For discussion: Israel-Palestine conflict engulfs Rogers's

beatriz

Richard Rogers is one of those rare architects who have been vocal about social injustice and war. I have often quoted his books because of his strong view that architecture does not start and finish with the building envelop, but is a response to our values and in that, is a practice that invites us to engage with society and politics.

However, does the latest event cast doubts about the depth of his principles and convictions?

Israel-Palestine conflict engulfs Rogers's $1.7bn New York project
Oliver Burkeman in New York
Guardian, Thursday March 9, 2006

(.....)
"I abhor boycotts of any kind - of Israel or any other place," Lord Rogers said. "I unequivocally renounce Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine and have withdrawn my relationship with them."
(.....)
In the past, he has made no secret of the fact that his views on US foreign policy are probably significantly to the left of those with whom he must now find common ground. He has called himself a "near-pacifist," who opposed the Iraq war, and has written critically of Israel's activities in the occupied territories.
(.....)
The sequence of events that has placed Lord Rogers in such an awkward corner began, unobtrusively enough, on February 2, when a group of 60 architects and planners met at the Richard Rogers Partnership beside the Thames in Putney - part of a complex that includes the River Cafe, co-owned by his wife, Ruth. The office was made available as a favour to one of the group's founders, Abe Hayeem, a London-based Jewish activist who is married to an Israeli.
(.....)
Mr Hayeem denied that a boycott had been discussed. "The minute one criticises Israel, immediately people howl about boycotts," he told the Guardian. "Targeted action was vaguely discussed, but we're still in the process of formulating our decisions."
(.....)
In weathering the storm over the project, Lord Rogers could hardly have hoped for a better defender than Howard Rubenstein, one of New York's best-known publicists, who is acting as his spokesman. Mr Rubenstein is better known for handling multimillion-dollar divorce battles or representing a motley client list including Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, Leona Helmsley, Mike Tyson and Naomi Campbell. "I hate to make predictions, but I predict he'll be OK," Mr Rubenstein said. "He's a very decent man, and clearly not anti-Israel."
(.....)
Lord Rogers declined to comment in detail, but told the Guardian that the dispute ignored a broader context. The architects' meeting at his headquarters "wasn't some isolated bubble in space", he said yesterday. "We encourage people to come and discuss and debate all sorts of things with us, and what's happening in Israel is a part of that debate. On another level, we invite the local police to come and discuss the management of our local community. It's all part of playing a public role."

Mr Weizman, meanwhile, remained defiant about the group's aims, and dismissed suggestions in the New York media that members of his profession should stay out of world politics. "Let's make a deal," he said. "If politicians stay out of architecture, then architects will stay out of politics."
(.....)

- Linda MacDonald

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Read this article: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329429950-110427,00.html

Abe Hayeem's review of the new book "The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War" by Robert Bevan: http://www.butterpaper.com/talk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=851
On Eyal Weizman: Lines in the Sand (Guardian): http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,762659,00.html

Anonymous

Israel-Palestine conflict engulfs Roger’s 1.7bn New York Project

Richard Rogers has disassociated himself from a group discussing “design and construction professionals involved in projects that appropriate land and natural resources from (in this case) Palestinian territory (being) complicit in social political and economic oppression”.

The question that needs to be asked is which design and construction professional want to be associated with the illegal occupation of land?

Far more frightening is the idea that the mere discussion about these issues could generate such a response and retraction.

To bring the question of mere discussion back to Australia, the Prime Minister, in his recent low key celebrations of ten year’s in government, made some startling observation that went basically unchallenged.

He reflected that the period preceding his term in office had be a decade long seminar about national identity that the Australian public was basically fed up with. People were far more relaxed and comfortable now. He asserts that we know who we are and what we stand for.

The Dog Whistler, as Don Watson calls John Howard, was sending two clear messages. The first is that there is no need for further public debate about our national identity. The second is more oppressive. There is no place for discussion or debate and those who want to engage in another reading of our history or view of our future threaten our self certainty and are, by definition, unpatriotic. You’re either with us or against us.

The idea that the dominant culture is the only culture to which all others must conform is a most terrifying shift in Australian society. It is the opposite of pluralism. We have not yet reconciled ourselves with the complexity of our past let alone discussed a different future to one defined by further acts of aggression at the behest of world powers. In this climate of fear, lack of imagination, amnesia and ignorance the space for difference, even difference of opinion, has evaporated.

If Keating’s time in office was the decade long seminar then Howard’s term must be declared the decade long sing along. The words are simple and the melody a familiar old tune. Relaxed and comfortable. Alert but not alarmed. War on terror. We know who we are and what we stand for. Just don’t sing out of tune.

Anthony McInneny