In response to criticism
of its planned (and currently under
construction) “Museum of Tolerance”
project in Jerusalem, the Simon
Wiesenthal Center (SWC) is circulating a
document entitled “Important Facts
on the Israeli Supreme Court Ruling in
Favor of the Museum of Tolerance.”
We agrees that the facts
are important, and unfortunately they
are not fully presented in the SWC
document. To clear up any confusion
about these facts, once and for all, we
have produced a Q & A primer entitled
"Setting the Facts Straight Regarding
the Museum of Tolerance." In this
document, copied below, we review all of
the facts (and claims) in detail, and
also provide a compendium of articles
(analysis, opinion, and reporting) that
may be of use to people who care as much
as we do about this subject. The
document is a joint effort of Ir Amim
and Americans for Peace Now (APN) and is
available online at:
http://www.peacenow.org/resources/publications.asp?rid=&cid=5700
==========================================
<!--[endif]-->
Setting the Record Straight Regarding
the Museum of Tolerance
Q: Does the
fact that the Israeli High Court
approved the project mean that the
objections of APN and others are
illegitimate?
A: No.
The fact that the High Court ruled that
it is legal to implement the project
does not mean the project must or should
be carried out. Israel's High Court
ruled that the Wiesenthal Center had the
legal right to build its museum at this
location – a decision based on the
technical legal merits of the case. From
this perspective, the legal proceedings
that led to this Supreme Court decision
were initiated under very problematic
circumstances: the formal planning
procedures had already been completed
years earlier without any objections or
irregularities, a building permit had
already been issued, and the
construction had commenced. The High
Court ruling is by no measure a
vindication of the museum proposal on
its broader merits. It does not mitigate
the fact that the plan is unwise and
inflammatory, undermining Israel's
efforts to be perceived as a responsible
steward of Jerusalem and all of its holy
! sites. Or, that its implementation
jeopardizes vital interests of Israel
and world Jewry, including stability and
security in Jerusalem. The interests of
Israeli justice in a matter in which
some of the most basic rights are
involved – religious freedom, human
dignity etc. – would have been better
served had the Court exercised its
discretion more widely and looked beyond
the technical, legalistic elements of
the case (something within its powers to
do). We expect the Wiesenthal Center –
a human rights organization concerned
with morals and ethics and strongly
supportive of Israel – to consider the
moral, ethical and political
consequences of carrying out this
project, rather than rely solely on
legal arguments.
Q: Is the
site on which the Museum is being
constructed part of a cemetery?
A: It
is beyond dispute that the Museum of
Tolerance site is on the grounds of the
historic
Mamilla cemetery, and aside from the
initial assertion in the SWC’s email
response, it is a
fact that has been acknowledged
clearly by SWC and other supporters of
the plan. The cemetery is well known
and was in active use from the 13th
century until 1948, when, as a result of
Israel's War of Independence, it was cut
off from East Jerusalem and the West
Bank. Muslims did not abandon the site;
they were cut off from it.
Indeed, while the SWC
misleadingly opens its response to
criticism of the project with the
assertion that the site is not part of
the cemetery (but simply adjacent to the
cemetery), it later contradicts its own
argument, confirming that human remains
were found at the construction site
(concrete evidence that the site is part
of the cemetery). Later the SWC further
contradicts its initial assertion by
implying that the area is indeed part of
the cemetery, but now arguing that the
cemetery is no longer sacred to Muslims
and in any case, Israeli law permits
construction on cemeteries in certain
cases.
Q: Was the
site previously turned into a parking
facility?
A:
Beginning in the 1960s, Israel began
“nibbling” away at the cemetery. During
that period there was construction
inside the borders of the cemetery (on
its periphery, but still on the cemetery
grounds), including a school, the
Engineer House (where the Jerusalem
Press Club is located), and a road
cutting through the cemetery.
Subsequently, in the 1970s, the parking
lot in question was built on part of
the cemetery. The Museum plan partially
overlaps the site of the underground
parking lot, but also extends beyond it
into an additional area of the cemetery
which was paved and used for parking,
but where no excavations ever took
place. More broadly speaking, since
1948, large areas of the cemetery have
been covered over and transformed into a
public park (know by Israelis as
Independence Park), with the burials
remaining just below the surface, under
the grass and trails. &nbs! p; Part of
the cemetery still has tombstones and
grave markers, but these areas have
largely been allowed to fall into
disrepair.
Q: What
about the argument that the cemetery is
in any case no longer sacred, given the
fact that it has been out of use for
more than 50 years and given the fact
that at least some Islamic authorities
have made declarations to this effect?
A: Jews
can no more decree what is or is not
sacred or offensive to Muslims, than
Muslims can decree what is sacred or
offensive to Jews. Arguing that the
site designated for the Museum of
Tolerance is not sacred to Muslims does
not change the fact that many Muslims,
in Israel and beyond, believe it is.
Nor does it change the fact that the
site holds, without question, human
burials for which Muslims feel respect
and reverence similar to that felt by
Jews for Jewish burials. The Arab world
is dotted with historic Jewish
cemeteries. It is not difficult to
imagine the Jewish protest that would
result from plans for a “tolerance”
center on one of them, particularly
plans justified by arguing that Jews
have not used the site since 1948.
Similarly, it is almost impossible to
imagine Israel or Jews using or
accepting such arguments if the project
were seeking to place the museum on a
site in the holy city of Jerusale! m
known to hold Jewish remains.
Q: What
about the claim that there was no outcry
from Arabs and Muslims when the parking
facility was built, and the argument
that this, in turn, indicates that Arabs
and Muslims don’t actually care about
the site, and proves that the current
outcry is nothing more than
opportunistic, cynical political
posturing at Israel’s expense?
A: The
claim that Arabs and Muslims failed to
protest previous projects undertaken on
the grounds of the cemetery is partially
incorrect and totally disingenuous. It
is part and parcel of efforts to
discredit Muslim attachments to the site
– efforts that are simply not
convincing. Throughout the British
Mandate and in the years following the
establishment of the State of Israel,
Muslim leaders indeed contested attempts
to violate the integrity of the
cemetery. The fact that there was not a
vociferous outcry from Muslims in the
1960s and 1970s, when Israel began
construction on parts of the cemetery,
is not proof of Muslim indifference.
More likely it reflects the fact that
from 1948-1966 most Arab citizens of
Israel lived under martial law, unable
to travel freely or organize. One
wonders how they would have managed to
protest or launch legal action. And the
then-physical division of Jerusalem
meant that the Ar! ab and Muslim world –
including residents of East Jerusalem –
would have had little idea what Israel
was doing.
Moreover, during this
period the notion of negotiating
Israeli-Arab peace was virtually
nonexistent, and Israeli policy did not
appear to be particularly concerned
about how Israel’s actions might be were
perceived by Arabs and Muslims. Today,
Israel has peace treaties with Jordan
and Egypt, is in talks with the
Palestinians and Syria, and is flirting
with the Arab peace initiative. In
short, for its own sake, Israel today
should care how it is perceived.
Q: Is Sheikh
Raad Salah, leader of the Islamic
Movement in Israel really opposed to the
project on religious grounds, or is he
just exploiting the project to attack
Israel?
A: The
answer to this question is simply not
known, and in any case does not matter.
Like it or not, what matters here is
perception. And the perception in much
of the world is that Israeli and
American Jews are acting together to
demonstrate their scorn of Muslims and
of Muslim heritage. Even if Sheik Raad
Salah is motivated only by a malicious
intent to embarrass the State of Israel,
the SWC’s insistence on continuing the
project only plays into the hands of
anti-Israel extremists and anti-Semites
worldwide. And if Sheikh Raad Salah’s
motives are nefarious – and this may
indeed be the case – he hardly has a
monopoly over Muslim sensitivities.
Significant Muslim stakeholders, in
Israel and abroad, who are in no way
hostile to Israel or the Jews, are
deeply distressed by this project. In
pursuing the project, the SWC is
providing wind for the sails of hostile
fundamentalist Islamic movements, ! and
weakening those who seek to positively,
even if sometimes critically, engage
Israel.
But in the end, the
motivation of those opposing the plan is
irrelevant. The relevant issues here are
the national security interests of the
State of Israel, the interests of the
peace-seeking people who live in
Jerusalem, and the security interest of
world Jewry. Israel and the Wiesenthal
Center have the opportunity here take
the high road and demonstrate that Jews,
as responsible stewards of the Holy
Land, are respectful of the religious
sensitivities of others. To do so does
not require canceling the project. All
it requires is selecting an alternative
site.
Q: Was the
cemetery already abandoned or in
disrepair when Israel gained control
over the area in 1948?
A: No.
The following excerpt from opinion
submitted to the Supreme Court by
Professor Yehoshua Ben Aryeh – the
unquestioned expert on the geographical
history of Jerusalem in the 19th and
(pre-state) 20th centuries, an Israel
Prize winner and an active opponent of
the Museum project – makes clear that
this was not the case: “With the
commencement of construction and
development outside the walls [of the
Old City] the cemetery was clearly
delineated, and the construction did not
enter its boundaries during the entire
length of Ottoman rule and the British
Mandate. The cemetery was demarcated by
a stone wall, clearly visible from
aerial photography and on all the maps
of this area during these periods. To
the best of my knowledge, the cemetery
remained active until the end of the
British Mandate.”
In another opinion he
submitted to the Court, Professor Ben
Ari discussed correspondence of British
Mandatory officials in 1946, citing a
letter from the chairman of the
Jerusalem Planning Committee, which was
looking at possibilities of changing the
road grid bordering on the cemetery.
The letter states: “It is obvious that
any scheme for the cemetery must have
the wholehearted support of the Supreme
Muslim Council from the outset, for
without this, not a single grave will be
moved.” Professor Ben Ari summarizes:
“What we may learn from the common
denominator of this correspondence is
the great concern for the feelings of
Muslim society residing in the city,
whereby the clear goal is that no act be
taken without the full consent of the
Supreme Muslim Council... Indeed
throughout the entire Mandatory period,
not one change was made, nor any harm
befell the clearly defined and permanent
area of the Muslim cemetery in Mamilla.”
For additional detailed
discussion of Professor Ben Aryeh
objections to the plan, see this lengthy
article in Haaretz, published
12/30/08.
Q: Did any
major Israeli figures offer opinions to
Israel’s High Court opposing the Museum
project and if so, on what grounds?
A:
Yes. The SWC cherry-picks the opinions
offered to the Court to show only those
that support the project and to give the
impression that the only opposition to
the project came from Israel’s Islamic
Movement and marginal allies. In
reality, a number of opinions were
presented to the Court opposing the
project in very harsh terms. For
example, Amir Cheshen, who was the Arab
affairs advisor to Jerusalem Mayor Teddy
Kollek from 1984 to 1994, submitted an
opinion to the court (translated by Ir
Amim’s Danny Seidemenn) that noted:
“After 1967…the Arab
residents of East Jerusalem and
their leadership were exposed to the
condition of the cemetery. The Waqf
Authorities displayed increasing
interest in the subject. After the
matter was placed on the local and
international agenda there were a
number of encounters with the Waqf
authorities and the Municipality
decided to make minor improvements
to the cemetery…a one-time effort to
remove the weeds and to build fences
around some of the tombstones…but
this was a one-time effort...
“On a number of
occasions the Islamic Waqf saw fit
to raise the state of the cemetery,
or more precisely its desecration,
on the public and international
agenda. When the municipality
decided to expand an underground
public parking lot on Hillel Street
it was at the expense of the
cemetery. During the excavation
human remains were uncovered and
this brought about considerable
distress and a public uproar among
the Arab residents of East
Jerusalem. In addition, the
Steering Committee of Israeli Arabs
found it appropriate to file a
protest. They came to Jerusalem in
order to examine the matter,
cooperating with the Waqf officials…
“From the aforesaid
it is clear that Islamic
stakeholders, particularly in
Jerusalem, also among the Muslim
community both in Israel and abroad,
never abandoned their interest in
what transpired in the cemetery, nor
their sensitivity in this regard.
And they always viewed construction
that damaged the tombs and human
remains as a violation of sanctity
and their religious sensibilities…”
Another example of
cherry-picking is highlighted in this
Haaretz
article, which examines and raises
questions about the decision of the
Israel Antiquities Authority to support
the Museum project on the site.
Q: Isn’t the
construction of a museum devoted to the
value of tolerance important enough to
justify the project, even on this site?
A: The
Museum of Tolerance’s own website
defines “tolerance” as “a fair and
objective attitude toward those whose
opinions and practices differ from one's
own…the commitment to respect human
dignity.” Regrettably, the backers of
the museum project appear to have lost
sight of this noble value. Indeed, in a
response to the ruling that underscores
the irony of the situation, SWC founder
Rabbi Marvin Hier insists that “all
citizens of Israel, Jews and non-Jews,
are the real beneficiaries of this
decision” and that “moderation and
tolerance have prevailed.” Whatever the
Wiesenthal Center may have set out to
achieve, this project has become a
mockery of the very notion of
“tolerance.” Its implementation, far
from creating a beacon of hope, will
send a clear message that Israel and
Diaspora Jews are not only intolerant,
but oblivious, and perhaps contemptuous,
of the concerns and sensitivities of
others. For a powerful op-ed on this
topic, see Professor Shimon Shamir’s
December 23, 2008 op-ed entitled “Intolerable
Tolerance” in Haaretz.
Q: What are
the potential impacts of going forward
with the plan?
A: The
construction of the Museum of Tolerance
on a site in the Mamilla cemetery – in
the name of tolerance – sends a message
of utter intolerance, inconsideration
and hubris to Arabs (and to many Jews)
in Jerusalem and to the entire world.
Muslims say that the construction of
this monumental building on the ruins of
an important historic Muslim cemetery is
offensive to them, and the SWC should
respect this. Indeed, it seems clear
that the SWC – and Jews everywhere –
would be deeply offended if someone
wanted to erect a huge building – a
shrine to tolerance, of all things – on
top of a Jewish cemetery in the Arab
world, or anywhere else for that matter.
And there is little doubt that the SWC
and Jews would, rightly, be doubly
offended and outraged if their protests
were dismissed as disingenuous.
Jerusalem is the focal
point of the passions of Jews,
Christians and Muslims world wide.
Jewish control of the city carries
responsibilities, foremost among them,
showing respect for the sensitivities of
all three religions. Failing to act with
sensitivity in such matters can carry a
heavy price. It should be recalled that
the opening of a tunnel in Jerusalem's
Old City a decade ago inflamed passions
that led to unrest in which nearly 100
people died, including 17 Israeli
soldiers. The second Intifada was
sparked by Ariel Sharon's deliberately
provocative visit to the Temple Mount.
More recently, controversy linked to
plans to expand the Mughrabi Gate ramp,
leading from the Kotel to the Temple
Mount, sparked a huge outcry and unrest.
Moreover, what happens in
Jerusalem does not stay in Jerusalem.
Conflict over what many Muslims see as
an attack on their holy sites might very
well spill over to fuel political and
religious regional tensions, with
dangerous consequences for security and
stability far beyond Israel, and for
world Jewry.
In addition, there are
consequences of the plan for Jerusalem
itself. Supporters of the SWC – Jews
who live in America and love to visit
Jerusalem to admire its glory and to
contribute to its grandeur - sometimes
forget the normal, real-life aspects of
the city. Jerusalem is home to 490,000
Israeli Jews and 270,000 Palestinians,
the vast majority of whom simply want to
lead normal, peaceful lives there. For
them, a monument to tolerance built on
the foundation of intolerance and
disrespect is a recipe for disaster.
Finally, from a
self-interested Jewish perspective, it
is clear that implementation of this
plan, at the current site, bodes ill for
the future of Jewish historic and holy
sites in the region and around the
world. How could Jews demand that Arab
or Muslim governments protect
long-disused, but not forgotten Jewish
sites in their countries, when we,
diaspora Jews as well as Israeli Jews,
summarily dismiss identical Muslim
concerns?
I have recently been asked to express by position regarding the construction of
the Tolerance Museum on the site of the Muslim cemetery known as the Mamilla
Cemetery. After due consideration, I feel compelled to do so, while clarifying
the basic, relevant facts.
1.Mamilla Cemetery At the outset, it is
necessary to understand that the area of the Mamilla Cemetery was clearly
defined and delineated only in the mid-19th Century. Until that time,
the city of Jerusalem was limited to those areas within the walled Old City. The
Old City had four gates, which were opened each morning and closed at sunset.
Anyone arriving at the city's gates after dark was denied entry. Outside the
walls were a number of cemeteries – Jewish, Christian and Muslim. One of these
historic Muslim cemeteries was the Mamilla Cemetery, which dates from the
Middle Ages (although there are a number burial caves on the site which
predate this).
In the 1840's, construction of residences – initially isolated houses, later
residential compounds and neighborhoods - began to be built outside of the Old
City's walls. With this construction and the accelerated development outside of
the walls of the Old City, it became necessary to delineate the boundaries of
the Mamilla Cemetery with a clearly defined border, lest foreign construction be
carried out within the cemetery. It appears that during the 1860's, the cemetery
was demarked by means of a wall and a dirt road which surrounded
it. These are clearly visible in the maps dating from the 1860's, and in the
first aerial photographs taken in the waning years of the Ottoman rule. During
the last 60years of the Ottoman rule, during the thirty years
of the British Mandate, and during the first twenty years of Israeli
rule, these boundaries remained intact and were not violated.
