Maintaining Pluralism in Jerusalem:
Some Modest But Extremely Important Steps
Daniel J. Elazar
All of us watching the situation in Jerusalem are aware that a
major problem facing the city is the future shape of pluralism
within its boundaries. While at times this problem generates
scare headlines, in fact it should be seen as a "good" rather
than a "bad" problem and solutions for it should be approached in
an optimistic and positive vein. There are at least three major
dimensions to this problem: 1) relations between Jews and Arabs;
2) divisions within the Jewish community; 3) relations between
the indigenous population, both Jewish and Arab, and those who
are drawn to Jerusalem on a temporary but continuing basis from
the outside.
1) Jews and Arabs - The Arab population is one of the major, if
not the major, sources of overall growth in Jerusalem's
population. Arabs are moving to Jerusalem from Judea and Samaria
and from pre-1967 Israel because Jerusalem is the one city in
Israel capable of becoming a major Arab metropolis, in the sense
that a strong Arab population will be able to develop a cultural,
economic, and social center befitting a community of growing
sophistication in the contemporary world. That, indeed, is its
attraction for Israeli Arabs as well as for West Bankers. This
phenomenon is potentially enriching for Jerusalem as a whole as
long as the Arab and Jewish growth rates remain in balance.
2) Divisions within the Jewish community - The Jewish population
of Jerusalem is divided into roughly four groupings. In no
particular order they are: 1) haredim (ultra-Orthodox) of varying
stripes; 2) Modern Orthodox or religious Zionists; 3) Sephardim,
both oldtimers in the city for generations and those of African
and Asian background who were settled in the city after 1948; 4)
so-called hilonim or secular Jews, principally Ashkenazim
associated with the academic, intellectual and artistic life of
the city. These groups have shown a remarkable capacity to live
together, in many respects thanks to the efforts of Teddy Kollek,
despite occasional friction at the borders of their respective
"turfs."
Here, too, the problem is principally demographic. An
imbalance in the growth or decline of any one of these four
groups can change the political and cultural balance of the city,
and in the process create new tensions. All the evidence points
to the fact that the haredim are the fastest growing of these
groups, aided by an extremely high birthrate and substantial
immigration, vying with the Arab population as the fastest
growing group in the city. The modern Orthodox are also growing,
but it seems at a lesser rate (certainly a lower birthrate),
though we have no accurate statistics. No one knows exactly what
is happening with the Sephardim, although it seems that their
profile is much like other Israelis, with a normal amount of
migration in and out of the city, perhaps tempered by the strong
commitment to Jerusalem that animates virtually all of its
residents of whatever group or ethno-religious community. In
short, their young seem to go where there is opportunity,
although, all other things being equal, they will try hard to
stay in Jerusalem.
Reports of abandonment of the city come almost entirely from
the hiloni group. Lacking accurate statistics, it is hard to say
too much, but it does appear that they do constitute the bulk of
the out-migrants. In part this is because they, too, are seeking
opportunity as individuals, without regard to factors other than
the limited local job market. In part, it is a reflection of the
fact that Tel Aviv remains the center of non-religious artistic
and intellectual life to a very great extent and has come to
challenge Jerusalem in the academic sphere as well. Enrollments
at the Hebrew University are stabilized or declining, while those
at Tel Aviv University, Bar Ilan, and such ancillary institutions
as Beit Berl, Efal, Wingate, etc. are rising.
It is this group that presents the fact of so many of its
members leaving Jerusalem as a response to growing haredi
pressures, though in fact this seems to be a post facto
justification rather than a real reason. Since, by and large,
the religious status quo in Jerusalem has remained for the city
as a whole, it is hard to believe that secular Jews will start to
leave Jerusalem now because haredim are trying to prevent movie
theaters from opening on Friday night when all through the years
movie theaters have not been open. This is a real issue in those
geographic areas of confrontation, principally, but not
exclusively, on the north side of town and in the northern
suburbs where haredim and non-haredim are competing for control
over new neighborhoods. Here there are indeed problems which may
lead to frustration on the part of some and a decision to look
for opportunity elsewhere.
3) Indigenous inhabitants and outsider visitors - Because
Jerusalem has been the magnet for all monotheistic religions for
3,000 years and, as a place of special spiritual importance, has
begun to attract followers of other religions as well, there is a
constant presence in the city of outside visitors who want to be
more than visitors, that is to say, who want to have at least an
institutional presence in the city. Since many of them come with
reputations for missionizing and seeking converts, their very
presence can pose a problem to the peace of the city unless
relations with them are regularized and ground rules acceptable
to the indigenous residents are accepted by all. The recent
Mormon controversy is an example of what can happen when matters
are not handled carefully and with planning and forethought.
What is to be done?
All of the foregoing are enduring realities in the rebuilt city
of Jerusalem. Indeed they are products of the Jewish people's
success in rebuilding the city and restoring it to its former
glory and more.
First of all, we need to have an accurate picture of what is
happening. Too much of our information is impressionistic, based
upon journalistic reports and personal encounters rather than on
solid data. This is true across the board with regard to all
three dimensions of the problem and their subsets.
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is prepared to gather
and analyse the necessary data. With those data in hand we can
begin to plan strategies for structural change to reduce
tensions. Nobody can rival the superb work of Mayor Kollek in
keeping Jerusalem the best governed heterogeneous city in the
world (as we have noted in an earlier paper on the subject), but
it is too much to expect him to be able to undertake the planning
necessary to reduce future friction points.
The Mormon issue is a good example of a problem that was
exacerbated for lack of accurate information and prior planning.
There is no framework for checking the missionary impulses of
religious groups like the Mormons or providing them with sites
for their institutions except on an ad hoc basis. After the
issue reached the headlines and the streets, we at the Jerusalem
Center, on our own initiative, proposed steps for dealing with
similar issues that will inevitably remain in the future. In our
paper, we proposed (see A Covenant of Peace for Jerusalem) a
covenant of peace to be signed by all relevant parties for
declaring Jerusalem and Israel off limits for conversion
purposes, but rather a site for dialogue and discussion among the
world's religions. In order to facilitate that goal we suggested
the development of a "religious park" similar to office parks or
industrial parks to provide appropriate and attractive sites for
the institutional presence of the various non-Jewish religious
groups that wish to be present in Jerusalem.
Similar kinds of structural institutional arrangements can be
developed to deal with other tension points between groups in the
city that, if properly secured through appropriate agreements and
implemented, will lessen the possibilities of confrontation.
Needless to say, none of this will substitute for the skills of
the city's leadership, nor can any of it hope to eliminate
conflict. But a planned approach of this nature can do much to
minimize unnecessary conflict.
What is needed, along with the facts, are plans used on
identification of the options available and the implications of
each.
