News - Isreal - Incompatible Claims - CWR Staff - Catholic World Report

Israel__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Incompatible Claims
The dispute over construction of a new mosque in Nazareth illustrates
the volatility of competing religious claims in the Holy Land

During the latter part of 1999, while thousands of Christians began planning pilgrimages to the Holy Land for the Jubilee Year, the government of Israel began to express misgivings about the impact of the Christian celebration on a Jewish state. In a series of statements, security officials announced that they would be constantly on the alert, ready to take decisive action if some extreme Christian sect, fired by millenarian preaching, began to pose a threat to public safety. At least two groups of Christian pilgrims were denied permission to enter the country, on the ground that they posed security threats.

Of course Israeli officials were not the only ones keeping a close eye on religious cults as December 31 approached; security officials all over the world were keenly aware of the influence that the millennium might have on religious zealots. But in the Holy Land, government leaders are especially aware of how easy it is to dredge up ancient religious claims, and stir up old sectarian rivalries.

Would some Christian sect announce the imminent return of Jesus Christ, and attempt to seize political control of the Holy Land in anticipation of his arrival? Would Christian and Jewish fundamentalists join together in an effort to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem—which would entail seizing ground from the Muslims who now worship on the Temple Mount at the Al Ak’sa mosque and the Dome of the Rock? These were not unreasonable questions, nor unfounded concerns.

Oddly enough, however, by the time Christmas arrived, and the pope opened the Jubilee celebration, the most significant conflict spawned by religious extremists had involved a Muslim group, not a Christian one. And rather than rejecting the extremists’ claims, the Israeli government had decided to accommodate them. The consequences of that decision seemed likely to exacerbate religious tensions in the Holy Land during the coming year.

Early in 1999, Christian leaders began to plan for the expected influx of tourists and pilgrims into Nazareth, the town where Jesus was raised. Among their plans was a substantial expansion of the plaza outside the Basilica of the Annunciation.

When they heard of those plans, one small group of Muslim activists protested vigorously. The land on which that plaza would be built, they said, belonged to an Islamic trust. The fact that no Muslim had actually laid claim on the land in recent generations was no obstacle to their argument; in the Holy Land, it is not unusual for groups to claim title to property on the basis of some ancient warrant, which may have been neglected for centuries. (In fact, for years Israeli lawmakers argued that the occupied territories of the West Bank—to which they referred as Judea and Samaria—were an intrinsic part of the Jewish state, on the basis of the mandate found in the Book of Exodus.)

In this case, the Muslim claim was based on the fact that a 12th-century Islamic leader, Shahab el-Din, is buried in a corner of the site proposed for the new plaza. While Shahab el-Din is not a household name to any but the most devoted Muslims, his name conjures up memories of conflicts between Muslims and Christians; he was a nephew of Saladin, the hero of the decisive Islamic victory over the Crusaders at Hattin in 1187. In a belated tribute to Shahab el-Din, the Muslim group announced that his grave should be cherished as holy ground. To dramatize their claim, the Muslim group set up a tent on the disputed land, moved in, and vowed that they would not budge from that spot.

There are several mosques already standing in Nazareth, and tourists at the revered Christian basilica have regularly heard the cry of the muezzin echoing through the narrow streets of the town, calling faithful Muslims to prayer. For generations, Christians and Muslims have lived side by side in Nazareth, for the most part harmoniously. But once the competing claims had been advanced for the plot of land beside the basilica, conflict was inevitable.

In fact, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Islamic militants who advanced their claim on the land were deliberately inviting religious conflict. They would build not only a new mosque, they said, but an enormous structure, with a tall minaret casting its shadow over the Basilica of the Annunciation.

If they were hoping for conflict, the Muslim militants achieved their objective. The Easter celebration of 1999 in Nazareth was marred by riots in which Christians and Muslims clashed, hurling bricks and stones, destroying cars and vandalizing storefronts.
Unsuccessful protests

Through the summer and into the fall, the two rival sides pressed their claims to the plaza in Nazareth. Then finally on October 13, Israeli security minister Shlomo Ben-Ami announced what he said was a “compromise” solution. He upheld the Muslim claim on the disputed land, and gave his approval for the construction of the mosque—with the proviso that it would be a more modest structure than the Islamic leaders had originally planned, and Christians would be able to expand the plaza outside the Annunciation basilica to embrace the land that was not claimed for the mosque.

