View
219
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
1/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 1 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Jerusalem/ Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for
Reaching Hegemony
Rassem Khamaisi
Department of Geography and environmental studies, University of Haifa.
Rassem@013.net
This Paper will be presented on:
Gulf First Urban Planning and Development Conference & Exhibition, 12-14, December 2005,
Kuwait
Introduction
Since the city of Jerusalem/Al-Quds emerged, a physical Wall was built around it. Just like other
cities in the world, this ancient wall constituted an important part of the main character andfeature of the urban fabric of Jerusalem. Today, the urban fabric of metropolitan Jerusalem
expands from Ramallah in the north to Bethlehem in the south. This urban fabric distorted,
truncated and divided politically, functionally, and socio-culturally. After the war of 1967, Israeloccupied West Bank including East Jerusalem. Later, Israel built Jewish settlements between the
Palestinians localities. The spatial control and partisan spatial planning policy used by the
Israelis can be summarized by first surrounding the Palestinian locality and consist such an
outside and inside belt. Later these settlements penetrating between the Palestinians localities,
which create fragmented Palestinians residential areas. The Israeli planning strategy and policiesof Jerusalem/ Al-Quds translated partisan perception and ideologies for reaching ethno-national
domination and hegemony over Jerusalem. In 1993, and after Oslo peace interim agreements,
the Israeli government imposed a closure on Jerusalem, and limit development and entrance ofthe Arab Palestinians in Jerusalem. Today, the Israeli government is building a new Wall around
New Jerusalem and mostly alongside the Municipal boundary as the Israelis defines it. Thenew wall separates Jerusalem from its organic and natural environment, dividing, once again,
the urban fabric of Jerusalem and returning to the situation of division. The Israelis used the
ancient concept of Wall as important element and physical barriers to create more personal and
collective security, which was an incentive for building the old wall to justify building the newwall In the Jerusalem area.
The aim of this paper is to describe in short the development of urban fabric Jerusalem in thefirst part. The second part analyzes the urban planning strategies and policies of the Israeli and
the Palestinian in the Jerusalem area, and their implication over the spatial development of thecity, which leads to the creation of barriers and later built wall. The third part comes to discussthe consequences and the implications of the new wall on the urban fabric of Jerusalem. The
assumption of the paper is that the wall is not just a physical barrier, but also a psychological,
functional, socio-cultural and geo-political one.
* Dr Rassem Khamaisi is an urban planner, a senior lecturer in Haifa University, Department ofGeography and Environment Studies and a researcher at the Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies and
the International Peace and Cooperation Center in Jerusalem.
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
2/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 2 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
The Meaning of Walls for Securing Territorial Belonging
The persons, the communities and nations try to define their territorial belonging by boundaries
(Gallusser, 1994). Some boundaries demarcate by the agreed line, by fence or by wall. On theterritories within the wall, persons and states have had sovereignty and domination (Soja, 1971;
Sack, 1986). In side, the area surrounded by wall people feels secure, in trust space, which
belongs to him, and they can do and manage the space according to their consideration (Chisolmand Smith, 1990). The development in area within the boundary can be organic and spontaneous
(Akbar, 1988), but in the modern age most of the development is planned and organized from up
to down. The spatial planning and space organizing is the outcome of the power relation among
the communities (Forester, 1989). The community that has power and domination used thespatial planning for reaching their strategies and policies to secure domination, hegemony and
control the space development. The concept of a separation wall dates back to ancient times as
an architectural mechanism to limit the use of space and to assert territorial control or ownership
by an individual, group or nation (Falah and Newman, 1995). Importantly, walls have beenused historically to create and define borders (Dunn, 1994). Moreover, walls represent important
elements of defending cities. In ancient times, walls were built around most cities as shields
from which adversaries could be fought and as a means to control entry through specific gates.
The existing wall surrounding the Old City of Jerusalem was built during the Roman period inthe second century and then rebuilt during the Ottoman period in the sixteenth century. this is
just one historical example of the many that could be cited. In modern times, after cities grew
and evolved into nation states, walls or fences were built on national borders to control the entryof foes, strangers and illegal immigrants. The shape, height and type of the wall or fence on
national borders came to reflect the shape and nature of the relationship between adjacentcountries. The general rule is this: the higher and wider the wall or fence, and the more security
components it includes, the more hostile is the relationship between the adjacent countries.
The phenomenon of constructing national walls between countries was derived from thebehavior of individuals who sought to create separation between themselves and their neighbors.
The English proverb says, Good fences make good neighbors. This principle can have a
positive side when it reflects an attitude of neighbors mutually recognizing each others legalright to his own space under his own control. However, when there are differences between
neighbors and one imposes a wall unilaterally and by force (as Israel today), then the other
neighbor assuredly waits for a moment when he can change the reality and demolish the wall.
In the case of hostility between the neighboring countries, the wall pushes the neighbors apart
and exacerbates the state of hostility and, in many cases, effectively prevents stable relationships
between the neighboring countries. In such cases, the wall does not ultimately contribute to thesecurity and safety for citizens residing along either side of the wall. Further, walls create
separation and define rigid roles, preventing interaction and interconnection across borders and
implementing the principle: "We are here and they are there. This mentality has been evident
in Palestine, beginning with the protective walls of the early Zionist Movement whichestablished the wall and the tower settlements (Reichman, 1979), and continue with this
traditional by building fence around all the settlements where Arab Palestinians are concentrated
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
3/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 3 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
within Israel and the occupied territory. Since that day, most Israeli settlements and agriculturalcommunities have erected protective barriers that separate them from their surroundings. It is
perhaps a moot point as to whether these protective walls reflected or contributed to a state of
hostility.
The construction of fences and walls within a city between community groups belonging to
different nations, ethnicities or religions, however, is a relatively new phenomenon that did not
appear until national and ethnic conflicts began to enter urban spaces. The conflict led tonational/ethnic separation between communities, creating a situation in which typically each
national, ethnic and cultural group lives in isolation in its own space and does not interact with
other groups (Bollens, 2000). This process has given rise to numerous divided cities scatteredabout the planet. After World War II, walls divided some cities, as in the case of Berlin (Pounds,
1962) until its wall was demolished in 1989. In Nicosia, a wall and a fence were constructed to
separate the Turkish and the Greek parts of the city. This wall still exists inside this
dismembered city. In Belfast, on the other hand, the walls and fences separate Catholic from
Protestant neighborhoods and contribute to a state of stability between the variousneighborhoods (Boal, 1996). By comparison, Johannesburg is still divided based on ethnicity
even after a period of near-civil war and an antebellum situation that had sanctioned the control
of certain neighborhoods over others. Beirut is divided based on ethnic/religious membershipand has well-defined internal borders between groups. During their civil war, no one dared cross
these boundaries. In the Balkans, Moztar is divided between Muslim Bosnians and Catholic
Croatians by a river that transects the city. Jerusalem itself was divided into East and West
Jerusalem; the Arab and the Israeli sides by a border fence from 1948 until 1967. After 1967, the
city continued to be divided into neighborhoods on cultural, ethnic and national bases in spite ofthe annexation efforts and incorporation policies pursued by successive Israeli governments
(Romann and Alex, 1991; Hasson, 1996). Since 1993, the Arabs in East Jerusalem has become
isolated and closed to its Palestinian surroundings, which had constituted a basic source ofcommercial activity and cultural influence on the city.
The concept of building a separate wall around the West Bank, include within the Jerusalem
area alongside the Israel Municipal boundary come after political and ideology change in among
the Israeli public and political system (Schueftan, 1999). The implementation of this concept is
part of the security, political and ideological considerations. Security has many meanings, whichinclude the personal and collective security on the short and long-term range. For instance to
prevent entry of outsider violence, resistance, enemies or immigrants and workers, avoid change
or threaten of the ethno-national and demographic structure, or possible of territorial(Eeredanta), put basic for future state boundary by preserving vital recourses are part of the
security led to built security and separate wall for controlling Israel including the Jerusalemarea.
Historical Overview of Jerusalem
Jerusalem is a unique phenomenon in the history of cities. Indeed, its spiritual status, its rich
historical heritage and geographic characteristics made it one of the oldest and holiest cities in
the world. The earliest settlement at the present location of Jerusalem dates back to the Stone
Age, approximately 5,000 years ago. Around that time, a Canaanite people, the Jebusites, built
the city. Its first Canaanite name was Ursalem the City of Salem, and its various other nameshave always been associated with peace. Yet throughout its long history, Jerusalem has
witnessed several wars and catastrophes and was demolished and rebuilt more than eighteen
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
4/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 4 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
times (Cohen, 1977).
Jerusalem was first mentioned in a written text circa 1842 BC when it was referred to as
Roshalimom in an Egyptian writing. King David captured the Jebusites fortress circa 997 BC
and changed its Canaanite name to the City of David, which he proclaimed the capital of theunited Israelite Kingdom. Seventy-three years later, however, Egyptian forces destroyed the city
and the Israelite Kingdom. Subsequently, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Hellenistic and then
the Roman-Byzantine Empire, captured Jerusalem. In 132 AD, the Roman Emperor Hadriancaptured Jerusalem after crushing the Great Judean Revolt led by Bar Kochba. He renamed the
city Aelia Capitolina and expelled the Jews from it. It was not until 1855 when Lord
Montefiore obtained a decree from the Ottoman Sultan that Jews were allowed to buy the firstpiece of land in Jerusalem in order to establish a Jewish residential neighborhood there. From
there on, the Jewish settlement in Jerusalem accelerated until it reached its peak in 1948 with the
establishment of the State of Israel on the land. This mounted to about 70% of the area of the
mandated Palestine. The Jewish population in Jerusalem increased. In 1995, the Jewish
population became a majority forming more than 62% of the citys 715,400 residents.
Caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Hence, except for about 88 years
(1099-1187 AD) while Jerusalem was under the rule of the Crusaders, the city remained underMuslim rule until December 9, 1917. That marked the surrender of the Ottoman forces in
Jerusalem to the British forces led by General Allenby. During this Muslim era, the Umayyad,
Abbasid, Tulunid, Ikhshidid, Fatimid, Seljuk, Ayyubid, Mameluke and the Ottoman dynasties,
ruled Jerusalem. Jerusalem has thus seen the passage of several civilizations and political
entities that have ruled it and have left their imprints and landmarks in it. The result is a citywith several layers of landmarks, crowned by the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691 AD
by the Umayyad Caliph Abd Al-Malik Ibn Marwan. In 708 AD, Abd Al-Maliks son, Al-Walid
Ibn Abd Al-Malik, built Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jerusalems special status for Muslims encouragedmost caliphs and leaders to build monuments and cultural landmarks, like mosques, schools,
public baths, water fountains, etc., in the city. The names of those Muslim caliphs, kings, emirsand leaders associated with these monuments are proof of their presence in the city and of their
contribution towards its development and its preservation.
The Ottoman Caliph Suleiman the Magnificent, who came to power in 1520 AD, took specialcare of Jerusalem and endowed the city with several landmarks, the most notable of which is the
wall, which, to this day, surrounds the Old City.
Following the great Ottoman-Russian war in 1853, Christian denominations were granted
special prerogatives, which enabled them to build churches and convents in Jerusalem, as wellas to expand some of the old ones.
Up to the middle of the nineteenth century, the residents of Jerusalem were concentrated inside
the walls of the Old City. Construction and expansion outside the walls did not begin until 1842and did not accelerate until 1917 when Jerusalem became the center of the British Mandate in
Palestine. The British Mandate was terminated in 1948 immediately after the establishment of
the State of Israel. Shortly following Israels proclamation of independence, a war broke out
which resulted in the division of Jerusalem into two parts: the western part ruled by Israel and
the eastern by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In 1967, the Jordanian part of Jerusalem wasin its turn conquered by Israeli forces. Immediately after the occupation of the eastern part of the
city, the Israeli government imposed Israeli law there. The western part had already been
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
5/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 5 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
declared Israels capital in 1948. Since then Israel has been working systematically on enforcingits physical and political presence in Jerusalem by attempting to change its geographic and
demographic balance and by transforming it into the functional center of the new state. In 1980,
the Israeli Knesset (parliament), against all UN resolutions, unilaterally declared East Jerusalem
part of united Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel. Later some of the Israeli leadersdeclared Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people.
It is important to look back at history in order to understand the current situation, urban fabricand structure of the city. This urban fabric can be divided to three parts close one to other. First,
one is include the area of the old city, inside the old Wall, and older nuclear part of villages
surrounding Jerusalem and later annexed to it later. The second include the area around the oldcity that was developed during the end of the ottoman era and the British Mandate era. The third
part include new and modern parts of Jerusalem which built since the mid of the twentieth
century (Hasson, 2004). In spite of the merging of the three parts in one large city under Israeli
rule, but we can distinguish clearly every parts of the urban fabrics of the city by the building
style, economic activity and ethno-national division.
Changes of Physical Layout
The geographic layout of any area is characterized by the topographic structure that includes
mountains, valleys and geological breaks, as well as the result of human intervention through the
construction and destruction processes. Hence, the natural geographic layout of Jerusalem has
affected its development, population distribution and economic activities.
The City of Jerusalem emerged from the Old City of Beit Al-Maqdes, which is located on Al-
Thuhoor hill, overlooking the village of Silwan to the southeast of the Haram Al-Sharif (The
Holy Sanctuary). The Old City of Jerusalem is surrounded by three valleys, which facilitates thetask of defending it. Ein Um Al-Daraj (Um Al-Daraj Spring) is located at the bottom of Al-
Thuhoor hill, and is the only spring in Old Jerusalem. The hill on which Old Jerusalem was builtrepresents the center of the Jerusalem Mountains located in the middle of Palestine and which
stretch from Marj Ibn Amer in the north to the Negev Desert in the south. Jerusalem is located in
the middle of this chain of mountains, at an altitude of 720-830 meters above sea level.
Jerusalem was a historical passage for convoys traveling between the African, European and
Asian civilizations. The city lies at less than 290 kilometers from Damascus, 388 kilometers
from Beirut, at 528 kilometers from Cairo and less than 865 Kilometers from Baghdad, thecradle of the civilization the Arabs call Between the Two Rivers. Jerusalem is also about 85
kilometers away from Amman and 55 kilometers from Jaffa (near present-day Tel Aviv). Thiscentral position gave Jerusalem a unique status and made it a coveted place to live in, as far backas the Stone Age that dates back to about 12,000 BC.
The present city of Jerusalem has evolved from the Old City and has extended towards thenorth-west along the road from Damascus Gate to Jaffa Road (formerly Allenby Road) which
heads west to Jaffa. It is along this road that began the demographic growth and development of
Jerusalem at the turn of the century. This growth was due to the following factors:
a. The relatively easy topographic character of the area and the absence of natural barriers,like mountains and valleys in the eastern and southern areas.
b. The integrative relationship between Jaffa, which formed the center of the Palestinian
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
6/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 6 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
coastal area and the city of Jerusalem.c. The development of a Jewish settlement in the Yemin Moshe neighborhood, which was
established on the land bought by Lord Montefiore in West Jerusalem, in addition to the
concentration and thickening of Jewish settlements along the Palestinian coastal area. A
close link existed between these settlements and those in Jerusalem.d. The pleasant climate in the western side of Jerusalem encouraged people to live there rather
than in any other part of the city.
e. The planning strategies that were worked out during the consecutive Mandatory masterplans prepared for Jerusalem since 1917. These had always referred to the eastern sector
(Mount of Olives and Al-Tour) as an area to be preserved and protected, by preventing
construction activities there. These strategies were changed because of religiousconsiderations.
Therefore, the physical layout and the relationship between various cities in Palestine have
affected the direction of development in Jerusalem. Both Arab and Jewish neighborhoods were
established to the west of the Old City. These neighborhoods include Bab Al-Zahirah, SheikhJarrah, Al-Musrarah, Yofarim, Meah Shearim, the German Colony, Yemin Moshe, Talpiyot
and Qatamon.
Development to the east of the Old City did not begin until the 1920s. This development did not
include the establishment of new neighborhoods, as in the case of the western sector, but rather
an expansion around the nucleus or existing neighborhoods, like Al-Tour and Silwan.
The size and direction of geographic and demographic developments, as well as economicactivities in Jerusalem changed after 1948. The factors that shaped the direction and pace of
development were:
a. The change of political borders between Israel and Jordan. This factor was central and
crucial in shifting the direction and pace of development of the geographic structure ofJerusalem.
b. The enforcement of the relationship between East Jerusalem and Amman to the east, Nablus
to the north and Hebron to the south. Palestinian demographic, economic and administrativedevelopment in Jerusalem began along the roads, which link Jerusalem to these cities.
Meanwhile, Israeli presence in the city expanded after Arabs in West Jerusalem were
evicted from their neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were then filled with Jews. TheIsraeli government sought to increase the number of Jews in Jerusalem by focusing on
settlement and construction in West Jerusalem and fostering the relationship between TelAviv and West Jerusalem.
c. The difference in the planning and development policies in the two parts of the city: the
western part of Jerusalem was declared as the capital of the new State of Israel, and beganattracting positive migration, while the eastern part of Jerusalem became a city within a
province affiliated with Amman, the capital of Jordan. The eastern part ceased to play a role
in national politics and became a national administrative center. Therefore, the size of
population growth was limited in comparison with the western sector.
There was, thus, intensive Israeli development in the western part of the city between 1948-
1965, while there was only limited vertical development in the eastern part, especially along
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
7/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 7 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Nablus Road, and circular expansion around the west and south in Sour Baher, Abu Dies andAl-Ezariyeh.
The direction of development in Jerusalem changed once again after 1967 as a direct result of a
national planning policy that sought to strengthen Israeli Jewish settlements in the eastern part,while limiting the expansion of Palestinian localities and neighborhoods. Therefore, the
direction and size of development moved from the western part to the eastern part through the
establishment of new Israeli settlements changed to be later as neighborhoods, like Ramot, Gilo,Talpiyot, the French Hill, Ramat Eshkol, Neveh Yaacov, Pisgat Zeev and Maaleh Adummim.
Meanwhile, there was limited Palestinian development in the form of local expansion of existent
villages and neighborhoods. This political intervention by Israel in the geographic layout ofJerusalem never took into consideration the protection of the natural characteristics and assets
that were unique to Jerusalem. The Israeli strategy and policy to secure domination and
hegemony create over urbanization in Jerusalem.
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
8/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 8 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Figure 1: The development of built up area in Jerusalem between 1841- 2000
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
9/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 9 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Factors for developing Jerusalems urban space
The expansion of the spatial and urban space in Jerusalem is related to several factors, some of which
are general and similar to any urban center in Israel, Palestine and the world. The others are specific tothe status of Jerusalem. Following are these specifics in brief:
1. Colonial invasion and expansion: this invasion and expansion began at the end of the Crimean warand the start of the eastern question. It also originated from the desire of Western countries to have
control over the Ottoman Empire in general and Palestine in particular with Jerusalem at its heart.
This multi-colonialist invasion began to prove its existence through exporting new models ofbuildings and establishing its centers in Jerusalem. Part of this colonialism was Zionist settlement.
Colonialism, as is the situation in various parts of the world, prefers the new and the outstanding
rather than being preoccupied with improving the old and the integration in it. Therefore, throughout
the various periods, beginning in the mid- 19th
century until present day, and despite the changes in
the roles of the colonialist powers and their implementation mechanisms, the mentality of thecolonialist power, which wishes to dominate through the new, kept pace with the urban and spatial
architectural development in Jerusalem. This colonial expansion was strengthened through the
establishment of additional quarters during the British mandate. This was after the establishment bythe construction of buildings and features before that. It reached its peak during the Israeli rule by
establishing new buildings, most of which were build inside East Jerusalem which are currently
(2004) inhabited by 170.2 thousand Israelis, constituting 40% of the population of Jewish Jerusalem.
The colonial mentality preferred building the new rather than repairing the old and being engaged in
it. This had its impact on the deterioration of the situation in the Old City and the Arab Palestiniansareas where less attention and resources given to develop these neighborhoods by the colonial
regimes, which create gaps and disparity between the different parts of the city.
2. Urbanization: despite the long urban history of Jerusalem, it remained a small center surrounded byvillage communities. During the last century, Jerusalem witnessed an urban and civilization process.
This process, which included the population in Jerusalem and the surrounding villages. This processwas accompanied by a significant increase in the population. In addition there are marked changes in
styles of spatial and consumption behaviors by the population of Jerusalem. This process of
urbanization was accelerated due to the continuation of communication with foreign, civilized and
modern communities, which immigrated to Jerusalem as a colonialist power. Moreover, the positiveimmigration to Jerusalem, was greatly due to political and structural factors that contributed to the
process of urbanization and civilization in Jerusalem and the surrounding villages, which led to the
formation of an urban center in which the Old City was a confined site with special characteristics.3.Sub-urbanization: This process began with the departure of part of social elite other classes of the
society from the Old City; Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters; and its construction of quartersoutside the walls. Furthermore, this process was intensified by the establishment of new quartersbeyond the outskirts of Jerusalem including new areas along the Nablus-Jerusalem road such as
Shufat, Beit Hanina and Dahiet al-Barid. This was preceded by the construction of quarters in
western section of the Old City of Jerusalem such as: Talbeieh, Al-Manieh etc. Later, the process ofsub-urbanization included the Arab and Jewish population by their transfer to quarters and villages
outside Jerusalem, which led to the expansion of these quarters, which consequently became a part of
the urban structure of Jerusalem. During the process of sub-urbanization, the Old City has been
emptied of its inhabitantsand its economic and administrative activities although it maintained its
religious centrality.
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
10/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 10 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
4. Structural and value changes: Undoubtedly, the process of urbanization, sub-urbanization and thecolonial mentality in implementation had a direct impact on the development of changes in structure and
value in the manners of consumption and the use of urban space including the selection of settlement
sites. Perhaps these structural and value changes in the Palestinian society were a part and a cause for
the acceleration of the urbanization and sub-urbanization process, thereby forming an integral processwith them. Due to the structural and value changes within the Palestinian society, the desire for
modernity in housing, trade and services arose which required a large space that could not be provided
in the Old City or in the nucleus of the internal villages. Therefore, the new was built to provide thesemodern needs as a response to internal structural and value changes. These internal changes cannot be
separated from the external changes and indicators, which pushed towards the acceleration of these
internal changes, despite the fact that part of these external changes, were imported while others werefor the sake of achieving political goals.
5. Political conflict and division of the city: the conflict over Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine,
despite of its abatement, has had a noticeable impact on the development of urban space in Jerusalem.
One example of this is the competition between Jews and Arabs during the British mandate. Thiscompetition was mainly on the division of the city. The Arab population was evicted from its western
sector. Later on, the eviction of the Arab population from some quarters inside the Old City took place
after its occupation in 1967. Those residents were the residents of Magharbe, Al-Sharif, Al-Midan andNevi Daoud and the settlement of a part of them in the Nuseibeh quarter in Beit Hanina. Another impact
was the restrictions on developing Palestinian quarters directing the development of Israeli quarters. All
of these factors had an impact on the development of the shape and other components of urban space in
Jerusalem. Thus, the emerging and continuing conflict in Jerusalem, which includes the Old and New
city and all its surroundings, has contributed to an illogical and misguided expansion of the architecturalspace. This constitutes a burden on the harmonized development of the city and has disfigured its scenes
and personality.
