An Acre Is An Acre Is An Acre?

Differentiated Attitudes To Social Space And Territory On The Jewish-Arab Urban Frontier In Israel Author(s): Dan Rabinowitz Reviewed work(s): Source: Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, Vol. 21, No. 1 (SPRING, 1992), pp. 67-89 Published by: The Institute, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40553223 . Accessed: 06/05/2012 05:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Institute, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development.

http://www.jstor.org

An Acre Is An Acre Is An Acre? Attitudes Differentiated To Social Space And Territory On The Jewish-ArabUrban Frontier In Israel
Dan Rabinowitz
Departmentof Sociology and Anthropology Jerusalem Hebrew University,
a of ABSTRACT: The Jewish inhabitants Natzerat Wit, mixed developmenttown in Galilee, are unitedbehind the stance thatthe Arab presto ence, now approximately10% of the population, is detrimental the town. They react differently, however, to Arab presence in different and is parts of town.This spatial variance is not unique to Natzerat Illit, the found in other urban settingswithinIsrael. The analysis highlights (pioneeringsettlement)as the factorwhich engenplace of Hityashvut ders the Jewish quest for exclusivityover a given tract. Only areas which have been activelytransformed agents of Zionism qualifyas by genuine Hityashvut,and are hence perceived as loci to be defended fromforeignpresence. In terms of culturalconstructsof social space, than hitherto mass of Israel emerges as far less uniform the territorial assumed.

1. Introduction a MaterialfromNatzerat Illit,1 mixed development town in Galilee, indicates that Jewish residents harbour xenophobic anxieties regardinto the town. Most members of the Jewish ing recent Arab migration see the Arab presence as representing the single most community serious drawback of the town. different tend to trigger But cases of Arab presence in Natzerat Illit levels of anxiety and resentment amongst Jews. A distinction emerges between Jewish residents' relaxed reactions to the Arab presence in Hakramim,an all-Arab neighborhood at the northwestern 67 Ine ISSN 0894-6019, 1992 The Institute,

68

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

part of the town, and theirtense reactions to Arabs residing in other all neighborhoodsin Natzerat Wit, of which are mixed. Data fromelsewhere in Israel suggests that such disparities are This raises an interesting not unique to Natzerat Illit. problem vis-a-vis Jewish Israelis*culturalconstructionof space. What is it that makes abhorrent the appearance of Arab residents in one part of the territory to Jews, while Arab presence elsewhere seems to go unnoticed? Recent studies cast doubt on the over-simplified approach to the Israel-Palestine conflictas fuelled exclusively by competitionforterritorialvolume. Some Israeli writersidentify differential attitudesto spethe willingness of actors to invest efforts in cific sites as determining controlover these sites. Arnon Sofer, for example, emphaobtaining sizes the quest forterritorial as of continuity a major determinant settlementorientationsamongst Jews and Arabs alike (Sofer 1989: 100the 2). Gershon Shafir highlights salience of pragmaticconsiderations such as land accessibilityand availability, bureaucraticconstraintsand balance (Shafir 1989). Baruch Kipnis' analysis of Jewish setpolitical tlementin Galilee in the 1950s (Kipnis 1983: 723) stresses the role of strategic considerations by central government,including population decentralization and the desire to establish state control over empty tracts. Baruch Kimmerling accentuates the role of individualloci such as the ruined Arab villages of Ikritand Bir'im as representative of wider socio-historicalperceptions, a fact which naturallyimbues them withoutstandingsignificance(Kimmerling 1983: 66-90). These approaches replace the wholesale view of land as a disputed limitedresource witha more sophisticated analysis, highlighting the significanceof certain locations as engendering culturalconstruction of space. This paper aims to follow suit and identify one other in Israel. The implicawhich differentiates territorial aspect segments tions are explored of the symbolic meaning of Hityashvut (pioneering settlement) in Zionism and Israeli nation building. Elsewhere (Rabinowitz 1990) I argue that Hityashvutimplies a-priori,obligatory Jewish exclusivityin settlement. My research problem here is what the state of Israel engenders Hityashvut.Does all development within qualify? What of Arab municipalities that undergo development? What of expanding Arab quarters withinpredominantly Jewish towns? What of Arab families taking residence in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods? And most important,what are the cultural forms which attitudesto various categories of land in Israel assume?

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

69

70

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL 21(1),1992

Israel is notthe onlyplace whereby communities themselves find residentialareas withmembersof an outgroupotherwise sharing construedas "the nation'senemy.11 Serbs, Croatiansor Albaniansin in what used to be Yugoslavia, Catholicsin Ulster, Armenians preMuslim communities countlessothercases in the jigand dominantly saw puzzles whichnowemergein virtually of everyrepublic whatused to be the Soviet Unionare some examples.This paper,whilenot atto tempting describe (let alone analyze) any of these cases, may nevertheless applicable as an exercise in decoding the complex be betweencultural fabrication land and dailypracticesin of relationship the urbansetting. Americansociologists (in particular the Chicago school) have been preoccupied with the penetration middle-class into whiteneighborhoods of Americanmetropoli raciallyand ethnically defined by outgroups(some of the classic studies include Park 1936; Duncan and Duncan 1957; Barresi 1968 and 1972; Molotoch 1972 and Aldrich whichdeveloped as partof this 1975). Conceptsand theories debate and whichare deemed applicableto the case of Arabs penein Jewish trating wholly neighborhoods Israelare discussed briefly. 2. Backgroundand Methodology NatzeratIHit was establishedby the Israeligovernment a deas town in 1957 as part of the effort the newlyformed of velopment state to tipthe demographic balance in Galilee in favour the Jews. of on of Bordering the old townof Nazarethat the Arab heartland lower Galilee in Northern Israel (see map 1), the new townoccupies some from previous its 5,000 acres, muchof whichhas been expropriated Arabowners(see Rosenfeld 1988).2 The first years were markedby steady growth the Jewish 25 of Its was population. expansionsince 1957, whilenotuniform, continuous, reaching 23,000 in 1985 (State of Israel 1988). The latter partof the 1980s saw a moderatedecline of the Jewishpopulation, trend a whichwas reversedonly in 1990, withthe unprecedented wave of of immigration Soviet Jews to Israel, many of whom arrived at Natzerat Illit. The majority NatzeratIllit of Jews are first generation immigrants fromCentral Europe, NorthAfrica, South America and the Soviet towns in Israel (see Matras 1973, Union.As in otherdevelopment and Kraus 1982, Ben-Zadokand Goldberg1984), populaWeintraub tion growthcorresponded to the major waves of immigration. in from Immigrants Rumaniaand Hungary the late 1950s, othersfrom

