Tag Archives: IDF

Planning and Spatiality: The Spatial Creation of Urban Landscapes

As you may have noticed, I haven’t posted much over the Summer. This is due to the fact that I have been working on a research paper about the geneaology of urban planning and securitization, smooth and straited spatial constructions, and more as well as a case study (looking at my hometown) of urban planning being utilized to create quasi-gated communities. After all this time, I have finished the paper and revised it to the point that I am happy. Below this is the abstract and embeded below that is the paper in its entirety. I hope you all enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it and I would love to hear your comments. I give you Planning and Spatiality!

In this brief paper, I attempt to start filling the holes in critical geographic theory by providing a genealogy of urban planning and critical infrastructure discourse, tracing historical manifestations of theoretical modes of spatiality, applying the understanding of the modes of spatiality by problematizing the seemingly innocuous planning and layout of my hometown, and finally, providing options for resistance to domination.


Planning and Spaciality: Deleuze and the Dark Side

Part 0: Meta

The following is, in addition to being the skeleton for a larger paper I am working on currently (you can think of this as the preview of coming attractions!), a final research paper I recently finished up. I’ve edited the citation style and added images to make it more conducive to web viewing, but the content is unaltered. In the paper, I argue that a neutral and mundane view of space is inaccurate and that space has been changed by human forces, becoming increasingly striated as powers change the world for their own ends. I also argue that urban planning as a discipline is not neutral either, but is subject to vested interests and corruption ultimately creating what some scholars have coined “the dark side” of planning. Finally, I propose two modes of resistance to the attempt to control populations via planning; a phenomenological escape, and a discursive escape.

Although I mentioned it above, it’s worth reiterating that this is significantly longer than my usual posts (as it is a building block for a much larger paper I am working on this summer). I would appreciate any and all feedback and I hope you enjoy it!

Update: The full version of the paper, “PLANNING AND SPATIALITY: THE SPATIAL CREATION OF URBAN LANDSCAPES”, is available here.


Continue reading

Re: Why I Do Criticize Israel – A respectful reply

A few weeks back I was delighted to open my email and see a reply that someone had sent me in regards to a previous post (which itself was a reply to Sam Harris) called Why I Do Criticize Israel – A Response to Sam HarrisAfter apologizing for the obscene amount of time it took to get around to sending the sender a reply, he gave me permission to quote his criticisms and address them on my blog (if you haven’t listened to my reply to Harris, it is below).

Thus, quoted below verbatim, are the criticism I shall be addressing:

A few points you neglected in your talk which I would like to comment on:

1)  Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, so your expansionist claims in respect to Gaza, are incorrect. There is no occupation in Gaza. Gazans were given complete autonomy as to who their elected leaders would be. They chose Hamas.

2) Your stated claim that Hamas has a 40% approval rating is for economic reasons. (It has increased since the recent conflict) Hamas has used aid money to build tunnels instead of the welfare of it people. They have turned Gaza into a military camp instead of a thriving community. The tunnels into Israel are for offensive purposes only. Israel was justified in destroying them.

3) I agree with you on these points: I’m against the occupation, I condemn religious extremists on both sides and I’m against new appropriation of land for Israeli settlements. I believe a two-state solution to the conflict is necessary. I didn’t hear your opinion on what the resolution should be in your talk.

4) You claim that Israel’s aim, for prolonging the conflict, is to expand its territory. Actually, just the opposite is true. Israel has offered Palestinian leadership their own state several times as recently as 2001. Hamas will never accept a Palestinian state as long as there is a Jewish one. But, it even goes deeper than that. Not only do they not want a Jewish state, but they don’t want a Jewish /presence/ in the area. Harris is correct. There would be genocide on a monumental scale if the military power was reversed.

Thanks for reading,


I want to thank Dan for his comments, and my reply shall follow after the jump!

Continue reading