6. Duels and doubles on the outskirts of the city: the ethnic-national division in the urban space of
Jerusalem quarters before 1948 effected the formation of functional and spatial duels and doubles in theoutskirts of Jerusalem. This voluntary ethnic national division of Jerusalem into quarters before 1948
was intensified through the political division and arbitrary eviction. This arbitrary division led to the
creation of dual centers and the isolation of populated quarters, which could not expand in its space and
had to follow a different center (Tel Aviv and Amman). During the period between 1948 -1967, thedivision led to the formation of edges in both the western and eastern Jerusalem. After the occupation
of Jerusalem by Israel in 1967 and its unity annexation according to the Israeli government decision,
there were still functional and residential doubles in the urban space of the city. In which the Israeli andPalestinian populations shared the same space in terms of utilizing and consuming services and
communal needs. These dualities and doubles, despite sharing the same space, are also found inside theOld City. In spite of the fact that the Palestinian and Israeli Jerusalem fell in the structural,administrative and functional margins, it still exists within the heart of conflict. This has direct impact
on the formation of the urban space in the city.
7. Replacement instead of participation: the process of spatial development in Jerusalem was
accompanied by the Israeli mentality of replacing the Palestinians instead of sharing the space in
between them. We can find demonstrations to this in land confiscation, eviction of the population and
the geo-demographic policy.
These factors have had a direct impact of crystallization of the urban from, fabric, but the development
occurred under geo-political, and spatial planning limitations with out physical wall, exclude the wall around
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
11/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 11 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
the old city. This development happened under Israeli barriers and limitations by using the statutory spatialplanning for achieving the Israeli goals.
Planning Land Use in Jerusalem as a tool for creating a mental wallThe process of formulating a land-use plan for Jerusalem did not begin in the year 1967, when
East Jerusalem was occupied and annexed to West Jerusalem. The municipality and the local
councils of East Jerusalem were cancelled. Rather, it began in the year 1918 and was approvedaccording to the town planning orders of 1921. During the Mandate period, a land-use plan was
formulated.
Between 1948 - the year in which Jerusalem was divided- and 1967; two structural plans
pertaining to land use in West Jerusalem were formulated. One plan was formulated for the
eastern part of the city and another for the western part of the city. However, when EastJerusalem was annexed to West Jerusalem in 1967, a main plan, which included the municipal
borders of Jerusalem, was formulated. This plan, which came to be known as the Main
Structural Plan of Jerusalem-1968, is currently used as a guide for the local and divisional plansformulated for the areas within the municipal borders of Jerusalem.
Parallel to the formulation of the plans, the Israelis began to establish formal planning
institutions consisting of local committees, provincial committees, and regional committees(Yiftachel, 1998). Formulated by the ministries of the Israeli Government or municipalities,
these committees represent the use of planning as a tool to implement policies pertaining to
construction. That inevitably resulted of in some kind of political change. Thus, the land-use
plan for Jerusalem is a direct result of regional and political goals that reflect the geopoliticaland environmental values and ideologies that Israel wishes to impose in order to strengthen its
dominance and control over the city. The plan increased the opportunities for the Jews and
decreased the opportunities for the Palestinians (Marom, 2004).
The local, regional and national plans are implemented through detailed plans prepared for
certain neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The plans become the basis for issuing permits, for
constructing houses and roads, and for developing the infrastructure. These plans havefrequently been used to hinder Palestinian development, and this has increased the gap that
exists between the overall situations in the Palestinian areas on the one hand and the Israeli areas
on the other. The main reason that caused this gap is clearly the land-use policy: its
implementation is succeeding in ensuring that the Jewish areas are developed whilst theopportunities available to the Palestinians are restricted (Khamaisi and Nasrallah, 2003).
The national, district and local statutory plan aims to develop Jerusalem as Israeli capital and
metropolitan as part of Israeli core. This was the matter of the last local outline plan prepared for
Jerusalem by the Jerusalem Municipality supported by the Israeli Government. The plan is
called (Jerusalem 2000). This plan places the boundary of Jerusalem alongside the New Wall
that is under construction. The Israeli urban planning has impact of Jerusalem.
The Implications of the Land-Use Plans
The Israeli approved plans for the Palestinian neighborhoods will continue to have several
negative effects vis--vis the developing and promoting of the Palestinian existence in Jerusalem
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
12/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 12 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
and on the central and international role of the city(Khamaisi, 2003a). What follows is a briefsummary of these negative effects:
1. The total area of Arab Jerusalem, which was annexed to Israel after the War of 1967 andplanned,is 26 square kilometers (from 71 square kilometers which have been annexed),accounting for 37 percent of the total area annexed. Itwas allocated for Palestinian Arab
development. However, more than one-third of this land is categorized as green or
protected areas, which means that Palestinian development is prohibited there. Thus, inreality only 23 percent of the total area of East Jerusalem is currently available for the
Palestinian use and development.
2. The plans detailing the housing and local services areas for the Arab localities is directlydependent on the plans for the Jewish areas where the land is allocated for commercial,
industrial and service providing uses. This is not only for the entire city only, but for the
Israeli State as well. Accordingly, the Palestinian development needs in Jerusalem are
further affected in a negative manner as these needs are addressed only after those of theentire State of Israel.
3. The limitation of construction rights helps guarantee that the housing capacity in thePalestinian suburbs remains to a minimum. At the same time, the Jewish suburbs enjoy a
high housing capacity and new areas of Israeli settlement emerged in the Arab areas.
The maximum percentage of land associated with any given plot on which the
Palestinians are allowed to construct in the Palestinian suburbs is 75 percent e.g. Beit
Hanina. While in the Jewish areas, such as the French Hill area and the settlement ofNeve Yacouv, the percentage is much higher.
4. The Israelis classified large portions of lands owned by the Palestinian residents as greenareas, in most cases where the owner had reserved it for future development. However,
when the Municipality classifies areas as a green areas where the land belongs to anindividual. The consequence of such an act is that the owner is forbidden or hindered
from developing the land. The green areas, which do not serve the local Palestinian
residents, are used as a means to limit Palestinian civil development. In some cases, they
are converted to Jewish settlements. An example is what happened in the case of Shufat(Ramat Hashafit). In 1985, a green area in Shufat was converted into a Jewish housing
area based on a 1973 development plan labeled B/3000 (an outdated plan). Another case
is Jabal Abu Ghneim. The plan was categorized as a green area in 1968. In 1969, moretrees were planted there and it came to be considered a protected green area. However, in
1990, it was confiscated according to the decree of the Israeli Minister of Finance for thepublic good. Later, on June 12 1991, the Jerusalem Municipality came up with a planthat revealed its intentions to turn the so-called green area into an area for housing and
development. In 1996, development plan number 5053 was approved and the green area
was converted into a housing and development area. The name of which was changedfrom Jabal Abu Ghneim to Har Homa. The development process began with the
preparation of the infrastructure for the 6,500 housing units to be built there on some
2,058 dunums of land. In total, some 1,850 dunums of land were confiscated.
5. The Municipality has adopted a policy whereby it reunifies then reclassifies land thatbelongs to Palestinian residents (reparcelation). This process of reparcelation is designed
to precede the confiscation of land. According to this process, when the Municipality
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
13/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 13 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
wishes to confiscate an area of land, rather than take all the land from just one owner,leaving him with nothing. The first step is to reclassify an area and then reunify it to
make the plots of land of all the neighboring landowners smaller. The Municipality then
obliges the owners of the land bordering the land they desire to give up a portion of their
land to compensate the individual whose entire land was confiscated. Some areas, itshould be noted, were set aside to be reunified and reclassified later because several
people claimed to be the owners of the same plots. The measure is supposed to introduce
equality in confiscating the land for the public good and distributing it among the ownersequally, but in practice, social relations are strained and the political situation is made
worse. Such measures delay the Palestinian construction and development process for
the following reasons:
The measures result in conflict and competition among the owners, evenif they are relatives, which lead them to reject the idea of reunification
and classification.
The different owners do not usually have the same goals; some of themwould like to use their plots of land for housing, while others reject thisidea because they are afraid of having to pay high taxes.
In light of the fact that the Palestinian society is historically an agrarianone, there is a strong social connection to the land. The plot of landbelonging to any given owner has usually been passed down to them by
their fathers and grandfathers, and it is for this reason, amongst others,
that they often refuse to give it up or accept compensation in the form ofland elsewhere.
The owners do not trust the Israeli planning and registration system andare afraid that part or all of their land will be confiscated during the
reunification and classification process.
When a large number of people own the land, then they tend to reject theidea of reunifying and classifying it because each owner would end up
with only a very small share.
Israel considers some plots of land absentee property. The owners, whoeither live in the country or else abroad, refuse to transfer the property of
these plots to the State of Israel.
The formal ownership of some plots of land has not been settled, in spiteof the fact that the plots involved have been identified as private property;
the owners are afraid of losing their rights because of the reunification
and classification process.
Some of the inheritors of plots of land are still keeping them formallyregistered in the names of their fathers or grandfathers due to a fear of
losing them or else paying high fees to register them in their own names.
The Israeli Jerusalem Municipality has used the policy of reunification and classification as away to hinder the planning and construction of the Palestinian suburbs. The Municipality
requires the landowners to finance this process of reunification and classification by themselves.
In addition, the landowners are required to complete this entire process within a specified
period, even though the Israelis realize that it is an extremely difficult and time-consumingprocess. All this, of course, freezes Palestinian development, and, importantly, decreases
Palestinian trust in the Israeli intentions.
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
14/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 14 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
We can see that the objectives and contents of the plans that are formulated by the Jerusalem
Municipality for the Arab suburbs have resulted in wastage of privately owned land and the
imposition of restrictions that result in advantages for the Israelis and disadvantages for the
Palestinians.
A perfect case in point is Al-Issawiya village, where several radars used for military purposes
can be found. In order to keep the area around these radars vacant, the Jerusalem Municipalitydeclared some areas green areas.
The Municipality also places impossible restrictions on Palestinian development; in some cases,the restrictions pertain to the maximum height of houses, making development in some area
impossible. There are also restrictions pertaining to the permitted distances between buildings
and roads. For instance in Shufat and Beit Hanina, there are three local roads. Yet the specified
distance is that usually involving regional highways.
Plots of land that have no development plans are exploited by the same objective. The Jerusalem
Municipality and the Israeli Regional Committee for Planning and Construction delay
formulating land-use plans of these areas and declare them green areas. Interestingly, these areas(such as Ras Khamisi) are later reclassified by the Jerusalem Municipality and become areas for
Jewish development A good example is the plan for the Eastern Gate (Shaar Mizrah called E1
zone), which involves constructing a commercial center, an industrial center, a bus station and a
housing compound of 2,000 housing units on an area of approximately 800 dunums. The
objective of the plan is to connect the settlement of Pisgat Zeev with Maaleh Adumim and todisconnect Jerusalem from all other Palestinian areas.
According to the Municipalitys plan, these areas are still formally considered green areas ornon-planned areas. The Mar Elias area on the eastern side of the Jerusalem-Bethlehem road
(Hebron Road) is an example of land that was classified as a green area according to themunicipal plans. In reality, it is an unplanned area. Plans are currently being prepared in order to
change the uses of land there in favor of the Israeli development. There are some small areas for
which there are no development plans, in spite of the fact that such plans are definitely needed.
In contrast, there are areas that have been organized and declared green areas even though theydo not fulfill the normal criteria (for example, Adassa, Al-Sawahreh, Al-Gharbiyeh, and Ras Al-
Amud).
The planning and development of new Israeli settlements such as the internal and the external
belt around the Arab Palestinians neighborhoods and localities is part of colonial policy ofexistence and control of the spatial. Other matters, to secure the domination over Jerusalem areused enforcing rule after annexation, confiscating land, limitation of Palestinians population
growth and development for securing Jerusalem as a capital of Israel and get out the city from
situation of fringe and periphery from the Israel point of view. This domination, limitation,surrounding, and penetration the Palestinians existence help the Israeli standpoint for future geo-
political arrangements through the peace negotiation. Israel began with the closure of Jerusalem
ahead of Palestinians by military checkpoints located on the main road entrances of Jerusalem.
Since the 2000, Al- Aqsa Intifada, the closure chain became tighter, particularly after violence
and resistance. Since 2003, Israel decided to build a separation wall as a part of the wall betweenWest Bank excluding East Jerusalem, and Israel. Part of this wall built alongside the municipal
boundary was imposed by Israel since 1967. In addition, the other factor is considering the
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
15/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 15 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
territorial and demographic dimensions. For instance, the wall isolates the Palestinian areas ofKuffer Akab, Samiramis, Kalandia, and Dahiat Ebared of northern Jerusalem municipality.
Despite the fact, these areas are within the Jerusalem municipal boundaries and the residents of
which are Israeli ID holder. While the wall suggested to include Israel settlements outside the
Jerusalem municipality within the West Bank such as Male Adomen and Gevat Zaiv, whichconsists part of the settlements belt. The new wall plan is expected to create a lot of implication.
Some of these implications are summarized in this paper below:
The new physical wall as part of geo-political re-organizing and its implication
Israel continues to build a separation wall that dismembers the Palestinian Jerusalemite
neighborhoods and suburbs, as well as the West Bank territories, this in spite of the Palestinian
opposition and in clear contravention of international law. Israel claims that security needs force
it to erect this wall and that the routing and types of construction are dictated by security.Furthermore, Israel claims that the location of the wall does not set political borders, although
whoever wanders about in the Jerusalem area and along the wall finds that it creates a very
different reality than the one that existed before the wall intruded on the daily life. Indeed, the
wall dismembers the fabric of the Palestinian Jerusalemite neighborhoods and divides them intospatially discontinuous, functionally crippled Bantustans. This reality can only exacerbate the
long-running suffering that has arisen over the course of thirty-seven years of Israeli occupation.
This part of the paper will identify the main geopolitical, sociological, and urban functioningeffects of the wall. Although the wall is as yet not complete. Yet some of its effects will merge
in the future. we believe there is ample evidence, drawn from the experience of other walled
societies and from Jerusalems past, to support the argument that constructing walls within a cityshreds its urban fabric and erodes its ability to sustain its suburbs and hinterland surroundings
and to attract urban functions to it. For example, trends that developed in the urban fabric in1948-1967 during the citys division have emerged more fully since the closures of 1993. They
provide evidence of these effects and allow us to project a bleak post-wall future for the
Palestinian Jerusalem. Moreover, we shall see that the wall will not only affect on the Jerusalem
metropolis but on outlying areas as well. Constructing border fences isolates countries fromeach other; the areas near the borders become peripheral and suffer decay. This has socio-
psychological ramifications that are manifest in separation and discontinuity within societies,
severing the continuity of human settlement and disrupting economic life. Viable outlyingcenters will become remote and desolate areas.
Admittedly, the changing and incomplete status of the wall makes a detailed, systematic study ofits effects difficult; that will have to await further research. Nonetheless, the effects that we
discuss here are not conjectural: they are derived from numerous field trips to affected
neighborhoods, observation of behaviors in the Jerusalemite society, analyses of Israeli politicalstances, as well as from a review of relevant literature. This approach has been supplemented by
studying the case of Jerusalem as a divided city in its recent past. While the past is never a
complete guide to the future, in this case it may be unusually reliable since the central influential
component remains unchanged, which is a physical separation in a hostile reality (Brooks and
other, 2005).
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
16/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 16 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Figure no. 2: the location of the new wall within Jerusalem area creating ethno-national enclaves
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
17/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 17 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Wall around Jerusalems New Borders: Claims and Realities
In an effort to convince Palestinians and the international world, Israel offers a litany of
rationalizations intended to justify the separation barrier. The Israeli government contends: That the wall is a protective barrier; That its construction is a direct result of the actual security needs of Israel; That the wall is needed to form a barrier to Palestinian entry into the Israeli space; That constructing the wall was accompanied and justified by a political plan adopted by
the Israeli government and the United States which aims at separating the Palestinians
from the Israelis; and that the best mechanism for separation is the construction of thewall to form a physical border between them.
These spurious claims notwithstanding, the essential fact is that Israel unilaterally chose to
locate the wall at the expense of the Palestinian side. It annexes Palestinian lands occupied in the
1967 Warincluding land on which Israeli settlements were established in contravention to
international legitimacy, much of world opinion, and certainly contrary to the will of thePalestinian people.
Alternatively, let us examine a rhetorical method by which Israel seeks to minimize theirtransgression by claiming the wall is only temporary and does not seek to demarcate political
borders. When one looks at the length of the wall, the imposing and elaborate components of
which it is made, its expense to the troubled Israeli economy, and the good fit the wall has
with long-term Israeli objectives, it flies in the face of common sense to give any credence to the
claim that the wall is a temporary phenomenon. Our reading of Israeli history in such mattersargues, Everything temporary is mostly permanent. A salient case in point: the ceasefire
border drawn by the Rhodes Truce in 1949 was supposed to be temporary and based on extant
security needs; it later became the political border known as the Green Line. Palestinians andIsraeli claim this Green Line to be the boundary between Israel the Future Palestinians State
includes in Jerusalem, such as Geneva Convention Group.
Alternatively, consider the 71,000 dunums (17,500 acres) in the greater East Jerusalem area that
Israel annexed in the 1967 war. By all international standards, land taken in military conquest is
to be only temporarily occupied, to be returned eventually to the original party (refer to the un-convention on occupation). In contravention to international legitimacy, Israel has built
settlements on this land and now defines these communities as a permanent and indivisible part
of Israel. This means that the location of the wall as it is proposed and is being built is designedfor not only security objectives, but also for takes into account geo-political and geo-
demographic objectives and may even form the future borders of the state of Israel. In otherwords, all territories on the Israeli side of the wall may be annexed to Israeli sovereignty. This isnot a hypothetical assumption, but a certainty derived from experience. There is already number
of declarations and claims of Israeli politicians, particularly in the right side insist that the wall
should be the new border of Israeli sovereignty, after annexing most of the Israeli settlementssurrounding Jerusalem. Once again, we may be faced with a unilateral Israeli decision made
without Palestinian input and utterly devoid of international approval. It is clear in Israels
disdainful response to the opinions of the United Nations and the International Court that Israel
has given no regard to the rule that the final borders between the Palestinians and Israelis are to
be determined by negotiations between the two parties. It is also evident that transforming thewall into an international border will create ill-fated peripheral cities on both sides; that the
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
18/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 18 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
security components associated with the wall will bisect the city and make it impossible to livein peace or in security.
Dismembering the Palestinian Spatial, Geopolitical, Social and Economic Space
The wall forms a mechanism for dismembering the Palestinian spatial continuity on the national
level, thereby undermining the possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian state. Dividing theproposed Palestinian state into regions, such as the one encircled the Jerusalem Envelop,
eliminates spatial continuity and undermines integration. This dismemberment is in part
achieved through:
Disrupting Jerusalems role as the hub linking the North and South West Bank.Jerusalem represents the geographic heart of mandatory Palestine. After 1949, the city
became the transit center of the West Bank, funneling almost all the traffic between the
northern and southern areas of the territory. Since the closure of Jerusalem to the WestBankers in 1993, the Wad An-Nar [Valley of Fire] Road running through the outskirts
of Jerusalem has become the only road connecting the north and the south. Now, with
the imposition of the barrier, a part of this road will be annexed to the Israeli side of theseparation wall in the process of annexing the Maale Adumim settlement to Israel.
Blocking this route further marginalizes Jerusalem as a Palestinian center and further
undermines the geo-political, cultural, social and economic continuity between the
Palestinian territories, cities and villages. This unilaterally imposed reality, a
temporary fact on the ground, will significantly reduce the possibility of the birth of aviable and capable Palestinian state enjoying geo-political contiguity with Holy
Jerusalem as its capital.
Isolating Jerusalem from its surroundings and isolating Palestinian villages and cities.The route of the wall will exclude from Jerusalem many of its satellite centers andvillages. Some of these communities, such as Ar Ram and Beer Nabala, will effectively
be annexed to Israel, becoming besieged isolated towns. In addition, some of these
isolated communities will not only be cut off from Jerusalem and Ramallah but also from
other Palestinian centers in the West Bank. This force isolation will destroy any naturalcontinuity. Further, the fragmentation will eliminate the support Jerusalem has depended
upon from its surroundings. The economic and social implications are at once negative
and obvious.
Giving priority to the creation of integrity and continuity in the Israeli geo-politicalspace. The planning and construction of the wall maximizes this Israeli value. Theserpentine path of the wall effectively annexes to West Jerusalem many of the Israeli
settlements built on East Jerusalem lands. This strengthens Israeli continuity at the
expense of Palestines integrity. Related projects, such as tunnels which will routePalestinians under Jewish neighborhoods, rather than roadways through them, also are
designed to enhance Israeli contiguity. These imposed spatial solutions cannot guarantee
stability and security for any party.
The dismemberment of the Jerusalem area and the inevitable concomitant decline in the cityscentral status will have several predictable consequences. The most obvious are:
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
19/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 19 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
Negative immigration from Jerusalem, especially of the upper and middle classes thatrepresent the economic engine of every city.
A decline in investment in the city due to the increased difficulty of entering Jerusalemand to the risk of violence and disorder developing there.
A sharp deterioration of the infrastructure and municipal services resulting fromdeclining financial resources to support or improve them.
A significant decline in economic activities and diminishing development opportunitieswill result in higher unemployment and higher poverty rates.
Increasing ethnic and national conflicts within the city area due to emergence ofeconomic disparities between groups (Garb, 2004).
Finally, the dismemberment of the Palestinian space will clearly lead to social instability, the
first enemy of peace. It will make impossible the achievement of such central political goals as
Jerusalem becoming the vital capital of the Palestinian state. Isolated from its natural reserve, it
is very difficult to imagine it serving a meaningful national role. Clearly, it does not take into
account the need for spatial continuity of future Palestinians State, as a basis for political, social,and economic stability. Israel seems unmindful that without stability there can be no security
(Rand, 2004).
A Weakened Jerusalem
The decision to build the wall, when combined with the effects of the closure policies in placesince 1993, which bar the entry of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to Jerusalem, have
transformed Jerusalem from a service, commercial and administrative center of the West Bank
and Gaza into an isolated city barely surviving and dependent on its local residents. The closureand wall polices have ended the citys centrality and weakened the economy. Both effects are
evident in this reality: tourists have virtually stopped coming to East Jerusalem; most majorhotels are shuttered; tour guides services and tour bus companies have experienced catastrophic
reductions; and general unemployment now tops 25%.
In contrast to the impoverished situation of Arab East Jerusalem, Israel has provided generoussupport for Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and its surroundings by providing social,
economic, housing and infrastructure services that ensure the status of Jerusalem as the capital
of Israel. However, in spite of these efforts of support, Jerusalem (East and west combined) isthe second poorest city in Israel ( Khamaisi, 1997, 2003). Instead of Israel developing policies
and mechanisms for enhancing and enabling development in the city, it is establishing a
separation wall that increases the weakness of the city and deepens poverty in it more and more.Divided physically, ethnically, and nationally within and outside the wall, economic and
commercial activity between the city and its surroundings is effectively severed, and the city is
isolated from the suburbs and outlying communities, which have nourished it. It is becoming a
border city absent of hinterland and catchments area.
Fragmentation and Urban Demise
Both Palestinian and Israeli interests lie in having a Jerusalem that is safe, open and stable.However, in the present reality, the city is divided into neighborhoods along national/ethnic,
economic and social group lines. Building the wall will harden the internal fragmentation within
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
20/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 20 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
East and West Jerusalem and deepen the division between the citys sectors. Jerusalem as anisolated divided city cannot create an image or conditions that can attract visitors or investors to
the city. Ultimately, even its residents will be exhausted by the reality of isolation and will
attempt to emigrate, further weakening the city dramatically.
