• U.S.

MIDDLE EAST: Full Speed Ahead And Damn the Aesthetics

6 minute read
TIME

City planning is not ordinarily grist for international relations, but Jerusalem is not an ordinary city. Shrine of three faiths, symbol of Jewish resurgence, the ancient-modern metropolis of 210,000 Jews and 70,000 Arabs has assumed an increasingly Jewish character since the Jordanian sector was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967. Of all the territories occupied at that time, only East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, was brought fully under Israeli law.

Last week the irrevocability of Jewish control was pushed a giant step further. Israeli Housing Minister Ze’ev Sha-ref announced that the government would construct 19,500 apartments for about 100,000 people in three outlying districts (see map]. The government, Sharef said bluntly, is determined that Jerusalem remain “an emphatically Jewish city. This is a plan with a Jewish goal. This is a Zionist exhibition.”

Jerusalem’s indefatigable mayor, Teddy Kollek, says unconvincingly that Sharef’s plans have nothing to do with politics. The burly, affable Kollek, who has been notably fair in his treatment of Jerusalem’s Arab citizens, insists that Jerusalem cannot wait until its status is finally settled before it constructs more housing. In an analogy for Americans, he argues: “You don’t stop urban development in Washington until you solve the black-white problem.” But Israel is literally bulldozing its way to Jewish control over the limestone and sand of Jordanian Jerusalem before any peace negotiations can be held. Obviously, such an effort has broad political repercussions. Twice since 1967, the United Nations has protested Israeli annexation; last week Secretary-General U Thant complained once again. The United States, which along with 32 other nations pointedly maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem, called Israel’s unilateral action “unacceptable.”

Down to a Fig Leaf. One reason for the protests was Sharef’s poor timing. Just as he spoke, the drive toward a Middle East peace settlement seemed to be gaining momentum. U.N. Mediator Gunnar Jarring, criticized for acting like a “mailman” whose only role was to shunt messages back and forth, began to ask probing questions of Egypt and Israel. Among them: Would Israel withdraw from Sinai in exchange for a formal peace treaty? Would Egypt recognize Israel in return for withdrawal? Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat responded to Jarring’s overtures by promising, for the first time, to accept a binding peace treaty and recognition of Israeli sovereignty in exchange for the return of all captured territory. Sadat also asked that Israel pull back from the Suez Canal so that the waterway could be reopened to “international shipping.”

The move clearly put Israel on the spot. Al Ahram Editor Mohammed Hassanein Heikal wrote in his weekly column from Cairo: “Egypt’s diplomacy has stripped the Israeli position of all cover—including the fig leaf.” Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin was summoned home from Washington last week in order to explain current U.S. attitudes to the Cabinet.

Israel’s response to the latest proposals will be framed in large part by four top-secret government committees that were formed in December. One, headed by Premier Golda Meir with Military Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv as day-to-day coordinator, is concerned with borders; it has pretty much formulated the lines that would provide maximum security after Israel withdraws from occupied territories (see box). A second, headed by Foreign Minister Abba Eban, is working on the mechanics of negotiations and has quietly dispatched West Bank Arab leaders for exploratory talks with Palestinian guerrillas. The other two committees are dealing with the questions of Jerusalem and refugees.

Artillery Platforms. Israel’s decision to move ahead with new housing in Jerusalem weakens its assurances of goodwill in the Jarring talks. The Housing Ministry plans to build up to 10,000 apartments on Nebi Samuel, the 2,937-ft. hill on which the Prophet Samuel is supposed to have been buried and from which the Crusaders caught their first view of the golden city they had journeyed so far to rescue. In 1948 and again in 1967, Nebi Samuel was an artillery platform from which Jordanian gunners devastatingly shelled the modern Jewish city. To eliminate that threat forever is a principal reason for Israel to build apartments on the hill.

Another 3,000 apartments will be built in a sector known as Government House, once the site of British mandate headquarters. Finally, 6,500 apartments will be constructed at Sharafat. Ramat Eshkol and French Hill, two similar new neighborhoods where 5,500 apartments are already occupied, are rented exclusively by Jewish families, but the new projects will include a small number of Arab families. More than 4,000 acres of land—mostly Arab—were expropriated for the housing. “No Arab land was taken that was being put to any use,” insists Mayor Kollek. “It was all rock, unusable for agriculture. We’ve tried to build in a reasonable way.” Nevertheless Arab owners refuse to accept payment because this would sanction Israel’s right of eminent domain.

Political Guides. The long-range development of Jerusalem is under attack on aesthetic as well as political grounds. In 1969, Kollek formed the Jerusalem Committee, a 25-member international panel including such renowned architects and city planners as Philip Johnson, Louis I. Kahn, Buckminster Fuller and Italy’s Bruno Zevi. When the committee reviewed the blueprints last year, its members were appalled. Zevi called the beehive units an example of “collective hara-kiri,” and Kahn complained: “I don’t see the principles behind the master plan.” When the committee discussed the master plan with Kollek two months ago, it attacked the project’s matchbox buildings, haphazard community planning and dehumanization.

Israeli critics are as vociferous as the advisory committee. “Nebi Samuel,” says the English-language Jerusalem Post, “is patently guided by politics—albeit high politics—and not by consideration of Jerusalem’s uniqueness.” Five government architects protested the haphazard design and were fired for disloyalty. Outside Kollek’s office, pickets marched with signs that asked: “Why can’t Jerusalem be Jewish and beautiful too?” The answer is obvious: the peace negotiations are moving faster than the Israeli government expected. Thus the government found it necessary to speed plans to turn amalgamated Jerusalem into a fait accompli, and damn the aesthetics. One indication of the haste: apartments to be constructed at Government House, on a site known since ancient times as the Hill of Evil Counsel, were not even designed for hilly Jerusalem. They were originally planned for level Tel Aviv.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com