Symbolic Decolonisation? Housing in East Jerusalem - Haim Yacobi

Symbolic Decolonisation?

Housing in East Jerusalem Haim Yacobi

Conflict in Cities: Europe and the Middle East

This photo-essay focuses on the French-Hill ‘satellite neighbourhood’ or ‘settlement’, that was built as part of what some would term ‘the Israeli colonisation of East Jerusalem’. Today, Israelis consider it to be politically and culturally part of a ‘united Jerusalem’.

Developed according to a modern planning episteme, this neighbourhood is inhabited by Jewish residents, but it is undergoing a process of ethnodemographic transformation as Palestinian residents (both with Israeli IDs and Jerusalem Resident Certificates) have been moving into it in recent years.

Over the last decade, a new phenomenon has emerged in Jerusalem, namely the ‘immigration’ of Palestinians, mostly Israeli citizens, into ‘Jewish’ settlements in East Jerusalem. According to the data available, more than 7000 Palestinians lived in the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem at the end of 2008, of which approximately 4500 live in ‘satellite neighbourhoods’: Israeli settlements in Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967.

The image is a cover of a brochure advertising a housing project in French Hill, highlighting its visual (and symbolic) link to the Old City.

The planning and construction of these ‘satellite neighbourhoods’ was initiated and realised in order to put ‘facts on the ground’ on a landscape that has been perceived as terra nullius.

The planning of these settlements privileges the Jewish population and excludes the Palestinians residing in the city tangibly and symbolically as noted by one of the Jewish French Hill inhabitants: ‘When we came to live here, the view from the window was empty.

There was no one there, maybe a house or two. The kids used to play in the valley. Today, you see, there are all these [Palestinian] illegal houses in front of us.’ (Interview with Ariella, an Israeli resident January 29, 2006)

Jerusalem Municipality Archive

However, the location of the French Hill on the frontier of the city and its proximity to some of the city’s Palestinian neighbourhoods made ‘total control’, with respect to the presence of Palestinians in French Hill, an impossibility. Both geographically and symbolically the frontier location of French Hill is significant. Geographically it is surrounded by a ‘contested landscape’ including a segment of the Separation Barrier. The image shows a view from French Hill towards the Shuaafat refugee camp. French Hill watches (and indeed is watched by) the Palestinian refugee camp of Shuaafat. It also marks the edge of the city, as it is situated by the main road that leads to the Judean desert.

The movement of Palestinians to French Hill is also a result of the geopolitical conditions in which the Israeli surveillance of and control over East Jerusalem's Palestinian neighbourhoods causes unequal distribution of resources and infrastructure, poverty, and social and physical deterioration. A closer view of daily activities reveals that Palestinian presence in French Hill is drawn by the public and commercial services that are available there. Despite the escalating violence following the first and especially the second Intifada, and the ongoing discourses of enmity, Israeli residents in the French Hill neighbourhood found themselves facing a dilemma: ‘to sell or not to sell’ property to Palestinians. While such a dilemma is common in Jewish/Arab mixed cities in Israel, the case of French Hill has some significant differences. Here, the discussion is shifted to the Palestinian ‘side’ and to the question of ‘to buy or not to buy’ property, as French Hill was one of the first settlements to be built on occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem.

It is also as a neighbourhood that claims to offer public services for Jewish residents only.

From the beginning of the 2000s, during the escalating violence and tension between Israel and the Palestinians, the frontier characteristics of the French Hill area drew Palestinian ‘suicide’ bombers and other attackers. One victim of such an attack, a young Israeli girl, is commemorated in the plaque shown in this image.

These attacks have further polarised the population. Hence Palestinian presence in French Hill continues to be heavily opposed by the majority of Jewish residents.

The ‘French Hill Junction’ pictured here, is a key node in a transportation network that links West Jerusalem with other settlements in East Jerusalem.

This junction became a prime target for Palestinian attackers during the intifada. However, it is important to reiterate the reason why some Palestinians have moved to French Hill: they desire a better place to live. Homes and neighbourhoods, with a good level of housing stock and neighbourhood services, are generally denied to them in their own communities, as noted by a Palestinian who bought apartment in French Hill: ‘In the year 2000 we almost bought a "villa" in [Israeli] Pisgat Zeev. Then the second Intifada started, there was a tension and I knew that we could not move to Pisgat Zeev [...] So, we searched for a place we [would] like. We did not want to live in [Palestinian] Shuaafat, the municipality services, schools and infrastructure are not good there. Because of the Intifada, often there is often a flying checkpoint at the entrance to Shuaafat, and if they stop you, you cannot get to work on time in the city.’ (Interview with Mustafa, April 13, 2010).

