Report comment

I am glad that the subject of ethics in architecture is being debated, which I would like to think is partly due to Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine first raising the moral and professional issue of architects in Israel building illegal settlements and projects on expropriated Palestinian- owned land both in the Occupied Territories, and even within Israel, by displacing Bedouin citizens of Israel in the Negev, using extreme brutality. All this incidentally is well documented by Israeli human rights organisations. There is a difference between foreign architects building projects in countries like China, with terrible human rights records of land grabs and the occupation of Tibet, and architects being unethical in their own country, and acting in complicity with the state and its military in blatant land theft, and continual infringements of international law and the UIA Codes of Conduct. One can say that 'grands projets' in China, Dubai, Russia and Saudi Arabia will benefit society, but often they are for the super rich and will expand the gap between rich and poor. The building of these mega projects are often at the expense of the rights and conditions and terrible exploitation of migratory workers.Globalisation extends these injustices. Why then is Israel often picked out? One reason is that it wishes to be part of Europe, (Eurovision, football, and gets huge EU concessions etc) and claims to be a western style democracy. In that case it must be held to account if its behaviour towards half population is so discriminatory and the reason of much conflict in the Middle East that has worldwide repercussions. There are parallels with the struggle against apartheid, and the pressure from the outside world did bring about the end of the apartheid regime. Architects and planners who play such an important social role cannot justifiably disclaim responsibility or detachment in such moral issues.