to – ascend.’16 Insisting on a specific date for resettlement rather than

75

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 75 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

vague permission, returnees demanded the opportunity to hold the New Year prayer in the 1 resettled kibbutz, a request that was granted by Eshkol. Kfar-Etzion civilian resettlement 2 was celebrated on September 27, 1967, four months after its 1967 conquest by the IDF. 3 Kfar-Etzion’s status as a kibbutz settlement was significant for this process, as part and 4 parcel of the ‘Kibbutz Movement, which carried Israel’s first rebirth struggles on its back 5 and set [Israel’s] borders’, and therefore enjoyed the support of the kibbutz leadership 6 of the time, who held significant positions of power in politics and intellectual life.17 7 Kfar-Etzion was part of the Religious Kibbutz network, a faction of the Kibbutz Movement 8 whose members mitigated socialist Zionism with Jewish piety, though it was far less 9 influential during these ‘first rebirth struggles’. The fall of Kfar-Etzion on the last day of the 10 1948 War and its rebuilding and resettlement, asserted the Religious Kibbutz as the new 11 leader of kibbutz ideology by adding religious ideology to kibbutz socialism. Ben-Yaacov 12 discusses the fascinating intersection between two ideological axes of the Religious Kibbutz: 13 14 one axis [stretches] between man and Place [one of the acronyms for God], extending 15 from the world to the earth and the second axis extending among men […] Religious 16 Kibbutz [ideology] stated that social values hold an integral part of the struggle to hold 17 onto land.18 18 19 Despite this, a key debate among the ‘children of Kfar-Etzion’ concerned whether to 20 rebuild as a kibbutz or as a ‘regular’ settlement.2019 Some argued that ‘our parents built a 21 Kibbutz based on social-ethical conception, therefore if we are to follow them we should 22 build a Kibbutz’, while others argued for a regular (non-communal) settlement advancing 23 the goal of settling as many Jews in Judeadistribution and .19 In practice, maintaining the 24 kibbutz frameworkIntellect restricted early ideas of mass settlement to the tight social and physical 25 communal structure of the kibbutzfor form. This structure involved a tight commune sharing 26 most of life’s functions in such shared institutions as the communal kitchen, showers, 27 children’s house, and Notso forth. This framework accepted the entire kibbutz as one’s home, 28 with the dwelling being one’s sole private space.20 Kfar-Etzion returnees established 29 civilian dwellings on military-held land, setting an important precedent for the settlement 30 movement; yet, by re-establishing their settlement in the kibbutz framework they did not 31 produce a new housing or settlement form. 32 Following the rebuilding of Kfar-Etzion, citizens made demands for re-establishing 33 the Jewish Quarter of the city of Hebron, which was populated till the massacre of 34 Hebron Jews in 1929, which escalated ethno-national violence in British-held Palestine. 35 After 1967, the Israeli military governor holding Jewish property in Hebron did not 36 make this property available to Jewish settlers; rabbis’ appeals to re-establish the Hebron 37 Yeshiva were turned down as well by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. Resettlement 38 activists failed to purchase any houses in Hebron in order to establish a civilian Jewish 39 settlement in the city. Therefore, in April 1968, activists rented Hotel Park in the city 40 where they conducted the Passover Seder as a declarative event. As Hebron was included 41

76

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 76 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2019 Figure 5: Kiryat-–Hebron, 1972. Photograph by Moshe Milner. Source: National Photo Collection. 22 23 in the Israeli government’s as part of Israel proper, key leaders, such as former 24 Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, supporteddistribution resettlement. Yet the Israeli parliament 25 approved JewishIntellect settlement only outside of the Old City, in the framework of a Jewish 26 neighbourhood named Kiryat-Arba,for or ‘city of the four forefathers’. Hotel Park settlers 27 were allowed to stay in the Hebron Governor House for two years, until the construction 28 of their permanentNot homes in Kiryat-Arba in 1971. Kiryat-Arba was designed and 29 constructed as an urban neighbourhood of 250 housing units on the hill overlooking 30 the Old City, following the urban model for housing that proliferated after statehood the 31 ‘opposite’ settlement model of the communal, agricultural Kfar-Etzion.21 32 33 34 Sebastia: Experimenting with Civilian Settlement Forms 35 36 The idea of forming new settlements in the West Bank was first articulated in 1974, seven 37 years after the 1967 occupation and resettlement of Kfar-Etzion and three years after the 38 population of Kiryat-Arba as a proxy for the Old City of Hebron. Students of Rabbi Zvi 39 Yehuda Kook founded the political-messianic activist movement of Gush-Emunim, 40 demanding civilian settlement in the occupied biblical lands of and Samaria as part 41 and parcel of the national home. The movement enacted a settlement arm called Elon-More,

77

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 77 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

