Facing East

Dafna Shemer

When we think of East Jerusalem, we tend to perceive it as a single geographic unit, when in fact East Jerusalem, like West Jerusalem, is constructed of neighborhood after neighborhood, each of which is completely different from the other. The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem are home to approximately 330,000 residents – the population of a major city in Israel.

Jerusalem is most familiar to us from its west side, with its diverse neighborhoods. In order to become a little better acquainted with East Jerusalem, we turned to the socio-economic index published by the Central Bureau of Statistics, so as to create a parallel between the neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods.

The socio-economic index, based on the 2008 census, included data for the different neighborhoods. To characterize the neighborhoods in East Jerusalem we rated the Jewish and Palestinian statistical areas (sub-neighborhood units) in the city separately. Two rankings were created, one for West Jerusalem and one for East Jerusalem, and within each the neighborhoods were rated from a high socio-economic level to a low socio-economic level. Next we searched for the matching levels between west and east. Thus, for example, the Jewish neighborhood of Nayot has the highest rating among the neighborhoods in the west of the city and the neighborhood of Bab A-Zahara/the Palestinian American Colony (adjacent to the Old City nearby Damascus Gate and the Rockefeller Museum) is its parallel neighborhood. It should be remembered that this measure is relative, and in the context of the national socio-economic index, Nayot is in cluster 19 (with 20 being the highest) while Bab A-Zahara is in cluster 5. The Armenian Quarter in the Old City and the Katamon neighborhood in West Jerusalem also have the same rating in their separate rankings. It is noteworthy that Katamon contained a majority of Christian residents before the War of Independence.

The parallel data comparison leads to geographic similarities: several of the Palestinian neighborhoods in the northern part of the city had a rating similar to Jewish neighborhoods in the northern part of the city. Shu'afat and Pisgat Ze'ev, Dahiyat a-Salam (east of the Shu'afat refugee camp) and Neve Ya'acov, Beit Hanina and the Ramot neighborhood. In the south as well we found "sister" neighborhoods: Arnona and Beit Safafa and Um Tubba and Kiryat Menahem.

In terms of the values of the socio-economic index, the East Jerusalem neighborhoods are similar to the distinctive haredi neighborhoods in Jerusalem, such as Mea Shearim, Geula, and Sanhedria.

As previously stated, the socio-economic difference between the Jewish and the Palestinian neighborhoods is greater than the similarity between them, and they cannot be effectively compared to each other. At the same time, this type of representation helps one to associate less familiar places with those that are familiar to us. 

Jerusalem's drop in its socio-economic ranking from cluster 4 to cluster 3 provides information about the general situation of the city, but as home to 883,000 people, it is possible and indeed worthwhile to look a little deeper, for although everyone is from Jerusalem, as in most cities, the main thing is the neighborhood where you live.

Translation: Gilah Kahn

Fight for Your Right (To Pay Tax)

Dafna Shemer
Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research   en.jerusaleminstitute.org.il

Jerusalem’s Arnona (municipal tax) is particularly high, the highest in Israel. In 2014 Jerusalem’s total due Arnona was 1,173,000,00 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) for 212,000 housing units. Arnona discounts amounted to 26% of the total, with 40% of the discounts going to residents from Jerusalem neighborhoods of low socio-economic status (a socio-economic status of 2-5, with 20 being the highest status, according to the 2008 census).

An examination of Jerusalem’s lower socio-economic neighborhoods reveals an interesting picture regarding the exercise of rights on the part of East Jerusalem versus West Jerusalem residents. These neighborhoods are geographically and socially distinguishable as areas populated by the ultra-orthodox (haredi) in West Jerusalem and by Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

Most (72%) of the properties in West Jerusalem that belong to residents of lower socio-economic standing have a ranking of 4 or 5, whereas in East Jerusalem only 49% of the properties belong to residents with a ranking of 4 or 5.

Building on the assumption that people with the same socio-economic status would receive the same discount in Arnona, given their income, we examined lower socio-economic neighborhoods in West Jerusalem and in East Jerusalem. We examined how many discounts were granted on the basis of income, as a proportion of the total number of apartments in the neighborhood. Evidently, the percentage of Arnona discounts based on income, as a proportion of the total number of apartments, is higher in West Jerusalem (39%) than in East Jerusalem (26%). For the sake of comparison, we note that in neighborhoods of higher socio-economic standing (15-19), 6% of the apartments receive a discount on the basis of income.