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

71

Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria in the early 1960s, and Soviet Jewryin the early 1970s have had a particularly noticeable impact on Natzerat Illit.3 The 1990-1991 wave of Soviet Jews (estimates forlate 1991 run at 7,000 to 10,000 persons) is already having a highlynoticeable impact on the community.The material presented here, however, pertains to the late 1980s, priorto this dramatic development. Between the late 1950s and the early 1980s, Natzerat Illitwas a target for substantial investment by central government. Emphasis and (in particular)housing, withthe was put on infrastructure, industry The cenneed to cater forthe steady flow of immigrants. paramount tralized nature of construction and development in the 1960s and element: its structural visible in the town's most striking 1970s is highly of discrete, bounded neighborhoods. Each such neighconfiguration borhood represents a pulse of centrallycontrolleddevelopment. Most are named after Labour Party leaders of previous decades such as prime ministers Ben-Gurion and Eshkol, finance ministerSapir and Lavon. Other neighborhoods simplybear the names Defence minister of governmental agencies which carried out development on the ground (Rasko, Amidar). Most inhabitants occupy 2 to 3.5 room blocks apartments in blocks of 8 to 120 apartments. Twenty to forty forma typical bounded neighborhood. As the Jewish community began declining in the 1980s, a proportion of the apartments became superfluous. This naturally pushed real estate prices down. Meanwhile, the adjacent Arab town of Nazareth and its hinterlandvillages experienced a chronic housing shortage, especially fornewlywed couples and young families. In the 1970s, young Arab families fromNazareth, most of them Christians,4 a and buyingpropertiesin Natzerat Illit, trendwhich inbegan renting tensifiedthroughout the 1980s. (See Table 1, and Bar-Gal 1986: 5456). Able and willingto pay considerably more than prevailingmarket the Arab familieswere nevertheless gettingbetter prices forproperty, value for money in Natzerat Illit than they could ever expect in Nazareth. This trend, by which members of an incoming group push a prices up by "turning" neighborhood across the line which divides the splitproperty markethas been recorded by a numberof writerson cities in the U.S.A (see Weaver 1960, Wolf 1965, Helper 1969). As for Natzerat Illit,by early 1989 the Arab communityin the town numbered some 800 households, approximately3,400 persons (State of Israel 1990). Nearly 76% of Arab familieswere owners-occupiers.5

72

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

1963-1987 TABLE 1: Arab Population of Natzerat Illit, Year 1963 1972 1980 1983 1985 1987 1988 1989 Population 0 600 1,600 2,366 3,000 3,200 3,300 3,400 % of Total 0.0% 4.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.7% 12.7% 13.2% 13.5% Basis Census Census Extrapolated Census Extrapolated Extrapolated Extrapolated Extrapolated

Sources: Stateof Israel1988; StateofIsrael1990: 69 This includes a to Note:The 1972 figure refers "Non-Jews." category probably from number Christian of Europe.The acimmigrants Central spouses ofJewish tualnumber Arabswas smaller. of 65% to 70% of the Arab residents of Natzerat Illit Approximately in the newly constructedapartmentneighborhoods, occupy properties where the bulk of the Jewish residency abide. Some 30% live in Hakramim,an all-Arab neighborhood which developed quite spontaneously in the northwestern corner of the town as of the late 1970s (Rabinowitz 1990: 86). My data and commentary,both based mainlyon open ended interviews and casual observations, are the result of residential fieldwork in Natzerat Illitbetween January 1988 and May 1989. Additional short trips were made in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Throughoutthe period, informationregarding mutual perceptions between Jews and Arabs was coming in withforce. 'The problem,"as many Jews referto the Arab presence in the town, is never offthe public agenda and is paramount in private conversations. This is the case in Natzerat Hit's reasons. As members of as Arab community well, though fordifferent the minority group in Israel and in the town they are attentiveto and between lucidlyaware of any manifestationsof the ever present rift the two communities. The result is that both Jews and Arabs in Natzerat Illitare equally eager to come up withvoluntarystatements, stories, remarks and exclamations on issues related to the Jewish/ Arab interface.In fact it is probablyeasier forJews and Arabs in Israel

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

73

to talkabout each otherin termsof the ubiquitous than it dichotomy is for themto relateto the other'sinherent qualities. 3. An Acre is an Acre is an Acre? are intensely The Jewishresidentsof NatzeratWit preoccupied Arabtakeover" whatmanyof themperceiveas "an attempted of with the town (cf. Shipler1987: 286). They see themselvesas a beleaand their allusions to "the Arab guered, threatenedcommunity, and is interpreted use make frequent of military metaphors, problem" n.d.: 6-9). in nationalistic 1990: 80-82; Rabinowitz terms(Rabinowitz 1 by in Natzerat1lit: the of The problem visionvs. practice, exemplified to to abundantreadinessof individuals sell property Arab immigrants on while holding to their fiercely xenophobicideologyis beyondthe ofthisstudy, and is discussed elsewhere(Rabinowitz 1990). scope A typical of representation the Jewishview of the Arab presence of in Natzerat is foundin the wordsof Eli,a Jewishresident about Wit at a make-shift 35 who has livedin thetownsince childhood. Pointing he serviette, commap of the town he once drew on a restaurant mented:
You see? They are takingover (mishtaltim the town's al) it main arteries.They are slowlyencircling (makifim). They are fromall directions...They began withgroundfloorflats coming in Rasko, and then used it as a base to penetrate from.Now they are everywhere...They are even eyeing Ventura,where people once vowed theywillneverletArabs in.

