Urban Planning and Land-Use Management in Jerusalem – Chronological Analysis: Urban Perspectives in Contested Cities

Abstract

Polarized spaces and divided cities present a set of fast-changing urban policies and control powers. Of its tense history of complex spatial planning and land-use management, Jerusalem is not an exception. In less than 50 years, 1917–1967, Jerusalem was controlled by four variant regimes. The Ottoman Rule, the British Mandate, the Jordanian Control, and the Israeli Occupation respectively. In that sense, Jerusalem is considered a unique spatial entity in terms of its historical and physical development. This chapter explores the evolution of urban planning and land-use management in Jerusalem for these administrative authorities, underlining its impact on the city population and urban growth. During these subsequent administrative transformations, Jerusalem has witnessed quick and variant planning paradigms, and questionable development patterns, that produced numerous socio-spatial challenges. Principally, the altered composition of the population, as well as the paradoxical urban fabric of the city. Indeed, the successive authorities in Jerusalem, ending with the Israeli occupation of the eastern part of the city, have created a maze of wide-ranging rules and regulations, making the planning system complex, spatially unsustainable, and eventually in many ways, intensifying urban conflicts.

1. Introduction

The vibrant records of history date the earliest civilization in Jerusalem to the sixth millennium [1]. Along this deep time pathway, distinct multicultural groups inhabited Jerusalem. The indigenous inhabitants of Jerusalem were the Canaanites. Coexistence over the land of Canaan produced intertwined histories for its inhabitants who fought occasionally but mostly collaborated [2]. Spiritually, the city of Jerusalem has a remarkable presentation. Over three millennia ago, a tradition developed envisioned Jerusalem as a Holy City. It reflected for Jews their spiritual pole [3]. The city represented the birthplace of Christianity in the first century AD, while in the seventh century when Islam showed up, the city was perceived as a Sacred Centre [4]. The religious value of Jerusalem gave it special symbolic significance [5], no wonder it became a focus of all monotheistic religions and was regarded as the metaphoric core of the old world as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Jerusalem represents the center of the Old World [6].

The special character of Jerusalem invited forceful invaders and conquerors. This fact led to the destruction and reconstruction of the sacred city more than 18 times [7]. Under the Canaanite, the city was called Ur-Salem until King David captured it and called it the City of David in 997 BC, proclaiming it the capital of the united Israelite Kingdom which was demolished by the Egyptians who recaptured Jerusalem 40 years later. Successively, Jerusalem was seized by the Babylonians, the Persians, the Hellenistic, and the Roman-byzantine Empire [8]. Then Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Since then, except for nice decades extending from 1099 to 1187 AD when the city fell under Crusader control, it was under multiple Muslim rules for example, Umayyad, Ikhshidid, Fatimid, Tulunid, Abbasid, Ayyubid, Seljuk, Mameluke, and lately the Ottoman. Those various rules in Jerusalem reflect a mosaic mirror of civilizations that left marvelous imprints and monuments and created remarkable spaces of fabulous landmarks to date.

Jerusalem was kept under Muslim control until 1917 when the British ended the Ottoman Rule and imposed their Mandate in Palestine [9]. The British helped establish a Jewish state in Palestine [10], thus their mandate was dismantled after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. In the same year, Jerusalem was divided into East and West for the first time in its long history. The eastern part was administered by the Trans- Jordan, while the western side was declared as the capital of Israel [11]. Eighteen years later, in 1967, Israel won the Six-Day War, annexed East Jerusalem, and dismantled its Arabic municipality. In the meantime, Israeli laws were imposed by one Jewish municipality operated totally under Israeli control up to date [12]. Afterward, specifically in 1980, Israel declared United Jerusalem, East, and West, as its capital.

The geographical location of Jerusalem offered a distinguished centrality to its character, Figure 2. It occupies principal geopolitical status with strong connectivity to regional capitals. Jerusalem is located 55 km away from the western coast of the Mediterranean, 85 km from Amman, 290 km from Damascus, 388 km from Beirut, 528 km from Cairo, and 865 km from Baghdad. This superlative position entitles Jerusalem to exceptional geopolitical value.

Figure 2.

Radial connectivity and geopolitical significance of Jerusalem (author).

From the past century until today, a wide range of spaces faced massive urban instabilities due to political, economic, and military conflicts worldwide. Such conflicts are more intensified in regions and cities, where ethnic separation, hypersegregation, and radical racial discrimination become phenomenal. This could be reflected in different cities like Nicosia, Mostar, Belfast, Beirut, and Jerusalem. These conflict areas or alternatively, contested cities, are perceived as detached cities, polarized cities, partitioned cities, dual cities, and divided and fragmented cities [13].

