Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Diversity in Jerusalem (and Beyond)

Here's an interesting item about three public markets in Jerusalem: the gigantic mall at Malha, the upscale-touristy open-air promenade at Mamila, and the oldest of the three, the tourist market in the Old City (about a three minute walk from Mamila). In all three there are Israeli and Palestinian shoppers together; in the Old City the stores are all operated by Arabs and in Malha most or all of the stores are operated by Jews; in Mamila there are Jews and Arabs on both sides of the counters.

In the past I've toyed with the thesis whereby the more direct the Israeli control of Palestinians, the better for them in many ways. Where would any reasonable person prefer to live: in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, In Syria, in Hamas Gaza, or in Israeli Haifa? Over the past year or two Salaam Fayad and his people may finally be getting their act together in some parts of the West Bank, and hopefully this will continue. In the meantime, however, for all the many blemishes, Jerusalem seems not to be so bad.

In a different universe, meanwhile, there are currents in the Haredi community, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, which may lead them, too, into a natural participation in the broader society. Perhaps.

Bill Clinton, by the way, thinks he understands how these sort of issues play out in the negotiations for peace. I'm not convinced, but it's interesting how closely he follows the matter.

On a different - but not totally unrelated - subject, TNR offers a description of the occupation of West Sahara, and the difference in the way that occupation is treated compared to Israel's. A whiff of hypocrisy, if you read closely. Which raises the question: where would it be better to live, in West Sahara or in Kalkilya, say, on the West Bank? (h/t Silke).

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You don't hear much about Russia's continued occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, either. Much closer to Europe.

Lisa

NormanF said...

The Arabs resent being a minority and unrest breaks out from time to time in Jerusalem but what is remarkable is for all the tension is how life is "normal" most of the time there.

That's side you seldom hear about as it does not make for exciting news copy or splashy mass media headlines.

Anonymous said...

As casually as I can I ask Gingy what he would do if El-Azaria was turned into part of a Palestinian state. Gingy is horrified by the idea, but has obviously given it some thought as he simply explains that, in such an eventuality, his family would move to their house in the Old City. It occurs to me to press the point and enquire what they’d do if their Old City home met with a similar fate, but I decide to drop the subject. It is quite clear to me that in any “Two-State Solution” Gingy would be doing his damndest to stay on our side of the fence with his Jewish clients and girlfriend.
http://ruth33.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/gingy-of-wadi-el-joz-–-part-two-–-judah/

Silke

Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton's "musings" made me swallow pretty hard.

people having lived in a totalitarian state like former Russian Israelis will know a lot about what to expect from the leaders of Israel's neighbours. And those who've been born Israelis will hopefully have learned a lot from their parents about the behaviour of heads of state who come from a lording it over their subjects tradition. For the good and the bad of it, I believe it takes 3 generations to make a lady. And again how much of a red carpet would there be for Palestinian leaders once they got their state, except via, to put it mildly, trouble making of course.

As to Clinton following it closely.
There's the Nobel Peace Price - Carter did, Obama did, Clinton didn't
things like that rankle especially when somebody was a close as he was. To acknowledge that Arafat blew it would mean to admit that he misread him, few alpha-males are magnaminous enough to do that.

if Hillary would get the Price it would at least go to the family, so he feel impelled to "help" a bit. ;-)

Silke

Anonymous said...

Having watched the Oslo process from the US, I am convinced that Bill Clinton threw everything he had into it. Yeah, maybe he was out for a Nobel Prize. So?

It is unlikely that another American President will come along with the passion, the grasp of facts, the political savvy, the perseverance, yes the stubbornness and ego, to spend this much time and effort on an Arab-Israeli peace process. That Bill Clinton could not achieve peace, to me, speaks volumes. It is a fool's errand.

Lisa

Anonymous said...

Lisa
labelling anybody in Israel RIGHT NOW as the hardest-core people against a division of the land is really throwing it at them - I've read nothing that he threw anything at the other side. It is always Israel this and Israel that and the poor little oppressed just can't help themselves.

I didn't watch the Oslo-Process at all but first I admire Clinton not least because due to some mishap at German TV could watch the whole thing of his being grilled in the Lewinsky-affair. That made me decide, if ever I shluld find myself in a hole and had a choice of lawyers I'd want him. I also listened to him reading his memoir and tus got an inkling on how he does it (among many things he seems to be genuinely grateful) In my book I'd be much happier for him to have gotten the Price for whatever than lots of others.

But as to the stuff he said now: having made my living as a subaltern I think I know a thing about how the big brass ticks, especially when it is time to humour them and thus recognize injured vanity in action.

What he said was dumb and vain and hurtful and Hillary first of a lot of others should give him a good hiding for it.

Silke