The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) decision to suspend their Israeli counterparts - the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) - from the International Union of Architects has been overturned.
The reversal was confirmed Thursday when RIBA's council adopted a new policy on international affairs.
RIBA first passed the motion barring Israelis from the international union, in March, declaring it would boycott IAUA until "it declares objection to construction in the settlements and stands by the demands of international law."
Concern for Palestinian human rights as well as Israeli "apartheid" was also cited.
The suspension, backed by Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement, was passed in a RIBA council meeting by a majority of 23 to 16 with ten abstentions.
However, RIBA has now backtracked, after lawyers warned that this policy was outside its charitable remit and could lead to censure from the Charity Committee.
In addition, the boycott is believed to have cost the institute more than £100,000, after Jewish groups and Jewish supporters, stopped using its prestigious central London building for Jewish celebrations.
Stephen Hobber, RIBA's president, admitted that "we got it wrong," but declined to formally apologize to British Jews, one of the groups of people most upset by the March decision.
Instead Hodder issued the following statement: "For the Institute to have engaged in this issue in a confrontational way - by seeking suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects from the UIA - was wrong."
Although RIBA has acknowledged that damage - both financial and reputational - caused by the controversial vote would take years of recovery, they are interested in taking positive steps to engage in foreign affairs.
A RIBA delegation traveled to Israel two months ago, in an attempt to rebuild relationships with architects in the country. Peter Oborn, RIBA's international division chair, said he was warmly received on that trip.
While greeted well by the IAUA, the Association of Architects in Palestine (AAP) hurled criticism at RIBA for even meeting with the Israelis, stating outright hat RIBA's visit will be "totally rejected and not welcomed by the Palestinian architects."
Perhaps these starkly different reactions also had an effect on RIBA's reversal of the boycott.
Indeed, Oborn, upon delivering the trip's finding to the institute, argued that, "the RIBA motion was beyond the powers of council. It should not have come before the members of council. This is not the forum for these issues."
The boycott motion proved highly controversial from the start. Jewish and pro-Israel architects around the world criticized the decision, and accusations of discrimination came even from RIBA's own council members.
"Don't you think architects are designing prison camps and torture chambers there?" council member Francesca Weal asked about North Korea, which is a member of RIBA, at the meeting.
At the time, Prof. Baruch Baruch of IAUA called the decision "astonishing" as well as off-target, because not only are many members of the union Arab citizens of Israel, but many more "are against settlements."
He added "I don't think architects can be blamed for government policies. I don't think boycotts will help to solve any of the problems in the Middle East."