He Eli was interviewed number timesduring of fieldwork. is repa in of of resentative otherJewishresidents NatzeratWit as muchas all to locationshe ever citedto provide geographical impetus his essenhave been within the newlyconstructed nationalist argument tially reside.6 A location where most Jewish inhabitants neighborhoods his absent from (as well as others')discourse of "the conspicuously is problem" Hakramim. is Hakramim ("The Vineyards") the Hebrewname of a residential area of about 100 acres, located on a steep slope at the north-westWit of erncorner Natzerat (see map 1). The slope, partsofwhichhad Reina been cultivatedby Arab farmersfromneighboring formerly of the name, a Hebrew shorttranslation the Arabic Kurum (hence Wit in of territory Natzerat when Reina),was notincluded the municipal established in 1957. In fact it was not untilthe the townwas first

74

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

the municipal 1970s that the slope was annexed to be included within of Natzerat Illit.Unlike the procedure in the 1950s, this jurisdiction on time there was no effort the part of the authoritiesto expropriate of the land incorporated into the town's jurisdiction.The slope, any where land remained private propertyof individual Arabs, thus bewhere land is not state-owned.7 came the only part of Natzerat Illit The incorporation the slope into Natzerat Illitbroughtan autoof matic change in land use status from rural to urban, and a new prospect for development. The appearance on the market of a new tractwhere Arabs could build homes on private land was a significant development in metropolitan Nazareth, an area which had been plagued by an acute shortage of available land at least since the 1950s (see Rosenfeld 1988). Trade in plots and constructionof homes on the slope quickly followed. Many of the Arab owners built homes for themselves. Others sold to relatives and friendswho wanted to build. The slope, virtually empty untilthe 1970s now has some 250 Arab households on it. This spontaneous development withinthe otherwise centrally controlled communitytook the local Jewish planned and stringently leadership by complete surprise. Walkingthroughthe suburb and looking at the private homes, the middle class existence with more than a atmosphere is of a distinctly touch of affluence. Private domains, however, stand in marked contrast to public turf.Underdeveloped infrastructure, neglected public spaces and limitedmunicipal services have been steady features of Hakramim ever since the firsthouses were constructed. In these respects the neighborhood clearly and visibly lags behind the rest of Natzerat Illit,carryinga striking resemblance to Arab towns and vilthe land. lages throughout Hakramim's thriving existence is a shining example of a recent and successful Arab assertion of presence within a predominantly Jewish town. This mighthave led the Jewish residents of Natzerat Illit to regard the neighborhood as a dangerous example of acquired Arab momentumat the expense of Jewish hegemony. Well it has not. The most impassioned of accounts by Jewish residents of the perils of "the Arab invasion" of Natzerat Illitmake no reference to Hakramim. Moreover, when asked to trace the town's boundaries, many Jewish inhabitants omit Hakramim altogether. Once challenged, they explain that Hakramim is "not really Natzerat and is "more like a part of Nazareth." Acts of Jewish intimidation Illit," of Arab residents or prospective residents (an occurrence known from all virtually parts of town) have never been attemptedin Hakramim.8

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

75

in relaxed attitudeis mirrored the policy of This uncharacteristically the exclusively Jewish, Labour-dominated local council vis-a-vis Hakramim.In the early 1970s the council collaborated withthe municipalityof Nazareth (which was also Labour-controlledat the time) in a and constructing housing estate for Nazarene civil servants initiating and Labour party activists. The 48 apartments, commonly known as Shikun el-Akhdar (a mixtureof Hebrew and Arabic for "the green green plastic shutterson the front housing estate," afterthe uniformly of the buildingsoverlookingNazareth), were erected at the top of the of then barren slope, withinthe municipalterritory Natzerat Illit.Little did anyone anticipate that the estate would forma nucleus of development and constructionby and for Arabs down the slope. Natzerat lllit'scouncil has always been quite liberal in grantingplanning permissions to Arabs wishing to build on the slope, a policy which was conducive to further development of Hakramim. Two decades on, many Jewish residents of Natzerat Illitopenly declare theirwillingnessto relinquishHakramimaltogether.Shortlybefore the municipal election of February 1989, a new local Arab party emerged. Activists of Natzerat Wit's Labour branch correctly anticipated a collapse in the Arab vote for Labour. This realization pushed them to contemplate gerrymandering, specificallythe idea to surrenof der Hakramimto the jurisdiction neighboring(Arab) Reina. The notion was communicated to me by a Labour activistwho spoke of it as a viable option, though his mode of intimation suggested he felt as he was disclosing a plot best kept a secret. The idea was disthough cussed on another occasion, when the leader of the new Arab party attended an election rallyat a private house of an Arab residents in Hakramim. Addressing the all-Arab audience, he mentioned a telephone conversation he had held a few days previouslywith a senior rightwing Likud candidate. In that conversation, he said, the Jewish politician amicably suggested that the "solution" to the "problem" of the Arabs of Natzerat Illitis to redraw the municipal borders of the town so as to incorporate Hakramim into either Reina or Nazareth. Both speaker and audience related to the storyas a vicious piece of fantasyon the part of a Jewish extremist. did not The idea to dispose of Hakramimto another municipality in the 1989 election campaign, and has reportedlybeen reappear shelved forthe time being. As a concept, however, it is apparentlystill alive amongst the Jewish population of Natzerat Illit. hithertoasA tendency by local politicians to give up territory signed to their control is unusual under the most relaxed of circumstances; it is particularly perplexing in a place like Israel, where land reclaimed fromeitherthe Arabs or the wilderness features stronglyin

