1/ Overall, Israeli Judaisation of Jerusalem have failed. 1970s policy (yes, explicit policy) was to keep Palestinians at 30% of the population in the municipal area, but today they are 40%.
There are a range of policy responses to the bi-national reality:
2/ Integration (aka "Israelisation") - in education, employment, commerce and leisure. This is happening inevitably given that the Wall disconnected East Jerusalem from the West Bank, but there are attempts to encourage it.
But there's a very clear ceiling to this policy.
3/ Israel does not want 350k East Jerusalemites to become Israeli citizens. Citizenship applications are processed slowly and half are denied. Most Palestinians do not want to become Israeli citizens but even if they did, Israel would clearly try to prevent that.
4/ Fragmentation - Israeli policies against the emergence of local leadership, to fragment Palestinian population within and from the West Bank. This makes the emergence of a political/popular challenge more difficult.
5/ Bureaucratic policies - revoking residency (tens of thousands since 1990s) of people who leave the city for a few years. It doesn't change the overall trajectory though. btselem.org/publications/s…
6/ Planning - making it all but impossible for Palestinians to achieve building permits in Jerusalem (let alone public investment+housing). Many build "illegally" (hence house demolitions) some move to "Jewish neighbourhods".
7/ Again this does not change the binational reality, but it's an instrument of pressure and fragmentation that holds the population in check.
8/ Oppression - policies of arrests, closing down events and institutions, heavy handed police intervention, what we currently see in the Old City and Damascus Gate.
9/ Settlement efforts - establishing strongholds within Palestinian neighbourhoods (Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah). The aim is to "clear" entire sections within these neighbourhoods, and to maintain police/security presence to entrench Israeli domination and settlement expansion.
10/ What's the long game? There is no long game. There's tension between these policies. The right ultimately aims for mass removal of Palestinians, at least from some neighbourhoods in Jerusalem. Others are happy to maintain the reality of urban Apartheid.
11/ Most Israeli policies make life harder for Palestinians, but it's clear that under current conditions they stay and their large share of the population will probably increase. Their Israeli residency status allows them certain rights that West Bankers don't have.
12/ And Israeli policies of integration (in education/economy), which aim to contain Palestinians, inevitably also empower them and create the conditions for political challenge.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Something about narratives:
For Jewish Israelis, the images of riots from "mixed towns" resonate with the Israeli narrative of 1948, which is about inter-communal strife, siege, and a sense of existential threat. Bear with me.
2/ This narrative will shock those who are familiar with the history of the 1948 Nakba, in which 750k Palestinians were made refugees and denied return, and their land and property taken away from them.
3/ But the Israeli narrative is not a fabrication. Rather, it highlights specific moments - January to March 1948 - the early months in which there was no clear Zionist advantage, and indeed the experience was of siege, strife, and lack of clarity on the eventual outcome.
1/ The thing about al-Aqsa/Temple Mount is that it's the most important place in Palestine/Israel, and its in Palestinian hands.
Israeli police can storm it, take the keys, lock the doors, beat up or shoot people. All this doesn't change the fact that it's in Palestinian hands.
2/ Palestinian effective sovereignty in al-Aqsa is not due to diplomatic negotiations, or international law, or armed struggle (although all these played a role in defending it).
It's about moral authority.
3/ Israeli policies in the last decade threaten the status quo by effectively allowing ritual Jewish visits to the site (although nominally banned). But Israel has not dared to take over the site, and it remains in Palestinian hands, at least for now.
1/ This is well worth a read.
I agree completely that the "trope-ification" of the antisemitism discussion ad absurdum is unhelpful and even harmful. Antisemitism is about threatening or denying rights from Jews, and this should be the focus.
2/ This appears to me unrelated to the question of how serious the threat of antisemitism is in the US. As an observer from afar, the normalisation of antisemitism in sections of the GOP appears to me a very serious development.
3/ The reference to an (unlikely) "American Auschwitz" is unhelpful. Auschwitz is an anomaly in the history of antisemitism; not the norm. A more likely risk is, say, Argentina: the rise of authoritarian right wing, full of hatred to the "wrong Jews".
2/ I am deeply saddened by these news. @PearsFoundation funded my own position at SOAS between 2011 and 2014, and supported several other Israel Studies projects I was involved with. I found them supportive and professional, and had excellent and warm relations with them.
3/ The Foundation’s ethos at the time was to support academic research and teaching on difficult and challenging issues, to contribute to an informed and well-reasoned public debate. They repeatedly stressed their commitment to academic independence.
1/ Do you know who’s afraid of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)? Professor David Miller from Bristol. He knew it was coming, from rumours; and he railed against it in his infamous 15 FEB talk. In fact, this was his main point (5:30)
2/ “… the Zionists are already planning their alternative to the IHRA. It’s called the Jerusalem Declaration, and it will be announced shortly, at a time of their choosing, when the think it’s going to make the most impact and have the most effect.”
3/ “What we’ll be faced here [is] a Liberal Zionist case for suggesting that there is a serious case of antisemitism or Judeophobia in this country when there isn’t. There isn’t a serious problem. They will to get it back on the agenda. So we face a massive battle over that.”
Generous of @Jackiew80333500 to call the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) “workable and acceptable”. As a signatory, I totally agree; and I want to demonstrate how we can work with the JDA to highlight the antisemitic references in the record of ... Jackie Walker.
2/ Clearly, the only reason Walker likes the JDA is because it's not the IHRA. But this football match attitude to life can only take you so far. Because when we examine Walker's record against the JDA, the picture couldn't be clearer.
Source for examples