Jerusalem: Facts and Trends

JE R U S A L E

M JERUSALEM INSTITUTE : F FOR ISRAEL STUDIES A C T Jerusalem: Facts and Trends o ers a concise, up-to-date picture of the S A N current state of a airs in the city as well as trends in a wide range of D T R areas: population, employment, education, tourism, construction, E N D

and more. S 2014

The primary source for the data presented here is The Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, which is published annually by the Jerusalem JERUSALEM: FACTS AND TRENDS Institute for Israel Studies and the Municipality of Jerusalem, with the support of the Jerusalem Development Authority (JDA) and the

Leichtag Family Foundation (United States). Maya Choshen,Korach Michal

The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS), founded in 1978, Maya Choshen, Michal Korach is a non-prot institute for policy studies.

The mission of JIIS is to create a database, analyze trends, explore alternatives, and present policy recommendations aimed at improving decision-making processes and inuencing policymaking for the benet of the general public.

The main research areas of JIIS are the following:  Jerusalem studies in the urban, demographic, social, economic, physical, and geopolitical elds of study;  Policy studies on environmental issues and sustainability;  Policy studies on growth and innovation;  The study of ultra-orthodox society.

Jerusalem Institute 2014 for Israel Studies The Hay Elyachar House 20 Radak St., Jerusalem 9218604 Tel.: +972-2-563-0175 Fax: +972-2-563-9814 Email: [email protected]

Website: www.jiis.org 438 Board of Directors Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies

Dan Halperin, Chairman of the Board Avraham Asheri David Brodet Ruth Cheshin Prof. Sergio DellaPergola Raanan Dinur Prof. Hanoch Gutfreund Dr. Ariel Halperin Amb. Sallai Meridor Dina Rachevsky Gil Rivush Dr. Ehud Shapira Dr. Emanuel Sharon Amb. Mark Sofer Prof. Ilan Solomon

Director-General: Meir Kraus

This Publication was made possible with the support of the Jerusalem Foundation Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies

Jerusalem: Facts and Trends 2014 The State of the City and Changing Trends

Maya Choshen, Michal Korach

This Publication was made possible with the support of the Jerusalem Foundation

2014 Publication No. 438

Jerusalem: Facts and Trends 2014

Maya Choshen, Michal Korach

With the participation of: Inbal Doron, Yael Israeli, Yair Assaf-Shapira, Yoad Shahar, Dafna Shemer and Lisa Perlman

Translation from Hebrew to English: Sandra Fine

Preface...... 5

About the Authors...... 9

Area...... 11

Population...... 11 Population size...... 11 Geographical distribution of the population...... 13 Population growth...... 15 Population age...... 16

Sources of population growth...... 22 Births...... 22 Mortality...... 25 Natural increase...... 28 Aliya...... 30 Internal migration...... 32 Migration within Jerusalem...... 36

Characteristics of the family unit...... 38 Households...... 38 Level of religious identification...... 39 Marriage and divorce...... 41 Single-parent families...... 42

Standard of living and well-being...... 43 Extent of poverty...... 43 Ownership of durable goods...... 44 Monthly expenditure on consumption...... 45 Housing density...... 46

Employment ...... 47 Rate of participation in the labor force...... 47 Rate of participation in the labor force by level of religious identification...... 50 Employees...... 51 Income and salaries...... 53 Job satisfaction...... 56

Business and Industry...... 57 Active businesses...... 57 Business openings and closings...... 59 Business survival...... 61 Industry...... 62 Education...... 64 The education system in Jerusalem...... 64 Hebrew education...... 65 Arab education...... 66 Eligibility for matriculation ...... 67 Higher education...... 69

Housing and Construction...... 72 Apartments...... 72 Apartment prices...... 74 Profile of the Purchasers...... 76 Construction starts...... 76 Construction completed...... 77

Tourism...... 80 Tourist hotels...... 80 Guests and overnight stays...... 80 West Jerusalem – East Jerusalem...... 81 Jerusalem compared to select Israeli cities...... 83 Profile of the tourists...... 85

Elections of the Mayor of Jerusalem and the City Council...... 86 Elections for Mayor of Jerusalem...... 86 Elections for the City Council...... 88

The Jerusalem Region...... 95 Population size...... 95 Population growth...... 96 Population age...... 97 Internal migration...... 98

4 - Preface -

Jerusalem: Facts and Trends – The State of the City and Changing Trends provides an up-to-date picture of Jerusalem in all its manifold aspects including population, economy, education, tourism and construction. The aim of the publication is to facilitate access for all to the main findings of the Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, by means of a brief narrative description accompanied by illustrative maps, that make it easier to understand Jerusalem, the largest and most complex city in Israel.

The principal source of the data presented in this publication is the Statistical Yearbook, which contains some 250 detailed tables and dozens of graphs. The Yearbook is published annually by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies and the Jerusalem Municipality with the support of the Jerusalem Development Authority (JDA) and the Leichtag Foundation (USA). The data appearing in the Yearbook are collected from numerous sources, chief among which are the Central Bureau of Statistics and the Jerusalem Municipality.

We would like to express our thanks to all those who have contributed to both these complementary publications, the Statistical Yearbook and Facts and Trends. Our thanks and appreciation also go to Esti Boehm for the production of this volume and to Hamutal Appel for preparing the text for printing. Dr. Maya Choshen and Michal Korach

A brief summary of the findings of this volume: Population – In 2012, the population of Jerusalem stood at 815,300, 515,200 (63%) of whom were Jewish1 and 300,200 (37%) Arabs. In the neighborhoods which became part of the city after 1967 there were 497,670 residents, 199,650, or 40%, of whom were Jews, and representing 39% of the entire Jewish population of the city. Some 297,900 Arabs resided in these areas, constituting 99% of the Arab population of Jerusalem.

During the course of 2012, Jerusalem’s population increased by 1.5% (12,400 persons). The Jewish population increased by 0.9% (4,700 persons), and the Arab population by 2.6% (7,650 persons). These data are an indication that the growth of the Arab population is greater than that of the Jewish population both relatively and in absolute numbers.

Natural increase – The rate of natural increase among the Arab population of Jerusalem was somewhat higher than that of the Jewish population. In 2012 the rate of natural increase (the difference between the number of births per thousand and the number of deaths per thousand) for the Jewish population was 23.2 per thousand as compared with 24.6 for the Arab population. It should be noted that the rate of natural population growth of the city’s Jewish population is significantly higher than that of the Jewish population of Israel – 23.2 and 14.7, respectively. The rate of natural increase of the Arab population in

1 Including Jews, Christians who are not Arabs and those not classified by religion 4 5 Jerusalem (24.6) is also higher than that of the Arab population in Israel (22.0) although the disparity is lower than that for the Jewish population. For many years the fertility rate (the number of children a woman is expected to give birth to during the course of her lifetime) of Arab women was higher than that of Jewish women. However, in the past decade there has been a trend of decreasing fertility among Arab women and a corresponding increase in the fertility rate of Jewish women. In 2008, for the first time, the overall fertility rate of Arab women was equal to that of Jewish women and since then the fertility rate of Jewish women has outstripped that of the Arab women. In 2012, this stood at an average of 4.3 children for Jewish women and an average of 3.6 children per Arab woman. These data are likely to have ramifications for the rate of increase of both populations such that, if this trend continues, there is expected to be a decrease in the pace of growth of the Arab population and a concomitant increase in the pace of growth of the Jewish population.

Migration – In 2012, 19,200 residents left Jerusalem for other localities in Israel, while 10,450 new residents moved to Jerusalem from other localities in Israel. In effect, the migration balance of the city is negative and stands at -8,750 residents. A geographical examination of the balance of migration reveals the following picture: The highest negative migration balance of Jerusalem was recorded in relation to its metropolis – -5,360 including Judea and Samaria (-3,180 persons) and the Jerusalem District (-2,180 persons). Close to half (48%) of those leaving the city moved to localities in the Jerusalem metropolis. The localities with which Jerusalem had the highest negative migration2 balance were: Beit Shemesh (-1,360 persons), Tel Aviv (-1,060 persons), Betar Illit (-780 persons), Modi'in-Maccabim-Reut (-660 persons) and Modi'in Illit (-640 persons).

Estimates of the negative migration balance of the ultra-orthodox (haredi) population measures about -2,900, which constituted 33% of the total negative migration balance of Jerusalem. The principal target localities to which this population moved upon leaving the city were Beit Shemesh, Betar Illit, Modi'in Illit, and Givat Ze'ev.

Of those leaving Jerusalem as part of the negative migration balance, the main age groups were young people aged 20-34 (-3,620) and children aged 0-4 (-2,130). The localities with which Jerusalem suffered the greatest negative migration balance for persons aged 20-34 were: Tel Aviv (-790), Beit Shemesh (-610), Modi'in Illit (-440), Betar Illit (-310), and Modi'in-Maccabim-Reut (-200).

Among those five localities, two – Tel Aviv and Modi'in-Maccabim-Reut – have majority of general population (secular, traditional, and religiously observant) and an ultra-orthodox minority. Three localities tend to attract a mostly ultra-orthodox population – in Modi'in Illit and Betar Illit the majority of the population is ultra-orthodox, and Beit Shemesh has undertaken extensive construction for the ultra-orthodox population in recent years.

2 The Number of migrants leaving Jerusalem to a specific locality is higher than the number of those entering Jerusalem from the same locality. 6 Aliya (Immigration) – In 2012, 2,170 new immigrants settled in Jerusalem, almost double the number who settled in Tel Aviv (1,060) and in Haifa (1,130). The new immigrants who settled in Jerusalem constituted 13% of all immigrants to Israel, as compared with 6% in Tel Aviv and 7% in Haifa. Of the immigrants who settled in Jerusalem in 2010-12, 33% were from the United States, 18% from France, 17% from the former Soviet Union, and 8% from Britain. While at the same time, 43% of the immigrants to Israel were from the former Soviet Union, 14% from the United States, and 13% from Ethiopia.

Construction – In 2013, Jerusalem was the city with the most housing construction completions: 2,433 housing units were completed, constituting 6% of all housing units completed in Israel in that year. The increase in the number of apartments whose construction was completed in 2012-13 in comparison to the previous two years was considerably high in Jerusalem (33%) compared to Israel as a whole (18%).

Education – The education system in Israel is the largest, most diverse and most complex in Israel. In the 2013/14 academic year there were 266,700 students in schools. Of these, 62,900 students were in the Hebrew education system in the state school and state-religious systems and 98,600 students were enrolled in ultra-orthodox education. Within the Arab education system there were 84,200 students in public education and approximately another 21,000 in private education institutions. Over the past five years (2009/10 – 2013/14) there has been an increase of 7% in the number of students enrolled in state schools and state-religious schools, slightly higher than the increase in the ultra-orthodox sector (6%). With regard to institutions of higher learning in Jerusalem, in the 2012/13 academic year there were 38,100 students registered – 14% of the total number of students registered in Israel as a whole. Some 20,300 studied at the Hebrew University, 11,800 studied at seven academic colleges and 6,000 students were enrolled at five academic colleges of education.

Employment – The rate of participation in the labor force in 2012 for the peak working ages (25-54) in Jerusalem was 68% – considerably lower than the rate of employment in Israel (82%), in Tel Aviv (90%) and in Haifa (89%). It is interesting to note that the rate of participation in the labor force of Jewish women of peak working ages, 82%, was higher than that of the men (71%). By contrast, in Israel, the rate of participation of Jewish women (87%) is very similar to that of Jewish men (88%). The rate of participation in the labor force of Arab women of working age is extremely low (20%) and is significantly lower than that of Arab men (88%). In Israel too, the rate of participation of Arab women (36%) is significantly lower than that of men (83%). The rate of participation of Arab men in Jerusalem is higher than that of Jewish men in Jerusalem (88%, as compared with 71%). In Israel, the situation is reversed and the rate of participation of Arab men is somewhat lower than the rate of participation of Jewish men (83% and 88%, respectively). An analysis of the places of residence of those employed shows that in 2012, 75% of employed persons in Jerusalem were residents of the city. In Tel Aviv, however, 36% of the employed persons were residents of the city while in Haifa 55% of the employed persons were residents of the city.

6 7 Tourism – Owing to the unique cultural and religious character of Jerusalem, its status as the capital of Israel, as the center of the Jewish people, as the holy city for the three monotheistic religions, its wealth of religious, historical and archeological sites as well as its cultural centers, it constitutes an attractive site for visitors from all over Israel and the world. Thus, in 2013, there were 3,057,100 overnight hotel stays by tourists – 31% of the total overnight hotel stays by tourists in Israel. This compares with 2,341,100 (24%) overnight tourist stays in Tel Aviv and 958,300 in Eilat (10%). Overseas tourists represent the lion’s share of Jerusalem overnight stays: in 2013, the number of Israeli overnight stays in the city was 836,200 (7% of all Israeli overnight stays in Israel), as compared with 573,000 overnight stays in Tel Aviv (4%) and 6,098,100 overnight stays in Eilat (48%).

8 - About the Authors -

Dr. Maya Choshen co-heads research on Jerusalem at JIIS, with an interest in urban planning, population and society, public services, and the connections among these fields, as well as evaluation studies. She edits the Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, advises the research teams, and directs numerous projects in the above-mentioned fields.

Michal Korach is a researcher at JIIS, examining Jerusalem’s population, society, urban planning, and conducting evaluation research. She holds a B.A. in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies and an M.A. in Geography and Urban Planning from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

8 9 10 - Area -

Jerusalem is the largest city in Israel. Its area of jurisdiction encompasses 125,000 dunams. By way of comparison, Be’er Sheva encompasses 84,000 dunams, Haifa has an area of 69,000 dunams, Rishon Lezion 59,000 dunams, Tel Aviv3 52,000 dunams, and Ma’ale Adumim, situated east of Jerusalem, covers 49,000 dunams.

- Population - Population Size At the end of 2012, the population of Jerusalem numbered 815,300, making it the largest city in Israel in terms of population. The second most populous city is Tel Aviv (population in 2012: 414,600) with Haifa following on with 272,200 residents. The population of Jerusalem in 2012 constituted some 10% of the total population of Israel. The Jewish population of Jerusalem totaled 515,200,4 and the Arab population totaled 300,200. The Arab population was made up of a Muslim majority (96%) and a Christian minority. The Jewish population constituted approximately 8% of the total Jewish population of Israel, while the Arab population constituted approximately 18% of the total Arab population of Israel.

Population of Jerusalem, by Population Group, 1922-2012

900

800 Arabs

700 Jews & Others 300.2 283.9 600 244.8 208.7 500 181.8 146.3

Thousands 400 122.4 300 83.5 504.2 515.1 68.6 475.1 420.9 448.8 200 2.4 378.2 306.3 65.1 100 1.1 197.7 230.3 39.3 165.0 28.6 99.3 53.6 82.9 0 33.9 1922 1931 1945 1948 1961 1967 1972 1983 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

3 All data relating to Tel Aviv refer to the city of Tel Aviv - Yafo. 4 Unless otherwise noted, wherever the Jewish population is mentioned in this document, the intention is to refer to the population group "Jews and Others," in other words the whole population that is not Arab, including Jews, non-Arab Christians and persons not classified by religion. 10 11 Over the years, there has been a decline in the relative size of Jerusalem’s Jewish population, with a concomitant increase in the proportion of the Arab population. The proportion of the Jewish population fell from 74% in 1967 to 72% in 1980, to 68% in 2000, and to 63% in 2012. Simultaneously, the Arab population rose from 26% in 1967 to 28% in 1980, 32% in 2000, and 37% in 2012.

Population of Jerusalem, by Population Group (percent), 1922-2012 100 1% 1%

26% 27% 29% 28% 30% 32% 34% 80 40% 36% 37% 46% 42%

99% 99% 40 74% 73% 71% 72% 70% 68% 66% 60% 64% 63% 54% 58% % % of total population

20 Arabs

Jews & Others 0 1922 1931 1945 1948 1961 1967 1972 1983 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Population in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Population Group, 2012 900

800 Arabs

700 Jews & Others 300.2

600

500 17.2 400 Thousands 300 515.2 28.8 200 397.3

100 243.4

0 Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

As noted, the Arab population of Jerusalem numbered 300,200 residents, making this the largest Arab population in Israel. By way of comparison, other cities with relatively large Arab populations are: Nazareth (74,000), Umm al-Fahm (49,500), Shfaram (38,300) and Taibe (38,100).

12 The relative size of the Arab population of Jerusalem (37%) is high compared to the proportion of the Arab population in Israel (21%), Haifa (11%) and Tel Aviv (4%).

Geographical distribution of the population At the end of 2012, 497,670 of Jerusalem’s residents (Jewish and Arab) lived in areas added to the city after 1967 and they constituted 61% of the total population of the city. Over the years, there has been a relative increase in this figure: in 1972, the percentage of the population living in the areas added after 1967 was 29% of the city’s total population; this proportion rose to 46% in 1983 and to 59% in 2005. Since then the population in these areas has maintained relative stability as a percentage of the total population of the city – 60% in 2010 and 61% in 2012.

Jewish Population in areas added to Jerusalem after 1967, as Percentage of Total Jewish Population in Jerusalem, 1972-2012

50%

40%

30%

20% 36% 39% 38% 39%

25% 10%

4% 0% 1972 1983 1996 2005 2010 2012

In 2012, 199,650 Jewish residents lived in areas added to the city after 1967, representing 40% of all residents in those areas and 39% of the entire Jewish population of the city. In the 1970s and ‘80s, as the large Jewish neighborhoods were being built in these areas, the number of Jewish residents rose significantly. In 1972, they numbered 8,704, just 4% of the total Jewish residents in the city. In 1993, the figure was 25% and in 1996 it reached 36%. Since then it has not changed significantly, standing at 39% (or 199,650 residents, as noted) in 2012. Over the years, there has also been a rise in the percentage of Jewish residents out of the total number of residents in areas added after 1967: in 1972, they represented 10%, in 1983 39% and by 1996 the figure had grown to 46%. However, from 1997, there has been a marked decrease in the proportion of Jewish residents in these areas; in 2012, the figure was 40%. This decrease stems from the increase in the Arab population in these areas.

12 13 Total Population in areas added to Jerusalem after 1967, as Percentage of Total Population of Jerusalem, 1972-2012 100%

80%

60%

40%

60% 61% 55% 59% 20% 46% 29%

0% 1972 1983 1996 2005 2010 2012

In 2012, residents of the large Jewish neighborhoods built in the areas added to the city after 1967 numbered (Jews only): 42,100 in Ramot Alon, 36,900 in Pisgat Ze’ev, 27,600 in Gilo, 19,600 in Neve Ya’akov, 15,100 in Ramat Shlomo (Rekhes Shuafat),16,300 in Har Homa, and 12,200 in East Talpiot. In all, 297,900 Arabs lived in areas added to the city after 1967, constituting 60% of the total population of these areas and 99% of the Arab population of the city in 2012. The 2012 Arab population in these neighborhoods was made up of: 34,800 in Beit Hanina, 29,100 in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, 24,100 in Ras El Amud, 23,600 in A-Tur and the slopes of the Mount of Olives, 22,800 in Shuafat, 21,900 in Jabal Mukaber, and 19,100 in Silwan.

Jewish Population in Satellite Neighborhoods of Jerusalem, 1985-2012

1985 1992 2000 2006 2012

Pisgat Ze'ev 36,500 38,700 36,900 14,800 29,400 Neve Ya'akov 20,300 19,200 19,600

Ramot Alon 21,100 38,100 38,000 41,000 42,100

Gilo 23,900 30,400 28,400 25,400 27,600

East Talpiot 11,800 15,200 12,900 11,100 12,200

14 Population of Jerusalem, by Religion and Geographical Spreading, 2012 600,000 Not Classified by Religion

500,000 Non-Arab Christians Arab Christians

Moslems 400,000 Jews 286,520 300,000 Population

200,000 309,630

100,000 193,200

0 East Jerusalem West Jerusalem

Population growth During 2012 the population of Jerusalem grew by 1.5% (12,400 persons): the Jewish population grew by 0.9% (4,700 persons) while the Arab population increased by 2.6% (7,650 persons). These data indicate that the increase in the Arab population is greater than that of the Jewish population in both relative and absolute terms. In 2012, the increase in the population of Jerusalem (1.5%) was lower than the increase in the population of Israel (1.9%), similar to that of Tel Aviv (1.4%) but greater than that of Haifa (1.0%). The growth of the Jewish population of Jerusalem (0.9%) was lower than the growth of the Jewish population of Israel (1.8%) and of Tel Aviv (1.3%) but

Average Annual Population Growth Rate, by Period and Population Group, 1967-2012

4.5 4.0 Jews & Others Arabs 3.5 3.0 2.5 %

2.0 4% 4% 1.5 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1.0 2% 0.5 1% 1% 0.0 1967-1977 1977-1987 1987-1997 1997-2007 2007-2012 Period

14 15 considerably higher than that of Haifa (0.5%). The growth of the Arab population of Jerusalem (2.6%) was greater than the growth of the Arab population of Israel (2.3%).

Between 1967 and 2012, the population of Jerusalem increased by a factor of 3.1: the Jewish population increased by a factor of 2.6, while the Arab population increased by a factor of 4.4. In the same years, the population of Israel increased by a factor of 2.9: the Jewish population by a factor of 2.7 and the Arab population by a factor of 4.2.

Population age The population of Jerusalem is characterized by its relative youth. In 2012, the median age of residents was 23.7 (that is, half the population was younger than 23.7 and half was older than 23.7). For the sake of comparison, the populations of Tel Aviv and Haifa were significantly older than Jerusalem’s, with median ages of 35.1 and 38.2, respectively. The median age of Israel’s total population was 29.5. The low median age in Jerusalem is partly due to the large proportion of ultra-orthodox and Arabs in the population – these groups are characterized by a particularly young age structure. The Jewish population of Jerusalem is older than the Arab population. In 2012 the median age of the Jewish population was 25.9 and that of the Arab population was 20.1. In Israel generally the median age of the Jewish population was 31.7 and that of the Arab population was 21.6 for the same year.

In recent years, there has been a rise in the median age both in the Jewish and Arab populations. In 2005, the median age of the Jewish population was 25.4, rising to 25.7 in 2010 and to 25.9 in 2012. For the Arab population the median age in 2005 and in 2010 was 19.8, rising to 20.2 in 2012.

Thus, Jerusalem has a relatively high proportion of children (ages 0-14) and a relatively low proportion of senior citizens (65 and above). In 2012, children (0-14) accounted for 34% of the city's total population, almost double the proportion in Tel Aviv (18%) and Haifa (19%) and greater than in Israel as a whole (28%). Children accounted for 31% of the city’s Jewish population, compared to 39% within the Arab population.

The proportion of senior citizens in Jerusalem was relatively low. Members of this age group (over 65) accounted for 9% of Jerusalem’s population, while the proportion was 15% in Tel Aviv, 19% in Haifa, and 10% in Israel at large. They accounted for 11% of the Jewish population of Jerusalem, compared to only 4% within the Arab population. The ultra-orthodox Jewish5 population is characterized by its very young age structure which is even younger than the Arab population. In 2012, Within the ultra-orthodox population, the percentage of children (aged 0-14) was 42%, compared to 26% within

5 The Jewish population that resides in neighborhoods where most residents are ultra-orthodox. These neighborhoods were determined by the percentage of votes for ultra-orthodox parties in the elections to the 19th Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 2013. 16 the general Jewish population (secular, traditional, and religiously observant6). The proportion of senior citizens (65 and up) within the ultra-orthodox population was 6%, compared to 14% within the general Jewish population.

The Muslim-Arab population of Jerusalem is likewise characterized by its relative youth and is significantly younger than the Christian-Arab population. Children (0-14) accounted for 40% of the Muslim population, compared to 22% of the Christian-Arab population. Senior citizens (65+) accounted for 3% of the Muslim population, compared to 13% of the Christian-Arab population.

In 2012, the population group with the oldest age structure in Jerusalem was the non- Arab Christians. This group is also the smallest in size (3,000 residents), with a median age of 41.8 years. Next in descending order of groups with very elderly populations were the Christian Arab population, whose median age was 33.3 years, and the general Jewish population (secular, traditional, and religiously observant), whose median age was 30.3. The youngest population groups are the Muslim Arabs, with a median age of 19.8 years, and the ultra-orthodox Jewish population, whose median age was 18.2 years.

Population of Jerusalem by age and population group, 2012

0-14 65 and above Median age*

Total population 34% 9% 23.7

Jewish population 32% 11% 25.9

General Jewish population 26% 14% 30.3 (secular, traditional and observant)4

Ultra-orthodox Jewish 42% 6% 18.2 population3

Arab population 39% 4% 20.1

Muslim Arabs 40% 3% 19.8

Christian Arabs 22% 13% 33.3

Non-Arab Christians 16% 20% 41.8

* The age at which half the population is older and half is younger.

6 The Jewish population living in neighborhoods in which most of the residents are secular, traditional, or religiously observant. These neighborhoods were determined by the percentage of votes for non-ultra-orthodox parties in the elections to the 19th Knesset in 2013. 16 17 Age Structure in Jerusalem, by Population Group, 2012

+80 79-75 Arabs Jews and others 74-70 69-65 64-60 59-55 54-50 49-45 44-40 39-35 Age Age group

34-30 29-25 24-20 19-15 14-10 9-5 4-0 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 % of total population

Age Structure in Jerusalem and in Israel, 2012

+85 80-84 Jerusalem Israel 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64

55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 Age group Age 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 % of total population

18 Age Structure in Tel Aviv and in Haifa, 2012

+85 80-84 Tel Aviv Haifa 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64

55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44

Age group Age 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 % of total population

18 19 y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e A . s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r m M P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

k o a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h O u E n r o h A E t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a - z R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a t

a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o e S G

m - o t l K i a - a ’ v a a l R G

v t a i i H t

v e y G t a o a e d Y

B f B a - g o a n 4 s u N H

m m

s s i r i t e a s a n i h a n y a M H z a

r a m i t o n t a r G

e Q ' m 3 M

o y i v r e 4 i

I M s r 2 a

t a t G e Z n 1

e - 1 K t e r y a

0 e r t e r s 0 a d n i i

n B 2 l 2 E s Q o

m e i a d , e i t Z r a e

r t n K i l o s m ' e e g O r % % % a e d e % 0 0 2 l A v 1 s s i

r e 9 3 4 5 a a a a 1 - - - d n r e

f - a e

e o n n % % % u

i r M t o r % 0 1 1 m n d 0 2 3 4 N 0 e l A i J r c e

h N n C P e i y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o e S G

m - o t l K i a - a ’ v a a l R G

v t a i i H t

v e y G t a o a e d Y

B f B

a - g o a 4 n s u N i H

m m 4

s 3 i r t e a - s n a h a n 0 y a M H z a

r a m i i t o n

2 t a r

G e Q ' m M

o y i v r e 3

i d I M r a 2

s a t t G e e Z 1

n K t r e y a g

e 0 e r a n i d

n B t e r s l 2 A E Q o

s i i a 2 , i m e t Z s a r e

r n t t m l s e e K i l o O ' r % % % % e d u a e 9 3 8 0 l v s s i 1 2 2 5 d r e a

a 1 a - - - - a d r e v

s A

a f

e n n o % % % % u i

M g o t r 2 0 4 9 m n 1 2 2 2 N n e A 0 u J

r c e o N n Y P e i

20 y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e A . s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r m M P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

k o a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h O u E n r o h A E t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a - z R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a t

a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n 2 e h l o G t m l B 1 u e ' o A m

n a B 0 t R e a h r o 2 e S G

m - o , t l K i a - a ’ v a a l R G

m v t a i i H t

e v e y G t a l o a e d Y

a B f B a - g o s a n 4 s u N H

m u m

s s i r i t r e a s a n i h a e n y a M H z a

r a m i t J o n t

a r G e Q ' m 3 M

o y i v r e n i

I M s r a i

t a t G

e Z n

K t r e e + y a

e r t e r s a d n i 5 i

n B l 2 E s Q o m e 6 i a e i

t Z r a

r t n K i l o d s ' e e O e r % % a d e % 1 0 g v 1 s s i r e % 3 2 5 a a a 4 1 - - A d r e

f - - a e

o n e n % %

i l M t o % % 4 2 m n 0 5 1 2 N p 0 A o r c e N P e P e y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o e S G

m - o t l K 2 i a - a ’ v a a l R G 1

v t a i i H t 0

v e y G t a o a 2 e d

B f B , a - g o a n 4 s u N i m H

m m

s i r t e e a s n a l h a n y a M H z a

r a a m i i t o n

t a r s G e Q ' m 3 M

o y i v r e

i u I M r a

r a t G e Z

e K t r s r e y a

e r t e a J n i

B l 2 E Q o m e i a n i t Z i a

r n t K i l o e e O e 5 r . d e g 9 9 6 4 v 1 s s i 1 2 3 6 a a A - - - - d

r e v

a e 7 1 1 1 n n n . . . . i M o a 3 9 9 6 m i 1 1 2 3 N 0 A d e צ M

20 21 - Sources of population growth -

Three factors contribute to population growth:  Natural increase – the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths.  Internal migration – the difference between the number of new residents moving to Jerusalem from other localities in Israel and the number of those leaving Jerusalem for other localities in Israel.  Aliya (Jewish immigration) – new immigrants who choose Jerusalem as their first place of residence in Israel.

Sources of Population Growth in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Rishon LeZion, 2012

23.9 25 Jerusalem 20 Tel Aviv 15 11.2 Haifa 9.9 10 Rishon LeZion 6.3 4.4 5.2 5 3.6 2.2 0

-5 -2.6 -3.0 -3.4 -10

Rate per thousand residents at year's year's beginning at residentsper thousand Rate -10.8 -15 Natural increase Immigrants Internal migration

Births During 2012, a total of 22,800 infants were born in Jerusalem, 65% of them to Jewish families, and 35% to Arab families. These data are in identical proportion to the size of each population in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is characterized by high birthrates. The principal contributing factors are the Jewish ultra-orthodox population and the Arab Muslim population. In 2012, the birthrate in Jerusalem was 28.2 births per 1,000 persons, and this was high compared to all of Israel, at 21.6 births per 1,000 persons. The birthrate of the Jewish population was higher than that of the Arab population. In 2012, the birthrate within the Jewish population of Jerusalem was 28.7 births per 1,000 persons (20.8 births per 1,000 persons within the overall Jewish population of Israel), while within the Arab population of Jerusalem the birthrate was 27.3 births per 1,000 persons (24.8 births per 1,000 persons within the overall Arab population of Israel). Up till 2010 the birthrate in the Arab population was

22 higher than that in the Jewish population, in 2011 it was almost the same, but in 2012 this trend was reversed and the birthrate of the Jewish population exceeded that of the Arab population.

From the 1970s and up to the end of the first decade of the 21st century there was a gradual decline in the birthrates within the Jewish population of Jerusalem. The average birthrate of the Jewish population dropped from 27.7 births per 1,000 persons from 1973-89 to 25.7 during the 1990s (1990-99). In the years 2000-09 the average birthrate was similar, at 25.3. However, in recent years, there has been an increase in the birthrate of the Jewish population so that the average was 28.2 in 2010-12, a number that is higher than that recorded in the 1970s. During the same period, a sharp decline occurred in the birthrate within the Arab population in Jerusalem. In 1973-79, the average birthrate within this sector was 42.5 births per 1,000 persons. This figure fell to 32.9 in the years 1980-89 and rose slightly to 34.1 in the 1990s. But since the turn of the century, this decline has continued: in 2000-09, the average birthrate stood at 31.8, while in 2010-12 it dropped even further, to 28.3.

The average birthrate in 2010-12 among the Jewish population as well as among the Arab population was similar (28.2 and 28.3, respectively). But recent years have witnessed a reversal in this trend for both of these groups – while the Jewish birthrate increased from year to year, the Arab birthrate declined.

Live Births in Israel and in Jerusalem, by Population Group, 1980-2012 45

10 Arabs - Jerusalem Jews & Others - Jerusalem

Rates per thousand per Rates thousand residents 5 Arabs - Israel Jews & Others - Israel

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

The numerous neighborhoods and areas in Jerusalem typically have differing birthrates. High birthrates are characteristic of Jewish ultra-orthodox neighborhoods, Arab neighborhoods and also new neighborhoods with a high percentage of young people. Those with the highest birthrates in 2012 were all neighborhoods with a majority of ultra-orthodox Jewish residents: Mea She'arim (49.3 births per 1,000 persons), Ma'alot

22 23 Dafna and Shmuel Hanavi (46.3), Neve Ya'akov (44.1), Mekor Baruch and Zichron Moshe (41.9) and Ramat Eshkol (40.2). The areas with the highest birthrates were the northern area of Neve Ya'akov and the eastern part of Ma'alot Dafna, both of which counted 56 births per 1,000 persons. In the non-ultra-orthodox neighborhoods, the part of Har Homa bounded by the roads Yehiel Langer and Baba Sali saw the highest birthrate: 64.7 births per 1,000. This is a relatively new area largely populated by young families.

With regard to the Arab neighborhoods, the highest birthrates were recorded in New Anata (39.3 births per 1,000 persons) and the Shuafat refugee camp (35.8), Kafr 'Akb and Atarot (35.3) and Jabel Mukaber (33.5).

In contrast, the neighborhoods with the lowest birthrates are, in ascending order: Ramat Beit Hakerem (10.7 births per 1,000 persons), Ramat Denya (11.3), Givat Massua (11.8), French Hill (15.5), Beit Hakerem (15.7), Bak'a (16.1) and Pisgat Ze'ev (17.0). The areas with the lowest birthrates are the area of Hamehanechet Street in Gilo (10.6 births per 1,000 persons), north Pisgat Ze'ev (east) (11.3), and also the area of Arnona and southern Talpiot (12.7).

The Arab neighborhoods with the lowest birthrates are: The Christian Quarter of the Old City (15.3), Bab A-Zahara, Masudiya (17.4) and the Armenian Quarter of the Old City (17.6).

In 2012, the overall fertility rate (the number of expected births during a woman’s lifetime) in Jerusalem was 4.0, almost double that in Tel Aviv and in Haifa (2.1 and 2.4, respectively) and higher than the overall rate in Israel (3.1).

The overall fertility rate of Jewish women in Jerusalem for 2012 was 4.3 (as compared to 3.0 for Israel at large), higher than the overall fertility rate among the Arab women of

Total Fertility Rate in Israel and Jerusalem, by Population Group, 2007, 2012 4.5 Jews & others - 4.1 4.3 Jerusalem Arabs - Jerusalem 4.0 4.0 Arabs - Israel 3.6 3.5 3.6 Jews & others - 3.3 Israel

3.0 3.0 2.7 2.5 Number of children Number of children per woman

2.0 2007 2012

24 Jerusalem, which measured 3.6 (as compared to 3.3 for Israel). The principal contributing factor here is the high fertility rate among ultra-orthodox women and the relatively high fertility rate among religiously observant women. Among the Muslim women of Jerusalem, the overall fertility rate was 3.6 children in 2012, slightly higher than the overall fertility rate among Muslim women in Israel, which stood at 3.5.

In recent years there has been a notable increase in the fertility rates of Jewish women, both in Jerusalem and in Israel, in contrast to a decline among the Muslim population. In 2006, the fertility rate of Jewish women in Jerusalem was 3.9, rising to 4.1 in 2009, 4.2 in 2011 and 4.3 in 2012. The same trend is apparent in Israel at large – in 2006 the fertility rate of the Jewish population was 2.7, in 2009 this rose to 2.8 and reached 3.0 in 2012.

The opposite trend has been taking place in the Muslim population, where fertility rates are dropping. In 2006, the overall fertility rate in the Muslim population was 4.1, dropping to 4.0 in 2009 and to 3.6 in 2012 – lower than that in the Jewish population.

Mortality In 2012, there were 3,550 deaths recorded in Jerusalem – 78% of them were Jews and 22% Arabs. The mortality rate was 4.4 deaths per thousand which was lower than the rate of the whole of Israel (5.3), Tel Aviv (8.3) and Haifa (9.6) – a consequence of Jerusalem’s relatively young population.

The mortality rate within the Arab population of Jerusalem is significantly lower than that within the Jewish population. In 2012, the mortality rate of the Jewish population in Jerusalem was 5.4 deaths per 1,000 persons (with 6.0 deaths per 1,000 among the Jewish population of Israel, 8.4 in Tel Aviv, and 10.0 in Haifa), almost double the rate for the Arab population of Jerusalem, which recorded 2.6 deaths per 1,000 persons. (The mortality rate of the Arab population in Israel is 2.8).

Over the years the mortality rate of Jerusalem’s Jewish population has declined steadily, whereas that of the Arab population has dropped sharply and quickly. The average mortality rate within the Jewish population fell from 6.4 deaths per 1,000 persons during the 1970s (1973-79) to 5.9 during the 1980s (1980-89), to 5.5 during the 1990s (1990-99), and to 5.2 during 2000-09. This rate remained steady in 2010-12. Within the Arab population the average mortality rate dropped from 6.4 deaths per 1,000 persons during the 1970s (1973-79),7 to 4.5 during the 1980s (1980-89), to 3.5 in the 1990s (1990-99), to 2.8 in 2000-09, and continued falling in 2010-12, to 2.6.

One of the principal explanations for the significant decline in the mortality rate of the Arab population is a sharp decline in the infant mortality rate. During the 1970s (1972-79), the average infant mortality rate within the Arab population of Jerusalem was 45.2 deaths

7 It should be noted that during these years the mortality rates for Jerusalem’s Arab population dropped from 7.3 deaths per 1,000 persons in 1973 to 5.3 deaths in 1979. Within the Jewish population mortality rates dropped from 6.8 to 6.0 during those years. 24 25 per 1,000 live births. This figure fell to 17.2 during the 1980s (1980-89), to 10.7 in the 1990s (1990-99), to 6.7 in 2000-09, and further declining to 6.5 in 2010-12.

During the years 2010-12, the average infant mortality rate within the Jewish population of Jerusalem was 3.0 (2.7 within the Jewish population of Israel), while within the Arab population this figure was 6.5 (lower than for the Arab population of Israel – 6.8). The relatively high infant mortality rate within the Arab population is a result of, among other factors, birth defects that occur relatively frequently within the Muslim population because of inbreeding.8 The decreased mortality rates within the Arab population of Jerusalem are the result of improved sanitation, healthcare and preventive medicine during the 1970s and 1980s, and implementation of the National Health Insurance Law beginning in the mid-1990s. Another reason for the relatively low mortality rates is that the Arab population is young. In 2012, the proportion of children (aged 0-14) within the Arab population stood at 39% (31% within the Jewish population), whereas the proportion of seniors (aged 65 and older) was only 4% (11% within the Jewish population). Seniors aged 75 and above constituted 1% of the Arab population compared with 6% of the Jewish population.

The highest mortality rates were to be found in the old-established neighborhoods of Jerusalem, most of whose residents are generally Jewish (secular, traditional, and religiously observant), since the number of children there is low and the percentage of seniors 65 and over is relatively high. The neighborhoods and areas with the highest mortality rates: Kiryat Wolfson (24.0 deaths per 1,000 persons), the area around the YMCA and King David Street (20.2), Talbiya (16.1), Rehavya (12.1), City Center (12.1) and Nahlaot and Zichronot (11.0). The Arab neighborhoods with the highest mortality rates were: the Christian Quarter of the Old City (6.6), Wadi al-Joz and Sheikh Jarrah (4.1), and the Muslim Quarter of the Old City (3.7). The inference here is that the mortality rates in the Arab neighborhoods are significantly lower than those in the Jewish neighborhoods.

8 See the Ministry of Health's Report on Infant Mortality for 2004 (in Hebrew): http://www.old.health.gov.il/pages/default.asp?pageid=3473&parentid=897&catid=121&maincat=35 26 a y i s r i a a D r z

h u A - a b l v r a A w E o r y u v a k a y s T e i a S b ’ ' - u - t a e w a p l A A k l a Z

Y i o

u s t b z c I e H a a o

M S v r t

J g l h e . n - o A s l t c i a i a r N m n p b A M l P y

a w a i e t t a l r a i l h r i h d J a R o T o a f F a S C -

a r T t

k r a a r B ’ l s d h

n A W u l a i u r e a s J b o r n h u O h

t E E e A a a c

h S S m t o t i i y a o H n m a e l

t p n l t R e o h h s

o o a m a l e t r C o S H S y a T

t o

a B v t r t y m a R i t C a m i a a

A v M n a h n H C z - m a t o e a R f a a o a R m m m H f R H

r a a e

t a t e r h a S a m ' a

e G n l t e v K i H l o h e l t m u G ' B m A e o n

a t e B a R h r o e G S -

o m l t K i a - a l a v ’

a G

R e a v t t i i H 2 v

y a o t G 1 s a d e Y t f

a - 0 B n B g o u a 2 e n s N m

4 H m

d s , i

s i r e t a s i n s a h i a a n m a M y z H r e

m a r t n e i o t s r l i m a e ' G ' Q

M y o 3 e a a

v r M r i a I

a s t e r e Z G

a a t K r e u

y f e a r n r t e r s n

i o l B o

e i E 2 a Q m e i d Z J t a

t r n K i l o e e n O s a r i d i u

e v s o s 1 a 0 0 5 h a t e d t r e 0 3 4 6 v

a a r 2 - - - e n

n r e i - o

1 1 1 M p m 0 2 3 4 N 0 s t h A e r t i N a B R y a i s r i D a z a

r u A h - b l a v A E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A p A

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o e S G

m - o t l K i a - a ’ v a a l R G

2 v t a i i H t

v e 1 y G t a o a e 0 s d t Y

B f B a - 2 n g o

a e , n s u N i 4 H

m m d

s i i r t e a n s a m s i h a n e y a M H e z a

r r a l m i t o n

t a s r G e Q ' ' a m M

y i 3 o v r a e i I

M s r a

a t G e r e Z u

e K t a r r y a

e r f a n i e t e r s

n B o l E

Q o 2 J i a m e d

i Z t a n

r t n n K i l o i e O e

s a r d e u i v s o s t e 1 a a 4 7 h d a t v r e 1 2

r e r 5 9 - -

n n

i e M - - o 0 5 p m t h 0 6 1 1 N 0 s A a e t e a N D R

26 27 Natural increase Natural increase (the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths) is the principal factor in the growth of Jerusalem’s population. In 2012, natural increase resulted in the addition of 19,200 persons to the population of Jerusalem – 62% Jews and 38% Arabs. The rate of natural increase in Jerusalem (23.7 per 1,000 persons) was significantly higher than in all of Israel (16.2), Tel Aviv (11.2), and Haifa (6.3).

The natural growth rate of the Arab population of Jerusalem is somewhat higher than that of the Jewish population. In 2012, among the Jewish population it was 23.2 per 1,000 persons and 24.6 per 1,000 for the Arab population. In the same period, the natural growth rate of the Jewish population of Jerusalem was higher than that of the Jewish population of Israel – 23.2 and 14.7, respectively. The natural growth rate of the Arab population of Jerusalem (24.6) also exceeded that of the Arab population of Israel (22.0).

Since the 1970s there has been a decline in the natural rate of increase in Jerusalem within both the Jewish and the Arab populations. The drop within the Jewish population was moderate: during the 1970s (1973-79) and 1980s (1980-89), the average rate of natural increase within the Jewish population was 21.3 and 21.8 per 1,000 persons, respectively. It fell to 20.3 during the 1990s (1990-99), and during the past decade (2000-09) it remained steady at 20.0. During the years 2010-2012 the average rate of natural increase in the city rose to 22.9.

Within the city’s Arab population the rate of natural increase dropped sharply. During the 1970s, the average figure was 36.2 per 1,000 persons. It fell to 28.5 during the 1980s, rose slightly to 30.3 in the 1990s and averaged 29.0 during the decade 2000-09. This pattern of decline continued in 2010-12, with the average being 25.7.

Natural Increase Rate in Jerusalem, by Population Group, 1980-2012 40

Jews & Others Arabs

35 35.2 30 31.7 29.1 25 27.7 24.6 20 22.6 23.2 20.9 20.0 19.2 15

Rates per thousand per Rates thousand residents 5

0 1980 1990 2000 2007 2012

28 A high natural increase is characteristic of the neighborhoods with a majority population of Jewish ultra-orthodox or Muslim Arabs, as the number of births in these neighborhoods is high, while the number of deaths is low. In 2012, the neighborhoods recording the highest rate of natural increase were: Mea She'arim, Geula, and the Bucharian neighborhood (1,360 for all of these together), Ramot (1,350 persons), Beit Hanina (820), Romema (740), and Neve Ya'akov (710).

