The role of the media in the Israel/Palestine conflict cannot be underestimated. As an American, the common picture we see of Israel is one of violence and perpetual unrest. We do not get to see the inner-workings of Israeli society. We do not get to hear about the millions of people who crave peace — we only hear about the minority that does its best to prevent peace. But, as we noticed from living in Israel, while terror and fear is certainly part of daily life, it tends to be exaggerated by the American media.
The media has the ability to shape the public’s perception of the world, and it does so by being society’s gatekeeper. The gatekeeper is quite possibly the most important function of journalism. Journalists single-handedly decide what the public will read, see and hear. They decide how important the issue is by where the story is placed in a newspaper or news broadcast. They can decide to not print or broadcast anything about a story at all.
Gatekeepers, though, are humans, and humans have natural biases. With many powerful members of the media being Jewish, it is no surprise that the Israel/Palestine conflict gets a massive amount of coverage and prominent placement in television broadcasts and newspapers. Abe M. Rosenthal, the former editor of the New York Times, was a Jewish man with a pro-Israel stance. As people look back to the “newspapers of record,” Rosenthal’s stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict will continue to influence scholars. But gatekeeper bias doesn’t stop at the gatekeeper himself — in order to get more bylines and more big stories, reporters have to cater to what their editors desire and their editors’ biases. The whole chain of command below Rosenthal, therefore, took a pro-Israel stance whether they liked it or not.
One thing greatly affecting the way newspapers are run is the current crisis the industry faces with the emergence of the Internet. On the Internet, people can receive real-time updated news for free, and newspapers have yet to find a way to make advertising (through which most revenues are earned) profitable. People have developed what is called “banner blindness” and thus do not even notice advertisements on the Internet. The free, more in-depth content on the Internet has led to a decline in subscriptions. As a result, newspapers have cut staff, page size, story size, and international news coverage.
This presents a major problem for the Israel/Palestine conflict. As newspaper organizations continue to cut and cut, they will become more localized — even “hyper-localized.” Soon enough, coverage of international events will be left to a select few wire services that don’t have the space to go in-depth or run human-interest stories. There will be fewer news outlets to offer their opinions and we will end up with the same take on international events.
This doesn’t sound all that bad until you take into account the “if it bleeds, it leads” philosophy. In order to capture viewers or sell papers off the newsstands, news organizations tend to emphasize the guts and gore of the world. Stories about gruesome killings sell more than ones about the economy or new fashion trends, and news organizations know this. By attracting subscribers or viewers, news organizations can then gain more advertisers and pad their pockets.
Now, take these two problems and put them together. What you have is less space devoted to international coverage (which is the content are declining most at newspapers, according to a July study), but an engrained penchant for publishing the guts and gore of the world. When discussing the Israel/Palestine conflict, what you will get from this equation is fewer articles that deal with issues other than terrorist attacks or threats to any sort of stability in the area. Even now, there is a lack of coverage concerning matters of peace (I browsed a month’s worth of articles on CNN.com and found only one dealing with peace) and most stories about Israel will be about a possible attack on or from Iran or terrorist attacks. With less space devoted to international coverage, this is all readers will be likely to see from Israel.
Linda Gradstein of National Public Radio has said it’s already difficult enough to push through human-interest stories about Israel. Peace coverage generally fails to get into the mainstream media because it would change the image the media has concocted about the region. Much of this image rests on the journalism concept of currency.
Currency, in journalism terms, is following an event from beginning to end. This is most common in court trials, where the story will recapitulate the series of events leading up to today’s news at the end of the main story.
With the Israel/Palestine conflict, currency presents two problems. Since most stories about Israel relate to terrorism and death, recounting previous events at the end of each story only serves to embed the idea that Israel is a dangerous place. It doesn’t allow the reader to think maybe this is an isolated incident — by listing everything that happened before (even if years apart), it gives a negative image of the area.
The most significant problem with currency is context — where does one start to recount events? With thousands of years of history, it’s impossible to go all the way back to the beginning of the land to explain the conflict. But with so many uneducated people in the world, a history lesson would go a long way to eliminate potential biases and confusion. By not giving enough context (or too much), though, reporters run the risk of being tagged as an Israeli or Palestinian sympathizer, depending on the circumstances.
Assumed bias is difficult to avoid with such an emotional topic, especially when people don’t understand the true meaning of “balance and fairness.” Most people expect that “balance and fairness” means equal representation of both sides in a story, which is not the case. In a story where three Israelis are killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber, some sources don’t need to be contacted. For example, there would be no need to speak with a Palestinian about the event — he would say the Israelis got what they deserved, and this would further fan the flames without adding anything of value to the story. At the same time, though, Palestinian sympathizers would say the Western media has once again thwarted them. Still, there is not much a journalist can do to quiet these people.
What then is the role of the media? Clearly there is a large problem facing international news media, as there will be fewer and fewer pages for fewer and fewer staff to devote to such coverage. And, if you’re an international news reporter who needs to get published, you’re going to write about what is traditionally eye-catching — inhumane violence, terrorism, war. As Gradstein mentioned, it’s already hard enough to publish a human-interest story, and it’s only going to get harder given the constraints the news media has to deal with.
The media’s role is generally understood as unbiased observer. The media takes information from various sources, pieces them together in an entertaining and informative way, and then presents them to readers in a logical manner. There is no real room for interpretation, as that would present a sort of bias.
But when you have the pen, when you have the public’s eyes and ears held captive, should you do more, as a journalist, to shape the way the world works? In some ways, journalists accomplish this through editorials. Generally, though, editorials are about more localized or national issues — hardly ever will international events be discussed in an editorial, unless it is giving the American government advice. Therefore, editorial content about the Israel/Palestine conflict is absent unless the U.S. is involved.
There are hardly any stories about terrorist attacks in Israel that mention peace negotiations. It seems to me that such a mention would flow logically in such a story, yet the connection is rarely made. In fact, had second the bulldozer attack not occurred, I doubt I would have even known it was on the same day Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert were meeting to discuss peace. There was no coverage about such a meeting before the attack, only a mention about it after the attack — but no separate story for the meeting was published.
It could very well be that the media has no business sticking its nose in peace talks. Obviously, publishing peace negotiations or progress (if one were lucky enough to retrieve such information) could derail such negotiations or progress. But, at the same time, it could also expedite them. Unfortunately, there are not enough historical examples to point to one direction or the other.
Maybe, though, that means it’s time to start writing about peace in the Middle East instead of violence — however infrequent both of them are.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Magen David Adom in Jerusalem—Becca Steinman
By: Becca Steinman
Magen David Adom (MDA for short) is the only ambulance service in Israel. Magen David Adom was created in response to the Arab riots in 1929. Jews living in Palestine during this period of time saw the necessity for a quick and responsive form of medical help. They felt that an ambulance service was the best way to provide quick transportation and treatment. Therefore, Magen David Adom was founded in 1930 in Tel Aviv to meet this need. The MDA building was about the size of a small shack and the only assets that they had were one ambulance full of basic medical supplies (4.) Here, in Tel Aviv was the beginning of what would later become a huge international organization.
Before understanding Magen David Adom in Jerusalem, one must know the facts about this organization. Magen David Adom means “The Red Star of David” in English. MDA is also a part of the International Red Cross. In recent years, MDA has teamed up with the Red Crescent Movement. The Red Crescent Movement is an equal movement to MDA. It too is a part of the International Red Cross. Both MDA and the Red Crescent Movement joined the International Red Cross in 2006 where Hillary Clinton was present to announce the happy occasion. The Red Crescent movement can be found in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Magen David Adom wont put a cross or star on their ambulance because it is a Jewish service and the Red Crescent movement only has a Crescent on their ambulance for the same reason (3.)
Magen David Adom and the Red Crescent Movement follow seven important Fundamental Principals:
- Humanity: To protect human life and ensure respect for all human beings with cooperation and friendship amongst everyone.
- Impartiality: No discrimination of race, religion, class or political opinions.
- Neutrality: No taking sides in any situation
- Independence: They are independent movements and will work alongside other movements but will not necessarily always take the same stance.
- Voluntary Service: No one is hired prompted by desire for gain.
- Unity: There is only 1 Red Cross, MDA or Red Crescent Movement but all are open to everyone in either community or society.
- University: They committed to helping nationally and worldwide with equal status amongst other nations. For example: MDA was part of the Katrina Relief effort in America after Hurricane Katrina.
(3.)
With the facts given above, one is now able to understand the over all function of this organization and can now understand the purpose of the Jerusalem Magen David Adom Station. The location of the Magen David Adom Jerusalem main station is in Romema, Jerusalem and is the third MDA location. This obviously means that it is part of the Jerusalem Region. The first building was erected in 1963, renovated in 1970 and is going to be renovated in 2008. The expansion was supposed to begin in February of 2008 but unfortunately there has not been any work done on it since the placing of the corner stone back in February. This station has a paid staff of about 60 paramedics, 90 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs), 160 ambulances drivers, and 600 constant and solid volunteers. The Jerusalem Region is the largest region in the country, supplying service from the border of the West Bank Territories to the Jordan Valley and from Beit Shemesh to the Dead Sea. This means that there are about 1 million people in this service area. In fact, in 2007, there were about 3,150 volunteers for the Jerusalem region (1.) This region includes stations located in Pisgat Zeev,Makor Chaim, Ofrah, Talmon, Efrat, Tekoa, Gush Etzion, Zur Hadassah, The Old City, Beitar Ilit, Biet Shemesh ,Maaleh Adumim, Givat Zeev, Megilot, and the Knesset. The Jerusalem region also includes blood banks, regional and national dispatching center, regional management, and both volunteer and training departments (2.) It also has the highest amount of blood usage in the country. However, all of the blood that is donated is used 100% in the Israeli Defense force and makes up 95% of the blood found in other Israeli hospitals. The MDA Jerusalem region also supplies service to both of the Hadassah hospitals, Shaare Zedek, and Bikur Holim (5.) These are the three hospitals located in Jerusalem.