which was to execute its ideology via settlement.22 Judea and Samaria were held since 1967 1 by the IDF as a military zone whose only civilian population was Palestinian, administered 2 by the military rather than by civilian state mechanisms. Elon-More demanded inclusion of 3 the West Bank in the civilian homeland, by allowing Israeli citizens to make it their home by 4 settlement. The state, on the other hand, conceived of the West Bank as occupied territory, 5 restricted from civilian settlement by international law. 6 One of the leading figures in proposing new (rather than returning) settlements and 7 articulating settlement beyond the limited kibbutz format was Hanan Porat, one of the 8 ‘children of Kfar-Etzion’ and the elected secretary of the resettled Kfar-Etzion. Porat, closely 9 affiliated with Rabbi Kook as a student of Mercaz-Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, possessed 10 a vision of Judea and Samaria that extended well beyond Kfar-Etzion. On February 5, 11 1974, Porat hosted the initial meeting of activists that formed Gush-Emunim, intended to 12 brainstorm ways to resist the Israeli government’s Allon Plan, which proposed withdrawal 13 from most of Judea and Samaria, wherein it proposed Palestinian – rather than Israeli – 14 civil autonomy.23 Unlike the government-approved resettlement of Kfar-Etzion and the 15 state-provided housing in Kiryat-Arba, Gush-Emunim’s attempts to form new settlements 16 to accommodate a significant Jewish population were carried out in defiance of state 17 policy and IDF military governors. Elon-More aspired to form cities and attract thousands 18 of Israelis to the West Bank, so as to transform its status from military area to civilian 19 homeland. 20 Elon-More activists enacted eight performative2019 events of full settlement in Samaria, 21 echoing the concept of ‘ascent’ in Jewish immigration to Zion since the 1880s, as well as the 22 concept of ascent to holy sites, primarily Jerusalem’s . As Elon-More civilians 23 had no permit to settle in land held under martialdistribution law, they were repeatedly evacuated by 24 the IDF. Intellect 25 Elon-More’s first settlement attemptfor took place on June 5, 1974, in Horon, south of 26 Nablus, amassing 100 settlers, including spiritual leader Rabbi Kook. They hauled equipment 27 required to form a settlement,Not including a generator, kitchen facilities, furniture, and religious 28 artefacts. They fenced an area of two hectares and set up ten tents for a synagogue, dwellings, 29 a kitchen, a kindergarten, and a flagpole, all elements of a ‘proper’ settlement. The army and 30 government refused to allow settlers to stay. As settlers refused to leave, they were surrounded 31 by soldiers and military police, who carried them one by one to evacuation buses.24 32 Following the failure of this first attempt, well-documented by the press, Elon-More 33 published a pamphlet addressing the public, stating: ‘[W]e set today to found a city in the 34 heart of Eretz Israel near Nablus.’25 In addressing the public, Elon-More aspired to convey 35 that settlement in Judea and Samaria was an issue of civil rather than military concern. In 36 appealing to public participation, Elon-More wished to demonstrate wide support of their 37 cause in order to circumvent government resistance to settlement. The chosen site for the 38 second attempt was the old Ottoman train station by the Palestinian village of Sebastia, 39 associated with biblical Samaria, including some 200 adults and children with equipment 40 to serve them for two weeks. Settlers were joined by a group of right-wing members of 41

78

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 78 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 6: Elon-More settlement in Sebastia, 1974. Photograph by Moshe Milner. Source: National Photo 20 Collection. 21 2019 22 23 24 distribution 25 Intellect 26 for 27 28 Not 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Figure 7: The Samaria March, March 1975. Photograph by Israel Sun.

79

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 79 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

parliament; a number of writers and intellectuals; and numerous reporters, who documented 1 ‘Elon-More – renewal of Jewish settlement in Samaria’. Settlers cleaned the old train station 2 and used it for toilets, a dining room, an infirmary, a youth movement room, and a teaching 3 room, where teach-ins on Gemara and Jewish history were held. The settlement remained 4 through the weekend, held by about 300 people, making this a settlement attempt no one 5 could ignore.26 6 Despite declaring the goal to be ‘a city’ and involving a large number of settlers, this 7 settlement attempt relied on the kibbutz model, especially in its Tower and Stockade 8 iteration of the 1930s, which had produced instant settlements intended to circumvent 9 British restrictions on the establishment of new Jewish settlements.27 Namely, Elon-More 10 produced the performance of a settlement by including all aspects of a ‘proper’ settlement – 11 from kindergarten to flagpole – to convey pioneer civilian settlement in defiance of the State 12 of Israel as foreign/other. The Elon-More justification for conducting ‘illegal settlement’ 13 relied on kibbutz settlements as precedent, rather than on the city framework proclaimed 14 in the pamphlet. As settlers refused to leave, again military personnel carried them one by 15 one to evacuation buses. 16 Elon-More’s ambitious third attempt aimed again at the city model, drawing 10,000 people 17 in twenty convoys towards Jericho and Nebi-Salach on October 8, 1974. This attempt failed 18 to materialize in a settlement, as all convoys were stopped en route by the military. Small- 19 scale attempts to settle where all stopped, which discouraged Elon-More activists. The fourth 20 attempt (March 5, 1975) returned to the Tower2019 and Stockade strategy, namely another attempt 21 to found an instant settlement, this time by carrying parts for two modular permanent 22 structures and bricks for constructing a public synagogue, kitchen, and dining room. Settlers 23 entrenched themselves in their permanent structuresdistribution and on the roof of the train station, 24 making their evacuationIntellect the hardest thus far. Yet another attempt took place March 18, 1975, 25 and involved expanding the stone structurefor erected two weeks earlier and settlers entrenching 26 themselves in the train station, which was again evacuated in a few hours.28 27 The sixth and seventhNot attempts were again two test-trials of the two key strategies of mass 28 mobilization of the general public, and of small-scale barricading in Sebastia. The Elon-More 29 conclusion of both attempts marked them as strategies insufficient for sustaining lasting 30 rather than declarative civil settlement. Moreover, activists discovered that the military had 31 removed the stone roof of Sebastia station to prevent entrenchment; they further observed 32 that the general public was willing to express support for their cause in the framework of 33 a festive picnic-like march, yet not in violent clashes with military police over permanent 34 settlement. 35 36 37 Kibbutz and City 38 39 Elon-More’s successful eighth attempt of November 30, 1975, meshed the two strategies 40 described above: mass mobilization of the public and the performance of permanent 41