Births, Deaths and Natural Increase in Selected Neighborhoods in Jerusalem, 2012

Average Rate per Rate per Natural Rate per Neighborhood Births Deaths population thousand* thousand* increase thousand*

Jerusalem total 809,120 22,810 28.2 3,650 4.5 19,160 23.7

Jews and others 512,770 14,710 28.7 2,860 5.6 11,850 23.1

Arabs 296,350 8,100 27.3 790 2.7 7,310 24.7

Neve Ya'akov 19,960 880 44.1 100 5.0 710 35.6

Pisgat Ze'ev 40,040 680 17.0 210 5.2 490 12.2

Ramat Shlomo 14,870 450 30.3 20 1.3 440 29.6

Ramot Alon 42,120 1,490 35.4 120 2.8 1,350 32.1

Ma'alot Dafna, 9,300 430 46.3 60 6.5 370 39.8 Shmuel Hanavi

French Hill 7,770 120 15.5 50 6.4 70 9.0

Geula, Mea She'arim, 32,240 1,480 45.9 150 4.7 1,360 42.2 Bucharian neighborhood

Mekor Baruch, 13,840 580 41.9 100 7.2 490 35.4 Zichron Moshe

City Center 5,790 140 24.2 70 12.1 70 12.1

Nahlaot, 9,120 270 29.6 100 11.0 190 20.8 Zichronot

Rehavya 7,420 160 21.6 100 13.5 60 8.1

Romema 22,520 800 35.5 70 3.1 740 32.9

Givat Shaul 11,130 410 36.9 40 3.6 370 33.3

Har Nof 16,020 390 24.4 40 2.5 340 21.2

Beit Hakerem 16,790 240 14.3 120 7.1 120 7.1

Bayit Vagan 19,020 530 27.9 90 4.7 440 23.1

28 29 Average Rate per Rate per Natural Rate per Neighborhood Births Deaths population thousand* thousand* increase thousand*

Ramat Sharett, 9,890 200 20.2 40 4.0 150 15.2 Ramat Denya

Kiryat Hayovel 22,310 670 30.0 150 6.7 520 23.3

Kiryat Menahem, 9,850 260 26.4 90 9.1 160 16.2 Ir Ganim

Katamonim 23,950 610 25.5 190 7.9 430 18.0

German Colony, 9,910 200 20.2 100 10.1 100 10.1 Old Katamon

East Talpiot 13,710 250 18.2 90 6.6 160 11.7

Har Homa 15,220 460 30.2 20 1.3 440 28.9

Gilo 29,480 610 20.7 140 4.7 460 15.6

Arab neighborhoods in 292,240 8,040 27.5 810 2.7 7,230 24.7 East Jerusalem

Beit Hanina 34,230 900 26.3 80 2.3 820 24.0

Shuafat 22,770 600 26.4 70 3.1 540 23.7

A-Tur and slopes of the Mount of 23,260 580 24.9 60 2.6 530 22.8 Olives

Wadi al-Joz and 17,130 370 21.6 70 4.1 300 17.5 Sheikh Jarrah

Old City – 29,690 700 23.6 110 3.7 590 19.9 Muslim Quarter

Silwan 18,980 510 26.9 40 2.1 460 24.2

Ras al-Amud 23,710 630 26.6 60 2.5 570 24.0

Jabel Mukaber 21,500 720 33.5 50 2.3 680 31.6

* Rate per thousand persons of the average population

Aliya (Immigration)9 In 2012, 2,170 new immigrants to Israel moved to Jerusalem. This figure was high compared to the number who settled in Tel Aviv (1,060) and Haifa (1,130). In other words, some 13% of all immigrants to Israel in 2012 settled in Jerusalem, 6% in Tel Aviv and 7% in Haifa.

9 Not including returning citizens of Israel who previously migrated. 30 During the years 2002-12, immigrants to Jerusalem constituted approximately 13% of all new immigrants to Israel (as contrasted with 7% in the decade 1990-2001), compared to 5% in Tel Aviv and Haifa (10% in 1990-2001 in Tel Aviv and Haifa). In the years 2001-12, the five countries from which the highest percentages of immigrants arrived were the United States (30%), France (19%), Russia and the Ukraine (15%), and Great Britain (7%).

The last decade has witnessed a considerable drop in the number of immigrants to Israel. In 2002 there were 33,600; this number dropped to 21,200 in 2005 and to 16,600 in 2012. In contrast to the trend in Israel, the number of immigrants to Jerusalem remained relatively steady at 2,500 per year in the years 2002-07, and averaged 2,300 each year in 2009-12.

Jerusalem has little attraction for immigrants with limited resources. That is why, during the years when most of the immigrants to Israel came from the former Soviet Union, the proportion of immigrants choosing to live in Jerusalem was low – some 7%. From 2002 onward there was a considerable increase in the number of immigrants choosing Jerusalem as their initial place of residence in Israel and this was due to an increase in the proportion of immigrants arriving from prosperous countries (largely the US and western Europe).

In the 1990s, Israel received many immigrants, more than 80% of them from the former Soviet Union (FSU). The year 2002 constituted a turning point with a significant drop in the number of immigrants from these countries arriving in Israel and their proportion declined to 55%. This downward trend is continuing and the proportion of immigrants from the FSU dropped to 44% in 2012. Concurrently, there has been a considerable increase in the proportion of immigrants from western Europe and the US.

In 2012, those residents of Jerusalem who had immigrated to Israel during the period from 1990 onwards numbered 67,100 and constituted 8% of the total population of the city and 13% of the Jewish population. Among them, 54% had immigrated during the years 1990-99, 34% during 2000-09 and 12% during 2010-12. Immigrants who had arrived during the period from 2000 onwards comprised 6% of the total Jewish population of Jerusalem.

The proportion of Jerusalem’s Jewish population that represents immigrants who arrived during the period from 1990 onwards (13%) is comparable to the figure for Tel Aviv (14%) but lower than the figure for Haifa (29%) and for some of the localities surrounding Jerusalem, such as Beit Shemesh (19%) and Ma’ale Adumim (16%). The proportion of immigrants in Giv'at Ze’ev (7%), Modi’in Illit (5%), Betar Illit (5%) and Har Adar (5%) is lower than that in Jerusalem.

The highest count of immigrants who arrived from 2000 onwards was recorded in Bayit Vagan (1,800), Talpiot-Arnona (1,700), Katamonim A-I (1,600), Kiryat Menahem and Ir Ganim (1,400) and East Talpiot (1,400). The highest percentage of immigrants during 2000 onwards in relation to overall neighborhood population was recorded in Talbiya

30 31 (18%), the City Center and Rehavya (14% each), and Bak'a, the German Colony, and Talpiot (12% each).

The Jerusalem neighborhoods with a relatively high proportion of immigrants who arrive during the years 1990-99 were Pisgat Ze'ev North (3,800), Pisgat Ze'ev East (2,700), Neve Ya'akov (2,500), Gilo (east) (1,800) and Katamonim A-I (1,700). A high percentage of immigrants who arrive during the years 1990-99 was recorded in Pisgat Ze'ev North (23%), East Talpiot and Pisgat Ze'ev East (13% each), Kiryat Hayovel (south) (12%), and French Hill and Talpiot (11% each).

Internal migration The issue of internal migration receives much attention among the Israeli public. It is particularly important for policy and decision makers in the local, regional, and national arenas especially in the contexts of development, branding and localities' power of attraction. The internal migration balance is the principal factor among the sources of population increase which can be influenced by means of implementing policy at the level of local authorities and in the short term, relatively speaking, in comparison to natural increase (the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths).

During 2012, 19,200 people left Jerusalem for other localities in Israel, and 10,500 moved to Jerusalem from elsewhere in Israel. The balance of internal migration was negative for Jerusalem, amounting to -8,700. The migrants to and from Jerusalem are, for the most part, Jews while only a minority are Arabs (3%-4%).10

Leaving Jerusalem During 2012, 19,200 people left Jerusalem for other localities. The number of those leaving was the highest recorded in the past twenty years. Prior to 2012, the highest number leaving Jerusalem was in 2009 when 18,800 residents left.11

The Jerusalem metropolis (Judea and Samaria and the Jerusalem district) was very attractive for those leaving Jerusalem in 2012 just as in previous years, and almost half (48% – 9,230) of those leaving Jerusalem moved to localities in the metropolis. One-third (32%) went to Tel Aviv and the Tel Aviv metropolis (Tel Aviv District and Central District).

The localities that attracted the greatest numbers of residents from Jerusalem during 2012 were: Beit Shemesh (1,940), Tel Aviv (1,660), Betar Illit (1,100), Modi'in Illit (900),

10 These are, in effect, Israeli Arabs. The Arabs of East Jerusalem do not usually report internal migration and are therefore not included in the data. 11 The data from 2009 were influenced by the campaign "Register in Jerusalem". The aim of the campaign, conducted in 2008, was to encourage students studying in Jerusalem but whose address was not registered as such, to register as residents of Jerusalem so as to be able to vote in the local elections of that year. The effect of this campaign is reflected in the data: in 2008 there was an increase in the number of persons moving to the city as compared with previous years, while in 2009 there was an increase in the number of those leaving. 32 Modi'in-Maccabim-Reut (830), Givat Ze'ev (760), Bnei Brak (730) and Ma'ale Adumim (630). The Jerusalem neighborhoods which most residents left were: Ramot Alon (1,580), Geula and Mea She'arim (1,350), Pisgat Ze'ev (1,230), Kiryat Moshe and Beit Hakerem (920) and Gilo (900). The highest proportion of those leaving (the number of those leaving in comparison to the size of the population in that neighborhood) was recorded in: the City Center (76 persons per 1,000 residents), Rehavya (62), Nahlaot (61), Musrara (50), and Talbiya (49). Most of the above mentioned neighborhoods are populated by a lot of young people and students. It can thus be assumed that many of those leaving are young people and students, Jerusalemites or others who moved there for their studies, lived there for a few years and then moved away.

According to estimates, about 5,000 of those leaving the city moved to ultra-orthodox localities or to localities with a large ultra-orthodox population and these constituted 28% of all those moving away. The main localities they moved to were: Beit Shemesh, Betar Illit, Modi'in Illit, Bnei Brak, Givat Ze'ev, and Ashdod. In general, internal migrants are characterized by their youth. This is also true for Jerusalem – those moving to and from Jerusalem tend to be young. In 2012, 48% of those leaving (8,950) were aged 20-34. More specifically, the main age groups leaving the city were: ages 20-24 – 3,470 residents (constituting 18% of all those leaving), ages 0-4 – 3,430 residents (18%) and ages 25-29 – 3,360 residents (18%).

Entering Jerusalem In 2012, 10,450 new residents moved to Jerusalem from other localities, a similar number to the previous year. Among them, a notable number came from the Jerusalem metropolis – 37% (3,880 residents) and from the Tel Aviv metropolis – 36% (3,750 residents).

In 2012, The main localities that the new residents came from were: Bnei Brak (660), Tel Aviv (600), Beit Shemesh (580), Ma'ale Adumim (370), Betar Illit and Haifa (320 each). The neighborhoods to which the most new residents moved were: Ramot Alon (660), Kiryat Moshe and Beit Hakerem (650), Pisgat Ze'ev (500), Kiryat Hayovel (500), and Nahlaot (470). The greatest proportion of those moving to Jerusalem (the number of those arriving compared with the size of the neighborhood) chose the City Center (54 per 1,000 residents) as their place of residence, followed by Nahlaot (52), Rehavya (51), Talbiya (42) and Nayot and Givat Ram (34). It is evident that the spatial spread with regard to the proportion of those moving to the city resembles that of those leaving, indicating active movement in neighborhoods inhabited by young people and students.

According to estimates, some 2,100 people (approx. 20%) of those moving to Jerusalem arrived from ultra-orthodox localities and localities with a large ultra-orthodox population. The main localities from which the ultra-orthodox population came were: Bnei Brak, Betar Illit, Beit Shemesh, and Modi'in Illit.

Those moving to Jerusalem were young and even younger than those leaving the city: 51% of those moving to Jerusalem (5,330) were aged 20-34. The main age groups of 32 33 those migrating to the city were, in descending order: ages 25-29 – 2,210 residents (constituting 21% of the total), ages 20-24 – 2,070 residents (20%) and ages 0-4 – 1,300 residents (12%).

Internal Migration to and from Jerusalem, 1980-2012

25 Migration balance Left Entered 20

5 Thousands 0

-5

-10

-15 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Migration Balance In 2012, the net migration balance was negative, at -8,800 – the highest recording in Jerusalem in the last twenty years. The largest negative migration balance prior to this was in 2000 – -8,200.For the purposes of comparison, in 2009-11 the migration balance was -7,200.

The highest negative migration balance for Jerusalem was vis-à-vis the following districts: Judea and Samaria (-3,180), Jerusalem District (-2,180), Tel Aviv District (-1,390), and the Central District (-1,030). This demonstrates that Jerusalem has a very high negative balance with its own metropolis – -5,360 and also with the Tel Aviv metropolis – -2,420.

The main localities with which Jerusalem had the greatest negative migration balance were: Beit Shemesh (-1,360), Tel Aviv (-1,060), Betar Illit (-780), Modi'in (-660), and Modi'in Illit (-640). These data show that the negative migration balance reduces the population of Jerusalem residents from the general population (secular, traditional, and religiously observant) as well as from the ultra-orthodox population.

The neighborhoods which lost the greatest number of residents were: Ramot Alon (-920), Geula and Mea She'arim (-910), Pisgat Ze'ev (-730), Romema (-470) and Gilo (-450). The highest proportion of the migration balance (the migration balance as compared with the size of the population in the neighborhood) was recorded in Geula and Mea She'arim

34 (-28 per 1,000 residents), Har Nof (-24 per 1,000), Sanhedria and Tel Arza (-24 per 1,000) and Musrara (-23 per 1,000).

The main age groups lost to Jerusalem as a result of the negative migration balance were: ages 0-4 – -2,130 residents, ages 20-24 – -1,400 residents, ages 25-29 – -1,150 residents, and ages 30-34 – -1,070 residents. To sum up, the negative migration balance in Jerusalem resulted in a loss mainly of young people, aged 20-34 – -3,620.

Internal Migration Balance to and from Jerusalem, by District of Residence, 2010-2012 0

-500

-1,000

-1,500 Persons -2,000

-2,500 2010 2011 2012

-3,000 Jerusalem Northern Haifa Central and Judea and Southern Tel Aviv and Samaria

Districts

Migration Balance Between Jerusalem and Surrounding Local Authorities, 2012

Efrata 20

Qiryat Arba -90

Mevaseret Zion -110

Ma'ale Adummim -260

Betar Illit -500

Modi'in Illit -640

Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut -660

Giv'at Ze'ev -780

Bet Shemesh -1,360

-1,600 -1,400 -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 Persons

34 35 Internal Migration Balance Rate to and from Jerusalem, of Migrants Aged 20-44, by Age Group, 2002-2012

20-24 25-29 30-44

-5

-10 30-44 -15 25-29

-20 Rates per thousand per Rates thousand residents 20-24

-25 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Migration within Jerusalem During 2012, the number of migrants who changed their place of residence within Jerusalem was 38,880. Among Jerusalem’s Jewish neighborhoods, in which there was a high balance of positive internal migration were: Har Homa (270 persons), Kiryat Moshe and Beit Hakerem (210 persons), Talpiot, Arnona, and Mekor Haim (150 persons) and Pisgat Ze'ev East (90 persons). The neighborhoods with the highest negative balance of internal migration were: Har Nof (-310 persons), Romema (-270 persons), Bayit Vagan (-250), Mekor Baruch and Zichron Moshe (-250 persons), East Talpiot (-250 persons) and Sanhedria and Tel Arza (-210 persons). The highest rate of positive internal migration balance (the balance as compared to the size of the population in the neighborhood) was in Har Homa (18 per 1,000 residents), Ein Kerem (12 per 1,000), Talpiot and Arnona (10 per 1,000), Kiryat Moshe and Beit Hakerem (8 per 1,000), and Talbiya (7 per 1,000). The neighborhoods recording the highest negative internal migration balance were: the Jewish Quarter in the Old City (-33 per 1,000 residents), Nahlaot (-23 per 1,000), Har Nof (-19 per 1,000), East Talpiot (-18 per 1,000), and Mekor Baruch (-18 per 1,000). The Arab neighborhoods recording a high positive internal migration balance were: Kafr 'Akb and Atarot (1,220 persons), Shuafat Refugee Camp (560 persons), Beit Hanina (360 persons) and New Anata (310 persons). The neighborhoods in which there was a high negative internal migration balance were: the Muslim Quarter (-1,630 persons), Shuafat (-440 persons) and Wadi el-Joz and Sheikh Jarrah (-360 persons). Among the Arab neighborhoods, the highest rate of positive internal migration was recorded in Kafr 'Akb and Atarot (78 per 1,000 residents), New Anata (53 per 1,000), Shuafat Refugee Camp (39 per 1,000), A-Tur and the slopes of the Mount of Olives (12 per 1,000) and Issawiya (12 per 1,000). The Arab neighborhoods registering the highest negative internal migration balance were: the Muslim Quarter of the Old City (-55 per 1,000 residents), the Christian Quarter of the Old City (-37 per 1,000), and Wadi al-Joz and Sheikh Jarrah (-21 per 1,000).

36 y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e A . s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r m M P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

k o a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h O u E n r o h A E t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a - z R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a t

a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e e v t K l e i H n e h c l o G t m l B u e ' o n A m

n a B t R e a a h r o l e S G

m a - o t l K i a d a - a t ’ B v a a n l R G

a v t i e i H d

v e n y

G t s o a g e o r ' Y B f n B a - a i t i o a s u N a s y e H

m i m

s r i r t t e 4 a a n m a h a g

n y a M H r i z a

r s a i t t o o n

t a G 2 n e Q ' M m M

y i v r e e i 1 I M e r a

3 d r t i G e 0 Z t y a

s i

K t 2 l y a

r r e n i a C , r s

i n B

t e E Q o 0 t i n a 0 m Z 2 a e

m e 0 r t e , d 2 t r i l e O 5 1 4 7 r s K i l o n a 1 r + e I - 1 - 2 2 v r e s

e + - s

+ a - -

f a p

- n d 1 -

5 u v 8 4 o a o e e r 3 1

n c i - 5 - 1 - 1 + + N e M n t e m J a l

A a 0 n R B a i N y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m e l B u e ' o A c m

n a B t R e a h n r o e S G a

m - o t l l K i a - a ’ v a a a l R G

v t a i d i H t B

v e n y G t

a o a e e d

Y n

B f B a - s ' g o o a r n s u N a H

m t i m

s i r s i t e 4 a n a a s y e i h a

n r y a M H t z a

r a m i t a o n g t a r i G e Q ' m s M

y i o t v r e i I

M r a 2

M n 3 a t G

e Z e 1

K t r e d y a

0 e r t y a n i s i i

r s n B 2 l E Q o

t e i r e a C , i

Z t

2 a

0 m e r t r n 0 m e e O r 0 K i l o e d , t e e l v 5 2 1 s s i n a a 1 a r I 2 - 1 - 2 d 1 r e v + e s

+ - - a f e

- p n n -

u i 6 4 M o o 3 r

m c e - 5 - 1 - 1 + N e A n t e J 0 a l

a N n R B a i

36 37 - Characteristics of the family unit -

Households In 2012, Jerusalem had a total of 204,10012 households,13 as follows: 145,900 Jewish (71%) and 53,300 Arab households (26%). The Jewish population accounts for a higher proportion of households than its share of the city’s population (63%). The reason for this is that Jewish households typically include a smaller number of persons than their Arab ones. The average size of a household14 was 3.3 persons in the Jewish population, considerably lower than in the Arab population, where the average size was 5.8.

In 2012, 25% of Jewish households numbered one person, compared to only 4% of Arab households. Households of six or more persons constituted 16% of the total number of Jewish households, compared to 52% of the total number of Arab households.

Households in Jerusalem, by Size of Household, and Population Group of Household's Head, 2012

40 34% 35 Jews Arabs

30 25% 25% 25

20 17% 14% 14% 15 13% of of households

11% 10% 10% 10% % 10 6% 5% 4% 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Persons in household

Jerusalem’s Jewish population was characterized by large households, relative to the Jewish population of Israel’s main cities. In 2012, the average size of Jewish households in Jerusalem was 3.3 persons, compared to 3.1 in all of Israel, 2.4 in Haifa, and 2.2 in Tel Aviv. The average size of an Arab household in Jerusalem was larger than that of the Arab population of Israel as a whole – 5.8 and 4.8, respectively.

12 Including households associated with an unknown population group as well as “Others” (who are not Jewish or Arab). 13 A household is defined as one person or a group of persons living together in a single home on a permanent basis for most of the week, who maintain a joint budget for food. A household may include persons who are not related. 14 Including households consisting of only one person. 38 A significant difference can be seen between the distribution of the number of persons per Jewish household in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and the distributions in Tel Aviv and Haifa, on the other. In 2012, 25% of Jewish households in Jerusalem comprised a single person, compared to 42% in Tel Aviv and 31% in Haifa. In Jerusalem, 16% of Jewish households included six or more persons, compared to 2% in Tel Aviv and 3% in Haifa.

The data indicate that the more earners there are per household, the lower the average number of children – households with no earner or only one earner characteristically had a relatively larger number of children, while households with 3 or more earners typically had a smaller number of children. In 2012, the number of children in a household with no earner in Jerusalem was 3.9, compared to 3.4 children on average in a household with one earner and 2.8 in a household with three or more earners. A similar situation was to be found in Tel Aviv where the average number of children in a household with no earner was 2.6, as compared to 1.9 children on average in a household with one earner and 1.7 in households with three or more earners.

Level of religious identification The population of Jerusalem is diverse and complex. One of the factors that distinguishes between the groups in Jerusalem is the nature of their religious identification. A survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) among people aged 20 and above showed that in the years 2010-12 (average) 32% of the Jews in Jerusalem defined themselves as ultra-orthodox, 28% as traditional (traditionally observant and loosely traditionally observant), 21% as religiously observant and 19% as secular. The percentage of Jews aged 20 and above in Jerusalem who defined themselves as ultra-orthodox (32%) was higher than that in the other large cities in Israel and significantly higher than the percentage of the ultra-orthodox population in all of Israel (9%); for purposes of comparison, the percentage of the ultra-orthodox population in Haifa was 3%, and in Tel

Jewish Population aged 20 and Over, in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Religious Identification, 2010-2012

Nonreligious, secular Traditional-loosely observant Traditional-observant Observant Ultra-orthodox

Israel 43% 23% 14% 10% 9%

Jerusalem 19% 17% 11% 21% 31%

Tel Aviv 61% 23% 10% 4% 2%

Haifa 56% 27% 9% 5% 3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% of population aged 20 and over

38 39 Aviv and Rishon Lezion it was just 2%. Among those aged 20 and above, the proportion of those defining themselves as religiously observant in Jerusalem (21%) was also higher than in Israel at large (10%). The proportion of the traditional in Jerusalem was 28%, which was lower than the percentage in Israel (38%) and was the lowest among the main cities in Israel. The percentage of the secular in Jerusalem (19%) was also low compared to Israel (43%), and was the lowest among the main cities in Israel. The percentage of the secular in Tel Aviv was the highest of the main cities at 61%, compared with 56% in Haifa, 49% in Rishon Lezion, and 34% in Ashdod.

Nature of Religious Identification of the Jewish population (aged 20 and above) in Israel, Jerusalem and the main cities, 2010-12 (average)

Religious Rishon identification Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa Lezion Ashdod Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Ultra-orthodox 9% 32% 2% 3% 2% 12% Religiously observant 10% 21% 4% 5% 6% 5% Traditionally 14% 11% 10% 9% 12% 19% observant Traditionally loosely 23% 17% 23% 27% 30% 29% observant Secular 43% 19% 61% 56% 49% 34%

Among the non-Jewish population of Jerusalem in 2010-12 (average), some 12% defined themselves as very religiously observant, 60% as religiously observant, 25% as loosely religiously observant, and 3% as not observant. By way of comparison, among the non- Jewish population in Israel, 8% defined themselves as very religiously observant, 49% defined themselves as religiously observant, 23% loosely observant, and 20% asnot religiously observant.

Religious identification of the non-Jewish population (aged 20 and above) of Israel and Jerusalem, 2010-12 (average)

Non- Not-so- Very Total Religious religious religious religious Jerusalem 100% 3% 25% 60% 12% Israel 100% 20% 23% 49% 8%

A comparison between the religious identity of the population of Jerusalem and that of Israel shows that the Jewish population as well as the non-Jewish population defines itself

40 as more religiously observant than these populations in Israel. Among the non-Jewish population, the proportion of those defining themselves as religiously observant or very religiously observant in Jerusalem, at 72%, is higher than that in Israel at large, with just 57%. By contrast, just 3% of those aged 20 and above in Jerusalem define themselves as not religious, compared to 20% in Israel.

Marriage and divorce In 2011, two-thirds (66%) of the residents of Jerusalem aged 20 and above were married. One-quarter (23%) were single (never married), 6% were divorced, and 5% widowed. The percentage of married residents of Jerusalem (66%) was slightly higher than the national average, which measured 63%, higher than Haifa (56%) and much higher than Tel Aviv (46%). The percentage of married Jewish residents of Jerusalem was 62%, lower than the figure in the Arab sector (72%). The percentage of Jewish divorced persons (8%) was higher than in the Arab sector (3%). The percentage of the widowed in the Jewish sector in Jerusalem (6%) and that of singles (24%) was similar to that of the widowed and single in the Arab sector (4% and 22%, respectively).

Jerusalemites married at a relatively young age. Among young persons aged 20-34, 54% were married, compared to 45% in Israel, 36% in Haifa, and 29% in Tel Aviv. In all, 8% of married persons in Jerusalem were in the age range of 20-24. This was higher than the figure for Israel (4%), Haifa (2%), and Tel Aviv (1%). Of all married persons in Jerusalem, 1% wed before the age of 20. Among the Arab population, the percentage of those marrying before the age of 20 (2%) was higher than among the Jewish population (less than 1%). The young age of marriage and the high percentage of those married among the population stems, among other things, from the high proportion of Jewish ultra-orthodox and Muslim Arabs in the Jerusalem population.

Men Aged 20 and over in Jerusalem, by Marital Status and Age, 2011 100 Married 90 23% Widowed 80 Divorced 70 63% Never married 73% 60 82% 83% 83% 50 83%

40 77% 2% 30

20 35% 18% 5% 5% % of the population % of population the in group age 8%

10%

10 13% 8% 5% 9% 5% 0 4% 4% 20 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+ Age group

40 41 Women Aged 20 and over in Jerusalem, by Marital Status and Age, 2011 100 Married 90 Widowed 30% 80 46% Divorced 56% 70 Never married 70% 60 78%

50 75% 68%

40 57%

30 24% 53% 3% 9% 3% 20 7% 11% 14% % of the population % of population the in group age 26% 12%

10 7% 13% 10% 8% 8% 5% 0 20 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+ Age group

The percentage of divorce in Jerusalem was relatively low. Among city residents aged 35 and up, 9% were divorced, compared to 12% in Israel, 16% in Tel Aviv and 15% in Haifa. The divorce rate among those aged 35 and above was higher in the Jewish population (11%) than in the Arab population (3%).

The percentage of widows was higher than that of widowers. In 2011, 24% of women aged 65-74 in Jerusalem were widowed in contrast to just 5% of men. Among those aged 75 and above, the disparities between men and women were even higher: only 18% of men aged 75 and above were widowers, as against 57% of women.

Single-parent families In 2012, Jerusalem had 8,170 single-parent families.15 These families included approximately 14,700 children below the age of 18, who constituted 5% of the total number of children in the city. This percentage was lower than the figure for Israel, where 9% of children belonged to single-parent families. In Tel Aviv and Haifa the percentage of children in single-parent families was especially high, measuring 17% and 15%, respectively.

15 A family consisting of a single parent raising her/his children, including widows/widowers, divorced and unmarried individuals. 42 - Standard of Living and Well-Being -

Extent of poverty16 In 2012, 71,300 families in Jerusalem lived below the poverty threshold (36% of families), 380,500 persons (48% of the population of Jerusalem) and 194,400 children (60% of the children in Jerusalem). The extent of poverty (the percentage of the population living below the poverty line) among the city’s ultra-orthodox population was very high, at 56%, as compared with 12% of the general Jewish population (secular, traditional, and religiously observant). Some 31,300 families lived below the poverty threshold in the Jewish population, among which 17,200 (55%) were ultra-orthodox. With regard to children, 75,200 Jewish children lived below the poverty line in the population, 66,000 (88%) of whom were ultra-orthodox children. The extent of poverty in the Arab population of Jerusalem was considerably higher than in the Jewish population. 77% of the families and 83% of the children within the Arab population lived below the poverty line, compared to 21% of the families and 42% of the children within the Jewish population.

One of the factors affecting the extent of poverty is the number of years of education – the higher the number of years of education, the lower the extent of poverty. In 2012, 62% of the residents of Jerusalem whose head of household had 9-12 years of schooling lived below the poverty threshold, compared to 36% of residents whose head of household had 13 or more years of education.

There was a large difference in the extent of poverty between Jerusalem together with the Jerusalem District and the other districts in Israel. In 2012, 24% of people in Israel lived below the poverty threshold, compared to 48% in Jerusalem. The extent of poverty in the Jerusalem District (83% of the residents of the district live in the City of Jerusalem) was also high in comparison to Israel and to each of the districts in Israel – 47% of people in the Jerusalem District lived below the poverty line, as compared to 24% in Israel, 11% in the Central District, 14% in the Tel Aviv District, 21% in the Haifa District, 38% in the Northern District, and 18% in the Southern District. The extent of poverty for families and children in the Jerusalem District was also high compared to the rest of the country – 35% of families and 59% of children in the Jerusalem District lived below the poverty line, as compared to 19% of families and 34% of children in all of Israel and 12% of families and 24% of children in Tel Aviv District.

16 Poverty is a matter of relative distress and is measured in relation to the whole society. The Israeli poverty threshold is defined as income level equal to 50% of the median disposable income per person. For detailed definitions and explanations, see the National Insurance Institute's Report on the Extent of Poverty and Social Gaps (In Hebrew): http://www.btl.gov.il. 42 43 Extent of Poverty in Jerusalem, by Population Group, 2012 90 Jews and others Arabs 80 83% 70 77% 77%

60 (%) 50

40 42% Poverty rate

30 29% 20 21% 10

0 Families Persons Children

Ownership of durable goods Another indicator of a population’s socioeconomic status is the extent of a household’s ownership of durable goods (key consumer products). The number of privately owned vehicles in Jerusalem was very low in relation to the city’s population size. In 2012, the number of privately owned vehicles was 148,000 – fewer than the number of vehicles in Tel Aviv, but more than those in Haifa. The number of vehicles per thousand persons serves as an indicator of socioeconomic status. The number of vehicles in relation to the population in Jerusalem was low and numbered 182 per thousand persons in 2012, as compared to 211 vehicles per thousand persons in Israel, 477 in Tel Aviv

Private Cars in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Year of Production, 2012

100 9% 5% 14% 11% 11% 19% 2012 80 21% 30% 41% 2010-2011 60 %

43% 2003-2009 42% 40 37% Up to 2002

20 44% 29% 25% 18% 0 Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

44 and 347 in Haifa. Consequently, the percentage of Jerusalem households owning at least one vehicle was relatively low – 48% of Jerusalem households maintained at least one car as compared to 66% in Israel, 63% in Tel Aviv and 59% in Haifa. Furthermore, the average age of vehicles in Jerusalem was 8.5 years, which is high relative to Israel (6.6 years), Tel Aviv (4.9 years) and Haifa (6.0 years). Most vehicles in Jerusalem were 10 years old or more (44%) as compared to 18% in Tel Aviv. A low percentage of vehicles in Jerusalem were 1-3 years old (16%) as opposed to 44% in Tel Aviv.

In 2012, 69% of households in Jerusalem owned two or more mobile phones, as compared to 72% in Israel, 60% in Tel Aviv and 61% in Haifa. 72% of households in Jerusalem owned a personal computer, compared to 80% in Israel, 86% in Tel Aviv, and 81% in Haifa. 52% of Jerusalem households had an internet account, compared to 71% in Israel, 80% in Tel Aviv, and 76% in Haifa. 67% of Jerusalem households had a television, compared to 88% of households in Israel, 89% in Tel Aviv, and 90% in Haifa. The proportion of those who subscribed to cable or satellite television was also lower in Jerusalem (32%) than in Israel (62%), Tel Aviv (67%), or Haifa (70%). The relatively low proportion of Jerusalem households owning a television or having cable television or an internet subscription was influenced by the significant weight of the ultra-orthodox population, which as a matter of custom does not have a television or internet connection in the home.

Of the 14 largest cities in Israel, Jerusalem had the lowest percentage of households owning an air-conditioner (54%, as compared with 84% in Israel, 88% in Tel Aviv, and 76% in Haifa). Jerusalem too had the highest number of households with a satellite dish (24%, as compared with 5% in Tel Aviv, and 10% in Haifa), digital converters (17% as compared with 5% in Tel Aviv, and 7% in Haifa) together with, as mentioned, a low proportion of cable or satellite subscriptions. The high percentage of ownership of satellite dishes, by means of which it is possible to receive television broadcasts from Arab countries, is characteristic of Arab households.

Monthly expenditure on consumption The average monthly expenditure on consumption17 per household in Jerusalem was low in comparison to Israel and Tel Aviv but high in comparison to Haifa. In 2012, the average monthly expenditure on consumption per household in Jerusalem was NIS 12,900. In Israel the expenditure for consumption was NIS 14,300, in Tel Aviv NIS 15,500, and in Haifa NIS 12,000. Yet in light of the difference in the size of households – an average of 4.0 persons in Jerusalem, 3.3 in Israel, and 2.2 in Tel Aviv, and 2.5 in Haifa – the average monthly expenditure per person (standardized) in Jerusalem was particularly low. Given that the average household expenditure was relatively low, this was even more pronounced for per-person expenditure. This average monthly expenditure per person (standardized) in Jerusalem was NIS 3,200, lower than in Israel, at NIS 4,300, in Tel Aviv, at NIS 7,000, and Haifa, at NIS 4,800.

17 The total of all payments of a household for the purchase of goods and services, including expenses for housing and vehicles. 44 45 The four main areas of consumption in households in Israel, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem are: housing, transport and communication, food, and education, culture, and entertainment. As the following table shows, the proportion of monthly expenditure devoted to each of these main areas of consumption was similar in Jerusalem, Israel, Tel Aviv and Haifa, but the proportion of expenditure on housing in Tel Aviv was considerably higher. The monthly expenses for consumption were influenced by monthly income. Because of differences in household income, and particularly because of differences in income per person, the nominal expenditure per person in each of the principal areas of consumption was significantly lower in Jerusalem than in Tel Aviv, and was also lower than in Israel generally.

Monthly expenditure for consumption in households, by main areas of expenditure, 2012

Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa Total expenditure for 14,300 12,900 15,500 12,000 consumption (NIS) Area % of total monthly expenditure for consumption Housing 26% 27% 32% 24% Food 16% 19% 15% 16% Transportation and 19% 17% 18% 21% Communication Education, Culture and 12% 12% 12% 12% Entertainment

Housing density In 2012, the average housing density in Jerusalem was 0.9 persons per room within the Jewish population, and more than double that in the Arab population – 2.0 persons per room. The average housing density within the Jewish population of Jerusalem (one person per room) was slightly higher than the housing density in Israel (0.8 persons per room) and in Tel Aviv and Haifa (0.7 persons per room). The average housing density within the Arab population of Jerusalem was higher than that within the Arab population of Israel.

Over the years, there has been a decline in average housing density within the Arab population of Jerusalem, from 2.3 persons per room in 1990 to 2.0 persons per room in 2012. The same period saw only a slight decline in housing density in the Jewish population, from 1.1 persons per room to 0.9 per room.

46 - Employment -

During 2012, important changes were made in the system of data collection and in the definition of the labor force used in a labor force survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics. This makes it impossible to compare the 2012 data with those collected in previous years.

Rate of participation in the labor force In 2012, the population of Jerusalem aged 15 and above amounted to 543,700 persons, of whom 274,400 participated in the labor force18 (a rate of participation of 50%). Among those, 253,000 were employed persons (92%) and 21,500 were unemployed (8%).

The rate of participation in the labor force varied with the age of the population. In 2012, the rate of participation in the labor force in Jerusalem for the peak working ages (25-54) was 68%, which was significantly higher compared to the rate of participation in the labor force of persons aged 15 and above (50%). Nevertheless, this rate (68%) was considerably lower than that in Israel (82%), in Tel Aviv (90%) and in Haifa (89%).

Rate of participation in the labor force of persons of peak working age (25-54) in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by gender, 2012

Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

Total 82% 68% 90% 89%

Men 87% 77% 92% 89%

Women 77% 58% 88% 88%

Studies by the Bank of Israel show that a low rate of participation prevents utilization of the productive capacity of the economy, negatively affects the standard of living, and expands the dimensions of poverty. These studies further show that a low rate of participation in the labor force and the employment market in Israel is characteristic of those with a low level of education, men who are fully engaged in ultra-orthodox education, and Arab women, in particular those with a low level of education.19 The relatively low rate of participation in the labor force in Jerusalem stems from the low rate of participation of ultra-orthodox men and Arab women.

18 The labor force includes employed persons and unemployed persons actively seeking work among the population aged 15 and above. 19 Bank of Israel, Press Release: Rate of employment in Israel in an international perspective (in Hebrew): http://www.boi.org.il/he/newsandpublications/pressreleases/pages/030317a.aspx 46 47 Population Aged 25-54 in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Rate of Participation in Labor Force, 2012

100 10% 11% 18%

32% 80 54 - 25

60 90% 68% 89% 40 82% Not in labor force

20 % % of population aged

In labor force

0 Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

Between men and women, a significant gap existed in the rate of participation in the labor force. In 2012, the rate of participation in the labor force in Jerusalem among the men of peak working age (25-54) was relatively low (77%) compared to 92% in Tel Aviv, 89% in Haifa and 87% Israel. The rate of participation among the Jewish men of Jerusalem of peak working age (71%) was lower than the rate among Arab men (88%), mainly because of the low rate of participation of ultra-orthodox men.

Among the women, the rate of participation in Jerusalem’s labor force for the peak working years was 58%, considerably lower than that in Tel Aviv (88%), in Haifa (88%), and in Israel (77%). This low rate of participation of Jerusalem women can be explained largely by the particularly low rate of participation of Arab women (20%), compared with 82% for Jewish women. The rate of participation of Jewish women in Jerusalem (82%) was higher than that of Jewish men (71%), whereas in the other main cities this trend was reversed, with the rate of participation of men being higher than that of women.

Rate of participation in the labor force of population of peak working age (25-54) in Israel and in Jerusalem by population group and gender, 2012

Israel Jerusalem

Total Jews Arabs Total Jews Arabs

Total 82% 87% 60% 68% 77% 54%

Men 87% 88% 83% 77% 71% 88%

Women 77% 87% 36% 58% 82% 20%

48 Population Aged 25-54 in Jerusalem, by Rate of Participation in Labor Force, Population Group and Gender, 2012

100 12% 18% 29% 80 54 - 25 60 80% 88% 82% 40 71% Not in labor force

20 In labor force 20% % % of popultion aged 0 Jews & Arabs Jews & Arabs Others Others Men Women

In the years 1980-97, there was a rise in the rate of participation in the labor force in Jerusalem but since then it has gradually declined, up to 2012. This was due to a drop in the rate of men's participation in the labor force, while among women in the same years there was a moderate increase in participation in the labor force. Conversely, in Israel in general there has been a steady rise in labor force participation for men and for women.

There was a considerable difference in the rates of participation in the labor force between graduates of various educational institutions. For the population in the peak working ages (25-54), the highest rate of participation was recorded for graduates of higher education: those with an academic degree (83%), post-high school education without an academic

Rate of Participation in Labor Force among Residents of Jerusalem Aged 25-54,by Type of Last School Attended and Gender, 2012 100% 100 92% 89% 91% Women 80% 77% 80 73% Men 66% 60 46%

40 % in forcelabor % 31% 30%

20 11%

0 Did not Primary and Secondary Yeshiva Teacher Post- Academic study intermediate school training secondary institution at all school college school Type of Last School

48 49 degree (82%), teachers' and kindergarten teachers' colleges (68%), those with high school education (67%). The lowest rate of participation in the labor force was to be found among those with elementary or middle school education (46%) and graduates of yeshivas (30%).

Rate of participation in the labor force by nature of religious identification20 The rate of participation in the labor force varied in accordance with the nature of religious identification of the residents for both the Jewish and the Arab populations. This was apparent form the CBS’ social survey of persons aged 20 and above. For the Jewish population in 2010-12, the average rate of participation in the labor force in Jerusalem was 60% – lower than in Israel as a whole (70%). There was a notable discrepancy between the rate of participation in the labor force for those who consider themselves part of the general population (secular, traditional, and religiously observant) and those who define themselves as ultra-orthodox. The rate of participation in the Jerusalem labor force was 66% for the general population and 47% for the ultra-orthodox population. The various groups that made up the general population in Jerusalem had similar rates of participation (63-69%).

Rate of participation in the labor force for ages 20 and above among the Jewish population, by religious identification, 2010-12 (average)

General population, not ultra-orthodox Ultra- Total Secular, Traditional, Traditional- orthodox population Religiously Total not loosely religiously population observant observant observant observant

Jerusalem 60% 66% 69% 66% 63% 65% 47%

Israel 70% 70% 74% 70% 67% 68% 54%

The data reveal that within the Arab population aged 20 and above, the rate of participation in the labor force was 40% in Jerusalem and 50% in Israel. Within the Arab population in Jerusalem there was a considerable difference in the rate of participation in the labor force between those defining themselves as not religiously observant (where the rate was high, at 73%) and those defining themselves as very observant (where the rate of participation was particularly low, at 16%). It is also interesting to note that, in contrast to the Jewish population, among the Arab population there is also a significant discrepancy in the rate of participation in the labor force on the part of those who are not religiously observant

20 The data in this section were obtained from the Social Survey conducted by the CBS. Among other things, the survey addressed the nature of religious identification as the respondent to the survey defined himself. This aspect of the survey makes it possible to examine the labor force from another angle. However, owing to a change in the definitions, it is not possible to compare the data from this social survey with other surveys and for this reason the data obtained in this manner differ from those appearing in labor force surveys. 50 (73%), those who define themselves as loosely observant (47%), and those who define themselves as observant (41%).

Rate of participation in the labor force of ages 20 and above among the Arab population, by level of religious identification, 2010-12 (Average)

Non- Not-so- Very Total Religious religious religious religious

Jerusalem 40% 73% 47% 41% 16%

Israel 50% 72% 60% 46% 25%

Employees In 2012, the number of employed persons in Jerusalem aged 15 and above totaled 293,800, constituting approximately 9% of the total number of employed in Israel. In Tel Aviv, the economic and business center of Israel, the number of employed persons was greater than that of Jerusalem – 394,700 – and they represented 12% of the total number of employed persons in Israel. Haifa had 166,700 employed persons, constituting 5% of the total number of employed. By way of comparison, the population of Jerusalem constituted about 10% of the total population of Israel, Tel Aviv's population was 5% and Haifa's was 3%.

An analysis of the places of residence of the employed persons reveals that, in 2012, 75% of the employed persons in Jerusalem were residents of the city, 11% were residents of Judea and Samaria, 6% were residents of the Jerusalem District (not including the City of Jerusalem) and 1% were Tel Aviv residents. In Tel Aviv the picture was different – 36% of employed persons were residents of Tel Aviv, 27% residents of the Tel Aviv District (not including the City of Tel Aviv), 27% residents of the Central District and 1% residents of Jerusalem. In Haifa, 55% of the employed persons were Haifa residents.

The data show that Tel Aviv is an employment center that attracts many employed persons from all over the country. The strong attractiveness of the city and the size of the population living in the surrounding metropolis (some 3 million) are contributing factors. The population of metropolitan Jerusalem is much smaller (approx. 500,000) and thus the number of employed persons who are not residents of the city is relatively low.

In 2012, 252,900 of Jerusalem residents were employed. 87% of them worked in Jerusalem as compared with 71% of the employed residents of Haifa who worked in Haifa, and 63% of the employed residents of Tel Aviv who worked in that city. Here the data show that women more than men tended to work near their place of residence. In 2012, 8% of employed women residents of Jerusalem worked outside the city, as compared with 17% of the employed male residents of Jerusalem who worked outside

50 51 the city. In Tel Aviv, 30% of employed women residents of the city worked outside the city bounds in comparison with 43% of men.

Out of the employed residents of Jerusalem, 73% were Jewish and 27% Arab. By comparison, the proportion of Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem aged 15 and above amounted to 65% and 35%, respectively. Jewish employed persons tended to work outside the city more than the Arab employed persons, at 15% and 7%, respectively.

Jerusalem’s status as the capital of Israel and its governmental and administrative center, where government ministries and national institutions are concentrated, results in a very high proportion of persons employed in the public service. In 2012, 48% of employed persons in Jerusalem worked in public service (public administration, education, healthcare services, welfare, and community, social, and individual services), compared to 38% in Israel, 37% in Haifa, and 27% in Tel Aviv. Among those employed in the civil service in Jerusalem, the proportion of those working in education was particularly notable – 17% (13% in Israel and only 7% in Tel Aviv), as well as health and social services – 13% (10% in Israel and 8% in Tel Aviv) and public administration – 10% (10% in Israel and 6% in Tel Aviv).

The banking, insurance, and financial sectors accounted for 2% of employed persons in Jerusalem, while 13% worked in the business services sector.21 In Israel, these sectors accounted for 4% and 14% of employed persons, and in Haifa 3% and 17%, respectively. In Tel Aviv, Israel’s economic center, the high proportion of those employed in these sectors was particularly clear – 10% in banking, insurance, and finance, and 26% in commercial services. The proportion of persons employed in industry in Jerusalem (7%) was low, comparable to that in Tel Aviv (7%) and lower than that in Israel (13%) and Haifa (12%). In 2012, the main economic sectors in which Jews employed in Jerusalem worked were education (19%), the business services sector (14%), health and welfare (14%), and public administration (13%). Among the employed Arab residents in Jerusalem, the main economic sectors were commerce (21%), construction (13%), food and entertainment services (11%), and education (11%).

The main economic sectors among men employed in Jerusalem were business services (15%), commerce (15%), and education (11%). For Jewish men in Jerusalem, the main economic sectors were business services (19%) and education (14%), whereas among the Arab men the main sectors were commerce (23%) and construction (16%). Among women employed in Jerusalem, the main sectors were education (24%), healthcare services and welfare (20%), and public administration (12%). Jewish women in Jerusalem worked mainly in education (23%) and healthcare and welfare services (19%) and so too did Arab women (42% and 27%, respectively).

21 The business services sector includes computer services, research and development, personnel services and other business activities. 52 Employed Persons Working in Jerusalem, by Economic Branch and Gender, 2012 (Main Branches)

Education 23% 14% Business activities 11% 19% Health, welfare & social services 19% 8% Public administration 14% 13% Wholesale and retail trade, and repairs 8% 11% Community, social & personal services 9% 8% Manufacturing (mining and industry) 4% 10% Women Transport, storage and communication 3% 7% Accommodation services and restaurants 3% 4% Men Banking, insurance & financial institutions 3% 2% 0 5 10 15 20 25 % of labor force by gender

Income and salaries22 In 2011, Jerusalem had 237,000 salaried employees (93% of all employed persons in Jerusalem) and 17,300 self-employed workers (7%). The proportion of salaried employees is comparable to the figures for Tel Aviv (91%), Haifa (94%), and Israel (93%).

In 2011, the average (gross) monthly salary for an employee in Jerusalem was NIS 8,000. The average monthly salary in Jerusalem was low compared to that of Israel (NIS 9,500), Tel Aviv (NIS 11,400), and Haifa (NIS 10,400). Similarly, the average monthly salary in Jerusalem was low in comparison to surrounding localities, with the exception of localities that have a majority ultra-orthodox or Arab population. In Har Adar the average (gross) monthly salary was NIS 17,000; in Mevasseret Zion NIS 13,200; in Tzur Hadassa NIS 13,100; in Efrat NIS 11,100; for localities within the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council NIS 10,900; in Giv'at Ze’ev NIS 9,600; in Ma’ale Adumim NIS 9,300; and in Beit Shemesh (where about half of the population is ultra-orthodox), it was NIS 7,500. For localities where the population is primarily ultra-orthodox, the average monthly salaries were lower than the average salary in Jerusalem: Kiryat Ye’arim (Telz Stone) – NIS 6,800; Kochav Ya'akov – NIS 6,000; and Betar Illit – NIS 5,300. In Abu Ghosh, whose population is primarily Arab, the average monthly salary was NIS 6,600.

An examination of salary by gender revealed a significant gap between the salaries of employed men and employed women. In 2011, the average monthly (gross) salary in Jerusalem among men was NIS 8,900, which is 29% higher than the average for women – NIS 6,900. In Tel Aviv and Haifa, the average salary was higher than in Jerusalem, and the

22 Income and salary data are derived from two sources: “Average Salary and Income by Place of Residence and by Various Economic Variables,” by the National Insurance Institute; and “Survey of Incomes,” by the CBS. It should be noted that each source assessed wages and income in a different way, and the data therefore differ. 52 53 gap between men’s and women’s salaries was also greater. In Israel as a whole, the average salary of men was NIS 11,400, 54% higher than that of women who earned NIS 7,400. In Tel Aviv, the average salary was NIS 13,750 for men, 51% higher than women’s salaries, which averaged NIS 9,100. In Haifa, the gap between the men's and women's salaries was even greater (69%) – the men’s average salary was NIS 13,100 while women's salaries were NIS 7,800 on average.

The difference in salaries between men and women can be attributed to the differences in the number of hours worked as well as to the average rate per hour. The average salary per hour of men in Jerusalem (NIS 46) was similar to that of women (NIS 45), but the number of weekly hours worked was higher among men than among women – 41 hours and 34 hours, respectively. In Tel Aviv, men's salaries per hour were 27% higher than those of women as were the average number of weekly hours worked – 44 hours per week on average as compared to 38 hours for women in Tel Aviv.

In 2011, the average number of working hours per week among men in Jerusalem was 41, in Tel Aviv it was 44, in Haifa it was 43, and in Israel it was 45. The average number of working hours per week among women was lower, at 34 in Jerusalem, 38 in Tel Aviv, 34 in Haifa, and 36 in Israel.

In 2011, the average hourly wage in Tel Aviv was 40% higher than the average in Jerusalem and came to NIS 65 in 2011. In Haifa the average hourly wage for men was NIS 62 and in Israel NIS 53.

The average hourly wage among Jerusalem women was NIS 45; in Tel Aviv it was NIS 51, in Haifa – NIS 46, and in Israel – NIS 44.

During the same year, the average monthly wage of a working family23 in Jerusalem (NIS 12,000) was 1.5 times higher than the average monthly employee’s wages (NIS 8,000). This ratio was lower in Jerusalem (1.5) than in Israel, which measured 1.9 (the average monthly wages of households headed by salaried employees in Israel were NIS 18,000, compared to the average monthly employee’s wages of NIS 9,500), and lower than in Tel Aviv, where the ratio was 2.1 (NIS 24,500 as opposed to NIS 11,400), or in Haifa, with a ratio of 2.2 (NIS 22,800 as opposed to 10,400).

The average monthly (gross) income of households24 headed by salaried employees was lower in Jerusalem than in Israel, Tel Aviv, or Haifa. In 2011, the average monthly income of households headed by salaried employees was NIS 13,500 in Jerusalem, NIS 18,800 in Tel Aviv, NIS 16,300 in Haifa, and NIS 16,900 in Israel. Moreover, the average number of persons per household in Jerusalem was high (4.3) compared to Tel Aviv (2.5), Haifa (2.8),

23 A working family is one in which at least one of the couple works in a salaried or self-employed job. The family income of a working family includes the income of the couple only, without taking into account the incomes of other family members, even if they live in the same household. 24 This includes all the regular monetary income of the household from salaries and from income from sources other than work (capital and property, pensions, and benefits) and includes all members of the household even if they are not relatives. 54 and Israel (3.7), and consequently, the income per person in Jerusalem was significantly lower than that in Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Israel.

Average Monthly Wage of Employees in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv - Yafo and Haifa, by Gender, 2011

16,000 ) 14,000 Males Females 13,748 12,000 13,101

10,000 11,411

8,000 8,934 9,094 7,412 7,768 6,000 6,944

Average monthly wage (NIS 4,000

2,000

0 Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv - Yafo Haifa

Employees' Average Gross Salary per Hour in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Gender, 2011

80 Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa 65 62 60 53 51 46 44 45 46

NIS 40

0 Males Females

The average monthly (gross) income of households in Jerusalem whose head was not employed was NIS 6,500, compared to NIS 7,200 in Tel Aviv, NIS 7,400 in Haifa, and NIS 6,300 in Israel. The average age of an unemployed head of household was 58 in Jerusalem, 66 in Tel Aviv, 69 in Haifa, and 64 in Israel. In 2011, the average monthly income of self-employed workers was NIS 7,500 in Jerusalem, compared to NIS 10,300 in Tel Aviv, NIS 9,100 in Haifa, and NIS 8,700 in Israel. 54 55 Job satisfaction The CBS Social Survey asked respondents aged 20 and above about their overall satisfaction with their workplace and income. They were also asked about fear of losing their jobs.

The survey revealed that during 2010-12 (average across the years), 87% of Jerusalem residents were satisfied to very satisfied with their workplace. A comparison of Jerusalem to all of Israel and to other main cities indicates that the rate of workplace satisfaction in Jerusalem was similar to that in Israel, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Rishon Lezion(88%) but higher than in Ashdod (80%).

Regarding their satisfaction with level of income, 64% of Jerusalem residents were satisfied to very satisfied with their income. This was higher than the figure for Rishon Lezion (61%), Israel (59%), Haifa (58%), and Tel Aviv (58%) and much higher than for Ashdod (51%).

Another interesting subject polled was the fear of loss of employment. The statistics revealed that Jerusalem residents felt relatively secure about their workplace. A total of 56% had no fear of losing their employment. This figure was similar for Tel Aviv (57%), but lower than in Ashdod (68%), Rishon Lezion (67%), Israel and Haifa (65%). In contrast, 14% of Jerusalem residents expressed fear of losing their jobs. This was higher than the figure for Rishon Lezion (12%), Israel, Tel Aviv, and Ashdod (10%), and Haifa (8%). The rest of the residents in Israel, Jerusalem and the main cities, expressed only slight concern about losing their jobs.

Regarding satisfaction with their financial situation, the survey reveals that Jerusalem residents are quite satisfied with their situation. During 2010-12 (average), the percentage of Jerusalem residents who expressed satisfaction with their financial situation was 63%, somewhat higher than the percentage in Israel and in Rishon Lezion (59%), Haifa (55%), and Tel Aviv (54%) and considerably higher than in Ashdod (50%).

Interestingly, the percentage of Jerusalem residents who said they were very satisfied with their financial situation was 16%, higher than the figure for Israel (11%) and the highest among the main cities (5-9%).

Jerusalem residents’ (aged 20 and above) satisfaction in select areas of life, 2010-12 (average)

Satisfaction with… Very Satisfied Not very Not at all satisfied satisfied satisfied

Workplace 39% 48% 10% 3%

Income 12% 52% 24% 12%

General financial situation 16% 47% 29% 9%

Life 49% 43% 7% 1%

56 - Business and Industry -

Active businesses25 Business activity in the urban sphere is one of the indicators of a city’s economic resilience. Business activity is affected by supply and demand in relation to economic activity in the city, the size of the population, and economic and social processes at the local, national, and international levels.26 Business activity is measured in a number of ways; among them the measurement of the changes and trends among active businesses, openings and closings of businesses, and business survival. In Jerusalem, which serves a metropolitan area of about 1.2 million residents, there were 35,700 active businesses in 2012, constituting 7% of all active businesses in Israel. Tel Aviv, which is Israel’s financial center and serves a metropolitan area of 3.5 million residents, had 67,100 active businesses during the same year (13% of the active businesses in Israel), which was more than Jerusalem. Haifa, which serves a metropolis of fewer than one million residents, had a smaller number of active businesses than Jerusalem, at 20,500 (4%). Between 2010 and 2012, the number of businesses in Jerusalem grew by 3%, from 34,700 to 35,700. During the same period the rate of growth of businesses in Israel (5%) and Tel Aviv (4%) was higher than in Jerusalem (3%). In Haifa the rate of growth (2%) was lower than in Jerusalem. In 2012, the largest number of active businesses in Jerusalem belonged to the following economic sectors:27 wholesale and retail trade, and repairs (19%), professional, scientific and technical services (16%), and local and public administration, education, health, welfare and social services (15%). The percentage of businesses in the wholesale, retail and repairs sectors (19%) was higher than that in Tel Aviv (16%) and similar to that in Israel (18%) and in Haifa (18%). The percentage of businesses classified as professional, scientific, and technical services was 16% in Jerusalem, similar to that in Israel (18%), but lower than Tel Aviv (26%). The percentage of businesses in the public services sector – local and public administration, education, health services and welfare and social services – in Jerusalem (15%) was high compared to Israel (11%) and to Tel Aviv (9%). The industry, mining and quarrying sector constitutes an important element in the economy of cities; in 2012 this sector in Jerusalem made up some 3% of all active businesses in the city, similar to Tel Aviv and Haifa (4%) and lower than that in Israel (5%). The volume of businesses in the field of high tech28 in Jerusalem was 3% of all active businesses in the city, while in Tel Aviv this figure was 5% and in Israel 4%.

25 An active business is defined as a business that registered at least one financial transaction per month during the year. 26 Tzadik, A. (2007) “Small and Mid-Sized Businesses in Israel and Developing Countries,” Jerusalem: The Knesset Center for Research and Information (Hebrew). 27 As of 2011 the Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities 2011 replaced the previous classification. 28 The high-tech industry constitutes part of the industrial sector but includes businesses from other branches as well, such as communications, research and development, etc. For more information, see Recommendations of the Sub-Committee for Official Classification of High-Technology Branches – High-Tech Definitions in Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics (in Hebrew) http://cbs.gov.il/www/publications/hitech/hi_class_heb.pdf 56 57 Active Businesses in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv, by Industry Division, 2012

Manufacturing,mining and quarrying

Construction,electricity, gas, water supply, sewerage and waste

Wholesale and retail trade, and repairs

Transportation, storage, postal and courier

Accommodation services and restaurants

Information and communication Jerusalem

Financial and insurance activities Tel Aviv Real estate activities

Professional, scientific and technical activities

Administrative and support services

Local and public administration, education, health, welfare and social services

High- tech field

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Businesses

Another measure of business activity and economic strength is the number of businesses for every 1,000 residents (rates per thousand). This figure reflects the supply of business in relation to the demand for business in the city as well as the size and economic power of the geographic area served by the city. That is, the greater the number of businesses per 1,000 residents, the higher the likelihood of providing good commercial services to the residents. In 2012, the number of businesses per 1,000 residents in Jerusalem was 44, lower than the average for Israel (63), much lower than the rate for Tel Aviv (162) and even for Haifa (75). Examining the rate of businesses per 1,000 residents by economic sector reveals that in 2012 in Jerusalem the economic sector of wholesale and retail commerce and repairs had the highest rate, at 8 per 1,000 residents. This was lower than the rate for Israel (11), Tel Aviv (26) and Haifa (14). The lowest rate in Jerusalem was 2 per 1,000 residents in the accommodation services and restaurants sector, and this was lower than the rate for Israel (3), Tel Aviv (8), and Haifa (4).

Economic sectors that had a more prominent place in the Jerusalem business sector than others were the professional, scientific and technical services sectors (7 per 1,000 residents), and local and public administration, education, and health, welfare and social services (7 per 1,000 residents for all of these together). However, the rate per thousand of these businesses was lower than that for Israel, Tel Aviv, and Haifa.

The rate of businesses per 1,000 residents hardly changed during the years 2010-12, rather consistently measuring 44 businesses per 1,000 residents, just as it did in 2010. In Israel this rate was 62 businesses per 1,000 residents in 2010 and it rose to 63 in 2012, in Tel Aviv during those years the rate increased from 160 to 162 businesses per 1,000 persons.

Businesses with salaried employees are an important part of the local, regional, and national economic system, serving as the economic engine that drives job creation and

58 encourages innovation.29 Small businesses employing 1-4 salaried employees are very important and constitute a key contributing factor to economic activity in cities. Large businesses employing more than 100 salaried employees are few in number, but they have an especially strong influence on the scope of employment within cities. In 2012, 52% of the active businesses (18,570 businesses) in Jerusalem employed salaried workers; some two-thirds of these were small businesses employing 1-4 salaried workers (12,400 businesses).

Business openings and closings30 Business openings and closings, and the net change (difference between the number of openings and the number of closings) between them indicate the degree of economic development of cities and the feasibility of developing new ventures and business innovation in them. During 2012, a total of 3,200 new businesses opened in Jerusalem, and 2,900 closed. The net change in number of businesses in Jerusalem was positive, measuring +300. In Tel Aviv, Israel’s financial center, 5,900 businesses opened and 5,000 closed, resulting in a net change of +900 businesses. In Haifa 1,800 businesses opened and 1,600 closed, resulting in a net change of +200.

Over time, business openings and closings are characterized by consistent trends, but during times of crisis or economic recession, the number of closings is greater than the number of openings. The following table presents changes in the openings and closings of businesses in Jerusalem compared to the other large cities in Israel.

Openings and Closings of Businesses in Jerusalem, 2008-12

Year Openings Closings Net Change

2008 3,100 2,500 +600

2009 2,900 2,500 +400

2010 3,200 2,700 +500

2011 3,200 2,600 +600

2012 3,200 2,900 +300

29 OECD (2011), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2011, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264097711-en 30 Business openings and closings are defined by the date of registration of the business opening or its closing for VAT purposes. In contrast to the definition of an active business, requiring economic activity, registration for VAT purposes does not require reporting on the economic activity of the business. That is, a business can be defined as open even if it does not engage in any economic activity. 58 59 Net Change in Openings and Closings of Businesses in Israel ,Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, 2008-12

Year Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

2008 +10,700 +600 +1,400 +200

2009 +9,000 +400 +1,500 +200

2010 +12,500 +500 +1,900 +300

2011 +12,200 +600 +2,100 +300

2012 +10,100 +300 +900 +200

In 2012, the economic sectors in Jerusalem showing a positive net change were the scientific, professional and technical services sectors in which the net change was +80 businesses; real estate, rental, and commercial services sector, with a net change of +70 businesses; and the education, health, welfare and social services with a net change of +60 businesses. Conversely, the transportation, storage, postal and courier services sector experienced a negative net change in 2012, measuring -30 businesses.

In 2012, approximately 1,300 businesses employing salaried workers opened in Jerusalem and 900 such businesses closed, resulting in a net change of +400 businesses. By comparison, 1,800 businesses without salaried employees opened, and 2,000 such businesses closed, resulting in a net change of -200 businesses. The principal economic sectors in Jerusalem with salaried employees and a positive difference between openings and closings in 2012 were the construction, electricity, gas, water, sewage, and waste sectors, with a positive change of +110 (for all of these together), and the accommodation services and restaurants services and the professional, scientific, and technical services sectors with a net change of +80 each.

Opening and Closing of Businesses Employing Hired Employees in Jerusalem, by Industry Division, 2012 40 Manufacturing,mining and quarrying 33 Construction, electricity, gas, water supply, 209 sewerage and waste 104 Wholesale and retail trade, and repairs 348 280 Transportation, storage, postal and courier 103 92 Accommodation services and restaurants 217 134 47 Opening Information and communication 27 Professional, scientific and technical activities 157 74 Closing Administrative and support services 61 44 Education, health, welfare and social services 61 42 52 High- tech field 33 0 100 200 300 400 Businesses

60 Business survival The indicator of business survival following establishment makes it possible to understand and identify the stability and resilience of the economic and business systems of cities. The findings were that approximately half of the businesses established in Israel during 2007 had closed by 2012, which is comparable to the trend in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa. The likelihood of a business established in 2007 surviving its first year was 89% in Jerusalem (compared to 87% in Israel). The likelihood of its surviving two years was 75% (74% for Israel). The rate was 65% for three years (64% for Israel), 58% for four years (57% for Israel), and 52% for five years (51% for Israel).

Likelihood of businesses founded in 2007 surviving until 2012

Year Israel Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa 2008 87% 89% 88% 89% 2009 74% 75% 75% 75% 2010 64% 65% 66% 65% 2011 57% 58% 59% 58% 2012 51% 52% 54% 53%

The percentage of business closings in the first two years after their establishment was relatively high. The chances of businesses that did manage to survive the first two years to survive another year increase. 89% of the businesses established in Jerusalem in 2007 survived in 2008; this percentage decreased in 2009 when 84% of the businesses that survived 2008 lasted another year. From then on, there was a stable increase in the survival of businesses – 87% of the businesses that survived 2009 also survived in 2010, 89% of the latter also survived another year, and this percentage increased to 90% of the businesses that survived in 2011 also survived in 2012. The various economic sectors have different survival rates. In Jerusalem the businesses in the financial services and insurance services sector, as well as those in the education sector and the local and public administration sector, health, welfare and social services characteristically had the highest survival rates – 69%, 64%, and 64%, respectively, and they survived the first five years. The same sectors experienced high survival rates in Israel too (62%, 58% and 65%, respectively) and in Tel Aviv (63%, 58%, and 65%, respectively). Conversely, the percentages of business survival in the accommodation services and restaurants sector that were founded in 2007 were the lowest of all the sectors, at 34% after five years – this was similar for Israel (32%) and Tel Aviv (33%). The survival rate of businesses in the wholesale and retail trade and repairs sector was 46% after five years, and this too was similar for Israel (44%) and Tel Aviv (48%). The survival rate of businesses in the industrial sector in Jerusalem that opened in 2007 and survived until 2012 was 55%, higher than the rate in Israel (51%), Tel Aviv (47%), and Haifa (48%). 60 61 Industry In 2012, a total of 424,500 persons worked in the industrial sector (high technology, mixed, and low technology31) in Israel, constituting 13% of all employed persons in Israel. A total of 20,100 persons worked in industry in Jerusalem, constituting 7% of all employed persons in the city.

The percentage of those employed in industry in Jerusalem (7%) was comparable to Tel Aviv (6%) but lower than the figure for Haifa (12%) and Israel (13%). In the early 1970s the percentage of those employed in industry in Jerusalem was comparable to the figure for Israel. Over the years, however, there has been a gradual decline in the percentage of persons employed in this sector in Jerusalem, so that today the figure is lower than that of the trade and business services sectors and, of course, than the public sector, where nearly half of the city’s employed persons work.

During 2010,32 the number of employment positions in Jerusalem in industry was 18,200, of which 37% were in high-tech industries, 13% in mixed industry, and 50% in low tech. In Tel Aviv the number of positions in industry was 25,400 (24% of them in high tech and mixed industry) and in Haifa there were 15,700 positions (56% in high technology and mixed industry). In Israel, the number of positions was 374,300; 40% of positions in industry were in high technology and mixed industry.

The large industrial zones in Jerusalem in terms of number of positions were: Har Hotzvim (5,000 positions), Atarot (2,700 positions), Giv’at Shaul (2,600 positions), and Talpiot

Jobs and Compensation in Manufacturing, in Selected Areas in Jerusalem, 2010

10 1,234.0 1,250

Jobs (Thousands)

8 1,000

Compensation for jobs 6 (NIS million) 750 thousands

- 4 500

Jobs Jobs 331.3 328.3 261.5 2 250 Compenstaion Compenstaion NIS million 5.0 2.6 2.3 2.7 0 0 Har Hotzvim Giv'at Sha'ul Talpiot Atarot

31 High technology industry includes: electronics industry, medical equipment, medications, inspection and development. 32 Statistics about industry are based on a national survey of industry conducted by the CBS. The updating of data, analysis, and publication take a relatively long time and therefore the data presented in this section are for 2010. 62 (2,300 positions). The main economic sectors within the city’s industry in terms of number of positions include: food, beverages, tobacco, textiles, clothing, footwear and leather (5,300 positions), lumber products, furniture, paper, and printing (3,900 positions), and electronic and electrical equipment (3,400 positions).

In 2010, the gross added value33 of Jerusalem’s industry measured NIS 7,000 billion, which constituted 6.5% of the gross added value of industry in Israel. This figure reflects the relative strength of industry in Jerusalem: the percentage of positions in industry in Jerusalem was only 4.9% of all industry positions in Israel. By comparison, the industry positions in Tel Aviv constituted 6.8% of all industry positions in Israel while its gross added value was only 4.1% of the gross added value of industry in Israel.

Most of the gross added value of industry in Jerusalem came from the large companies employing 100 workers or more (79% of the total added value in Jerusalem), although the number of positions was 59% of the total number of jobs in industry in Jerusalem. The contribution of Jerusalem’s small companies (1-20 workers) to the gross added value was just 8%, although the number of positions they provided was 28% of the total number of positions in industry. The large companies in Jerusalem in terms of number of employees were: Intel, Teva, NDS, Angel, Ophir Optronics, Medinol, BrightSource and Rafa.

The average annual compensation per position34 in the elite technology industry in Jerusalem was NIS 245,100, which was 3% higher than the average for Israel and 23% below the average annual compensation for Tel Aviv. The average annual compensation per position in the low technology industry in Jerusalem was NIS 92,600, which was 15% lower than the compensation for Israel and 24% lower than that of Tel Aviv.

Total Revenue of Manufacturing in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Technological Intensity, 2010

11,799 12,000

10,000 Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

8,000 7,033 6,694 6,633 6,000 NIS million NIS 3,606 4,000 3,406

1,800 1,761 2,000 951

0 High and medium-high Medium-low technology Low technology technology

33 The total gross output after deducting total inputs. 34 Wages, salaries and additional expenses associated with wages. 62 63 - Education -

The education system in Jerusalem Jerusalem’s education system is the largest, most diverse, and most complex municipal education system in Israel. It must address the needs of diverse populations with distinct characteristics. The four main sectors in Jerusalem’s education system are: state, state- religious, ultra-orthodox, and Arab. The educational institutions in the Jerusalem education system in all these sectors have differing legal status – the system is made up of official public schools, recognized but unofficial schools, and private schools. Based on this classification, there are varying degrees of oversight and the authorities' ability to gather data differs. For this reason the data about the official institutions and the municipal ones are more precise than those obtained from the recognized but unofficial schools and, of course, from the private institutions.

Compared to other cities in Israel, Jerusalem has a large number of unique and diverse types of schools, belonging to sub-groups within the four main education sectors including: experimental, arts, music and dance, bilingual (Hebrew-Arabic), Anthroposophic, secular-religious schools, religious girls' school for the arts, scientific-Torah, pluralistic, and open schools. Within the Jewish ultra-orthodox education stream there is also a wide variety of schools: municipal, private, Talmud Torah, schools belonging to the independent education system and schools belonging to Ma'ayan Hachinuch Hatorani network.

Arab education includes official public schools and recognized but unofficial schools, municipal and private schools, church schools, schools belonging to the Muslim Wakf, and schools operated by private bodies, usually for profit.

Students in The Municipal Education System in Jerusalem by Sector, 2000/01-2013/14 100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000 Students 40,000 JEA - Hebrew Education 30,000 JEA - Arab Education 20,000 Ultra-orthodox Educational Division 10,000

0 2000/01 2002/03 2005/06 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

64 During the 2013/14 academic year, approximately 266,700 students studied in the Jerusalem educational system; within the Jerusalem Education Administration (JEA), 62,900 students participated in the Hebrew state and state-religious system, and 84,200 in the Arabic public education system. Approximately 21,000 students attended private Arab schools (2001/02 estimate). A total of 98,600 students were enrolled in the ultra-orthodox Education Division.

Students in Schools in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, 2010/11

200,000 180,297 180,000 160,000 140,000

120,000 100,000

Students 80,000 60,000 48,912 39,602 40,000 20,000 0 Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa

Over the past five academic years (2009/10 – 2013/14), the number of students in Jerusalem’s education system increased by 13%, from 235,000 to 266,700. The number of students in the Hebrew JEA system (state and state-religious) grew by 7% (from 58,600 to 62,900), while the number in the ultra-orthodox sector grew by 6% (from 92,600 to 98,600). In the Arab sector (official schools and recognized but unofficial schools, not including private), the number of students rose by 34% (from 62,900 to 84,200).

Hebrew education During the 2013/14 academic year, 161,500 students 35 studied in the Hebrew education system in Jerusalem: 62,900 students (39%) were enrolled in the Hebrew state and religious-state system, while 98,600 students (61%) studied under the ultra-orthodox Education Division. The distribution of students in the Hebrew JEA education system was: 11,950 children in kindergarten, 24,200 students in elementary education and 24,750 students in secondary schools. 2,050 students were enrolled in special education schools. The distribution of students in the Ultra-orthodox Education Division was: 23,050 children in kindergarten, 46,500 students in elementary education and 26,600 students in secondary schools. 2,450 students were enrolled in special education schools.

35 Including grades 13-14. 64 65 Students in the Municipal Primary State Education System in Jerusalem, 1999/2000-2013/14 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000 Students 6,000 State 4,000 State religious 2,000

0 2010/11 2011/12 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2012/13 2013/14

Until 1997/98, the number of students receiving Hebrew education (state and state- religious) – 70,000 – was higher than the number receiving ultra-orthodox education (66,900). In 1998/99, the number of students receiving state and state-religious education (67,000) was comparable to the number receiving ultra-orthodox education (67,700). However, since 1999/2000, the number of students in the ultra-orthodox sector has surpassed the number of students in the state and state-religious sector.

Analysis of the patterns of change in the number of students points to differences in the rate of growth of the various educational sectors. Over the past five academic years (2009/10-2013/14), the number of students enrolled in the Hebrew education system (state and state-religious) in the JEA has increased by 7% from 58,600 to 62,900. An examination of the state and state-religious educational sectors 36 – each one separately – indicates that there has been a very moderate increase in the number of students enrolled in state education (from 30,850 to 31,150), while the state-religious educational sector has experienced a sharp increase of 15% in the number of students (from 25,450 to 29,200).

Arab education During the 2013/14 academic year, 105,200 students were enrolled in the Arab education system of Jerusalem, 84,200 of whom received Arab public education.37 The number of students receiving a private education was estimated to be 21,000 (2000/01 estimate). Students in the Arab education system (public and private) constituted 39% of all students in the Jerusalem education system.

36 Not including non-municipal kindergartens or special education. 37 Official education and recognized but unofficial education. 66 In the 2013/14 academic year, the distribution of students in public Arab education was as follows: 11,900 children in kindergartens and nursery schools, 44,200 students in elementary schools, and 23,650 students in post-elementary schools. Approximately 1,850 students were enrolled in special education schools.

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of students enrolled in public Arab education. In 2001/02, there were 33,200 students. This figure rose to 43,500 in 2003/04, to 78,400 in 2012/13 and to 84,200 in 2013/14. This notable increase results both from an increase in the number of students in official public schools and from an increase in the number of formerly private schools that were recognized by the Ministry of Education, becoming “recognized but unofficial” schools (which belong to the public sector). Since the early 2000s, these schools have been included in the list of schools and students of the Municipality’s Jerusalem Education Administration. In 2001/02, the number of students in 1st-12th Grades in recognized unofficial schools was 1,500; this rose to 8,300 by 2004/05, and to 31,650 by 2013/14.

Eligibility for matriculation In 2011/12, the total number of 12th Grade students in schools that prepare students for matriculation examinations (state, state-religious, independent ultra-orthodox, and municipal Arab schools) who were Jerusalem residents was 6,250, of whom 89% studied in the city. 69% of the students in 12th Grade took the matriculation examinations. The eligibility rate for the matriculation certificate among 12th Grade students who were Jerusalem residents was 43%, compared to 65% in Israel. These data do not include 12th Grade students who were not enrolled in schools that prepare students for matriculation exams. In the schools in the ultra-orthodox and Arab public sectors that do prepare students for matriculation, a considerable proportion of students elect not to take the exams. However, even if only one student from a school sits the exams, all of the 12th Grade students in that school will be counted among those studying in 12th Grade. This method of calculation creates a downward deviation in the rate of eligibility for matriculation, because every school that participates in the matriculation curriculum (by and large, in recent years, only a minority of students take the examinations) reduces the general percentage eligibility for the certificate.

Therefore, within the complex education system in Jerusalem, it is important to understand the rate of eligibility for each of the sectors separately: The statistics of the Municipality of Jerusalem for 2011-12 indicate that within the Hebrew education system, the state and state-religious schools led in terms of the percentage of students who took matriculation exams: 96% of 12th Grade students in the state schools took the exams as did 98% of those in the state-religious schools. In schools belonging to the ultra-orthodox education system, 51% of 12th Grade students in schools that prepare students for the matriculation examinations took the examinations. It should be noted that the percentage of students who took the exams out of the total number of 12th Grade students in the ultra-orthodox sector was much lower than 51% because the percentage of those who took the exams was calculated as a proportion of

66 67 12th Grade students within those schools that participate in the matriculation exams but did not include those schools that do not prepare their students to take the exams.

Regarding the percentage of 12th Grade students eligible for matriculation, during the 2011/12 academic year the highest rate of eligibility in Jerusalem was among schools belonging to the state-religious sector – 76%. The rate of eligibility for matriculation in schools belonging to the state sector was lower, at 69%, and the rate of eligibility in ultra-orthodox schools (that participate in the matriculation examinations) was 13%.

The rate of eligibility for matriculation certificates in the state-religious schools in Jerusalem (76%) was higher than that in Israel (72%). Among state schools in Jerusalem, the figure (69%) was slightly lower than that of Israel (71%). Within the ultra-orthodox sector as well, the rate of eligibility in Jerusalem (13%) was lower than that of the ultra-orthodox sector in Israel (17%).

In addition to the rate of eligibility for the matriculation certificate, the percentage of students meeting the threshold of acceptance to universities was measured. In 2011/12, 66% of 12th Grade students in the state-religious sector met the requirements of the universities, as compared with 64% in the state sector. Within the ultra-orthodox sector the percentage was low – 9%.

Eligibility to Matriculation Certificate among 12th Grade Students in the Hebrew Education in Israel and Jerusalem, 2011/12

90%

80% 76% 72% 71% 69% 70% Israel Jerusalem 60%

50%

th th grade students 40% 12 30%

20% 17% 13% Percent Percent of

10%

0% State education State-religious Ultra-orthodox education education

Within the Arab sector, a decisive majority of Arab students in Jerusalem do not take the matriculation examinations of the Israeli Ministry of Education. Arab students study in schools that teach the Palestinian curriculum, at the conclusion of which they take this program’s matriculation exam and, if successful, receive the taugi'a certificate. Those who successfully pass the taugi'a exams are eligible to apply to universities of the Palestinian Authority and Arab countries. Higher education institutions in Israel treat the taugi'a the same way as they regard any non-Israeli matriculation certificate.

68 During the 2011/12 academic year, about 98% of 12th Grade students in municipal schools within the Arab sector (not including schools in the recognized but unofficial education system or the unrecognized system) took the taugi'a examinations. Approximately 62% of them were eligible to receive the taugi'a certificate.

Higher education In 2012-13, Jerusalem’s institutes of higher education had a total of 38,100 students, constituting 14% of all higher education students in Israel. Of those, 20,300 students were registered at the Hebrew University,38 11,800 students studied at the city’s seven academic colleges and 6,000 at the five teacher-training colleges. In 2011/12, all of Israel’s academic institutions (universities, academic colleges, and teacher-training colleges) had a total of 258,700 students. Of those, 37,700 – 15% – were enrolled in Jerusalem’s academic institutions. Among all the higher education students in Jerusalem, about 20,600 studied at the Hebrew University, constituting 55% of all students in Jerusalem; 11,400 studied at academic colleges (30%), and 5,700 studied at teacher-training colleges (15%). The percentage of students studying at the university out of all those in institutions of higher education in Jerusalem (55%) was higher than the figure for Israel (49%). The percentage registered in academic colleges was lower than the figure for Israel (30% and 39%, respectively) and the percentage of students in teacher-training colleges in Jerusalem was comparable to the figure for Israel (15% and 12%, respectively). The distribution of students by academic degree indicates that of the 37,700 students in Jerusalem’s institutes of higher learning, about 72% were pursuing a first degree, 21% a second degree, and 7% a third degree.

Students in Universities, by Degree, 2011/12

18,000

16,000 First degree

14,000 Second degree

12,000 Third degree

10,000 Students 8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 Tel Aviv Bar-Ilan The Hebrew Ben-Gurion Haifa The Weizmann University University University University University Technion Institute

38 Including the Hebrew University campus in Rehovot. 68 69 Students in the Hebrew University, as Percentage of Students in Universities in Israel, by Degree, 1974/75-2011/12

First degree Second degree Third degree 50

40 % 30

0 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Students in Academic Colleges in Jerusalem, by Institution, 2011/12

Machon Lev 3,181

Hadassah Academic College 2,077

Bezalel 2,068

College of Engineering 1,778

Lander Institute 1,148

Academy of Music and Dance 793

Schechter Institute 368

Colleges of Education 5,676

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Students

The percentage of students working towards a first degree in Jerusalem (72%) was lower than the figure for Israel (75%), but similar for those studying for a second degree (21% in Jerusalem compared to 20% in Israel). With regard to a third degree, the numbers in Jerusalem were almost double that of Israel (7% in Jerusalem, compared to 4% in Israel).

During the 2011/12 academic year, there were 20,600 students studying at the Hebrew University – 55% for a first degree, 32% for a second degree, 12% for a third degree and 1% for a diploma. The distribution of students by faculty was: 27% Social Sciences, 22% Humanities, 20% Sciences and Mathematics, 16% Medicine (including paramedical professions), 8% Agriculture, 6% Law, and 1% Engineering. 70 Of the universities in Israel, in 2011/12, Tel Aviv had the largest number of students – 28,000, followed by Bar-Ilan University with 26,200 students and the Hebrew University with 20,600 students, as noted.

The Hebrew University had the highest number of students enrolled for a third degree – 2,500, accounting for 23% of all third-degree students in Israeli universities. This compares to 2,200 third-degree students (20%) at Tel Aviv University and 1,800 (17%) at Bar-Ilan University.

The distribution of students by gender indicates that there are more women than men students in Israeli universities. In the 2011/12 academic year, 56% of students at universities in Israel were women. At the Hebrew University too, women accounted for 56% of students. The highest proportion of women was recorded at Haifa University (65%) and Bar-Ilan University (63%); the lowest was at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (36%).

70 71 - Housing and Construction -

Apartments At the end of 2013, there were 208,770 residential apartments in Jerusalem (based on figures for the collection of “arnona,” residential municipal tax): 158,620 apartments (76%) in neighborhoods with a Jewish majority and 50,140 apartments (24%) in neighborhoods with an Arab majority. The percentage of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods (76%) is greater than the percentage of Jerusalem’s Jewish population, which measured 63% at the close of 2012, whereas the percentage of apartments in Arab neighborhoods (24%) falls below the percentage of Jerusalem’s Arab population, which measured 37%. One of the reasons for this discrepancy is the large size of the households within the Arab population. In 2012, the average household size within Jerusalem’s Arab population was 5.8 persons, compared to 3.3 within the Jewish population.

The average area of an apartment in Jerusalem was 80 square meters (m2). In 2003-13, the average area of an apartment in Jerusalem increased by 4 m2, from 76 to 80 m2. In 2013, the average area of an apartment in neighborhoods with a majority Jewish population was comparable to that in neighborhoods with a majority Arab population – 81 and 79 m2, respectively. The average housing density (m2 per person) in Jerusalem was 21 m2 per person. The average housing density in neighborhoods with a majority Jewish population (24 m2 per person) was significantly lower than that for neighborhoods with a majority Arab population (14 m2). Average housing density also varied among neighborhoods with a majority Jewish population. Neighborhoods with a majority ultra-orthodox population had a higher average housing density (17 m2 per person) than neighborhoods with a majority general population – secular, traditional, and religiously observant (28 m2 per person). Some of the difference between Jewish and Arab neighborhoods – and between Jewish general neighborhoods and ultra-orthodox neighborhoods – can be attributed to the relatively large households within the Arab and ultra-orthodox sectors.

In neighborhoods with a majority Jewish population, the smallest average apartment size was recorded as follows: in Giv'at Hamatos (33 m2), in the vicinity of Hamadregot St. in Nahlaot (48 m2), and in the vicinity of Shilo St. in Nahlaot (51 m2). Neighborhoods with the largest average size were Hahoresh Rd. in Ramot (145 m2), Ramat Motza and Motza Tahtit (134 m2), the vicinity of Avraham Raful St. in Pisgat Ze'ev (128 m2), Malha (128 m2) and the vicinity of Yisrael Zarhi in Ramot (120 m2).

In neighborhoods with an Arab majority, the smallest average apartment size was recorded in the Muslim Quarter (45 m2), the Christian Quarter (45 m2), the Armenian Quarter (61 m2), and Silwan (61 m2). Neighborhoods with the largest average apartment size were Beit Hanina (97 m2), Kafr 'Akb (91 m2), New Anata (88 m2), and Beit Zafafa (87 m2).

Regarding satisfaction with residential apartments, the Social Survey of the CBS indicates that during the period 2010-12, (on average) 85% of Jerusalem residents aged 20 and above were satisfied or very satisfied with their residential apartments. This figure is 72 y a i s r i D a z a

r u A h - b l a v A E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e A . s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r m M P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

k o a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h O u E n r o h A E t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a - z R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a t

a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

3 e v t K l e i H n e 1 h l o G t m l B u 0 e ' o A m

n a B t R 2 e a , h

r o , e S G

m - o t m l K i w a - a ’ e v a a a l R G

t o l v t i l i H a

a v e y G t d e o a

e s Y g B f B B a - u

n o a a r s u N s i d H

m 4 m

s e r i s r e t i e a n a n a J h a

n m a y a M H z a

r n

a i t i r o n n t a o i s G e Q ' m s

t y i r v r e 3 i I a M r n a

t G e t s Z r e t e

K t a y a n

m e e

e r t l n i r e n t e r s B a E i Q a o m i t 2

p m e Z n . a %

a t m r t e

l % % 0 q r e K i l o O d r i a % 0 0 0 s a t e s 0 4 7 1

v o s p t 2 - - - a 1 0 r e

- d v

A 6 o n a

% % % e

l t o n % 1 1 1 i l M d n 0 2 4 7 N m a e A 0 z r c e N S m P e S i y a i s r i D a z a

r v u A h - o b l a k A E r w a ' u a v a T s S e Y r - ’ -

t u a e y a A i p A

l b Z v e l

i w b a t e c o k a H a r

N S s a u

I A . s g t M c h i

l n M m P r a e a t r a b r l R a F h o f - a J a T r a k o

a ’ A B l u

n u t i r e s h b h o n o u i E A S a

c h a p S t m l a H a o a m

l t t R T o h

m o e t r a H S B a

a r t t R m a a A a H m R a R a m m f e v i a f h z t e a l n o S h l

o t H l t u

e ' e r A

n a B t a B 3 a h o H 1 S G l

m - o t l 0 i a a a ’ v a l R G s 2

t i v t

i i e , i v e n y G r r t o a e e Y , B f a - t e p d s o a i r s e s u N i r o H

e 4 s a

s i r p r t t a

a r t e u e a m d e y a M H p z

r e n i t p Q o o h - R a t r - a Q ' m a M r o p y i n v s e

b n 3 i p r a l g

e d l o G e Z a n

n i a M K t l n i

l N

a S u t t e

n e i n n s B t e r s E y a r t d y e o w g i r 2 i o d s d m e n n b Z

a i

p g l Q f

r s i t l a , o n o e

K i l o i O e r l r r e s r l p - w e s

e e v e n s d s a g

i 1 a w o f

t i d v m b n D N o r a e i u z e r n l e i M n l e s i

p m b e e e A 0 o h m t c l w

u r o N t c i D N P r

72 73 identical to the proportion in Haifa (85%), close to that of Israel at large (86%) and Tel Aviv (84%) but lower than the figure for Rishon Lezion (91%). Regarding satisfaction with their area of residence, 86% of Jerusalem residents aged 20 and above were satisfied or very satisfied. This is higher than the percentage for Haifa (81%) and similar to the figure for Tel Aviv (87%) and Israel (84%), but lower than in Rishon Lezion (91%). The survey also examined duration of residence in the apartment. It found that during 2011-12 (on average), approximately half (55%) of Jerusalem residents aged 20 and above had resided in their current apartment for more than 10 years. This figure is comparable to the figures for Israel (51%), Haifa (50%), and Rishon Lezion (50%), but higher than the figure for Tel Aviv (40%). The survey also found that a third (30%) of Jerusalem residents had resided in their current apartment fewer than five years. This is comparable to the figure for Israel (34%) and Rishon Lezion (32%) and lower than the figure for Tel Aviv (45%) and Haifa (38%).

The Social Survey further indicates that in 2011-12 (average) the percentage of renters in Jerusalem among residents aged 20 and above was 27%, which is significantly higher than the figure for Israel (23%) and Rishon Lezion (19%), and lower than the figure for Haifa (31%), and considerably lower than Tel Aviv (42%). 63% of Jerusalem residents live in apartments that they own (compared to 71% for Israel), and approximately 10% have other residential arrangements, such as living in the home of a family member or friend (compared to 6% for Israel).

Living arrangement of people aged 20+ in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Rishon Lezion, 2011-2012 (Average)

Self-owned dwelling Rented dwelling Other

Tel Aviv 53% 42% 5%

Jerusalem 63% 27% 10%

Haifa 65% 31% 4%

Israel 71% 23% 6%

Rishon Lezion 78% 19% 3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Apartment prices Over the past ten years, apartment prices have been continuously rising in Jerusalem and in Israel overall. For example, the average price of a 3.5-4-room (privately owned) apartment in Jerusalem rose from NIS 889,000 (current prices) in the final quarter (October-December) of 2003 to NIS 1,238,100 during the same period in 2008, and to

74 NIS 1,779,000 in 2011. The average price of such an apartment during the last quarter of 2013 stood at NIS 1,754,300, which was higher than the average price in Israel at NIS 1,290,800 and significantly lower than the price in Tel Aviv which reached NIS 2,749,800. It is important to note that these are average prices and include various areas within the cities that have different apartment prices. Nevertheless, the long-term change in prices is an indication of the processes taking place in the real estate market in the neighborhoods even when the individual prices differ from the average.

In 2012-13, the increase in prices has moderated. For example, the percentage change in prices of privately owned apartment of 3.5-4 rooms in Jerusalem in 2009-11 (last quarter) was 12-13%, whereas in 2012, the rate of change dropped to -4% and in 2013 there was a moderate 3% increase.

The moderation recorded in Jerusalem was in contradiction to the continual rise in prices in Israel, and particularly in Tel Aviv. In 2012-13 (last quarter), there was an average rise in housing prices in Israel of 5%, and in Tel Aviv of 13%. In Jerusalem, however, this rise was only 3% in the same period. The average price of a 3.5-4-room apartment in Tel Aviv reached NIS 2,749,800 at the end of 2013.

Average Prices of Privately Owned 3.5-4 Room Dwellings in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, 1990-2013

3,000

Jerusalem 2,500 Tel Aviv

Haifa 2,000 Israel 1,500

1,000

500 NIS thousands, NIS thousands, at current prices

0 2011 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013

Similar trends were evident in the average rental prices. The rent for a 3.5-4-room apartment in Jerusalem was NIS 4,302 at the end of 2013. This is higher than the average rental in Israel, which was NIS 3,916 but considerably lower than the rental price in Tel Aviv which was NIS 6,144. Similar differences apply to apartments of other sizes.

Since 2009, there has been a steady increase in rental prices both in Jerusalem and in Israel. The rate of increase in 2009 for apartments of 3.5-4 rooms in Jerusalem was 21%, falling in subsequent years to between 1% and 6% per year. In 2013, the rental prices for apartments in Jerusalem rose by 4%, just lower than those for Israel (5%) and just higher

74 75 than Tel Aviv (3%). The rise in average rents for large apartments of 4.5-5 rooms was higher, reaching 7% in 2013. However, in Israel and in Tel Aviv these price increases were even higher at 11% and 10%, respectively.

Average Prices of Rent for 3.5-4 Room Apartments in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, 1998-2013

7,000

Jerusalem Tel Aviv 6,000 Haifa Israel 5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

NIS per month, per month, NIS at current prices 1,000

0 2011 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013

Profile of the Purchasers 33% of the purchasers of apartments in Jerusalem in 2012 were first-time home buyers. This proportion is lower than the rate in Israel (36%), equivalent to Haifa (33%), and somewhat higher than Tel Aviv (29%). Those upgrading their housing – i.e., residents purchasing an apartment and selling another apartment in their possession – constituted 32% of all home buyers in the city. This proportion, too, is lower than that in Israel (37%), equivalent to Haifa (33%), and slightly higher than in Tel Aviv (27%). Those purchasing an apartment as an investment – that is, they already own another apartment – constituted 20% of the purchasers in Jerusalem. This proportion is similar to Israel (22%), but significantly lower than that in Tel Aviv and Haifa (each 31%). Foreign residents, not holding an Israeli identity card, made up 20% of apartment buyers in Jerusalem in 2012. This rate was the highest for all cities with 100,000 residents and above in Israel and significantly higher than the rate in Tel Aviv (8%), Israel (3%) and Haifa (1%). Overall, therefore, the prominent trend was a minority of investment purchases in Jerusalem and a multiplicity of purchases by foreign residents.

Construction starts In 2013, construction was initiated on 3,442 housing units in Jerusalem, significantly higher than the number in 2012 (2,470) and 2011 (2,360). In 2012-13, the greatest number of housing starts was recorded in: Nayot-Neve Sha'anan (370), Bak'a (290), north Beit Hanina (280), Bayit Vagan (280) and Talpiot and Arnona (240).

76 The total area (floors and walls) of new construction in 2013 for all purposes was 885,500 m2. This figure constituted 8% of the area of newly initiated construction in Israel, higher than the figure for Tel Aviv (574,800 m2) and much higher than that for Haifa (123,200 m2).

Of this total, newly initiated residential construction in Jerusalem in 2013 amounted to 660,700 m2, that is, 75% of the total area (76% of the average for 2012-13). By comparison, during 2012-13, residential construction starts in Haifa (69%) and in Israel (74%) constituted a similar portion of new construction, while in Tel Aviv residential construction starts (55%) were a smaller portion of the overall construction initiated. Other new construction on a significant scale in Jerusalem during 2012-13 was for health and education (10% of all construction starts in the city), public buildings (4%), accommodation (4%) and office space (4%). New construction for offices in Jerusalem was only 4% of total construction starts; in Tel Aviv it was 28%.

During 2012-13, Jerusalem stood out in relation to Israel in terms of construction initiated for the purposes of hospitality (27% of Israel’s total for accommodation construction), public buildings for healthcare (25%), education buildings (18%), and public buildings not for education or healthcare (13%).

Construction completed In 2013, construction was completed on 2,430 residential units in Jerusalem, an increase in the number of apartments completed compared to 2012 (1,760 apartments). This marked a continuation of the rise that began in 2012 after several years of a decrease in the number of completed apartments. In 2002, construction was completed in Jerusalem on 2,500 apartments, but this number dropped to 1,850 in 2006 and to 1,360 in 2011. In the past few years, there has been a rise in the number of housing units completed in Israel. In 2007, 29,550 housing units were completed in Israel, while in 2013 this number was 41,970 – up 13% compared to 2012 when 37,000 apartments were completed. By and large, the increase in the number of residential units built reflects a rise in demand as well as an effort on the part of the planning authorities to expedite the number of housing units being built. The rise in demand is related to demographic factors, especially the increase in population size and number of households, and, particularly in Jerusalem, the rise in the purchase of apartments by foreign residents. The response to this demand must also take into account the rise in the standard of living which is accompanied by a desire for larger apartments which necessitates an increase in the total number of square meters constructed.

During 2013, 6% of all apartments completed in Israel were built in Jerusalem. This proportion is high in comparison to Tel Aviv (4%) and Haifa (2%), but low when compared to the relative proportion of households in Jerusalem as compared with Israel (9%). During 2012-13, completed construction in Jerusalem was concentrated in Har Homa (560 housing units), north Beit Hanina (330), Talpiot and Arnona (220), City Center (220), and Nahlaot (210).

76 77 Of the apartments whose construction was completed in 2012-13, the majority had 4 rooms (60%). Housing units with 5 rooms constituted 28%, and housing units with 1-3 rooms - 12%. This distribution differs from all Israel and from Jerusalem in the past. During 2012-13, in Israel, 4-room apartments constituted only 39% of completed construction (compared to 60% in Jerusalem), whereas large apartments, with 5 or more rooms, constituted 54% (28% in Jerusalem). Apartments with 1-3 rooms constituted only 7% of Israel’s total (12% in Jerusalem). Over the years, there has been a decrease in the percentage of small apartments, 1-3 rooms, in Jerusalem. In 2002-03, these apartments constituted 37% of the total units completed (compared to 12% today). 48% of the apartments completed had 4 rooms (60% today) and only 15% had 5 or more rooms (28% today).

Dwellings Completed in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa, by number of rooms, 2012-13 (percentages)

Total 6 or more 1-3 rooms 4 rooms 5 rooms Apartments Percentages rooms

Israel 79,520 100% 7% 39% 30% 24%

Jerusalem 4,190 100% 12% 60% 22% 6%

Tel Aviv 3,560 100% 38% 35% 20% 7%

Haifa 1,110 100% 13% 52% 31% 4%

Dwellings Completed in Jerusalem, by Size, 2009-2012

1,200

2009 1,000 2010 2011

800 2012

600 Dwellings

400

200

0 1-2 3 4 5 +6 Rooms in dwelling

In terms of surface area of construction, in 2013 construction was completed in Jerusalem on buildings totaling 677,100 m2 (floors and walls), of which 506,200 m2 were for residential purposes. During 2012-13, the area of construction completed for residential

78 purposes constituted 69% of the total area of construction in Jerusalem. Other salient purposes were public buildings, including education, healthcare, and others (13%), and commerce (9%). For the same period, the area of construction in Jerusalem constituted 6% of the construction area in Israel. Construction completed in Jerusalem for the purposes of health and commerce was relatively higher than the area of completed construction for these purposes in Israel (health 54% and commerce 15%).

78 79 - Tourism -

Tourist hotels Jerusalem attracts visitors from around the country and the world because of its unique cultural and religious heritage, its status as the capital of Israel and as a center for the Jewish people, as the city holy to the three monotheistic religions, and its rich variety of religious, historical, archeological, and cultural sites.

At the close of 2013, Jerusalem had 73 tourist hotels with a total of 9,550 rooms, which constituted 19% of all rooms in Israel’s tourist hotels, compared to 11,020 rooms in Eilat (22% of all tourist hotels in Israel), 7,124 rooms in Tel Aviv (14%), 4,025 rooms at the Dead Sea (8%), and 1,444 rooms in Haifa (3%).

Revenues from tourist hotels in Jerusalem in 2013 totaled NIS 1.7 billion, constituting 18% of total revenues from tourist hotels in Israel. The highest revenues came from hotels in Eilat, at NIS 2.3 billion, and in Tel Aviv at NIS 1.7 billion. It is important to note that the revenues in Tel Aviv were similar to Jerusalem even though Jerusalem had a larger number of hotel rooms, more hotel guests, and more overnight stays than Tel Aviv. The Dead Sea hotels had revenues of NIS 1.1 billion, and Haifa had NIS 250 million.

Total Hotel Revenue in Jerusalem (East and West), Tel Aviv, Haifa and Elat, 2013

2,500,000

2,000,000

East 180 Million 1,500,000

West 2.3 Billion 1,000,000

NIS thousands NIS 1.5 Billion 1.7 Billion

500,000

250 Million 0 Jerusalem Tel Aviv Haifa Elat

Guests and overnight stays In 2013, the number of guests in Jerusalem hotels totaled 1,386,500, of whom 65% were overseas tourists and 35% were Israelis. 44% of overseas tourist hotel guests came from the Americas (mostly from North and Central America) and 37% from Europe. The number of overseas guests in 2013 was 898,300, which was low in comparison to 2012 when the number was 917,200 and to 2011 when the number was 948,000. The number 80 of Israeli guests in 2013 was 488,200, high in comparison to 2012 when the number was 431,500 (an increase of 13%) and to 2011 when it was 388,300. To sum up, the last three years have witnessed a drop in the number of overseas tourists and a rise in the number of Israeli tourists.

In 2013, the number of overnight stays in Jerusalem hotels amounted to 3,893,300, where the number of overnight stays of overseas tourists was 3,057,100 and of Israelis was 836,200. Overnight stays in Jerusalem constituted 17% of the total number of overnight stays in Israel. The number of overnight stays of overseas tourists measured 3,057,100, compared to 3,129,600 in 2012 and 3,169,600 in 2011.The number of overnight stays of Israelis during 2013 totaled 836,200, compared to 762,400 in 2012 and 684,900 in 2011.

In 2013, the average number of overnight stays in Jerusalem (overseas tourists and Israelis) was 2.8. The average number of overnight stays for overseas guests was 3.4; this was the same as the figure for the previous year, but higher than the average for the previous five years when the average was 3.3 (2007-11). The average number of overnight hotel stays of Israelis in Jerusalem (1.7) was low compared to the figure for 2012 and the preceding five years when the average was 1.8.

The average number of overnight stays of tourists is a consequence of the variety and character of tourist centers in each city, their geographic location and their proximity to other points of interest. In 2013, the average number of overnight stays by overseas tourists in Jerusalem (3.4) was higher than in Tel Aviv (3.2) and Haifa (3.2) and lower than in Eilat (4.3). The average number of overnight stays of Israelis in Jerusalem (1.7) was the same as in Tel Aviv and Haifa (1.7 each) but lower than in Eilat (2.9).

In 2013, the months during which the highest numbers of overnight stays of overseas tourists were recorded were October (356,900), May (311,500), and November (305,200). The months with the highest numbers of overnight stays were the Jewish and Christian holy days: Hanuka fell during November and Easter during May.

The highest number of overnight stays by Israeli tourists were during August (141,200) and July (87,500), the months of the school vacation, and also the month of March during which the Passover holiday fell (87,300). July and August (school vacation) had the highest number of Israeli overnight stays in hotels in Israel. Thus, the months containing holy days and vacations had the highest number of overnight stays by Israeli guests.

In 2013, room occupancy rate in Jerusalem’s tourist hotels was 64% (similar to the rate in 2011 and 2012). The occupancy rate in hotels of different standards was similar – in the highest-class hotels (levels I and II), the occupancy rate was 64%, in the intermediate- ranked hotels (level III) it was 63% and for the lowest-ranked the rate was 64%.

West Jerusalem – East Jerusalem In 2013, Jerusalem’s tourist hotels hosted 1,386,500 guests: 1,225,900 (88%) stayed in hotels in West Jerusalem and 160,600 (12%) in East Jerusalem. The number of overnight stays in Jerusalem’s tourist hotels during this year totaled 3,893,300, of which 3,424,200

80 81 (88%) were in West Jerusalem hotels and 469,100 (12%) in East Jerusalem hotels. The number of hotel guestrooms in West Jerusalem is significantly higher than that in East Jerusalem: 7,581 guestrooms in West Jerusalem (79%) and 1,969 in East Jerusalem (21%). The discrepancy in revenues is even greater: 90% of the hotel revenues were from West Jerusalem hotels.

In 2013, tourist hotels in West Jerusalem hosted 1,225,900 guests (61% of whom were overseas tourists), compared to 1,177,600 guests in 2012 (65% of whom were overseas tourists), and 1,141,500 guests in 2011 (68% of whom were overseas tourists). The number of overnight stays totaled 3,424,200 (76% of which were attributable to overseas tourists), compared to 3,416,300 overnight stays in 2012 (78% attributable to overseas tourists), and 3,346,200 overnight stays in 2011 (80% attributable to overseas tourists).

In West Jerusalem the average number of overnight stays per guest was higher than in East Jerusalem. The main discrepancy stemmed from the difference between the average number of overseas guests – 3.5 in West Jerusalem and 3.0 in East Jerusalem – as opposed to the average number of overnight stays by Israeli guests – 1.7 in both West and East Jerusalem.

The occupancy rate of hotel rooms in West Jerusalem was 66% and this was the same as the occupancy rate in 2012 and 2011.

The average number of guests in 2013 in East Jerusalem was 160,600 (90% of them overseas tourists), compared to 171,200 guests in 2012 (91% of them overseas tourists), and 194,800 guests in 2011 (90% of them overseas tourists). The number of overnight stays in 2013 was 469,100 (95% of them overseas tourists) and this was low in comparison to 2012 – 475,700 overnight stays (94% of them overseas tourists), and to 2011 – 508,400 overnight stays (94% of them overseas tourists).

Tourist Overnight-Stays in East Jerusalem (First Quarter of Each Year), 2000-2013

160

140

120 stays - 100

40 Thousand Thousand overnight 20

0 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013

82 Room occupancy rate was lower in East Jerusalem than in West Jerusalem. In 2013, the occupancy rate was 52%, which was comparable to the figure for 2012 (53%) and 2011 (54%).

Jerusalem compared to select Israeli cities In 2013, Jerusalem’s tourist hotels hosted 1,386,500 guests (16% of the total number of guests in Israel’s tourist hotels), compared to 1,070,000 guests in Tel Aviv (12%) and 2,343,800 guests in Eilat (27%).

Jerusalem is a great source of attraction for overseas tourists. The number of overseas guests in Jerusalem was 898,300 (29% of all overseas guests in Israel), as compared to 741,100 in Tel Aviv (24%) and 223,000 in Eilat (7%).

The number of Israeli hotel guests in Jerusalem was 488,200 (9% of the total for Israel), compared to 328,900 in Tel Aviv (6%) and 2,120,800 in Eilat (39%).

Tourist Overnight-Stays in Tourist Hotels in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Elat, 1980-2013

4,000 Jerusalem 3,500 Tel Aviv

Elat 3,000 stays - 2,500

2,000

1,500

Thousand overnight Thousand 1,000

500

0 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

In 2013, the number of overnight stays in Jerusalem’s tourist hotels measured 3,893,300 (17% of the total for Israel), compared to 2,914,100 in Tel Aviv (13%) and 7,056,400 in Eilat (31%). The number of overnight stays of overseas tourists in Jerusalem was 3,057,100 (31% of the total of overseas tourists’ overnight stays in Israel), 2,341,100 in Tel Aviv (24%), and 958,300 in Eilat (10%). The percentage of overnight stays of tourists from America (mostly North America), out of all overnight hotel stays of overseas tourists, was especially high in Jerusalem, at 48%. This figure was 33% in Israel, 38% in Haifa, 29% in Tel Aviv, and 10% in Eilat. The attractiveness of Jerusalem for tourists from Europe is lower than its attractiveness for tourists from America. The percentage of overnight stays of European tourists, out of overnight stays of all overseas tourists in

82 83 Jerusalem hotels, was 35%, which was lower than the percentage for Israel (49%), Eilat (84%), Tel Aviv (54%), and Haifa (41%).

The number of overnight stays of Israelis in Jerusalem, as well as the percentage of such stays in relation to all Israeli overnight stays within Israel, is significantly lower than the figure for overseas tourists. In 2013, the number of overnight stays of Israelis in Jerusalem was 836,200 (7% of all overnight stays of Israelis within Israel). This figure was 573,000 for Tel Aviv (4%) and 6,098,100 for Eilat (48%). Two other locations preferred by Israelis are the Dead Sea shore – 1,739,300 (14% of all overnight stays of Israelis in Israel) and Tiberias – 969,200 (8%).

These figures indicate that Jerusalem is the most attractive city for overseas tourists, in terms of numbers of hotel guests and overnight stays, while Eilat is the most attractive city for Israeli tourists (internal tourism). The percentage of tourists’ overnight stays out of all overnight stays was very high in Jerusalem (79%), and similar to the figure for Tel Aviv (80%) but much higher than the figure for Israel (43%), Haifa (48%), the Dead Sea (25%) and Eilat, where only 14% of overnight stays are attributable to overseas tourists.

Israeli Overnight-Stays in Tourist Hotels in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Elat, 1980-2013

7,000

6,000 Jerusalem

Tel Aviv 5,000 stays - Elat 4,000

3,000

2,000 Thousand overnight Thousand 1,000

0 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

Because the data refer only to guests and to overnight stays in hotels, what is missing is the number of Israeli visitors who do not stay overnight in the city. Nevertheless, there has been a notable, steady increase in the number of Israeli overnight stays in Jerusalem since 2009. In 2009, 639,400 Israelis stayed overnight in Jerusalem, compared to 684,900 in 2011 (an annual increase of 7%), 762,400 in 2012 (an annual increase of 11%) and 836,200 overnight stays of Israelis in Jerusalem in 2013 (an annual increase of 10%).

In 2013, room occupancy for Jerusalem measured 64%, but this was low in comparison to Eilat (71%), and Tel Aviv (73%).

84 Overnight-Stays in Tourist Hotels in Jerusalem, 1980-2013

4,000 Tourists 3,500

Israelis 3,000 stays - 2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

Thousand Thousand overnight 500

0 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

Profile of the tourists A survey of incoming tourism conducted by the Ministry of Tourism among overseas tourists covering the characteristics of tourists visiting Israel revealed that 2,168,820 tourists visited Jerusalem in 2012, which was 77% of all tourists visiting Israel in that year. The survey also revealed that 63% of the tourists visiting Jerusalem in 2012 were Christian, compared to 52% of Christian tourists in Israel and 47% in Tel Aviv in the same year. Furthermore, whereas in Jerusalem 32% of tourists responded that the purpose of their visit was religion or pilgrimage, only 24% of all tourists to Israel and only 15% of the tourists to Tel Aviv responded in the same way. Only 10% of tourists in Jerusalem who were asked about the purpose of their visit noted that they were there on business, on missions, or for research; this was in contrast to 18% of all tourists to Israel and 23% of tourists to Tel Aviv. The various characteristics of tourists in the different cities were evidence of the points of attraction in each of them.

84 85 - Elections for Mayor of Jerusalem and for the City Council -

In October 2013, elections were held for Mayor of Jerusalem and for the City Council. The number of eligible voters in Jerusalem was 576,400. The voter turnout (the number of voters as a percentage of eligible voters) in Jerusalem was 39%, compared to 43% in the elections held in 2008. Indeed, the voter turnout in Jerusalem was lower than in all of the local authorities in Israel (51%), except for Tel Aviv (35%) and Haifa (36%). The localities surrounding Jerusalem had a higher voter turnout than Jerusalem. In Abu Ghosh and in the ultra-orthodox town of Modi'in Illit the voter turnout was extremely high (87% and 86%, respectively). Relatively high turnout was recorded in Beit Shemesh and Beit El (76-77%), and in Betar Illit, Kiryat Arba, Kiryat Ye’arim, and Giv’at Ze'ev the turnout was between 69% and 72%. In all of the above localities there was an extensive ultra-orthodox population noted for its high participation in elections. In Har Adar there was a 73% turnout and in Mevasseret Zion 54%.

The low turnout in Jerusalem stems from the abstention of the Arab population of East Jerusalem from participating in the elections almost entirely. East Jerusalem Arabs have the status of permanent residents in Israel and by virtue of this status they are entitled to participate in the voting for the Jerusalem Municipality, to vote and to stand for election.39 But, in practice, most of them choose not to vote in elections – their voter participation is estimated to be less than 1%.

Elections for Mayor of Jerusalem There were three candidates for Mayor of Jerusalem: Nir Barkat (the incumbent mayor), Moshe Leon, and Haim Epstein. The candidate winning the most votes was Nir Barkat, who received 51% of valid votes. Moshe Leon received 45% of the valid votes and Haim Epstein 4%.

The highest percentage of votes for Nir Barkat was recorded in the neighborhood of Nayot (97%) and northern Beit Hakerem (96%), as well as in Ramat Beit Hakerem, northern Bak'a, Old Katamon, Yefe Nof and the German Colony (92-93%).

Moshe Leon won the most votes in Old Beit Yisrael (93%), Kiryat Kamenitz and Neve Ya'akov (92%), as well as Ramat Shlomo, New Beit Yisrael, and east Neve Ya'akov (90- 91%).

Haim Epstein received the highest percentage of votes in Sha'arei Hessed (17%) and Kerem Avraham (16%), as well as in Ezrat Torah, Mekor Baruch, and in the Ramat Polin section of Ramot Alon (14%).

39 They are also entitled to benefits from the National Insurance Institute and to national health insurance. 86 y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e A . s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r m M P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

k o a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h O u E n r o h A E t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a - z R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a t

a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o e S G s

m - o t l K i a n - a ’ v a a l R G

v o t i 5 3 i H

v e y t i G t a 1 o t a e c Y 0 a B f B a - e d o 2 a

s u N g H ,

m 4 m

s E l r i n t e a

a n h a m s i n y a M n H z a s

r i a e i i t o n

l a t a G e Q ' t m m M

e a

y i v r e 3 r , i I M a r a

s a a t t G e

Z t e r s k

u u K n t r r e y a i

o r e m e r a n i a

n s B l e r n E Q o e i a B K i l o 2 t u i J

t t Z o a

r r f r n t v i

e e e O % % % r o t d d i

N i e % 0 5 7 l

v r s s v o % 5 5 7 9 a r a

1 a v 8 2 o - - - d r e

w f

- - a e y f o

o o n l n

% % %

a M t o r % % 6 1 6 s m n o 1 9 2 5 7 N M A 0

t e r r c e o N f o V P e y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R s e a h r o n e S G

m - o t l K o i a - a ’ v a a l R G t i

v t i i 3 H c

v e y G t a 1 o a e t e l Y 0 a B f B a - d o 2 a E

s u N H g ,

m m 4

s i r t n n e a n a i h a m

n y a M H z a

s i r a e i t i n o n l t a a G e Q ' m m M

o y i a

v r e i 3 i r e I , M r a

s a a t G t e L Z

e u u K t n r y a

i o e r e r a n i

n s B t e r s e l h E r n Q o e i a 2 t u J i s m e t Z t a

r t f r n o v o

e K i l o e O e r o % % % t d d i

M e i % 0 5 3 l v

r s s v o a % 5 5 7 9 a r

1 a v 8 2 o - - - d v

r e

w f

a - - e y f o

o o n n l

% % % i

M a t o r % % 6 1 6 s m n o 3 9 2 5 7 N M A 0

t e r r c e o N f o V P e

86 87 Elections for the City Council The Jerusalem City Council has 31 members. The party lists receiving the most votes were: Yahadut Hatorah [Torah Judaism] (24% - 8 members), Shas (16% - 5 members), Yerushalayim Tazliah [Jerusalem Will Succeed] (14% - 4 members), and Hitorerut Birushalayim [Awakening in Jerusalem] (11% - 4 members). The following lists in descending order were: Yerushalmim ( 7% - 2 members), Meretz-Labor (6% - 2 members), Yerushalayim Me'ohedet [United Jerusalem] (4% - 2 memebers), Habayit Hayehudi [Jewish Home] (4% - 1 member), Bnei Torah [Sons of Torah] (3% - 1 member), Likud- Beiteinu (3% - 1 member), and Pisgat Ze'ev al Hamapa [Pisgat Ze'ev Is on the Map] (3% - 1 member).

