By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.

Close

Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

RIBA solo practitioners demand withdrawal of Israeli motion

The Solo Practitioners Group (SPG) has demanded Portland Place abandon its controversial motion against Israeli architects

The linked society of the RIBA has written to institute president Stephen Hodder calling for a U-turn on demands for the International Architects Union (UIA) to suspend the membership of the Israeli architects’ representative body.

The North West of England-based organisation spoke out against the motion after its annual general meeting on 1 April ruled the policy was ‘not representative’ of its membership.

Adopted on 19 March, the motion tabled by past president Angela Brady followed the IAUA’s continued failure to punish architects breaching the UIA’s 2005 Resolution 13 condemning the building of settlements on occupied land.

The letter from SPG chair Ron Gonshaw said the agreement failed to support the RIBA’s aim of promoting architecture and that insufficient time had been given to debate the issue and gain a balanced view from members.

He added: ‘The RIBA in this motion is involving itself in the complexities of international politics [but] the first debate should be to establish if it is the wish of the membership to examine and scrutinise the civil rights records of every country.’

The letter continued: ‘This motion implies that the RIBA is partisan in the complex political situation in the Middle East, which is more damaging to the perception of RIBA and it’s members than the likely effectiveness of any possible resulting outcome.

‘We believe that the motion is ill judged for the above reasons and should therefore be withdrawn.’

The SPG’s criticism comes shortly after the Israeli Association of United Architects called on Prime Minister David Cameron to block the motion.

The RIBA’s stance

The RIBA has set up a new working group reporting to the International Committee. The new group, chaired by RIBA Vice President International Peter Oborn, will consider the Institute’s role in engaging with communities facing civil conflict and natural disaster. The group will consider the implications of the recent RIBA Council resolution calling on the International Union of Architects (UIA) to suspend the Israeli Association of United Architects, and coordinate RIBA’s engagement and dialogue with all sides on this complex issue. 

The group is expected to report to RIBA Board and Council with its findings and recommendations by the end of the year.

The full RIBA Council resolution [on Israel] was:

Since the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) has paid no regard to the UIA resolution 13* of 2005 and 2009, the RIBA calls on the UIA, as the international guardian of professional and ethical standards in our profession, to suspend the membership of the Israeli Association of United Architects, until it acts to resist these illegal projects, and observes international law, and the UIA Accords and Resolution 13.

*UIA’s Resolution 13 (2005 and 2009) states that “The UIA Council condemns development projects and the construction of buildings on land that has been ethnically purified or illegally appropriated, and projects based on regulations that are ethnically or culturally discriminatory, and similarly it condemns all action contravening the fourth Geneva Convention”.

The resolution does not call for a boycott.

 

 

 

 

 

Readers' comments (4)

  • The RIBA has taken a clear moral line in what is recognised internationally as a cruel, unfair and illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Alex Seymour

    It would be interesting to know how many members the impressive sounding Solo Practitioners Group has (apart from Gonshaw Associates)?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • @Malcolm
    Obviously, you have never lived in a tough neighborhood where your neighbors want to kill you! As for illegal have you read the Treaty of Versailles and the Geneva Conventions?

    @Alex
    Are you suggesting that the other 43,967 members of the RIBA would have supported the 23 Council Members who voted in a secret ballot?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • @Malcolm
    I forgot might be an idea to swot up on the Ottoman Law which applied to the Province of Southern Syria ('Palestine') for 400 years prior to 1917.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters