Nir Hasson What UNESCO Really Said about Jews, Judaism and Jerusalem
Here's a great explainer
**--**
haaretz.com|Di Nir Hasson
Israeli politicians rushed to condemn the resolution adopted by the UN's education, science and culture agency on Thursday with regard to the Temple Mount. The bulk of the criticism
touched on the motion's terminology and was largely justified. But a
close reading of the resolution shows that in fact, it includes a few
positive revisions from the last such resolution passed by UNESCO. More
importantly, it calls on Israel to enter negotiations with Jordan and
the Palestinians to improve the situation on Temple Mount for everyone
involved.
Contrary
to Israeli claims, the document isn't a declaration as to the rightful
owner of Temple Mount and its surroundings, or as to which religion has
sacred claim to the site and its wall. The resolution is about
determining how to maintain and nurture a world heritage site recognized
by UNESCO. The agency has set rules for the preservation of Jerusalem's
Old City, and these rules are being violated, according to the writers
of the document.
Israel
is recognized by international law as an occupier, so the document's
repeated reference to Israel as such shouldn't raise eyebrows. However,
the terminology does have a clear slant toward the Islamic narrative.
For example, the term Western Wall appears in quotes throughout the
document, while the Arabic term for the site, Al-Burak, does not. The
document refers to the Temple Mount by its Arabic names, Haram Al-Sharif
and Al-Aqsa, while making no mention of its Jewish names.
But
the first achievement for Israel comes early in the document. In
section 3, UNESCO's executive board affirms "the importance of the Old
City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions."
The implication is that Judaism is one of the three religions that
consider Jerusalem's Old City holy. This assertion does not exist in the
previous version of the resolution that UNESCO approved in April.
A
comparison of the two versions shows that one section is missing from
the new text – section 14, which accuses Israel of damaging the assets
of the Muslim religious trust, the Waqf, outside Temple Mount. The
section that was eliminated alleged that Israel has planted fake Jewish
graves inside a Muslim cemetery and harmed remains from the Umayyad and
Byzantine periods in favor of Jewish prayer sites and ritual baths.
Two
additional sections have undergone changes. A condemnation of attacks
on members of the Waqf was added to section 8, in light of recent
clashes between police and the organization on Temple Mount and around
it. And section 10 now condemns the entrance of Israel Antiques
Authority officials to structures on the mount.
Section
16 condemns Israeli projects that alter the mount's surroundings,
including Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat's plan to build a cable car system
in the East Jerusalem area of Silwan and the Mount of the Olives, a plan
to build a large visitor center in Silwan, the construction of a major
office building in the Western Wall plaza and the installation of an
elevator between the wall and the Jewish quarter.
But
the most important part is section 7, which appeared in the previous
version and calls on Israel to restore the "historic Status Quo" that
existed on the Temple Mount until September 2000. That month,
then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon ascended to Temple Mount and the
second intifada broke out, prompting Israel to halt non-Muslim visits to
the site for three years. The visits were renewed in 2003 unilaterally,
without the Waqf's consent and without allowing visitors to enter
mosques. Jordan has been pressing Israel for some time now to restore
the status quo, under which non-Muslims would be allowed to enter the
Mount from three gates, instead of just one, and would be allowed to buy
tickets to enter the local mosques. Many Israeli figures are in favor
of the move. The belief is that mosque ticket sales would give the Waqf
financial incentive to maintain order on the Mount.
Israel
can also console itself with the fact that the European members of
UNESCO did not vote in favor of the resolution. These states made
efforts behind the scenes to moderate the motion, which was written by
Jordan and supported by Arab states. The aforementioned section 14, for
example, was eliminated in part due to pressure from France.
The
U.S., it stands to be noted, stopped playing a role in UNESCO after
Congress decided, under pressure from the Israel lobby, to stop funding
any UN agency that will accept Palestine as a member. It is likely that
if the U.S. retained its power in the agency, Israel could have gotten a
better resolution.
Ultimately,
the UNESCO motion isn't unusual in the face of the international
dialogue on Jerusalem and the holy sites. Even if most Israelis and the
government refuse to accept it, Jerusalem's Old City and its holy sites,
just like Hebron and Nablus, are considered to be occupied territory by
international law, all international organizations and each member of
the UN.
Within
this framework, recognizing Jewish links to holy sites in Jerusalem has
become a pawn in the Palestinian struggle. So if the Israeli government
finds it so important that the world recognize this link, it must sit
down and talk to the Palestinians – the exact thing it is avoiding.
Israel's continued disregard of this reality is the true backdrop to
Israeli politicians' desperate cries.
Commenti
Posta un commento