Future

The situation

The story of the Arab village Ein Hud is one case out of others – it is an example that showsthe consequences of a Israeli government policy and a mentality behind it that is not able toguarantee a coexistence of two people living together in one country. It is a story of individuals that suffer from this policy and seek for an alternative.Ein Hud is a village without chances and future as long as it has to fight for every human right that should be guaranteed to every citizen of Israel. Although it is officially recognized by theIsraeli government in 1992, today it still lacks a practical recognition. The current master plantook years to be issued and “offers the right to remain, but not to prosper on their land” (Association of Forty).The people of the Jewish village Ein Hod in general try to ignore the past of the village because it does not belong to their history. What they lack is a moral recognition of their rightto live there. This is shown as well by a group of left wing Israeli citizens - mainly artists - thatboycot the village. Even some villagers of Ein Hod try to buy this moral recognition by offering money to the Arabs to pay for their houses – meant as a positive gesture. The former ownersdid not accept this attempt to buy the right to live on the ground that in their eyes can neverbelong to the new owners. The reason here fore is a deep believe that “one can’t choose his homeland”, also not buy it.Facing each other in the landscape, sharing the same name, but blocking each other from past and future, these two villages will be connected as long as they exist. As the twovillages, the Arab and Jewish population of Israel are connected to each other – connected bythe ground and the history.

How is this situation caused?

The situation is not unique; there have been more nations build on the land of an existingpopulation that was completely ignored. The policy that causes a situation like this is a Jewish policy based on a Zionist ideology which means that the Jewish point of view is the only or atleast the first interest, the needs of the Arab population are secondary. But why is this? The past of the Israeli people explains a lot, but still it is important to mentionthe underlying reasons for this protective and selfish policy. The planning policy of the Israeli government is much more political than in almost everycountry of the world. It is characterized by mistrust and fear of losing their only homeland. Thefear is caused by the fragility of the existence of Israel. The goal is to minimize Arab presence in Israel, to dislodge and disperse the Arab population.Why refuse the recognition of an Arab village? The answer might be that it is much easier tocontrol the Arabs living in a few concentrated spots, and not spread around the country. The fear that the Arabs might have the same hidden plan or strategy as used for the Israelisettlements in the West-bank is striking. The Jewish-Zionist ideology is one-sided and based on separation, not on coexistence andcooperation. The Arabs are a danger, a hidden enemy, and a threat for the state of Israel andshould be given as little rights and ground as possible. The Arab village of Ein Hud is seen as an ecological disaster and a demographic time bomb.

The proposal

So what can be the solution for this situation? A conventional master plan can not change thementality of people, is does not automatically lead to equality and justice, nor respect andtrust that is felt within and among people. A conventional master plan implies drawing borders, defining rights and dividing the ground. We would like to direct the discussion to adifferent solution, a different ideology. We propose an imaginary plan in order to open themind for a new formula. Asking our self what would happen if... We wish to inspire with a dream.

A vision: Equalduct Hod-Hud

Our vision is to equalize the villages. We would like to bridge the past and the future of thevillages, level the gap between moral and the practical recognition and connect the citizens ofthe villages by a symbol of unity and equality. We chose for a symbolic intervention that can help to strengthen the identity to the villages,stimulate cooperation and coexistence and finally – to define a new ideology for the planningpolicy. It is an external intervention that does not touch the existing. Our imaginary proposal is a symbolic, but at the same time physical connection, a viaduct.The viaduct crosses the beautiful forest landscape, a floating pedestrian promenade on thesame level as the trees. On both ends of the bridge we imagine the two villages facing each other on the same level, equal to each other. The Equalduct Hod-Hud – a platform ofcollaboration - is connecting them with each other. The viaduct, 2,5 kilometers long and 12 meters broad, offers 30.000 square meters space ontop of it to be filled in by the villagers itself. The infrastructural function is secondary; theprogram on top of the bridge will form its character.

This Equalduct Hod-Hud fulfils several goals:

Breaking walls:
we create a physical connection between the villages as a crossing point for interchange. We desire a situation where it becomes possible that Arabs go back totheir old village to visit their former mosque and the Jewish visit the Arab village to enjoy thewarm Arab hospitality and best hummus. Studying the history of the two villages the separation of the two people mentioned beforebecomes obvious. Today, the villagers of Ein Hud feel like living “in a reserve within a reservewithin a reserve”. They feel fences around the village, visible and invisible ones: “We are in an open prison. Surrounding the village is the first fence... Above the village and beyond thefence is the park. That’s the second wall. The third wall around the village and part of the parkis the military firing zone. And the last gate: The Sabbath gate of Nir Etzion... that in a way is the fourth wall. The Sabbath wall.”The Equalduct Hod-Hud crosses these borders and breaks the walls. It makes the villagesaccessible to each other.

A landmark for collective memory: The Equalduct Hod-Hud will be a nationalsymbol that attracts public attention and tourists; a positive impulse for the peace process butas well for the economical development of the region. The landmark can as well be seen as a confrontation: We want to confront the two villages with each other to stimulate exchange andcooperation.The official recognition of the village of Ein Hud and a new master plan are practical ways to bring justice and peace. The struggle of Ein Hud for recognition has a very psychological partas well.The Arabs of Ein Hud chose to keep the name of Ein Hud for their new village. The reason was to remain their past, to keep the memory alive. They want to “challenge the Jewish Israeliunderstanding of collective memory to include the Palestinian Arabs of Israel.” This very important aspect is emphasized as well in this approach of the Palestinian AzmiBishara, a professor of philosophy: “There could not begin to be an equality until stones markthe graves of what were once villages nor an historic compromise until Palestinians obtain their tombstones; the victims must be recognized in order for him to forgive.”This quotation emphasizes the meaning of a symbolic intervention in the sense of a landmark.What the villagers of Ein Hud mainly expect from the Israeli state is a recognition for theirhistorical right to live in this country and justice that is based on equality. This recognition has to be based on respect for their religion and history.

Public program by self-initiative: The Equalduct Hod-Hud will offer space and possibilities for public functions, it fulfils the function of a multifunctional center that is used byboth sides as a meeting point.We chose not to design a public space and multifunctional center inside Ein Hud, but to create a space to meet for both of the villages. Tourist and economical functions do notnecessarily have to be realized inside the village, but can maybe even work better if they arecombined with the landmark. A re-interpretation of the means of a master plan comes back in the design-concept of the viaduct. It will not be a fixed master plan that defines borders fordevelopment. Instead it offers space for different functions like art, commerce, open space,hospitality. The public program will not be imposed by the Israeli government or a different institution, but will be developed by the people itself. It will be a living bridge; the program canchange and be filled in flexible. The people of Ein Hud have shown a lot of self-initiative in thelast years; the way they were building up their own democratic system is an example for a successful self-government. Institution building and elections were put up by self-initiative.This energy we want to use for the development of the bridge. Only by letting the peopledecide themselves the bridge will become a part of their lives. Encouraging a collaboration between the villages to fill in the public program of the viaduct stimulates exchange of ideasand working together on a common goal. This bottom-up approach will create moreidentification and understanding.

Neutral ground: The bridge is floating; the construction of the bridge is designed insuch a way that the connection with the ground is minimal. Claims for the ground are notmade because the space on the bridge is divided equally. The conflict between Arabs and Israelis is mainly about ground. Who has the right to livewhere? Who does the ground belong to? Or who belongs more to the ground? Who has beenthere before? The idea of a viaduct floating above the ground undermines this potential conflict. It is collective ground, a common public space that can’t be divided into yours andmine. One part of the bridge can not exist without the other.

ConclusionThe Equalduct Hod-Hud can stimulate a change in mentality and daily life in the villages ofEin Hud and Ein Hod. It offers a platform for collaboration, equality and understanding. Like walls and borders are a physical symbol of separation, mistrust and fear, a bridge can be aphysical symbol for cooperation that is based on respect and trust. It shows an alternative toan ideology that is only protecting the rights of a privileged part of the population. The alternative is giving space to all citizens and allowing them to participate in the developmentof the country in the same way.Why not build bridges instead of walls?