**6. The planning context in Jerusalem**

has been a source of inspiration to adherents of these religions for thousands of years [33]. Jerusalem has therefore been a focal point for world powers during many different eras as shown

Thus far, Jerusalem is considered a contested, frontier, polarized, and deeply divided city [4]. Until 1917, Jerusalem was an "Ottoman Province". After WWI and in particular after the Battle of Jerusalem in December 1917, the British military captured Jerusalem city and considered it to be the capital of their Mandate in Palestine. The League of Nations, through its 1922 ratification of the Balfour Declaration, designated the United Kingdom to administer the Mandate for Palestine and help establish a Jewish state in Palestine [34]. During the successive three decades of the British Mandate (1917–1948), many areas in Jerusalem looked into the construction of new garden suburbs mainly in the northern-western direction. Then, at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jerusalem was divided for the first time in its history. The first spatial division of Jerusalem was set out by the Armistice Agreement of 1949 between Israel and Jordan cut through the center of the city creating the western and eastern parts from 1949 until 1967. During that time, West Jerusalem (WJ) was controlled by Israel,

while EJ was controlled by Trans-Jordan. In 1949, Israel declared WJ as its capital.

**Figure 2.** Historical powers that controlled Jerusalem before Ottomans [author].

The next dramatic moment, the 1967 Six-Day War, had dramatic consequences for what followed. Israel had, unilaterally, annexed 70.5 square kilometers of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) including EJ, which presents 6.5 square kilometers of the total. Israel's domestic jurisdiction was extended to EJ through Amendment No. 11 of the 1967 Law and Administration Ordinance. The city's illegal unification and its controversial status as the eternal capital of Israel were declared through the Basic Law in 1980. However, the status of United Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital has not been officially recognized by most of the international community, and nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. However, in December 2017, the president of the US violated the UN resolutions and announced his controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital a political discourse that intensifies the tension rather enhances the peace process. Consequently, the UN General Assembly has decisively backed a resolution effectively calling on the US to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and voted overwhelmingly to ask nations not to establish diplomatic missions in the historic city of Jerusalem. Consequently, the Assembly adopted the resolution "Status of Jerusalem," by which it declared "null and void" any actions intended to alter Jerusalem's character, status or demographic composition; and stated that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council [35]. These acts are contrary to international law. Israel, therefore, continues to violate international law, going against United Nations resolutions and agreements with

in **Figure 2**.

226 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

Jerusalem is a unique case study in terms of its historical development, especially during the last century when administrative control of the city changed several times. Within five decades (1917–1967), Jerusalem was controlled by four distinctive regimes, namely, Ottoman, British, Jordanian, and Israeli. During these radical administrative transformations, Jerusalem experienced rapid and varying development modes, which together have produced different challenges for its spatial characteristics, most particularly, in terms of the fast changing composition of the city population and urban fabric. Hence, the overall experience in the field of physical planning in Jerusalem offers unique and special aspects of profound interest for any scholar in urban planning, spatial socio-political relations, history, and human geography.

Today Jerusalem reflects two divergent images. The first is the timeless of one of the most historic cities in the world, while the other is that of one of the most modern cities in the world. These two contradictory images of the city are accompanied with by the heterogeneousness of the population, arriving mainly during the last century. The successive administrations in Jerusalem have created an extensive maze of rules and regulations, making the planning system complex and in many ways inefficient. The historical powers that had characterized the official planning system in Jerusalem since the Ottoman period are listed chronologically in **Figure 3**.

• The *"Regressive planning paradigm*" applied in the Palestinian Arab Neighborhoods in EJ limits the current and constrains the future development of the Palestinian residents who

Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78779

229

The dynamic interactions between planning, power, and politics (3P) have produced paradoxical spatial development patterns in Jerusalem as conceptualized in **Figure 5**. Accordingly, urban spaces in Jerusalem are produced in two contradictory modes of production. These unequal planning progressive/regressive modes reflect two-sided planning paradigms of the current Israeli policies. Although Israel declared the city of Jerusalem as a "unified" city in its political boundaries, it is still "separated" in terms of its spatial context and urban fabric. WJ presents an "active and dynamic" space for the Jewish residents, whereas the opposite is represented in EJ, namely, an "inactive and fragmented" space for the Palestinian residents. This contradiction in the city atmosphere is guided by the Israeli central government and thus

are now the minority group.

maintained deliberately by the political power of the state.