In urban and spatial contexts, conflict areas are zones where conflict is dominant. Consequently, the physical spaces and social strata are ultimately divided and thus, constitute progressively more contrasted spaces and places, opposite neighborhoods, and paradoxical blocks. Dissimilarity is remarkable in such a separated physical environment which outstandingly shows the contrasted clusters of inhabitants, i.e., the rich and the poor, the privileged and the deprived, and the dominant and the marginalized. Likewise in terms of urban fabric, conflict areas show obvious contradictions among the segregated spaces, developed or undeveloped, secured, or risky, renewal or degradation [14]. Jerusalem is an urban metropolis that represents a conflict area with a far-reaching intensity of ethnic, religious, ideological, and geopolitical struggle that exists for more than 75 years. Yet, Jerusalem is considered a contested, frontier, and deeply divided city [15].

Urban planning development in Jerusalem offers an extensive and interesting case for urban planners and scholars. The successive changes in the city definition, and the transformations of its administration during a few decades in the last century resulted in a complex set of spatial planning systems. The city population, as well as the built-up environment, have been heavily impacted.

2. Ottoman planning in Jerusalem (1516–1917)

The character and core structure of Jerusalem were formidably formed during the Ottoman rule which started in the early sixteenth century and extended for more than 400 years. Ottoman governments paid special attention to Jerusalem. Economic prosperity and social revival were the direct outcomes which, in turn, flourished the city and led to public infrastructure renovation, as well as continuous population growth. The public renovation works included rebuilding the encircling fascinating wall of the Old City. It first defined Jerusalem’s spatial urban definition with a special fortress outlook. Other restoration works included the rehabilitation of internal roads, pedestrian alleys, and the installation of drinking fountains, especially in places where worshippers and pilgrims were expected. Little traces of this magnificent prosperity and urban renewal remained in the nineteenth century. This could be understood due to the economic stagnation and the arrested growth that Jerusalem underwent until the 1830s.

The growing importance of Jerusalem led the Ottomans to recognize the city as a main province in Palestine in terms of physical development and planning. This was interpreted by large-scale development plans and actions. The first monumental windmill was constructed in 1839; pedestrian sidewalks were expanded in 1863; road tiles were replaced for all streets and alleys, besides surface water drain channels were reconstructed in 1885; the first highway was constructed between Jerusalem and Jaffa coastal city in 1867, while a railway connecting both cities were opened in 1892; the city central hospital was rebuilt in 1891; as well as post offices were installed in the city. These outstanding examples show the significant Ottoman role in urban renewal in Jerusalem [16, 17].

Unlike the previous eras, under Ottoman rule, Jerusalem gained a growing “new” political value, besides its religious and administrative importance. This added a lot to Jerusalem’s revival in the 19th century [18]. The intense administrative redevelopment of Jerusalem formed a dominant characteristic of Ottoman centralization in Palestine. The major universal powers approached the city by settling massive number of foreign missionaries. European and occidental consulates were established successively over a short period: Great Britain (1838), Prussia (1842), Sardinia (1843), France (1843), America (1856), and Russia (1857). In consequence, Jerusalem’s political life was revitalized, and the city’s urbanization gained more governmental attention which enhanced the city’s population growth. These new political formations quite naturally accelerated the building boom in the city. In 1860, the Ottoman government began allowing European Christians to build outside the encircling walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. Therefore, new European building styles and architecture continued to appear influencing the urban landscape without interruption until WWI.

The unique religious perception towards Jerusalem also impacted the Ottoman planning policies and city administration. Ottomans thus established a peaceful religious environment in Jerusalem. They developed an amazing social system fed by elastic laws and regulations, including residency rights, for both: native inhabitants, and visitors. Ottomans never prohibited any Christian population from practicing their basic rights of entering the city of Jerusalem. Jews were a minority, however, they exercised religious freedom during the Ottoman period unprecedented in any country in Europe [19]. No discrimination was reported among the heterogenous population in Jerusalem, and peaceful co-existence and plurality of faiths and confessions were provident [20].

A critical announcement happened in 1869 when the founder of Political Zionism declared a desire to establish a Jewish national state in Palestine. Automatically, Ottoman Sultan, Abd-al Hamid II refused to host and settle Jewish colonists in Palestine. Within three decades later, the colonization of Palestine through the ‘Basel Program’ was announced in the First Zionist Congress which also founded the World Zionist Organization in 1897 in Switzerland. Accordingly, Sultan Abd-al Hamid II initiated a policy of sending members of his own palace staff to govern the province of Jerusalem. However, Jewish immigration into Jerusalem accelerated, it was even eased by diplomatic Consuls who misused a large role in the conduct of minority relations with the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, land tenure and land ownership laws could not restrict foreign immigrant Jews from buying lands in Jerusalem [21].