Christian leaders bitterly protested that decision. This was not a compromise, they insisted; the Israeli government had rejected the Christian claim to the disputed land. (And if the construction permit allowed for only a smaller building, it was not clear that the Islamic builders had adequate financing for their more grandiose plan.) The Vatican —which had lobbied against the decision—announced that the Israeli approval “will not help in the preparation of an eventual pilgrimage by the Holy Father” to Nazareth. The Christian leaders of the Holy Land begged the government to reconsider, and then closed all Christian churches for two days—November 22 and 23—to protest the decision.

“We were obliged to close our churches to make our voice heard,” said Latin-rite Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem. Israel called the Christian protest “regrettable,” and issued assurances that the government was—and would remain—fully committed to protecting the interests of Christians, and ensuring the safety and welfare of Christian pilgrims who might visit during the Jubilee Year. But Patriarch Sabbah told a news conference: “If the Israeli government had been interested in the good of Nazareth and its people, it would have stopped this ordeal. It should have intervened two years ago.”

As construction workers began laying the foundation for the mosque, the Holy See issued another statement of concern over the Israeli government’s decision to approve the building project. In a November 23 statement signed by spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Vatican said that the Israeli decision was likely to increase tensions between Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. “I think the political authorities have, in this specific case, a great responsibility to work for unity,” Navarro-Valls said, lamenting that instead “they are creating bases for division.”

The Holy See expressed satisfaction that the Islamic Superior Council had declared its opposition to the building project, citing the danger to Christian-Muslim relations. By that statement, the Vatican said, the Islamic group “showed their solidarity with the Christian leaders of the Holy Land.”

The Islamic Superior Council was not alone in opposing the Nazareth mosque project. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah had called Yasser Arafat, asking the Palestinian leader to tell the Nazareth militants that he would personally pay the costs of building a mosque on some other site, “in order to enhance Islamic-Christian brotherhood.” The Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that Arafat had readily embraced the idea, but he was unable to sway the group in Nazareth.

Nevertheless, the Israeli government held to its decision—rejecting the advice of the Islamic majority in favor of a claim put forward by a small band of militants.

The cornerstone for the mosque was laid on November 23—the second day on which Christian churches across the Holy Land were closed. Imam Suleiman Abu Ahmed led the religious dedication of the building before a crowd of about 3,000. As the cornerstone was laid, a cloth cover was pulled off, and participants could read the inscription carved into the stone: “With our blood and spirit, we will redeem you, Shahab el-Din!” After the ceremony, the participants spilled out onto the streets of Nazareth, singing and setting off fireworks in celebration.

Christian pleas for Israel to reconsider its decision, and halt the mosque building project, fell on deaf ears. In fact Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy criticized the Vatican for suggesting that the decision would stir up new tensions between Christians and Muslims. Levy said the Vatican’s accusations were both wrongheaded and misleading. “Our efforts were aimed at defusing the dispute and reducing the tension between the faiths, particularly in Nazareth,” he told an Israeli radio audience. “The act [the unveiling of the cornerstone] was done by agreement, and if it was done by agreement, all these unfounded statements are simply the opposite of the truth.”

But if the groundbreaking ceremony had been “done by agreement,” who were the Christian parties to that agreement? Patriarch Sabbah—the most prominent leader of the Christian churches in the Holy Land—certainly had not given his approval for the decision. He spoke of the “days of bitterness” which followed the groundbreaking ceremony, and warned that further religious conflicts were now likely. The patriarch—who is a Palestinian himself—lamented that these conflicts could drive a wedge between the Christian and Muslim elements of the Palestinian community, disrupting efforts to form a cohesive national identity.

In the interview published by the Italian daily Avvenire on November 23, Patriarch Sabbah said that the Christians of Nazareth had been subjected to “provocations and hostile incitement on the part of a group of Muslims engaged in a political battle” in Nazareth. He criticized the Israeli government for failing to curb that aggressive behavior.

The political struggle in Nazareth has steadily escalated, the Patriarch continued, despite the efforts of different mediators—including Muslim leaders from the Palestinian territories. He expressed concern that the resulting tensions could endanger plans for the celebration of the Jubilee in Nazareth, and perhaps for the prospective visit by the Holy Father in March 2000. To overcome those tensions, Patriarch Sabbah suggested the inauguration of a “center for dialogue and mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians” in the region.

Late in November, the Vatican’s Fides news agency reported that the Israeli government approval for the mosque project had come only after a sharp internal debate, and Prime Minister Ehud Barak was now under heavy political pressure to reverse that decision. But in a November 26 briefing for journalists in Rome, the Israeli ambassador to the Vatican gave no evidence that his government might be ready to reconsider its decision to allow the construction of a mosque on land adjacent to the Annunciation Basilica in Nazareth.

Ambassador Aharon Lopez said that the approval of mosque construction was “a compromise designed to restore harmony among the communities” in Nazareth. And he criticized Christians for their “excessive dramatization” of the problem.

The essence of the compromise, the ambassador explained, was the decision to approve only a relatively small mosque, rather than the large edifice the Islamic group had sought to build. Rather than filling the available space, the construction project would allow some room for a plaza to accommodate Christian pilgrims, he observed.

Lopez declined to make any direct response to the November 23 statement in which the Vatican had said that the Israeli decision would “foment divisions” between Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. But he implied that critics were themselves inflaming the situation by condemning the Israeli government.

Ambassador Lopez said that the government’s decision was “not a provocation, either in substance or in spirit.” He explained that approval of the mosque construction was more likely to bring harmony to Nazareth than the use of force, which would have been necessary in order to remove the Muslim squatters from the disputed grounds. And he pointed out that after the decision was announced, the Islamic militants had quietly taken down their tent.

“It is a question of compromise; that is why it is impossible to please everyone,” the Israeli diplomat said. “But we hope that time will prove that this compromise was the best solution to adopt.”

Lopez said that the Israeli government is firmly committed to ensure the security of Christian pilgrims who come to the Holy Land during the Jubilee Year. He added that this determination influenced the government decision, since a compromise was deemed more likely to prevent confrontations in Nazareth. Lopez concluded his briefing by insisting that relations between the Holy See and Israel remained “excellent” in spite of the latest flare- up.

However, Fides received a very different perspective from Father David Jaeger, a Franciscan friar who had recently returned to Rome from Jerusalem. A Jewish convert to Catholicism, Father Jaeger had been in the Holy Land for several months. And from his personal experience—as one of the negotiators involved in the delicate talks that eventually produced full diplomatic relations between Israel and the Holy See —the Franciscan priest had enough perspective to recognize differences in opinion among the members of the Israeli ruling coalition.

“All the top Israeli officials I have spoken to in recent months,” disapprove of the decision to authorize construction of the mosque, Father Jaeger reported. He added that his contacts were officials “charged with relations with the Christian churches by various ministries” within the government, and added that “even high-ranking security force members were all absolutely against the initiative.” The Franciscan priest said that the decision was ultimately made by the security minister, Ben Ami, who is “now isolated by the rest of the cabinet, which looks at the decision with disbelief and horror.”

In the days after the Israeli government announced its controversial decision, a number of ranking police and army officers criticized Ben Ami for being “too hasty.” A few generals have even handed in their resignation. Ehud Barak’s cabinet was now divided, Father Jaeger said, and in fact the split had become a matter of public record. Rabbi Yitzhak Cohen, the government’s religious affairs minister, had emphatically denounced the authorization of the mosque building.

“The decision to allow the building of the mosque,” Father Jaeger said, “is bad judgment on the part of a minister who has no experience of government whatsoever. Ben Ami is in fact only a beginner in this field.”

“But there is hope,” he continued, “because Prime Minister Barak obviously realizes the seriousness of the false step taken. Now he and his government should re-think the situation and take measures to annul the unhappy initiative.”

The government’s decision appeared to be unpopular among Israeli citizens, who see it as a needless concession to Islamic fundamentalists—who are generally regarded as implacable enemies of the Jewish people.

Father Jaeger, for his part, believed that the Israeli government could use the occasion to build better relations with more moderate Muslims. Speaking to FIDES, he offered this advice:

Even if the Israeli government refuses to reconsider its decision, the Nazareth dispute is not yet settled. As Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert pointed out [see sidebar], the local government of Nazareth has not yet given final approval for the building plans. Such approval will not come without another political fight.