**Figure 4.** The appearance of the divided city of Jerusalem, 2014 [3].

**Figure 3.** Historical administrative development in Jerusalem since Ottoman rule [author].

The previous figure reflects the quick and dynamic transformations of the administrative authorities in Jerusalem. During the rule of each authority, Jerusalem was "spatially" defined in a completely unique and different way. The smallest delimitation was certainly during the Ottoman rule, in which Jerusalem was mainly developing within the boundaries of the Old City, which is accurately defined by its inspiring encircling wall. The Old City's internal narrow roadway system that forms a maze of alleys and stairways hide a treasure of historical, cultural and spiritual heritage that reflects 5000 years of passionate history condensed in barely 1 square kilometer. The Old City greatly outlines the features of the fortified cities built during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman, the Magnificent in the early sixteenth century. The political borders of the city then changed following the succession of the administrations, successive control power. The spatial frontier was first set outside of the walled area during the British Mandate and it continued to expand until the Israeli occupation, today encompassing three times more than its mandatory perimeter. Today the spatial appearance of the city reflects divided communities and segregated neighborhoods as shown in **Figure 4**.

Israel occupied WJ after the termination of the British Mandate in 1948. In 1967, after the Six-Day War, Israel unlawfully annexed EJ to its territory. Since then, Jerusalem has been subjected to extensive Israeli planning policies aiming at expropriating more of the Palestinian lands and expelling native Palestinians from EJ. Hence, spatial planning in Jerusalem consists of two contradictory approaches based upon the ethnic and cultural identity of the residents:

• The "*Progressive planning paradigm*" practiced in WJ and in the Jewish Settlements (JS) spread to EJ, which aims to improve the welfare of the Jewish people, who are now the dominant group, and their neighborhoods by creating more convenient, equitable, healthful, efficient, and attractive places for the existing and future Israeli Jewish generations.

• The *"Regressive planning paradigm*" applied in the Palestinian Arab Neighborhoods in EJ limits the current and constrains the future development of the Palestinian residents who are now the minority group.

The dynamic interactions between planning, power, and politics (3P) have produced paradoxical spatial development patterns in Jerusalem as conceptualized in **Figure 5**. Accordingly, urban spaces in Jerusalem are produced in two contradictory modes of production. These unequal planning progressive/regressive modes reflect two-sided planning paradigms of the current Israeli policies. Although Israel declared the city of Jerusalem as a "unified" city in its political boundaries, it is still "separated" in terms of its spatial context and urban fabric. WJ presents an "active and dynamic" space for the Jewish residents, whereas the opposite is represented in EJ, namely, an "inactive and fragmented" space for the Palestinian residents. This contradiction in the city atmosphere is guided by the Israeli central government and thus maintained deliberately by the political power of the state.

**Figure 4.** The appearance of the divided city of Jerusalem, 2014 [3].

**Figure 3.** Historical administrative development in Jerusalem since Ottoman rule [author].

228 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

The previous figure reflects the quick and dynamic transformations of the administrative authorities in Jerusalem. During the rule of each authority, Jerusalem was "spatially" defined in a completely unique and different way. The smallest delimitation was certainly during the Ottoman rule, in which Jerusalem was mainly developing within the boundaries of the Old City, which is accurately defined by its inspiring encircling wall. The Old City's internal narrow roadway system that forms a maze of alleys and stairways hide a treasure of historical, cultural and spiritual heritage that reflects 5000 years of passionate history condensed in barely 1 square kilometer. The Old City greatly outlines the features of the fortified cities built during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman, the Magnificent in the early sixteenth century. The political borders of the city then changed following the succession of the administrations, successive control power. The spatial frontier was first set outside of the walled area during the British Mandate and it continued to expand until the Israeli occupation, today encompassing three times more than its mandatory perimeter. Today the spatial appearance of the city reflects divided communities and segregated neighborhoods as shown in **Figure 4**. Israel occupied WJ after the termination of the British Mandate in 1948. In 1967, after the Six-Day War, Israel unlawfully annexed EJ to its territory. Since then, Jerusalem has been subjected to extensive Israeli planning policies aiming at expropriating more of the Palestinian lands and expelling native Palestinians from EJ. Hence, spatial planning in Jerusalem consists of two contradictory approaches based upon the ethnic and cultural identity of the residents: • The "*Progressive planning paradigm*" practiced in WJ and in the Jewish Settlements (JS) spread to EJ, which aims to improve the welfare of the Jewish people, who are now the dominant group, and their neighborhoods by creating more convenient, equitable, healthful, efficient, and attractive places for the existing and future Israeli Jewish generations.

