Spatial Identity of the Apartheid Wall - Essay Example

?Defining the environment in terms of spatiality of the Apartheid Wall/security fence of Israel/Palestine Introduction The term spatial identity has historically been synonymous with and signified by territory and / or boundaries physical or geographical. This is the key reason why most of the definitions of a geographic location carry a significant indication of a demarcated territory1. Although the discussions regarding the same i.e. regarding the space with reference to territories is relatively scarce. Discussions with regard to the aspect of ‘Space’ or ‘Spatiality’ have been largely excluded from international literature so far. The concept, however, assumed greater significance during the pre-World War era. This paper seeks to examine the definitions and relationship between territories and the state, and conclude with the help of valid discussions that the formation of territories / boundaries is a consequence of spatial conditioning of the states in question. The emergence of spatiality: The European states were the first to realize and commence the use of ‘spaces’ as one of its significant tools of running the government, in the beginning of the sixteenth century. In the latter half of the century, following various transformations in the political scene, especially the occurrence of the civil war, the term sovereignty came into being and gained momentum. Such transformations changed the manner in which the whole concept of spatiality was perceived, and established that the spaces were now no longer bound to the central institutions of power but was in fact, associated with an uncongenial, conceptual and eternal notion2. In the subsequent years, several territorial activities were undertaken with regard to seeking a rise in revenues, which signified greater strength in the state’s capacity to wage a war; and expand its territorial possessions. On the other hand, attempts were made by those who had lost ‘territories’ or ‘physical spaces / boundaries’ to reclaim the lost grounds, which involved raising revenues through taxation3. Thus the politics and economies related to space played a major role in the formation of territorial identities during the early European era. The survival and even the strength of a nation, thus heavily depended on the territories it occupied i.e. the physical / geographical area it owned, and used for its own personal purposes. The later sections of this paper, involves a comprehensive discussion regarding the manner in which the Zionist movement, followed by the occupation of the Israeli authorities, of certain land spaces and / or ‘territories’ translated into politics of space. The repercussions of such an act that of occupying physical spaces, represents the new means by which, spaces were represented and depicted to signify a bold new reality of the upcoming eras. The paper, through highlighting the various crucial practices undertaken and followed post the Zionist movement, by the Israeli authorities, suggests the manner in which spaces were used as a symbol of political strategies; represents the manner in which various conflicts centered around the use of space; and the various in which it is used to form and define a territory. The Israel and Palestine territories: de-allocation and re-allocation of spaces Various cases have been observed and studied in the past, with regard to the manner in which spaces and territories were used and formed and conquered and formed a basis for studies related to the formation and significance of as well as the issues surrounding spatiality. It is observed through various cases in history, which post the conquering of a space / territory, the next crucial stage is retaining such claimed / conquered territories. The retaining of territories involves survival strategies, a process which is actualized as soon as a space is claimed and converted into a territory. The initial process of occupation of space began with the accumulation of people belonging to the Jewish communities, from diverse geographical locations, and based in various different parts of the globe, to develop a basic notion which entailed an abstract space ‘Zion’ which was linked to Jerusalem. This abstract idea of a territory for people belonging to a specific community, gradually translated into a concrete reality, thus leading to a formation of an actual physical territory. Spaces are formed and transformed into territories when the same are controlled through sheer power. Such newly created ‘units’ are restricted in its endeavor to subjugate and manage spaces and are more of than not, controlled by some other state. Thus, this leads to the beginning of controversies which occur when an abstract space is converted into a territory and is controlled by someone else. The term territory refers to a concept which is relational in nature, and entails bifurcation or segregation of land which in turn signifies exclusivity. Such segregation refers to acknowledgement of space, which in turn is recognized as a territory when the others signify their assent to its possession, management and defense by the owners. The emergence of Zionism hence, is a political movement which revolves around the issues of space with respect to the land of Israel. The formation of the state, hence is signified by the formation, territorialization, segregation, as well as acknowledgement of space. Space, hence, as observed from the above discussions, does not signify or translate as power, but rather a result or a consequence of power. Emergence of the land of Israel: Formation of spaces The process of formation / creation of the land of Israel commenced during the early twentieth century, through a process of pre-meditated planning spanning over several centuries dating as far back as during the Roman era4. The Zionist movement dates back to the Bible and the history of emergence of the Jewish people even prior to their existence in the Palestinian regions, before it was conquered by the Romans. The history of Israel and Palestinian conflict; the construction of the apartheid wall and the whole issue and differences related to space, can be divided into three eras – beginning from 1850s to the late 2006. It is during these periods that key issues related to space such as the making of the state, its consolidation and the alleged association between the process of creation and dissolution of the state and the transformation of a space into a territory that took shape. The initial period illustrates the manner in which socio-political transformations materializes, expands and ultimately succeeds in accomplishing its key goal – that of transforming an abstract notion of space i.e. in this case, Zion, into an actual state – that of Israel. Apparently, the entire area which now comprises of the state of Israel initially belonged to the Ottoman empire initially. Initially, the area beginning from the south-eastern Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan river, was occupied by thousands of people comprising mainly of Arabic Muslims, a very small proportion of them comprised of Jews and the rest of them were Christians5 6. As far back as the mid nineteeth century approximately ten thousand Jews were known to inhabit Palestine, while eight thousand of them lived in Jerusalem. Until the year 1858, this piece of land was governed by a complicated set of rules and regulations with regard to admission to land and conditions regarding land occupancy; and similar set of complex rules were used to manage and govern the life in villages as well. It was during this period that the Ottomans introduced and implemented a new set of rules, termed as the Ottoman Code with a view to lessen the land occupancy rates. The introduction of such new rules and regulations further added to the complications which already existed with regard to land occupancy and admission. This area was ruled and governed by such stringent social, political and economical set of rules and regulations prior to the commencement of the Zionist movement. Hence, on account of the various reasons mentioned above, the Jews were required to leave the existing land and acquire a new space, with a view to establish their own independent state. Various territories were considered prior to settling on one, as their own land and thus, ultimately Palestine was chosen to be their own independent state. Herzl, the founder of the state, referred to the problem of setting up this piece of land as an independent state as a political issue, which required to be managed at the international level. However, on the other hand, there was a more practical approach adopted by a movement conducted in Russia, that of promoting immigration to the Palestinian region7. The main problem with the movement was that there were already several Arabs settled in Palestine which was more of a serious issue of concern. This aspect was however, largely ignored and the issue was treated as more of a political one mainly because, the land was under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire. It was presumed that the financial setbacks could be resolved through fund-raising activities8. Thus, movement mainly focused on other issues rather than focusing on bargaining with and acknowledging the problem of the presence of Arabs in the region9 The establishment of Jews in Palestine was largely perceived as an issue concerning the state, which would otherwise have been resolved amicably if the majority opinions and consensus were acquired beforehand with regard to the formation of a new state. The political Zionist movement was subsequently assimilated with a more rational form of the movement with the commencement of the twentieth century. This new form of movement was aimed at combining the efforts to form a new, independent and secure Jewish state in the newly acquired land, of Palestine through diplomacy and tact, which included heightened efforts to promote immigration of Jews to Palestine and encouraging them to acquire land and settle there10. The assimilation of these two key approaches helped in giving momentum to the movement and was regarded as one of the most significant steps towards the formation of a legitimate Jewish land. Such a formation of a state is extremely crucial for the acquisition of a strong political identity at a global level. The evolution of a new political center would then lead to the formation of a structured body which is involved in strategic decision making, framing of administrative policies for the betterment of the acquired land and developing international political aims thus, resulting in a culmination of a movement and a beginning of a new political power. According to Azoulay 11 generally, the concepts of nations and nationality are formed with acquisition of territories, and formation of group identities. However, in case of the Israelis and Palestinians the periods which signified their nation building were marked by significant destruction of their identities as well as their existence, as a whole12. However, according to experts, such destruction was not only eminent but also highly inevitable for the nation building for communities on both sides of the border. In fact the Zionization of the land, was referred to as a duty of the Jews towards their communities and it was deemed as freedom from oppression and access to a new independent land of their own13 14 15 16. The defeat of the Arabs at the hands of the Jews, during the 1967 war culminated in a reformation of their claimed territory. The Israelis captured the West Bank and Gaza from Palestine and Golan Heights from Jordan, Syria and Egypt17. However, despite claiming these territories, the same are considered as illegal by international laws18. Consequently a mass movement led by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat came into force during the period from 1967 and 1970, which garnered support from the Palestinian people, who were displaced due to the Zionist accessions19. The Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza strip were denied citizenship even after the land was occupied by the Zionists, in 1967 but instead, were issued ID cards, thus leading to an apartheid system of bureaucracy which clearly segregated the Israelis from the Arabs20. However, regardless of such a deliberate differentiation between them, the Palestinians living in those regions were subsequently permitted to enter Israel freely under regular entry permits. The borders were closed in the 1970s which signified more of a political stance rather than anything else21. This geopolitical border, separating Israel and Palestine, is perceived by many as a contemporary form of exercising and managing socio-economic control 22 23. The Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Dayan, practiced a new policy of open bridges, whereby the borders between the two nations could be made penetrable24. This policy entailed various advantages to both Israelis as well as the Palestinians as on one hand, it offered opportunities for cheap labor for the Israelis while at the same time, offering better employment opportunities for the Palestinians, since wages on the other side of the border were relatively higher. Due to such a policy, of mutual benefit, nearly two thirds of the Palestinians commuted on a daily or a weekly basis to Israel for the purpose of engaging in meaningful employment25. The Apartheid Wall: The Wall in Israel and Palestine The border between Israel and the newly acquired territories i.e. Gaza and West Bank was fully accessible to all, and the people from both the sides of the border was initially allowed to cross over without having to carry any identification for verification purposes during the early 1990s26. However, the situation is changed significantly over the past couple of years. Today, the landscape is highly marked by the presence of roadblocks, checkpoints, channels, and other various elements characterizing a systematic blockade27. There are highly sophisticated systems of controls in place today, whereby entry to who can cross the border, is strictly regulated. The blockade is further intensified by the wall constructed by Israel and commonly referred to as a ‘security fence’ which is placed at five different checkpoints, and is known to be thrice as thick and twice as wide as the historical Berlin Wall. The wall is surrounded by barbed wire, with high voltage circuits installed, to prevent unfavorable accessions. There is a deep trench, almost two meters deep, which is constructed between the high wall and the high voltage security fence, which in turn is covered with sharp edged metal spikes. The Israeli military has covered the path beyond this blockade, with finely ground sand, so as to make footprints easily visible, and the same is surrounded by high check posts, with high powered stadium lights and surveillance cameras installed to detect trespassers. Such a demarcation characterized by the Israeli Wall is similar to the construction of the Berlin Wall, signifying the definitive symbol of spatialisation of identities, as a result of a struggle of nations for power, and relations marked by differentiation and starkly different identities28. These differences and opposing viewpoints are established in concrete and symbolized in the form of a wall. The landscape of apartheid has been historically viewed to be characterized by territorial or spatial separations and the powers and control are borne by human beings. In cities, the apartheid spatial segregations are witnessed in the form of separate and thoughtfully formed residential areas for people belonging to different communities / races / ethnicities. The wall separating the Israelis and Palestinians is a symbol of such apartheid segregation where the spaces are marked by boundaries and concrete structures, and the individuals are segregated and controlled through regulations and laws formed and implemented by those who control the regions. In wall on the territory which is now occupied by Israel, is highly indicative of graphism whereby several artists and citizens alike have written messages and inscriptions on the wall, signifying the disruptions caused by it in the life of thousands of Palestinians. The wall has disrupted the life of people living on both the sides of the border, but a greater difficulty has befallen on the women and girls on the Palestinian side. The women have to undergo more hardships imposed on them by the law as well as on account of the patriarchal nature of their family systems. They have to cope with greater difficulties than men, while negotiating their crossings on a daily basis, and at the same time ensure their safety. They have to continuously live with the fact that they are constantly under surveillance not only by the Israeli military, but also by their families, who often impose curfew on them to ensure their safety and prevent them from being victimized by violence by the Israeli military. This wall, hence, embodies the struggle of people on the Palestinian side and especially the hardships they are made to go through. However, such differentiations in treatment are not observed in case of boys or men, who are clearly received preferential treatment. Personification: The Israel Palestine Wall ‘Violence gives birth to itself..’ The wall began to be constructed by the Israeli government, in June 2002 citing security issues. The Israeli administration stated, that although they were aware of the Palestinians’ right to freedom of movement but the security of their citizens too, is of equal significance and cannot be ignored or taken lightly, thus the security of Israelis take precedence over the Palestinians’ right to movement29. Thus the notion of ‘security’ in this case was clearly associated with violence whereby one of the parties had to defend themselves from eminent attacks. The Israeli government’s official website for security states that the government identifies and acknowledges the threat of security for the Israelis’ and as measure against the same, it seeks to defend the population and its citizens against imminent terrorist attacks30. Furthermore, with regard to the impact of the construction of Wall on the Palestinians, the website further states that the construction of wall is only to seek protection of the Israeli people and in no way implies any harm or damage to those living on other side of the border. It further states that the Palestinians are free to go about their lives in the same way as previously undertaken, and that there is no intention to disrupt their routines or schedules. In order to avoid mishaps or inconvenience, there are various outlets at different points in the wall, which are to be used by the Palestinians in case when needed. Furthermore, it is also stated that whatever destruction has been caused to the environment on account of the construction of this wall, will be repaired by the Israelis, such as trees cut for making way for the construction will be replanted and the land confiscated for the purpose of construction would be taken away and appropriate compensation to the owner would be offered, on application. The land in the meanwhile, will be treated as national property of the Israelis. The wall signifies that hundreds of Israelis who have been killed by terrorist attacks, including babies, women and children, and is now a symbol of Anti Terrorism where such violent and aggressive acts will be blocked by the use of such a fence. The authorities have also stated that there is hardly any better measure of defense available at their disposal to avoid the brutal killings of innocent civilians by the Palestinians, and hence justifying the construction of such a wall, as not only valid but as the only reliable and effective means of security31. Deconstructions ‘Maybe resistance is already a place on the map, but – more likely – maybe it is about throwing away imposed maps, unfolding new spaces, making alternative places, creating new geographies of resistance’ Pile, Keith, 1997 Pp. 3032 Walls symbolize power and a materialization of perspectives of the governing groups. They work to enforce the perspectives of their controllers, on the people and define and influence the way of thought, restrict the followers and subordinates from physically crossing over, and blocking the mental categories from advancing towards the restricted zones. The wall created by the Israelis on the West Bank seeks to generalize all the Palestinians into one single group – that of trouble makers and terrorists, thus making them responsible for acts of others, which are beyond their control. Such blanket categorization by the Israelis, speaks of unfair practices, and the dominance of power which play a major role in silencing the voices of rationality, fairness and justice. Such a depiction of blatant blanketization of groups on account of actions of a few, is in stark contrast with the anthropological evidences, which have historically sought to make way for peace and harmony to prevail against all odds. The wall thus is a symbol of dominance of the stronger over the weaker sections of the society, and the power they hold in silencing the rational voices of those who are relatively disempowered or lack to privilege to be at the dominant end of the bargain. Hence, the key objective of anthropological studies must be to identify and acknowledge the fact that generalizations of individuals based on activities of a few do not always present the real picture and is not only highly unfair on the part of those being so blatantly generalized but also on the part of those exercising their privilege to control and dominate. A fair approach would be to consider the element of inclusivity with regard to making rules and represent the rights and voices of those who have been silenced through sheer power. The deconstruction of the wall would be possible if these perspectives are taken into consideration and are acted upon in a fair and appropriate manner. The false sense of security which is used as a defense to demarcate physical territories is no more than a veiled attempt at spatial politics. The discussions above mostly focused on the politics of differences which eventually led to the construction of the wall, however, it is only through the elimination of such differences that the wall could be brought down33. The relations between nations, and the dominance afforded to one on account of spatiality of power, despite resistance on the other side of the fence, suggest that the situation in this case is similar to the Berlin Wall in more ways than one. It is acknowledged and realized by such examples, that the dichotomy which exists between the local and foreign is reductionist in nature. The protests on both the sides of the border, with issues of political standing are characterized by high amount of violence and aggression, which is almost threatening. The land is gripped by aggressive attacks on a regular basis, and the tradition of suicide bombings initiated way back in the 1990s still continues to be the dominant force, in putting a point across as opposed to meaningful exchange of dialogs. Moreover, forces behind such attacks continue to encourage and support such aggressive forms of protests. It has been largely discussed and mentioned across various literature forms, covering the disputes between Palestine and Israel that violence leads to even more violence and the same is characterized by the series of unceasing violent protests on both sides of the wall, which has only strengthened the political ill-will and prolonged the struggle. It is however, largely argued that despite the fact that violence only breeds more violence, it is highly likely that it is only on account of such violent protests that would lead to the fall of this wall. The conditions in which Palestinians have lived ever since the construction of the war, is appalling and humiliating and it is this misery and suffering on the part of the Palestinians which is translated through violent protests. Thus the claim that the protests are unlikely to cease until the wall is deconstructed. The politics of power highlighted by the case of spatiality implies that the resistance is not localized