Dr. Yitzhak Reiter

Religious Issues and Holy Places in Jerusalem–Towards a Permanent Solution

Preface[15]

I would like to begin my presentation with a general statement: The views expressed here are my personal views, and in no way represent an official Israeli position. Nor can they be said to represent a “Jewish consensus”, for there are a variety of Jewish groups in Israel and the Diaspora with differing approaches to religious affairs and holy places. I assume that other participants in this distinguished forum are aware of this, just as we are aware that there are various streams and outlooks in Christianity and Islam.

Having noted the variety of steams and outlooks among Jews, I would be derelict in my duty if I failed to stress at the outset that which has been, and remains, common to all Jews, at all times and in all places, namely the centrality of Jerusalem to Jewish faith and identity. For the Jewish people Jerusalem is not simply a city containing holy places or commemorating holy events.

The city, as such, is holy and has, for at least two and a half millennia, served as the symbol of the historic existence of a people hunted, humiliated, and massacred, but never despairing of the hope and promise of its ultimate restoration.

Jerusalem and Zion have become “the local habitation and the name“ for the hope and meaning of Jewish existence and of its continuity from the days when, according to the authors of the biblical book, God spoke of a certain place that he would choose, to the days of the return which–however improbable it might seem–was never in doubt for the Jews.

After being a Canaanite settlement and the capital of the Jebusite people, Jerusalem entered Jewish history with King David’s unification of the tribes of Israel and capture of Jerusalem, establishing kingship and temple-based worship 1006 years before Christ. Jerusalem thus became the symbol and the most significant expression of the transition from “peoplehood” to the formation of a “nation“ and “state”. The sacred character of the city was confirmed by bringing of the Ark of the Covenant from Kiriyat Ye’arim to Jerusalem. Since then the holiness of the city for the Jewish people has laid in the presence of the shechina of God at the site where the Ark was placed. The transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple built by King Solomon on Har ha-Moriah ( the site identified by Jewish tradition as the place where Abraham intended to sacrifice his son Isaac) was the reason for God’s promise: “Your dynasty and your sovereignty will stand firm before me and your throne be for your sovereignty will stand firm before me and your throne be for ever secure (Shmuel II, VII 16). At this point Jerusalem and Mount Zion began their assimilation into the religious consciousness of all tribes including Judah. Uner Josiah, a major reform was attempted, which made Jerusalem the place where God had caused his name to dwell and the exclusive centre for pilgrimage feasts.

The centrality of the city to the Jewish people is emphasized by warnings of the prophets that God will withdraw his protection over the city and its people if they prove unfaithful to him, followed by the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BC, resulting in the destruction of Solomon’s Temple and the exile of the Jewish people.

The Jews in the Babylonian exile faced a new problem: how to survive and function religiously despite the loss of Jerusalem as both their national and religious centre. The problem was expressed most eloquently by a psalmist in words, which became, in subsequent centuries, a sort of Jewish pledge of allegiance:

By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and cried, as we remembered Zion. On the willows there in we hung up our harps. For there our captors asked us for songs, and our tormentors (asked us) for mirth: sing for us some of the songs of Zion. But how can we sing the Lord's song on foreign soil? If I forget you Jerusalem, let my right hand wither. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not elevate Jerusalem above my greatest joy.

 (Psalms 137: 1-6).

The significance is clear: the Jews had been removed from the heart of Zion, but Zion was never removed from the Jewish heart. The restoration of Jerusalem came to symbolize both Jewish national survival and fidelity to the Torah, and indeed eventually, the hopes for the messianic era, when the Jews would be restored to Zion and Zion to the Jews.

During the exile two conceptions of Jerusalem developed among the Jewish people: firstly, the longing for the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Jerusalem, and secondly, the vision of Jerusalem fulfilling its religious role in relation to the whole of humanity and the day when all nations will acknowledge ha-Shem, and God will send his messiah-hence the importance of being buried in Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives.

The Second Temple was built in 515 BC after the declaration of Koresh, the King of Persia. It was burnt and destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 A.D.

During the period of the Hasmonean rulers and until the first Jewish revolt against the Romans, Jerusalem was a centre of pilgrimage at three times during the year (shalosh regalim). It was said: “ He who has not seen Sukkot in Jerusalem has not seen life”.

After the second Jewish revolt, the destruction of the Second Temple and the beginning of a long period of exile, the conception of Jerusalem in Jewish understanding had three dimensions:

1-    The reality of historical Jerusalem, whether controlled by Jews or by others;

2-    The reality of the destroyed Jerusalem;

3-    The reality of God’s promise, and continuing commitment to his promises in relation to Jerusalem, summarised in the heavenly Jerusalem, which cannot be destroyed.