76

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

the pantheon of Jewish national symbols; it becomes a paradox in where Yihud Hagalil (judaization of Galilee) is the Jewish Natzerat Wit, raison d'etre.9 If sovereignty over as many acres as possible is what matters most, then the emergence of Hakramim as an Arab bulwark within Natzerat Illit must be abhorrent Jews. It is, afterall, a blatantdepleto tion of "Jewish" territory. such it must surely be conceived as a As failure on the part of the communityto accomplish a mission delegated to it by the state and the Jewish people. But Hakramim does not feature in Jewish accounts, not even as an illustration what the of ultimatestages of the process they so dread could look like. This is puzzling, especially once compared with the strong emotions stirred amongst Natzerat IllitJews when an Arab familyappears in one of the mixed parts of town, emotions which sometimes lead to violent provocation(see Shipler 1986, Rabinowitz 1990: 62-65). Clearly, then, some Arab moves into what Jews perceive as "Jewish" territory raise deep fears amongst Jewish Israelis. Other moves, often of larger territorialsignificance and scale (such as unnoticed. What do the cases which Jews disHakramim),go virtually cern as threateninghave in common? And why? One possible explanation hinges on the interpretationof the Jewish residents*nationalisticargumentagainst the Arab presence as a mere rationalizationof racist sentiments. The heart of the matter, the argumentwould go, is that Natzerat IllitJews, who do not object to Arabs moving to a marginal all-Arab neighborhood at the edge of town, find it unacceptable when Arabs move next door to them. Just as movement of minority group members into the dominant groups' in the U.S.A, Britainand elsewhere provokes tension, neighborhoods prejudice and anxiety (see Hunt 1959, Kephart 1959 and Reitzes 1964 for early examples fromthe USA, Rex 1975 for an account of Britain),so does movement of Arabs into the Jewish neighborhoods of Natzerat Illit trigger anxietyand trepidationamongst Jews. But, according to this view, ratherthan collective and ideological, the fears experienced by the Jewish residents are in fact quite personal and racist. The nationalistargumentis but a gloss, a convenient mask for those whose motives are different. This line of reasoning, however, has two serious drawbacks. First, unlike elsewhere in Israel, Jewish residents do not consider individual Arabs to be bad neighbors. On the contrary. The relatively high socioeconomic level of many of the incoming Arab families, and the relaxed contact between Jews and Arabs in many apartment blocks have broughtabout a positive evaluation on the part of Jews of Arabs as individualneighbors. It is as a collective that the Arabs are feared.

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

77

1 is movement intoNatzerat1lit: what makes Jewish Theirincremental maliciousgroupout residentsregardArabs as a highly coordinated, the The to harmthe Jews through mediumof land and settlement. cohesive outgroup Jewishvisionof Arabs as a determined, invading turnsthe Arabs' action territory belongingto the dominant majority Zionismitself. intoa mirror image of the key scenario of pioneering as underscoresthe conflict one between two collecThis inevitably it tives,pushing beyondthe realmof personalracistemotions. elsewherein Israel (below) suggests that evidencefrom Second, the distinctionbetween Jewish reactions to Arab presence in I is of and Hakramim in the mixedneighborhoods Natzerat Hit reflected it on in otherpartsof the land as well. Moreover, close examination between"Arabsnear us" (mild is seems thatthe distinction notsimply it us" and "Arabswithin (anxiousreactions).Rather, centers reactions) of constructions social and national of on a dichotomy cultural space. own maand Yossef Ben-Artzi MaximShoshani (1986), use their terialas well as thatof Kipnisand Schnell (1978) to describethe reto of cent history Arabpresence in Haifa.Prior the 1948 conflict, they downHaifa had some 45,000 Arab residents, indicate, living mainly the Carmel.During at townand in Hadar Hakarmel the footof mount of the 1948 hostilities, majority Haifa's Arabs eitherchose to leave to homes or were forced do so (see Morris their 1987). The 3,000 or were concentrated so Arabswho remained, Christians, predominantly in and well definedarea in downthe Israeliauthorities a limited by whichby thenwere empty were townHaifa.Manyold Arabproperties in who arrived 1949 and in the early offered newJewish to immigrants 1950s. and Shoshani go on to demonstrate Ben-Artzi howeverthat beof tween 1949 and 1986 the Arab population Haifa multiplied a by and factor 5 (Ben-Artzi Shoshani 1986: 34-38). The mainagent of of from theyassert,was thewave of Arabimmigration villagesin growth, Galilee in the 1970. By then,manyof the Jewishimmigrants had who had already improved settledin the old Arab properties theirecoand were movingaway to newer,more prestigious nomicsituation, of town.To facilitate move theysold or let theirold resithe parts then notto Arabs.10The 1970s and 1980s thus dences, moreoften saw mostpartsof Haifawhichhad been predominantly prior Arab to their distinct character old. Throughout process, of 1948 regaining the Arabs were takingresidence in what used to be predomiincoming Jewishneighborhoods. nantly in this development Haifa,thoughpreghowever, Paradoxically, for nantwithpersonal ramifications a large numberof Jewishresifailedto become a focus territorial dents,as well as with implications,

78

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

of anxietyor even attention.On a national scale it stillremains a nonevent. A similar process, albeit on a smaller scale, took place in Jaffa, another major Arab centre the population of which was considerably reduced in 1948. Jewish immigrants (mainlyfromthe Balkans), who were settled by the authoritiesin empty Arab properties in the early 1950s, later moved away to newer neighborhoods elsewhere in the Tel-Aviv metropolis.Arabs, who have been renting, buying properties and moving back into Jaffa at a steady rate throughoutthe 1970s and 1980s now make a significantmark on Jaffa's public life (see Shoked 1982: 55-60). The phenomenon of trickling but incremental and substantialArab return knownalso in the old cores of Lod (preis 1948 Arab Lidda) and Ramla (previouslyE-Ramleh), where Arab newcomers froma varietyof origins,includingNegev Bedouin tribes,have been taking residence in numbers since the 1950s (fora detailed account see Kressel 1976: 24-27). Finally,Jewish Israelis are not particularly apprehensive regarding Arab territorial advances within Arab towns and villages in Israel. The phenomenon, fuelled by the Arab tendency to build relativelyfew residentialunits per unit area, broughtabout substantial physical expansion of most Arab communities in Israel (see Sofer 1989). The Jewish public is generally aware of this development and is criticalof it, but does not display any signs of urgency in the matter.Public reaction is generallyweak, and seems to revolve around the blatantdisregard which Arabs display towards planning procedures. Political criticizethe willingnessof parties of the extreme right may periodically successive governmentsto put up withthe situation,but the territorial ramificationsof the process have never stirred a widespread emotional response within the Jewish Israeli public. There are, on the other hand, cases of Arab presence in predominantlyJewish areas other than the mixed neighborhoods of Natzerat Illitwhich do triggerpowerfulJewish emotions. In October 1989, the (Jewish) new-Year edition of Israel's best-selling newspaper Yediot Aharonot featured a story (Ringel-Hofman 1989) concerning 160 or so Arab familieswho live in Carmiel, a development town established in 1964 in the heart of a densely populated Arab area in central Galilee. The storyreflectsdeep apprehensions on the part of many of Carmiel's 22,000 Jewish inhabitantsregardingthe Arab presence. A rightwing Likud council member summed up prevailing local emotions by saying: The process began in the early1980s. First, they(the work thetown. in Later busiArabs,D.R) find they open a little

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

79

to ness. Then they renta flatand bringthe family live in town. the property.Around Carmiel there are Eventuallythey buy some 100,000 Arabs. It is enough that 5 percent of them deto cide to immigrate Carmiel,to make 5,000 - a quarterof the town'spopulation(Ringel-Hofman 1989).

Such remarks are occasionally echoed in other development and peripheraltowns across the country.Examples include Tsefat (Safed) and Hazor in Upper Galilee, two development towns where a number of Arab families have recentlybought properties; Acre, where Arabs move away fromthe old city into blocks of flats in the new suburbs; and the Negev towns of Beer-Sheva and Arad, where a number of local Bedouin families and Arab familiesfromthe northof Israel have taken residence in recent years. Similarly,Neve Ya'acov and Hagiv'a two Hatsorfatit, Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem constructedin the 1970s on previously Jordanian rural land, have been the scene of Jewish apprehensions vis-a-vis the Arab presence, culminating on several occasions with attacks on flats and setting alight of Arab residents' motorcars with symbolic Finally,an example minutein scale but overflowing content. An unmistakable (though hardly publicized) feature of Kibbutzim and Moshavim^ is their negative disposition towards the inclusion of Arab members. In both settlement forms, the general assembly of each individualsettlementhas final say on membership admittance. The number of Arabs who seek membership has not been large. Significantly, however, all membership applications ever submittedby Arabs were turned down unceremoniously. This denial, stands in often explicitlybased on the applicant's ethnic affiliation, to blatantcontradiction the socialist and universalistideology to which the Kibbutzim and (to a lesser extent) the Moshavim movements ostensibly subscribe. This double standard is a source of tension and embarrassment withinindividualsettlements as well as in the movements generally. Even the negative effectit mighthave on public relations abroad has not been enough to prompta change of policy. Some Arab citizens of Israel (Bedouin, Druze, Christianand even non-Bedouin Muslims) serve in Israel's defence forces. And yet, the fact that Arab candidates for membership in Kibbutzim and Moshavim have included ex-servicemen has had no bearing on the decisions reached by the general assemblies in theircases. The barrieragainst Arab participationin Kibbutzim and Moshavim is clearly and consistently more rigid than the deep-rooted notion of Jewish in exclusivity the sacred realm of national defence.

80

URBANANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

establishedArabpresLet me sum up the evidenceso far.Newly Lod and Ramla, ence in the older mixedtownssuch as Haifa,Jaffa, in in Hakramim communities Israel (including as well as in all-Arab an NatzeratIllit)does not trigger emotiveor otherwiseintense reJewishIsraelis.Atthe same timeJews sponse amongstmainstream about Arab presence in Kibbutzim, do feel strongly Moshavim,and of the towns,including mixedneighborhoods peripheral development cannot be explained away in termsof This distinction NatzeratIllit. manyof the cases whichfailto cause anxiety proximity; geographical and trepidation amongst Jews involveArabs movingnext door to them. A more convincing context-relatedexplanation must be sought. 4. Presence, Ownershipand Sovereignty to The firsttheoreticalframework be considered is Baruch in of the place of territory Zionismand in the Kimmerling's analysis Arab-Israeli conflict 1977, 1983). This model specifies (Kimmerling presence, ownershipand sovereigntyas the threecomponentsof form basis forthe conthe control. The threecomponents territorial as of the conflict an ongoingstrugglein whichboth ceptualization all sides attempt gain at least one component(preferably three) to as overas muchterritory possible. This conceptual framework goes some way to account forthe it variationsin Jewish reactionsto the Arab presence. Hakramim, in from otherpartsof NatzeratIllit the extent could be argued,differs and natureof Jewishcontrol.All parts of Natzerat Illitare in the of the state of Israel,as wellas within municipal jurisdiction sovereign thus a town perceived by everyoneas Jewish.Jewishsovereignty and presence, howcannotbe in doubt.Whenitcomes to ownership and ever,a sharp distinction emerges betweenHakramim the restof in owned by is All NatzeratIllit. land and property Hakramim privately Arabs also make up the entire Arabs (i.e. Arabownership). residency (i.e. Arabpresence). Hakramim thus displays a patternof controlwherebyJewish and presence (a situais sovereignty notaccompaniedby ownership tioncharacterized Kimmerling E). [1983: 22] as pattern Elsewhere by is in Natzerat whereJewish Illit sovereignty accompaniedbycollective Jewish dominance in Jewish ownershipof land, by overwhelming of and of ownership property, by a decisive majority Jewishresidents, and of sovereignty, is Jewish control total.The combination ownership

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

81

m a s presence, creates, in Kim e rung' terminology, patternof complete rii control(patternh, Kimme ng 1983: 22). the This variance in controlover territory, argumentwould go, can account forthe variance of Jewish reactions to the Arab presence. In Jewish parts of town, where Jewish control is virthe predominantly the Arab advent is viewed with fear and apprehentually complete, sion. In Hakramim,where Jewish controlis only nominalanyway, the Arab presence meets milderJewish sentiments. This is congruent with another phenomenon which Kimmerling of alludes to, namely the morbidJewish fear of the reversibility territorial processes. In his studyof the public debate in Israel about the potential returnof evacuated Arab villagers to their homes and land at cites the arguments put forwardby repreand Bir'im,Kimmerling Ikrit sentatives of mainstream Zionist against such a return. A leading member of the Labour partyis quoted as tellingthe press that "The problem does not only relate to the Galilee or the Negev, but to other 1977: 165). places as well: Tel-Avivtoo" (Kimmerling The quote, by no means a freak utterance, reflects a tendency advent as withinmainstream Zionism to evaluate its own territorial tentative and fragile. Three and four successful decades after the establishment of the state of Israel, Zionism continues to hold itself genuinelysusceptible to counter-measures by the Arabs. This point is crucial for a fullerunderstandingof the Jewish Israeli attitudeto land to and, by implication, territorial compromise. asserts that such expressions on the part of Israeli Kimmerling Jews are anchored in a far broader ideological context. Jewish dispute (the spokesmen, he argues, tend to linkeach local territorial one over the two remote and tinyvillages of Ikritand Bir'im in the of northis but one lucid example) to the entire historyand suffering the Jewish people, includingthe trauma of the Holocaust. This trendis evidentto date. The persistentportrayal right-wing by Israeli ideologists of the Intifada(the Palestinian uprisingin the occusince 1987) as a war (the word milkhama is explicitly pied territories is over the whole of Israel, not just the territories, one recent used) example. This approach reflects a genuine belief in the intent and capability of Palestinians to export the uprisingacross the 1967 borders into Israel proper. The implicationis that givingway in one part necessarily invites total collapse of Jewish endurance everywhere else. Anothermore recent example is the call by prominentIsraeli public figuresto the citizens of Tel-Avivto stay put in the height of Iraqi missile attacks duringthe Gulf war in early 1991. One of the many

