Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examines the applicability of international post-conflict heritage recovery frameworks to protracted crises through the case study of Hebron Old City, Palestine. Using the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)’s Peacebuilding Assessment Tool for Heritage Recovery and Rehabilitation (PATH), it evaluates whether a framework linking heritage recovery, conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding can address restriction, political asymmetry and cumulative vulnerability. Findings show that PATH provides a useful structure for connecting heritage vulnerability with conflict context, stakeholder dynamics and wider implications. Its strongest fit is analysing heritage in conflict, which identifies vulnerabilities relating to damage, contested use and restricted access. However, its macro-level analysis insufficiently captures Hebron’s complex context and condition. Stakeholder mapping identifies actors but inadequately explains disparities in authority, access and implementation capacity, while its peacebuilding logic overlooks limited local enforcement power and weak international accountability. PATH therefore requires conflict-sensitive adaptation focused on cumulative damage, community continuity, access, accountability, resilience, presence, memory and identity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harb et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: