Haaretz

25 February 2001

The Test of Sharing

By Raphael Israeli

A few weeks ago the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, who
was appointed to his post by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser
Arafat, issued a fatwa (binding religious ruling) declaring the entire
area of the Temple Mount the property of the Waqf (Muslim religious
trust). In other words, it is removed from any diplomatic or political
discussion.A fatwa usually addresses issues that are on the Islamic
agenda, either at the initiative of the mufti or as a reply to a
question by a believer. In this case, perhaps, the ruling was issued
at the request of the Palestinian authorities and its purpose is both
to express and consolidate official Palestinian policy on this
subject, and to mobilize the 1 billion Muslims in the world to show
support for their Palestinian brethren.

In reaction to attempts by Israel to claim for itself at least the
depths of the Temple Mount, in order to preserve its future right to
the remnants of the temple which are supposed to be buried there,
Sheikh Sabri also included the treasures of the site to a depth of
seven stories below and a height of seven stories above in the area of
the Waqf, in order to repulse any possible Israeli claim. This week
Sabri went so far as to assert that the Western Wall too is included
in the area of the Waqf, as it is the western supporting wall of Al
Aqsa Mosque, which is sacred to Muslims in third priority, after Mecca
and Medina. The Palestinians are thus signaling to Israel and to the
international community that Israel has no part or share in any of the
stones of the Western Wall and that any claim it might make in this
regard is totally without foundation and will not be acceptable in any
future negotiations.

The reader may ask how it comes to pass that under Israel's rule, its
status at the site, which is sacred to it as a first priority, is
equal to the place of third importance in Islam. Muslim behavior is
understandable and well-known, but why does Israel have to accept this
state of affairs and signal the world that it is perpetuating the
world's attitude toward the status quo that has been forged there?
Moreover, the Muslims' exclusivist insistence is nourished by Israel's
hesitation about claiming a status for itself and implementing it in
practice - in a kind of Solomonic judgment in which the sole claimant
gets everything and the side that is ready to compromise loses
everything.

The position of Islam on this issue is clear: The religion of the
"third revelation" did not come into being in order to exist alongside
its two predecessors but to supplant and replace them, because it is
the last and hence ostensibly also the most "up-to-date." The
statements of Ekrima Sabri reflect precisely that position.

The only way to validate our claims to the Temple Mount is to
cultivate an awareness of partnership, tolerance and division instead
of the atmosphere of rabid rhetoric, exclusivism and exclusion which
currently prevails. The model should be the arrangements that exist at
the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. There, too, Jews were barred
from entering for hundreds of years, from the time that the Islamic
exclusivism that reigned there turned it into the Ibrahimi Mosque,
which non-believers were forbidden to enter.

In the 1967 war, the Hebronites expected that the Israeli conquest
would reverse the situation by turning the cave into an Israeli site
from which Muslims would be excluded. Israel, though, introduced a new
and progressive cultural norm: Because it was impossible to divide the
site in space, it would be divided in time - meaning, in practice,
that arrangements were made so that the adherents of each religion
could pray at the site on different days. However, whereas official
Israel showed tolerance and sensitivity, the Muslims never accepted
this arrangement, which they found abhorrent, and they construed the
Jews' tolerance as vacillating weakness in their faith and in their
attachment to what they hold sacred.

The weakness of the Jews was even more pronounced on the Temple Mount,
in the Muslims' perception. Not only did they not introduce sharing
and cooperation arrangements, as they did in Hebron, they actually
preserved the discriminatory status quo which enabled the Muslims to
retain their exclusive control over the entire compound, while
reinforcing their position of mastery and ownership at the site. This
approach came as a surprise to the Muslims themselves, and when the
rabbis ruled that Jews must not set foot in the compound, their sense
of exclusivity was further strengthened. After they grew accustomed to
this situation, and more particularly after the establishment of the
Palestinian Authority, the Temple Mount became the symbol of the
Palestinian capital.

All that remains for Israel is to make it plain that it is
unconscionable that those who are tolerant and willing to share (the
Israelis) should be removed from the site entirely, while the zealots
and exclusivists (the Muslims) should take it over fully. Because not
only must we forbid a situation in which the masses of Jews in Israel
and the world will be dispossessed of the site; it is also important
not to reward those who are violent and who show contempt for the
tradition and religion of others. Israel must absolutely insist on,
and also enforce, sharing in practice, even if the Muslims do not like
it. If we forgo our right, no one else will stand up to defend it.

The writer is a lecturer on Islam and the Middle East at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem