40-year study of Jerusalem highlights urgent challenges facing next mayor.
By PEGGY CIDORfaces of Jerusalem 248.88(photo credit: Courtesy)
In just a few days, Jerusalem residents will decide if they want to extend their experience of a haredi mayor, give a successful hi-tech businessman a chance, dare to vote into office an oligarch whose real intentions are still too vague to grasp or cast their ballot in favor of the city's "king of Bohemia."
Whoever it is, the next mayor will have to handle one of the most complex and sensitive cities in the world. Besides charisma, dedication and perhaps a great deal of luck, a deep and comprehensive knowledge of what this city is about wouldn't hurt his success.
As it happens, the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies is releasing a new publication entitled 40 Years in Jerusalem, a book (in Hebrew) that embodies extensive research on various aspects of the city, the result of more than two years of intensive work by some of the foremost Jerusalem scholars and academics. One might be tempted to consider the new book as the ultimate tool with which to fathom what is at stake for the individual candidates.
The not-so-secret wish of the book's creators is that it will not remain just another book on Jerusalem: it is indeed a book which, for the first time, covers and looks into every corner of the meaning of this city - from a civil, social, political, religious and economic perspective.
So how does Jerusalem look in this monumental publication by the JIIS? After a first reading of the more than 600 pages, including exceptionally beautiful photos and maps and a huge number of details and facts, the city emerges as an outstanding one, though jeopardized by too many obstacles and problems. Those who might hold the keys to its success too often carefully hide behind great declarations but fail to support the largest city of the country which, as explained time and again by all its leaders - from Teddy Kollek down to the current mayor and candidates Meir Porush and Nir Barkat - needs government support and cannot rely solely on its own income.
In his introduction to the book, Dr. Israel Kimhi asks, "Is it for this kind of city that we prayed?" He explains that the goals and the projects Israel had in mind regarding the city upon its reunification were not achieved - not as a really united city, not as a city with which residents are satisfied and not as an attractive city for the younger generation - not to mention the disparity in services available in west Jerusalem compared to the eastern side.
Kimhi concludes that while the haunting beauty of the city and its status as a focus for the Jewish people around the world are unshaken, it is clear that the city needs a new revolution: one that would come following a political settlement, that would give the city back its major importance for the Palestinians as well, and to assure its centrality socially, economically and culturally, as it deserves.
Now 41 years after the Six Day War - which overnight increased the city's land area threefold and incorporated almost 70,000 Christian and Muslim residents - it seems, at least according to some of the major findings in the book, that no one still fully understands what the real needs of this city are. Except, perhaps, the late Kollek, who repeatedly insisted that "Without government support and budgets, Jerusalem will not stand."
And it was Kollek who warned during the euphoric period immediately after the Six Day War that "No matter what, the Arabs of Jerusalem will always consider themselves to be living under conquest."
Unlike anyone else, Kollek, who in all his years as mayor tried to look at the people behind the statistics and the ideas (and it is perhaps no coincidence that at least two of the mayoral candidates, Porush and Barkat, keep bringing up his name and even try to convince voters that they will follow in his footsteps), understood what some Israeli politicians realized only many years later - that absorbing so many non-Jews into the capital was perhaps not the best thing for Jerusalem.
One thing is certain, according to the findings of 40 Years in Jerusalem: the main objective of all Jerusalem's administrations - to maintain the demographic proportion of 1967 (70% Jews to 30% Arabs) - has failed, with some real fears that even a slight majority is no longer assured in the next 15 years.
On that issue, perhaps the simplest and best comment was provided by city council member Yehoshua Pollack (United Torah Judaism), who said a few months ago that "If all the players - including the private sector and the government - do not join forces to bolster the city, it will ultimately become a backwater and an insignificant locale of impoverished Arabs and haredim."
Even Mayor Uri Lupolianski, not especially known for harshly criticizing of the government, has said on numerous occasions that "The leaders of the country always speak highly of Jerusalem but do very little as far as funding is concerned."
LIKE A distant voice answering the echo of the numerous festivals that celebrated the 40th anniversary of the reunification, the book's comprehensive text sheds light on every aspect of daily life, as well as high-level plans and considerations, and comes out with a rather astonishing fact: In most fields, there is little - if any - connection between the political leaders' declarations and the facts on the ground. Some 330 pieces of legislation concerning Jerusalem were passed by the various government leaders between 1975 and 2005, yet, according to the findings of the book, their actual implementation has always lagged behind.