The End of Metropolitan Jerusalem
In spite of the conflict that has been waged over the control of Jerusalem since the middle of thetwentieth century, the spatial development of Jerusalem and its surrounding villages created an
urban continuity that extended from Bethlehem in the south to Birzeit in the north, via Ramallah
and Al-Bireh. The independent centers, the towns and the satellite sub-centers and villagesaround Jerusalem have all developed as a result of population increases based on the natural
growth rate (birth-rate minus death rate) as well as on positive immigration. Since the
beginning of the 1980s, Israel has sought to impose the concept of a single metropolis on
Jerusalem and its surroundings, using geopolitical rather than functional considerations. That
approach has clearly failed. Moreover, an examination of the realities of life in Jerusalemreveals that a split, dual metropolis has evolved because of geopolitical domination (Khamaisi,
1997). However, the separation wall will thwart even this dual reality in the urban and
functional network of the Jerusalem metropolis. The Israelis may think that their free mobilitywill remain uninterrupted by the wall and that they will succeed in linking the surrounding
Jewish settlements with Israeli Jerusalem. However, their plans deny the Palestinians a similar
mobility. Such plans will result in an apartheid model that will give rise to forces that will
eventually curtail the free movement of Israelis.
Now, concerning the Palestinian part of the dual metropolis, barring movement between the East
Jerusalem and the major secondary urban centers surrounding the city (such as Ar-Ram,
Ramallah, and Bethlehem) and between these and their the rural sub-centers (such as BeerNabala, Anata, Al-Ezariyeh) will undermine the functional structure of metropolitan Arab
Jerusalem. This state of affairs began appearing after the closure of Jerusalem in 1993 and thetrend towards fragmentation will be even more pronounced with construction of the wall. The
evolving integral relationship between the urban centers in metropolitan Jerusalem has become
distorted. The distortion will deepen to the point of preventing any possibility of spatial and
functional mobility.
This entire means that the wall will undermine the evolution of Jerusalem as a metropolitan
center, in accordance with neither Israeli nor Palestinian concepts.
Return to a Peripheries Reality
Until 1967, Jerusalem was identified by the Israelis as a peripheral border area and was accorded
generous governmental support to attract Jewish residents and Israeli investors. Since 1967,
Israel has sought to elevate the status of the city by adopting a policy of expanding Israeli
settlements around it, transferring governmental institutions to it and creating jobs and
development opportunities. However, since 1993 Jerusalem has begun reverting to its peripheralstatus. Construction of the wall will accelerate this regression. In the end, Jerusalem will lose its
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
21/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 21 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
centrality and suffer the consequences of the division imposed by the wall. It will become anIsraeli and Palestinian border town.
Demolition of Houses and Confiscation of Lands
The route of the Wall runs across Palestinian lands and through Palestinian neighborhoods. Part
of this barrier is a wall and other parts are a fence. The fence sections are expected to involve the
confiscation of vast areas of Palestinian lands. The wall sections, which are primarilyconstructed in built-up established neighborhoods, will necessitate the demolition of buildings
and the confiscation of scarce lands allocated for Palestinian expansion. Furthermore, security
roads are either planned or already built on both sides of the wall or fence, increasing the widthof the lands to be allocated for construction of the barrier to 50-80 meters. In other words, the
will lead to:
Confiscation of private Palestinian lands. Demolition of buildings, thereby creating tragedies for their owners and their
families and contributing to the growing housing crisis. Reduction of the already scarce areas allocated for construction in the Palestinian
neighborhoods.
Creation of obstacles to the expansion of already established buildings that standadjacent to the barrier path.
The pain that arises from the confiscation of lands and the demolition of homes cannot be erased
from the memories of the Palestinian families. This memory passes from fathers to sons and
remains engraved in the minds of children until a time comes for them to seek revenge and
regain what had been confiscated. This means persistence of the conflict and continuinginstability. The wall will not bring peace (Khamaisi, 2005; Marom, 2004).
Persistence of the Majority-Minority Relationship and Continuation of the Citizenship vs.Residency Dilemma
After Israels occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, it effectively created a
separation between the demography and the space (the population and the land). While on the
one hand Israel extended its sovereignty over the land, it accorded Palestinians residing in East
Jerusalem only residency status, not Israeli citizenship. Absent a wall, if the PalestinianJerusalemites were granted citizenship and the enfranchisement it carries with it, given their
higher growth rate they would soon become an Arab majority in the capital of the Jewish state.
To absolutely ensure against that possibility, the Jerusalem Envelop is configured along a paththat minimizes the number of Palestinians on its western side, which Israeli intends to annex.
Therefore, construction of the wall must be seen in the context of strategies designed to ensure aJewish majority in Jerusalem and in greater Israel, strategies that deprive Palestinian residents ofcitizenship status even if they live under Israeli sovereignty. In the long term, it is anticipated
that Palestinian Jerusalemites who find themselves annexed to the Israeli side of the wall will
become dissatisfied with their minority plight and Israeli repression and will seek to emigrateback to the Palestinian side or out of the country. Either way, their departure will further ensure
a Jewish majority on Israeli turf (Garb, 2004).
Some may think that the present discrepancy in the economic level between the relatively well
off Israelis and the definitely impoverished Palestinians will lead to a wave of Palestinianemigration to the Israeli side of the wall, especially in the short and medium terms, thereby
increasing the Palestinian population there even though the immigrants status will remain as
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
22/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 22 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
residents. However, in the long term, the residency issue and Israels border controls will restrictmassive migration.
Social Implications of the Separation Wall: Social Dismemberment, Community
Marginalization, Rising Poverty Levels, Housing Crises, and Increasing Crime.
The Breakup of Societys Basic Units. The wall will lead to community and societal
dismemberment. The wall passes through rural neighborhoods in Jerusalem, which areundergoing an urbanization and urbanism phase. These communities are comprised of clans and
extended families that will be separated by the wall. This will effectively end close relationships
between these groups and shatter the continuity of the social and cultural fabric. An example ofthis dismemberment can be found in Arab-Sawahreh village. Its eastern and western sectors are
now separated by the wall thus barring social continuity among members of the principal family
of this community.
Since the partition of Jerusalem in 1948, the city has suffered from community marginalizationin spite of the political and spiritual centrality that it enjoys. Community marginalization means
preventing or inhibiting the development of community structures that lead to the emergence of
elites and community leaders capable of advancing the society toward higher development andstability. Under British Mandate, Jerusalem attracted the Palestinian elites; it became the central
city in mandatory Palestine. However, after the catastrophe of 1948, the upper and middle
classes fled or were expelled, many seeking refuge in Amman. Indeed, this was the case was in
all other Palestinian cities (Khamaisi, 2004).
Over the next twenty years, Jerusalem continued to evolve as an urban community, rudderless,
essentially without a significant cadre of elite or middle class leadership. In 1967, following the
occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem, the city experienced some notable growth butdisproportionately in the lower middle and working classes. These years also saw an urbanism
process beginning in the villages that were annexed to the borders of Jerusalem. However, thesetrends did not create a cohesive integrated civic and urban society capable of enhancing and
empowering Jerusalems community development. As a result, no elite or influential middle
social classes evolved in Jerusalem in the last half of the twentieth century to form a leadership
force for developing the city. Moreover, the community marginalization of Jerusalem hasobviously worsened since Israels 1993 closure of the city to Palestinians from the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip. And even though the Oslo Accords contributed to the return from abroad of
Palestinian social and political elites to the Palestinian territories, especially Ramallah, very fewchose to reside in a crowded and impoverished East Jerusalem. This continued the
transformation of Jerusalem from a central city expected and required to play a pioneering rolein the network of the Palestinian cities and villages into a secondary inferior city comprised ofresidential neighborhoods with ever less economic, cultural, political or administrative
significance. This situation had direct negative impacts on investment, creation of job
opportunities, attraction of social elites and the development of a cultural life. Hence, the socialreality of East Jerusalem continued to deteriorate.
Construction of the wall will only lead to an exacerbation of community marginalization. It will
further diminish all forms of development and increase the social decline of the city and the
suffering of its people. Cut off from its network of suburbs and secondary centers, the city willlose even more of the few remaining elite and middle classes. They will seek residence in cities
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
23/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 23 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
that offer them business and cultural opportunities and freedom of movement. Jerusalem willcontinue to decline.