The reality of the actual Jerusalem continued in Jewish Law (halachah) even after the destruction. The jurists continued to work on the proper ordering of worship and life in the city. In Jewish tradition (hagadah), Jerusalem was raised above all places on the earth, as the centre of navel of the world from which benefits to all nations flow. The beauty of Jerusalem was said to exceed all other beauties. It was said that of the ten measures of beauty that came down to the world, Jerusalem took nine: here all great events of history took place, from creation, through the binding (‘aqedah) of Isaac and the establishment of the Holy of the Holies, and here that the final day and resurrection of the dead will take place.

The fact that the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was controlled by non-Jews affected Jewish worship and prayers. Prayer was and is performed facing the direction of Jerusalem and special mourning observed on Tisha B’Av, the date of the destruction of both Temples, and the saying “ If I forget you, Jerusalem may my right hand wither” entered into the Psalms. Jews continued to pray for the restoration of Jerusalem on earth: the thrice-daily “Amida prayer has a section devoted to this plea, and the Passover Seder and the Day of Atonement service both end with the words “Next year in Jerusalem“.

A prime indicator of the significance of Jerusalem in Judaism is the proliferation of sources, from the Bible onwards, dealing with the city in one respect or another. The Hebrew bible explicitly refers to Jerusalem by name some 700 times, and to the corollary name “Zion” (which properly indicates the Temple Mount, and later came to indicate Jerusalem as the capital city, and eventually the Holy Land as a whole) some 150 times. But these hundreds of explicit references to Jerusalem and Zion by name are, of course, only the tip of the Biblical iceberg; the implicit references cannot be countred. Post Biblical Jewish literature similarly reflects Jerusalem’s central significance. Rabbinic literature, the Talmud and Midrash, is replete with explicit and implicit references to Jerusalem, as is classical Jewish liturgy.

It is the centrality of Jerusalem in Jewish law and history then, which endows the city with its spiritual significance in Judaism. Because it was the capital of the country whenever it enjoyed independence, Jerusalem came to embody Jewish national and spiritual aspirations.

The Political centralization initiated by David and Solomon was focused on Jerusalem and was, at the same time, a religious centralisation of the worship in the Temple. The words of Isaiah (2:3) and Michah (4:2) therefore have both immediate, contemporary meaning as well as eschatological significance: “ For out of Zion will come the Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

When the Jews imagined the heavenly Jerusalem, it was thus to give direction and meaning to their hopes for the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem. Therefore, when the Jews hoped for the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem, they saw it as the first necessary component of the fulfillment of their universal messianic expectations.

In the spirit of this gathering and our search for peace, my focus in this presentation will not be on stating a clear position or taking a firm stand, but rather on attempting to bring out some of the fundamental issues which I believe we need to examine and discuss with honesty and with open and creative minds. Furthermore, I will not as this time go into the many details concerning specific holy places which need to be examined and treated, as I assume that such details will form the substance of future discussions. Although I believe that there is a great deal that we can learn from a careful review of the current arrangements at a specific holy place, such as al-Haram-al-Sharif or the Temple Mount, I think that it is important to first consider more general issues and principles concerning holy places.

Political and religious aspects of Jerusalem

I begin by noting what is perhaps obvious to anyone familiar with the history, both distant and recent, of the holy places: the political and religious status of holy places are intimately linked. The adherents of a given faith sanctify a certain location, which subsequently acquires political significance to them. The faithful thus endeavour to preserve and develop this centre not only as a destination for pilgrimage but also as a focal point of political interests and concerns, or even of specific national aspirations and identity. Conversely, a political dispute can magnify the importance of a particular holy place for adherents of one faith in the context of their political struggle with members of another faith. In the specific case of Jerusalem, the historic rivalry among the three great monotheistic faiths –Judaism, Christianity and Islam–has served to intensify the political importance of the city. At the same time, the political conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews, which erupted when nationalism penetrated the Middle East, seems to have magnified the religious importance of certain holy sites, thus further cementing the religious importance of certain holy sites, thus further cementing the bonds between the political and religious realms in questions concerning holy places.

The change of regime in East Jerusalem in 1967–from Jordanian Muslim to Israeli Jewish–and the impact of this change on the issue of the holy places illustrates the nature of the conflict between Judaism and Islam, which are similar in many respects. Both faiths relate to all areas of their believers’ lives and daily routine. Neither faith traditionally recognises a separation of religion and state, or of spiritual and political authority. Consequently, for members of both faith, holy places take on a double significance : they are focal points of religious and political identity at one and the same time. The holy places have been mobilized to strengthen the national consciousness of both Zionist Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The nurturing of two foci of identity at the holy places – religious and political – makes the issue of these shrines extremely complex and sensitive. Furthermore each side of the political conflict knows that any change in the status of these places will affect circles much wider than the local community, namely the broader Jewish, Christian and Muslim worlds.

It is true that the majority of Israeli society does not regard itself as “ religious”, at least not in the strict traditional Jewish sense of the term. Israel is basically a secular society. However, although most Israeli Jews would not define themselves as “ religious “ in the strict sense of the term, a large percentage do define themselves as “ traditional”, meaning they continue to observe certain religious precepts or customs which link them to Jewish tradition. Both parental influence and a desire to maintain the link with Jewish history and heritage prompt them to do so. This “ traditionalism” strongly effects the way Israeli relate to holy sites, as was most obvious in the profound reactions of even the most “ secular “ of Israelis when they were once again able to visit the Western Wall following the 1967 War.

It must also be noted that Israel is not a theocratic state, either as regards its legal system or its government. True, the legal system, in principle, takes “Jewish heritage” into consideration. However, in practice with the exception of the prescribed sphere of personal status, the laws of the State are based not on Jewish religious law but rather on civil law grounded in the legal principles and norms which have been adopted by a large segment of the international community. Likewise, the Israeli “religious“ parties play a role–many would argue a disproportionately strong role–in the Israeli Government. All indications are that any government in Israel will, at least for the foreseeable future, depend on religious parties in order to secure a stable parliamentary coalition.

As a result of the above, any Government will have to consider both the traditional sentiments of a wide segment of the Jewish population and the particular perspectives of the religious parties in all negotiations, and especially those concerning Jerusalem and the holy places.

Definition and Categorization of Holy Places

In as much as our discussions focus on the question of holy places, I believe that we first need to clarify what it is that we each have in mind when we speak of “ holy places “. Some basic understanding and definition of a holy place seems to me critical to our discussions, both for the sake of better understanding between us and as a foundation for any examination of the practical issues surrounding holy places. Some might argue that holiness is attached to all of Eretz Yisrael (“The Land of Israel”–the term most often used by Jews) or “The Holy Land”(the term favoured by Christians) or Ard Filastin (the term employed by Palestinians). But it would appear that within this geographic area there are specific places, which are revered by members of one or more faiths as “ more holy” or “ most holy”. Thus it might be helpful to agree upon some common principles for categorising holy places in terms of the degree of holiness. We should, I believe, differentiate places of supreme holiness from other sites of active worship, and especially from places which have an essentially historic or cultural significance. Most careful attention will have to be given to sites, which are of supreme holiness and especially to places which are considered holy by more than one faith. It would be helpful to compile a list of such site.

Freedom of Access and Worship in Holy Places

Together with a basic understanding and definition of a holy place, it would be beneficial if we could also agree on some fundamental principles regarding holy places in general. Two such principles which seem to be essential if a holy place is to fulfill its proper role and function, are freedom of access to a holy place for those who revere it and freedom of worship for all at their respective holy sites or houses of worship.

These two principles have been widely accepted and affirmed by the international community. Without strict adherence to them, we will never be able to convince the members of the two peoples and the adherents of the three faiths represented here today, that there exists in practice true respect for the interests of religious believers and for the holy places which are the foci of their special relationship with God.

As universally acceptable as these two principles might be, we must be fully cognisant of the fact that their implementation is no simple matter, especially in the case of places which are considered holy by more than one faith- such as the al–Haram al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, in Jerusalem and the Cave of the Machpelah, or al-Haram al-Ibrahimi, in Hebron. The same would seem to be true regarding places, which are considered holy by more than one of the different groups within a faith, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Thus, in addition to agreement on the above principles, the parties involved will have to agree on practical arrangements which will appease the apprehensions and satisfy the religious requirements of members of all groups concerned with a particular holy site.

Freedom of access most especially must be assured with regard to a site considered holy to members of one faith which is located in territory that, in one form or another, is under the effective control of individuals or bodies connected with another faith. Thus, for example, Jews will seek free access not only to the Temple Mount (al-Haram al-Sharif) which is administered by the Muslim Endowment Authority, but also to the Cave of the Machpelah (al-Haram al-Ibrahim) in Hebron and other sites of religious significance to Jews in any territory which falls under Palestinian rule. Clearly, Muslims and Christians will have similar expectations regarding their holy sites in territory under Israeli rule.

Administration and Control of Holy Places

Without doubt, a major issue for discussion will be the question of the status and rights of the various faiths regarding the holy places. It is only natural that each religious group wishes to effectively control and administer the sites that are holy to it, regardless of the question of who has political sovereignty over the territory in which they are located. However, granting the need for each group to administer its own holy places, it may be beneficial to reach some consensus and establish certain rules concerning the type of activity appropriate to any holy site. With a view both to preserving the sanctity of such sites and to preventing their misuse, I believe it would be best for all concerned if holy sites would be dedicated solely to worship, religious education and pilgrimage, and not be used for activities of a non-religious nature.