In their article "Government Decisions on Jerusalem," researchers Guy Galili and Reuven Merhav reveal that Menachem Begin's first government voted on the highest number of decisions concerning the city: 74, at an average of 17.5 decisions per year. Strangely enough, the lowest harvest was Begin's second Likud government, between August 1981 and October 1983: only 11 decisions on the city of Jerusalem.
Another interesting finding is that there has been no real difference between left- and right-wing governments - both have had an average of 10 decisions on Jerusalem per year.
Merhav and Galili group all the decisions according to their different character: mostly declarative (i.e., with no specific influence, usually without additional budget provision) specifically on east Jerusalem (vis-a-vis the struggle regarding its Jewish character), development and plots of land, industries and trade, including benefits and advantages for the population, education and culture, and security.
One clear example of such a declarative decision was made during the first Yitzhak Rabin government on January 1976, which stated that "…all the action plans for the city are aimed at raising the Zionist achievement as required in the face of the last political attack launched against Zionism" (two weeks earlier, the UN had recognized the PLO as a representative). This was a typical decision that had no other aim than a national declaration in reaction to that UN decision, mobilizing the city of Jerusalem as a major tool in the struggle against anti-Zionism, say the writers.
Three years later, in May 1979, the first Begin government approved a decision stating that "the government declares that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Israel and the city is one and not to be divided …"
But declarative decisions were not always devoid of results. It is worth noting that in 1975, in reaction to the UN decision to equate Zionism with racism, the government declared that the "true Zionist answer" to that decision would result in "an enlargement of the Jewish settlement in the eastern part of Jerusalem (among other projects, the creation of a yeshiva in the Muslim Quarter). In May 1995, to mark 28 years of reunification, Rabin's second government voted for "the reinforcement of the status of Jerusalem as a reunited city, as an eternal and unique capital for the State of Israel, and will fight against any attempt to harm this status… The government will see that the city is economically strengthened, for the benefit of all its residents, Jewish and members of all other faiths as well."
All of the governments between 1975 and 2005 tried to reinforce the city, say the writers. Some of the decisions did strengthen it, such as that to create the Jerusalem Education Administration, which in fact became a district in the Education Ministry (the number of pupils in kindergartens, primary and high schools in Jerusalem is the highest in the country: more than 220,000) and the creation of the Jerusalem Development Authority.
"But," point out Merhav and Galili, "there are also weak points," such as the fact that every new government "rediscovered" the city and its special needs. Since 1975, some 21 ministerial and committees were created to "deal" with Jerusalem's needs, and the Jerusalem Affairs Ministry is a typical case of this bizarre situation. The portfolio was created and abolished time and again, according to the different coalitions' needs, while its budget never went beyond the ridiculous sum of NIS 3 million. Most of the time, the person in charge spent his time trying - mostly unsuccessfully and with no authority or funding - to coordinate decisions and actions among the Knesset, the government and the municipality of Jerusalem.
SO WHAT is Jerusalem's real status?
"When Israel made its incursion into east Jerusalem in June 1967," says Ora Ahimeir, executive director of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies and the driving force behind the book, "it was a small, neglected, old-fashioned city. The Jordanians hadn't developed it and, in fact, all their efforts and support went into developing Amman, which turned into a very developed and modern city and capital. Jerusalem was overlooked.
On the other hand, the Israeli part of the city in 1967 was already very much developed, despite the fact that it was a small city at the end of a road. It was an academic center, the seat of the government with all its components - there was no comparison.
It is true that the infrastructures were the same since before 1948; nevertheless, the reunification has never reached the same level on both sides, even though, of course, there has been tremendous development and improvement in the quality and level of life of the Arab residents as well," says Ahimeir.
She adds that, in fact, there is a paradox: "In one of the chapters of the book, Avner Rothenberg, who for almost 30 years has held a high rank in the culture department of the municipality, points out that Jerusalem exports more than any other city: we have the best artistic schools, cinema, theater and music, but all the graduates have to leave to the center [Tel Aviv] to make a living, since there is no place for them here - this is intolerable and unacceptable, but that's the way it has been for years."
Yet at the same time, writes Rothenberg, nothing has been done by any municipal administration to develop even the smallest form of cultural life and creativity for the east part.