Ottomans did not create a comprehensive planning regime in Jerusalem, or detailed master plans and regulations. But they preserved the special character of the Old City and renovated its urban spaces and infrastructure. By this, Ottomans inherited the human community a vivid presentation of the “old fortification towns”. On the other hand, Ottomans reflected their peaceful social policies upon the built-up environment, namely the Old City quarters shown in Figure 3. Those quarters categorize the main religious strata in Jerusalem. They form a tolerant division along well-defined geographical and demographical lines. The formation of Jerusalem’s old quarters reflects the multicultural coexistence and integration of social aspects with the distinctive physical appearance of the city. Each quarter contained a small community having similar backgrounds where people preferred to live in proximity to each other, forming a “homogenous group” in a relatively wider “heterogeneous population”. Honorably, Jerusalem is perceived therefore as a “Religious Open City” in the Ottoman era [22].

Figure 3.

Spatial affinity in Jerusalem Old City quarters [22].

The planning perception and the accompanying spatial reflection on Jerusalem during the Ottoman Era are shown in Table 1. Ottoman rule in Jerusalem ended after the dissolvement of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, and Jerusalem was captured then by the British Army.

Planning era	Planning perception	Spatial reflection
Jerusalem in Ottoman Rule	Fortress/Fortification City	Reconstructing the old city walls Place the old city as a monolithic unit serving as a regional
	Vernacular City	Old-style city quarters with narrow alleys
	Religious Open City	Foreign Jews and Christians could visit the city for religious activities Enhance population diversity
	Administrative Province	Renovate urban infrastructure, and install public services
	Diplomatic Centre	Hub of Consulates and foreign political missionaries

Table 1.

Ottoman planning perception in Jerusalem (author).

3. British planning in Jerusalem (1917–1948)

A short review of the mandate period in Palestine, especially in Jerusalem, would reveal rigorous and matchlessly more passionate political life than that during the Ottoman era. Hence, before focusing on the planning footprints British Mandate left in Jerusalem, a brief reflection on the historical background of the exceptional socio-political events during the British Mandate would be essential. As the WWI approached its end, the British Mandate (1917–1948) started and lasted for three decades in Palestine. In 1917, the British Prime Minister announced his declaration (Balfour Declaration) to reconstruct Palestine to be the Jewish homeland. As such, the British appointed a Zionist Jew as the first High Commissioner for Palestine in 1920. In 1922, the ratification of the Balfour Declaration was announced by the League of Nations, which by so, entrusted the United Kingdom to administer the “Mandate for Palestine”, and to facilitate establishing a Jewish state in Palestine [10].

Unlike what was proposed by the geopolitical agreement of Sykes-Picot in1916, the internationalization of Palestine, the mandate there was only British in order to fulfill the British governmental promise of Balfour [23]. And so, the British government issued a set of “White Papers” to determine the destiny of Palestine in 1922, 1930, and 1939, besides a division plan to split Palestine in 1937. As such, the future vision of Palestine and the destiny of Jerusalem, which for many times was planned to be controlled internationally, rendered critical questions. The British mandatory administration policies aimed at changing the natural demographic composition in Palestine to minimize the number of native Palestinian Arab populations. The Jewish community at an early stage of the British Mandate in Palestine constituted less than one-tenth of the total population. The mandate facilitated a massive influx of Jewish immigration [24], more than 425,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine including illegal immigrants, Figure 4. In a short period, Jews composed one-third of the total population, and the accuracy of these numbers was boosted by successive studies [26].

Figure 4.

Jewish immigration into Palestine during 1919–1941 [25].

The constant influx of Jewish settlers forced Palestinian native peasants to get displaced from their land. Then the mandatory government allotted ‘illegally’ thousands of hectares of Palestinian cultivable land to the Jews [27]. As such, the mandatory government tried to control the absorptive capacity of the country [28]. This sudden change in the demographic composition in Palestine created tension between the Palestinian and the foreign Jewish immigrants which led to blood-stained riots mainly in the 1920s, then the eruption of the Arab revolution of 1936–1939. Instability continued to grow and reached the top as the British Mandate drew to a close [29, 30], while Arabs organized more and more riots to liberate their lands and protect their rights [31].

The British Mandate was headquartered in Jerusalem. By so, Jerusalem acquired a new political significance and became the capital of the whole country again for the first time since the Crusader days. This had fostered urban growth which rapidly accelerated after the WWI, and most of the official British buildings were erected there. Jerusalem expanded to the north, south, and west. In consequence, new and rapid building projects marked most spaces, in different building categories including residential quarters, commercial and office centers, industrial zones, luxurious hotels, sports and recreational facilities, and religious institutions. Accordingly, Jerusalem began its transformation from the provincial town of Ottoman times to a modern administrative, political, religious, and cultural hub.

Jerusalem shaped a focal point for pioneer European planners and architects. The most famous architects and planners, such as Sir William McLean, Sir Patrick Geddes, Charles Ashbee, William McLean, and Henry Kendall were invited to Jerusalem to develop master plans and design buildings. They were inspired by the “garden city” concept which influenced their planning ideas. Their role in shaping the city image of the new extension of Jerusalem was substantial. A new page of ‘conventional town planning’ in Jerusalem was opened during the British Mandate.

