No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Separate or Mixed Municipalities? Attitudes of Jewish Yishuv Leadership to the Mixed Municipality during the British Mandate: The Case of Haifa
Abstract
Israel Studies 9.1 (2004) 101-124
When conquered by the British in the First World War, Pales—tine had twenty-two municipalities. Most of them operated in the Arab towns, while others were found in mixed cities. The phrase "mixed municipality" derives from the "Mixed City," a term coined by the Mandatory government in Palestine. In the course of the Mandate period, the development of the Jewish-Arab conflict brought about a strengthening as mixed cities grew in importance of the mixed cities. This was not only in respect to their function as administrative bodies intended to supply municipal services to their populations, but principally as institutions that began to gather increasing power as their political importance grew. This found expression in the role fulfilled by the municipalities in the clash between the Arabs and the Jews.
The composition of the city councils in the mixed municipalities and the occupant of the mayoral seat were usually influenced by the relative sizes of the two populations in these cities. During the Mandate, the Arabs held a position of power in the municipalities of Jaffa, Safed, and Jerusalem, even though in the latter the Jews constituted the majority of the population throughout the period. In Haifa too, until 1936, the situation was similar. Thereafter influence in Haifa shifted to the Jews. Only in Tiberias did the Jews hold a position of power all through the Mandate years. These power relations directly affected the degree of integration of Jews into the municipalities in which they were in a minority position. and the attitude of the majority power structure toward their needs was biased against them. Bad relations consequently developed between the Jewish community and the municipality in these cities, which heightened the tension between the Jewish communities and the municipalities. In these circumstances, some of the heads of the Jewish Yishuv in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Safed supported breaking away from the mixed municipality, splitting it to form a separate Jewish municipality. It would then be possible for the Jews to develop their neighborhoods independently of the mixed municipality. Others, however, opposed the separation for fear the Jews might lose their influence on the development of the entire city, thus forfeiting their interests.
For a long time the heads of the Yishuv institutions refrained from dealing with the problems of the Jews in the mixed municipalities. This restraint did not arise from lack of concern over the subject. To the contrary, the heads of the Yishuv ascribed great importance to addressing this issue. They regarded the consolidation of municipal government a most important means for the organization of the Jewish population and the possibility of establishing cooperation with the Arabs. The complexity of this matter, however, and the problems inherent in it necessitated not only contending with the Arab side, but also with the British, who were hard pressed to deal with it as well. The Jewish leadership, therefore, withheld from drawing up lines of action, leaving the matter neglected for long years, with no policy at all being devised.
The turning point came at the time of the Arab revolt. The arrival of the commissions of inquiry dispatched by the British to investigate the events in Palestine and to suggest solutions to the Jewish-Arab conflict placed on the agenda, among other things, the situation in the mixed municipalities. In addition, the scathing criticism in the Peel Commission report on the way the municipalities were run, and the commission's proposal to bring about improvements without delay in the municipal sphere, gave rise to the belief that very soon significant changes would be made in the system of local government, which would also affect the mixed municipalities. The Jewish leadership saw this as an opportunity to prove that, despite the tension prevailing in these municipalities, sound relationships could be developed in them and cooperation even achieved. As evidence, they drew attention to the Haifa municipality. From that time on, the heads of the Yishuv began, for the first time, to deal in depth with the municipal sphere, and to consider the problems...
... Out of seven mixed cities in Palestine, Haifa remained mixed until the British left on May 18, 1948. Since its first council election in 1927, the city elected a mixed municipality, cooperation that continued even as the Jewish-Arab conflict intensified at the national level (Goren, 2004;Kidron, 2020) and reflected civil society's prosperity with multiple joint businesses and culture (Goren, 2004;Sharfman & Nachmias, 2006). With decolonization processes at the close of WWII, Haifa's borders changed again. ...
... Out of seven mixed cities in Palestine, Haifa remained mixed until the British left on May 18, 1948. Since its first council election in 1927, the city elected a mixed municipality, cooperation that continued even as the Jewish-Arab conflict intensified at the national level (Goren, 2004;Kidron, 2020) and reflected civil society's prosperity with multiple joint businesses and culture (Goren, 2004;Sharfman & Nachmias, 2006). With decolonization processes at the close of WWII, Haifa's borders changed again. ...
Constructed on its natural bay as a fortified Muslim town in the late 18th century, Haifa’s port city transformed into a modern cosmopolitan port city in the second half of the 19th century. Significant technological, administrative, and social changes made Haifa into the transportation and economic hub of northern Palestine: Its harbor, the first in the region, became a gate to the east for commodities, pilgrimages, and ideas. British imperialism enlarged it with landfill areas and added an industrial function, constructing refineries and a connecting pipeline with Iraq. Haifa port served as the main entry port for immigration and goods for the newly founded Israeli state. Privatization and neo-liberalization transformed it from national port to international corporate hub, reshaping both port and city. Individual entrepreneurs, local governments, and imperial actions shaped and reshaped the landscape; perforating new access points, creating porous borders, and a new socioeconomic sphere. This process persisted through the Late Ottoman era, the British Mandate, and the Israeli state. From the first Ottoman landfills to the sizeable British harbor of 1933, the market economy led urban planning of Haifa’s waterfront and its adjacent railroad to the current Chinese petrol-harbor project. What were the city’s tangible and intangible borders? How did these changes, influenced by local and foreign agendas, unfold? Tapping into built-environment evidence; archival documents (architectural drawings, plans, maps, and photographs); and multidisciplinary academic literature to examine Haifa’s urban landscape transformation, this article studies the history of Haifa’s planned urban landscape—focusing on transformations to the port and waterfront to adjust to new technologies, capital markets, and political needs. We thus explore Haifa port history as a history of porosity and intangibility—rather than the accepted history of European modernization—building upon theoretical literature on global networks and urban form, regional dynamics of port cities, and tangible and intangible border landscapes.
Arguing that history writing is a dialectical process fusing ideological agenda and political developments with historical evidence, the author analyzes the two major transitions experienced by the Israeli historiography of the 1948 war: from the classical Zionist narrative to the "New History" of the late 1980s, and from the latter to the emergence of a "neo-Zionist" trend as of 2000. While describing the characteristics of these trends, the author shows how they are linked to concurrent political developments. Most of the article is devoted to an examination of the neo-Zionist historians who have emerged in recent years, based on their previously untranslated Hebrew works.
Studies of Middle Eastern urbanism have traditionally been guided by a limited repertoire of tropes, many of which emphasize antiquity, confinement, and religiosity. Notions of the old city, the walled city, the casbah, the native quarter, and the medina, sometimes subsumed in the quintessential "Islamic city," have all been part of Western scholarship's long-standing fascination with the region. Etched in emblematic "holy cities" like Jerusalem, Mecca, or Najaf, Middle Eastern urban space is heavily associated with the "sacred," complete with mystical visions and assumptions of violent eschatologies and redemption.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.