It is my opinion that the goal of creating a Jerusalem as a place of peace should focus on ways to effectively utilize governance within the city. In particular there must be a concentrated effort to join national, regional, ethnic, and urban levels of politics and resources in such a way that they will build upon one another and work with one another toward a better city, rather than work in the divisive manner that has characterized the city’s past. Jerusalem has been characterized by the close quarters of religious and political conflicts within the city. It is also defined by its symbolic meaning to both different levels of government and different religious groups. In this space conflicting identities of different nationalisms and religions meet and are in direct conflict with a just sense of urban governance. Jerusalem is thus a site of unresolved nationalistic conflict. I think an important direction for governance is to design methods by which to ensure that not one ethnic group controls the city over another, as I believe this will only further divisiveness. Efforts should be made to build coalitions based on different lines of identity other than nationalistic ones. If a peaceful solution can be made for Jerusalem on a uniquely urban level, there is hope perhaps that the forces behind that solution could radiate out to promote national and regional peace as well. I also think that there is an important relationship between urban space and social justice. If in the city it would be possible to create shared spaces in which each and every separate group can come together in a peaceful and inclusive manner, a just city may one day be possible. Thus I suggest that urban governance approaches to the city focus on building coalitions that form together under the goal of creating new urban spaces and impose upon them the idea of social justice for all. In his article on the subject of urban policy in polarized societies, Scott A. Bollens discusses the governance environment in which cities such as Jerusalem find themselves. He confirms the idea, already discussed here, that a city which is governed by a single dominating ethnic group, religious group, etc. will create state urban policies which are no t inclusive, and which by their very nature favor one group over another and thus perpetuate the divisiveness of the city. Thus in order to transform such a city into a space of justice, a transformation in governance must be made. Bollens proposes that instead of an ethnonational city, a civic city be created. In such a city a third party oversees governance of the city. This could be either an outsider or a coalition of representatives from opposing groups, moderated by those with more neutral interests. Bollens argues that by using a civic governance structure the city will be able to come up with solutions that “accommodate or transcend ethnonational ideologies.” (193) I believe that this form of governance is one that Jerusalem should pursue and that in so doing it may make steps towards remodeling itself as a space of justice and peace.
Bollens, Scott A. “Urban Policy in Ethnically Polarized Societies. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 19, No. 2. New Trends in Municipal Government. Le gouvernement des villes: nouvelles tendances (Apr., 1998), pp. 187-215
