Judaization of Jerusalem - Defining Judaization: Means and Effects in Jerusalem

Defining Judaization: Means and Effects in Jerusalem

"Judaization" in territorial terms is characterized by Oren Yiftachel as a form of "ethnicization", which he argues is "the main force in shaping ethnocratic regimes". Yiftachel identifies Judaization as a state strategy and project in Israel, not confined to Jerusalem alone. He also characterizes the goals of those pursuing a "Greater Israel" or "Greater Palestine" as being driven by "ethnicization", in this case by "Judaization" and "Arabization" respectively.

The question of whether there is an Israeli government policy for the Judaization of Jerusalem is a matter of debate. Some scholars like Oren Yiftachel, Moshe Ma'oz and Jeremy Salt write that it has been the policy of successive Israeli governments since 1967. Others, like Justus Weiner and Dan Diker, have objected to the entire notion, writing that the lack of any significant change to the demographic balance of the city undermines suggestions that it is government policy and renders any such discussions moot.

Valerie Zink writes that much was accomplished towards the Judaization of Jerusalem with the expulsion of Arab residents in 1948 and 1967, noting that the process has also relied in "peacetime" on "the strategic extension of Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, bureaucratic and legal restrictions on Palestinian land use, disenfranchisement of Jerusalem residents, the expansion of settlements in 'Greater Jerusalem', and the construction of the separation wall." The attempts to Judaize Jerusalem, in the words of Jeremy Salt, "to obliterate its Palestinian identity" and thicken 'Greater Jerusalem' to encompass much of the West Bank, have continued under successive Israeli governments.

Cheryl Rubenberg writes that since 1967, Israel has employed processes of "Judaization and Israelization so as to transform Jerusalem into a Jewish metropolis," while simultaneously pursuing "a program of de-Arabization" so as to facilitate "its objective of permanent, unified, sovereign control over the city." These policies, which aim to change Jerusalem demographically, socially, culturally and politically, are said by Rubenberg to have intensified after the initiation of the Oslo peace process in 1993.

Drawing on the scholarship of Ian Lustick, Cecilia Alban writes of how the Israeli government has succeeded in establishing "new powerful, concepts, images, and icons" to explain and legitimise its policies in Jerusalem. The government's use of the term "reunification" to describe its occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 is cited as one such example, which in Alban's view, falsely implies that this area belonged to Israel in the past. Noting the reality of the fear among Israelis that Jerusalem would become redivided under dual sovereignty or internationalization proposals, Alban's writes that such fears were "exploited politically to justify the forced retention and Judaization of East Jerusalem." Steve Niva writes that Israeli policies calling for the Judaization of Jerusalem and the rest of historic Palestine in the 1970s, augmented Muslim fears that Israel was an extension of Western imperialism in the region.

Scott Bollens, a University of California professor of urban planning, has compared Israel's policies in Jerusalem to apartheid-era South Africa's racial policies in Johannesburg. According to Bollens, in both cases long-term planning was employed to pursue political objectives. Bollens says that although on the rhetorical level South Africa employed racial rhetoric more blatantly than Israel does, the outcomes are "very, very similar" in that Israeli-controlled Jerusalem is just as unequal as apartheid-era Johannesburg.