land cut-off in the Israeli planning system. It is noteworthy mentioning that only 40% of the total area of EJ has valid approved plans. However, due to regressive Israeli sophisticated planning regulations, Palestinians in EJ are neither able to develop most of the planned areas for their critical needs nor the other unplanned zones. Approximately 34% of EJ is confiscated for Jewish settlements, while 26% is still unplanned zones. Accordingly, Palestinians living in EJ face serious challenges in finding enough room for their future development and expansion. Thus, more than 74% of the total area of EJ is part of the "static sphere" where vacant Palestinians' lands are prevented from any kind of development by the regressive Israeli planning policies and transferred into the future for the purpose of establishing Jewish

Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78779

231

The Israeli planning policies treated the Palestinian residents of the city as unwanted immigrants and worked systematically to drive them out of the area. Hence, the Israeli government created systematic mechanisms for expropriating the vacant Palestinian lands and limit their future development. One of these is the regressive land use planning policy by which huge areas are designated as green spaces in the Palestinian local town plans. Approximately 35% of the total planned area of EJ is zoned for this purpose. As such, construction is completely forbidden in open landscape areas, where the permitted usage only includes forestry, groves,

Unlike open public land, open green spaces are not expropriated from their owners and remain private property unless the Israeli government decides to confiscate these green lands for the purpose of either expanding the boundaries of existing Jewish settlements. This is what happened in Shufat Arab Town, which is surrounded by lands designated as green lands from which lands were expropriated to expand Reches Shufat's Jewish-only settlement shown in **Figure 7**. They can also be used for constructing new Jewish settlements as what

The adopted Israeli planning policies in Jerusalem have aimed at constraining the future development of the Palestinian residents. Demographically, during more than 70 years of Israeli colonization in Palestine, the Jewish community has grown up amounting today nearly 800% of its original size in 1922 as per the British Mandate Census for that year Palestine's population was characterized as 88% Muslim and Christian Arabs and 12% Jewish. Immigration

**EJ total area**

Green areas 14 35

14 35

**% of planned area**

settlements, see **Table 1**.

agriculture, and the use of pre-existing roads.

Remained after expropriation

**Table 1.** Regressive land use planning in EJ [author].

happened in the Har Homa Jewish Settlement shown in **Figure 8**.

**Space Planning and urban management % according to** 

**E**ast **J**erusalem Expropriated Palestinian lands 34 —

Unplanned areas 26

Total 100 100

Planned areas Housing 12 30 Roads and public buildings

**Figure 5.** Spatial reflection of the 3P concept in Jerusalem [author].

The 3P concept demonstrates how the paradoxical Israeli spatial planning policies in Jerusalem formulate two contrasting societies within the same spatial governorate, namely, the Palestinian Arab community, and the Israeli Jewish society. However, the earlier deprived community suffers from fragmentation of its social and geographical contexts in contrast to the later society, which is well connected and integrated by spatial continuity and physical infrastructure. The Israeli Municipality of Jerusalem has intensified the complexity between the Palestinian urbanized neighborhoods in EJ, via a complex set of planning tools and regulations. Spatial regressive planning, besides mismanaged land use policies, is the chief challenge in that sense, as outlined in **Figure 6**, which presents the systematic unjust Palestinian

**Figure 6.** Analytical diagram of the Israeli regressive land use planning in EJ [author].

land cut-off in the Israeli planning system. It is noteworthy mentioning that only 40% of the total area of EJ has valid approved plans. However, due to regressive Israeli sophisticated planning regulations, Palestinians in EJ are neither able to develop most of the planned areas for their critical needs nor the other unplanned zones. Approximately 34% of EJ is confiscated for Jewish settlements, while 26% is still unplanned zones. Accordingly, Palestinians living in EJ face serious challenges in finding enough room for their future development and expansion. Thus, more than 74% of the total area of EJ is part of the "static sphere" where vacant Palestinians' lands are prevented from any kind of development by the regressive Israeli planning policies and transferred into the future for the purpose of establishing Jewish settlements, see **Table 1**.

The Israeli planning policies treated the Palestinian residents of the city as unwanted immigrants and worked systematically to drive them out of the area. Hence, the Israeli government created systematic mechanisms for expropriating the vacant Palestinian lands and limit their future development. One of these is the regressive land use planning policy by which huge areas are designated as green spaces in the Palestinian local town plans. Approximately 35% of the total planned area of EJ is zoned for this purpose. As such, construction is completely forbidden in open landscape areas, where the permitted usage only includes forestry, groves, agriculture, and the use of pre-existing roads.