82

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

statements made by Shlomo Lahat, Mayor of Tel-Aviv,reads as follows:

to We must stay put. Ifour contribution the state is to get hitby Scuds, then that is what we mustdo... People must not skins. Today people leave act just to save theirown individual tomorrow Tel-Aviv, theywillleave Jerusalem. Nexttheywould leave Israel all together.This is what Sadam wants (Haaretz 17.2.1991:4a).

Such "domino effect" visions, and theirweight in the intense public debate duringthe Gulfwar, reflecta deep anxiety that every indiJewish presence in a given territorial vidual incidentinvolving segment carries enormous historicaland ideological consequences regardless a of context and conjuncture. Shlomo Lahat, formerly general of the Israeli army,goes down this line of argumentas far as loosing touch between military effectiveness (withwhich staying withthe distinction put in Tel-Aviv under the barrage of scuds had nothingto do), and the resilience which saved the day forthe Jewishcollective in previous in wars, particularly 1948, when presence really matteredfor gaining controlover disputed territory holdingon to it. and The case of Ikritand Bir'impresents a mirror image to that of Natzerat Illit.In both cases newly acquired Jewish sovereigntystands against what Jews perceive as an Arab onslaught: immigrationin Natzerat Illit, attempted return in Ikrit and Bir'im. In both cases of the Arabs Zionism, ever conscious of the wider ramifications letting in (or back), closes ranks to keep the Arabs out. In the case of Ikrit and Bir'imZionism, aided by the state machinery,prevails: all evacuees and theirdescendants have so far been barred fromreinstatement. However in Natzerat Illit,where market forces yield to Arab pressures temptingJewish owners to sell properties for handsome prices, this brand of Zionist ideology caves in. The argument linking each individualcase to the grand vision of precarious history(a claim and Bir'im) which carried so much weight in the debate regardingIkrit laments of the afteris found in Natzerat Illitonly in the proselytizing math. This line of reasoning can thus be summarized as follows: of insecure regardingthe durability its territorial Zionism is inherently achievements. Israeli Jews thus seem to be particularly apprehensive where Jewish control is towards Arab advances in those territories ostensibly established throughsovereignty,ownership and presence. Arab expansion in places such as Hakramim,where Jewish controlis tenuous anyway, seems to attractconsiderably less Jewish attention.

Rabinowitz

FRONTIER JEWISH-ARAB

83

Plausible as thisargument may be, it does not,alas, providean In forthe entirepicture. the 1950s and 1960s, adequate explanation Lod and presence in the old partsof Haifa,Jaffa, Jewishownership as fullJewishcontrol. what Kimmerling and Ramla signified typifies of Howeverthe substantialreturn Arabs, so clearlypresent in the on the cases of Haifaand Ramla,turned situation its head. If,as the of is the wouldimply, keyto Jewishreactions the threat reargument and presence, of Jewishownership versed control depletion through then how can we account forthe dispassionate Jewishresponse to in the costs in termsof Jewishhegemony those otherurban examples? if modelmustbe augmented these peculiarKimmerling's Clearly, is roleof Hityashvut next The symbolic itiesare to be accommodated. link. as the missing suggested NationBuildingand Territory 5. Hityashvut, as nationbuilding a symbol-laden Williamsand Smithinterpret of humanaction, sphere
which the nationalistdream must remain a mere without blueprint,but whose acquisition allows the nationalist to translate his utopia into practical realities. The "land" allows and himto realize his goals of sovereignty, identity fraternity, It regeneration in practicalworks of construction. is, afterall, "the land" that can be renewed, regenerated, rebuilt; and people can be changed, their throughthat act of rebuilding, theircapacities enlarged' (Smith and outlook revolutionized, Williams1983: 510).

ElsewhereSmithpointsout thatworkon the land,whichcreates an of the infrastructure the nation,helps form homogeneousgroup out of an unrelatedconglomerateof individuals(Smith 1981). E. and Weber notes thatnationbuilding helps state structures agencies institutions and intermediate regional substitute (Weber 1976). and homogenizamobilization of Acquisition land, identification, environment into of tionof the people, and transformationthe natural thus emerge as elea political through physicalconstruction territory in mentswhichsingle out legitimate participation the nationbuilding enIn effort. the case of Zionismthese threeelementsare perfectly the term in shrined the conceptof HityashvutTechnically speaking, it In denotes "settling." the Zionist however, has assumed vocabulary,

84

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL 21(1), 1992

the meaningof a generic noun forthe entiresphere of settlement. This includesthe politically defined federations settlements of (also referred as "movements" "streams"of settlement), to or such as the threefederations Kibbutzim twofederations Moshavim;the of and of institutions bureaucracies and affiliated the federations; physiwith all on cal entities the ground; and functionaries; the actual membership. will The use of the termherewith be interchangeable Settlement with (sic). in restson the contention, My argument exemplified the material from Natzerat thatHityashvut, morethanany othersphere of life Illit, in Israel,is and has alwaysbeen exclusively Jewish. Land acquisition, the mobilizationand recruitment people throughimmigration of of con("Aliya"), and the transformation the environment through and development, struction form the raison d'etre (and basic structure) of the WorldZionistBureaucracy.These elements of nationhave dictatedthe Zionistagenda foralmost a century. The building natureof Zionismas the Jewishnational movement implies definiby tionthatownership land,Aliyaand Hityashvut, of mustremainexcluor as of Jewish, lose their sively verymeaning keyelements Zionism. This is where Hakramim differs fromthe rest of Natzerat Illit. affiliation does notdefinenational It Municipal territory.is Hityashvut in Zionistcultural whichengen("settlement" its specific connotation) ders the final Judaization terrestrial of like space. Hakramim, Arabvilwhichhas notbeen lages and townselsewherein Israel,is a territory transformation the Zionistapparatus.The subjectto environmental by terrain but may have been somewhatimproved, has neverbeen reconstructed any agency of Zionism.Likewise,some locationsin by the old quartersof Haifa,Jaffa, Lod or othertownswhichbecame mixedmayhave been settledby Jews at some stage. ButTemporary Jewishownership, are presence,and even sovereignty notenoughto these sites as genuine componentsof nationalredemption. qualify in This is whyJewishpresence and ownership downtownHaifa and Jaffa could be reversed without an stimulating emotional response on the partofJewishIsraelis.The cultural and powerful meaning symbolismof Hityashvut does notapplythere. simply 6. Conclusion in beMy main preoccupation this paper has been the disparity tween relaxed Jewish attitudesto the Arab presence in all-Arab Hakramim the one hand,and the tense reaction Arab residency to on in the mixedneighborhoods NatzeratIllit.The difference, conI of

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

85

for tend, lies in the dissimilar meaningsof the two types of territory of transformation sites in JewishIsraelis. The visibleenvironmental Israel (cf.Jackson1976: 30-35), whileobviousenoughto Arabs,carload forJews. Beyondproviding ries an even morepowerful symbolic new loci of services, commerce and recreation, housing,factories, is expected to erase old landscape chapters and their development astransformation content.It is the environmental cultural attendant of whichmarksthe sanctification land Zionist settlement sociatedwith it as nationalsocial space, initiating intothe realmof JewishIsraeli in this context, first a is and foremost nationbuilding. Construction, And nowhereis thistool of toolforthe re-writing local history. mighty urban landand visibly morepotentthan in the rapidly transforming scape. The terrestrial space of "The Jewishstate" is thus less uniform of assumed. Whilethe legal sovereignty the state could than hitherto Jewishdominance, be perceived(byJews,at least) to denoteuniform over territory, of the diversepatterns control by supplemented the sucreates a complexjigsaw. Only those of Hityashvut, perimposition are through Hityashvut afpartswhichhave or are beingtransformed Jews as "Jewish" hence effectively) or, perceivedby fectively (and Once qualified,such places be"Israeli"territory. more accurately, come core sites of the new mythology, usurpingspecificfigurative of loads. As perceivedincarnations progress and redemption, they intrusion nonat to the imperative be protected all costs from by carry for sites is abhorrent on members.MixedSettlement such sanctified evil the IsraeliJewsbecause itsignifies ultimate theydread so deeply: of the deterioration collectiveachievements through rapiddissolution overthe entire ofcontrol territory. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS conducted in Natzerat Illitin This articleis based on fieldwork was receivedfrom William the 1988 and 1989. Partialfunding Wyse to Fund(Trinity College Cambridge), whichI am mostgrateful. Erik VictorAzarya, Baruch Kimmerling, Cohen and Yoram Bilu comments.I read earlierversionsof the textand made most helpful am indebtedto them,as well as to the anonymousreviewersaptimeand insights. pointed URBANANTHROPOLOGYfortheir by

86

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY NOTES

VOL 21(1), 1992

of My spelling and pronunciation the town's name is a transliteration of its official Hebrew name. Natzerat is the official Hebrew appellation of the old Arab town E-Nasera, known in English as Nazareth; Illitis "upper." It should be noted however that maps, signposts and documents in English carry the town's name in a variety of forms, including Upper Nazareth, Nazareth Illit and Natzeret Illit.Many of its Jewish inhabitantssimply referto it as Natzeret (the folktermused by most Jewish Israelis to referto the old Arab town of Nazareth) or as Natzeret Illit. Most of Natzerat Wit'smunicipal is territory land which was exproowners and users in the mid-1950s. A priated fromArab rightful further 1,000 dunam (approximately250 acres) of ragged mountain land were expropriated fromresidents of the adjacent Arab villages of Ein Mahil, Ixal and Reina in the early 1970s, but were left untouched until 1991. At that stage, the municipalityand of ministry housing took actual possession of the land, which is used for constructionof apartment blocks for newly arcurrently rivedJewish immigrants fromthe Soviet Union. 3 For details of the early period of Natzerat Illit see Garbuz (1973). 4 My survey of 247 Arab households in Natzerat Illit (1989) indicates that 84.6% of the Arab residents of Natzerat Illitwere Christians. The official fiaurefor1983 was 65% (State of Israel 1985). 5 of 247 Arab households in Natzerat Illit(1989) included My survey several questions on housing. The inquiryregardingownership of residence (242 valid cases) reflected 75.7% owner-occupation, 20.6% rentals, and 1.6% key-moneylease arrangements. 6 While most Jewish residents of Natzerat Illit live in apartment 500 households in blocks, some well-to-dofamilies(approximately 1990) live in two suburban residentialareas called Bene Beitkha ("build your own home"). These represent a trend in housing and development in Israel which began with the ascent of the right wing Likud partyto power in 1977. The concept is that the Israel Land Administration allocates tracts for development. Public or such private companies then prepare elements of infrastructure as levelling,roads, electricity, telephone, water and sewage grids, costs of which are incorporatedin the price of plots. Land parcels are then marketed to individualfamilies who undertake to coma mence construction within aiven period of time. 7 Rightsin most of the municipalterritory Natzerat Illit(as in more of than 90% of Israel's landmass) are vested in the Israel Land an Administration, official governmentdepartmentwhich operates Jewish National Fund. as caretaker on behalf of the (international) 8 Many of the incidents were orchestrated by a local group called Mena (Hebrew acronym for "defenders of Natzerat Illit'),associ-

Rabinowitz

FRONTIER JEWISH-ARAB

87

For moredetailedaccounts ated withMeirKahana's Kach party. 1990: 85-105, Shipler1987. see Rabinowitz 9 NatzeratIllifsmissionwithin definedby Zionismwas officially In he David Ben-Gurion. 1957, in his capacityas PrimeMinister, of the establishment a new town near wrotea letter concerning words: the Nazareth whichincluded following
It mustbe a Jewishtownthatwillassert Jewish presence inthe area. Nota suburbof Arab Nazareth,buta separate town of in itsvicinity 1987). (Municipality Natzerat Wit,