The British realized the need to preserve the old city’s exclusive identity while transforming Jerusalem into a modern city. Hence, a preservative component was dominant in urban planning during the mandate period. Planners at that epoch balanced between two critical criteria, namely preservation, and urban renewal. Therefore, the British planning paradigm, specifically for the Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding, could be classified as a “Romantic Approach” [22].

To maintain the authenticity of the Old City, the British Military Governor, in 1918, i.e., 4 months after the capture of the city, announced that no person shall destroy, improve, change, or repair the structure of any building in Jerusalem or its surroundings without first obtaining his written permit. Restrictions were also imposed for construction materials, using sheet metal and stucco for the building was forbidden, likewise, the use of beaten iron and stucco within the walls was prohibited. Those strict regulations show sensitivity towards the urban fabric, the resultant city image, and the conservation of its originality. Moreover, they shaped a conceptual foundation for the following plans that have formed Jerusalem to a large extent to date.

During the mandate period, five master plans were developed for Jerusalem: three advisory plans and two statutory outline plans. The first master plan of Jerusalem was submitted in 1918, by Sir William McLean. This plan serves as a foundation for planning Jerusalem, its strategic principles are paramount to date. It reflects the garden city concept by offering a green belt all around the Old City as shown in Figure 5. The plan highlighted the architectural value of the historic city center with less focus on its functional role to serve the entire city. The development of the new city, ‘Modern Jerusalem’, was directed mainly towards the west and north. The plan was not detailed, however, it enhanced urban uniformity throughout the city and created harmony between all space components of the built environment by enforcing restrictions on types of building materials, as well as on building height to preserve the skyline. Thus, McLean offered an invaluable master plan that oriented the city development with great emphasis on preservation.

Figure 5.

McLean Master Plan 1918 with the respective schematic outline (author).

A year later, the second master plan was submitted by Patrick Geddes. This master plan paid lower attention towards preservation, it had reduced magnificently the amount of land where the building was prohibited and controlled instead the development of adjacent zones of the Old City. The development wheel followed the orientation marked by McLean plan, whereas restrictions remained on the eastern and southern sides. One year later, an interesting collaboration between Patrick Geddes and architect Chareles Ashbee produced an advisory master plan (Geddes-Ashbee) which continued to develop until 1922. It introduced greater emphasis on neighborhood planning and established building criteria according to zones. The basic urban outline of Geddes-Ashbee plan was not changed from Geddes plan, however, it indicated, for the first time, clear designations of land use “Zoning”. Hence, this plan is more integral than the previous ones, it allowed for wider expansion while considering the originality of Jerusalem historic Old City.

In 1925, Clifford Holliday, the city planner of Jerusalem, proposed a new plan which was approved in 1930. It was the first legal outline plan of Jerusalem and served till 1944. Its detailed regulations defined land uses, building setbacks, building densities, heights, and building materials. In accordance with land use designations, special zones in the city were designated for commercial activities, e.g., along Jaffa Road which is considered up to date one of the most popular commercial roads in Jerusalem. Based upon Holiday’s plan detailed local plans were derived and all parcellation and building plans followed it.

The city of Jerusalem demanded additional ideas and more comprehensive details about its urban context and future physical development. As a result, even during WWII, specifically in 1944, Henry Kendall as a British Town Planning Adviser developed the last plan initiated by the British Mandate Authority, Figure 6. Kendall Plan represents twice the area of the preceding Plan. This responds to the population growth which recorded a huge increase, almost 2.6 times the population during the previous plan [32]. Kendall plan had significantly minimized the land-use marked as open spaces around the Old City of Jerusalem. In other words, Kendall encouraged development towards the west, north, and southern directions, and therefore allowed erecting new residential areas in the green park surrounding the Old Wall of the city. Kendal integrated multiple socio-economic planning criteria, and thus demonstrated separation of social strata by using a clever residential zoning approach. Two-thirds of those zones were designated in the western sector mainly, while the rest one-third was in the eastern part of the city.

Figure 6.

Kendal Master Plan 1944 with its schematic outline (author).

The planning perception and the accompanying spatial reflection on Jerusalem during the British Mandate are shown in Table 2. The imperial administration of the British Mandate attempted to divide the city of Jerusalem into separate boroughs [23], but that failed as did the mandate. In 1947, the British government announced that the mandate in Palestine is not workable anymore. With the termination of the British Mandate in Palestine, the passionate and romantic planning fruitful days came to an end. Jerusalem, as a “Palestinian Capital” of the whole country turned into a question of hope.

Planning era	Planning perception	Spatial reflection
Jerusalem in British Mandate	Political Significance	The administration was headquartered in Jerusalem Jerusalem became the capital of the whole country
	Romantic Conception	Preserve the original image of the old city while shifting Jerusalem to modernity Sensitive regulations regarding the old city’s architectural image and urban fabric
	Garden City Concept	Prohibit building, promote and determine a green buffer zone around the old city walls Establish building height regulations to protect the old city skyline.
	Urban Attractive City	Jerusalem began its transformation from a provincial town to a modern administrative, political, religious, and cultural hub Master plans were developed by eminent British planners

Table 2.

