The Representation of The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in Palestinian Museums: The Yasser Arafat Museum, The Palestinian Museum and the ‘Walled Off’ Art Hotel

(1)

MASTER THESIS: MUSEUM STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

Shirin Husseini

11386118

Supervisor: Dr. Chiara De Cesari

Second Reader: Dr. Mirjam Hoijtink

Date of Completion: 29 March 2018

Word Count: 28,023

THE YASSER ARAFAT MUSEUM, THE PALESTINIAN MUSEUM AND

THE WALLED OFF ART HOTEL

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI

CONFLICT IN PALESTINIAN MUSEUMS

(2)

i

Front page image:

Al-Nakba (Palestinian Catastrophe in 1948) exhibit in the Yasser Arafat Museum,

(3)

ii

The Representation of The Palestinian-Israeli

Conflict in Palestinian Museums

The Yasser Arafat Museum, The Palestinian Museum

and the ‘Walled Off’ Art Hotel

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

MA Museum Studies (Heritage Studies)

(4)

iii

Abstract

This thesis tackles the expansion of the museum sector in Palestine, and the noticeable emergence in the last few years of museums of a larger scale and higher quality, which try to contribute to the national narrative. In exploring this topic, I discuss the statelessness of Palestine and the lack of sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority, which has created a disorganised and unattended performance of different actors in the museum field. As a result, museums create their own narratives and display national history without any unifying national strategy to lead them. Through an analysis of three museums, each of which display narratives about contemporary Palestinian history, I argue that the different affiliations of these museums, their organisational structures, funding resources, and political ideologies, shape their representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As the conflict is at the centre of Palestinian collective memory and national identity, this representation could be influential in the future of the Palestinian state-building endeavour.

The three case studies are unique in their visions and positions, as between them they represent a semi-governmental organisation (the Yasser Arafat Museum), a non-governmental organisation (The Palestinian Museum), and an international intervention combined with a local business (Banksy's ‘Walled Off’ Art Hotel). Each case contributes to the argument of the thesis and presents different aspects of the complex issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its potential resolution. By comparing the different concepts, practices and motives of the three museums in representing the conflict, I conclude that despite the differences between their approaches and display methods, they have all, implicitly and unintendedly, responded similarly to the complex issues of the conflict. The image of the conflict the three museums contribute to shaping is one of the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and its continuing illegal practices and violations of international law. Through their displays they make an argument for justice, freedom, and a better future for Palestinian people. They also emphasise the statelessness of Palestine, but leave open questions about any potential reconciliation and the future of the Palestinian State.

(5)

iv

Acknowledgment

Throughout the process of researching and writing this thesis I have been inspired and supported by several individuals and institutions. I would like to express my deep gratitude to everyone who has contributed to the completion of my study. I would like to start by thanking my supervisor, Dr. Chiara De Cesari, who has supported and guided me with her experience and knowledge throughout the process of writing the thesis. In addition, I deeply appreciate my course director Dr. Mirjam Hoijtink for showing her continuous support during the whole programme. I would like to thank the Museum Studies professors at UvA who taught me and shaped my academic experience. My very sincere thanks to Dan Leberg for the academic writing advices and Laura Alexander for the great work and dedication in editing my thesis.I would like also to express my profound gratitude and love to all my colleagues for the great experience and the unforgettable times, particularly to my friends Irem Sezer, Valeria Posada Villada and Maria Montcalm for being there always, sharing the good and hard times.

During my field research in Palestine I was warmly welcomed by each of the studied museums and helped by several Palestinian institutions and experts in the field, and I would like to express my deep gratitude to them all. I would like to thank the director of the Yasser Arafat Museum, Mohammad Halayqa, as well as Ibrahim Muzain and all the welcoming and professional staff. In The Palestinian Museum, I would like to thank the director, Dr. Mahmoud Hawari, Haneen Makho, and the curator of the inaugural exhibition, Reem Faddah. I would like also to extend my appreciation to Jehad Yasin, the director of the Excavation and Museums Department of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. In addition, I am sincerely grateful to all the interviewees for their time and help. I hereby thank Dr. Nazmi Jubeh, Dr. Taha Hamdan, Jack Persekian, Lara Khaldi, and Mohammad Sabaaneh.

All my love and sincere gratitude to my family for their unconditional love and support. My studies would not have been possible without the great love and care of my brother, Aref Husseini, who has continuously supported me in every step of my personal and academic life with all the means at his disposal. Finally, my

(6)

v

appreciation and love to my friends, especially Nai Barghouti, who pushed me forward at the most difficult times and encouraged me with hope and inspiration.

(7)

vi

List of Abbreviations

PA Palestinian Authority

PNA Palestinian National Authority

PLO Palestinian Liberation Organisation

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine

Refugees in the Near East

Fatah The Palestinian National Liberation Movement

(10)

1

Introduction

The cultural scene in Palestine is vibrant and dynamic, reflecting the rich cultural heritage of the nation and the complex political realities of the country. Despite the fever of Palestinians to preserve and revive cultural heritage through museum initiatives and artistic and cultural projects, Palestinian museum institutions are challenged by the complex political situation and the Palestinian reality under Israeli occupation. Over the past couple of years, the Palestinian cultural scene has witnessed a rise in the number of museums, and it is striking that some of these newly inaugurated museums are accommodated in large and expensively designed buildings, operate on a large scale, and contribute to the national narrative. However, none of these museum experiments is a national Palestinian museum or has been initiated by the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Some of the recently inaugurated museums have struggled to open for years, due to the Palestinian socio-political context as well as internal institutional challenges such as disagreements about the conveyed content and staff turnover. The Palestinian museum is a ‘Stateless Museum’, challenged by the Palestinian reality which includes the state’s lack of sovereignty, dispersed people, fragmented territories, and the ongoing expropriation and destruction of Palestinian material culture. A Palestinian national museum was described by several scholars as an ‘Impossible Institution’ (De Cesari; Khaldi L.; Doumani; Taha; Persekian), considering the statelessness of Palestine and the continuing Israeli occupation. The Palestinian paradoxes questions the classical definition of museum institutions and their power as “ideological apparatuses of the state” (Althusser, 2014).

In this thesis, I aim to contribute to the debate over Palestinian museums by analysing three museums and cultural projects which have recently been opened. Each of the studied museums traces episodes of contemporary Palestinian history, explicitly addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and functioning on a relatively national level. Nevertheless, each museum has different institutional structures, organisational policies, funding sources, and political affiliations. The three case studies represent a semi-governmental institution, a non-governmental organisation, and an international intervention in the form of a local business.

(11)

2

The Yasser Arafat Museum is dedicated to the story of Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, combined with the Palestinian national memory. It is a project of the Yasser Arafat Foundation, a non-profit organisation established by presidential decree, receives government support and undertakes functions of a governmental nature related to the preservation of the heritage of the late President. The Palestinian Museum, on the other hand, is a cultural project of the Taawon-Welfare Association, a Palestinian non-governmental organisation. The museum receives funding mainly from members of the Taawon-Welfare Association, in addition to individual and institutional supporters in the Arab region and worldwide. The third case study, the ‘Walled Off’ Art Hotel, is a project by the anonymous British street artist Banksy. It is a local private business financed by Banksy, and consists of a hotel, museum and art gallery.

Through an examination of the three case studies, I attempt to answer the following research question: How do the different institutional structures of recently

inaugurated museums in the occupied State of Palestine shape their representation of the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict? I argue that the statelessness of Palestine and the PA’s lack of sovereignty have created an unorganised and unattended performance of different actors in the museum field. As a result, museums create their own narratives and display national history without any national strategy to lead them. The different affiliations of these museums, their organisational structures, funding resources, and political ideologies, shape their representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and their narratives of contemporary Palestinian history. As the conflict is at the centre of Palestinian collective memory and national identity, this representation could be influential in the future of the Palestinian state-building endeavour.

Before describing the methodology and the chapters of the thesis, I find it imperative to give an overview of the Palestinian context and, in particular, of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This background is necessary to the understanding of the representational modes of the studied museums. It explains why it is important to explore their narratives, concepts and practices within the broader context of the museum sector in Palestine.

(12)

3

with the foundation of the Zionist movement1_{, and became a major issue at the}

beginning of the 20th_{century. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, after the}

First World War, Palestine like other Arab territories was subject to the British Mandate. On 2 November 1917, during the British Mandate in Palestine, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, indicating the support of the British government for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This letter, known as the Balfour Declaration, helped pave the way for the creation of the state of Israel2_.

The period of the British Mandate in Palestine witnessed an immense immigration of European Jews to Palestine, especially during the Second World War as a result of the Holocaust. This period witnessed violent attacks and bombings by Zionist militant gangs. In 1948, the British Mandate in Palestine ended with the declaration of the ‘independence’ of the new State of Israel. This declaration was followed by a war between Zionist Jews and Arabs from Palestine and neighbouring nations. This war, is known in Israel as the ‘War of Independence’, by Palestinians as

Al-Nakba, meaning ‘catastrophe’ in Arabic. The Palestinian diaspora began, and

hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced to neighbouring Arab countries to live as refugees, awaiting the day when they could return to their homeland.

In 1948, Israel was established on a major part of the Palestinian land. The remaining parts of Palestine; the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip, were dominated by Jordan and Egypt respectively. In the war of 1967, Israel occupied the whole land of Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were defined as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ and governed under the Israeli Military Administration, while East Jerusalem was illegally annexed to Israel, and Jerusalem, both East and West, was announced as the capital of Israel3_.

1_{Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people which supports the creation of a Jewish}

homeland in Palestine, the historic Land of Israel.

2_{This historical event is particularly important for the analysis of the ‘Walled Off’ hotel in chapter}

four.

3_{The ‘unification’ of the two parts of Jerusalem in 1967 was unlawful under the international law and,}

(13)

4

In 1993, the Oslo Accords4_{shaped a critical turning point in the}

Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This agreement signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) paved the way for the establishment of a ‘Quasi Palestinian State’ with limited Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. The interim period of the agreement has never resulted in a permanent status, leaving the main issues of conflict, such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security, and borders, pending. Jerusalem remained the unified capital of Israel, while for Palestinians Jerusalem is the capital of the future Palestinian state. According to Oslo Accords, the West bank is divided into three administrative divisions: Areas A, B and C. Area A is exclusively administered by the Palestinian Authority; Area B is administered by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel; and Area C, which contains the Israeli settlements, is administered by Israel (B'Tselem, 2017).

After the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, two Palestinian uprisings (intifadas) erupted against the occupation in 1987 and 2000. During the Second Intifada in 2000, Israel constructed a Separation Wall between Israel and the West Bank. This wall is conceived of by Israel as a ‘Security Barrier’ against Palestinian violent attacks and ‘terrorism’, while for Palestinians it is an ‘Apartheid Separation Wall’ which confiscates people’s lands, uproots their trees, destroys their homes and restricts their movement. The wall is already recognised as illegal by the international community, as in 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that it was built illegally (United Nations, 2004). The Separation Wall, as well as the continuing building of Israeli colonial settlements in the West Bank,

undermines peace negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, which have failed in the recent years.

The Palestinian National Authority was the interim self-government body in West Bank and Gaza, until the conflict between Fatah5_{and Hamas}6_{, the two} dominant groups within the Palestinian political scene, in 2007. Since it was taken

4_{Officially called ‘The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements’.}

5_{Fatah is the largest faction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). It was founded by Yasser} Arafat; Salah Khalaf; Khalil al-Wazir; and Khaled Yashruti.

6_{Hamas is the Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine. It was founded in 1987, soon after the First} Intifada broke out, as a branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

(14)

5

over by Hamas, the Palestinian Authority has had no control over the Gaza Strip7_.

The negotiations process for a peace settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel has been stalled and failing in the last years, leaving the future of Palestinian statehood unclear.