80

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 80 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 settlement in Sebastia. Activists organized thousands of citizens on a march from Netanya 2 to Sebastia during Hanukah, as a festive march of families with young children, demonstrating 3 broad public support for civilian hold of the West Bank as a national home, rather than 4 military occupation of enemy territory. In addition, activists organized transportation of 5 equipment and building materials to form an instant settlement that housed these families. 6 The marching civilians encountered harsh weather conditions on their way across 7 unpaved roads to Sebastia, which particularly affected young children. As they reached 8 Sebastia, they found a military post occupying the area to prevent settlement attempts. The 9 soldiers allowed the children into their tents and supplied them with food and blankets. 10 In the face of the crisis, the military also allowed provisions with the condition that they 11 did not include construction materials. Again, settlers produced an instant settlement, 12 including all abovementioned communal institutions as well as a public space named 13 ‘Zionism square’ and even a post office, the semblance of official settlement. Despite the 14 restriction, contractor Avner Elich from Tel Aviv managed to transfer a truck full of precast 15 elements for concrete structures, smuggled them into the site, and assembled them to form 16 a structure of six rooms to house a girls’ residence, religious school, and synagogue. The 17 tent town formed by settlers remained through the weekend and attracted large crowds of 18 additional supporters.29 19 20 21 2019 22 23 24 distribution 25 Intellect 26 for 27 28 Not 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Figure 8: Studying the Talmud inside a tent in Sebastia, 1975. Photograph by Moshe Milner. Source: National Photo 41 Collection (NPC).

81

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 81 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

Elon-More leaders used the large crowd of civilians to argue for mass civil support of 1 their demand for civilian instant settlement, threatening violence in the form of civil war 2 should they be forced to evacuate Sebastia.30 Negotiations between settlers, the government, 3 and the army ended in a compromise: in exchange for voluntary evacuation of Sebastia, 4 the Minister of Defense in charge of martial law in the West Bank would allow a group 5 of 30 civilian families to remain in Samaria within the nearby Kedum army camp.31 The 6 performance of full settlement in the form of a mesh of kibbutz and town thus proved 7 successful in arguing for civilian settlement in Samaria. The performance of a kibbutz ‘full 8 settlement’ type, declared as the nucleus of a ‘city’ for the general public, was the first iteration 9 of the communal settlement’s successful mesh of these two Zionist settlement types. 10 11 12 Experimenting with the Communal Settlement Typology 13 14 The compromise reached at Sebastia involved accepting the residency of 30 settler families 15 of Elon-More activists in Samaria within an army base, similar to the Hotel Park settlers’ 16 residency at the Governor House until their state-built Kiryat-Arba houses were complete. 17 Yet, while Kiryat-Arba was accepted by the Israeli government as a ‘return’, Sebastia was 18 clearly a new settlement. As far as the state and army were concerned, housing civilians at 19 the Kedum camp was to reflect that Samaria was maintained as a military rather than civilian 20 area, and no alterations were made to the Kedum2019 camp layout or its facilities in order to take 21 in the families. Settlers were housed in the camp’s military-police prison and not allowed to 22 use camp facilities serving the soldiers, such as the kitchen and washrooms. Settlers therefore 23 had to care for their own housing and communaldistribution facilities within the camp, employing the 24 design of a civilian-builtIntellect environment as a major tool for transforming the camp into a 25 civilian settlement. As the army fordid not provide them with supplies, Kedum settlers 26 successfully argued for the introduction of supplies from outside the camp. Provisions 27 included trailers andNot construction materials donated by civilian groups with varied 28 interests – from kibbutzim who viewed settlers as the ideological continuation of pioneer 29 settlement, to contractors interested in the business opportunity proposed by settlement. In 30 addition, settlers argued for and succeeded in obtaining civilian services such as postal 31 deliveries and public bus transportation from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to Kedum. Other 32 services, like medical care, were provided pro bono by supporters who had arrived especially 33 for that reason. Befriending the camp commander and Nablus governor, settlers gained 34 access to more and more camp facilities and areas, arguing for an industrial area and other 35 civilian functions, and for a civilian entrance to the camp. Elon-More’s demand for 36 permanent dwellings in winter time was met with 45 mobile homes supplied by the Jewish 37 Agency, a compromise between durability and temporality.32 The state, settlers, and army 38 thereby negotiated the terms of civilian presence in the military-held West Bank upon the 39 everyday built environment of settler housing. As recounted by Gush-Emunim secretary 40 Zvika Slonim in January 1980, five years later, 41

82

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 82 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 seven families were housed in improvised structures on the camp, in wooden shacks 2 and at the prison. Single men were housed in tents […] in ‘basement’ conditions yet 3 ‘roof-apartment’ morale […] the settlement gradually constructed itself as a separate 4 entity […] old shacks donated by supporting Kibbutzim were brought in to intake more 5 families […] smuggled into camp and […] constructed by members […] The first days 6 resembled Kibbutz [old days]: do you remember […] the communal kitchen, rotation 7 duties, singing at Shabbat dinners – and on the other hand the showers and chemical 8 toilets? […] The peculiar status of unrecognized settlement provoked residents’ wish 9 for actions and symbols. The tiny streets were named after verses from Moses’ blessing 10 of Josef, on whose [Biblical] estate we settled […] The settlement appealed to the 11 nation […] Supporters who came here saw the making of a new form of pioneer life, 12 a united society with shared interest and challenges. Those thousands were sparked 13 with the seed that fruited with more and more Elon-More [settlements] in Judea and 14 Samaria.33 15 16 Upon rising to power in 1977, Menachem Begin’s right-wing administration realized its 17 protracted promise of support of Gush-Emunim by granting Kedum settlers a permit to 18 settle permanently, declaring ‘we stand on the land of liberated Israel’, and providing 19 incentives such as land allocation, loans for housing, and physical and social infrastructure.34 20 The permanent settlement of Elon-More, , was founded south of Kedum camp in 21 several prefabricated concrete cubical housing2019 units and later split into two settlements: 22 Elon-More by Mount Kebir and Kedumim, literally ‘ancients’, reflecting the idea of 23 reconnecting to biblical space–time. Kedumim, the permanent allocation of site and 24 resources for a civil settlement, materializeddistribution the temporary performance of settlement in 25 Sebastia into concreteIntellect achievement. As they could determine their own settlement layout, 26 Kedumim settlers produced thefor first permanent iteration of the communal settlement 27 typology, first experimented on in Sebastia. 28 Relying on state supportNot of the settlement movement, Elon-More took the opportunity 29 to employ the state mechanism’s strongest tool – planning. In 1978, Elon-More published 30 their vision for regional planning for the West Bank, including cities, towns, ‘garden cities’, 31 communal settlements, and rural settlements across Judea and Samaria [Figure 8]. The 32 Jewish Agency took up this civilian initiative and produced the ‘Gush-Emunim master plan’ 33 of 1978, which outlined a five-year plan for settling 27,000 families in 46 new settlements, 34 as well as additions to 38 existing ones. The plan’s ‘map of proposed and existing settlements 35 in Judea and Samaria’ does not distinguish between Jewish and Palestinian settlements 36 (which would have reflected an image of ‘conflict’). Further, no distinction is made between 37 settlements in Israel proper versus the occupied West Bank, reflecting the conception of 38 both as civilian homeland [Figure 9]. 39 Moreover, the settlement budget was calculated ‘based on the addition of families who 40 would occupy Judea and Samaria according to the plan’, namely based on the family as the 41 civil unit.35 The budget was calculated per family unit at 2 million lira, broken down into