British planning perception in Jerusalem (author).

4. Planning during the division of Jerusalem (1948–1967)

After the dissolvement of the mandate in Palestine, the United Nations called for the partition of Palestine and the internationalization of Jerusalem in 1947–1948 [33]. Arabs rejected this plan; war broke out between Arab and Jews and ended with the proclamation of independence of Israel in 1948. This fact reflected a practical translation of the British commitment to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Israel fostered and supported by all means the Jewish immigration to Palestine. It introduced a lot of controversial laws, among which the Law of Return of 1950, which is an ethnic-based law that gives any Jew the default right to immigrate to Israel and automatically become a citizen. Along with this immigration policy, Israel spent every effort to own lands from Palestinians [34]. During that Arab-Israeli fighting, Israel occupied the new city of the western part of Jerusalem. While Arabs kept Jerusalem Old City and its eastern new edges. Practically, the division of Jerusalem took place addressing what is known as East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule, and on other hand West Jerusalem under Israeli occupation. This separation of Jerusalem, East, and West, lasted 19 years, extending from 1948 to 1967. Each part of the city was administered and developed separately.

East Jerusalem underwent economic stagnation, a slow growth rate, and a modest development pattern. During the Jordanian administration period, Jordanians did not produce any master plan for East Jerusalem. Instead, they made some changes by issuing new planning laws (Jordanian Planning Law (79) in 1966) that replaced and amended the British planning acts [35]. In East Jerusalem, the Jordanian administration used Kendall Plan of 1944, which was the sole reference to direct urban development there. However, Kendall’s Master Plan was no more appropriate to serve as a master plan, due to the fact of physical and geopolitical separation of Jerusalem. Originally, it envisioned Jerusalem as one entity that shall grow in an integrated spatial system of development, in contrast to the divisional status.

During the division period, approximately 30,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes in the new city sectors. Local Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem suffered from severe economic and social losses. The city grew slowly, in a random, small-scale, and piecemeal pattern. Construction was initiated by families, or sometimes by limited developers. There was no harmony or consistency in the developed urban fabric, due to individual designs that were highly differentiated. The diverse forms of the single-family house were the predominant building type. In consequence, the Arabic sectors in East Jerusalem expanded fragmentary with limited speed and capacity. Likewise, infrastructure and public facilities deteriorated and lacked renovation and expansion.

On the other side, West Jerusalem was declared the capital of Israel. A new epoch of colonial administration has started. It represented for the city a period of major changes, rapid development, and speedy growth, the opposite scenario to the eastern part. The central government played a key role in accelerating the development wheel in the new city. Construction was public, and on large-scale. Housing units were a governmental priority. As such, repetitive standardized housing units characterized most neighborhoods in the western part during the 1950s and 1960s. To ensure high construction rhythm, the Israeli government overlooked the law of stone buildings, permits were issued to construct buildings in concrete or stucco.

Unlike the Jordanian administration in the eastern part, Israel produced two master plans for West Jerusalem. The first one was the Rau Plan, a conceptual plan formulated by architect Heinz Rau. It came out as a natural outcome of the new geopolitical situation which demanded establishing an urgent strategy for urban planning. Indeed, this plan took into consideration the spatial reflection of the whole city by neglecting the limits of armistice lines. Valleys besides the adjacent areas of the Old City encircling walls were designated as parks, the internal road network was much developed, and detailed zones for public and private development were carefully addressed. The Israeli government decided to prepare a legally binding plan for the city. Hence, Shaviv Plan, Figure 7, was introduced officially in 1955 and got approved in 1959.

Figure 7.

Shaviv Plan 1955–1959 with its schematic outline (author).

Shaviv Plan shaped the major physical benchmarks of the new western city to date. It introduced different zoning criteria and multiple land use titles. Road networks and linkage to existing infrastructure and railways gained momentum in this plan. Unconventionally, the plan did not respect the preservation aspect. In consequence, it allowed the demolition of several traditional neighborhoods along commercial roads and the expansion of building rights in old neighborhoods. The focal objective of the plan was to direct the development westwards, to concentrate the Jewish population there, and to improve the configuration of the built-up neighborhoods. This planning policy allowed population growth based on the existing infrastructure of roads and public buildings, without any large investments in new areas. Unlike the well-planned new quarters located in the western direction of the new city, the earlier existing old neighborhoods of the eastern sector got their land use titles and had been zoned in a rather general and monotonous way that did not fill the gap regarding the shortage of land for public amenities [36].

5. Planning Jerusalem during the post-1967 epoch

In mid of the 1960s, regional tensions between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries had raised. The Jewish desire of expanding the Jewish state boundaries fed numerous border clashes. Some Arab countries developed a strategic defense agreement [37], however, Jordan which controlled East Jerusalem and the West Bank at that time, complained about the weakness of strategic Arab support, and asked for Iraqi army support [38]. Egypt carefully monitored the common borders with Israel [39]. On the first of June 1967, Israel formed a National Unity Government, and on the fourth of June decision was made to originate preemptive war. The day after, Israel initiated rigorous large-scale air strikes which marked the official beginning of the Six-Day War against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

The war ended rapidly, and Israel got a definitive victory. Dramatic consequences faced the conquered states because of the Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, Golan Heights in Syria, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank which were under Jordanian administration, and the Gaza Strip which was under Egyptian control [11]. Indeed, the Israeli occupation policies in Palestine present pressing issues in international law and generate far-reaching consequences in global affairs [40].

Israel annexed illegally 70.5 square kilometers of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) including East Jerusalem. The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, marked a significant event in the history of Palestine. It constituted a turning point for Jerusalem, East, and West, as both parts of the city remained under Israeli occupation to date. Israel announced the reunification of West and East Jerusalem to be one city administered by a Jewish municipality. Unifying Jerusalem earmarks a great shift in different aspects, mainly shifting from the city level to the district scale. Israel declared unified Jerusalem as its eternal capital through the Basic Law on 30 July 1980. However, this declaration is contrary to international law and thus has not been recognized by most of the international community. Accordingly, most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. In that sense, international law, resolutions of the United Nations, as well as Israeli-Palestinian signed agreements have been aggressively violated by Israel. Palestinian people underline the Resolution (No. 252) of the United Nations Security Council that condemns illegal land confiscation and refuses all actions that would change the legal status of Jerusalem. The actual status of Jerusalem is debatable and contended to date.

According to international law, namely Fourth Geneva Convention, East Jerusalem represents territory occupied by Israel because of war. As such, Israel must guarantee the rights of the native population, avoid changing the natural demographic composition of the occupied territories, and offer a suitable level of services to native inhabitants. Opposite Israeli actions constantly take place on the ground. In Jerusalem, the Israeli regressive planning has succeeded in imposing dramatic changes in the demographic compositions, physical built-up areas, urban fabric, landscape, boundaries, and legal status. By that, Israel aims at Judaizing the city. Contrary to what Israel is supposed and obliged to do according to international law and conventions, it continues to violate critical articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention such as: Article No. (47) that guarantees to offer the rights of the Convention to the occupied people; Article No. (49) (1) and (6) that prohibit residents’ displacement and deportation either individually or massively; Article (53) of the Convention states “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons … is prohibited.”; and also Article (147) which forbids unlawful destruction and appropriation of property.

Israel has exceptional unprecedented records of violations of international law, treaties, resolutions, and conventions. Those include but are not limited to: many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights such as Article (7) denial of equal protection under the law, Article (9) arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile, Article (13) denial of the right to return to one’s country, Article (17) arbitrary expropriation of personal property, Article (18) interference with religious worship and observance; resolutions No. (242, 252, 338, 478, besides others) of the United Nations Security Council; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the Hague Convention; the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD); the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC); and the Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W).

The available land reserve during the 1960s was almost consumed in the western part of Jerusalem. Hence, vertical development was enhanced rather than horizontal extensions [41]. Accordingly, the lebensraum for West Jerusalem was an irresistible catalyst for the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The urgent need for vacant spaces to serve Jewish settlers played a major factor besides the other political ones that led to the annexation, where a wide range of vacant constructible spaces was available. This facilitates understanding the speed, physical direction, and determination, with which expansion and new construction happened after 1967. All Jewish settlements are illegally constructed and represent a direct violation of international law, and contradict the spatial sustainability and its four-dimensional aspects [42], therefore, they aggravate urban conflict and complexify the geopolitical, socioeconomic, and environmental statuses on the ground. Unfortunately, the Jewish settlements degrade the Palestinian environmental profile, they consume wantonly the Palestinian scarce water resources, damage agricultural fields, and Palestinian valleys by discharging excessive quantities of wastewater which pollute surface and groundwater, besides dumping of solid wastes randomly on Palestinian lands [43].

A year later to the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the plan of reunified Jerusalem was produced by Hashimshony Master Plan, Figure 8. The main purpose of this plan as explained before, was to add extra vacant spaces in the eastern part of Jerusalem, and so to solve the dilemma of limited urban growth in West Jerusalem. The plan achieved that objective supremely, hence it continued to serve as a regulatory plan with more than seven distributed land use categories about to mid-1980s. Jerusalem master plans, before 1967, had generally gained the characteristic of advisory and guidance plans. Whereas those prepared post-1967 period were much more regulatory and detailed plans, schematic town planning and neighborhood schemes witnessed, therefore, profound interest and precise details grounded on quantitative studies and spatial data.

Figure 8.

Hashimshony Plan 1968 [22].