In a political framework as critical as the prolonged and ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, museums cannot be isolated from their political situation (MacLeod, 1998) and their purpose surpasses the traditional functions of collecting, conserving, classifying, researching, interpreting, and displaying objects. Museums are, instead,

preservers of the community’s official cultural memory (Duncan, 1995). Therefore, in this thesis, I aim to explore the commonalities and differences of the three case studies in their representation of the conflict and contribution to the construction of the Palestinian national identity.

Through a review of an array of literature, the theoretical framework offers an overview of the museum sector in Palestine and the struggle to establish a Palestinian national museum. It draws connections between the construction of national identity and the representation in museums of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Drawing on literature of the representation of war and conflict, the first chapter reviews the representation of ‘self’ and ‘other’, politics of representation and trauma sites. The methodology of the analysis is based on Moser’s (2010) methodological framework, which offers guidelines for the study of the knowledge-making capacity of each museum and assessment of their epistemological functions. The three case study chapters offer a close analysis of the three museums, starting with the contextual background of the idea of the museum, its history and organisational structure, and using this information in the analysis of the concepts and approaches of the museum. The analytical review explores the architecture of the museums, their location, and spatial concepts and how these aspects influence their position and content. The museums’ concepts, approaches and practices are examined in light of their narratives and modes of display. The main exhibitions in the three museums are described and critically analysed using Moser’s framework to explore how different elements produce the knowledge conveyed by the exhibition.

7_{The conflict between Fatah and Hamas will be explained in the introduction and discussed in the} analysis of the Yasser Arafat Museum.

(15)

6

Finally, the aforementioned analysis is used to answer the question of how each museum represents the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The thesis explores different aspects of representation to examine the museums’ motivations, objectives and practices to achieve their mission and vision.

(16)

7

Chapter One: Theoretical Framework

1.1 Museums in Palestine: The Struggle for Museum Institutions in A

Stateless Context

Over the last decade, the noticeable proliferation of museum building in Palestine has generated considerable questions about the nature and functioning of a stateless museum and the role of various actors in the museum sector in Palestine; primarily NGOs, semi-governmental and Palestinian Authority institutions. The Palestinian reality challenges the classical definition of the museum which entails the collection, preservation and presentation of objects. Palestine is an unrecognised state which lacks sovereignty over its territories and borders. Additionally, much of Palestinian material culture is either looted, destroyed or located in Israeli museums and archives or other international institutions.

The question of the museum institution in Palestine, and the struggle for a National Palestinian Museum, has been discussed by various scholars (De Cesari; Khaldi L.; Doumani; Taha; Persekian), who have attempted to investigate different museum initiatives in the context of Israel’s continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories, statelessness and diasporic conditions, factors which make a Palestinian (National) Museum ‘Impossible’ (De Cesari, 2018; Khaldi L. , 2015). In presenting the ‘Palestinian Museum Institution’ debate and the relationship between the PA and NGOs in this regard, I aim to support this literature review with opinions and arguments by experts in the museum field in Palestine whom I have interviewed.

In exploring ‘The Impossible Institution’ of a Palestinian national museum, I focus on recent literature through the work of anthropologist and scholar Chiara De Cesari. De Cesari’s work is necessary as a critical framework because of her scholarship on the role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the institutionalisation of the heritage field in Palestine (De Cesari, 2017). I will trace her work exploring different experiments of the setting up of a Palestinian national museum by Palestinian NGOs, and their performance of nation-statehood through their contribution to the creation of state institutions (De Cesari, 2012). De Cesari argues that a future Palestinian state is ‘prefigured’ through an artistic performance

(17)

8

by various non-governmental entities who have played with the format of the national museum in order to adapt to the statelessness and diasporic condition.

In discussing the ‘Impossibility’ of the Palestinian museum, I also borrow from research by independent curator Lara Khaldi, questioning the possibility of a museum in its classical institutional form, of a collection, a building and artefacts, in the Palestinian context (Khaldi L. , 2015). Khaldi in her thesis ‘The Fugitive Object and the Hollow Museum’ describes the failures of the Palestinian museums, and enquires into a possible formulation of a museum considering the missing objects, lack of sovereignty, and the continuous struggle for emancipation.

The first attempt to publish a list of museums in Palestine was conducted by The Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) in the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in 20098_{. The booklet Directory of Museums in}

Palestine includes around 30 museums and museum collections inside the

Palestinian territories; including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The introduction of the publication emphasises that the term ‘museum’ was used loosely, as most of the mentioned museums lack the main elements of the institution of the museum, and some are still under construction or being established (Taha, 2009). In another initiative, The Palestinian Museum conducted research documenting Palestinian museums and in 2014 published a book titled

Introduction to Palestinian Museums, which covers 39 museums9_{of Palestinian} culture, heritage and history located both in historic Palestine and abroad10_.

In the period before Al-Nakba, two archaeological museums were established in Jerusalem. The first was the Islamic archaeological museum, established in 1923 by the Higher Islamic Council and located in the courtyard of Al-Aqsa mosque. The second was the Palestine Archaeological Museum, later renamed the Rockefeller

8_{This booklet was published as part of a ‘Museum and Community’ project supported by the Japan} International Cooperation Agency – JICA.

9_{The website of The Palestinian Museum mentions that the research involved 56 museums, while the} published book describes 39 museums. 17 museums are not mentioned in the booklet for various reasons; some refused to participate, while others could not be reached or are currently closed. See http://www.palmuseum.org/news-1/newsletter/56-museums

10_{The Palestinian Museum has participated with this research in ‘Qalandia International’ 2014 with} the exhibition ‘Introduction to Palestinian Museums’ to highlight the experience of the participating museums. This exhibition will be further discussed in Chapter Three while analysing The Palestinian Museum.

