The U.S. Institute of Peace and the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace on April 8 opened an exhibit exploring the role of architects and architecture in conflict resolution and held a panel discussion on the issue.

SAYA Co-Founder Yehuda Greenfield-Gilat explains the model of Jerusalem to USIP’s Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, USIP’s Rachel Brandenburg and S. Daniel Abraham.

Most international conflicts are territorial in nature. Resolutions often call for realignment of boundaries and borders, yet all too often without consideration for the existing environment within that space. To address this challenge, SAYA Design for Change has developed an approach called "Resolution Planning." Designed to reclaim the roles of space and urban planning  in mediating conflict, it focuses on the responsibility of architects to contribute to peace negotiations and sustainable resolutions of conflicts. SAYA's body of work, created in collaboration with Palestinian planners and architects, has created a foundation for realizing a future Israeli-Palestinian peace.

This discussion highlighted SAYA's work within the larger context of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Following the event, SAYA's co-founder, Yehuda Greenfield-Gilat, led a tour of a retrospective of SAYA's work. In explaining the model of Jerusalem, he described how this approach gives Jewish residents a positive vision of a divided Jerusalem, while also offering Palestinian residents a bouquet of urban planning options in order to boost their sense of ownership in the process.

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Kristin Lord
U.S. Institute of Peace

Robert Wexler
S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace

Panel Discussion

Toni Verstandig, Moderator
S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace

Yehuda Greenfield-Gilat, Discussant
SAYA Design for Change

Nizar Farsakh, Discussant
Project on Middle East Democracy

Tamara Wittes, Discussant
Saban Center, Brookings Institution‎

Related Publications

A New ‘Quartet’ for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

A New ‘Quartet’ for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Monday, July 20, 2020

By: Ambassador Hesham Youssef

Good news for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking seems rare, but this month’s diplomatic initiative by four states influential in Europe and the Middle East is a constructive development that should continue. On July 7, Egypt, France, Germany and Jordan joined to oppose Israel’s declared intent to annex territory that it has occupied since 1967. Vital actors, including Arab states and the European Union, have been unable to stop the march toward annexation and the attendant risks of renewed violence. Yet a partnership of key Arab and European states—the latest in a string of diplomatic “quartets” on the conflict—offers a foothold on which to build.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Jordan Sees Danger in Trump’s Middle East ‘Vision’

Jordan Sees Danger in Trump’s Middle East ‘Vision’

Monday, May 18, 2020

By: Ambassador Hesham Youssef

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has long been a cornerstone of Middle East stability, wielding significant political and strategic influence in the region. As a small country with a weak economy bordered by Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories, adroit diplomacy is one of its key national resources. Now, Jordan faces a fresh diplomatic challenge: the potential impact of President Trump’s plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on its strategic interests and very future. In the months ahead, Jordan—a crucial partner to the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians—faces a critical juncture in its relations with both the U.S. and Israel coupled with unprecedented internal challenges.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

U.S., Israel and Palestinians Tie Knot of Self-Delusion

U.S., Israel and Palestinians Tie Knot of Self-Delusion

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

By: Ambassador Hesham Youssef

Diplomats, politicians and analysts have invoked a range of obstacles over the years to explain why Israelis and Palestinians can’t make peace: The time is not ripe; there is no partner; there isn’t enough pressure on one party or the other; one side is willing but unable to make concessions, the other is able but unwilling. Now, as the world focuses on the coronavirus pandemic and its economic repercussions, we can add another, more inclusive explanation: Israeli, Palestinian, and American leaders have all embraced self-delusion on the road to pyrrhic victory.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications