by Raphael Israeli
There something unseemly in comparing religious attitudes between two political entities which are not equal. Israel is a state and democracy, with a code of laws protecting religions and religious freedom, with a strong and independent judiciary which can enforce its verdict in the respect of law; while the Palestinians are still struggling for a state, are divided between Hamas and the PLO in two separate entities: The West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They are fighting each other violently, have no respect for each other’s laws, and both have a poor record of law-abiding, both internally and externally. Depending on which of them will eventually emerge as the sovereign, we can expect a vast difference in the attitudes towards religion and religious freedoms, and certainly in their respective conduct towards others’ religious believes and practices.
These matters are not totally novel and they preceded the Palestinian national awakening which was championed and brought to its climax by Chairman Yasser Arafat in the 1960s until his death in the 2000s. In fact, when the 1948 War raged, one of its focal points was Jerusalem, which was already then celebrated for its holy places, that were sure to be contended by the parties. For King Abdallah I of Jordan , it was a question of prestige to rule the Muslim holy places of Jerusalem, after his father had been expelled by the Saudi House from the HIjaz where the foremost Islamic shrines are located. For the Jews, TheTemple Mount, the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and other sites, could not just be renounced in accordance with the cease-fire lines which left most of them in Jordanian-controlled territory.
Therefore, in the Armistice Agreement signed in Rhodes, in April 1949, between Israel and Jordan at the end of that war, a special clause (Article VIII) was introduced, which gave the right in principle to Israel to access its holy and humanitarian institutions left in East Jerusalem (like Hebrew University and the Hadassah Hospital), but the practical arrangements were left to the Armistice Commission to work out. After long debates in the Commission, in which this author took part, the Jordanians came to the conclusion that apart from the bi-weekly convoys to Mt-Scopus, to ensure the maintenance of Israeli institutions there, no access for Israel could be worked out, nor could those institutions continue to operate, even though they were open to Arab users too. The Jordanians simply refused to implement that clause, the UN and the Powers were impotent to redress the situation, and Israel which was too exhausted from war, was not inclined to launched a new war to enforce the agreement.
In one stroke the situation was reversed in 1967, when as a result of a Jordanian attack along its entire border with Israel, in the hope of conquering the rest of Jerusalem, when assured by Nasser that he was winning the War, Israel counter-attacked, and within days broke the siege of the Jewish holy places, cancelled the armistice regime which was not applied anyway, and rebuilt its institutions in east Jerusalem which were reopened for use. Nevertheless, out of a foolish and naïve believe in fair sharing of the holy places which were sanctified by both religions, it left the Temple Mount to the control of the Muslim Waqf, while Jews were permitted to access to the Wailing Wall and its plaza. Israel also passed a law which guaranteed free access to all religions in Jerusalem to their holy places and guaranteed the freedom of worship therein.
But reality began to knock at the doors and undo the good intentions. The Palestinians, to this very day, continue to deny any historical link and religious attitude between the Jews and Temple Mount, where there twice destroyed Temple had stood millennia ago. They still claim exclusivity to the site and recognize no right to the Jews to access there. They have even been destroying Jewish relics on the site, to preempt any archaeological findings which might prove Israel’s claims. Had Israel instituted there, like in Hebron, a sharing in time and space of the use of those shrines, things may have been settled and the parties made to yield to the new realities. But since Israel yielded unilaterally, the Arabs saw that as a confirmation of their exclusivist approach, and continued to claim their sole right to the place. And so it ended up that the Israelis, who tried to be fair and civilized by advocating sharing, were excluded, and the Arabs who claimed exclusivity and refused to recognize the rights of others, are affirming their hold on the place, as if they were right by possession.
Other Palestinian practices are not any more encouraging. In the Oslo Accords, Israel consented to withdraw from some territories and submit them to PLO rules. The Jewish holy places relinquished on that occasion, were supposed to be freely accessed by the Israelis and protected by the Palestinian Authority with weapons handed to them by the, once again foolish, and naïve Israelis. The lessons of VIII were not learned. Indeed, when the Intifada broke out, in 1987 and then again in 2000, the Jewish sites under Palestinian rule were the first to be sacked and burned : Rachel’s Tomb on the road to Bethlehem, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, and the Jewish synagogue in Jericho. And the weapons given to the Palestinian police were turned against Israel and caused it casualties. No equivalent ravage were carried out anywhere against Palestinian sights, which continued to be guarded by Israeli police. Only Israeli worshippers were banned from Temple Mount where there was a fear of tensions, never Muslim worshippers. Certainly, certain groups of Muslims were also banned on those occasions, and that is in itself a violation of the freedom of worship, but when a severe breakdown of public order was threatened, with the attending loss of lives, limitations (not ban) of certain trouble makers on the Muslim side were thought preferable to a total closure of the place. For the Israeli side, total ban was more often adopted, because it was more easily enforceable and supervised by the Israeli court system.
So, after those two dismal failures of counting on signed agreements, the specter of that unfortunate Article VIII is still hovering over our heads. In any future agreement with the Palestinians, they cannot be entrusted to ensure any freedom of religion, neither in principle (due to their denial of others’ rights), nor certainly in practice, after the ravages of the Intifada’s against Jewish holy sites. It is to be hoped that next time around, Jewish holy places are left to exclusive Israeli supervision. Under Israel, freedom of worship (with some limitations for public order) is much more likely to be preserved than under any Palestinians, even if it is the “moderate” PLO, and much more so under a Hamas regime, which evinces intolerance towards its own people.
Raphael Israeli teaches Middle East at Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment