Barricade politics.

AGAINST THE WALL

Edited by Michael Sorkin. London: The New Press. 2005. [pounds sterling]10.99

The cover page of the Arts and Leisure section of the New York Times on the first day of the new year, was dominated by an article by Nicolai Ouroussoff on the security barrier that attempts to separate Israel and the Israeli settlements within the West Bank from the areas of Palestinian administration. Tided 'A Line in the Sand', it considers an emerging debate on 'the nature of space and the consequences for architectural theory' raised by this obstruction; a debate between the architect Eyal Weizman, who sees it as a criminal act of architecture, and Simon Navez, an Israeli general, who sees it as 'simplistic and vulgar' and seeks in the writings of Deleuze and the Situationists a more effective means of separation and erasure. It is troubling to find this discussion in the Arts and Leisure section of one of the world's most influential papers. What kind of editorial decision could place this tragic and intractable condition on the arts pages? Such trivial intellectualising may only serve to confuse and mask what for Palestine's West Bank is a profoundly destructive act.

I had a similar reaction to the essay collection Against the Wall edited by Michael Sorkin, in which Eyal Weizman is one of the more substantial voices. This is a valuable yet uneven and slightly disappointing compilation. There are a number of texts that could be essential reading for anyone seeking an understanding of both the politics and the pain of the project; Stephanie Koury on legalities and illegalities; Suad Amiry and Tom Kay on living with and within the barrier; Anita Vitullo on the devastating impact on the Palestinian economy, and Oren Yiftachel, Haim Yacobi and Sari Hanafi on the history that has led to its creation. These are interrupted by essays that attempt to generalise, either by looking at other barriers--the US Mexico border fence--or by theorising, with the help of such as Levi Straus and the Internet. They prevent the key essays from building to a comprehensive picture of the circumstance. The aftertaste is a sense of academic chatter rather than foreboding over the grave consequences that must follow.