An interesting fact is that Magen David Adom has two different kinds of ambulances. One kind is just a regular ambulance with basic medical supplies. These are ambulances that usually just drive around the city and are placed at special events. They are recognized by their colors yellow and red. There are also intensive care ambulances, which are placed in highly populated areas, and areas that need high security and control. They can be defined by their colors white and red. Some of these ambulances can be found around Jerusalem on Ben Yahuda Street and near the Knesset. There are also other vehicles that Jerusalem uses for medical transportation as well. They use motorcycles and have equipped them with a large metal box on the back including the most important life saving necessities. These motorcycles are designed especially for the Jerusalem region because of the Old City. It is very hard to get an ambulance in to specific areas of the Old City so these motorcycles carrying supplies can rush to a scene and get the situation under control until the person can be moved or until an ambulance can get within range of the patient (5.)
One thing that Magen David Adom in Jerusalem places a lot of importance on is strategic placement. MDA Jerusalem region not only strategically places their ambulances, but they have also strategically placed their absorption centers. These are centers where ambulances can be dispatched. MDA Jerusalem recognizes the fact that Jerusalem is a highly populated city full of religious tensions and that an accident or attack can occur at any moment. Therefore they strategically place ambulances at high-risk areas to be able to have faster response times and therefore have a better chance at saving a patients life. The absorption centers have also been erected in strategically chosen locations in order to also provide a quick response time. These absorption centers also have certain areas that they supply service to, and within these areas there are designated hospitals that people are taken to. This is designed to ensure efficiency and accuracy. For example, the response time for an ambulance that arrived on the scene at the attack on July 22nd near King David Hotel was 4 minutes and 23 seconds. That is because there was an ambulance nearby that was strategically placed there since it is considered a high-risk area. MDA posts that position every day and this ensured a quick response time and fortunately saved lives. Nobody was killed in this particular attack (5.)
For people who are interested in volunteering for Magen David Adom, there are various options. However, the most popular option for American’s is Hagshama. Hagshama heavily subsidizes trips to Israel and training for participants. However, anybody who wants to volunteer for MDA must train at the main station in Romema, Jerusalem. Training programs like Hagshama also provide activities like trips to the Old City and Mount Herzl to help participants get a better understanding of Jerusalem. It is definitely a great experience for anybody who is interested in the medical field. No experience is required and everybody does what he or she is comfortable with. All the training is provided during the training sessions in Romema (5.)
So what can be done to help this organization that started out with only one ambulance? Well, for starters, stop donating ambulances! The Jerusalem Region has too many ambulances but not enough medical supplies. Communities like to donate ambulances to Jerusalem because they know that it is the biggest region and they like to see their name on the side of an ambulance. They like to donate something that will be seen by many people. However, what Jerusalem really needs are defibrillators, syringes, heart monitors, and other medical supplies. Communities are not donating these items because they know that people will probably not recognize their name on the side of a defibrillator or heart monitor (5.)
Magen David Adom is very vital to the existence of the Israeli population. The Jerusalem Region is not just the biggest but is also an example to the rest of the organization. Hopefully, with the help of donations and volunteering from other countries and communities, Magen David Adom will be able to continue saving lives every day.
Bibliography
1.) American Friends of Magen David Adom. 7/21/2008/.
http://www.afmda.org/
2.) Magen David Adom in Israel. 7/21/2008. http://www.mdais.org/e/295/.
3.) Magen David Adom in Israel. 7/21/2008. http://www.mdais.org/e/RC_
4.) MDA in Israel. 7/21/2008.
http://www.afmda.org/
5.) Noormid, Michael. Phone Interview. 7/20/2008.
Where Has All the Water Gone?—Eric Dropkin & Elina Fonarev
Where Has All the Water Gone?—Eric Dropkin & Elina Fonarev
With the changing environment and the large population growth that will occur throughout the next few decades the water supply in Israel will become even more insufficient. All over the world ground water tables are falling and depleting at an astonishing rate. This is especially the case in the Middle East and Israel where water is becoming a scarcity. The Sea of Galilee and the aquifers within Jerusalem are approaching the black line. Over the next 50 years, wars will no longer be fought over oil, but water, which is why a case study will be conducted in dealing with the water supply within east and west Jerusalem. It is suggested that the water crisis is not only a natural phenomena but also created by mismanagement. This mismanagement of water in Jerusalem leads to a conflict between east and west Jerusalem inhabitants as well as a general crisis within the city.
If one traces the history of water within Jerusalem one can start to understand the circumstances of the current water crisis and the politics that surround it. In the city of David, around 700 BCE, Hezekiah's tunnel carried water from The Gihon Spring into the city. The Gihon Spring was outside the city walls; therefore, the tunnel was used to generate a constant supply of water to the city, which was especially important during times of siege and war. The tunnel was built in reaction to a fear of assault by the Assyrians. This way, the Assyrians would not be able to acquire water and would be forced to either surrender or travel to farther places to find water and eventually fail in their attempts to take over the city. In reality, there are actually multiple tunnels leading from the spring into the city, but Hezekiah’s is one of the most famous, and was cut acutely by two teams following a natural fault in the rock. Here one sees the most basic politics concerning water during the time of the City of David. Not only was water important to a political situation but also for sustaining life; thus, the tunnel represents how important water was throughout Jerusalem’s history.
The mismanagement of water in Jerusalem began as early as 1516 when the Ottomans conquered Israel. While the establishment of Ottoman rule brought the first water pipes to Jerusalem, the city was not seen as significant and thus the water supply was poorly orchestrated. Suleiman the Magnificent did however establish pipes to feed water to the Sabils (water fountains) throughout the city. These Sabils were an attempt to create a more hospitable environment for pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem as well as to those who had already settled there. Still, most families received little water, and the water that they did obtain came from community wells or cisterns which were filled by rain water. According to Itai Naamat, a student in the Department of Soil and Water Sciences at Hebrew University, the cisterns and wells often pulled water from the same aquifer below the city. Politically, during the time of the Turkish rule, Jerusalem was not seen as significant a place as it is today, thus, there was no money or time put into the up-keep of the city and it remained under unfavorable conditions until the British Mandate.
Following the defeat of the Turks in World War I, the British were given control of Jerusalem and Palestine under a mandate system. During what would later be called the British mandate, Jerusalem was modernized. Roads and hotels were built; this included a modern water system, houses were connected by pipes and running water rather then local community wells. After independence was declared in 1948, west Jerusalem was controlled by Israel, and east Jerusalem was under the authority of Jordan. This division led to the current political tension concerning water within Jerusalem.
The total population of municipal Jerusalem was approximately 680,000 in 2005; of that 680,000, Palestinian residents made up approximately 33 percent of the population in Jerusalem while Jewish residents account for the other 67 percent of the population. Like all of Israel, Jerusalem gets the majority of its water from the Mekorot Water Company. Mekorot Water Company Ltd. is a Government-owned national water supply company. Mekorot produces and supplies roughly two-thirds of the total amount of water used in Israel. As the national water supply company it is responsible for managing the country's water resources, developing new sources, and ensuring regular delivery of water to all localities. This is important because here one can try to distinguish between national policies and policies within Jerusalem. While Mekorot supplies the majority of the water, the Jerusalem municipality is responsible for the up-keep of pipes and infrastructure within both east and west Jerusalem. However, because East Jerusalem has only been under Israeli since 1967 its infrastructure has been slower to change and modernize especially with West Jerusalem’s current mismanagement crisis.
Jerusalem has virtually no water supply of its own and as a result of ineffective water infrastructure and city planning water is becoming more and more sparse. Currently Jerusalem gets the majority of its water from four pipes that stem from the Keneret. Also, it draws a significant portion of water from the Aquifer. Thus, Jerusalem gets little water from these two areas, and as a result of its population growth and mismanagement, the water received is not enough to maintain both agriculture and potable use. According to Mekorot chairman Eli Ronen, “With the rising Jerusalem population and the expansion of the city into new neighborhoods water demand will continue to increase.” Mr. Mazon, Director of joint Jewish and Palestinian Water Committee, suggests that for the last 20 years the city has neglected to carefully manage the water supply and the infrastructure. Therefore, the current water crisis exists today in both east and west Jerusalem.
If one looks at the data associated with water supply and demand within east and west Jerusalem there is a discrepancy between the two sides of the city. Residents in East Jerusalem often have no water for four to five days out of the week. Also, the price of water that East Jerusalem residents must pay is 25 percent more than that of the residents that live within West Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Jewish neighborhoods in the Jerusalem area use four times the amount of water that Palestinian villages use, even though there are fewer infrastructures per inhabitant. The difference in water quality that East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem receives is also different. East Jerusalem gets its water directly from the mountain aquifer making its water more polluted than West Jerusalem, who uses recycled water as well as water pumped in from the northern regions of Israel. This has to do with the fact that East Jerusalem does not have a treatment plant while West Jerusalem does. In 1999 the Soreq sewage treatment plant was opened, the plant purifies sewage from West Jerusalem, while there is no treatment plant for East Jerusalem. Due to the poor sewage system in Jerusalem much of the waste that leaves the pipes gets carried out to streams and valleys in the West Bank and enters the mountain aquifer. Critics have argued that this amounts to discrimination and neglect on the part of the Israeli and local Jerusalem governments. This causes arguments between East Jerusalem residents that West Jerusalem is favored while East Jerusalem is neglected.