Both East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem neighborhoods show a decrease in the percentage of discounts granted on the basis of income as the socio-economic ranking of the neighborhood rises. East Jerusalem neighborhoods with a socio-economic status of 2 received discounts for 27% of the apartments therein, whereas West Jerusalem neighborhoods with a ranking of 2 received discounts for 42% of the apartments therein. East Jerusalem neighborhoods with a socio-economic status of 5 received discounts for 15% of the apartments therein, while for West Jerusalem this figure was 35%.

When we examine the total Arnona collected, in relation to the total due without discount, amidst residents of lower socio-economic standing, we find that collection rates in East Jerusalem (72%) are lower than in West Jerusalem (85%). Here too, as the socio-economic status increases from 2 to 5, Arnona collection rates increase. For higher socio-economic rankings (15-19), collection rates are higher too – at 96%.

In sum, one might conclude that residents of West Jerusalem are more effectively exercising their rights vis-à-vis Arnona than East Jerusalem residents. And perhaps as a consequence, Arnona collection in West Jerusalem is more effective and efficient than it is in East Jerusalem.

Employment Integration and the Jerusalem Intifada

Marik Shtern
Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research   en.jerusaleminstitute.org.il

Since the end of the second intifada and construction of the separation fence, the economic and employment integration of Jerusalem’s Palestinian residents within West Jerusalem has been on the increase. The demographic growth of the city’s Palestinian population, on the one hand, and the economic crisis in East Jerusalem caused by the separation fence and consequent disconnection from the Palestinian economy, on the other, resulted in the integration of this population group into the Israeli labor market on a scale and scope unprecedented since 1967. Newly available data of the National Insurance Institute (social security), as processed by the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research in relation to the composition and characteristics of persons employed in Jerusalem during 2006-2015, reveal that in 2015 the increase in number of Arab workers was halted, for the first time ever, and even reversed slightly.
As of 2015 employed residents of Jerusalem numbered 278,403. The relative proportion of employed Arabs within the city’s labor force grew steadily between 2006 and 2015, from 22% in 2006 to 28% in 2015. During this period the number of employed Arabs registered with the East Jerusalem branch of the National Insurance Institute rose from 45,730 to 74,204 – an increase of 62%. In 2015 this increase was halted and the total even declined by 110 employees.
Current data on recipients of unemployment benefits and income support can, to a certain extent, help explain why the city’s Arab labor force stopped increasing. According to National Insurance Institute data, the number of recipients of unemployment benefits among East Jerusalem Arabs rose steadily from 352 in 2008 to 1,501 in 2015 – an increase of 426% in seven years. The main increase took place during 2013-2015. In addition, the number of income support recipients from East Jerusalem also jumped, nearly doubling between 2011 and 2015, from 3,853 to 5,793 – about 700 more than the number of Jewish income support recipients in the city for the same year. These figures presumably reflect the large number of Arab workers who were excluded from the employment cycle in recent years. Their exclusion can probably be explained in terms of the economic crisis that befell Jerusalem’s private employment sector following the events of the Jerusalem intifada, as well as instances of dismissal or refusal to employ Arab workers in West Jerusalem during this period. At the same time, the increase in recipients of unemployment benefits and income support could also indicate an increase in awareness and capability within this population group when it comes to implementing their social rights. In other words, their economic integration and what has recently been termed their “Israelization” actually enable Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to claim their social rights under conditions of economic crisis or dismissal from work, which in turn result from an intensification of the national conflict in the city.

Translation: Merav Datan

Fight for Your Right (To Pay Tax)

Dafna Shemer

www.jiis.org

Jerusalem’s Arnona (municipal tax) is particularly high, the highest in Israel. In 2014 Jerusalem’s total due Arnona was 1,173,000,00 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) for 212,000 housing units. Arnona discounts amounted to 26% of the total, with 40% of the discounts going to residents from Jerusalem neighborhoods of low socio-economic status (a socio-economic status of 2-5, with 20 being the highest status, according to the 2008 census). 

An examination of Jerusalem’s lower socio-economic neighborhoods reveals an interesting picture regarding the exercise of rights on the part of East Jerusalem versus West Jerusalem residents. These neighborhoods are geographically and socially distinguishable as areas populated by the ultra-orthodox (haredi) in West Jerusalem and by Palestinians in East Jerusalem. 