Unlike open public land, open green spaces are not expropriated from their owners and remain private property unless the Israeli government decides to confiscate these green lands for the purpose of either expanding the boundaries of existing Jewish settlements. This is what happened in Shufat Arab Town, which is surrounded by lands designated as green lands from which lands were expropriated to expand Reches Shufat's Jewish-only settlement shown in **Figure 7**. They can also be used for constructing new Jewish settlements as what happened in the Har Homa Jewish Settlement shown in **Figure 8**.

The adopted Israeli planning policies in Jerusalem have aimed at constraining the future development of the Palestinian residents. Demographically, during more than 70 years of Israeli colonization in Palestine, the Jewish community has grown up amounting today nearly 800% of its original size in 1922 as per the British Mandate Census for that year Palestine's population was characterized as 88% Muslim and Christian Arabs and 12% Jewish. Immigration


**Table 1.** Regressive land use planning in EJ [author].

**Figure 6.** Analytical diagram of the Israeli regressive land use planning in EJ [author].

The 3P concept demonstrates how the paradoxical Israeli spatial planning policies in Jerusalem formulate two contrasting societies within the same spatial governorate, namely, the Palestinian Arab community, and the Israeli Jewish society. However, the earlier deprived community suffers from fragmentation of its social and geographical contexts in contrast to the later society, which is well connected and integrated by spatial continuity and physical infrastructure. The Israeli Municipality of Jerusalem has intensified the complexity between the Palestinian urbanized neighborhoods in EJ, via a complex set of planning tools and regulations. Spatial regressive planning, besides mismanaged land use policies, is the chief challenge in that sense, as outlined in **Figure 6**, which presents the systematic unjust Palestinian

**Figure 5.** Spatial reflection of the 3P concept in Jerusalem [author].

230 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

**Figure 7.** (Above)—Reches Shufat Jewish-only settlement established over expropriated Palestinian green lands, (below)—Shufat Plan #3456A in Jerusalem General Outline 3000B shows the Palestinian built-up area of Shufat town surrounded by green areas and Jewish settlements in all directions [author].

accounts for most of the increase in the Jewish population at that time, while the increase in the non-Jewish population was due to birth rates [39]. By the end of the British Mandate, immigration influxes saw the Jewish population increase to more than six times more than it was before the Mandate period [40] as presented in **Figure 9**. Hence, the regressive biased Israeli planning policies targeted the Palestinian presence in critical life aspects as presented in **Tables 2** and **3**.

**Figure 8.** Palestinian green spaces in EJ are expropriated by Israel and used illegally to construct Jewish settlements.

Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78779

233

Above: Abu-Ghneim Green Mountain transformed into Har Homa Jewish Settlement [author].

Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78779 233

**Figure 8.** Palestinian green spaces in EJ are expropriated by Israel and used illegally to construct Jewish settlements. Above: Abu-Ghneim Green Mountain transformed into Har Homa Jewish Settlement [author].

**Figure 7.** (Above)—Reches Shufat Jewish-only settlement established over expropriated Palestinian green lands, (below)—Shufat Plan #3456A in Jerusalem General Outline 3000B shows the Palestinian built-up area of Shufat town

accounts for most of the increase in the Jewish population at that time, while the increase in the non-Jewish population was due to birth rates [39]. By the end of the British Mandate, immigration influxes saw the Jewish population increase to more than six times more than it was before the Mandate period [40] as presented in **Figure 9**. Hence, the regressive biased Israeli planning policies targeted the Palestinian presence in critical life aspects as presented

surrounded by green areas and Jewish settlements in all directions [author].

232 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

in **Tables 2** and **3**.