There are multiple theories of why there are inequalities in the water supply between east and west Jerusalem. After the 1967 war, Israel reunited east and west Jerusalem and the Jerusalem municipality agreed to take over the East Jerusalem Arab villages as well as the laws that govern the city. Here is where one starts to see the major arguments that deal with the disproportionate water supplies to east and west Jerusalem. According to Ahron Roseber of the Jerusalem municipality, the infrastructure in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 was neglected. She suggests that the water problems in East Jerusalem came from this neglect rather then current local policy. Furthermore, she pointed out that Palestinian neighborhoods are growing at a faster rate then those of West Jerusalem. This growth rate is putting higher stress on an older water system, causing the previously mentioned problems. It’s not that the Israeli government is shutting off the water to East Jerusalem like some Palestinians may suggest, but rather that there own demand is causing the shortage. She then suggested that due to higher demand and weaker infrastructure, residence in East Jerusalem pay more for water than those that live in the west. Furthermore, Israeli officials suggest that Arab villages in east Jerusalem have dug illegal wells, hastening the water shortage. Thus, East Jerusalem is facing a graver water situation than West Jerusalem.
However, there have been attempts to help stop the water shortage. There are multiple plans in the works. There are plans to build a fifth water pipe to supply more water to Jerusalem. The new system will include: a 3.5 meter in diameter tunnel, 14 km long and dug beneath the Judean Hills as well as pumping stations, reservoirs, and transformer stations. The pipeline will supply up to 500,000 cu. m. of water a day at a peak operating capacity (150 million cubic meters a year) from Israel’s coastal plain to the elevated heights of Jerusalem. If predictions are correct, this pipeline could provide enough water for the next 30 years to both east and west Jerusalem. Also, there are attempts to improve water conservation within the city. Normally only 60 to 80 percent of water pumped through a city is actually used while the rest escapes out of the water pipes as a result of pressure which overloads the pipes and causes them to leak. Israel is implementing The Smart Pressure Reduction Controller (SPRC) in Jerusalem. SPRC automatically sets the pressure according to water demand in real time, so that when demand is low, the pressure is lower, and less water leaks out. Another proposition to help the water crisis is to build a canal from the Jordan River to the Red Sea. The Jordan River is in bad condition because of decades of overuse and abuse. The lower portion of the river has been reduced to a seep of mainly raw sewage and saltwater runoff. Thus, in an attempt to clean this area as well as to provide water plans for a canal have been offered. However, with much opposition from Jordan and Egypt as well as environmentalists, this proposal was put on hold if not eliminated altogether as an option.
Today, when people are asked about the water problem that Jerusalem is facing most do not even realize it is a problem. In 2001, when there was a giant drought, many were aware of the situation. However, not much has been done to secure water for the future. East and west Jerusalem are still facing a water shortage question with many solutions but few attempts to actually compromise on a final agreement. Politics surround the issue as well as a history of mismanagement. While there are no clues as to whether there will ever be enough water for the Middle East, it can be stated that the next time one is in Israel, drink lots of water but remember that you’re drinking something more valuable in the Middle East than oil.
With the changing environment and the large population growth that will occur throughout the next few decades the water supply in Israel will become even more insufficient. All over the world ground water tables are falling and depleting at an astonishing rate. This is especially the case in the Middle East and Israel where water is becoming a scarcity. The Sea of Galilee and the aquifers within Jerusalem are approaching the black line. Over the next 50 years, wars will no longer be fought over oil, but water, which is why a case study will be conducted in dealing with the water supply within east and west Jerusalem. It is suggested that the water crisis is not only a natural phenomena but also created by mismanagement. This mismanagement of water in Jerusalem leads to a conflict between east and west Jerusalem inhabitants as well as a general crisis within the city.
If one traces the history of water within Jerusalem one can start to understand the circumstances of the current water crisis and the politics that surround it. In the city of David, around 700 BCE, Hezekiah's tunnel carried water from The Gihon Spring into the city. The Gihon Spring was outside the city walls; therefore, the tunnel was used to generate a constant supply of water to the city, which was especially important during times of siege and war. The tunnel was built in reaction to a fear of assault by the Assyrians. This way, the Assyrians would not be able to acquire water and would be forced to either surrender or travel to farther places to find water and eventually fail in their attempts to take over the city. In reality, there are actually multiple tunnels leading from the spring into the city, but Hezekiah’s is one of the most famous, and was cut acutely by two teams following a natural fault in the rock. Here one sees the most basic politics concerning water during the time of the City of David. Not only was water important to a political situation but also for sustaining life; thus, the tunnel represents how important water was throughout Jerusalem’s history.
The mismanagement of water in Jerusalem began as early as 1516 when the Ottomans conquered Israel. While the establishment of Ottoman rule brought the first water pipes to Jerusalem, the city was not seen as significant and thus the water supply was poorly orchestrated. Suleiman the Magnificent did however establish pipes to feed water to the Sabils (water fountains) throughout the city. These Sabils were an attempt to create a more hospitable environment for pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem as well as to those who had already settled there. Still, most families received little water, and the water that they did obtain came from community wells or cisterns which were filled by rain water. According to Itai Naamat, a student in the Department of Soil and Water Sciences at Hebrew University, the cisterns and wells often pulled water from the same aquifer below the city. Politically, during the time of the Turkish rule, Jerusalem was not seen as significant a place as it is today, thus, there was no money or time put into the up-keep of the city and it remained under unfavorable conditions until the British Mandate.
Following the defeat of the Turks in World War I, the British were given control of Jerusalem and Palestine under a mandate system. During what would later be called the British mandate, Jerusalem was modernized. Roads and hotels were built; this included a modern water system, houses were connected by pipes and running water rather then local community wells. After independence was declared in 1948, west Jerusalem was controlled by Israel, and east Jerusalem was under the authority of Jordan. This division led to the current political tension concerning water within Jerusalem.
The total population of municipal Jerusalem was approximately 680,000 in 2005; of that 680,000, Palestinian residents made up approximately 33 percent of the population in Jerusalem while Jewish residents account for the other 67 percent of the population. Like all of Israel, Jerusalem gets the majority of its water from the Mekorot Water Company. Mekorot Water Company Ltd. is a Government-owned national water supply company. Mekorot produces and supplies roughly two-thirds of the total amount of water used in Israel. As the national water supply company it is responsible for managing the country's water resources, developing new sources, and ensuring regular delivery of water to all localities. This is important because here one can try to distinguish between national policies and policies within Jerusalem. While Mekorot supplies the majority of the water, the Jerusalem municipality is responsible for the up-keep of pipes and infrastructure within both east and west Jerusalem. However, because East Jerusalem has only been under Israeli since 1967 its infrastructure has been slower to change and modernize especially with West Jerusalem’s current mismanagement crisis.
Jerusalem has virtually no water supply of its own and as a result of ineffective water infrastructure and city planning water is becoming more and more sparse. Currently Jerusalem gets the majority of its water from four pipes that stem from the Keneret. Also, it draws a significant portion of water from the Aquifer. Thus, Jerusalem gets little water from these two areas, and as a result of its population growth and mismanagement, the water received is not enough to maintain both agriculture and potable use. According to Mekorot chairman Eli Ronen, “With the rising Jerusalem population and the expansion of the city into new neighborhoods water demand will continue to increase.” Mr. Mazon, Director of joint Jewish and Palestinian Water Committee, suggests that for the last 20 years the city has neglected to carefully manage the water supply and the infrastructure. Therefore, the current water crisis exists today in both east and west Jerusalem.
If one looks at the data associated with water supply and demand within east and west Jerusalem there is a discrepancy between the two sides of the city. Residents in East Jerusalem often have no water for four to five days out of the week. Also, the price of water that East Jerusalem residents must pay is 25 percent more than that of the residents that live within West Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Jewish neighborhoods in the Jerusalem area use four times the amount of water that Palestinian villages use, even though there are fewer infrastructures per inhabitant. The difference in water quality that East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem receives is also different. East Jerusalem gets its water directly from the mountain aquifer making its water more polluted than West Jerusalem, who uses recycled water as well as water pumped in from the northern regions of Israel. This has to do with the fact that East Jerusalem does not have a treatment plant while West Jerusalem does. In 1999 the Soreq sewage treatment plant was opened, the plant purifies sewage from West Jerusalem, while there is no treatment plant for East Jerusalem. Due to the poor sewage system in Jerusalem much of the waste that leaves the pipes gets carried out to streams and valleys in the West Bank and enters the mountain aquifer. Critics have argued that this amounts to discrimination and neglect on the part of the Israeli and local Jerusalem governments. This causes arguments between East Jerusalem residents that West Jerusalem is favored while East Jerusalem is neglected.
There are multiple theories of why there are inequalities in the water supply between east and west Jerusalem. After the 1967 war, Israel reunited east and west Jerusalem and the Jerusalem municipality agreed to take over the East Jerusalem Arab villages as well as the laws that govern the city. Here is where one starts to see the major arguments that deal with the disproportionate water supplies to east and west Jerusalem. According to Ahron Roseber of the Jerusalem municipality, the infrastructure in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 was neglected. She suggests that the water problems in East Jerusalem came from this neglect rather then current local policy. Furthermore, she pointed out that Palestinian neighborhoods are growing at a faster rate then those of West Jerusalem. This growth rate is putting higher stress on an older water system, causing the previously mentioned problems. It’s not that the Israeli government is shutting off the water to East Jerusalem like some Palestinians may suggest, but rather that there own demand is causing the shortage. She then suggested that due to higher demand and weaker infrastructure, residence in East Jerusalem pay more for water than those that live in the west. Furthermore, Israeli officials suggest that Arab villages in east Jerusalem have dug illegal wells, hastening the water shortage. Thus, East Jerusalem is facing a graver water situation than West Jerusalem.