(18)

9 Museum, which opened in 1938 during the British Mandate in Palestine11_{. In the} DACH booklet (2009), this museum is referred to as ‘The Palestinian National Museum’. This name was emphasised during my interviews with Hamdan Taha, the former deputy minister at the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Jehad Yasin, the director of General Directorate of Excavation and Museums at the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and Nazmi Jubeh, an associate professor of History and Archaeology at Birzeit University and a member of Yasser Arafat Museum's Committee. Since the 1967 Israeli Occupation, the museum has been under the management of the Israel Museum, and has housed the head office of the Israel Antiquities Authority. However, for the PA, the Palestine Archaeological Museum is the national museum which it aspires to reclaim after the liberation of East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State (Taha, 2009).

The period after the 1967 occupation, and before the creation of the Palestinian Authority, witnessed the establishment of several museums by local community organisations, including Dar al-Tifl’s Palestinian Heritage Museum12_{, The} Folklore Museum in Al-Bireh by In’ash Al-Usra Society13_{, and other museums, mainly} displaying folklore collections (Taha, 2009; De Cesari, 2018). In 1994, the DACH was established under the PA14_{. The DACH was mainly involved in archaeological} fieldwork in the Palestinian territories, promoting a modern understanding of Palestinian cultural heritage (Taha, 2010). In 2002, the DACH was restructured and consequently merged with the Department of Cultural Heritage in the Ministry of Culture. Within the new structure, expanding the museum sector was one of the main tasks of the Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage, which includes

11_{The Palestine Archaeological Museum houses a large collection of artefacts unearthed in the} excavations conducted in Mandate Palestine, in the 1920s and 1930s. After 1967 a huge number of artefacts were transferred to the Israel Museum in West Jerusalem.

12_{Dar Al-Tifl Al-Arabi is a school and orphanage established by the Palestinian philanthropist Hind} Husseini after she rescued 55 orphaned survivors of the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948. The museum was opened in 1978 in a building attached to the school. For more information:

http://www.dartifl.org/en/en

13_{In’ash Al-Usra Society is a Palestinian voluntary organisation established in 1965 which offers}

services and programs to Palestinian women and other marginalised sectors of the community. 14_{It can be considered a re-establishment or revival of the Department of Antiquities which had been}

established in 1920 under the British Mandate. The authority was then terminated due to the political events of 1948, when Israel was established and Jordan assumed these responsibilities for the West Bank and Egypt for the Gaza strip (Taha, 2010)

(19)

10

the following divisions: excavations and survey, site management, inspection and licensing, national register, conservation and museums (Taha, 2010).

During the 1990s, the DACH established site-museums in preserved historical buildings in various locations in the West Bank and Gaza. These museums were mostly municipal, religious, or thematic museums which functioned on a small or local scale. The Second Intifada limited the movement in the museum sector which had begun to flourish after the establishment of the PA. Since 2005, the number of museums has increased, and the cultural scene has witnessed a growing interest in establishing museums. However, most of the museums that emerged were small in scale, target and outreach. Since its establishment, the DACH has been responsible for drawing up policies and overseeing the work of museums. It works mainly with universities and non-governmental organisations specialised in preserving cultural heritage in Palestine (Taha, 2009). However, the NGOs are frequently performing state-like actions, taking the lead over the DACH in the museum sector and the preservation of cultural heritage (De Cesari, 2010; 2012; 2017; 2018).

In her preface to the booklet ‘Directory of Museums in Palestine’, Kholoud Daibes, the then Minister of Tourism and Antiquities, declared that the ministry, with the technical assistance of UNESCO, had drafted a national policy for museum development in cooperation with local and international institutions in order to create a Palestinian Museum Network (Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, 2009). Nevertheless, this national policy, drafted in 2009, seems not to have been developed or legalised. As I learned from several interviewees (J. Yasin; N. Jubeh; M. Halayqa; M. Hawari) there is still no legal framework for the licensing or organisation of museums under the Palestinian Authority. Recently, the DACH formed a local committee of Palestinian museums directors to draft a national policy for Palestinian Museum Network. This draft is now awaiting the approval of the Palestinian Prime Minister. H. Taha (personal communication, December 31, 2017) has criticised this step by the committee. He stated that the museum networks are usually non-governmental organisations, whereas the formation of the network by the ministry, and its approval by the prime minister limits its independence and gives it a governmental insignia.

(20)

11

The idea of establishing a national Palestinian museum was not raised by the Palestinian Authority or any other official entity. This task was taken over by several NGOs and individuals including Taawon-Welfare Association’s Palestinian Museum15_, Khalil Rabah’s Palestinian Museum of Natural History and Humankind, Al-Ma’mal Foundation’s Contemporary Art Museum Palestine (CAMP), and The Palestinian Biennials by Riwaq; Centre for Architectural Conservation16_{. According to De Cesari} (2012), these projects represent the first national cultural institutions, and promote the establishment of a comprehensive national cultural heritage management infrastructure.

Due to the Palestinian reality, a national museum in the classical sense is a ‘Practical Impossibility’ as described by Persekian17_{(Pelgrom 2007:3 in De Cesari,} 2012). However, the creative work of Palestinian artists and cultural organisations contributed to the possibility of a national museum, however, in a non-traditional way. The PA perceives a Palestinian national museum as a nineteenth-century style museum, ignoring the statelessness, dispersion and fragmentation of the Palestinian population. In my interview with Jehad Yasin, he declared that the Palestinian Authority is considering the idea of establishing a national museum. The plan is to transform the Palestinian Presidential Guest Palace in Surda, Ramallah into a national museum and library. However this museum would be a temporary one, which would not officially be called ‘National’, so as not to abandon the Palestinian right to the Palestinian National Museum (Rockefeller) in Jerusalem (J. Yasin, personal communication, December 31, 2017). However, a recent official announcement from Abbas, the Palestinian President, set out a plan to convert the building into a national library, without any mention of a museum.

De Cesari argues that the experiments of a Palestinian national museum and the biennials constitute a kind of “artistic practice that does not just represent or imitate the social world: they are artistic practices that purport to produce new

15_{The Palestinian Museum is described and analysed in more depth in Chapter Three.}

16_{These initiatives are described in De Cesari’s chapter: The Impossible Institution: On the} Predicament and Promise of Creating Palestinian National Museums (De Cesari, 2018).

17_{Jack Persekian is a Palestinian artist and curator. He is the founding director of Anadiel Gallery, the}

Al-Ma'mal Foundation for Contemporary Art in Jerusalem. Previously, he was the founding director

of the Sharjah Art Foundation, and the former head curator and director of The Palestinian Museum.

(21)

12

social arrangements – in particular, a set of new ‘state’ (art and cultural) institutions under conditions of statelessness” (De Cesari, 2012, p. 82). The performance of Palestinian NGOs in museums and heritage fields was described by H. Taha (personal communication, December 31, 2017), based on his years of work at the DACH, as parallel rather than complementary to that of the PA. He criticised the attempt of some NGOs to offer an alternative to the PA, indicating that some initiatives are inherently governmental, such as Riwaq’s compilation of a national register of historic buildings and contribution to the drafting of new cultural heritage legislation (De Cesari, 2012; N. Jubeh, personal communication, December 25, 2017). Conversely, some interviewees who are/were involved in the aforementioned non-governmental projects conceived of the performance of Palestinian NGOs as fundamental and inevitable considering the passive role played by the PA in the heritage and museum fields (N. Jubeh, personal communication, December 25, 2017; R. Fadda, personal communication, January 17, 2018; J. Persekian, personal communication, January 8, 2018).

The relationship between the PA and NGOs is described by H. Taha (personal communication, December 31, 2017) as competitive, given that both institutions receive funds directly from international donors. While Taha praises the role of NGOs, he argues that within the specifically Palestinian context, it is impossible to achieve statehood without the efforts of governmental institutions. In this regard, the performance of Palestinian NGOs is described by De Cesari’s as lying between two contradictory aims; state-building project and anti-colonial resistance (De Cesari, 2010).

Palestinians have always perceived culture as a political statement, and feel the responsibility of filling the gap left by the absence of a state, which would typically play the role of establishing national museums to educate people about their history, culture and heritage. These endeavours have emerged as a political action with the potential to contribute to a politics of emancipation (de Jong, 2016). The controversial issue that surrounds the various attempts at a national museum, as well as artistic and cultural practices, is that of representation; who has the right to represent Palestine and Palestinians on a national level? And who is authorised to write the national narrative? This controversy was evident in the three museums

(22)

13

analysed in this thesis, regardless of their affiliations, institutional structures and practices.

1.2 Museums and The Construction of National Identity

The construction of national identity has been the essence of a wide range of research across various disciplines. In the literature pertaining to national identity, there are a vast number of significant concepts and ideologies to be highlighted. However, I will focus here on the terms which relate to the core of the thesis, and which contribute to the Palestinian context. In the representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Palestinian museums, the terms nation, state, nation-state,

nationalism, and national identity are present. Therefore, it is imperative to draw a

clear distinction between these terms in order to explore the criticality of their use in the museums’ narratives, which inevitably contributes to the role played by museums in the construction of national identity and nation-state building.

In her extensive research on nationalism, Montserrat Guibernau has suggested definitions for the above terms that I find applicable to the analysis. According to Guibernau (1999), nationalism as a political ideology is defined as a sense of belonging to a certain group of people who share both a set of commonalities that identify them, and the willingness to determine their political destiny. Nation is defined as “a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself” (Guibernau, 1999, p. 14). Conversely, other scholars of nationalism claim that nation is a socio-cultural construct associated with the modern society of structure (Anderson, 1983; Gellner, 1983; Smith, 1991).

Benedict Anderson’s remarkable book ‘Imagined Communities

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism’ (1983) drew attention to the dynamics of the socially and culturally organised imagination as processes at the core of political culture and self-understanding. Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ approach maintained strong emphases on material conditions that shape culture, and on institutions that facilitate its reproduction such as censuses, maps, and museums. In the Palestinian case, the representation of

(23)

14

different features of the nation in museums emphasises the ‘imaginative’ image of the nation, and contributes to its production out of a shared sense of history, culture, and similar interests.

National Identity is defined as a “collective sentiment based upon the belief

of belonging to the same nation and of sharing most of the attributes that make it distinct from other nations” (Guibernau, 2007, p. 11). National identity is normally accredited to the nation-state citizens; nevertheless, it can be shared among people belonging to nations without states, such as Palestine. Collective memories of a time when the nation was independent, suffering, and oppression strengthen the sense of common identity between members of a nation, even if they do not have their own state. In this sense, the Palestinian nation is similar to what Guibernau has described as “nations that once enjoyed a separate political and/or cultural identity which is now being invoked, revitalized and adapted to the new socio-political circumstances in which the nation lives and evolves” (1999, p. 2).

Like any other national identity, Palestinian identity has evolved over time to form the way in which Palestinians currently define themselves as a people. A distinct Palestinian identity dates back to the 19th century, with the Palestinian rebellion against the dominance of the Ottoman Empire (Hovsepian, 2008). Although Palestine was part of the Arab nation dominated by the Ottomans, it had a separate identity as stated by Rashid Khalidi “… although other foci of loyalty were still operative for most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine before World War I, the idea of Palestine as a source of identity and as a community with shared interests had already taken root” (1997, p. 156). A sense of nationhood among Palestinians has persisted since then, even without the achievement of any form of national independence in their own homeland.

The dispute over the legitimacy of Palestinian nationhood is evident in the literature. The existence of Palestinian nationality is doubted by some Israeli politicians and writers such as Golda Meir18_{and Joan Peters (1984)}19_{who claimed}

18_{Golda Meir was the fourth Prime Minister of Israel, having previously served as Minister of Labour} and Foreign Minister. She famously stated that “There were no such thing as Palestinians”.

19_{Joan Peters’s book ‘From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab–Jewish Conflict over Palestine’,} 1984.

(24)

15

that there were no native Palestinians in Palestine. However, other Israeli scholars such as Kimmerling and Migdal asserted that “Palestinian national identity, like those of other modern nations, has been created-invented and elaborated-over the course of the last two centuries” (2003, p. xxvii). On the other hand, Palestinian intellectuals and scholars such as Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi and Muhammad Muslih have contributed significantly to the evolution of narratives about Palestinian identity (Muslih, 1988; Said, 1992; Khalidi, 1997).

The establishment of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in 1964 as a national movement is considered as a revival of the Palestinian nationalism in the contemporary era. The notion of a Palestinian ‘entity’ was firstly mentioned by the PLO asserting the Palestinian determination to create statehood. Afterwards, by signing the Oslo agreement with Israel, the PLO transformed from a national revolutionary movement into the Palestinian Authority, acknowledged by Israel and International Community (Hovsepian, 2008). The formation of the ‘de-facto’ Palestinian state necessitates a “redefinition of identity in new circumstances” (Khaldi R. , 1997, p. 203). This definition by the PA does not necessarily meet the aspirations of the dispersed Palestinian people. The different aspects of Palestinian national identity (psychological, cultural, territorial, historical, and political) (Guibernau, 2007, p. 11) are questionable in the post–Oslo era, as well as in the current period which has witnessed the failure of the negotiations to reach a peace settlement between the Palestinian Leadership and Israel.

Museum, as public repositories of a nation's culture and collective memory (Duncan, 1995), play a political role in forming new or rehabilitated nationalism, producing consent through representations of the nation and narrating its history (MacLeod, 1998; Bennett 1995). Consequently, museums are “ideological apparatuses of the state”, as Louis Althusser calls them, which are crucial for “the reproduction of the conditions of production" (Althusser, 2014). States employ museums as political tools to construct national narratives by selecting what is displayed (and excluded), how it is interpreted, and how it is represented based on the needs of the nation (Howard & Graham, 2008). A Palestinian museum is principally a stateless museum and a museum of the oppressed (Khaldi L. , 2015).

(25)

16

This complex political situation presents a challenge to the role of the museum institutions as ‘apparatuses of the state’.

1.3 Representation of War and Conflict in Museums

The representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is inevitable in a Palestinian national museum, as this conflict is at the core of contemporary Palestinian history and influences all aspects of culture, heritage and society. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, attempts to create a national museum have been fraught with difficulties and challenges, and even described as failures (Khaldi L., 2015; De Cesari 2018). However, key institutions of national representation have emerged in the last few years, including the Yasser Arafat Museum, The Palestinian Museum and the Walled-Off Museum, in which the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict is explicitly and chronologically exhibited. The representation of this ongoing political and military conflict provokes questions about the current local context and the project of Palestinian state building.

The question of the representation of war in museums has been raised by the American historian Jay Winter who, in his scholarship, has extensively discussed war memorials and mourning sites. In his research Winter does not question whether or not war belongs in museums, asking instead how war can be represented. According to him “War not only belongs in museums; war dominates museum space in much of the public representation of history and will continue to do so” (2012, p. 150). By contrast, Muchitsch (2013) has asked in his book of the same name; “Does War Belong in Museums?” questioning the display of topics of war and violence. Winter argues that war museums are sites of contestation and interrogation and that the enduring questions surrounding the representation of war in museums should be asked by visitors. The task of a museum, in his view, is to translate wartime into museum space and encourage visitors to pose moral questions about war (Winter, 2012).

The questions raised by Winter and Muchitsch entail the choice of appropriate symbols and objects, as well as of how these representative objects are arrayed to attract the public to visit museums. What about aesthetic choices and spatial design? How can museums avoid trivialising or aestheticizing war? How can

(26)

17

they avoid transforming violence and trauma into tourist attractions? And how the museum can avoid controversy over the representations?

Museums enjoy the power of shaping historical knowledge, which contributes to the creation of a nation’s collective memory and national identity. Duncan argues that “What we see and do not see in art museums – and on what terms and by whose authority we do or do not see it – is closely linked to larger questions about who constitutes the community and who defines its identity” (Duncan, 1995, p. 9). The way in which historical events are represented within the museum is not an objective and politically neutral process (Petrovato, 2008), especially when there are other issues involved, such as a history of ethnic or racial conflict between different groups (Hawari, 2010). Drawing on Palestinian statelessness, the representation of conflict in museums by entities other than the state (NGOs, semi-governmental and private) provokes debate concerning the museum’s objectivity.

The process of selecting, preserving and displaying objects highlights their nature and significance, and reflects upon the epistemological power of museums. Preziosi (2009) argues that material objects are used as a powerful witness to past or present events, stating that “Museums are uniquely powerful semiotic instruments for the creation, maintenance, and dissemination of meanings by fielding together and synthesizing objects, ideas, and beliefs” (Preziosi, 2009, p. 38). Palestinian Museums are museums without objects. This fact contradicts Preziosi’s argument about the museum’s power as a witness to past or present events. Lara Khaldi suggests in this regard that Palestinian museums are museums of the future, not the past, considering that their objects have yet to be obtained by the museums (Khaldi L. , 2015). The objects currently displayed in Palestinian museums are not artefacts in the traditional sense, they are mostly replicas, copies, and audio-visual exhibits. The absence of Palestinian material culture in museums undoubtedly influences the representation of conflict and thus is worth consideration in this analysis.

Even though nationalism is a context-specific issue, which varies according to different contexts, a shared feature among all nationalisms is the concept of the ‘other’. There are always people who are excluded from a certain nation, and sometimes these others are the enemies (Spencer & Wollman, 2005). The notion of

(27)

18

the ‘other’ is a key element in the development of a national identity; as Edward Said stated “the construction of identity… involves the construction of opposites and ‘others’ whose actuality is always subject to the continuous interpretation and reinterpretation of their differences from us” (1995:332). Undoubtedly, the rise of the Zionist movement, which disputes the Palestinians’ right to their homeland and their legitimacy as a nation, formed the ‘other’ within Palestinian nationalism and shaped the evolution of the Palestinian national consciousness (Khalidi, 1997). In this way, it formed the ‘other’ in the Palestinian national narrative shown in museums, as well as other heritage, art and culture practices.