Most (72%) of the properties in West Jerusalem that belong to residents of lower socio-economic standing have a ranking of 4 or 5, whereas in East Jerusalem only 49% of the properties belong to residents with a ranking of 4 or 5. 

Building on the assumption that people with the same socio-economic status would receive the same discount in Arnona, given their income, we examined lower socio-economic neighborhoods in West Jerusalem and in East Jerusalem. We examined how many discounts were granted on the basis of income, as a proportion of the total number of apartments in the neighborhood. Evidently, the percentage of Arnona discounts based on income, as a proportion of the total number of apartments, is higher in West Jerusalem (39%) than in East Jerusalem (26%). For the sake of comparison, we note that in neighborhoods of higher socio-economic standing (15-19), 6% of the apartments receive a discount on the basis of income. 

Both East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem neighborhoods show a decrease in the percentage of discounts granted on the basis of income as the socio-economic ranking of the neighborhood rises. East Jerusalem neighborhoods with a socio-economic status of 2 received discounts for 27% of the apartments therein, whereas West Jerusalem neighborhoods with a ranking of 2 received discounts for 42% of the apartments therein. East Jerusalem neighborhoods with a socio-economic status of 5 received discounts for 15% of the apartments therein, while for West Jerusalem this figure was 35%. 

When we examine the total Arnona collected, in relation to the total due without discount, amidst residents of lower socio-economic standing, we find that collection rates in East Jerusalem (72%) are lower than in West Jerusalem (85%). Here too, as the socio-economic status increases from 2 to 5, Arnona collection rates increase. For higher socio-economic rankings (15-19), collection rates are higher too – at 96%. 

In sum, one might conclude that residents of West Jerusalem are more effectively exercising their rights vis-à-vis Arnona than East Jerusalem residents. And perhaps as a consequence, Arnona collection in West Jerusalem is more effective and efficient than it is in East Jerusalem.

Palestinian Residents of Jerusalem

Lior Lehrs

The events that took place in East Jerusalem during recent weeks have re-exposed the complex and explosive reality of relations between Jews and Arabs in the city and the tension between East and West Jerusalem. Against this background, let us look at the data relating to Palestinian residents in Jerusalem and the current situation in East Jerusalem.

According to data of the Central Bureau of Statistics, as of late 2012 the Palestinian population of Jerusalem numbered 300,200 residents, constituting 37% of the total population of Jerusalem (815,300). The relative size of this population group in the city increased from 26% in 1967, 28% in 1980, and 32% in 2000. The population comprises a vast Muslim majority (96%) and Christian minority (about 4%). East Jerusalem – that is the territory added to the city after June 1967 – has 297,900 Palestinian residents, who constitute 99% of the total Palestinian population of the city as a whole and 60% of the residents of East Jerusalem. In addition, East Jerusalem has 199,650 Jewish residents, constituting 40% of its population. The largest Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are Beit Hanina (34,800 residents), the Muslim Quarter (29,100 residents), Ras al-Amud (24,100), A-Tur (23,600), Shu‘afat (22,800), Jabal Mukaber (21,900), and Silwan (19,100).

Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have the legal status of residents of Israel, which includes rights to social security and national health insurance as well as freedom of movement throughout Israel. Yet they are not citizens and therefore have no right to participate in elections to the Knesset or to receive an Israeli passport. They do, however, have an affiliation with the Palestinian Authority: they have the right participate in elections to the Palestinian parliament, and their schools use the Palestinian educational curriculum.

The Palestinian population of Jerusalem is characterized by a young age structure, with a median age of 20.2 (compared with 25.9 among Jews in the city). The total fertility rate among Palestinian women is 3.6 children. In recent years this rate has been declining, having stood at 4.1 in 2006. Interestingly, the total fertility rate among Jewish women in Jerusalem is higher (4.3), as a result of the high overall fertility rate among ultra-orthodox women.

The poverty rates within the Palestinian population of Jerusalem are very high: 77% of families are below the poverty line, compared with 21% of Jewish families in the city. The rate of participation in the workforce among the Palestinians of Jerusalem stands at 67% for men and 14% for women (compared with 52% and 59% among Jews, respectively). The main economic sectors in which Palestinians are employed are wholesale and retail trade and repairs (21%), construction (13%), accommodation and food services (11%), and education (11%).

Source: 2014 Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem

Translated by Merav Datan