However, there have been attempts to help stop the water shortage. There are multiple plans in the works. There are plans to build a fifth water pipe to supply more water to Jerusalem. The new system will include: a 3.5 meter in diameter tunnel, 14 km long and dug beneath the Judean Hills as well as pumping stations, reservoirs, and transformer stations. The pipeline will supply up to 500,000 cu. m. of water a day at a peak operating capacity (150 million cubic meters a year) from Israel’s coastal plain to the elevated heights of Jerusalem. If predictions are correct, this pipeline could provide enough water for the next 30 years to both east and west Jerusalem. Also, there are attempts to improve water conservation within the city. Normally only 60 to 80 percent of water pumped through a city is actually used while the rest escapes out of the water pipes as a result of pressure which overloads the pipes and causes them to leak. Israel is implementing The Smart Pressure Reduction Controller (SPRC) in Jerusalem. SPRC automatically sets the pressure according to water demand in real time, so that when demand is low, the pressure is lower, and less water leaks out. Another proposition to help the water crisis is to build a canal from the Jordan River to the Red Sea. The Jordan River is in bad condition because of decades of overuse and abuse. The lower portion of the river has been reduced to a seep of mainly raw sewage and saltwater runoff. Thus, in an attempt to clean this area as well as to provide water plans for a canal have been offered. However, with much opposition from Jordan and Egypt as well as environmentalists, this proposal was put on hold if not eliminated altogether as an option.
Today, when people are asked about the water problem that Jerusalem is facing most do not even realize it is a problem. In 2001, when there was a giant drought, many were aware of the situation. However, not much has been done to secure water for the future. East and west Jerusalem are still facing a water shortage question with many solutions but few attempts to actually compromise on a final agreement. Politics surround the issue as well as a history of mismanagement. While there are no clues as to whether there will ever be enough water for the Middle East, it can be stated that the next time one is in Israel, drink lots of water but remember that you’re drinking something more valuable in the Middle East than oil.
A Brief History of Mount Scopus—Cherylanne Glassner
A Brief History of Mount Scopus—Cherylanne Glassner
I believe that it is important to know the history of the land on which you are living. After four weeks here, it was pretty clear that no one really knows anything about Mount Scopus. What follows is a brief history lesson on the mountain we called home for about five weeks of the most memorable experience of our college careers.
The Hebrew name for Mount Scopus is Har Hatzofim. Literally translated, the mountain is named, “Mountain of the Watchers.” Standing at 834 meters above sea level, about 100 meters above the old city, Mount Scopus got its name for the spectacular view. From the top of Mount Scopus, one can see the entire old city, as well as the Judean desert in the east. It has been said that on a clear day it is also possible to see the Dead Sea. In October 1948, Baruch Neumark, the commander of the Israeli forces on Mount Scopus, said “I believe that he who controls this commanding ground will rule Jerusalem.” This was confirmed through the vast military history of the mountain.
Military History
Due to the height of Mount Scopus, the mountain has proven to be incredibly useful in military strategy. Mount Scopus was used as a vantage point for the Roman army during its suppression of the Great Jewish Revolt in 66 CE. In 70CE, it was used by Titus’ Roman legions as a base to carry out its siege of the old city. During this siege, the walls of the Second Temple were breached – this is what Jews remember on 17 Tamuz (usually falls in July). Then in 1099, the Crusaders used Mount Scopus as a base. Mount Scopus was also used as a base for General Allenby’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force during World War I.
Mount Scopus from 1948-1967
Mount Scopus has always been in Israeli hands, however, the circumstances surrounding the mountain have not always been simple. From the year 1948 to 1967, Mount Scopus existed as an Israeli exclave within Jordanian territory. Everything in West Jerusalem was Israeli, and everything in East Jerusalem was Jordanian – except for Mount Scopus. The situation caused many problems, seeing as both the hospital and the university were on Mount Scopus, and access to both was limited.
On July 7, 1948, the Israelis and the Jordanians agreed to the demilitarization of Mount Scopus. There were 6 conditions to this agreement:
1. Area placed under UN protection.
2. Creation of a no-man’s land.
3. Arab and Israeli “armed police” placed on duty in respective areas under UN command.
4. UN to arrange for both parties to receive food and water, visitation, and to limit the population.
5. The area cannot be used as a military base, attacked, or unlawfully entered.
6. If the Arab Legion withdraws from the area, the UN must be notified in writing.
And thus, three areas were created – a Jewish zone, an Arab zone, and a no-man’s land.
Beginning in March of 1949, Israeli and Jordanian representatives entered into peace talks. On April 3, the armistice agreement was signed. The agreement ended the official fighting of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and established armistice lines between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line, until the 1967 Six-Day War. Another key provision of this agreement was safe movement between Israeli held West Jerusalem and Mount Scopus.
Unfortunately, the principles of the agreement were not put into practice, and travel to Mount Scopus remained difficult. In September of 1949, Moshe Dayan, the Israeli military commander at the time, urged Prime Minister David ben Gurion to sanction a military attack in order to open up a passage to Mount Scopus. Ben Gurion refused, claiming that he did not want to reopen the war. Furthermore, it is important to note that any attack of the kind would have been in violation of the 5th Condition of the 1948 Demilitarization Agreement.
After being moved to Mount Scopus for a larger plot of land in 1947, the Biblical Zoo was again transferred in October 1950 from Mount Scopus to an Israeli area of Jerusalem. This move was done out of concern for the welfare of the animals, who had been traumatized by the gunfire during the 1948 War of Independence. Included in the transfer were one lion, one tiger, two bears, one hyena, three kangaroos, one monkey and several birds.
In July 1952, tentative conditions were proposed for an Arab-Israeli settlement. The proposal called for the recognition by all Arab States of Israel’s and Jordan’s sovereignty over their respective sectors of Jerusalem and a promise of support in the United Nations for a resolution giving such recognition. Also suggested were adjustments to the line of separation. This included Israeli surrender of all claims to Mount Scopus, which would be handed over to Jordan. Not surprisingly, this proposal was not favorably welcomed, and was eventually taken off the table.
The Six-Day War began on June 5, 1967. By the end of the war, Israel had captured East Jerusalem, and the city was reunited under Israeli rule. Once again Israelis could travel freely about Mount Scopus.
Important Landmarks
Hadassah Hospital and Hebrew University have been, and remain, the most important Jewish sites on Mount Scopus. The cornerstone for the Hebrew University was laid in July 1918, and the University opened in 1923. Attendees at the inauguration ceremony included General Allenby, Arthur Balfour, Albert Einstein, Herbert Samuel, Chaim Weitzman, and many other dignitaries. In fact, Einstein gave the first academic lecture on his Theory of Relativity. Due to Mount Scopus’ existence as an exclave within Jordanian territory, and the difficulty of accessing the campus, the University was forced to leave. In 1954, the cornerstone for the Givat Ram campus was laid. It was not until 1981 that major university functions returned to Mount Scopus.
The other important landmark is Hadassah Hospital. The Hospital was partially funded by the Hadassah Women’s Zionist Organization of America, the organization from which the hospital gets its name. The cornerstone was laid in 1934, and Hadassah Hospital’s doors were opened in 1939. On April 13, 1948, an armored convoy was ambushed while making its way to the hospital. Seventy-seven doctors, nurses, medical students, and other staff were killed in what became known as the Hadassah Medical Convoy Massacre. After the Massacre, Hadassah Hospital could no longer function, and the Ein Kerem site was opened in 1961. In 1975, the Mount Scopus hospital was rededicated, and the doors were reopened in 1978.
Also on Mount Scopus is the British military cemetery. The cemetery was a gift from the Jews of Palestine honoring the British soldiers who died in WWI. Buried here are the troops of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force that fought under General Allenby. In the western section, 24 stones are marked with Stars of David for the Jewish soldiers buried here. At the end of the cemetery is a memorial chapel. On the walls on either side of the chapel are the names of soldiers who fell in action and have no known graves. of the cemetery
Just outside the cemetery is a memorial to the Australian forces. It was erected by Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the Australian Government in 1935 in memory of the Australian Imperial Force (AIF). The AIF was formed in 1914 following Britain’s declaration of war against Germany. The AIF was a purely volunteer force for the duration of the war. During WWI, there were 17,244 troops in Egypt and Palestine. There is also a memorial within the cemetery (next to the chapel) for the troops of the AIF who died fighting and whose graves are unknown.
Situated on the south-eastern part of Mount Scopus, overlooking the Mount of Olives, the Kidron Valley, and the Old City, is the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center. BYU is the largest religious university in the United States, with satellite schools all over the world. The school’s curriculum focuses on Old and New Testament, ancient and modern Near Eastern studies, and language (Hebrew and Arabic). The school is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Plans for construction of the Jerusalem Center were announced in 1979, and a 49 year lease of the land was finally obtained in 1984. However, the construction of the center faced strong opposition from the Haredi (ultra-orthodox) community. The Haredim claimed that the building would be used not as a school, but as a center for Mormon proselytizing efforts in Jerusalem. The opposition stalled the construction, and Knesset investigations took place. Construction was finally allowed to continue in 1986, and the center opened in 1988. During the years of the second intifada, 2001-2006, students were not admitted to the school.
Just behind the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center stands the Augusta Victoria. It was built in 1907 for the German Protestant community, and is named after Empress Augusta Victoria, the wife of German Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Augusta Victoria includes the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Ascension, a chapel commemorating the ascension of Jesus Christ. The building was used as a hospital for the British during WWI. It also served as the official residence of the British High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate from 1920-1927. The Augusta Victoria currently serves as a hospital for the Arab residents of East Jerusalem.
Conclusions
There is so much history in Jerusalem, and Mount Scopus is no different. I hope now, with a deeper understanding of the history of this great mountain, we can all better appreciate where we lived and learned for 5 weeks this summer.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism—Kallie Eisenberger
The Coercive Logic of Suicide Terrorism in Jerusalem—Kallie Eisenberger
Using violence as a means of diplomatic coercion is not a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of conflict, parties have used violence to ensure cooperation, gain power, and intimidate their enemy. Military force, as seen in the past and present, is the power and ability “to hurt” someone by destroying value in addition to taking and protecting things of value. But, up until about sixty years ago, the pain, shock, loss, and grief were all incidental aspects of war and not necessarily intentional. Among the many lessons and military developments of World War II, however, the power to hurt was harnessed and came to be among the most impressive of military attributes. The realization that if violence could be incidental, it could also be purposeful was used to affect change and eventually became a crucial tool in international diplomacy. Take for example the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not so much because of the direct impact of this bomb that led to surrender, after all more citizens were lost in the fire-bombings carried out through the war. But instead, it was the knowledge of the power to hurt held by the United States, and the fear of the Japanese that this power would be used again. Likewise, the Cold War was based on the promise of violence and not the actual use of violence as in other wars. The promise to hurt is perhaps what kept nuclear war from breaking out at all. The progression of violence over the last century in particular has lead to the realization of the effectiveness of violence when used as a form of diplomacy and coercion, and it is out of this new realization that suicide terrorism has not only been implemented, but become a logical strategic move.