“Exhibitions are privileged arenas for presenting images of self and other” (Karp, 1991, p.15 in Pieterse, 1997, p.123). In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, an aspect of the conflict is shaped by museological practices (Mendel & Steinberg, 2011). This significance of the museum institution to the conflict began with the Israeli declaration of statehood in the Israel Museum of Art in Tel Aviv one day before Al-Nakba in 1948, emphasising Israeli control over every object and piece of land (Khaldi L. , 2015). In an attempt to explore the complex internal and external power relations of museums located within an ongoing conflict zone, Mendel and Steinberg (2011) investigated a Palestinian and Israeli museum by juxtaposing them and looking at their ways of displaying ongoing political events. This analysis of the ‘Israeli Exhibition of Terror’ and the ‘Palestinian Museum of Prisoners’ in Jerusalem revealed another aspect of the conflict; a war over images, knowledge and its dissemination, as well as the ability to influence local and global opinion.

The ongoing nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict makes critical the representation of war and conflict in both opponents’ museums, resulting in the struggle over narrative and the depicted image of ‘self’ and ‘other’. In the Palestinian museum studied by Mendel and Steinberg (2011), the self is perceived as a ‘victim’ through the focus on the suffering of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, and their role as ‘resistors’ to the violations of the Israeli occupation. The Israeli exhibition, meanwhile, displays the other as ‘terrorists’ who lead an offensive armed struggle against Israeli people, the ‘victims’, while Israeli actions are described as defensive.

(28)

19

The struggle over narratives within the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was discussed by several Palestinian, Israeli and international scholars (Mendel & Steinberg, 2011). Edward Said (1979), for example, focused on the use of memory and heritage, and the creation of historical and contemporary knowledge. From a different perspective, Nadia Abu al-Haj (2002) analysed the archaeological angle of the struggle over the narrative. Archaeology, according to Abu al-Haj has been understood by the state of Israel as a “privileged ground of national identity and national rights” (2001, p. 1), it serves an ideological and political purpose and shapes historical knowledge to support the Zionist project. The archaeological sites in Israel tell the history of the land with an explicit focus on the Israeli groups and Jewish people who conquered the land, emphasising the link between ancient Israelites and the modern state of Israel and combining them into a collective cultural memory and nation-building rituals.

Different from the aforementioned Israeli ‘Exhibition of Terror’, in other Israeli museums such as ‘The Tower of David Museum of the History of Jerusalem’ there is a general lack of the representation of Palestinians. They are invisible in the representation of the history of Israel in the same way that the occupation’s physical practices, such as the Separation Wall, erase Palestinian presence from the landscape (Petrovato, 2008). Israeli museums focus on their representations of the ‘self’ without specifying the ‘other’. Palestinian are defined as ‘Arabs’ eliminating their identity and eradicating the legitimacy of their right to the land.

The representation of the Israeli ‘other’ in Palestinian museums will be investigated in this thesis in order to explore the practices of these museums and their approaches to the representation of war and conflict. Do Palestinians ignore the ‘other’ and focus on the ‘self’ and, if so, is this an inevitable result of the conflict that lies at the core of their national identity? In which way is the ‘other’ depicted? Is there a consensus on the representation of conflict among different institutions?

1.4 Methodology

“Exhibitions are discrete events which articulate objects, texts, visual representations, reconstructions and sounds to create an intricate and bounded representational system” (Lidchi, 2013, p. 134). The aim of this thesis is to examine

(29)

20

modes of representation that produce meaning through different styles of display. Specifically, systems of representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in relation to different aspects of national identity in three Palestinian museums: The Yasser Arafat Museum, The Palestinian Museum, and the ‘Walled Off’ Museum. In this attempt, I will employ Moser’s methodological framework to study the knowledge-making capacity of each museum and to assess their epistemological functions (Moser, 2010). In her framework, Moser offers an outline of the exhibition features involved in creating meaning, which include architecture, location, setting, space, design, colour, light, subject, message, text, layout, display types, exhibition-style, audience and reception. Despite the differences between the three case studies, the methodological framework of Moser is valid for the particular sensitivity of each museum and its endeavour to create knowledge about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian struggle for freedom.

In the proposed framework, a group of questions are raised in order to analyse the nature and qualities of the spaces in which displays are accommodated. The framework highlights aspects related to room design, the display of furniture, and styles of decoration including ceilings, floors and walls. Choices of colour and lighting are also significant for the interpretation of displays. Museum display analysis also asks questions about the subject and message of each exhibition. The use of text, the style of the writing, the use of titles and subtitles, the graphic style of the text, and the information provided, all are important ways of exploring the message conveyed by the exhibition.

The layout of the different components of the exhibition is vital for producing meanings about the topic being represented. Furthermore, the relationship between different exhibitions’ layouts within the same museum should be considered in the analysis. Details relating to the exhibition style and types of display are other subjects of investigation, particularly in their connection with distinctive learning styles and approaches. The last feature of the methodological framework offered by Moser is the role of visitors in engaging with displays. The perception of the audience, both professional and non-professional, is significant, especially given the sensitivity of the Palestinian case. However, exploring this aspect goes beyond the scope of this thesis.

(30)

21

In my attempt to explore the representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in Palestinian museums, I have developed a context-sensitive conceptual framework based on the pertinent literature. It employs, on the one hand, a set of factors related to museological approaches and curatorial practices, and on the other, the representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in relation to different dimensions of the national identity. The purpose of this framework is to facilitate a multidimensional analysis of the case studies. The first area of the analysis is the influence of the different institutional structures of the studied museums on their representation of the conflict. These institutional structures are affected by the complex political situation in Palestine. The second aspect is to investigate the different elements of exhibitions, separately and in combination, to explore the ways in which they produce meaning about conflict, and their influence on collective cultural memory and national identity.

