Intolerable tolerance
Source: Haaretz, 23-12-2008
By Shimon Shamir
As everyone knows, 'Jerusalem' (al-Quds) is a city of seers and visionaries. The archives are full of plans for palaces and grandiose towers that savers of the world have dreamed of building in 'Jerusalem' to spread peace and brotherhood. However, in contrast to those plans, which remain buried in the archives, one plan arrived not long ago that is supposed to take on flesh and sinew. A splendid Museum of Tolerance, initiated by beneficent Jews from Los Angeles, is set to go up in the heart of the city.
This is a hallucinatory plan about to be realized in a place that no one disputes is part of the historic cemetery in Mamilla - an 800-year-old site whose boundaries are clearly indicated on maps. The tabernacle of tolerance is supposed to be built in total defiance of pleas by families whose ancestors are buried in Mamilla, the anger of this country's Muslim community and the mood of many of Jerusalem's Jewish inhabitants who are infuriated by the absurdity. This is tolerance that cannot be tolerated.
The High Court of Justice has authorized the museum's construction, and apparently in accordance with its judicial methods, its view is correct: The objections were submitted late, the initiators have permits from all the authorities, and philanthropists from the United States have already invested money in the project. It is clear that the Supreme Court is very skilled at dealing with these kinds of legal issues, but it emerges that it is not designed to deal with inanity.
The High Court of Justice is right because there are precedents for building on the lands of Muslim cemeteries. People with interests have always found justification and methods for doing this. However, there is no precedent for imposing an institution that aims at tolerance in accordance with nothing else than the interpretation by Jews of Muslim law.
The High Court of Justice did a marvelous job in its scrupulous research on the bones of how many deceased Muslims were found and from exactly where they were exhumed. But on the public plane the question is entirely different: How can an institution dedicated to tolerance advance understanding among the religions from a building in a Muslim cemetery where the official Sharia Court's president has ruled there should be no building?
The High Court of Justice ruling sets forth the exalted vision of the Tolerance Museum: "From it will emerge a message of human tolerance among nations, among different segments of the population and among individuals. [The museum] is slated to serve as an important focus for reference in "Israel" and toward the nations of the world. It is set to attract visitors from all over the country, who will partake of an experience of the idea."
How lovely is the aspiration to be a light unto the nations. However, what will the museum people say when visitors ask them why of all places in 'Jerusalem' did they establish their tabernacle on the land of a Muslim cemetery and nowhere else? What will their explanation be when visitors wonder why the museum embarked on its brotherhood project in a clash with the Muslims?
With regard to concerns that this institution is liable to fan harsh protests, the High Court of Justice says, rightly, that we must not cave in to violence. But from the public perspective the problem is different: An institution for tolerance that chooses a location so that it will become a permanent source of friction, even nonviolent friction, is grotesque. If this institution is established, it will be a civic, Jewish and moral disgrace. Presumably, Muslims who have self-respect and respect for their heritage will not participate in its activities and Jews of integrity and common sense will never set foot in it.
By Shimon Shamir
As everyone knows, 'Jerusalem' (al-Quds) is a city of seers and visionaries. The archives are full of plans for palaces and grandiose towers that savers of the world have dreamed of building in 'Jerusalem' to spread peace and brotherhood. However, in contrast to those plans, which remain buried in the archives, one plan arrived not long ago that is supposed to take on flesh and sinew. A splendid Museum of Tolerance, initiated by beneficent Jews from Los Angeles, is set to go up in the heart of the city.
This is a hallucinatory plan about to be realized in a place that no one disputes is part of the historic cemetery in Mamilla - an 800-year-old site whose boundaries are clearly indicated on maps. The tabernacle of tolerance is supposed to be built in total defiance of pleas by families whose ancestors are buried in Mamilla, the anger of this country's Muslim community and the mood of many of Jerusalem's Jewish inhabitants who are infuriated by the absurdity. This is tolerance that cannot be tolerated.
The High Court of Justice has authorized the museum's construction, and apparently in accordance with its judicial methods, its view is correct: The objections were submitted late, the initiators have permits from all the authorities, and philanthropists from the United States have already invested money in the project. It is clear that the Supreme Court is very skilled at dealing with these kinds of legal issues, but it emerges that it is not designed to deal with inanity.
The High Court of Justice is right because there are precedents for building on the lands of Muslim cemeteries. People with interests have always found justification and methods for doing this. However, there is no precedent for imposing an institution that aims at tolerance in accordance with nothing else than the interpretation by Jews of Muslim law.
The High Court of Justice did a marvelous job in its scrupulous research on the bones of how many deceased Muslims were found and from exactly where they were exhumed. But on the public plane the question is entirely different: How can an institution dedicated to tolerance advance understanding among the religions from a building in a Muslim cemetery where the official Sharia Court's president has ruled there should be no building?
The High Court of Justice ruling sets forth the exalted vision of the Tolerance Museum: "From it will emerge a message of human tolerance among nations, among different segments of the population and among individuals. [The museum] is slated to serve as an important focus for reference in "Israel" and toward the nations of the world. It is set to attract visitors from all over the country, who will partake of an experience of the idea."
How lovely is the aspiration to be a light unto the nations. However, what will the museum people say when visitors ask them why of all places in 'Jerusalem' did they establish their tabernacle on the land of a Muslim cemetery and nowhere else? What will their explanation be when visitors wonder why the museum embarked on its brotherhood project in a clash with the Muslims?
With regard to concerns that this institution is liable to fan harsh protests, the High Court of Justice says, rightly, that we must not cave in to violence. But from the public perspective the problem is different: An institution for tolerance that chooses a location so that it will become a permanent source of friction, even nonviolent friction, is grotesque. If this institution is established, it will be a civic, Jewish and moral disgrace. Presumably, Muslims who have self-respect and respect for their heritage will not participate in its activities and Jews of integrity and common sense will never set foot in it.