It is hard to imagine that anything as horrible and devastating as suicide terrorism could be anything but fanatics but, in its most basic sense, terrorism is also the power to hurt. It is particularly difficult, after seeing images from terrorist attacks in Jerusalem, to entertain the idea that there could be any thought, logic, or goal in this kind of violence. But, unfortunately, there is. Suicide terrorism in particular follows a strategic logic with specific goals, targets, and times. My goal in this presentation is to show that, much like other coercive forms of diplomacy, suicide terrorism is a logical process synonymous to international coercion. Significantly, according to Robert Pape, the specific strategy of suicide terrorism can be seen in five explicit principles which further support the argument of suicide terrorism as a logical form of coercion. First, suicide terrorism is strategic in that it occurs in clusters as a part of a larger campaign by an organized group to achieve a specific political goal. Significantly, this organization will publicly announce a specific political goal and will stop attacks when said goal is reached. The second principle suggests that suicide terrorism is purposely designed to coerce a modern democracy to make concessions to national self-determination. The politically organized terrorist group seeks mainly to achieve specific territorial goals, especially withdrawal. Factual evidence supports this principle, in that every suicide terrorist attack has taken place against a democracy. Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, highlight these two ideals in that most suicide terrorists are Palestinians with nationalist goals and that Israel is in fact a democracy. Waves of suicide terrorism in Jerusalem often follow political actions that directly or indirectly impact the Palestinian movement, as the outbreak of the Second Intifada clearly showed.
The third principle supporting the logical attributes of suicide terrorism exists in the fact that acts of suicide terrorism have steadily risen in the last few decades, suggesting the success of this form of violent coercion. Observers within the terrorist national community, neutral analysts, and targeted government leaders all agree that suicide terrorist operations often accelerated of lead to concessions, further explaining the increase in suicide terrorist attacks. Indeed, statistics from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs also indicate that the trend in suicide bombing attacks has increased since 2000. Between September 2000 and June 2002 alone, there have been 85 suicide attacks. In the attacks in this period, 307 Israelis were killed and 2,235 were wounded or maimed. This is out of a total of 576 killed.
It naturally follows that if suicide terrorism is a logical form of coercion, there must also be a diplomatic way to combat such acts, and this leads to the last two principles. Although some experts suggest that moderate acts of suicide terrorism led to moderate concessions, more ambitious suicide campaigns are not likely to achieve still greater gains and may well fail completely. The effectiveness of suicide terrorism relies on the threat to inflict low to medium levels of punishment on civilians and has rarely caused modern nation states to surrender high political goals. States may be pressured to make concessions in response to the panic of the civilian population, but they will not be willing to sacrifice important economic or security interests. Israel, again, is a prime representation of this principle. While Israel has perhaps been more open to peace talks, negotiations, and have in fact withdrawn from Gaza, they have yet to, and are not likely to, make many concessions on issues such as refugees or Jerusalem, which are too politically charged.
The final principle which highlights the strategy behind suicide terrorism lies in the best method or approach to combat this particular form of violence. According to experts, the best way to contain suicide terrorism is to undermine the confidence of the terrorists in their ability to carry out their attacks on the target society. Experts also tend to agree that offensive military action or concessions alone are unlikely to have much of an impact, and should instead invest significant resources in border defenses and other means of homeland security. While Israel has attempted both military action and concessions in the past, its recent investment in the security barrier has proven effective. Also, the security checkpoints in and around Jerusalem itself appears to have deterred terrorists to some extent, as the number of terrorist attacks in Jerusalem have decreased in recent years.
The understanding of target states of suicide terrorism also contributes to its inherent efficiency. Firstly it is understood, perhaps because it is promised by the terrorist organizations, that suicide terrorism is rarely a one time event. Because of this crucial component, then, suicide terrorism creates leverage both from the immediate panic associated with each attack and then with the promise of continued civilian punishment in the future. The heart of the strategy of suicide terrorism, then, rests on the same logic of coercive diplomacy used by stated when they employ sanctions or air strikes in that it causes mounting civilian costs which will eventually supercede the target states interests. It is, therefore, this promised “power to hurt” in the future that creates political leverage and therefore a capable strategy. Further, the act of suicide terrorism itself is a way to signal more attacks precisely because it violates societal norms and therefore suggests the seriousness of the organization in its willingness to achieve political goals.
Suicide terrorism is and will continue to be a major threat to Jerusalem precisely because of its anticipated effectiveness as a means of coercive diplomacy. Thousands of Israelis have died as a result of suicide bombers and it poses several serious questions to Israel, but Jerusalem in particular. About one-fourth of all terrorist attacks occur in Israel, largely because of the very politically and religiously charged atmosphere of the city. Not only are physical losses inherent in these attacks, but mental afflictions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are becoming more and more common in Jerusalem as a result of not only witnessing terrorist acts, but anticipating more. It is particularly this fear and insecurity, however, that the political organizations behind most terrorist attacks rely on, giving them the fuel to continue these horrific acts of violence. Gaining a more comprehensive knowledge of these acts will hopefully help in combating terrorism in Jerusalem so that terrorist attacks, like those listed below, can be decreased. Below is a list of only a few terrorist attacks that have occurred in Jerusalem:
Aug 21, 1995 - Three Israelis and one American were killed in a suicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus.
Feb 25, 1996 - In a suicide bombing of bus No. 18 near the Central Bus Station in Jerusalem, 26 were killed (17 civilians and 9 soldiers). Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mar 3, 1996 - In a suicide bombing of bus No. 18 on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, 19 were killed (16 civilians and 3 soldiers).
Jul 30, 1997 - 16 people were killed and 178 wounded in two consecutive suicide bombings in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem.
Sep 4, 1997 - Five people were killed and 181 wounded in three suicide bombings on the Ben-Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem.
Nov 2, 2000 - Ayelet Shahar Levy, 28, and Hanan Levy, 33, were killed in a car bomb explosion near the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem. 10 people were injured. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack
Mar 27, 2001 - A car bomb exploded at 7:40 in the morning in the Talpiot industrial/commercial zone in Jerusalem. Seven people were injured, one moderately. The Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mar 27, 2001 - 28 people were injured, two seriously, in a suicide bombing directed against a northbound No. 6 bus at the French Hill junction in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
15 people were killed, including 7 children, and about 130 were injured in a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria at the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road in downtown Jerusalem. Concealing the explosives in a guitar case which he had carried with him into Jerusalem, the terrorist entered the restaurant just before 2 PM and detonated the bomb. The 5 kg.-10 kg. bomb, which was packed with nails, screws, and bolts to ensure maximum damage, completely gutted the restaurant, which was full of lunchtime diners. The terrorist was killed in the blast. His controller was on the list of wanted terrorists submitted by Israel to the Palestinians Authority this week. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
Dec 1, 2001 - 11 people were killed and about 180 injured when explosive devices were detonated by two suicide bombers close to 11:30 P.M. Saturday night on Ben Yehuda Street, the pedestrian mall in the center of Jerusalem. A car bomb exploded nearby 20 minutes later. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack
Mar 2, 2002 - Eleven people were killed and over 50 were injured, 4 critically, in a suicide bombing at 19:15 on Saturday evening near a yeshiva in the ultra-Orthodox Beit Yisrael neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem where people had gathered for a bar-mitzva celebration. The terrorist detonated the bomb next to a group of women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave the nearby synagogue. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack
Mar 9, 2002 - 11 people were killed and 54 injured, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber exploded at 22:30 PM Saturday night in the crowded Moment cafe at the corner of Aza and Ben-Maimon streets in the Rehavia neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mar 17, 2002 - A suicide bomber exploded himself near an Egged bus no. 22 at the French Hill junction in northern Jerusalem. 25 people were lightly injured
June 19, 2002 - Seven people were killed and 50 injured - three of them in critical condition - when a suicide bomber blew himself up at a crowded bus stop and hitchhiking post at the French Hill intersection in northern Jerusalem shortly after 7:00 P.M., as people were returning home from work. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack
July 31, 2002 - Nine people were killed and 85 wounded, 14 of them seriously, when a bomb exploded in the Frank Sinatra student center cafeteria on the Hebrew University's Mt. Scopus campus. The explosive device was planted inside the cafeteria, which was gutted by the explosion. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack
Nov 21, 2002 - Eleven people were killed and some 50 wounded by a suicide bomber on a No. 20 Egged bus on Mexico Street in the Kiryat Menahem neighborhood of Jerusalem. The bus was filled with passengers, including schoolchildren, traveling toward the center of the city during rush hour. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack
May 18, 2003 - Seven people were killed and 20 wounded in a suicide bombing on Egged bus no. 6 near French Hill in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
A second suicide bomber detonated his bomb when intercepted by police in northern Jerusalem. The terrorist was killed; no one else was injured.
Mar 6, 2008 - Eight students of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem were killed when a terrorist armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle infiltrated the yeshiva and opened fire in the library where about 80 people were gathered, mostly teenagers. Eleven others were wounded, three critically. The terrorist, a resident of East Jerusalem, was killed by an IDF officer
*Note: The articles of Robert Paper and Thomas Schelling contributed to this project.