10 For a relatively recent discussionof similar processes in the USA includeWolf accountsof WhiteFlight Earlier see Wurdock (1981). (1957), Mayer(1960) and Dampen(1968). 1 ' Moshavimare ruralsettlements whichresemblevillages. Using owned land, however, part theyare by definition of the publicly effort. Nationalsettlement They broadlyfall intotwo categories: are wherethe means of production held the MoshavimShitufiyim, whereonlymarketand as commonproperty, Moshavey Ovdim, ingand purchasesare done collectively. REFERENCES CITED Aldrich,H, (1975). Ecological Succession in Racially Changing Urban Affairs Neighborhoods.A Review of the Literature. Quarterly 10(3): 327- 348. of and Bar-GalY. (1986). Penetration Colonization Arabs in Natzerat Illit:Early Evidence. IN Residential and InternalMigration PatternsAmongthe Arabs of Israel, A. Sofer (ed.). Haifa: of University Haifa,pp. 51-63 (Hebrew). CM. (1968) The Role ofthe Real Estate Agentin Residential Barresi, Location.Social Focus 1: 1-13. in Barresi,CM. (1972) Racial Transition an Urban Neighborhood. and Growth Change 3: 16-22. Ben-Artzi, and M.Shoshani(1986). The Arabsof Haifa 1972-1983: Y., Demographic and Spatial Changes. IN Residential and PatternsAmongArabs of Israel, A. Sofer Internal Migration of (ed.). Haifa:University Haifa,pp. 33-51 (Hebrew). Ben-Zadok,E., and G. Goldberg(1984). VotingPatternsof Oriental 32: Towns.Jerusalem Jewsin Development Quarterly 16-27. in R. (1968) Triumph a WhiteSuburb. New York: William Dampen, Morrow.

88

URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY

VOL 21(1), 1992

Duncan, O.D., and Duncan, B. (1957). The Negro Population of Chicago: A Study of Residential Succession. Chicago: of University Chicago Press. Garbuz, Y. (1973). Natzerat llht: Socio-Economie Development. Shikun Uvniya38. (Hebrew). Haaretz (1991). Ori Or: a Ground Offensive,if mounted, will not involve many casualties forthe coalitionforces. And: the fathers of profanity. Tel-Aviv:Haaretz 17.2. (Hebrew). Helper, R. (1969) Racial Policies and Practices of Real Estate Brokers. of Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press. B. Kimmerling, (1977). Sovereignty,Ownership and "Presence" in the Jewish-ArabTerritorial Conflict.The Case of Ikrit and Bir'im. Comparative PoliticalStudies 10 (2): 155-176 B. Kimmerling, (1983). Zionism and Territory. Berkeley: Instituteof InternationalStudies. Kipnis, B. (1983).The Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee, 1948 - 1980 (Hebrew). IN Artzot Hagalil, Vol 2, A. Shmueli, A. Sofer, and N. Keliot (eds.). Haifa: The Society for Applied Social Research, Universityof Haifa, pp. 723-745 (HehrewV of Kipnis B., Schnell Y. (1978). Changes in the Distribution Arabs in Mixed Jewish-ArabTowns in Israel. Economic Geography. 54: 168-184. Kressel, G. (1976). Privacy Versus Tribalism. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameukhad (Hebrew). Matras, J. (1973). Israel's New Front:The Urban Periphery.IN Israel: Social Structure and Change, M. Curtis and M.S. Chertoff ieds.). New-Brunswick. NJ: Transaction,dd. 3-14. Mayer, A.J. (1960) Rssel Woods: Change without Conflict. IN Studies in Housing and Minority Groups, N. Glazer and D. of McEntire,(eds.) . Berkeley, University CaliforniaPress, pp. 198-220. Molotoch, H. (1972). Managed Integration:Dilemmas of Doing Good in the City.Berkeley:University CaliforniaPress. of of Morris,B. (1987).The Birth the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 19471949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W., and Mackenzie, R.M., (1925). The City, of Chicago: University Chicago Press Rabinowitz, D. (1990). Relations Between Arabs and Jews in the Mixed Town of Natzerat Illit, Northern Israel. Ph.D dissertation submitted to the Department of Social Anthropology, Cambridge University.

Rabinowitz

JEWISH-ARAB FRONTIER

89

Rabinowitz, D. (n.d.). Professed Values and Actual Practice: The Present and the Past, The Individual and the Collective: relationsin Israel. Reflectionson Arab-Jewish Rex, J. (1973). Race, Colonialism and the City. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ringel-Hofman,A. (1989). Adnan Comes to Live in Carmiel. Yediot Aharonot,8.10.89. Tel-Aviv:Yediot Aharonot (Hebrew). Rosenfeld, H. (1988). Nazareth and Upper Nazareth in the Political Economy of Israel. IN Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel, J. man (ed.). Bristol:WyndhamHall Press, pp. 45-66. Hof Shafir, G. (1989). Land, Labour, and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Press. 1882-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Shipler, D. (1987). Arab and Jew. New York: Penguin Books. Shoked M. (1982) The Ordeal of Honour: Local politics Among Urban Arabs. IN Distant Relations, M. Shoked and S. Deshen (eds.). New York: Praeqer, dp 53-79. Sofer, A. (1989). The Arabs in Israel: From Village to Metropolis,and What Next? Hamizrah Hehadash 32: 97-105 (Hebrew). State of Israel (1985).The 1983 Population and Housing Census, Vol. 5. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. State of Israel (1988). StatisticalAbstractof Israel. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. State of Israel (1989). Voters Roll (Natzerat Wit).Jerusalem: Central Elections Committee. State of Israel (1990). StatisticalAbstractof Israel. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. Weaver, R.C. (1960). Class, Race and Urban Renewal. Land Economics 36: 235-251 . and Place Weintraub, D. and Kraus, V. (1982). Spatial Differentiation of Residence: Spatial Dispersion and Composition of in Population and Stratification Israel. Megamot 27(4): 367381 (Hebrew). Williams, C.H., and A.D. Smith (1983). The National Constructionof Social Space. Progress in Human Geography 7: 502-518. Wolf,E.P. (1957). The Invasion-Succession Sequence of a Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Journalof Social Issues 13: 7-20. Wolf, E.P. (1965). The Baxter area, 1960-1962: a New Trend in Neighborhood Change. Phylon 26: 344-353. Wurdock,C.J (1981). Neighborhood Racial Transition:A Study of the Role of White Flight.Urban Affairs Quarterly17: 75-89.