One of the many problems of I/P is figuring out what is supposed to happen to Jerusalem, and in particular the Old City, wherein so many critical sites to three different faiths who do not get on well with one another and never have, are found. One of the critical issues has to do with protecting the sites critical to each of those faiths, and rights and access of those faiths to their own critical sites and spaces. One of the critical sites for Christians of some denominations, is the Cenacle, known in English as the Upper Room, the location at which tradition going back over a millenium has held the Last Supper was held, and other matters recited in the Acts of the Apostles -- a busy site. The site is also part of what is called King David's Tomb or the Tomb of David, or at the very least the remains of a very ancient synagogue.
An Israeli Politician named Danny Ayalon, of whom many have spoken here before, who as Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel has been negotiating with the Vatican on behalf of Israel about a number of sites and activities, has now taken a position which may well complicate the matter at this time, for a number of reasons.
See here and here and here and here.
In a published statement, Ayalon said, "They (the Church) will receive certain waivers on expropriation, but not comprehensive ones. We will insist on our right to expropriate property, for instance, for infrastructure purposes. This will be done while maintaining Israeli law and the State's sovereignty."
However, the Cenacle is not up for discussion by Ayalon. Israel is keeping sovreignty over it.
At a time when the grossest outliines of a peace deal in which Jerusalem for its religious meaning figures enormously, this issue is something which we need pushed to the front burner right now like a hole in the head, but, courtesy of Mr. Ayalon, we are there.
First of all, I am attaching here and here and here and here and here, for the photos articles from various sources concerning the Cenacle, the Tomb of David related to it, and one of the Sisters of the Cenacle, an order of nuns named after it, since it is not at the present time in America one of the very well known sites.
The Cenacle in particular has been identified as an important Christian pilgrimage site since the second century and perhaps before that. Not a newish idea. As with many sites of the age, it has had a hard life, has been destroyed in 1010 and rebuilt at least once, and much of what is now visible is repairs and rebuilds from a later age. But as with all religious sites, it is what it is once it is so identified. One need note that from a time in the Sixteenth Century until 1948, this site was apparently not accessible to Christian pilgrims. It is now a part of the tourist/pilgrim track in two faiths.
This site is one of twenty eight in Jerusalem proper or at least not in WB, which the Vatican and the State of Israel have been talking about for a very long time, including ownership of critical religious sites, and taxation of church businesses. Mr. Ayalon, who began in 2009, has made the State's position on this site different from others, as he includes it as part of the Tomb of David and asserts that no matter what Israel, for whom he negotiates, does with other sites, it will not surrender sovreignty in this one to the Vatican, which has apparently included it as one of the essential sites it needs to own and control.
Three points about this negotiation and these sites arise at this time.
First, in doing this negotiation, Mr. Ayalon is putting himself in position of picking and choosing among many Christian denominations in sites which in many cases are important to all of them, although the notes indicate that at least the Greek Orthodox church thinks the Upper Room was somewhere else. The last thing any politician, particularly one of a different faith, would normally want to do is get into the middle of a denominational battle in someone else's faith. It is also not helpful that he is negotiating with the Vatican in particular, given the number of Christian Orthodox groups of more nearly local character which have been in Jerusalem since the beginning of the faith, long before the Vatican existed,and in which the gulf between Eastern and Western is deep and enduring.
Second, as one of the news articles notes, certain Israeli Jewish religious figures have objected,
"The disagreement made headlines some six months ago when Israel's Chief Rabbinate asserted that the pope's demand for sovereignty over Christian holy sites ahead of his visit to Israel should not be granted. "According to halacha, it is prohibited for any person to assist in transferring property in the land of Israel to the Vatican in the holy places that are the heart and essence of the people of Israel," the Rabbinate's statement read."
The possibility that specifically Jewish specifically religious figures would demand and get a voice in the fate of shrines of another faith has its own problems, particularly given the political participation of some of such figures which may increase the probability of that problem arising.
Third, Ayalon's position is that Israel reserves rights of expropriation and use of either the sites or land around them or some of them for such infrastructure as Israel may elect to create, and all other rights of sovreignty.
There is also a recent history of sites in Jerusalem of unilateral action by religious zealots, such as that which occurred in 1991 when zealots took over St. John's Hospice, and the religious entities which claimed it found themselves on a losing litigation in the Israeli courts over its possession, after a struggle in which a bishop was shoved to the ground. In another event, which was stopped before it went forward, another zealot group attempted to get access to a site near the Wailing Wall in order to lay a foundation stone for the Third Temple.
For whatever reason each side elects to assert, the Cenacle is the center of all of these problems and the one most resistant to resolution. It was for that reason excluded from the general list of twenty eight, as an issue to be resolved separately.
My concern here is that the internal Israeli political aspects of these events make essential at an earlier date than I had thought the clarification as the part of the peace process what is in fact to happen to the various holy sites in a manner which portects to each faith its own highly sacred places. There is no way the reservation of a right of expropriation to the state for the purpose of building infrastructure is not a serious problem for all religious sites, something Mr. Ayalon is specifically reserving.
Inter religious disputes of sites on or near Mt. Zion are also something which a state claiming an essential tie to one of them as a priority is also a matter which must be resolved at a very early date.
This is equally true for sites from each of the three faiths, especially for the two which have more than one distinctive, almost denominational, divisions on core matters involving those sites, Jews who want to remove what survives there and to build a new temple and Jews who believe it would be sacriligeous even to walk on the Mount for reasons having to do with the undetermined location of the Ark of the Covenant. The battling Christian groups all of whom do so in respect of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and have been doing so for centuries.
My concern here is that one of the essential elements of any peace is going to be resolution and protection of the holy places of the three faiths, which will be difficult in a political administration which wants to reserve the right of expropriation for infrastructure improvements, or in a political turn of events finds itself governed at some point by religious rules of one group sought to be enforced on another group, and the matter perhaps hauled into court. Mr. Ayalon in particular has been politically active in a manner which gives concern. And this is an age where zealots of one religious group or another are given in this geographical area to self help.
I here invite folk to discuss what sort of resolution of the Holy Sites problem might be best advised and why they think so, since it is the heart of the matter for so many and if not well handled could be a disaster with long shirt tails, no matter how well peace negotiations otherwise go. And since it is now, in the middle of so many other problems, on the front burner.