Using violence as a means of diplomatic coercion is not a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of conflict, parties have used violence to ensure cooperation, gain power, and intimidate their enemy. Military force, as seen in the past and present, is the power and ability “to hurt” someone by destroying value in addition to taking and protecting things of value. But, up until about sixty years ago, the pain, shock, loss, and grief were all incidental aspects of war and not necessarily intentional. Among the many lessons and military developments of World War II, however, the power to hurt was harnessed and came to be among the most impressive of military attributes. The realization that if violence could be incidental, it could also be purposeful was used to affect change and eventually became a crucial tool in international diplomacy. Take for example the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not so much because of the direct impact of this bomb that led to surrender, after all more citizens were lost in the fire-bombings carried out through the war. But instead, it was the knowledge of the power to hurt held by the United States, and the fear of the Japanese that this power would be used again. Likewise, the Cold War was based on the promise of violence and not the actual use of violence as in other wars. The promise to hurt is perhaps what kept nuclear war from breaking out at all. The progression of violence over the last century in particular has lead to the realization of the effectiveness of violence when used as a form of diplomacy and coercion, and it is out of this new realization that suicide terrorism has not only been implemented, but become a logical strategic move.
It is hard to imagine that anything as horrible and devastating as suicide terrorism could be anything but fanatics but, in its most basic sense, terrorism is also the power to hurt. It is particularly difficult, after seeing images from terrorist attacks in Jerusalem, to entertain the idea that there could be any thought, logic, or goal in this kind of violence. But, unfortunately, there is. Suicide terrorism in particular follows a strategic logic with specific goals, targets, and times. My goal in this presentation is to show that, much like other coercive forms of diplomacy, suicide terrorism is a logical process synonymous to international coercion. Significantly, according to Robert Pape, the specific strategy of suicide terrorism can be seen in five explicit principles which further support the argument of suicide terrorism as a logical form of coercion. First, suicide terrorism is strategic in that it occurs in clusters as a part of a larger campaign by an organized group to achieve a specific political goal. Significantly, this organization will publicly announce a specific political goal and will stop attacks when said goal is reached. The second principle suggests that suicide terrorism is purposely designed to coerce a modern democracy to make concessions to national self-determination. The politically organized terrorist group seeks mainly to achieve specific territorial goals, especially withdrawal. Factual evidence supports this principle, in that every suicide terrorist attack has taken place against a democracy. Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, highlight these two ideals in that most suicide terrorists are Palestinians with nationalist goals and that Israel is in fact a democracy. Waves of suicide terrorism in Jerusalem often follow political actions that directly or indirectly impact the Palestinian movement, as the outbreak of the Second Intifada clearly showed.
The third principle supporting the logical attributes of suicide terrorism exists in the fact that acts of suicide terrorism have steadily risen in the last few decades, suggesting the success of this form of violent coercion. Observers within the terrorist national community, neutral analysts, and targeted government leaders all agree that suicide terrorist operations often accelerated of lead to concessions, further explaining the increase in suicide terrorist attacks. Indeed, statistics from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs also indicate that the trend in suicide bombing attacks has increased since 2000. Between September 2000 and June 2002 alone, there have been 85 suicide attacks. In the attacks in this period, 307 Israelis were killed and 2,235 were wounded or maimed. This is out of a total of 576 killed.
It naturally follows that if suicide terrorism is a logical form of coercion, there must also be a diplomatic way to combat such acts, and this leads to the last two principles. Although some experts suggest that moderate acts of suicide terrorism led to moderate concessions, more ambitious suicide campaigns are not likely to achieve still greater gains and may well fail completely. The effectiveness of suicide terrorism relies on the threat to inflict low to medium levels of punishment on civilians and has rarely caused modern nation states to surrender high political goals. States may be pressured to make concessions in response to the panic of the civilian population, but they will not be willing to sacrifice important economic or security interests. Israel, again, is a prime representation of this principle. While Israel has perhaps been more open to peace talks, negotiations, and have in fact withdrawn from Gaza, they have yet to, and are not likely to, make many concessions on issues such as refugees or Jerusalem, which are too politically charged.
The final principle which highlights the strategy behind suicide terrorism lies in the best method or approach to combat this particular form of violence. According to experts, the best way to contain suicide terrorism is to undermine the confidence of the terrorists in their ability to carry out their attacks on the target society. Experts also tend to agree that offensive military action or concessions alone are unlikely to have much of an impact, and should instead invest significant resources in border defenses and other means of homeland security. While Israel has attempted both military action and concessions in the past, its recent investment in the security barrier has proven effective. Also, the security checkpoints in and around Jerusalem itself appears to have deterred terrorists to some extent, as the number of terrorist attacks in Jerusalem have decreased in recent years.
The understanding of target states of suicide terrorism also contributes to its inherent efficiency. Firstly it is understood, perhaps because it is promised by the terrorist organizations, that suicide terrorism is rarely a one time event. Because of this crucial component, then, suicide terrorism creates leverage both from the immediate panic associated with each attack and then with the promise of continued civilian punishment in the future. The heart of the strategy of suicide terrorism, then, rests on the same logic of coercive diplomacy used by stated when they employ sanctions or air strikes in that it causes mounting civilian costs which will eventually supercede the target states interests. It is, therefore, this promised “power to hurt” in the future that creates political leverage and therefore a capable strategy. Further, the act of suicide terrorism itself is a way to signal more attacks precisely because it violates societal norms and therefore suggests the seriousness of the organization in its willingness to achieve political goals.
Suicide terrorism is and will continue to be a major threat to Jerusalem precisely because of its anticipated effectiveness as a means of coercive diplomacy. Thousands of Israelis have died as a result of suicide bombers and it poses several serious questions to Israel, but Jerusalem in particular. About one-fourth of all terrorist attacks occur in Israel, largely because of the very politically and religiously charged atmosphere of the city. Not only are physical losses inherent in these attacks, but mental afflictions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are becoming more and more common in Jerusalem as a result of not only witnessing terrorist acts, but anticipating more. It is particularly this fear and insecurity, however, that the political organizations behind most terrorist attacks rely on, giving them the fuel to continue these horrific acts of violence. Gaining a more comprehensive knowledge of these acts will hopefully help in combating terrorism in Jerusalem so that terrorist attacks, like those listed below, can be decreased. Below is a list of only a few terrorist attacks that have occurred in Jerusalem:
Aug 21, 1995 - Three Israelis and one American were killed in a suicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus.
Feb 25, 1996 - In a suicide bombing of bus No. 18 near the Central Bus Station in Jerusalem, 26 were killed (17 civilians and 9 soldiers). Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mar 3, 1996 - In a suicide bombing of bus No. 18 on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, 19 were killed (16 civilians and 3 soldiers).
Jul 30, 1997 - 16 people were killed and 178 wounded in two consecutive suicide bombings in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem.
Sep 4, 1997 - Five people were killed and 181 wounded in three suicide bombings on the Ben-Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem.
Nov 2, 2000 - Ayelet Shahar Levy, 28, and Hanan Levy, 33, were killed in a car bomb explosion near the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem. 10 people were injured. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack
Mar 27, 2001 - A car bomb exploded at 7:40 in the morning in the Talpiot industrial/commercial zone in Jerusalem. Seven people were injured, one moderately. The Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mar 27, 2001 - 28 people were injured, two seriously, in a suicide bombing directed against a northbound No. 6 bus at the French Hill junction in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
15 people were killed, including 7 children, and about 130 were injured in a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria at the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road in downtown Jerusalem. Concealing the explosives in a guitar case which he had carried with him into Jerusalem, the terrorist entered the restaurant just before 2 PM and detonated the bomb. The 5 kg.-10 kg. bomb, which was packed with nails, screws, and bolts to ensure maximum damage, completely gutted the restaurant, which was full of lunchtime diners. The terrorist was killed in the blast. His controller was on the list of wanted terrorists submitted by Israel to the Palestinians Authority this week. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
Dec 1, 2001 - 11 people were killed and about 180 injured when explosive devices were detonated by two suicide bombers close to 11:30 P.M. Saturday night on Ben Yehuda Street, the pedestrian mall in the center of Jerusalem. A car bomb exploded nearby 20 minutes later. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack
Mar 2, 2002 - Eleven people were killed and over 50 were injured, 4 critically, in a suicide bombing at 19:15 on Saturday evening near a yeshiva in the ultra-Orthodox Beit Yisrael neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem where people had gathered for a bar-mitzva celebration. The terrorist detonated the bomb next to a group of women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave the nearby synagogue. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack
Mar 9, 2002 - 11 people were killed and 54 injured, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber exploded at 22:30 PM Saturday night in the crowded Moment cafe at the corner of Aza and Ben-Maimon streets in the Rehavia neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
Mar 17, 2002 - A suicide bomber exploded himself near an Egged bus no. 22 at the French Hill junction in northern Jerusalem. 25 people were lightly injured
June 19, 2002 - Seven people were killed and 50 injured - three of them in critical condition - when a suicide bomber blew himself up at a crowded bus stop and hitchhiking post at the French Hill intersection in northern Jerusalem shortly after 7:00 P.M., as people were returning home from work. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack
July 31, 2002 - Nine people were killed and 85 wounded, 14 of them seriously, when a bomb exploded in the Frank Sinatra student center cafeteria on the Hebrew University's Mt. Scopus campus. The explosive device was planted inside the cafeteria, which was gutted by the explosion. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack
Nov 21, 2002 - Eleven people were killed and some 50 wounded by a suicide bomber on a No. 20 Egged bus on Mexico Street in the Kiryat Menahem neighborhood of Jerusalem. The bus was filled with passengers, including schoolchildren, traveling toward the center of the city during rush hour. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack
May 18, 2003 - Seven people were killed and 20 wounded in a suicide bombing on Egged bus no. 6 near French Hill in Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
A second suicide bomber detonated his bomb when intercepted by police in northern Jerusalem. The terrorist was killed; no one else was injured.
