Neighbors on Edge

"Symbol of Peace Stands at Divide Between Troubled Jerusalem’s East and West"
A8, Saturday, October 18, 2008
By Isabel Kershner

Palestinian violence, however unfortunate, is the inevitable result of Israeli inequities and settlements. This is the implied whopper in Isabel Kershner’s latest report about the Arab-Jewish divide in Jerusalem. This is a familiar theme – the Times leaves out for readers a contrived rationale for Palestinian violence, but doesn’t exactly state it.

Kershner reports first on the recent unveiling of the city’s Tolerance Monument – a bronze column split down the middle in which is placed a gilded olive tree. It “seemed to encapsulate both the promise and the fragility of peace in a city increasingly on edge”. Moving.

Kershner rounds up recent attacks by East Jerusalem Arabs against Jews in Jerusalem: the yeshiva massacre, two bulldozer attacks on pedestrians and when a 19 year old from East Jerusalem – driving his older brother’s BMW no less – plowed into a group of soldiers. Kershner says the guy did it “deliberately, according to police”. (emphasis added) That’s fair. The guy's mom could've misplaced his medication. He spazzes out and revs the engine, turbo-boosting into some soldiers. Crazy things happen in the Middle East. Or the 19 year old's cousin could've rejected his marriage proposal, causing him to flip out and turn to Hamas in making the most of his ensuing self-destructive phase.

Kershner adds that none of the attackers “were known to have had any strong political affiliations”. Yet Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported last month that the driver, Qassem Mughrabi, was a member of Hamas. This doesn't necessarily mean he had any "strong" political affiliations. He could've just been a gofer for some of Hamas' senior members -- parking cars and the like. About the other two attackers having no political affiliations, what a relief. So now that Kershner eliminates politics, what could've motivated these men to commit these heinous crimes? Kerhner provides a reason:

“About a quarter of a million Palestinians…live in the generally poorer and less developed Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Almost 200,000 Jews live alongside them in a patchwork of new neighborhoods, like Armon Hanatziv, that have been built over the 1967 boundaries on territory the Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state.”

The above is true, yet is missing a lot, and nowhere else in the piece is any other motivation for this sort of violence from Palestinians. The problem with the first sentence is that it stands alone. What could've been added?

East Jerusalem Arabs are offered Israeli citizenship but overwhelmingly reject it. Becoming Israeli citizens and participating in local politics -- running or voting -- wouldn't simply be considered selling out, but suicidal since it would legitimate Israeli control over the entire city. Some Israelis nevertheless believe that that boycott of the Israeli political system, along with the anti-Israel radicalism emanating from East Jerusalem do not necessarily justify the minimal funding and services allocated to the area.

Here, Kershner missed a chance to make a somewhat fair indictment of Israel and inform readers. Regardless, these facts should be reported, no less in a piece about East Jerusalem Arabs.

The second sentence of this paragraph has problems. Kershner states that “a patchwork of new neighborhoods like Armon Hanatziv” has been built over the Green Line. Criminal.

Along with violating the sanctity of the 1949 armistice lines, these new neighborhoods, Kershner states, were built “on territory the Palestinians demand as the capital of their future state”.

Exactly how new is Armon Hanatziv? It was built in the early '70s, two decades before Palestinian leaders started pretend negotiations. It was also two decades before Palestinians stated their demand that East Jerusalem be their capital. To be more accurate, Kershner could've referred to it as "territory the Palestinians now demand as the capital of their future state”. Yes, they demanded it in the early 70s, while their leaders were high-jacking planes and shooting Israeli children as policy. (With the peace process, that business with the planes ended.)

Just after mentioning Nof Zion, “a luxury apartment complex that is being marketed to religious Jews and that sits at the entrance of Jebel Mukaber” (but does it have a gym?), Kershner ostensibly gives readers balance, stating that "meanwhile, an increasing number of Arab families are quietly moving into Jewish areas on both sides of the 1967 line.” That's an understatement.

The point obviously begs another line or two. Kershner should know that Arab families are moving into, and building in, Jerusalem at a rate outpacing Jewish families; that since '67, both the Arabs and the Jews have waged a demographic battle; that the Arabs are winning: Arab population growth has been 100% more than the Jewish; that it's more political than natural growth. Yet Kershner reaffirms, using an edgy verb, a propagandistic line, stating that Jews “Judaize the eastern part and squeeze the Palestinians out,” airing what she says is a charge by Arab residents.

Readers may be foaming at the provocative and self-defeating Judaizing efforts of Israelis in Jerusalem by the time Kershner reports on inspiring reconciliation attempts. She reports that Arabs and Jews are finding common ground in a US-sponsored concert and an Israeli led group on weight loss. If only the Israeli government would stop the building in Jerusalem and accept as equal citizens its Arabs.

Kershner ends the piece quoting a resident of Armon Hanatziv, Dalia Ben Shitreet. Dalia's for coexistence, but feels “Jebel Mukaber is ‘hostile’ and should be ‘razed to its foundations — though I am sorry and ashamed to say it’.”

Contrite end aside, a statement like that seems pretty extreme. All Kershner reports about Jebel Mukaber is that three recent Arab attackers happened to reside there. (Who'd want to raze Milwaukee only because of Jeffrey Dahmer?) Well, thanks to Kershner, we're now better acquainted with the belligerent tone of those Israelis living on the wrong side of the 1949 armistice line . Of course, Kershner left out how celebrated is the Mercaz massacre gunman throughout the neighborhood, and the influence of Hamas. There's always the next article.

The kind of animosity that turns young men into killers exists in Jebel Mukaber not because the neighborhood is poorer or less developed than nearby Jewish neighborhoods.

As with the rest of the region, it’s the widespread taboo of normalizing relations with Israel that slows development. It’s the existence of Israel – the rendering of Arab Muslims a minority – that is the offense, the engine of Palestinian violence against Israelis. It sounds dramatic, but it's true. The longer this point remains mostly absent in Times coverage, the longer its readers will continue to misread the Arab-Israeli conflict.