Jerusalem from Ethnocracy Yiftachel O.
Yiftachel O. (2006), Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine, Pennsylvania Press, p.368
This chapter focuses on
p.259-260
Within the above context, the city has been frequently described as the biggest obstacle for peace. It is commonly argued that Jews and Palestinians have been thoroughly missed in the urban geography created by Israeli occupation, which prevents the possibility of repartition. At the same time, equal coexistence is ruled out by Israel's ethnocratic policies, which continue to seek (illusionary) Jewish control over united Jerusalem. This necessitates ever increasing control and oppression of the Palestinians of East Jerusalem and generates escalating Palestinian resistance.
p.260
As part of a protracted [prolonge] conflict, the city has become a mythical emblem for the national identity of both Zionists and Palestinians, with the associated goal of total ethnic control over its landscape and resources. But is this zero-sum perception a necessary product of the two sets of national aspirations?
p.260
It claims instead of being a flashpoint of conflict and an insurmountable obstacle for peace, the Jerusalem/al-Quds region can become a catalyst for Palestinian-Zionist coexistence. This may even lead to a "Jerusalem first" strategy in order to diffuse this sensitive issue and radiate the principles of Zionist-Palestinian equality and nondomination across the land.
p.260
Further, one of Israel's main responses to the uprising has been the construction of a massive wall, cutting through the West Bank and al-Quds (Arab Jerusalem). This is a major urban barrier that not only intensifies hostility and deepens the current apartheid logic of governing the city but also physically ruptures the fabric of urban life.
p.261
The second difficulty is the prevailing opinion among leaders and experts interested in peace that a repartition of the city is a necessary evil. This is also a prominent feature of most peace plans – from Cliton's outline plan of 2000, through the Saudi and Arab League initiative of 2002, and the road map proposed by an international quartet in mid-2003. In other words, there are no organized political forces raising and discussion the vision of bi-national urban governance; hence, such an option does not appear as a genuine peace option in both Israeli and Palestinian mainstream discourses.
p.261
Typically to ethnocratic regimes, the purpose of the (Jewish-controlled) Jerusalem leadership was to expand Jewish control and to ethnicize the city landscape and political structure. But at the same time, under most ethnocratic regimes, urban area frequently form the flashpoints of ethnic tensions, as exemplified in the cities of Belfast, Montreal, Sarajevo, Nicosia, Beirut, and Kuala Lumpur. These cities became focal points for both ethnocratic regimes and for challenges to their oppressive practices (for international comparison, see Bollen 1999,2000).
p.262
Moving to the Jerusalem/al-Quds context, it is noteworthy that despite the Israeli Zionist rhetoric of united Jerusalem, the Jerusalem/al-Quds area has become since 1967 an exemplar of an ethnocratic city. This policy is presented by both state and city authorities and has persistently promoted a project of Judaization. This attitude became formal and transparent within Israeli political discourse as well as the media, as exemplified by the following news report from 1997: "Prime Minister Netanyahu, the mayor of the city of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, and the minister of finance, Ne'eman, will meet on Friday to discuss the revolutionary proposal of Olmert. According to the mayor's proposal, the city of Jerusalem will get a special national priority in order to struggle against the demographic decline in Jewish population in the city.
p.262
Two Israeli strategies have been (a) the massive construction of an outer urban ring of Jewish settlements (satellite neighbourhoods), which now host more than half the Jewish population of the city, and (b) a parallel containment of all Palestinian development, implemented through housing demolition and the prevention of immigration or population growth in the city
p.262
Palestinian in the metropolitan region were divided into two main groups: (a) resident of the enlarged Jerusalem municipality, who were placed under Israeli law ( in a mover erroneously descried by Israelis as annexation) and given Jerusalem residency rights (but not Israeli citizenship); and (b) those in adjoining localities who remained in the occupied territories with no residency or movement rights in the city.
p.262
As documented widely, Israel has used its military might and economic power to relocate borders and boundaries, grant and deny rights and resources, move populations, and reshape the city geography for the purpose of increasing Jewish domination (for historical-geogriphical analyses see Bollen 2000; Dumper 1996; Khamaissi 1997, 2002; Klein 1999; Nitzan-Shiftan 2004).
p.262
Palestinian have also been excluded from the city's forums of decision making – most notably city hall- owing to their refusal to accept imposition of Israel law, or the distorted municipal boundaries imposed on the city to ensure Jewish control.
This Judaization process has taken place while Israeli decision makers and state leaders portrayed the city, seemingly innocently, as re-united, integrated, modernm and even democratic (see Hasson 2001; al-Haj 2002; Nitzan-Shiftan 2004; Kallus 2004).
p.263