And even if this conflict could somehow be resolved, the Israeli decision in the Nazareth case creates a dangerous precedent. If a small group of squatters can seize a plot of land, basing their claim on a tenuous historical connection, will other groups test the will of the Israeli government by laying claims to other religious sites? Could Israeli officials—who have worried so much about the possible acts of extremists—have encouraged a new form of religious crusade?

How many Orthodox Jews, noticing the success of the Muslims in Nazareth, are now considering a plan to lay claim to the Temple Mount? Unlike the grave of a medieval scholar in Nazareth, the Temple in Jerusalem is indisputably a central part of the Jewish religious tradition. Can a Jewish government, having which already accepted the claims of Muslim militants, resist the claims of Orthodox Jews?

Such questions form the background against which Msgr. Robert Stern, the president of the Pontifical Mission for Palestine, has argued that the controversy in Nazareth is “a perfect illustration of the necessity for international guarantees for Jerusalem.”

Msgr. Stern, who was in Rome in December to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Pontifical Mission for Palestine, said that when Israeli authorities approved the construction of the mosque, they “forgot that a conflict between Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land has repercussions for the entire world.” The American priest said that the construction project is adding serious complications to an already tense situation. And he suggested that similar forces could quickly come into play in Jerusalem.

“I fear for the future if this mosque is built,” Msgr. Stern told reporters in Rome. He explained that the problem lies not in the fact that a mosque is being built—since several other mosques are already in place in Nazareth—but in the deliberate choice of a site adjacent to the Basilica of the Annunciation.

Msgr. Stern also warned that the building of a mosque in Nazareth might accelerate the pace of Christian emigration out of the Holy Land, for two reasons. First, the decision in Nazareth—despite all of the government’s disclaimers—seems to indicate the unwillingness of Israeli authorities to protect the claims of Christians within the borders of the Jewish state. Second, the newly aroused tensions between Christians and Muslims—a direct result of the conflict in Nazareth—will make life more difficult for the Christian minority in Palestinian territories.

The Pontifical Mission for Palestine enjoys good relations with Palestinian authorities, as well as with Israeli government officials, Msgr. Stern reported. And he added that much of the humanitarian aid supplied by the Pontifical Mission, and by other Catholic relief agencies, goes to Muslim families, strengthening the bonds between the two faiths. However, he pointed out that the number of Christians in the Holy Land is steadily dropping, as Christian influence within the society steadily wanes. And the struggle to maintain a Christian presence in the land where Jesus lived is set back whenever highly visible signs of Christianity—such as the Annunciation basilica—are treated with disdain.

“The decision should be annulled”

After hearing reports that the Israeli government might reconsider its decision to approve the construction of a mosque in Nazareth, the Fides news service contacted one veteran Israeli political leader, Ehud Olmert, to seek his perspective on the dispute. Olmert is no stranger to competing religious claims; he has been the Mayor of Jerusalem since 1993.

What do you think of the decision of Minister Ben Ami to grant state land for the building of a mosque in front of the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth?

Ehud Olmert: I think the decision is wrong. The state land was assigned to squatters who took possession claiming previous historic rights of ownership—rights which proved to be without foundation and were rejected by the court in Nazareth.

What impact has this decision had on the relationship between the Israeli government and the churches?

Olmert: The relationship between the churches—in this case with the Catholic Church—and the state of Israel is a tapestry woven with delicate and fragile threads; it cannot bear heavy blows. The decision does not contribute to good relations. It is obvious that the churches reject this act, and see it as a humiliation to Christian status in the Holy Land. At the same time, for the churches the relationship is important and must be maintained and improved. Good sense should prevail and every effort made to localize the incident, putting it into perspective to avoid compromising these fragile relations.

Although the squatters have taken the land unlawfully, the churches are not in the habit of disturbing the quiet or breaking the law. The churches are confident that the Jubilee—an occurrence of unprecedented importance for all Christians—will be a peaceful, joyful event.

What should be done at this point?

Olmert: The decision should be annulled. I suggest reclaiming the ownership of the property, and the building of a public square for residents and tourists alike. This is on the government level.

On the municipal level, the local building committee and the district building committee should not approve the construction, and these statutory rights are in their jurisdiction. I am not familiar with the specific details in Nazareth, but it does not appear to me that the plan was approved in a very short period of time. So I find it difficult to see how the municipality of Nazareth could give permission for the laying of the foundation stone—for a building of which the plans have yet to be approved. The only one in charge of these matters is the municipality of Nazareth, not the government of Israel.