When the construction of the Jewish neighborhood of Nahlat Shiva began in
1869, it became evident to the Jewish builders that the neighborhood reaches the
northern boundary of the cemetery. They were very careful not to encroach on the
cemetery, and stopped construction on its boundary. The builders of the Jewish
neighborhood of Mahane Yisrael, the construction of which commenced in
1867, also took care to limit the construction to the south of the Mamilla Road
(currently Agron St.), which was the southern border of the cemetery.
2.Palace Hotel. One of the common mistakes
made by those interested in Jerusalem's recent history relates to the claim that
the well known Arab-owned Palace Hotel was built on the Mamilla cemetery. This
is not correct. The primary source on which this mistake is based is a book
written by the Jewish engineer and contractor, Baruch Katinka, who built the
hotel. But his memoirs prove precisely the opposite. Firstly, he cites that in
anticipation of the construction, the Higher Islamic Council for Waq'f
[Endowment] Properties published a tender in the local press, referring to the
construction of a large hotel to be built on Waq'f lands adjacent to
the Mamilla Cemetery (p. 257). He continues by stating that the site of the
hotel is immediately opposite the ancient Muslim cemetery (p.
258). He then tells that when construction began, they were surprised to uncover
some ancient tombs, and immediately told the Mufti about that. If the hotel was
indeed built on the site of the cemetery, why should they have been surprised?
The fact that a tender for the construction of the hotel was published in the
local press, along with the details of the site – something that would be
unimaginable were the site to be within the confines of the historic Mamilla
Cemetery.
The claims made by Israelis who rely on accusations made by the Mufti's enemies
and detractors, whereby he built on the grounds of the cemetery should be
treated with a good deal of suspicion. The use certain Israeli experts make of
these highly biased accusations, while ignoring a wealth of direct, primary
sources dating from the period in question, is a gross, scientific error that
needs be exposed and corrected.
But the real question is not how the Mufti acted, but rather an
internal, Jewish Israeliquestion: how we – an enlightened,
Jewish, Zionist Israeli society - will treat a Muslim cemetery of historic
importance under the full sovereignty of the State of Israel, and not what the
Mufti did, knew or thought.
Regardless, what is clear is that the hotel was built to the south of Mamilla
Road (currently Agron St.), the road which was known and recognized as the
southern border of the cemetery. Additional buildings were built immediately to
the south of this road, such as building built by Wester (currently the United
States Consulate), the first leper hospital built outside the Old City walls,
and others. All of these were built to the south of the road, while to the north
of the road not one structure has been built until this very day.
In light of all this, I have no doubt, nor can there be any legitimate
dispute over the fact that at the time of its construction, those
engaged in building the Palace Hotel did not consider themselves to be building
on part of the Mamilla Cemetery, but, rather, outside of its boundaries.
I would not have been so expansive on this subject were it not the use (or
abuse) of the claims regarding the construction of the Palace Hotel by those who
seek to justify the construction of the Tolerance Museum on the site of the
Mamilla Cemetery.
3.British Mandate Maps. As of the beginning
of the British Mandate, we have highly detailed maps (1:2000) which give us an
accurate portrayal of Jerusalem's built up areas as they were in the waning days
of the Ottoman Empire. These maps are both highly detailed and highly accurate.
The British surveyors and engineers were, as always, fastidious in their work.
The designated each and every building, their contours, the approach roads, the
trees and many other details. And on these maps it is entirely clear that all of
the Ottoman buildings – and there were tens of these – built near the cemetery
since the 1870's, did not dare encroach upon the cemetery's boundary, nor
penetrate it in any way. They are in array around the cemetery borders,
reach its boundary, and abruptly stop, never going beyond the walls and the
roads that delineate it. This remained the situation throughout the British
Mandate and in the first decades after the establishment of the state of Israel.
This is abundantly substantiated by numerous maps throughout this period.
