When a parking lot is claimed to be a cemetery
I feel sorry for Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. What he doesn't tell you in
this op-ed in the Los Angeles Times (probably out of fear that it would not sound particularly 'tolerant') is how he and the Center were 'jerked around' (for lack of a better term) for three years by an Israeli Supreme Court that was afraid to decide a political hot potato whose only possible fair resolution would cause the Muslims to seethe.
They don't want you to know the real facts. The museum is not being built on what can rightfully be called the Mamilla Cemetery, but on a three-acre site in the heart of West Jerusalem that, for more than half a century, served as the city's municipal car park. Each day, hundreds of people of all faiths parked in the three-level underground structure without any protest from Muslim religious or academic leaders or interest groups. Additionally, telephone and electrical cables and sewer lines were laid deep below ground in the early 1960s, again without any protest.
As the Supreme Court noted in its ruling, "for almost 50 years the compound has not been a part of the cemetery, both in the normative sense and in the practical sense, and it was used for various public purposes." It also noted: "During all those years no one raised any claim, on even one occasion, that the planning procedures violated the sanctity of the site, or that they were contrary to the law as a result of the historical and religious uniqueness of the site. . . . For decades this area was not regarded as a cemetery by the general public or by the Muslim community. . . . No one denied this position."
In fact, the entire area of the Mamilla Cemetery had long been regarded by Muslim religious leaders as mundras -- abandoned. A cemetery not in use for 37 years is considered mundras and without sanctity. That explains why in 1946 the most prominent Islamic religious figure of the day, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, presented plans to build a Muslim university on a large portion of the Mamilla Cemetery itself (a rendering of which we presented to the court). Today, the concept of mundras is widely accepted and practiced in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories and throughout the Arab world.
Though Judaism does not have a mundras concept, the Supreme Court noted in its decision that "despite the Jewish religious law prohibitions . . . to prevent the removal of graves or building on top of them, in practice, in cases where public needs required this, an agreed Jewish law solution has usually been found, and this allowed the building to be carried out in a way that minimized . . . the violation of the graves. . . . Jewish religious law also allows, as we have said, the removal of graves in a dignified manner. Balanced solutions of this kind were also proposed by the respondents [Simon Wiesenthal Center], and they even agreed to pay all the expenses involved in them."
Recent critics such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Americans for Peace Now and the Center for Constitutional Rights argue that the Museum of Tolerance should abide by a higher standard than the letter of the law. We do, as the above quote from the court confirms. When we first heard of protests against our plan, in January 2006, our lawyers attempted to meet with Salah but were rebuffed. Once a legal case was filed, the Supreme Court's mediator tried, but fared no better. We offered solutions to build without disturbing the bones -- also rejected. We offered to restore the neglected and virtually abandoned nearby Mamilla Cemetery -- not interested.
The court sent the case to arbitration time and time again. But you can only arbitrate when both sides are seeking a compromise - here, one side was willing to do
anything to find a compromise (the Wiesenthal Center offered 'compromises' that made major changes in the museum and would have cost them a fortune), while the other side was not willing to budge at all, and sought only to kill the project (sounds like the 'peace process,' doesn't it?). When it was clear even to the court that the arbitration was going nowhere, the Wiesenthal Center had to beg the court to make a decision. And when the court finally decided, Sheikh Sallah's group (which is functionally a terror organization) pretended that the court had not decided and tried to force the Wiesenthal Center to start over again.
In the event, time and the economy severely constricted the project. Donors disappeared while the case dragged through the courts. The world-renowned architect - Frank Gehry - left the project. The economy went to pot. And the Wiesenthal Center was forced to
downscale the project into a nice museum, but nowhere near the magnificent centerpiece for the rehabilitation of downtown Jerusalem that was originally planned. And all because a terror organization sought to stop a project that would benefit Jerusalemites and attract tourists to our city.
I hope they at least get to open the downscaled museum on the original site. It's a pity that they have spent so much money on lawyers' fees. A less financially capable or less committed party would have given up long ago.
Israel Matzav: When a parking lot is claimed to be a cemetery
Well of course, the US should not be giving UNRWA $40 million. But it's important to know why not. 
Posts
