I think that from my very first encounter with the English language as early as second grade, I had difficulty in distinguishing between the Israeli concept "proteksia" (connections) and the English term "protection" (from potential criminal harm). That is, between "my daughter is being drafted in October, do us a favor and get her a secretarial job in the air force", and "if you do not want your daughter to come home with a new face, pay us ten percent of your daily earnings!". Today, with assistance from the architecture theoreticians who have raised the issue of the relationship between politics and architecture the difference is finally clear. Proteksia is the truth behind the give-and-take relationship of "protect me and Ill protect you"; today the unfortunate reality of Israeli architecture.

            Lately, the number of architectural competitions has grown immensely. Yet, as one who has spent the last few years trying to get different institutions to hold open and fair competitions for the design of building projects, I break out in hives over the unethical nature of the deciding bodies activities.

            Take, for example, the competition for the design of the new wing of the Tel Aviv museum. Has anyone ever calculated the number of good buildings that could have been built in the thousands of futile working hours invested by approximately one hundred architectural offices that submitted their designs, only to find that a mere five museum favorites were invited by proteksia to compete as finalists? Is Professor Motti Omer really not aware that Raffi Segal, and Eyal Weizmann, who reached the final stage, are actually the disciples of Zvi Heker who was one of the competitions judges? Can we not assume that he would recognize with his eyes closed the anonymous design entry of the young couple who were not only trained in his office, but also served as part of his own design team in other projects and recent competitions? How did it happen that Ester Zandberg the journalist, forgot to throw light on the issue in her list of the names of the competition judges? Are we to assume that she was just innocently protecting the well publicized couple? Really Esther!

            Similarly, but no less interesting; another couple of architects won a competition for the design of the extension of a historical public building. It turned out they had a rather strong network amongst the judges. Whilst judging the competition entries, one of the judges complained that another judge had hinted in advance that the winning couples design was going to be something else. It also turned out that that same couple were actually invited to submit their design at the suggestion of another judges "significant other" and that they had previously designed the private apartment of yet another judge.

            I am convinced that the circumstances of the competition have nothing to do with the adjudication process. But in light of the fact that the top architects are also part of the academic elite, and as such are responsible to educate and set an example for the future architects, I was appalled by such findings. I had already witnessed another competition in which one of the judges forgot he shared his bed for several years with one of the participants. In frustration, I turned to one of our more conservative architects Israel Goodovitch, who is all too familiar with the ways of the architecture world. And he suggested: "Dont call it corruption, call it coincidence."

            Like the song "Small Country with a Mustache," when someone bangs on a table in the Tel Aviv Museum, it can be heard as far as away as the Kibbutz. It is time the participants, judges, and informants of competitions to commit to the term "ethics".

P.S. All of this information was gathered from reliable resources and if anyone is in any way insulted, please know that no offense was intended. Nevertheless, if any one is indeed offended, please contact us and we shall print an apology in a very visible place in the next issue.

Dr. Ami Ran