The article “Senjata Tanpa Peluru” discusses how urban planning, spatial policy, and cultural strategy can be used as instruments of domination in the Palestine–Israel conflict. It argues that beyond direct military force, control over land, infrastructure, mobility, heritage, and public space has become a powerful mechanism to reshape Palestinian life. The central message is that planning is not always neutral; when used by an occupying power, it can become a “weapon without bullets” that produces segregation, displacement, and long-term social vulnerability.
The article begins with a brief historical framing of the conflict, linking the growth of Zionist migration and settlement ambitions in Palestine to later territorial disputes and state-building efforts. It then highlights the idea of “mixed cities,” where Jewish and Arab communities are presented as living together in diversity, but the article argues that this image often hides deep spatial and social inequality. In this reading, Palestinian communities are physically present in the city but remain marginalized through unequal access to housing, infrastructure, services, and decision-making.
“Judaization” and cultural erasure
A major theme is “Judaization,” described as the process of reshaping cities, especially Jerusalem, to strengthen Jewish identity and presence while reducing or erasing Muslim, Christian, and Palestinian cultural elements. The article claims this is done through demolition of historic buildings, changes to place names, threats to Islamic and Christian sites, curriculum changes, and the rebranding or appropriation of Palestinian cultural symbols such as food, clothing, books, artifacts, and olive trees. These actions are framed as cultural erasure, not only territorial control.
The “divided city”
The article also explains the concept of the “divided city,” especially after the Nakba in 1948 and the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967. It argues that urban and land-use policies have been used differently for Israeli and Palestinian residents. For Israeli communities, planning is described as expansionary and supportive: settlements, infrastructure, tourism, and legal systems help consolidate presence. For Palestinians, the article presents planning as restrictive: homes are demolished, permits are limited, development is constrained, and access to infrastructure and public services is uneven.
“Israeli spatial policy aims to expand, connect, and invest in Jewish spaces while dividing, shrinking, and weakening Palestinian spaces.”
The “disconnected city”
Another key point is the creation of a “disconnected city,” where Palestinian areas are fragmented by checkpoints, roadblocks, military posts, walls, and blockades. The article describes this as producing a “bird in a cage” condition, where movement is limited by land, sea, and air. Physical barriers are presented not only as security infrastructure but also as tools that separate Jerusalem from Palestinian hinterlands, disrupt functional regional integration, isolate communities, and limit Palestinian access to land, resources, and sovereignty.
Planning as a political act
Overall, the article concludes that Israeli spatial policy aims to expand, connect, and invest in Jewish spaces while dividing, shrinking, and weakening Palestinian spaces. Its main contribution is to show how urban planning can be political: zoning, infrastructure, housing permits, heritage management, mobility systems, and public narratives can all shape power relations. In this sense, the article frames the Palestine–Israel conflict not only as a military or diplomatic issue, but also as an urban and spatial struggle over land, memory, identity, movement, and the right to the city.