Mar 6, 2008 - Eight students of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem were killed when a terrorist armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle infiltrated the yeshiva and opened fire in the library where about 80 people were gathered, mostly teenagers. Eleven others were wounded, three critically. The terrorist, a resident of East Jerusalem, was killed by an IDF officer
*Note: The articles of Robert Paper and Thomas Schelling contributed to this project.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Hadassah Hospital—Roman Krivochenitser
Hadassah Hospital—Roman Krivochenitser
Unlike most of the James Madison students on our trip, I study medicine back in the United States. Therefore, I decided to focus my project on medicinal practices in Israel, specifically focusing on Hadassah. Hadassah is the biggest and most famous hospital in Jerusalem. I specifically aimed to highlight two themes within my presentation. One of which was the unraveling of many myths surrounding Israeli medicine and the treatment of its patients. The second theme was to present Hadassah as one of the best and most successful peacekeeping programs in the Middle East. By the end of my presentation, I hope most of the students would see what great innovations and positives come out of Israel and what can be achieved even amidst hostile conditions. The media tends to portray Israel in a negative light, only focusing on death and war. Hadassah is a beacon in the Middle East that deserves much more praise and recognition.
To begin, one must have a basic overview of Hadassah’s history and where it came from. Established in 1912 in New York City, Hadassah was founded by a group called the “Daughters of Zion” led by Henrietta Szold. The idea was to spread Zionistic ideals throughout America by heading education and public health initiatives. The name Hadassah was derived from the Hebrew holiday of Purim. It happened that the group had its first major meeting on Purim and the name was adopted from the Hebrew name for Esther (Hadassah). This once again stressed the importance of Women to the Zionist movement. Eventually, the organization began to expand and they decided to send two American nurses to Palestine during WWI. The nurses set up a small clinic to help the wounded and ended up staying in Palestine, helping the Jewish communities prosper. In 1939 the first Hadassah hospital was established on Mount Scopus in East Jerusalem. Mount Scopus is part of the Hadassah Medical Organization (HMO) which also features the second Hadassah hospital at Ein Kerem. At the time, Hadassah was the foremost hospital in Western Asia. Hadassah played a pivotal role in the war of independence. Positioned in Jerusalem, the hospital was in the midst of the greatest fighting. On April 13, 1948 the Hadassah Convoy Massacre occurred where Arab captured a Hadassah truck driving under a white flag full of doctors and patients and killed everyone. There were about 80 dead and Israel shut down the hospital on Mount Scopus. As a result, the new Hadassah wing was opened in Ein Kerem in 1961. This is now the biggest hospital in Jerusalem, not in all of Israel though. It is known worldwide for its trauma center. The Hadassah at Mount Scopus was reopened in 1967 but is not used as much as Ein Kerem.
Data for my presentation was acquired from two main sources. My first source was a paramedic working for Magin David Adom by the name of Tsvi. Tsvi used to be an EMT back in the United States but has lived in Israel and worked in Israeli medicine for the past 16 years. My other source was a current medical student for Hadassah by the name of Misha. Misha was finishing up his first year at medical school at the time of our interview. Both of my sources stressed the level of difficulty and work required to become a doctor in Israel. The school format is very similar to that of the United States – 4 years basic training followed by 3 years clinical and then 1 year of residency and after that a specialization if you would like. However, Israeli doctors must know the medical practices on all continents, Europe, Asia, and especially in America. Also, the lectures or taught in the native language, Hebrew, whereas all of the textbooks are in English. Israel functions on a socialized medicine basis. Therefore, even after all the work and time that doctors put in they still only make around $50,000/year. This is only slightly over average Israeli income. In comparison, doctors in the USA make around $100,000 more money for the same job and less time.
Medicine is the toughest field in Israel to be accepted into. Only 100 students are allowed in per institution out of about 1500 applicants. Since there are only 4 medical institutions in all of Israel, this means that there are only 400 new doctors each year out of 6000 who are interested. Therefore, only the best of the best can practice medicine in Israel. What ends up happening is that many students travel oversees to Europe to get their medical degree and can practice medicine in Israel if they pass the entry exam. However, even with this there is still a shortage of doctors in Israel.
One of the most popular myths surrounding Hadassah is about its discrimination towards Palestinian Arabs. This is a tool for the media to hide the facts and once again present Israel in a negative light. In reality, about 20% of all medical students are Palestinian and 30% of the current doctors in Jerusalem are Palestinian Arabs. Furthermore, Hadassah and all of Israel never discriminate when it comes to treating patients. In fact, Hadassah was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and numerous other exceptional health care awards for its patient care practices and treatment of all individuals. Even terrorists are treated in the hospital before being sent off to their respective disciplinary institutions. In Judaism, life is valued over all else and therefore it is unthinkable to deny anyone that basic right. This is one of the reasons Israel has socialized medicine that is available to all. It is a wide-known fact that Israel and specifically Hadassah provides the best health care in the Middle East. Over the past decades, Arab leaders from different countries have all in secrecy flown in to get treatment in Israel because the quality of healthcare is that much better. Just as an example at the level of healthcare provided we can look back into history during the war in 1967. At that time, 310 operations were performed in just over 60 hours and out of 985 patients only 11 had perished. Now, 40 years later the health care has kept exponentially improving.
The quality and improvement of healthcare has effected all populations, especially Palestinians. As Palestinian obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish said, “Israeli hospitals extend humanitarian treatment to Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. These efforts continued when all other cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis came to a halt during the most recent intifada.” The statistics of healthcare for Palestinians is also astounding. Not only have mortality rates among Israeli Arabs fallen by nearly two-thirds but also life expectancy has increased from 70 (in 1970) to 76 today. Today, the average Palestinian living under Israeli authority can expect to live longer than a white European male. Despite this, Israeli hospitals still receive negative media attention with their treatment of Palestinians. Many Palestinians do not trust Israel and therefore do not go to their hospital, only going to the very poor hospitals in their area. By the time they are transferred it is too late and there is nothing that can be done. Also, Magin David Adom, the Israeli ambulance service, is not allowed to go into “Palestinian Land” without a police escort. Therefore, even if a life is at stake the Palestinian Authority will not let the Israelis in simply out of principle. By the time the patients arrive to the hospitals it is also too late. Based on these misfortunate happenings many people have a skewed view of Israeli medicine.
Israel has the best medicine because they use the latest medical technology that is produced in Israel. Israel as a country is one of the largest producers of biomedical innovation. One example is Given Imaging, a company that developed the Pill cam. The Pill cam is a camera in a small tablet that is swallowed and takes pictures of the GI tract, small bowel, and colon. The camera takes 55000 images, producing a movie of about 6 – 8 hours that can be viewed to see if there are any problems within the patient. The patient wears a data recorder as a belt while the pill is in the body and all of the information is collected onto a database. Companies such as these work closely with Hadassah and other medical institutions in Israel. Hadassah itself does a lot of research. Half of all medical research in Israel is conducted in the Hadassah Medical Centre in Jerusalem. Israeli scientists are part of the leading researchers for stem cell development and innovation. This advanced technology is not available in Arab countries because they do not accept Israeli products and therefore their quality of healthcare suffers because of it.
One important aspect of Israeli medicine is response to crisis and terrorists attacks that can occur on a daily basis. There is a special class that everyone has to take in medical school so that everyone can be aware of the protocol. During a country emergency, all doctors and staff are on call and working. Israel has one of the best response times in the world. In fact, institutions from different countries send representatives to see how Israeli medicine functions under a crisis because it is world-class. The main reason is the quality of communication between Magin David Adom, the ambulance service, and the hospitals. It takes no more than 20 min to clear up the biggest attack and to have everyone in the hospitals already receiving treatment. There is a correspondent in every hospital from Magin David Adom working 24/7 to be in constant communication. Therefore, the hospitals know which kinds of patients are on their way to which hospital so they can mobilize and prepare right away for treatment. The patients are immediately carted into the right room for operation and the whole process flows smoothly.
It is unfortunate that Israel has to be so proficient in this, but it is the reality of the situation of which they live in. Israeli medicine continues to thrive in the face of negative media scrutiny and hostilities in the area. Hadassah employs and treats everyone as equals, promoting peacekeeping efforts while continuing a standard of the highest quality medicine in the world.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Opposing Viewpoints of Israeli Wall—Eric Awerbuch
Opposing Viewpoints of Israeli Wall
The conflict in the Middle East between
The government of
Furthermore, the government of
Moreover,
In addition, “It obliges us to establish a barrier wall which is the only thing that can minimize the infiltration of these male and female suicide bombers,” said Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, who has emphasized that “the fence is not political, [and] is not a border.” (Associated Press 2005) As a result, the government of
These last two statements have to do with a lot of political pressure put on
In contrast, both
Moreover, the International Court of Justice in
In addition,
The American government has a viewpoint that differs from
While President Bush has spoken favorably of the wall at times, he also feels that the wall could potentially be a problem. On July 25th, 2003, the President had the following to say regarding the wall, “I think the wall is a problem...it is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and
However,
In addition,
Furthermore, since the construction of the wall, the number of terrorist attacks on
In conclusion, it is obvious that the world is torn on whether there should be a blockade separating
What do Israelis think?
Eliezer Eiseman- From New Jersey, living in
Michael Katz- From Ukraine, Living in
Majdi Hosein- Israeli Arab, born in
Yanir Shelef- Former Israeli Soldier, born in Israel “I think that like between all normal countries there needs to be a border, especially if there is a conflict. The fence helps reduce and prevent terror attacks by so much, and that saves so many lives. If there was no terror - we would love not to have a fence, but since there is such a horrible war of terror against us - for now that's the only way to save lives and maintain a normal life here. Basically - it's an anti-terror fence, and it works.
Works Cited
Buergenthal, Thomas. “Declaration of Judge Buergenthal.”
“FAQS.” 4 Oct. 2003. FAQS.
“Israel Official: Wall to Ensure Jewish Majority.” 2005. Associated Press. 11 July 2005.
“Israel’s Security Fence.” 2006. Jewish Virtual Library.
Norton, James and Gauette, Nicole. “Palestinians Say Wall is a Noose.” The Christian Science Monitor. Article # 1906. (March 2003). 27 Feb 2003
“Olmert's Sweeping Plan to Withdraw Behind Wall Draws Fire From the Right.” 2006. Israel Insider. 10 March 2004.
Shahil. 21 July 2004.
“The Separation Wall.” 25 July 2003. American Task Force on Palestine.
Suri, Sanjay. “Palestinian Win Rises Higher Than Israeli Wall.”
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Housing Demolition in East Jerusalem—Emily Adama and Brittany Fox
SALIM'S STORY
Salim Shawamreh was born in the old city of Jerusalem. In 1967 he and his family were forced to move after the 6 day war to a refugee camp in East Jerusalem. Salim married Arabyia in East Jerusalem and they have six children. The refugee camp they were living in was less than ideal and overcrowded. Salim and Arabyia decided to purchase their own land in an East Jerusalem town called Anata to build a home for their family. After purchasing the land they went through the normal measures to attain a building permit. They paid the $5,000 fee but were denied the permit. Since they had already purchased the land they attempted to get the permit again, and paid another $5,000. After being denied a second time they tried a final time paying a total of $15,000 in fees. Salim and Arabyia were never granted a permit. After four years of trying to get a permit, they finally decided to build without one. On August 2, 1998, over 100 soldiers arrived at Salim's house after giving Salim a demolition order. Salim resisted the soldiers when they attempted to remove him and his family out of their home. Salim was beaten by the soldiers. The soldiers tear gassed Arabyia and the children and than dragged them out of the house. Their belongings were thrown outside in heaps, and then they bulldozed the house. Salim and Arabyia were left with their possessions in the yard and no place to call home. The red cross provided the family with a tent and they set it up in their small yard. The Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolition (ICAHD) helped them to rebuild their home on its original foundation. As they were rebuilding the house received another demolition order. One morning Salim and his family awoke in their small tent at gun point. Salim said, “Can you imagine how scared my children were when they woke up to guns?” Their nearly finished home was bulldozed and the soldiers took their tent away to discourage them from rebuilding. Salim and Arabyia decided to rebuild again with the assistance of ICHAD in order to protest their unfair treatment. Yet again their home was demolished a third time along with the foundation. The fourth time they rebuilt they decided to use the building as the headquarters for ICHAD, and it still stands under the name of “Arabyia's House” to this day.
During our interview with Salim handed me a cup full of water to help explain his situation. We had spent the day working alongside of Salim and other ICHAD volunteers to rebuild a house for a different family. It was a hot day and we had been carrying heavy buckets of cement. We were thirsty and the cup of water looked wonderful. When he handed me the cup of water he said the Palestinian feel like they have been given a cup of water that they are eager to drink from, but when they try to take a drink the government says that they can not drink it. What good is a cup of water if you can't drink from it. You can buy the cup of water but you can't drink from the cup.
THE LEGALITIES
Housing demolitions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are lawful according to Israeli zoning laws created by the Ministry of Interior and the Municipality of Jerusalem. Zoning Laws are created in all parts of the the world. They are an important part of city planning. Zoning in the West Bank was first established by the British in 1942. The British froze building in the West Bank in order to preserve the historic lands of the Bible. They zoned all of the unbuilt areas of the West Bank as Agricultural land even though the majority of it is not fit for farming. At this time the land had ¼ of the population that it has today. In 1967 when Israel annexed the West Bank they retained the zoning laws created by the British even though the population has dramatically increased. In 1993 the Oslo Peace Process created a new 5 year zoning plan that would allow for Palestinians to slowly take possession of the majority of the West Bank. Area A (18% of the land) was created as an area that would be under Palestinian Civil jurisdiction as well as Palestinian security. Area B (22% of the land) was also set up to be under Palestinian civil jurisdiction but security was to be shared by both Israel and Palestine. Area C (60% of the land) was to be under full Israeli control. During the 5 year Oslo Peace Process, Area B was to become A, and Area C was to become area C until the majority of the the West Bank was in full Palestinian control. This process of rezoning never took place due to the Intifada. Israel still has full civil control of area C, and they do not give building permits to Palestinians for this region because they still consider it to be agricultural land.
In the Municipality of Jerusalem a similar situation exists. The size of Jerusalem doubled after the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967- building was frozen in order to restrict the neighborhoods from expanding. The municipality took control of every area that was not built upon (1/3 of East Jerusalem) and deemed it to be “Open Green Space”. This is a policy that is quite normal in city planning. All cities create green spaces in order to expand their boarders in the future. The green space of East Jerusalem is destructive to Palestinian neighborhoods because it does not allow for the expansion of the growing Palestinian communities.
The “open green space” policy and the area C zoning are the laws creating problems for the Palestinian town of Anata where Salim and his family lived. Part of Anata is considered to be within the municipality of Jerusalem, part of it is considered to be in area B and the other portion is considered to be area C. Salim's house was located right outside of the municipality line and right outside of area B in Area C. He did not know the differences between the areas when he purchased the land. As Salim discovered, If you don't get a building permit, the Ministry of Interior and the Municipality of Jerusalem have the legal authority to demolish your home. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem combined there were 290 housing demolitions in 2005, and 319 demolitions in 2006. There have been a total of 18,000 housing demolitions since 1967.
There is deep division among Israelis, Palestinians, and the international community about the legality of Israel’s zoning and permit system. Proponents and opponents of housing demolition show up in nearly every subgroup of Israeli society and use a variety of rhetorical and ideological tools to support their claims.
Proponents of housing demolition generally do not explicitly advocate the destruction of civilian homes; instead they support the enforcement of Israeli law and land preservation as part of broader ideological arguments. There are two political and social subgroups in Israeli society who tend to tolerate housing demolition: religious Zionists and Israeli nationalists. Religious Zionists, although a diverse group in itself, support reuniting the Jewish people with the Biblical Holy land, which includes East Jerusalem. According to this persepective, land preservation and regulation of building is of utmost importance because the land is considered sacred, inherently holy, and in need of protection.
On the extreme of this perspective is a political and social group called the Gush Emunim, a Haredi subsect. Gush Emunim views the establishment of the State of Israel as a divinely inspired event signifying the Messiah is soon to come. In order to hasten the Messiah’s coming, however, Jews must “redeem” all the land of Judea-Samaria by settling there. In this view, Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations to expand Palestinian settlements in the East Jerusalem or to create a Palestinian state would be contrary to the will of God and should not be permitted. Instead, the Jewish government should be focused on expanding its influence and territorial gains into the West Bank.
Israeli nationalists also oppose giving up East Jerusalem, but not for religious or messianic reasons. Israeli nationalists support the expansion of the State of Israeli into the disputed territories because of a deep reverence for Jewish history, culture, and ancient connection to the land. And because Palestine is not an organized State, Israel should expand its influence there so the Jewish people can be better connected to their Biblical heritage. In regard to East Jerusalem, they believe the annexation in 1967 was entirely legitimate and that Israel has a right to manage the land as they wish. Because of the importance of uniting the Jewish people to their Biblical land, Nationalists tend to believe there “can be no Zionism without a Zion”[1], and which is why the land in and around East Jerusalem is so important.
Although these two groups do not outright condone treating people as Salim’s family was treated, they tend to support the system of zoning and permits because it promotes their broader ideological goals of expanding Jewish presence in the West Bank and preserving the land. It is exactly these ideological claims that are behind the State of Israel’s annexation and legislation in Palestine.
Opponents of housing demolition are drawn from a diverse collection of subgroups within Israeli society including Religious Jews, Israeli politicians, Israeli Academics, Arab-Palestinians, and international NGO’s. The main thrust of their arguments goes back to the Six Day war of 1967 and the belief that the annexation of East Jerusalem was an unjust violation of international law. According to UN resolution 242 of 1967, Israel must withdrawal “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” referring to East Jerusalem. With great respect for international law, critics of housing demolition claim that although the permit and zoning system is technically legal according to Israeli law, Israel is illegally occupying the territory, thus nullifying its legislation and enforcement.
A second popular argument of anti-housing demolitionists is that the permit system should be protested even if it is legal because it is unjust. Following the tradition of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, many believe “an unjust law is no law at all” (MLK). Jeff Halper, co-founder of the Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolition argues the zoning and permit system of the Israeli government is unjust to the Arab population and violates their basic universal rights. For example, he explains Israel’s zoning of East Jerusalem in 1967 suffocated many Arab villages by surrounding them with green zones or agricultural land. This prevents the natural expansion of Arab villages, inhibits economic growth, and frustrates attempts to unite the Palestinian people. Furthermore, permits are given out discriminately to Jews instead of Arabs. Agricultural land and green space is regularly rezoned to accommodate Jewish settlements or Israeli government infrastructure. According to anti-housing demolitionists, this is a violation of equal political rights of the Arab-Israelis and is not based on notions of sacred Human Rights.
There is no easy solution to the conflict over housing demolition. Both sides have fervent ideological reasons for their positions and believe they are fighting for a worthy cause. Salim’s story, however, reminds us that behind every political debate are the lives of the many affected by the decisions of the few. Salim gives a glimpse into what Israeli policy in the Disputed territories can mean for the average Arab. Many of Israel’s policies are driven by security imperatives and Jewish theology, which often take precedent over the consideration of Arab rights. For this reason, Israel’s policies must be carefully examined to determine their overall affect on humanity, not just that of the Jewish populous.
Sources:
-Interview with Salim Shawamreh – victim of housing demolitions in East Jerusalem
-Interview with Jeff Halper– Co-founder of Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolition, Author of “An Israeli in Palestine”. Nominated by the AFSC for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Serves on the steering committee of the UN Conference on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.
-Informal speech by Dr. Meir Margalit, PhD – Researcher of the history of the Jewish community in Palestine during period of the British mandate and a founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. Born in Argentina and moved to Israel with a right-wing Zionist youth group in 1972. Founded a Jewish settlement in Gaza and he fought and was injured in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. During his recovery he changed his views. He was a member in the Jerusalem City Council, for the Meretz Party between 1998 and 2002.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)