An examination of voting patterns by neighborhood reveals that the highest turnout was in neighborhoods in which most of the populations was ultra-orthodox or in which there was a large concentration of ultra-orthodox persons. The highest voter turnout was – in descending order – in Ramat Shlomo (82%), Neve Ya'akov East (76%), Giv’at Shaul (71%), Ramot Alon (71%), Har Nof (70%), and Romema (69%).40 In neighborhoods where the majority population was general-Jewish (secular, traditional, and religiously observant), there was a very high voter turnout for Giv'at Massua (71%), Beit Hakerem, Malha, Lower Motza, Ramat Motza, Kiryat Moshe, and Giv’at Mordechai (61-62%).

The party winning the most votes was Yahadut Hatorah with 24% of the votes that earned it 8 seats on the City Council. The highest voter turnout for Yahadut Hatorah was in Kiryat Sanz and Kiryat Belz (89%), Ezrat Torah (81%), Shikunei Habad, Mea She'arim, and Batei Ungarin, Kiryat Mattersdorf, Romema Illit, and Ramot Polin (72-74%). Shas was the party that received the second highest number of votes, with 16% of the total votes, earning it 5 seats on the City Council. The highest voter turnout for the Shas list was in Ma'alot Dafna West and Shmuel Hanavi (63%), Old Beit Yisrael (53%), New Beit Yisrael (48%), Ma'alot Dafna East, Zichron Moshe and Mahane Yehuda (38-41%). The party list headed by mayoral candidate Nir Barkat, who was also the incumbent mayor, Yerushalayim Tazliah, won 14% of the votes, earning it 4 seats on the City Council. The voter turnout for this list was highest in Ramat Beit Hakerem (59%), Giv’at Massua (49%), southern Beit Hakerem (47%), north-eastern Gilo (44%) and Malha (39%).

Hitorerut Jerusalem won 11% of the votes and 4 seats on the City Council. The neighborhoods that provided the highest number of voters for this list were: Malha (40%), Ramat Sharett (33%), Giv’at Massua, Ramat Denya, Arnona, South Talpiot, and North French Hill (26-30%).

40 The Mea She'arim neighborhood which is also ultra-orthodox is the exception because it had a very low voter turnout – 18%. Some of the residents of this neighborhood belong to the Eda Haredit (which includes Satmar hassidim and Toldot Aharon hassidim), a branch that opposes Zionism and whose members, therefore, boycott elections. 88 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 PZ 3 5 7 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 3 2 2 0 MHL 3 7 0 8 6 4 1 6 5 2 4 2 0 6 ETZ 4 1 2 0 4 1 2 1 1 5 5 8 9 0 TB 4 1 4 1 4 3 6 1 1 3 4 3 4 1 K 6 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 17 16 10 18 19 MRZ 7 1 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 11 18 15 17 17 YM % 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 11 15 23 18 15 19 19 HT 9 0 7 2 1 2 1 14 16 20 16 12 15 16 NR 4 3 4 16 29 13 28 24 46 30 34 10 15 10 Shas 1 3 8 4 G 24 43 60 39 38 60 52 12 14 80 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 98 98 98 99 99 98 98 99 99 97 98 97 98 99 Valid Valid Votes 39 58 53 82 71 61 39 38 54 35 44 48 41 69 Voter Voter Turnout 9,131 6,497 6,437 9,226 6,121 8,584 8,033 3,730 Voters 14,274 30,130 28,570 18,845 13,443 Eligible 576,406 Results of Elections for the Jerusalem City Council by Selected Neighborhoods, October 2013 the Jerusalem City Council by Selected Neighborhoods, October Results of Elections for Jerusalem Total Jerusalem Of which: Ya'akov Neve Pisgat Ze'ev Ramat Shlomo Ramot Alon Ramot Ma'alot Dafna, Shmuel Hanavi French Hill Geula, Mea She'arim, Bucharian Neighborhood Mekor Baruch, Zichron Moshe City Center Nahlaot, Zichronot Rehavya Talbiya Romema Including lists that did not pass the minimum threshold. 1

88 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PZ 0 2 1 4 6 9 8 2 6 5 5 2 MHL 6 0 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 ETZ 5 4 4 3 3 3 5 9 3 3 5 14 TB 4 2 3 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 K 12 20 0 1 8 5 8 1 5 11 18 12 14 22 MRZ 1 1 9 7 8 6 7 4 17 17 24 12 YM % 1 2 5 24 30 19 25 14 17 24 15 19 HT 1 5 28 22 23 27 24 16 29 25 27 13 NR 2 8 3 9 3 21 24 13 13 17 15 15 Shas 1 6 8 1 2 4 1 2 3 G 56 46 11 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total 99 98 99 98 97 97 97 97 97 99 98 95 Valid Valid Votes 1 70 61 67 61 51 54 48 53 46 58 50 Voter Voter Turnout 7,310 9,854 Voters 11,772 11,267 15,511 11,903 13,747 17,503 19,988 10,107 24,179 Eligible 180,299

Har Nof Beit Hakerem Bayit Vegan Bayit Ramat Sharett, Ramat Denya Kiryat Hayovel Kiryat Menahem, Ir Ganim Katamonim German Colony, German Colony, Old Katamon East Talpiot East Har Homa Gilo Neighborhoods with Arab predominantly populations Including lists that did not pass the minimum threshold. 1

90 The above table makes it clear that in the neighborhoods with a majority ultra-orthodox population, the voting was predominantly for two lists – Yahadut Hatorah, which gained between 38% and 80% of the votes, and Shas, with support of between 24% and 46% of the votes. Where the neighborhoods were largely populated by general residents (secular, traditional, and religiously observant), the residents gave their votes to a variety of lists, especially to Yerushalayim Tazliah, Hitorerut, Yerushalmim, Meretz-Labor, and even some to Shas. This fact reflects the diversity of the population living in these neighborhoods. In Pisgat Ze'ev, the only neighborhood which fielded its own list – "Pisgat Ze'ev Is on the Map" – predominantly voted for that list which won 35% of the votes.

90 91 y a i s r i D a z a

r u A h - b l a v A E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e A . s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r m M P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

k o a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h O u E n r o h A E t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a - z R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a t

a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o ) e S G 3

m - o t l K i G a - 1 a (

’ v a a l R G

0 v t i e i H 2

v e y G t m

h a o , a t e t s l

Y B f i i B a a - o o d a a c

t s u N

m d n 4 m g

s r i t e s n a u a n u h a n n s i y a M H J z o a

a s i t o i n o t i a C G h e Q ' a m

t m y i v r e l

e 3 a i I M , r r c a r a t G e a a Z t e

o l p K t u y a n

i r e i e T r o E n i a

c n

t e r s B

s i l E Q o r n d i e 2 e a u n t m e i Z e t a t h

o t r t u t r n i v

e K i l o O

e e r % % t n % M d n d e i

i % 0 2 i v l 0 s

U s v o 0 6 9 a a 3 1

a t

m d 1 v - - r v - r e

a e

f e - i o l

o n n o l i f % % % M

o t

r % 1 1 1 m s s n o 0 1 3 6 N y A 0 t e u r t r r c e N a o e J P V P e y a i s r i D a z a

r u A h - b l a v A E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A p A

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o 3 e S G

m - o 1 t l K i a - a 0 ’ v a e a l R G

v 2 t i 5 i H h

v e , y t G t a l

o a t e i Y a B f o B a - c t d o a

n s u N H g

m m 4 s

s i r u t n e a n a n h a o n y a M H z a o

s i r a i t i i C o n ) t

t a a G e Q ' m l m M s y i

c v r e 3 i r e I , M a r a a e a a t G t e Z l t e r s

p h e i e u K t n r y a

i E o e r m S c

a n i i

n s ( B l E r n

e Q o e i n K i l o a 2 t u i s h t Z t a u

t r t a r n

v o

e e O e h M r % % t n d

d i i e i % 6 3 l

v S s s v o a

% 5 2 6 t a

1 m a r v 8 1 - - d s v

r e

e w i f

a - - o e l

o o f n n l % % L i

t o r % % 6 7 m s s n o y 0 9 1 2 N A t 0 e u r t r r c e a o e N J V P e P

92 y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b t - u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A n s g t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r i a r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f a -

a C r t T r

k o a

a B a ’ s W d

A l l u n J r a u i

s h e b u h O E n r o h E i A t S a S

e c h a t o e t y m i a H a h n n o m

p l t t l R e o S o m l h

o e a s t r C a H o T S

B o y a a

a t r t R C t y v m t

a m a i a a A n v i a h H C M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h a ' S a m

e v t l K e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A ) m

n a B t R e a h r R o e G 3 S m

- o N t l K 1 i a ( - a

’ v a a 0 l R G

5 e v t h i i H 2

v e

h y c t G a , t o a t e l

a i Y a B f i B a - l o o d c a

t z s u

N n 4 H g

m m

s a r i s t n e u a a n T h a n s i

n o y a M H z a

s r a i o i t o n i C m t a a G

e Q ' t i m m M

e l y i

3 v r e i r , c y M I r a

a a a t t e r s t G e a e Z

l l p u t K n i r e y a i

m e a o e E r a i c n

n s B i h l r n E Q o K i l o e 2 e i a s n t u i t t Z h a o

u u r t t r n v

e e e O r % % t M d e n d i

e i % 3 9 i l v

Y s s v o % 3 2 5 a 1

t a

a m v 3 1 r - - d r e v

w e f

- - a i e o l

o o n n l f % % i

a t o

r % % 4 4 m s n s o 0 4 1 2 N y 0 A t e u r t r r c e a o N e V P e J P y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o ) A m

n a B t R e T a h r o 3 e S G H

m - 1 o t ( l K i a -

a 0 ’ v a e a l R G

g v 2 t i 5 i H h

v e , n y t G t a l i

o a t e i Y a B n f o B a - c t d o e a

n s u N H g k

m s m 4

s i r u t n e a a n a n h a o n y a M H z a w o

s i r a i t i i C o n

t t a a A G e Q ' m l m M

y i c

v r e 3 i r e I , M a r a

e a a t m G t e l Z t e r s

e i u K t e n r y a

i E l o e m e r c

a n i i

n s a B l E e r n Q o e i n s K i l o a 2 t u i h t Z t a u u

t r t r n

v o r

e e O e M r % % n t e d

d i i e i % 2 0 l

v J s s v o a

% 2 2 4 t a m

1 a r v 3 1 - - d s v

r e

e w i f

a - - o e l

o o f n n l % % L i

t o r % % 3 3 m s s n y o 0 4 1 2 N A t 0 e u r t r r c e a o e N J P V P e

92 93 y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w r u a v k o a y a T i S e a - ’ ' b t - w a e a A A

l k Z Y l

s a b u t I z a H a r M

v e

l t J o e A s g n - c h o a i l N i a b n r m P A p

l h w y e i a a l t t r i a a r J a i d h l r R a F T o S r f - a a

C t r

T a

a k o a B ’ s W d A

J l l u

n a u r i e s h b h h u O E i n y r o A E t S S a

n e e c h a t o t m i h o a H l a n o m

p l t S l t o R e o h

m o e a s t C r C a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t t n R y v t m a m i a a a a A a v i h C H M m n m - z R r e t a o a a f e o R R a m H m f G H

a t

a e a t r a h a ' S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o 3 e S G

m - 1 o t l K

i a - 0 a ’ v a e a R G l

2 v t i e i h

, v t y G t a l

o t a e i Y a ) B f o B a - c t d o a

n M s u N 4 g H

m s m

s r i u n Y t e a a n n ( o h a s i

n y a M H z o a s

r a i i i t C o n m

t a t a G e Q ' l i m m M

3 y i c r v e r , i I M a r a

e m a a t t G e

l Z l p

u i K n t r e a y a i

E o e r c

a i n t e r s i

h n s B l e r n e E Q o 2 e s n i a t u m i h t t Z o a u u t

r r n t

v r K i l o

e e e O M % r e t n d

d i i i e % 8 l

v Y s s v o % % 8 2

a 1 t a

m a r v 3 8 1 - d s r e

w e f

i - - - a o l e

o o n f l n % L

t o r % % % 9 m s s n o 0 4 9 1 N y 0 A t e u r t r r c e a o N e J P V P e y a i s r i D a

z a r u A h - b l a A v E r w o r u a v k a y a T s i S e a - ’ ' b - t u w a e a A A p

l k Y Z l

i s a b u t I c o z a H a M r

v e S

t l J o e . A s g n t - o c h a i l i N a b n r M m P A p

l w e y i a a h l t t r a i r J a i d h l a R a T F o r S f -

a a C r t T r

a k o

a B a ’ s W d A

l l u n J a u r i

e s h b h u O E n r o h E A t i S S a

e c h a t o t y m e i a H n a n h o m

p l t l t R e o S o l h

m o e a s t r C o a H T S

o y a B a

a t r t C t y R v t

m a m i a a a A n a v i h C H M m n a z - R e t a o a a f m o R r R a m H m f H

e a

t a e a t r G a h ' a S a m

e v t K l e i H n e h l o G t m l B u e ' o A m

n a B t R e a h r o e S G

m - o t l K i s a - a ’ v a a l R G n

v t i i H o

v e y G t i a o a t t e 3 Y a B f B a c - 1 d o a e 0 s u N l H g

m m 4

s 2 i r t n e

E a n a ,

h a n a y a M H z a

s i r n a i t i m o i n r e t

a G e Q ' m e m M

a t y i

l v r

e 3 i I , M r a u

n a i a t G t e Z o e s u K t s r y a

o e n r r s e u a n i t e

n r B r t l E r n Q o i e u a 2 v o u i

m e t Z t a T J

r e t

n l r f e k i l o e O e b r % % % % t i d e o e i % 1 7 5 6 g

v t i s s v o l 5 5 5 6 8 r a

1 a o e 4 - - - - d v

r e

o w f

a - V e

o y o n n l % % % % l i

M t o a r % 6 2 8 6 a m n o 8 4 5 5 6 N A M u 0 t r c e r c N o f A P e

94 - The Jerusalem Region -

The environs of Jerusalem include cities and local and regional councils (incorporating communal localities, kibbutzim, and moshavim). These local authorities have extensive reciprocal relations with Jerusalem, which is the principal city within this area. These relations cover many and varied subjects, including employment, education, commerce, culture, entertainment, and recreation, among others. In general, the closer the localities are to the principal city, the stronger the connections. Residents of localities within the innermost ring surrounding Jerusalem, therefore, have stronger and more varied connections to the city than residents of localities in the outermost ring, who have weaker connections to it. For example, Ma’ale Adumim, Mevasseret Zion, and Betar Illit have stronger connections to Jerusalem than do Modi’in, Beit Shemesh, and Kiryat Arba.

The cities and local councils within this area are: Abu Ghosh, Beit El, Beit Shemesh, Betar Illit, Efrat, Giv’at Ze’ev, Har Adar, Mevasseret Zion, Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut, Modi’in Illit, Ma’ale Adumim, Kiryat Arba, and Kiryat Ye’arim (Telz Stone – an ultra-orthodox locality adjacent to Abu Ghosh). In addition, the area includes three regional councils: Gush Etzion, Mateh Binyamin, and Mateh Yehuda. The regional council of Mateh Yehuda includes 63 localities (most of which take the form of a moshav, a rural cooperative locality), Mateh Binyamin contains 26 localities (most of which are communal localities), and Gush Etzion has 14 localities (mostly communal localities).

Population size Jerusalem, as noted, is the main city in the area and comprises the largest and most heterogeneous population. Most localities in the Jerusalem region, in contrast, are characteristically relatively homogeneous. It should be noted that through migration the population distributes itself within the localities and areas in accordance with its characteristics or profile thereby creating segregation among neighborhoods, among localities, and among regions. The lines of segregation within this location are reflections of the polarization in society. In general, the greater the differences among population groups, the more marked their segregation.

The localities within the Jerusalem region differ from each other in terms of population size, sectors and socio-economic characteristics.

In 2012, the largest of the localities in terms of population size, excluding Jerusalem (with its 815,300 residents), were: Beit Shemesh (89,800 residents), Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut (82,900 residents), and Modi’in Illit (55,500 residents). The localities with the smallest population were Beit El (5,900 residents), Har Adar (3,700 residents), and Kiryat Ye’arim (3,600 residents).

94 95 Population of Surounding Local Authorities in Jerusalem, 2012

Bet Shemesh 89,800 Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut 82,920 Modi'in Illit 55,490 Matte Binyamin R.C 52,770 Matte Yehuda R.C 47,660 Betar Illit 42,470 Ma'ale Adummim 36,860 Mevaseret Zion 24,460 Gush Etzion R.C 18,830 Giv'at Ze'ev 13,470 Efrata 7,810 Qiryat Arba 7,590 Abu Ghosh 6,510 Bet El 5,900 Har Adar 3,700 Qiryat Ye'arim 3,620 0 30,000 60,000 90,000

Population growth Three factors affect the population growth of a locality: natural growth (the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths), aliya (Jewish immigration), and internal migration.

In 2012, the annual rate of increase of the population in the Jerusalem region was highest in Kiryat Ye’arim (13%), Betar Illit, and Giv’at Ze’ev (7% each). The increase resulted primarily from natural growth, as well as a positive migration balance. A high population growth rate was also recorded in Modi'in Illit (7% - mostly from natural increase) and Beit Shemesh (7%, primarily as a result of a positive migration balance and natural

Annual Population Growth Percentage in Jerusalem and Surrounding Local Authorities, 2012

Qiryat Ye'arim 15% Modi'in Illit 7% Betar Illit 7% Giv'at Ze'ev 6% Bet Shemesh 6% Abu-Ghosh 4% Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut 3% Qiryat Arba 3% Bet El 2% Ma'ale Adummim 2% Har Adar 2% Jerusalem 2% Efrata 1% Tzur Hadassa 1% Mevaseret Zion -3% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

96 increase). In all these localities the migration was largely on the part of the ultra-orthodox population. Similarly, there was a considerable increase, 11%, in the population of the Gush Etzion regional council, largely due to a positive balance of migration.

Relatively low rates of population growth were recorded in Efrat (1%), Beit El (2%), Ma'ale Adumim (2%), and Kiryat Arba (3%). The growth rate of Jerusalem was 2%. In Mevasseret Zion the population decreased by 3%.

Population age The localities within the Jerusalem region differ from one another in the age distribution of their residents as well. Localities with a majority ultra-orthodox population are characterized by a very high percentage of children. In 2012, the proportion of children aged 0-14 in the cities of Betar Illit and Modi’in Illit, whose populations are almost exclusively ultra-orthodox, measured approximately 59%. In Beit Shemesh (approximately half of whose population is ultra-orthodox) and Kiryat Ye’arim (an ultra-orthodox locality adjacent to Abu Ghosh) there were also relatively high percentages for this age group – 47% and 41%, respectively.

The percentages of children aged 0-14 in the regional councils of Mateh Binyamin and Gush Etzion, which have primarily religiously observant populations, were 44% and 42%, respectively. The localities with the lowest percentages of children were Mevasseret Zion (24%), Ma'ale Adumim (29%), and Har Adar (31%). In Jerusalem that percentage was 34%.

Percentage of Children Aged 0-14 in Jerusalem and Surrounding Local Authorities, 2012

Modi'in Illit 59% Betar Illit 58% Bet Shemesh 47% Matte Binyamin RC 44% Gush Etzion RC 42% Bet El 41% Qiryat Ye'arim 41% Qiryat Arba 36% Modi'in-Maccabim-… 35% Jerusalem 34% Efrata 34% Abu Ghosh 33% Giv'at Ze'ev 31% Har Adar 31% Matte Yehuda RC 30% Ma'ale Adummim 29% Mevaseret Zion 24% 0% 20% 40% 60%

The localities with a majority ultra-orthodox population are characterized by a very low percentage of senior citizens (65 and above). The percentage of people aged 65 and 96 97 above in Betar Illit and Modi’in Illit was less than 1%. The regional councils of Gush Etzion and Mateh Binyamin also had a low percentage – 2%. The highest percentage of senior citizens was recorded in Mevasseret Zion (11%) and the regional council of Mateh Yehuda (8%). In Jerusalem this figure was 9% of the population.

Percentage of People Aged 65+ in Jerusalem and Surrounding Local Authorities, 2012

Mevaseret Zion 11% Jerusalem 9% Matte Yehuda RC 8% Har Adar 7% Ma'ale Adummim 7% Qiryat Arba 6% Giv'at Ze'ev 6% Modi'in-Maccabim-… 5% Abu Ghosh 5% Efrata 4% Bet Shemesh 4% Gush Etzion RC 2% Bet El 2% Matte Binyamin RC 2% Qiryat Ye'arim 1% Betar Illit 1% Modi'in Illit 1% 0% 5% 10%

Internal migration The internal migration balance among localities in the Jerusalem environs indicates that six localities had a negative migration balance in 2012: Mevasseret Zion (-810 persons), Efrat (-200), Beit El (-200), Ma'ale Adumim (-150), Kiryat Arba (-100), Kiryat Ye'arim (-15).

Migration Balance in Jerusalem and Surrounding Local Authorities, 2012

Giv'at Ze'ev 31.6 Modi'in Illit 23.5 Betar Illit 16.9 Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut 15.6 Bet Shemesh 11.9 Tzur Hadassa 10.7 Har Adar 5.5 Qiryat Ye'arim -3.2 Abu-Ghosh -3.2 Ma'ale Adummim -4.1 Jerusalem -10.9 Qiryat Arba -13.6 Efrata -26.0 Mevaseret Zion -32.0 Bet El -34.7 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rate per 1,000 residents at beginning of year

98 The localities in which the negative migration balance was greatest (migration balance in relation to population size in that locality) were Beit El (-34 per 1,000 residents), Mevasseret Zion (-33 per 1,000), Efrat (-26 per 1,000), and Kiryat Arba (-13 per 1,000 residents).

The localities characterized by the greatest positive migration balance were Modi’in- Maccabim-Reut (1,250 persons), Modi’in Illit (1,215), Beit Shemesh (1,015), Betar Illit (665), Giv’at Ze'ev (400), and Har Adar (25). The highest proportion of positive migration was in Giv’at Ze'ev (31 per 1,000 residents), Modi'in Illit (23 per 1,000), Betar Illit (16 per 1,000), and Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut (15 per 1,000). Modi’in is a new city that was founded in 1996 and is still being built and populated primarily by young, secular, and religiously observant population groups. Modi’in Illit, too, is a new city, also founded in 1996, that is attractive to the ultra-orthodox population. Beit Shemesh is a veteran city, and in recent years has seen the construction of new neighborhoods that draw primarily ultra-orthodox and religiously observant population groups.

98 99 JE R U S A L E

and more. S 2014

Leichtag Family Foundation (United States). Maya Choshen,Korach Michal

The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS), founded in 1978, Maya Choshen, Michal Korach is a non-prot institute for policy studies.

Jerusalem Institute 2014 for Israel Studies The Hay Elyachar House 20 Radak St., Jerusalem 9218604 Tel.: +972-2-563-0175 Fax: +972-2-563-9814 Email: [email protected]

Website: www.jiis.org 438