83

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 83 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

items including infrastructure; temporary housing; permanent housing, including public 1 institutions; water; means of production; and ‘other’. Readers familiar with the literature on 2 the settlement movement might take note that this plan dedicates no funds to security or 3 military purposes, unlike what has been commonly accepted as a military-motivated plan 4 using civil settlements as a proxy for battle posts, as suggested by Weizman and others.36 5 Yet the 1977 regime change, which brought political supporters of Elon-More to 6 power, soon proved a disappointment to the movement. The new Prime Minister, Begin, 7 indeed celebrated his victory in Kedum, declaring, ‘there will be many more Elon-More’, 8 and supported the movement with resources and political backing.37 However, his tenure 9 included returning the Sinai to Egypt in the 1978 peace treaty, accepting occupied land as 10 foreign land held temporarily, and demanding that settlements be defined as military posts 11 in order to meet international law dictum that only military purposes are valid in occupied 12 territories. State support for the settlement project under the conception of military purpose 13 was, for Elon-More ideologues, a double-edged sword they feared would undermine their 14 entire enterprise. Such state initiatives as Arieh Sharon’s twelve-point plan for settlement 15 strongholds on strategic West Bank hilltops were discussed at the time as explicitly 16 countering settlement purpose and ideology, which was explicitly posited on being civilian 17 rather than military.38 18 Gush-Emunim soon resisted the Begin regime as well, protesting the 1978 peace accord 19 by forming instant settlements and launching a public campaign against the ‘militarization’ 20 of settlement.39 Disillusion with planning and2019 the state mechanism led the way to a typology 21 of flexibility independent of scale, as it was based on the single family as a unit of population 22 accumulation. The foundation of communal settlements on this housing unit made it possible 23 for the settlement to vary from a five-familydistribution outpost, to a 500-family settlement like , 24 and to a town of 5000Intellect families, such as . This study proposes that the settlers’ struggle of 25 the 1970s to transform the West Bankfor from military zone to civil homeland has largely been 26 won via the communal settlement: by 1993, civilian settlements already housed 116,000 27 settlers in permanentNot and temporary structures served by publicly funded infrastructure, 28 civil services, and defence.40 Planning documents for Elon-More and Kedumim – made 29 as early as 1982 and as late as 2007 – demonstrate formal planning for suburban layout 30 and infrastructure that render Kedumim and Kiryat-Arba – whose formative story differs 31 significantly as seen above – as essentially the same built environment. 32 The pivotal case I identify as demonstrative of the centrality of housing is again in 33 Kedumim, which used as a pretext the commemoration of one of its residents, killed in 34 combat in Lebanon, to establish a residential outpost named after him, founded in 1996. 35 Mizpe-Yishai – literally ‘Yishai Overlook’ – was erected at a strategic location, facing 36 Kedumim on the opposite side of road 55 to Nablus. Now a formal neighbourhood of 37 Kedumim, Mizpe-Yishai was initially a makeshift housing environment of mobile homes 38 and haphazard houses built without plan or permit, later consolidated by parliament. In a 39 video, produced by Etrog Studios, of Kedumim on the occasion of Mizpe-Yishay’s tenth 40 anniversary, historical images and footage of the early days are embedded within the official 41

84

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 84 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Figure 9: Kedumim first trailer homes, Kedum, 1978. Photograph by Moshe Milner. Source: National Photo 20 Collection. 21 2019 22 23 24 distribution 25 Intellect 26 for 27 28 Not 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Figure 10: First trailer home of Mizpe-Yishai. Source: Amazia Haeitan, Mizpe-Yishay History (Kedumim: 41 Etrog Films, 2003), 12 minutes.

85

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 85 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

