Before every road, settlement, or zoning decision, there is a blueprint: maps, registers, and principles that determine what will later be possible. The logic of the first blueprint is that early mapping, naming, and classification of land set the frame for future decisions—making some solutions appear self-evident while others become unthinkable. Once this layer of planning is in place, decisions follow its lines: roads toward already marked points, legal labels that confirm earlier designations, and administrative routines that take the map for granted. Actions are often planned far in advance and activated step by step whenever control needs to be tightened.
Key Points
• Early lines on the map determine everything that follows; changes later are “costly” and difficult.
• Names and registers make places visible or invisible in planning data – shaping investment and services.
• Land classification (“state land,” “nature reserve,” “military zone”) translates into everyday barriers in permits and land use.
• Prestige and security projects are prioritized over local needs – fragmenting communities and restricting access.
The first blueprint – map before road
Early planning lines created target images: where buildings, connections, and resources “should” be located. Through deeds, registers, and security assessments, a foundation was laid that guided where new points were set—on heights, junctions, and along planned corridors. Over time, path dependence emerged: each new step became easier in the direction of the blueprint and harder in any other. Much appeared already determined. The implementation of boundaries separating Palestinian farmers from their land was framed as routine—because it had “been decided long ago.”
Ethical question: If the map becomes the norm before reality—what happens to the right of affected people to propose alternative solutions?
Names & registers – visibility as a tool of control
Toponymy and registration determine what “counts” in planning. If a village or path lacks an official name or disappears in standards, the place is weakened in processes shaping its future. When areas are labeled as “wilderness,” investment and services shrink.
For example, B’Tselem has shown that hundreds of Palestinian villages are missing from the Israeli planning map. When villages are absent from official registers, it is impossible to obtain building permits, negotiate water access, or raise basic claims. Authorities treat these areas as “open space” or designate them as “state land.”
Cases such as Khirbet, Susiya, and Masfer Yatta illustrate this: people have lived there for generations, but the villages are absent from the planning system—creating the legal basis for demolition orders.
➡️ Not appearing on the map → difficult to claim presence in legal and administrative processes → easier for the state to reclassify land and deny rights.
Land classification as an everyday barrier
Registry labels—“state land,” “nature reserve,” “military zone”—become practical barriers in building permits, fence construction, and access. Families cannot expand their homes, agriculture shrinks, water sources are denied, and villages are split apart as classifications determine outcomes in daily life.
Short case (step by step)
1. A line is drawn in an overview plan (planned bypass road).
2. Budget & procurement are directed to that line.
3. Local connections are closed, fences built or moved, a new priority road is opened.
4. Effect 1: longer trips to work, school, or farmland; land near the road becomes inaccessible for Palestinians.
5. Effect 2: communities once linked are divided. Families and neighbors end up in separated zones, surrounded by roads they cannot cross, fences, and expanding Israeli settlements whose residents often harass them.
Prestige & security prioritized
Flagship projects and security lines receive priority. Highways that cut through villages, and the development of settlements into small cities, are not only given fast-track approvals but also a priority in rights. When budgets, permits, and contractors are bound to the lines of the first blueprint, throughput and control outweigh local needs. The effect is fragmentation and longer detours to farmland, schools, and health care. These structural, ongoing changes become part of the oppression.
Recognize this? (from the study circle): We spoke about how early map choices remain in place—this is the mechanism that makes alternatives expensive and difficult.
In-Depth: Concepts, maps, and cases
Concepts & definitions
– Toponymy & registers: Naming/registration determines what “appears” in data → shaping investment and services.
– Land classification: Labels (state land, reserve, military zone, national park) become practical barriers in permits and access.
– Path dependence: Early choices shape later outcomes; changing direction becomes costly and slow.
– Exception → routine: “Temporary” security measures become entrenched in daily rules.
– Public good vs actual benefit: Projects are said to benefit all, but costs fall locally.
Maps & documents
– Before/after map: early plan line vs later road. [LINK]
– Planning decision/overview: where a bypass or junction was first drawn. [LINK]
– Land status decision: reclassification to state land/reserve/military zone. [LINK]
– Permit case: building permit denial tied to classification. [LINK]
– Short video/clip: how a blocked connection forces daily detours. [LINK]
Media
QR: Before/after map or short clip showing daily detours.
Sources (placeholder for web)
3–5 core references, ideally including 1–2 in Swedish for a popular education perspective.
Reflection questions
1) What assumptions does the first blueprint build on—and whose needs does it serve?
2) What would be required to “unlearn” the built-in pathways of the blueprint?
3) How could alternative maps/names/classifications change what solutions become possible?
Tips for dialogue
– Discuss how early lines on a map can affect people’s daily lives decades later.
– Compare the planners’ stated motives with the actual consequences for Palestinian communities.
– Reflect on what happens when security and prestige are prioritized over everyday needs like schools, healthcare, and farming.
– Draw parallels to other contexts where early decisions locked in the future.
Related
– Part 1: From Rifles to Government (paramilitary legacy → state practice)
– Part 3: Bureaucracy and the Law (exception → administrative routine)
– Part 4: The University as an Elevated Barracks (institutional logic)
Extra Resources
PDF: [Short reading on “blueprint before road”] – download
Video: [Introduction to Part 2] – watch