|
|
February 15, 2002
Jerusalem can't be divided
Unity may be hard, but splitting the city unthinkable, says expert.
PAT JOHNSON REPORTER
Throughout history, there have been numerous divided cities. Berlin,
Belfast, Nicosia - all have their own characteristics, but none
has been so complicated as Jerusalem, according to an expert in
the field who came to Vancouver recently.
Prof. Shlomo Hasson, head of the Institute of Urban and Regional
Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, spoke at the Norman
Rothstein Theatre Feb. 5 in front of an overflow crowd of 450. It
was the first annual Dr. Robert Rogow Memorial Lecture. Hasson's
presentation was titled Whose Jerusalem: The Geopolitical Struggle
Between Israelis and Palestinians.
The Temple Mount, site of Judaism's holiest site, as well as Islam's
third holiest, is so entangled as to be indivisible, something that
has confounded both sides for centuries. But the city of Jerusalem
is just as inextricably entwined, said Hasson. Jews and Arabs -
not to mention Christians and others - live side by side either
in the same or adjacent neighborhoods that cannot reasonably be
divided without creating a patchwork of dysfunctional islands.
What to do with Jerusalem has been a difficult question and Israeli
opinions tend to fall within three categories.
The first is that it be run in a conventional way as an Israeli
municipality with a sizable Arab minority. This was the assumption
made by most people when the city was reunited under Israeli rule.
But, Hasson said, Jerusalem traditionally had been a shared city
(though not between 1948 and 1967). So the efforts of Israel to
assert the sort of control over Jerusalem that it had over more
ordinary cities with minority populations proved non-functional.
In response, said the professor, a second concept evolved, which
reflected the shared nature of the city. It remained a united city
under Israeli control but, in a functional sense, there was shared
sovereignty, with responsibility for many services for Arab citizens
devolved to Arab authorities, particularly after the Oslo Accords.
As Hasson pointed out, Arab Jerusalemites are in a unique situation
in the world. They are citizens of an Israeli city, with voting
rights in municipal elections, but are also governed by the Palestinian
Authority and vote in PA elections as well. This is the status quo
and, despite a year and a half of the intifada, little has changed
in Jerusalem. There is comparatively little terrorism in the city
compared with other Israeli centres and violence there tends to
be perpetrated by non-residents of the city. The Arab and Jewish
authorities in Jerusalem continue to run the city, accommodating
each other's needs to greater or lesser extents.
The third concept Hasson discussed took that accommodation to an
extreme, articulating the idea preferred by some Palestinians that
Jerusalem be a capital city to two nations.
As the situation in Israel has spiralled into violence over the
past two years, any movement toward this third option has been stunted
and Hasson pointed out that, should violence escalate within Jerusalem,
it is possible that authorities will return to a less flexible model
- the first concept, in which Israel will rule the city more solidly.
Unfortunately, Hasson said, this is not a time that allows much
thoughtful reflection on which concept would be most advantageous.
Real life events are dictating much of what happens.
The one thing Israelis and Palestinians agree on, Hasson quipped,
is that the Vatican is wrong to suggest an "internationalized"
city under United Nations control.
"We will never accept internationalization," he said.
Another factor in the mix is the ultra-Orthodox/secular split among
Jewish Jerusalemites. Palestinians have a net migration to Jerusalem,
in addition to a healthy natural birth rate. Though Israelis, too,
have a positive growth rate, the Jewish population, as a proportion
of the total, is decreasing, in part because those Jews who are
not ultra-Orthodox are leaving the city to escape the dictates of
religious regulation. Because of these combined factors, the Jewish
population has decreased to 67 per cent of the total from 76 per
cent in 1967.
Predictably, Hasson had no pat solutions to this complex matter.
He did note, however, that Israel might learn something from the
United States' current battle in Afghanistan. The Americans did
not only attack the Taliban, but they emboldened an indigenous alternative
in the form of the Northern Alliance. Implicitly, Hasson seemed
to suggest that Israel should be looking beyond Yasser Arafat and
the PLO.
"Do we, the Israelis, have a Northern Alliance?" he asked.
Hasson's appearance here was the first in what is planned to be
an annual event honoring the memory of Dr. Robert Rogow. Rogow was
a scholar whose specialty was labor relations. He was on the faculty
of Simon Fraser University from 1966 until his retirement in 1995.
His work included studies on the history of the trade union movement
and he had a strong interest in Jewish studies and biblical history.
His wife, Dr. Sally Rogow, and family endowed the memorial lecture
after he passed away in January 1998. His wife and several friends
and colleagues spoke of his immense contributions to the community
and academia.
^TOP
|
|