It may also be of benefit to jointly discuss some of the practical details of administration and control. Some practical problems may well be common to any and all holy places. Security and public order are two such problems which apply to any holy place. The question of who can or should best guarantee security and public order is a crucial issue. One of the Israeli fears that needs to be addressed concerns the physical safety of people who wish to visit a holy site that is under Palestinian control. Public order is a pressing issue particularly at sites regarded as holy by more than one group, and may require creative thinking regarding possible division of space, time, or different types of activity, as for example is the practice at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre under the status quo. We know from experience that issues such as maintenance, repair, renovations and especially innovations can be a potential source of friction and need to be discussed.

Other Concerned Parties

Israelis and Palestinians are currently the main political sides in the conflict over the final status of Jerusalem and its holy places. But neither Israelis nor Palestinians can ignore the fact that there are many other parties who have a special link with Jerusalem and its holy places and who therefore have a vital interest in the issues which we have come together to discuss. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the fact that Israel has binding agreements with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Holy See which Israel must respect and which have certain ramifications regarding holy places. Other nations and other religious bodies have in the past, or may in the future, make certain claims or demands that will have to be taken into account. To illustrate the need, on the part of all of us here, for sensitivity to the concerns of other parties, one need only recall the deep fears and anxiety which the negotiations leading to the Fundamental Agreement between Israel and the Holy See aroused among Orthodox Christian churches and nations.

Archaeology and Tourism

In addition to consideration for the special interests of other national or religious bodies, any agreement regarding the holy places will have to make satisfactory provisions for archaeological and scientific work, and most especially for tourism, to the benefit of Palestinians, Israelis and others. Tourists, and certainly pilgrims, have an inalienable right to visit and venerate holy places and we should cooperate in every way possible to facilitate such visits. Needles-to-say, tourism and pilgrimage generate resources that can be used for the maintenance and repair of holy places, as well as contribute significantly to both the Palestinian and Israeli economies. Scientific research, including archaeological studies, are an integral part of our modern world and provisions for such should also be made with regard to holy places. Such scientific or archaeological work, of course, should in no way endanger a holy place or detract from its sanctity. We are all aware that both in the last century and in the more recent past, archaeological excavations in and around holy sites have proven to be a sensitive matter and therefore one which requires special attention. Concerning the recent past, I have in mind the disputes surrounding excavations carried out along the Western Wall and the issue of opening the northern end of the tunnel along the Wall to accommodate pilgrims and tourists who wish to visit there.

Monitoring and Supervision

Any agreement concerning the holy places must include mechanisms for guaranteeing the full implementation of the terms of the agreement. Earlier in this century international and inter-faith rivalry foiled attempts to establish some kind of an objective and effective holy places commission. However, I believe that in an era of peace and cooperation it might be possible to establish such a body and I therefore think that the idea is worthy of our consideration. The true test of such a body would be its ability to win the confidence of the diverse interested parties and to effectively mediate or adjudicate in disputes or emergency situations which might arise.

Preventing Friction on a Religious Background

The history of the Holy Land teaches us that religious passions, intolerance and ignorance vis-a-vis members of other faiths have again and again led to strife and bloodshed. In our own century alone, one need only recall the painful examples of bloodshed and death which were the outcome of the riots of 1929, the incident in October, 1990 at the al-Haram al-Sharif and Western Wall, and the massacre in the Cave of the Machpelah or al-Haram al–Ibrahimi last year. We all know that the passions, intolerance and ignorance behind these tragedies still exist to one degree or another and we would be foolish to think that political agreements and arrangements will be sufficient to prevent friction in the future. A serious and concerted educational effort will be no less, if not more, important. Both Israelis and Palestinians have to carefully review their educational curricula and mass communications programs with a view to combating ignorance and intolerance and to creating a new atmosphere of peace and cooperation informed by knowledge and understanding of other faiths and inspired by the lofty human values common to all three faiths.

An example of the type of education which I believe is necessary are the religious affairs programs produced by Nur as-Din Dirini (Abu Jarir) and broadcast in Arabic by the Voice of Israel and Israel Television. At Christmas and during Ramadan, these broadcasts emphasize the universal human values common to the holy scriptures of the three monotheistic faiths: the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the Qur’an.

Thus, in addition to examining the possibility of a commission to oversee and monitor agreements and arrangements concerning the holy places, we should perhaps also consider the creation of a special interfaith committee to monitor educational materials and programs.

Permit me in conclusion to stress with full sincerity that I and my Israeli colleagues have come here to listen and try to understand and not simply to “score points” or present demands. It is my hope that we will all be able to conduct our discussions with this attitude and approach foremost in our minds.