historiography of the stronghold neighbourhood. The twelve-minute documentary includes 1 interviews with leaders and activists who recount the strategies they had employed, as well 2 as pictures of the makeshift structures taken at the time, collected from the individual 3 settlers involved. This video clearly expresses the role assigned by Kedumim settlers to the 4 housing units marking the new settlement stronghold in their struggle over the homeland. 5 Kedumim chairperson Daniella Weiss is interviewed and states, ‘this neighbourhood, 6 Mizpe-Yishai, is not only the houses – 30 houses, 50 houses, or 100 houses – it is part of 7 a plan for 500 housing units that would extend with God’s help to 5000, reaching Havat- 8 Gilad not far from us’, reflecting the housing unit as the building block of a scale-less built 9 environment.41 10 11 12 Conclusion: Communal Settlement as a Housing-Based ‘Both City and Village’ 13 Typology 14 15 The kibbutz was famously described by leader Yizhak Tabenkin as ‘neither a city nor a 16 village’, reflecting Zionist ideology regarding these two settlement types, against which the 17 kibbutz was to serve as a radically new built environment for the radically new Zionist 18 society.42 This chapter identifies the West Bank communal settlement typology as both city 19 and village, aspiring to transform the biblical homeland of the West Bank into an everyday 20 home for masses of Israeli citizens, by using2019 the family home as the building block of any 21 scale of settlement. 22 The Sebastia experiments mitigated performances of instant settlement and large social 23 mobilization, engendering a new settlement typologydistribution that mediated between two key models 24 in the history of IntellectZionist settlement: the communal kibbutz settlements of the 1920s and 25 1930s, and the mass accumulationfor of Jewish settlement of the Hebrew city. Aspiring for the 26 social leadership of the Kibbutz Movement, as seen above, communal settlements included 27 all the shared social institutionsNot characterizing kibbutz society, except for dwelling. Rather 28 than basing society on the individual as its basic social unit, the communal settlement is 29 based on the family unit and family home. Rather than the closed typology of early pioneer 30 kibbutz and moshav settlements, communal settlements were intended for expansion and 31 could not be limited by dependence on shared institutions. The Gush-Emunim goal of 32 mass Jewish settlement in Samaria identified the family housing unit as its building block, 33 relegating the communal institutions of the settlement to such functions as the synagogue, 34 kindergarten, and clinic. 35 Much discussion has been devoted to communal settlements’ suburban political 36 economy, based on commuting to the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem metropolises.43 Yet the 37 communal settlement typology is distinct from a regular suburb for its independence 38 from scale restrictions, equally capable of sustaining both a small 100-family settlement 39 like Itamar and a town of thousands like Efrat. In fact, the very strategy of communal 40 settlement formation involves, as seen above, the gradual accumulation of more and more 41

86

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 86 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 single-family dwelling units around a nucleus outpost, gradually developing into a formal 2 settlement. Examining what makes this typology so flexible and adaptable, extending from 3 tiny to large scale, I point to the single-family housing unit as the basic communal unit, 4 whose accumulation is the main purpose of the West Bank settlement project, aiming to 5 attract as many Israeli families to the West Bank and render it forever part of the national 6 homeland. The settlement project in the West Bank spans from small-scale ‘outposts’ of 7 ten families on isolated hilltops, to the towns of Ariel and Efrat amounting to 20,000 and 8 8000 people, respectively. While seemingly dramatically different – as discussed above 9 regarding Itamar – small-scale settlements and towns are on a continuous spectrum of 10 development that transcends this rural–urban divide and renders it largely irrelevant. The 11 West Bank communal settlement type studied here is based on the single-family dwelling 12 unit as its expandable unit of flexibility, developed as such by concrete experimentations in 13 housing and settlement forms, applied not by professional architects and planners, but by 14 future dwellers for the purpose of seeking dwelling forms that would one day be viable and 15 permanent. 16 As this edited volume argues, and as I show elsewhere, the Israeli nation-building 17 enterprise produced a laboratory of dwelling and settlement planning involving form, 18 programme, habitation, construction, finance, and policy.44 This housing-based lab for 19 nation building extended both the time period associated with Israeli nationhood and the 20 agents involved. Namely, Zionist nation-building is based on housing as its main strategy 21 for sovereignty. Housing enabled the gradual2019 accumulation of future citizens starting in the 22 1860s, in the name of whom the Israeli nation-state would be founded. After statehood, 23 housing was the strategy for state grounding and consolidation by naturalizing immigrants 24 as citizens via individual stakes in the nationaldistribution home. Further, housing serves for extending 25 state borders viaIntellect citizen dwellings outside those delineated borders.45 Housing served 26 Zionism as the key strategy for forsovereignty, surpassing other much-discussed strategies 27 as obtaining military superiority or providing a space for Hebrew culture.46 Producing 28 dwellings in the effortNot to (re)connect Zionists with Zion involved experimenting with viable 29 housing and settlement forms. The ‘laboratory workers’ of this lab have included not only 30 leaders, settling agencies, and governing institutions but – most significantly – the future 31 citizens themselves as leading figures in initiating and defining terms and conditions for 32 experimentation.47 33 The Israeli focus on housing as the generator of built environments and political 34 societies is exceptional (yet not unique), setting it apart from well-known examples, where 35 overarching national and urban planning were the key instruments for state building, as 36 discussed by Scott.48 Other nation-states whose nation-building enterprise involves a highly 37 meaningful use of housing include the United States, where homeownership has repeatedly 38 defined the American Dream; Singapore, where ethno-religious tensions are mitigated 39 by unifying housing estates; and China, where provisional and political citizenship is 40 determined by one’s place of residence.49 Arguably, the Israeli lab is not characterized by 41 state planning. Rather, Israel’s much-discussed 1951 master plan for population dispersal

87

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 87 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