The representation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the case studies will be analysed through the examination of a range of factors involved in the production of exhibitions (Moser, 2010). This analysis will have three main subjects: First, the history of the museum and the organisational structure of the institution. Second, the concepts of various exhibitions, narratives and practices in relation to the forming or reforming of national identity and national consciousness. The third aspect is the representation of conflict in exhibitions, including the display of war and violence, the depiction of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’, and the ethical issues surrounding the representation of an ongoing struggle and the suffering of people.

Besides reviewing an array of relevant literature, interviews were carried out with museums’ directors and curators to learn about the particulars of each museum20_{. The literature on the history of museums in Palestine, as well as their} current state, is relatively limited. Therefore, interviews were indispensable for data collection. I have also interviewed staff of the Department of Excavation and Museums at the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, and experts in the field of museums in Palestine21_.

20_{I could not conduct an interview the director of The Walled Off Hotel. For more details see Chapter} Four.

(31)

22

Chapter Two: The Yasser Arafat Museum

(32)

23

2.1 History and Organisational Structure

The Yasser Arafat Museum is a museum of contemporary Palestinian national memory dedicated to Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader. The museum highlights Arafat’s life and legacy through the intertwining of his story with Palestinian history. The museum was opened on 9 November 2016 in the Palestinian presidential headquarters (Al-Muqata’a) in Ramallah, two days before the 12th anniversary of Arafat’s death.

The museum is a project of the Yasser Arafat Foundation, a non-profit organisation established in 2007 by presidential decree, with a vision to preserve the memory of the late President Yasser Arafat, learn from his history and benefit from his legacy for the future of Palestinian people. Although the foundation considers itself an independent organisation enjoying legal, financial and administrative independence, it receives governmental support and undertakes functions of a

governmental nature related to the preservation of the legacy of the late President (Yasser Arafat Foundation, n.d.). The foundation’s honorary president is the president of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the President of the Palestine National Authority (PNA), a role currently filled by Mahmoud Abbas. The Board of Directors is composed of 15 members, including the Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, and the chair of the Board, Nasser Al-Qudweh, Arafat’s nephew and the former foreign minister and Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations 22_.

The Yasser Arafat Museum is supervised by a Museum Committee comprised of 15 members from various academic and professional backgrounds and several political affiliations. The Chairman, Nabeel Kassis, is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Yasser Arafat Foundation. The museum’s vision derives from that of the foundation; “In an educational and cultural setting, the Museum aims to present to the people of Palestine and the world, the narrative of the Palestinian National Movement through the life and work of Yasser Arafat, the historic leader of the Palestinian people” (Yasser Arafat Museum, n.d.).The museum proposes itself as a

22_{For further information about the Yasser Arafat Foundation’s Board of Directors, see the link:} http://www.yaf.ps/?url=blogs/listing/543/Board_of_Directors

(33)

24

leading educational and cultural institution for the Palestinian contemporary national memory, with a focus on Yasser Arafat’s central role in contemporary Palestinian history. Despite the fact that the museum is located inside Al-Muqata’a, the ownership of the site has been transferred from the Palestinian Authority to the Yasser Arafat Foundation in an attempt to establish an independent cultural and educational institution (N. Jubeh, personal communication, December 25, 2017). The museum was built with a financial support from the Palestinian government, and the administrative costs are covered on an annual basis by the PLO (M. Halayqa, personal communication, December 21, 2017).

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, the second chairman of the PLO and the first president of the PA, is undoubtedly a controversial figure. For Israeli politicians, Arafat is a terrorist and a figure of hatred (Mitnick, 2016; Beaumont, 2016), while for many Palestinians and other nations around the world, he is an iconic leader and freedom fighter. Despite the controversy among Palestinians themselves about Arafat’s decisions and compromises during the Oslo Accords23_{, he remains, over a}

decade after his death, a towering figure in Palestinian culture, politics and society. For these reasons, the Yasser Arafat Museum was in the spotlight as soon as it was inaugurated, and was subject to analysis and critique exploring the way it represents the history and legacy of the late leader.

2.2 Analytical Review

Location, Architecture and Spatial Analysis

The Yasser Arafat Museum is located in Al-Muqata’a, the headquarters of the Palestinian presidential compound24_{. The building was badly damaged during the last}

years of Arafat's life, under the Israeli military siege which ended with his death in

23_{See the Introduction.}

24_{The construction of Al-Muqata’a, in the centre of Ramallah, dates back to the British Mandate of} Palestine. After Al-Nakba in 1948 it became a headquarters of the Jordanian police and later the Israeli civil administration. After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Al-Muqata’a became one of the headquarters of the Palestinian Presidency and the office of Yasser Arafat. The history of the building is also on display in the museum, at the end of the walkway that connects the museum with the old building of Al-Muqata’a (Siege Area) and overlooks the current presidential headquarters.

(34)

25

2004. On the site of his final battle, as the museum describes it, a memorial compound was built to commemorate the late Palestinian leader. The compound consists of the mausoleum of Yasser Arafat, a mosque, landscaped gardens, and the museum, all situated in a 6,550 square-meter site (Archnet, n.d.) (Figure 2). The mosque was inaugurated first, in 2006, followed by the mausoleum on the third anniversary of Arafat’s death in 2007. The museum was originally to be opened one year later, however it eventually opened nine years later, in 2016, as a result of financial issues and internal disagreements on the content and narratives of the museum (Khaldi L., 2015; N. Jubeh, personal communication, December 25, 2017).

The memorial compound was designed by the late Palestinian-Jordanian architect Jafar Tukan. In an interview in Beirut in 2005 about the design of the mausoleum, the architect explained the challenges surrounding the design of a memorial project for a prominent leader which, at the same time, had to serve as a monument for the national struggle. Tukan said: "When you design a mausoleum for someone like Yasser Arafat, it has to deal with his personal history, but it also has to reflect the popular mood of the Palestinian people, and how this man represented this mood during his life" (Khouri, 2005). According to Tukan, the task required a delicate blend of the personal and the political. This same challenge was faced in the creation of the narrative of the museum.

The promenade and the structures have simple architectural design

Figure 2. The Yasser Arafat memorial compound’s site plan (BauNetz, 2016).