Analyzing the “post-1967 epoch”, would patently reveal that a lot of planning tribulations coupled with the development of Jerusalem, emerged from the geopolitical situation regarding the occupation of East Jerusalem and the adjacent parts of the West Bank. The Jewish desire to control Jerusalem with ultimate political sovereignty and demographic dominance, especially in the eastern part of the city, offered a chief influential impact on the normative, rational, development of Jerusalem. The Israeli perception of unified Jerusalem, as the capital of the Jewish state, inflicts planning priorities unfavorable, and inimical, towards the native Palestinian residents. In other words, the chief influential factor in the Israeli planning policies, overriding any: legal, humanitarian, historical, ethical, ecological, and topographical factors, is once more, the subject of “political sovereignty” which represents the ethnical, prejudiced, and demographic sovereignty.

Israeli planning policies in Jerusalem during the post-1967 era have been misused and widely criticized. They offer to the Israeli colonial government effective planning tools and mechanisms, for applying occupational policies and achieving objectives likely to oppose the interests of native Palestinians. Administratively, Jerusalem is unified but develops in two contradictory manners. Jerusalem municipality which has been governed by Jewish administration has set up, and adopted, two paradoxical urban planning approaches: progressive planning of West Jerusalem that responds to the actual and prospective needs of the Jewish residents; and on the other hand, regressive planning of East Jerusalem that restrains the basic needs and the future development of Palestinian residents [14, 22, 44].

Accordingly, intentional prejudiced actions against the Palestinian people continue. Israeli planning policies in Jerusalem, are therefore, inequitable, implicitly biased, and reflect not what they promise to be. Urban planning is used as a tool of control over Palestinians, rather than a tool of constructive change. Control in this context means fostering Jewish demography in Jerusalem to constitute an overwhelming majority to Israelize Jerusalem, overlooking its Arabic authenticity, and in the meantime restraining Palestinians’ future development. The Israeli planning policies succeeded to impose new geopolitical, demographical, and physical facts on the ground in annexed East Jerusalem. The Israeli planning laws and regulations in Jerusalem, have been sharply articulated to simplify the process of confiscating Palestinian vacant lands to be used for constructing Jewish settlements and to restrain the growth of Palestinian neighborhoods. The available vacant lands in the Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are majorly frozen through the current Israeli zoning and land use laws. Most of those spaces are earmarked as open landscapes, where any kind of development is blocked, and no construction is allowed. As such, Israel used land use planning as a control tool to direct the Palestinian development opportunities in an ‘unsustainable’ manner [45].

The Israeli discriminatory planning policies have forced Palestinians in Jerusalem to suffer in satisfying their basic needs, and also, limited them to rely on the Israeli system of services which is based on ethnonational affiliation. Jerusalem municipality allocates of the total budget only 10% to services of Palestinians who comprise, more than 30% of the total population. Regressive Israeli planning policies with inevitable adverse consequences against Palestinians continue and involve [46]:

• Palestinian land expropriation.

• Desocialization and neighborhoods shattering.

• Colonizing East Jerusalem by expanding and building Jewish settlements.

• Unfair building restrictions upon Palestinian neighborhoods.

• Destruction of Palestinian homes.

• Lack of sufficient public services and infrastructure.

• Unequal land-use laws and zoning regulations.

• Changing residency rights and permits.

• Construction of apartheid wall with massive land confiscation.

Jerusalem is planned to grow divergently, forming two comparative images. East Jerusalem represents the first portrayal, where Palestinians live in urban neighborhoods surrounded by illegal Jewish Settlements. While the other one is rendered in West Jerusalem, which is almost purely inhabited by Jewish Israelis, Figure 9. Since the early start of Israeli annexation to East Jerusalem, dominant Jewish politicians insisted to transform the Arabic and Islamic fabric in Jerusalem by fabricating Israeli features. This could be clearly touched in the Jewish political discourses, for instance, during the municipal council meeting held on the thirteenth of August 1967, Rabbi Cohen declared: “And dare I say frankly that we have to do everything within our power to make Greater Jerusalem the largest Jewish city in the world, a real Jewish city, both in terms of the population numbers and in giving a permanent Jewish character to the whole city” [48].

Figure 9.

Urban paradox: Walled spaces and fragmented Palestinian neighborhoods (ghettos) surrounded by Jewish settlements in Jerusalem [47].

The Israeli-biased planning concept was the foundational cornerstone of the political architecture in Jerusalem. It reflects the Israeli determination to Judaize Jerusalem. Political architecture of the city should render in its: physical spaces a Jewish identity, while in its population, the Jewish majority. The influential political dimension demonstrates all other factors included for the future development of Jerusalem. Political architecture is, therefore, a natural output of the governmental plans determined by Israeli decision-makers who seek every single opportunity to achieve considerable political objectives. In that sense, Mordechai Ish-Shalom, former Mayor of Jerusalem, declared: “What is required - and quickly - is Jews, many Jews in Jerusalem. No, more trickles of immigration” [48].