by Arieh Sharon was, and still is, the exception to the norm, whereby the majority of 1 planning efforts both before and after statehood took part at the regional and settlement 2 levels.50 Much of the political discussion of the settler milieu hijacking the Israeli State, 3 lamenting the lack of state-rule over settlers neglects the fact that the 160-year-long history 4 of Zionist settlement has largely been the history of small-scale housing experiments led 5 by the dwellers themselves, including Zionism’s two leading settlement forms, the kibbutz 6 and the Hebrew city.51 7 8 9 10 Bibliography 11 12 ‘Anarchist City? Sir Patrick Geddes’ Housing-Based Plan for Tel Aviv, and the Housing Protests of 2011’. In The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt, 13 edited by Richard J. White, Simon Springer, and Marcelo Lopes de Souza, 43–63. Lanham, 14 MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. 15 Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011. London: Routledge, 2017. 16 Allweil, Yael. ‘West Bank Settlement and the Transformation of Zionist Housing Ethos from 17 Shelter to Act of Violence’. Footprint 19.2 (2016): 13–36. 18 Aran, Gideon. Kookism: The Roots of Gush-Emunim, Jewish Settlers’ Sub-Culture, Zionist Theology, 19 Contemporary Messianism. Jerusalem: Carmel Publishing, 2013. 20 Archer, John. Architecture and Suburbia: From2019 English Villa to American Dream House, 21 1690–2000. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. 22 Azaryahu, Maoz. Tel Aviv: Mythography of a City. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2007. 23 Chyutin, Michael and Bracha Chyutin. Architecturedistribution and Utopia: The Israeli Experiment. Farnham, 24 UK: Ashgate PublishingIntellect Company, 2007. 25 Cohen, Avner. Israel and the Bomb. Newfor York: Columbia University Press, 1998. 26 Cohen, Erik. ‘The City in the Zionist Ideology’. Jerusalem Quarterly 4 (1977): 126–44. 27 Drobles, Matityahu. MasterplanNot for Developing Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 28 1979–1983. Jerusalem: WZO Settlement Department, 1978. 29 Efrat, Elisha. The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement. 30 London: Routledge, 2006. 31 Efrat, Zvi. The Israeli Project: Building and Architecture 1948–1973. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum 32 of Art, 2004. ElonMore. Elon More: Renewal of Jewish Yishuv in Samaria Chronicles. Elon-More, n.d. 33 Feige, Michael. Settling in the Hearts: Jewish Fundamentalism in the Occupied Territories. Detroit: 34 Wayne State University Press, 2009. 35 Fleishman, Itamar and Atila Shumalpbi. ‘Itamar Hugely Growing: 675 Housing Units Addition’. 36 Yedioth Aharonot, June 12, 2013. 37 Gal, Shilo, Pinhas Walerstein, Reuben Rozenblatt, Meir Har Noy, Zeev Friedman and Eliezer 38 Zelko. Why Do We Hunger Strike? Elon-More, 1979, 1–4. 39 Gerson, Allan. Israel, the West Bank, and International Law. New York: Frank Cass and Company, 40 Ltd., 1978. 41

88

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 88 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 Goh, R. B. H. ‘Ideologies of Upgrading in Singapore Public Housing: Post-Modern Style, 2 Globalization, and Class Construction in the Built Environment’. Urban Studies 38.9 (2001): 3 1589–604. 4 Gorenberg, Gershom. The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977. 5 New York: Macmillan, 2006. 6 Haeitan, Amazia. Mizpe-Yishay History. Kedumim: Etrog Films, 2003. 12 minutes. 7 Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. 8 Hall, Peter and Colin Ward. Sociable Cities: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard. London: 9 Wiley, 1998. Helman, Anat. ‘“Even the Dogs in the Street Bark in Hebrew”: National Ideology and Everyday 10 Culture in Tel-Aviv’. Jewish Quarterly Review 92 no. 3–4 (2002): 359–82. 11 Young Tel Aviv: A Tale of Two Cities. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 12 2010. 13 Kahana, Freddi. Kahana, Freddy. Neither Town nor Village – The Architecture of the Kibbutz 14 1910–1990. Tel Aviv: Yad Tabenkin, 2011 (In Hebrew). 15 Kampinski, Yonni. ‘Netanyahu: They Kill, We Build’. Israel Hayom, March 13, 2011. 16 Karmon, Naomi and Dan Chemanski. Housing in Israel, from Planned Economy to Semi-Free 17 Market Management. Haifa: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion, 1990. 18 Klain, Yossi. The Americanization of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv: Carmel, 2010. 19 Levin, Michael, Marina Epstein-Pliousch and Tzafrir Feinholtz, eds. Richard Kauffmann and the 20 Zionist Project. Tel Aviv: HaKibutz HaMeuchad, 2016. 21 Lieblich, Amia. The Children of Kfar Etzion. 2019Haifa: University of Haifa Press, 2007 (In Hebrew). 22 Marom, Nathan. City of Concept. Tel Aviv: Babel, 2009. 23 Misselwitz, Philip, ed. City of Collision: Jerusalem and the Principles of Conflict Urbanism. Basel: 24 Birkhäuser Architecture, 2006. distribution 25 Newman, David.Intellect ‘Colonization as Suburbanization’. In City of Collision, edited by Philip 26 Misselwitz. Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture,for 2006, 113–120. 27 Ohana, David. ‘Kfar Etzion: The Community of Memory and the Myth of Return’. Israel Studies 28 7.2 (2002): 145–74.Not 29 Porat, Yosef Rabbi. Renewal of Jewish Settlement in Shomron (Samaria): Eight Ascends that Mark the Begining of the Road. Elon-More: Elon More Sechem, n.d. 30 Raanan, Tsvi. Gush Emunim. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1980. 31 Reichner, Elyashiv. ‘“Hanan Was the Dynamo of Return to Kfar-Ezion”: Three “Kfar-Ezion 32 Children” Talk About Its Resettlement 45 Years After’. Makor Rishon Yoman, September 21, 33 2012. 34 Rotbard, Sharon. ‘Tower and Stockade: The Mold for Israeli Planning’. Sedek 2 (2008): 36–49. 35 Ruttenburg, Ariyeh and Sandy Amichai. The Etzion Bloc in the Hills of Judea. Kfar Etzion: Kfar 36 Etzion Field School, 1997. 37 Scott, James. Seeing Like a State: How Well-Intentioned Efforts to Improve the Human Condition 38 Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 39 Shadar, Hadas. ‘Between East and West: Immigrants, Critical Regionalism, and Public Housing’. 40 Journal of Architecture 9.1 (2004): 23–48. 41 Shafat, Gershon. Gush-Emunim: The Story Behind the Scenes. : Sifryat Beit El, 1995.

