Political Scape

POLITICAL SCAPE

“The differences between the population groups in the city and its environs, and the diversity of identities, identifications, and interests that distinguish the groups encourage conflicts of interest and competition between them, Both alike lead to geographical segregation and struggles for territorial control, economic resources, and the shaping of the way of life of all the groups together and each group separately.”

There is a disagreement as to whether Jerusalem is a divided or a united city. Upon first coming to Israel I might have agreed that it was a diversified city with a mixed population, though not a divided city. However, research for this topic has only demonstrated that there is in fact a definite line in the city, whether it is a built wall, a street, a line on a map, or even a line seen only by the inhabitants of a Jerusalem neighbourhood, it is there.
In an attempt to explore the concept of a line in Jerusalem, a series of maps were compared by eliminating all things but the border lines. A contrast was then made and a noticeable difference between each line was observed. Each line was different. The only line that was the same was that of the constructed wall. Therefore, the line could be perceived as abstract, or the intangible line.
Over time, the 1967 line, which divided the city physically and politically, has become smudged, as has the annexation line that Israel established just a few days later. It can be noted that the municipal boundary that Israel established in 1967 is different from the metropolitan boundary as defined by the geographic distribution of the population and by its economic, employment, and transportation networks. It is this discrepancy that prompts the comparison of the changing boundaries, and a study into why this is so.
The important political dimensions in shaping Jerusalem’s boundary lines can be emphasized from two points of view. The entrance of Palestinian authorities into Arab occupied cities bordering Jerusalem (Bethlehem, Ramallah) has condensed East Jerusalem’s metropolitan operations and the extent of its influence. Also, the closure line established in 1993 seems to be more a political boundary then a municipal one, which marks the area of sovereignty in Jerusalem. “The damage the closure has caused to the Palestinian status of east Jerusalem serves the purpose of the Israeli government. While closure was not imposed [to suppress East Jerusalem’s businesses], the longer it has lasted the more the Palestinians have come to perceive this as the major reason for its presence” (Klein, p. 38).

“Ever since Israel and the Palestinian Authority began implementing the Oslo agreements in May 1994, the political map of Jerusalem and its environs has changed. Until then there was a single boarder as far as Israel was concerned, the annexation boundary which was also the Jerusalem municipal limit. The establishment of the Palestinian Authority and its penetration into Jerusalem made the Jerusalem political border less then straightforward, the Palestinian Authority is forbidden to operate within Israeli Jerusalem, but the Authority has found ways of circumventing this prohibition, and this has brought into sharper relief the political-national boundary line that passes through the city. Alongside this boundary, additional boundary lines have been added – electoral district lines for the Palestinian Authority’s legislative council and the Palestinian administrative district of Jerusalem. These two lines coincide and are identical with those of the Jerusalem district that existed when East Jerusalem and the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.” (Klein, p. 39)