In another vein, Ahimeir points out that the research in the book shows that Jerusalem has, over the years, played a key role in developing new ideas and projects. "In fact, we see that whatever happens here quickly becomes a kind of test lab for Israeli society as a whole. Take for example the neighborhood administrations, which were created here. It is a unique experience, a model to be studied and applied everywhere. The first to take interest in the project was again - not surprisingly - Teddy Kollek, who created the Jerusalem auxiliary society for neighborhood administrations, and in the 1970s started a process of decentralization and strengthening of the democratic forces among the residents," says Ahimeir.
"The city also hosts the largest number of NGOs, which are responsible for the propagation of progressive ideas and ideals related to civil society and democratic goals. There is no such thing in any other city in Israel."
MUCH HAS been said about the residents of Jerusalem: a high percentage are poor - whether they are haredim (about 30 percent of the Jewish population, while they represent barely 7% for the whole country) or Arabs.
Among the third part of the city's population are many longtime residents who are still caught in the poverty cycle; new olim who are too old to get themselves out of a precarious standard of living; and young couples who can only dream of renting a half-decent home in the city, let alone buying an affordable one.
But here again, according to the findings expressed in the book, solutions are available. "Jerusalem has many advantages; the only thing is to develop them and increase the number of residents who can enjoy it," says Ahimeir. "We have specific kinds of hi-tech that do not exist elsewhere, such as the biotechnologies, which are very strong here and could be developed more."
In his research on ways to encourage and develop new strategies for the economic growth of the city, Dan Kaufman writes, "The economy of the city has seen a decreasing number of participants in the country's workforce for the last two decades, while the number of poor has increased. This is in total contrast to the situation prevailing in Jerusalem in the first 10 years after the 1967 war, when we observed a real improvement in the economic situation of its residents. The low number of working people and the high number of civil servants, many of whom earn only the minimum wage, contribute to this situation," says Kaufman.
He adds, "One of the first goals must be to increase the employment of haredim; promote the biotechnologies connected especially with the high academic potential existing in and around the Hebrew University; develop the new media (such as the animation film industry) and computer graphic media, easily achievable through the high number of art students in the various art schools of the city; and brand Jerusalem as a leading academic city, while increasing the number of students studying here."
Ahimeir adds that a survey conducted recently by the institute revealed that most of the students who came to the local academic schools wanted to stay here after they graduate. "But again, the lack of jobs and the unaffordable housing ultimately drive them out of here."
40 YEARS in Jerusalem opens with a long chapter by Dr. Maya Choshen on the changes in the city's population, followed by Prof. Sergio Della Pergola's "Demography, Planning and Policy between 2000 and 2020." In this article he writes, "Jerusalem doesn't have just one owner: the city in which different and even totally opposed models of life - from the ultrareligious to life according to the ideals of civil society. In any planning for the future, one must respect the fragile balance required to preserve such a multifaceted culture. Some demographic processes preserve such a culture, while others tend to jeopardize it. A healthy municipal policy should take this situation into account to preserve and improve all the residents' different and various interests."
"Fortunately for Jerusalem, some plans to transform it into some kind of a Disneyland city - such as the erstwhile plan to erect the 'center of the universe' tower on King George Avenue or the planned 'university of peace' on Armon Hanatziv's heights in a 10-floor dovish figure - have failed," says architect and historian of the city's architecture David Kroyanker. He foresees the success of other urban plans: the relocation of the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design in the Russian Compound and the renovation of Jaffa Road thanks to the light rail project.
ANOTHER CHAPTER deals with the city's haredim. "One of the Israeli government's duties is to see that young yeshiva students receive professional training that will allow them to step into the labor market. This is the only way to avoid the city's ongoing impoverishment and the best way to lower the tension between the ultra-Orthodox and the secular," write Ya'acov Lupo and Nitzan Chen in the chapter dedicated to the city's haredi population.
"This is a crucial moment," add the two researchers, "for if the young generation in haredi society who decide to go to work do not find a supporting hand to facilitate a smooth entry into that world, then this society will close back into itself, and we will lose an extraordinary chance to bring change into the model of surviving only through political pressure."
Those are only a few of the conclusions and proposals expressed by the different scholars who did the in-depth research for the book.
"The institute is a tool in the administration's and the mayor's hands," concludes Ahimeir. "That was initially the reason behind its creation in the 1970s by Teddy Kollek, who was generous and self-confident enough to understand the benefit of such a highly professional yet totally independent institute."
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