89

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 89 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

Sharon, Arieh. Physical Planning in Israel 1948–1953. Jerusalem: Government Printer, 1951. 1 Shoshan, Malkit. Atlas of the Conflict: Israel-Palestine. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: 010 2 Publishers, 2010. 3 Slonim, Zvika. ‘Kedum Settlement’. In Daf Lamityashev. Kedumim: Gush Emunim, 1980, 1–2. 4 Troen, S. Ilan. Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement. 5 New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. 6 Tsur, Zeev. From the Partition Dispute to the Allon Plan. Ramat Epha: Tabenkin Institute, 1982. 7 Tzfadia, Erez. ‘Public Housing as Control: Spatial Policy of Settling Immigrants in Israeli 8 Development Towns’. Housing Studies 21.4 (2006): 523–37. 9 Weiss, Daniella. ‘This Was My Home: Daniela Weiss Remembers Sebastia Settlement’. Ma’ariv, 10 October 12, 2009. 11 Weizman, Eyal. ‘The Architecture of Ariel Sharon’. Al Jazeera English, January 11, 2014, http://www. aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/architecture-ariel-sharon-2014111141710308855. 12 html. 13 Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. New York: Verso Books, 2007. 14 Yacobi, Haim. ‘Architecture, Orientalism, and Identity: The Politics of Israeli Built Environment’. 15 Israel Studies 13.1 (2008): 94–118. 16 Zhang, Li. Strangers in the City: Reconfigurations of Space, Power, and Social Networks within 17 China’s Floating Population. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. 18 19 20 Notes 2019 21 22 1 All translations from Hebrew to English are the author’s own, unless otherwise specified. 23 2 Yonni Kampinski, ‘Netanyahu: They Kill,distribution We Build’, Israel Hayom, March 13, 2011; Itamar 24 Fleishman andIntellect Atila Shumalpbi, ‘Itamar Hugely Growing: 675 Housing Units Addition’, 25 Yedioth Aharonot, June 12, 2013.for See discussion of the interchange of violence and 26 construction in the West Bank in Yael Allweil, ‘West Bank Settlement and the Transformation 27 of Zionist HousingNot Ethos from Shelter to Act of Violence’, Footprint 19 (2016): 13–36. 28 3 Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish 29 Settlement (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); Maoz Azaryahu, Tel Aviv: 30 Mythography of a City (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2007); Nathan Marom, 31 City of Concept (Tel Aviv: Babel, 2009); Freddi Kahana, Neither Town nor Village – 32 Kibbutz Architecture 1910–1990 (Jerusalem: Yad Tabenkin, 2011); Michael Chyutin and Bracha Chyutin, Architecture and Utopia: The Israeli Experiment (Farnham, UK: Ashgate 33 Pub Co, 2007); Yael Allweil, Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011 (London: 34 Routledge, 2017). 35 4 Erez Tzfadia, ‘Public Housing as Control: Spatial Policy of Settling Immigrants in Israeli 36 Development Towns’, Housing Studies 21.4 (2006): 523–37; Zvi Efrat, The Israeli Project: 37 Building and Architecture 1948–1973 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum of Art, 2004); Hadas 38 Shadar, ‘Between East and West: Immigrants, Critical Regionalism and Public Housing’, 39 Journal of Architecture 9.1 (2004): 23–48; Haim Yacobi, ‘Architecture, Orientalism, and 40 Identity: The Politics of Israeli Built Environment’, Israel Studies 13.1 (2008): 94–118. 41

90

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 90 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 5 Yossi Klain, The Americanization of Tel Aviv (Tel Aviv: Carmel, 2010); Naomi Karmon and 2 Dan Chemanski, Housing in Israel, from Planned Economy to Semi-Free Market Management 3 (Haifa: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Technion, 1990). 4 6 Gershon Shafat, Gush-Emunim: The Story Behind the Scenes (Beit El: Sifryat Beit El, 1995). 5 7 Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation (New York: Verso Books, 6 2007). 7 8 Troen, Imagining Zion; Kahana, Neither Town nor Village; Erik Cohen, ‘The City in the 8 Zionist Ideology’, Jerusalem Quarterly 4 (1977): 126–44; Chyutin and Chyutin, Architecture 9 and Utopia; Azaryahu, Tel Aviv; Anat Helman, Young Tel Aviv: A Tale of Two Cities (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2010). 10 9 Yael Allweil, ‘Anarchist City? Sir Patrick Geddes’ Housing-Based Plan for Tel Aviv, and the 11 Housing Protests of 2011’, in The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit 12 of Revolt, ed. Richard J. White, Simon Springer, and Marcelo Lopes de Souza (Lanham, MD: 13 Rowman & Littlefield, 2016). 14 10 Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988); Peter Hall 15 and Colin Ward, Sociable Cities: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard (London: Wiley, 1998); 16 Michael Levin, Marina Epstein-Pliousch, and Tzafrir Feinholtz, eds, Richard Kauffmann 17 and the Zionist Project (Tel Aviv: HaKibutz HaMeuchad, 2016). 18 11 For discussion on the 1991–present period, see Allweil, ‘West Bank Settlement’, 13–36. 19 12 Shafat, Gush-Emunim. 20 13 Studies of early settlement by leading scholars like Raffi Segal, Eyal Weizman, and David 21 Newman focus on the period of state involvement2019 and support of the settlement movement 22 starting in 1977. They discuss formal planning by means of master plans and detailed 23 planning, housing and settlement bureaucracy, and the politics involved in administration. 24 14 David Ohana, ‘Kfar Etzion: The Communitydistribution of Memory and the Myth of Return’, Israel 25 Studies 7.2 (2002):Intellect 145–74. 26 15 Ben-Yaacov cited in Elyashiv Reichner,for ‘“Hanan Was the Dynamo of Return to Kfar-Ezion”: 27 Three “Kfar-Ezion Children” Talk About Its Resettlement 45 Years After’, Makor Rishon 28 Yoman, SeptemberNot 21, 2012, 22; Amia Lieblich, The Children of Kfar Etzion (Haifa: University 29 of Haifa Press, 2007). 16 A slightly different transcript of this quote, appearing in Kfar-Etzion’s formal history, reads 30 ‘children. You may return home’. Ariyeh Ruttenburg and Sandy Amichai, The Etzion Bloc in 31 the Hills of Judea (Kfar Etzion: Kfar Etzion Field School, 1997). 32 17 Ben-Yaacov cited in Reichner, ‘“Hanan Was the Dynamo”’, 22; Lieblich, Children; Ohana, 33 ‘Kfar Etzion’. 34 18 Ibid. 35 19 Lieblich, Children, 24. 36 20 Kahana, Neither Town. 37 21 Michael Feige, Settling in the Hearts: Jewish Fundamentalism in the Occupied Territories 38 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2009); Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: 39 Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967–1977 (New York: Macmillan, 2006). 40 22 Gideon Aran, Kookism: The Roots of Gush-Emunim, Jewish Settlers’ Sub-Culture, Zionist 41 Theology, Contemporary Messianism (Jerusalem: Carmel Publishing, 2013).