Urban planning in conflict areas and contested cities, like the case of Jerusalem, form paradoxical and complex urban planning policies accompanied in most cases, by permanent physical layouts. That is, political architecture spaces, create multiple challenges in different dimensions for the local residents, remarkably when they constitute a group of minorities. Unfortunately, walled and fragmented spaces, are being produced progressively in Jerusalem due to three influential regressive planning axes identified in Table 3.

Dominant Axes of Israeli Planning Policies in Jerusalem
Axis 1. Architecture of Separation and Fragmentation	Axis 2. Architecture of Security and Surveillance	Axis 3. Architecture of Paradox
The following are the chief adverse impacts on the Palestinians in Jerusalem due to these planning axes: Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem have collectively faced a sudden rupture of their social and economic life. Social and urban dysconnectivity in East Jerusalem, Palestinians’ life is no more coherent or sustainable. Palestinian clusters, more and more are forced to shape ghettos. Urban instability created two groups living together under one municipal border but separately. Demographic battle generating an overwhelming Israeli group, and another subordinate Palestinian group. Disintegration: two ethnically separated communities classified by national affiliation: Israeli/Jewish communities and Palestinian/Arabic clusters respectively. Ethnic separation between Palestinians and Israelis by implementing non-humanitarian and unethical segregation policies: permanent and flying checkpoints, the Separation Apartheid Wall Social damage, urban struggle in isolated neighborhoods, and controlled transport and road systems. Separation Wall isolates Jerusalem from oPt & severed it from its demographic, geographic, and economic support base. Urban morphology of Jerusalem has been changing and shifting towards more Jewish identity and physical layouts. Political unity and sovereignty but physical divergence and separated contradicted spatial development models Growth wheel in Jerusalem is firmly correlated to political backgrounds, rather than rational planning principles.

Table 3.

Chief regressive planning axes in Jerusalem (author).

6. Conclusion

Jerusalem has deeply-rooted records of a long history. It has been a focal point of attraction for several universal powers. This was reflected in the city structure and the respective urban fabric. Many distinguished civilizations with variant cultural and religious backgrounds, had not only crossed the city, but also established their cornerstone and inhabited the city successively. However, in terms of the modern notion of urban planning, Jerusalem does not offer extended history in this dimension, but rather it shows very rich and intensive changes in that aspect, especially since the nineteenth century. Within 50 years, 1917–1967, Jerusalem experienced multiple administrative systems. Namely, Ottoman rule, British Mandate, Jordanian administration, and the Israeli occupation, which altogether generated different urban planning regimes. The spatial definition during each administration has changed.

Ottomans ruled Jerusalem for more than four centuries, from 1516 to 1917. At that period Jerusalem underwent an organic growth, and its limits were spatially defined by the Old Walled City. Ottomans did not produce conventional town plans but rather conducted substantial urban renewal for the Old City, public services and infrastructure, and the fascinating encircling walls. By that, Ottomans in Jerusalem adopted an interesting “conservative approach” in their planning perspective. Ottoman rule ended in 1917, after the end of WWI when Jerusalem was captured by the British Army. During the British Mandate period which extended for three decades, from 1917 to 1948, Jerusalem witnessed a new era of modernization, and the first generation of ‘conventional urban planning’ showed up. The spatial definition of the city expanded to involve the Old City and its adjacent environs. The British planners emphasized the authentic value of the Old City of Jerusalem, they preserved it by encircling it with a green buffer belt to reflect the garden city concept. And so, the British adopted a “romantic planning approach” in Jerusalem and the city flourished and expanded until the termination of the mandate at the end of WWII.

A substantial radical divisional period followed, from 1948 to 1967, when Jerusalem was split into three folds: the Old City, East Jerusalem, and West Jerusalem. At that time, the Old City and East Jerusalem were under Jordanian administration. Unfortunately, Jordanians did not develop any master plan for the city. They replaced some urban British regulations, and they kept Kendal Plan to guide the physical development. As such, Jordanians adopted a “primitive regulatory approach”. In the meantime, West Jerusalem was occupied by Israel after the 1948 war, the Israeli government developed several master plans for the city which expanded massively westwards to cope with tremendous numbers of Jewish residents who wanted to settle in the capital of Israel. Hence, the first generation of the ‘colonial planning approach’ in West Jerusalem appeared.

A wider page of colonial planning in Jerusalem was opened post the 1967 War, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem. Since then, Jerusalem, East and West, were unified and subjected to paradoxical Israeli urban planning policies. Indeed, Israel worked out several master plans for Jerusalem. In areas populated by Jewish, progressive planning policies are being employed to serve the Jewish residents’ needs, and to facilitate rapid and massive urban development. On the other hand, in areas populated by Palestinians, regressive planning policies are being applied to practice more control over Palestinian land and to limit Palestinian development. Although the city was reunified spatially under one Jewish municipality, it remained split and developed under contradictory planning approaches that foster urban conflict and regional tensions. The Israeli “colonial planning approach” has been used as a control tool against Palestinians. In consequence, the Palestinian presence in Jerusalem is threatened, Palestinians suffer, and pay a lot to date.