THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE “TOLERANCE” MUSEUM IN MAMILLA

 

 

     The Tolerance Museum and the Mamilla Cemetery:

The Plain Facts

                                                   

        

Prof. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh                                                                        

January 2009

 

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 60 years 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 Israeli question: 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 undivided Bloc 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 of Israel. 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.

 

10.  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.