91

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 91 06/05/19 3:05 PM Israel as A Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978

23 Shafat, Gush-Emunim; Zeev Tsur, From the Partition Dispute to the Allon Plan (Ramat Ephal: 1 Tabenkin Institute, 1982); Malkit Shoshan, Atlas of the Conflict: Israel-Palestine (Rotterdam: 2 010 Publishers, 2010). 3 24 ElonMore, Elon More: Renewal of Jewish Yishuv in Samaria Chronicles (Elon-More: 4 ElonMore, n.d.). 5 25 Shafat, Gush-Emunim, 77 (original emphasis). 6 26 Yosef Rabbi Porat, Renewal of Jewish Settlement in Shomron (Samaria): Eight Ascends that 7 Mark the Begining of the Road (Elon-More: Elon More Sechem, n.d.). 8 27 Sharon Rotbard, ‘Tower and Stockade: The Mold for Israeli Planning’, Sedek 2 (2008). 9 28 ElonMore, Elon More. 10 29 Daniella Weiss, ‘This Was My Home: Daniela Weiss Remembers Sebastia Settlement’, 11 Ma’ariv, October 12, 2009. 30 Shafat, Gush-Emunim, 202–03. 12 31 Ibid. 13 32 Tsvi Raanan, Gush Emunim (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1980); Porat, Renewal of Jewish 14 Settlement in Shomron (Samaria); Shafat, Gush-Emunim. 15 33 Zvika Slonim, ‘Kedum Settlement’, in Daf Lamityashev (Kedumim: Gush Emunim, 1980), 16 1–2. 17 34 Allan Gerson, Israel, the West Bank and International Law (New York: Frank Cass and 18 Company, Ltd., 1978). 19 35 Matityahu Drobles, Masterplan for Developing Settlement in Judea and Samaria for the Years 20 1979–1983 (Jerusalem: WZO Settlement 2019Department, 1978), 12. 21 36 Weizman, Hollow Land; Philip Misselwitz, City of Collision: Jerusalem and the Principles of 22 Conflict Urbanism (Basel: Birkhauser, 2006). 23 37 Avi Shilon, ‘Begin, 1913–1992’ (Tel Aviv: Amdistribution Oved, 2007), 273. 24 38 Eyal Weizman,Intellect ‘The Architecture of Ariel Sharon’, Al Jazeera English, January 11, 2014, 25 last accessed December 20, 2018.for http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/ 26 architecture-ariel-sharon-2014111141710308855.html; Shilo Gal, Pinhas Walerstein, 27 Reuben Rozenblatt,Not Meir Har Noy, Zeev Friedman, and Eliezer Zelko, Why Do We Hunger 28 Strike? (Elon-More, 1979), 1–4. 29 39 ElonMore, Elon More; Raanan, Gush Emunim. 30 40 Elisha Efrat, The West Bank and Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disengagement 31 (London: Routledge, 2006). 41 Amazia Haeitan, Mizpe-Yishay History (Kedumim: Etrog Films, 2003), 12 minutes. 32 42 Kahana, Neither Town. 33 43 See, for example, David Newman, ‘Colonization as Suburbanization’, in City of Collision, ed. 34 Philip Misselwitz (Basel: Birkhäuser Architecture, 2006). 35 44 Allweil, Homeland. 36 45 Ibid. 37 46 Anat Helman, ‘“Even the Dogs in the Street Bark in Hebrew”: National Ideology and 38 Everyday Culture in Tel-Aviv’, Jewish Quarterly Review 92.3–4 (2002): 359–82; Avner Cohen, 39 Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998). 40 47 Allweil, Homeland. 41

92

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 92 06/05/19 3:05 PM Both City and Village

1 48 James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Well-Intentioned Efforts to Improve the Human 2 Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). 3 49 See, for example, John Archer, Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to American 4 Dream House, 1690–2000 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005); 5 Li Zhang, Strangers in the City: Reconfigurations of Space, Power, and Social Networks 6 within China’s Floating Population (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001); 7 R. B. H. Goh, ‘Ideologies of Upgrading in Singapore Public Housing: Post-Modern Style, 8 Globalization, and Class Construction in the Built Environment’, Urban Studies 38.9 9 (2001): 1589–604. 50 Arieh Sharon, Physical Planning in Israel 1948–1953 (Jerusalem: Government printer, 1951); 10 Allweil, Homeland, 167–193. 11 51 Feige, Settling in the Hearts.viii. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2019 22 23 24 distribution 25 Intellect 26 for 27 28 Not 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

93

04_xxxxx_Sec-1_Ch-3_p69-94.indd 93 06/05/19 3:05 PM