Exacerbation of the Housing Crisis. One of the central Israeli motives for building the wall is an
Israeli demographic goal of minimizing the Palestinian population so that Arabs cannot exceedone third of the population of Jerusalem. In order to achieve this geo-demographic and
geopolitical goal, the Israeli authorities adopted a policy of land and housing planning that
effectively eliminated housing opportunities to meet the needs of the East Jerusalemitecommunity. The obvious effect is a housing crisis, which is characterized by a) a shortage of
residential units that meet the needs of young couples; b) deteriorated building and living
conditions; c) greater housing density, including increases in the number of persons per roomand more residential units per dunums; d) unacceptable infrastructure conditions in
neighborhoods which experience population growth but no increase or provision of
infrastructure services.
With the beginning of the planning and construction of the wall, some Jerusalem neighborhoodsare already experiencing a worsening of the housing crisis. Here are some of the main factors,
which brought this about:
1)A population increase due to the return to Jerusalem of Palestinians with Jerusalem ID
cards but who were residing outside the city. They are returning in order to ensure their
right to residency there and to receive the Israeli welfare and entitlement benefits that an
East Jerusalem residency conveys. This influx of returnees has not been matched by an
increase in available proper housing. Thus, families are forced to live under highly denseliving conditions and in apartments where appropriate services were unavailable. Indeed,
some families have moved into the Old City in ground level shop and storage vault areas,
which as residences offer very small and primitive living conditions (Khamaisi, 2003).
2) An increase demand for housing within the barrier wall in Jerusalem has lead to asharp increase in real estate prices and rental rates, even though much of the available
housing is in fact inappropriate from a public health standpoint. On the other hand, the
exodus of Palestinians returning to Jerusalem and the fragmentation of the Jerusalem
area has caused real estate prices in the areas outside the wall to plummet. This has leadto enormous losses for some families who have spent their life savings investing in their
homes.
3) Construction of the wall was not accompanied by an increased supply of housing. To
the contrary, demand increased while supply remained very limited. This reality has leadto various community crises, feuds within families, increased housing density and it hasexacerbated the deteriorated situation of the Arab neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, in the face of this housing crisis, ad hoc substandard construction is increasing at analarming rate to provide shelter for Palestinian families who wish to live within the wall. Some
of the constructions are essentially shacks or incomplete stone buildings inhabited by poor
needy families. All of this exacerbates the housing problem and creates flimsy, provisional
neighborhoods (Marom, 2004).
Formation of Poverty Neighborhoods. The wall represents a physical, social and psychological
separator that intensifies the problems of discrimination. Arab neighborhoods are dismembered
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
24/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 24 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
and the populations within them have only restricted mobility and are confines in neighborhoodsthat lack appropriate housing opportunities, modern services and a developed infrastructure. The
wall not only dismembers the Palestinian Jerusalemite neighborhoods and divides them into two
halves; they will also live under conditions of a neglected infrastructure, stringent security and
constant surveillance. Those neighborhoods will be transformed from integrated neighborhoodsenjoying free spatial mobility into divided scattered neighborhood that attracts illegal
immigration. Most Palestinian Jerusalemite neighborhoods will become poverty pockets
inhabited mostly by the lower middle and lower classes. Israel cannot be relied upon to doanything positive to alleviate the situation.
Exacerbating Crime The appearance of substandard ad hoc construction, the housing crisis, the
deterioration of the economic situation, and the community and spatial dismemberment all
represent fertile grounds for increasing crime rates. The spread of drugs, crime and sexual
assaults in some Arab neighborhoods could have been checked and confronted had development
opportunities materialized and had a national and local authority managed communitydevelopment. However, construction of the separation wall will isolate Jerusalem neighborhoods
from the Palestinian political and economic center, and that will prevent devising and
implementing plans in the Palestinian Jerusalemite neighborhoods. Furthermore, the positiveimmigration, the deformed urbanization process, the Israeli governmental policy that seeks to
reduce the population, and the treatment of those citizens from a security standpoint which
views them as a fifth column do not create a climate for social progress. All these components
will lead to an increase in the crime rate in the Palestinian Jerusalemite neighborhoods and will
nurture a return to dependence on family and clan affiliations for protection. None of this isconducive to the evolution of a modern civil society.
Some Palestinian criminals in the West Bank territories will seek refuge from in the Jerusalemiteneighborhoods inside the wall where territorial authorities cannot pursue them. Doubtless they
will commit crimes, especially in the Palestinian enclave neighborhoods where there is nocentral authority to preserve the individual and community security.
The Wall as a Killing Zone
The ramifications of the wall do not only affect the location where it is constructed. A security
belt that confiscates Palestinian lands on both sides surrounds it. This security system will be
operated according to regulations that will make it impossible to cross the barrier. Whoeverapproaches the barrier zone will be arrested or shot. In order to protect their lives most
Palestinians will avoid approaching the wall. Thus, a large area inside the PalestinianJerusalemite neighborhoods will remain isolated and void of development. The killing incidentsthat occurred in Berlin in the early 1960s after the wall was erected will happen in Jerusalem.
That poses a serious threat to stability. The wall must be dealt with not only on the basis of
being a vertical line that prohibits mobility and movement, but also as a broad security zonecomprised of multiple obstacle components, built on vast confiscated acreage which will prevent
development of neighborhoods and threaten the lives of innocent people.
Transformation of Jerusalem into a City Lacking Stability and Security
In the collective Palestinian memory, Jerusalem is as an indivisible part of their heritagepast,
present and future. This mindset prevents them from accepting any reality that will not allow
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
25/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching hegemony page 25 of 27Rassem Khamaisi
them to interact with this heritage, live in it, and access their holy shrines. For this reason, theywill resist and struggle against anything that prevents them from realizing their personal,
national and religious aspirations in the city. Undoubtedly, the wall denies them this possibility.
Inevitably, there will be resistance operations that will threaten the security and stability of all
Jerusalemites, Palestinians and Israelis alike. Moreover, the deteriorated social and economicrealities in Jerusalem will lead to an increase in violence in the city, some of which will take the
form of resistance actions against the Israelis. This will complicate the citizens lives, especially
when confrontations are between Israelis and Palestinians who belong to the same economicallyand socially deteriorated classes and who feel threatened by the other and believe that the other
is competing with them over limited resources.
The loss of security and stability will lead to social, economic and urban destruction of the city,
and this will serve the interests of neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis.
Conclusion
Today the development of urban fabric of Jerusalem exists under numbers of walls and barriers.
These walls and barriers include planning, geo-political, Ethno-national, socio-economic, socio-
cultural and physical. The physical wall is crown and merges most of the barriers. The urbanplanning strategies and policies create the arena for creating and building the walls. This paper
has attempted to present an overview of the development of the urban fabric of Jerusalem, the
spatial planning policies as tools for achieving geo-political and demographic matters and it
implications and the ramifications and effects of the wall on the fabric of Jerusalem and its
surroundings. It has argued that the wall is not a mere physical barrier that the Israelis believewill preserve their security, but rather a barrier with psychological, geopolitical, geo-
demographic, economic and social consequences that will threaten the citys stability. Beside
that, there exist Israeli partisan urban planning contributes for reducing the instability inJerusalem area (Bollens, 2000). The paper presents the walls effects on the citys fabric are
multiple and that, they will complicate the geopolitical and urban reality, including the servicesand infrastructure in the city. The unilateral imposition of the wall, shape and ramifications on
the Israeli and Palestinian sides only worsens the walls impact on the citys fabric and threatens
its growth and development. It will even transform Jerusalem into a divided, fragmented city
without supporting environs; it will create and enhance secondary centers that will compete withit and contribute continually to its further demise. So, under the current circumstances,
Jerusalem will be peripheral for Arabs and Jews. In order to ensure the survival and
development of Jerusalem alternative urban planning concepts and policies, beside othergeopolitical arrangements and solutions must be found. Such concepts and solutions must
contribute to the stability and sustainable development of this Holy City, so dear to the hearts ofmillions of people.
8/3/2019 Jerusalem Al-Quds History and Walls
26/27
Jerusalem/Al-Quds Between Two Walls: the Urban Planning Strategy and Policy for reaching
Recommended