**Figure 9.** Massive Jewish immigration to Palestine between 1948 and 1991 [20].

The dark side of Israeli planning is evident in EJ where Palestinians live with substandard living conditions. The dual planning criteria clearly manifest the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians. Israel has closed many Palestinian service-providing organizations in EJ aiming at eliminating the Palestinian identity. It guarantees for Israel the socio-economical and institutional subordination of the Palestinians' life aspects. Israel has used land use planning as a control tool to direct the Palestinian development in an "unsustainable" manner, since all the approved plans in EJ are designed to make the land, as much as possible, unavailable for Palestinian future growth. Thus, Israel has utilized political engineering through urban planning that fragments Palestinian neighborhoods in EJ. Israel continues fostering this political engineering, which intensifies ethnic separation between Palestinian and Israeli by adopting sophisticated physical segregation policies on the ground: flying checkpoint, permanent checkpoints and, eventually, the Separation Wall. This Wall was constructed illegally and in direct violation of the International Law. The wall ethnically divides two communities living in one city. It forms segregated clusters and discrete spaces. Further social disintegration, displacement and fragmentation of Palestinian families have taken place due to the construction of the Separation Wall, shown in **Figure 10**. The Separation Wall disconnects the Palestinian in the oPt from what used to be their economic hub, and in turn, disrupts the entire Palestinian economy by constricting the flow of income. All these policies have created a uniquely political architecture in Jerusalem that delineates aggressive military and security morphologies.

**Figure 10.** Divided Palestinian communities surrounded by the Israeli Separation Wall in EJ [author].

**Service EJ (service for Palestinians) WJ (service for Israelis)**

Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78779

235

Area/number of public parks 324 (dunums)/45 5216 (dunums)/1087

Status of sewage network (km) 67 650 Number of buildings not linked to sewage network 2620 70 Status of roads (km) 87 680 Status of pavements (km) 73 700 Number of social care centers 3 20

Average number of persons per public park 7362 477 Number of family health centers 5 32 Average number of children per center 68,882 1821

**Table 3.** Comparison of municipal services in EJ and WJ [18].


\* Israel adopts aggressive house demolition policy against Palestinians. In EJ, Israel demolished 759 Palestinian housing units and left 4151 Palestinians homeless during 2001–2018 [20, 41].

**Table 2.** The discriminant Israeli planning policies in Jerusalem—East and West [author].


**Table 3.** Comparison of municipal services in EJ and WJ [18].

**Figure 9.** Massive Jewish immigration to Palestine between 1948 and 1991 [20].

**Unequal Israeli housing planning policies in Jerusalem**

234 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

6.1 2.2 1.1 2.2

Jewish Palestinian Jewish Palestinian 2.4% 27.8% 21.7 14.6

units and left 4151 Palestinians homeless during 2001–2018 [20, 41].

Construction densities in 1968 (units

Population living in densities ≥3

per dunum)

(person per room)

\*

The dark side of Israeli planning is evident in EJ where Palestinians live with substandard living conditions. The dual planning criteria clearly manifest the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians. Israel has closed many Palestinian service-providing organizations in EJ aiming at eliminating the Palestinian identity. It guarantees for Israel the socio-economical and institutional subordination of the Palestinians' life aspects. Israel has used land use planning

Average housing density (person

Population density (person per

Israel adopts aggressive house demolition policy against Palestinians. In EJ, Israel demolished 759 Palestinian housing

Housing policies for Palestinian Arabs in EJ\*

unit was added for each additional 9.7 Palestinian residents thus 10,473 units during 1967–1997 • 5354 housing units were added between 2000 and 2011 (21.9% of total)

Housing policies for Israeli Jewish in EJ settlements

• One housing unit was added for each additional 3 Jewish residents thus 70,692 units during 1967–1997 • 19,068 housing units were added between 2000 and 2011 (78.1% of total)

per room)

dunum)

**Table 2.** The discriminant Israeli planning policies in Jerusalem—East and West [author].

Jewish Palestinian Jewish Palestinian • One housing

as a control tool to direct the Palestinian development in an "unsustainable" manner, since all the approved plans in EJ are designed to make the land, as much as possible, unavailable for Palestinian future growth. Thus, Israel has utilized political engineering through urban planning that fragments Palestinian neighborhoods in EJ. Israel continues fostering this political engineering, which intensifies ethnic separation between Palestinian and Israeli by adopting sophisticated physical segregation policies on the ground: flying checkpoint, permanent checkpoints and, eventually, the Separation Wall. This Wall was constructed illegally and in direct violation of the International Law. The wall ethnically divides two communities living in one city. It forms segregated clusters and discrete spaces. Further social disintegration, displacement and fragmentation of Palestinian families have taken place due to the construction of the Separation Wall, shown in **Figure 10**. The Separation Wall disconnects the Palestinian in the oPt from what used to be their economic hub, and in turn, disrupts the entire Palestinian economy by constricting the flow of income. All these policies have created a uniquely political architecture in Jerusalem that delineates aggressive military and security morphologies.

**Figure 10.** Divided Palestinian communities surrounded by the Israeli Separation Wall in EJ [author].