4.No act to be taken without the consent of the
Moslems. The various stories told about plans for Arab construction on
the cemetery, such as an Arab university and others, are mere curiosities .These
never were translated into real, practical plans, much less implemented. The
only ones who contemplated even a minor infringement on the cemetery were a
number of British planners active during the Mandate. They aspired to improve
the roads bordering on the cemetery and to improve the outward appearance of the
cemetery, particularly at the Mamilla Pool. But they too understood that it was
unthinkable to carry out even modest changes without receiving the explicit
approval of the Islamic bodies responsible for the cemetery.
In the correspondence of these planners dating from the period in question, it
is abundantly clear that the entire question at hand, including the restoration
of the Mamilla Pool, is no mere planning matter, and that even the most modest
change requires the approval of the Supreme Muslim Council. The following
sentence appears in this context: "It is obvious that any scheme for the
cemetery must have the wholehearted support of the Supreme Moslem Council from
the outset, for without this, not a single grave will be moved". The common
denominator of the entire correspondence is a deep concern for and sensitivity
to the feelings of the Muslim residents of Jerusalem, and that no act be taken
regarding the cemetery without their consent. Indeed, it is remarkable that
there is no evidence, written or otherwise, that the Muslim leadership was at
all receptive to the planners ideas, much less gave these tacit or explicit
approval. And indeed, the geographical integrity of the cemetery was
scrupulously maintained throughout the British Mandate, and its boundaries,
without exception, were not violated.
5. One Block, one plot of land Another noteworthy point is
the fact that until 1976, cemetery constituted, for the purposes of land
registry, one, integral and undividedBloc of land, Bloc
No. 30036, Plot No. 1, which was registered in the Jerusalem Land registry on
March 3, 1938 in the name of the Trustee of the Islamic Endowment. This is
further proof of the integrity of the cemetery as delineated by its physical
boundaries. It was only thirty years ago, in October 1976, that the Israeli
authorities cut small parcels of land at the very edge of the northern part of
the cemetery, within the boundaries of this one Bloc.
5.After the establishment of the State of Israel.
In Israel's first years, great efforts were made to protect the area of the
cemetery from any harm. A short time after the establishment of the State, the
Jordanian government filed an official protest concerning "…the desecration of
the Muslim cemetery in Mamilla…" which, they asserted, was in violation of
Israel's declared intention "… to respect the holy sites". The response of
Israel's Ministry of Religions, made by Mr. Yaacov Yehoshua, father of author
A.B. Yehoshua, was that Israel is well aware of the historic importance of the
Mamilla cemetery for the Muslim community: "The Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem is
considered to be one of the most prominent Muslim cemeteries, where seventy
thousand Muslim warriors from Salah a-Din al-Ayubi's armies are interred, along
with many Muslim scholars. Israel will always know to protect and respect this
site".
In 1958 as well, during the celebrations for Israel's tenth anniversary, a
bandstand was erected within the cemetery, generating strong opposition from
Israel's Muslim community. The secretary of the Advisory Council for Muslim
Affairs for the Northern District and Haifa approached Jerusalem's mayor,
insisting that no such events take place within the cemetery, and he immediately
agreed to their request. The bandstand was removed from the park and transferred
to the municipal park on King George St.
7. Comparison between past and
present during the years of the State ofIsrael. Nonetheless,
commencing with the beginning of the 1960's, Israel apparently began
"encroaching" on the Mamilla cemetery. Initially, a road was paved connecting
Hillel St. and Ben Sira St. at the northern tip of the site. Thereafter, the
plot created to the north of this road was re-zoned, which, in 1976, led to the
necessity of thee re-parcelization scheme of the entire bloc, mentioned above. A
number of buildings were erected on this northern tip of the site, and the
parking lot was established, with only the northern part of the parking lot
involving groundbreaking and construction, with the southern part of the lot
only being paved over, with no underground construction.
It is possible to assert that these actions should not have taken place, even on
the edge of the cemetery. But during this period, there were increasing
pressures to develop (apparently) "empty" sites for public use, particularly in
the growing city center. Under the circumstances, the inter-religious tensions
in Jerusalem were much lower than those of today. The encroachment on the
cemetery was primarily on its perimeter, while the planned construction of the
Tolerance Museum cuts deep into the cemetery, exposing both tombs and human
remains.
One may ask if construction that took place in a different historical context
and for entirely different objectives can today justify the erection of the
Tolerance Museum in the cemetery, or whether the distinctions are so large
that the purported precedent in specious. To me, the distinctions appear
to be doubly significant.
Firstly, the previous construction derived from pressures developing
within the city center, and, to a large extent, sought to alleviate existing
pressures, while the construction of the Tolerance Museum today has no such
purpose. For example, the paving of the road connecting Hillel and Ben Sira
Streets, as well as the subsequent road built connecting Agron St. And Hillel
St. derived from critical transportation needs of the public at large.
Even the parking lots and the few buildings constructed on the edge of the site
may be viewed as an attempt to address the acute needs of the residents
of Jerusalem. One can hardly justify the establishment of a museum, which is a
foreign body implanted within a cemetery and detached from its
urban context at this particular site in similar terms.
The second distinction relates to the fact that the Tolerance Museum is
quite different in its character from roads, parking areas and routine
structures. Designed by a world renowned architect, it will be a unique
structure, similar to the Bilbao Museum, attracting people from all over the
world. As such, it will dominate its surrounding. Is it necessary – or wise –
to build such an imperious building particularly on the site of an historic
Muslim cemetery, in the heart of such an historically rich, multi-religious
city?
8. The Danger of a Precedent. In addition, the question of
precedent needs be addressed. If the Tolerance Museum indeed will be
built, why shouldn't other bodies be permitted to build additional buildings on
the site? If the claim that there is no problem in evacuating tombs and Muslim
cemeteries, why not do so? The claims made by the advocates of the Museum,
whereby no harm will befall the cemetery and that "…cemetery, with its
memories and legacy, will not be moved, no one intends to move it, and the
construction of the Museum will not harm it at all", cannot withstand
scrutiny.
On what basis can the Museum's developers make such promises? Is it not
possible, perhaps likely, the construction of the Museum will serve as a
precedent, permitting and encouraging further incursions into the cemetery.
If it is indeed legitimate to evacuate cemeteries, be they Muslim or Jewish,
why not allow the construction of additional cultural enterprises "on the
perimeter"? Why not "condense" the cemetery to the area immediately surrounding
the Mamilla Pool. Why not entirely remove the cemetery, making the most coveted
piece of real estate in the center of Jerusalem available for development. The
high-rises that could be built would re-vitalize the city center and enrich the
public coffers. The area could be designated for public uses, perhaps for the
benefit of the disadvantaged of Jerusalem, perhaps even its Arab residents.
Perhaps a world renowned architect could plan a monumental plaza on the site,
with sculptures created by the finest sculptors – all commemorating the Muslim
dignitaries who were once buried there. The list is endless – and the blatant
absurdity is clear.
9 A
Tolerance Museum in the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives There is
another glaring mistake inherent in the decision to build the Tolerance Museum
on the grounds of an historic, Muslim Cemetery. It is essential to clearly
distinguish between ancient tombs uncovered in various places, which by their
discovery reveal the existence of an ancient burial site or cemetery, and
historically important cemeteries which are clearly defined and delineated, and
whose existence is etched in collective and personal memory, past and
present.
The failure to make such s distinction is both mistaken and dangerous. For
example, it could well justify the evacuation of some, if not all, of the Jewish
cemetery on the Mount of Olives. According to Jewish Law ("halacha"), it is
perhaps possible to find ways to do so – but is such a possibility even
thinkable? How would Jewish society, religious and non-religious, in Israel and
throughout the world, react to such a prospect?
The Jordanians, when ruling over East Jerusalem, could have explored the ways
to remove the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and build an impressive
museum on the site, designed by a famous architect and dedicated to Arab
tolerance that cultivates Jewish-Arab coexistence, built on pillars so as to
abide by their interpretation of the strictures of Jewish Law.
Irreversible new reality and a just solution. I fully
understand the large difficulties entailed in a re-evaluation of the
decision to build the museum on this site, particularly after all of the
formal approvals have been granted. But there is no choice but to
courageously confront the issues at hand. We must bear in mind that the
construction on the museum will create an irreversible new
reality. Even if this does not immediately lead to disturbances and
protests, the damage to Israel will live on. We will be ever vulnerable
to accusations as to how we act in our own, sovereign territory, and how we
treat important historic cemeteries and religious sited sacred to others.
The political and moral stain on Israel and its image will not be short
lived.
It appears to me imperative that the public approach the Museum's
sponsors, requesting that they themselves initiate the abandonment of the scheme
to build the Museum within the Mamilla Cemetery, and to locate an alternate
site in Jerusalem, a site that will allow the Museum to pay reverence to the
unique city in which it will dwell, and to the message of tolerance it seeks to
bring to the city and its residents.