Palestinians who wish to buy a property in French Hill must negotiate directly with individual Jewish vendors who will often maximise their financial gain by selling property to Palestinians. This issue has been raised by Antuan (interview, April 9, 2010), a Christian-Arab Lawyer, and an Israeli citizen who is married to a Jerusalemite Palestinian. Antuan bought his apartment in 2002, when housing prices in French Hill fell during the Intifada (due to the spate of attacks and killings of Israelis in the area). Despite the relatively low housing prices at that time, Antuan mentioned that some of the Israeli property sellers refused to sell their apartment to Arabs. However, as a lawyer who represents other Arab families that purchase property in French Hill, Antuan stated: ‘Arabs who buy here are economically stable, so they can buy any apartment they are interested in. I personally know around twenty families who bought property [...] If you look at these family – they are all in better financial circumstances than the average I s r a e l i f a m i l y. T h e y c a n a f f o r d " To s e f e t Aravi" (Informal surcharge paid by Palestinians buying homes from Israelis).‘

Image 8 Posters and Derelict.

Belfast. 2010

The term "Tosefet Aravi", used by Antuan, was also used by other interviewees. It has become a common expression codifying the 20 to 25 percent ‘surcharge’ Palestinians are ‘obliged’ to pay for property in the neighbourhood. An estate agent who lives and works in French Hill states: ‘The Arab buyers are offering a better price than the Israelis… it creates a dilemma for the vendor. Some Jews will never sell their flat to Arabs, they say “Ill never do it to my neighbours” but others will. As a property agent I will never do it.’ (Interview with Abraham, January 29, 2006).

Antuan reflects upon daily experiences among Palestinians residing in French Hill who do not socialise with their Jewish Israeli neighbours. Their use of neighbourhood shops and services is minimal and curtailed. Mustafa notes: ‘We do our shopping in Palestinian Shuaafat, but once a week we go to the shopping mall [in Israeli Pisgat Zeev].

We have no contact with the cultural events here, the kids do not go to afterschool activities here; the piano teacher comes to teach them here, at home, we take them to visit their [non-Israeli] friends in other neighbourhoods. They have no reason to play outside.’ (Interview with Antuan, January 29, 2006).

This poster says ‘ Do not sell [a house] to a Palestinian.’ The view of some Israelis on the matter is certainly made clear here. Yet, one might ask to what extent living in French Hill is, for its Palestinian minority, an act of resistance in itself, a form of participation as a member of one’s nation. Whilst many of the middle class Palestinian residents of French Hill see their residency as a ‘strategy of survival’, some underline the political dimension of their decision to move to a ‘colonial’ neighbourhood: ‘...we broke the stereotypes against Arabs. They [the Jewish neighbours] feel that we are part of this place… If you will measure the socioeconomic capacity? of the Arabs in the neighbourhood, it is much higher than the average Jewish people... Our presence here has symbolic meaning, it is even a symbolic de-colonisation.’ (Interview with Antuan, April 9, 2010).

Whilst this may offer some satisfaction as an act of ongoing subversion, at least at a symbolic level, the problem of everyday participation in one’s neighbourhood and community is not solved.

Rather, there is the question as to what extent Palestinians need to relinquish parts of their own culture in order to achieve even a minimal level of integration. How compromised are they? ‘To buy or not to buy’ becomes an existential question. This seems to be most important in the question of Palestinian polity; not only how much can they participate in Israeli culture and institutions in French Hill, but also to what extent are they able to participant in their own culture and politics if they live in French Hill? While they may enjoy some small level of acceptance within Israeli circles in French Hill, this is fundamentally opposed to the wishes of the larger Palestinian entity that desires the end of the occupation.

Conflict in Cities and the Contested State research project, supported by the ESRC (grant number RES-060-25-0015)

www.urbanconflicts.arct.cam.ac.uk

Š Copyright 2011 by Conflict in Cities, All Rights Reserved