on either side but the same must be patented through the development of additional local channels. The geographies of resistance can be observed in the form of graffiti and inscriptions on the wall, as well as in the form of public demonstrations in various locations34. The demonstrations or protests have now spilled over to a new more technologically savvy mediums, such as the internet in the form of blogs, where Palestinians living under a strict regime can spread their word through a free medium, and make themselves heard and their message spread across the globe, ensuring that it reaches those who can make a difference. The fact that power has a way of exercising dominance through space35 and the wall is the physical embodiment of the ideology. According to Deluze and Guttari36 the wall represents two strikingly different objectives on both sides - on the Israeli side it represents life and security while on the Palestinian side it represents oppression and terror. Furthermore, they state that the wall has a 'rhizomatic expansion' to it in a sense that it comprises of directions in motions which has no traceable beginnings or ends to it. The same phenomenon when viewed in terms of Luhmann’s perspectives, can be explained as the paradox of origins, i.e., what is law is a relative issue, as it has different connotations when viewed from either side of the wall. This, according to Luhmann's philosophy represents the impossibility of offering a normative account to the situation which is paradoxical in nature37 . Conclusion: ‘I know that the Wall is an ugly thing. It will also disappear. But only when the reasons for its construction have gone’ Ganster, Lorey, 2005,Pp. 2538 The walls are the physical representation and an acknowledgement of the existence of conflicts between regions, and illustrate the denial on either side to give in to the popular demands, or initiate towards peace building processes. The walls which separates nations and people, have a strong message which seeks to aggravate international response, and brings communities and people together towards the fulfillment of a common goal, despite the strong disconnect which divides them, thus working against the forces of power and attempting to overcome the inequalities that exist. These walls only further fuel the violence, although are built to avoid the same, and tend to control and prevent individuals. Although the walls are regarded as the physical embodiment when tend to strengthen and highlight the differences that exist, at the same time, it represents the construction of a physical structure which is highly vulnerable and perfectly capable of being broken down, as has already been witnessed before, in the case of the Berlin Wall. References: Azoulay, M., Adi, O., (2005). The Monster's Tail, in Against the Wall, ed., Michael Zorkin, London & New York: The New Press, Pp. 2-27 Biggs, M. (1999). "Putting the State on the Map: Cartography, Territory, and European State Formation." Comparative Studies in Society and History 41(2): 374-405. Bisharat, G. (1997) ‘Exile to Compatriot: Transformations in the Social Identity of Palestinian Refugees in the West Bank’, in Ferguson, J. and Gupta, A. (eds) Culture, Power, Place; Explorations in Critical Anthropology, London and Durham: Duke. Bornstein, AS. (2002) ‘Borders and the Utility of Violence; State Effects on the ‘Superexploitation’ of West Bank Palestinians’, Critique of Anthropology 22(2), 201-220. Bowman, G. (2003) ‘Constitutive violence and the nationalist imaginary. Antagonism and defensive solidarity in ‘Palestine’ and ‘former Yugoslavia’ ’, Social Anthropology 11(3), 319-340. Buehrig, E. (1971) The UN and Palestinian Refugees Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bucaille, L. (2004) Growing Up Palestinian; Israeli Occupation and the Intifada Generation, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Delaney, D., (2005), Territory – a short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. De Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life, translated Rendall, S., Berkeley: University of California Press. Deleuze, G., Guattari, Felix (1988). A Thousand Plateuas, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Pp. 474- 500 Ferguson, J. and Gupta, A. (1992) ‘Beyond “Culture”: Space, Identity and the Politics of Difference’, Cultural Anthropology 7:1 Space, Identity and the Politics of Difference, 6-23. Ganster, P., Lorey, D. E., (2005). Borders and border politics in a globalizing world, Bowman & Littlefield Publications, Pp. 25 Gilbert, Martin (1999), Israel – A History. London: Black Swan Heering, H. T. (1932). "Knud Thott og Forhistorien til Kristian V's Matrikul." Tidsskrift for Opmaalings- og Matrikulsv?sen 13(1): 1-19. Jespersen, K. J. V. (2004). A history of Denmark transl. by Ivan Hill. London, Palgrave Macmillan Kimmerling, B. and Migdal, JS. (1993) Palestinians; The Making of a People, Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Luhmann, N., (2004). Law as a Social System, ed. Fatima Kastner, Richard Nobles, David Schiff, and Rosamund Ziegert, trans. Klaus A. Ziegert (Oxford: Oxford UP, 216. Pile, S., Keith, M., (1997). Geographies of resistance, Taylor & Francis, Pp. 30 Rabinowitz, D. (2001), “The Palestinian Citizens of Israel, the Concept of a Trapped Minority and the Discourse of Transnationalism in Anthropology, Ethnic and Racial Studies 24, 64-85. Selwyn, T. (2001) ‘Landscapes of Separation: Reflections on the Symbolism of By-pass Roads in Palestine’, in Bender, B. and Winter, M. (eds) Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place, Oxford: Berg, 225-240. Said, E. (2003) Culture and Resistance, London: Pluto Press. Shlaim, A., (2001), The Iron Wall – Israel and the Arab World. London: Penguin. Smith, CD. (2004) Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Boston and New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. Swedenburg, T. (1990) ‘The Palestinian Peasant as National Signifier’, Anthropological Quarterly, 62, 18-30. Israeli Official Government website, [Accessed: 29th April, 2011] Read More