The
Holy War Israel Wants
By Jonathan
Cook
The Electronic
Intifada
12 July 2003
The inhabitants of Nazareth,
Israel's only Arab city, often talk of the "invisible occupation":
although they rarely see police -- let alone soldiers -- on their streets,
they are held in a vise-like grip of Israeli control just as much as
their ethnic kin in neighbouring Palestinian cities like Jenin and Nablus
are.
In September 2000, for example,
when Israel's one million Palestinian citizens, including Nazarenes,
demonstrated against Ariel Sharon's visit to the mosque compound in
Jersualem -- known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the
Temple Mount -- 13 of their number were shot dead by police in four
days. Not a single protester had been armed.
Last week the veil was again
briefly lifted from the occupation inside Israel. More than 500 heavily
armed police officers stormed Nazareth's city centre at dawn, arresting
a handful of Muslim clerics and demolishing the foundations of a mosque
that has been making headlines since a "holy tent" was first
erected in 1998 at the site of the grave of Shihab ad-Deen, the nephew
of Salah ad-Deen.
In all the excitement over
Israel's withdrawals from Gaza and Bethlehem, the invasion of Nazareth
was overlooked, except in the Hebrew press, where it was presented as
a brave attempt by the government to rein in lawlessness and calm religious
tensions in a city that is now 70 per cent Muslim and 30 per cent Christian.
But the case of Nazareth's
"rogue" mosque is far more complicated than this -- and potentially
more revealing of the political games Israel is playing with the delicate
balance of forces between the country's religious communities.
In fact, far from being patently
illegal, the mosque had actually won approval from two governments,
Binyamin Netanyahu's in 1998 and Ehud Barak's in 1999. Both backed the
plan, even though the mosque was to be located a few provocative yards
from one of the holiest churches in the Middle East, the Basilica of
the Annunciation. (Built on the site, say Catholics, where the Virgin
Mary was told she was carrying the son of God.)
Violent clashes briefly erupted
between Christians and Muslims in the wake of these decisions.
The government's position,
however, changed last year, apparently after the Pope and President
George W. Bush got wind that local Muslims had started laying the mosque's
foundations.
Bush put heavy pressure on
Sharon to intervene, and dutifully the Israeli prime minister set up
a committee to consider the question again. It used a loophole -- that
the building work had begun before all the official papers had been
received -- to justify finding against the mosque's completion in March
2002.
There has been plenty of
unhelpful hyperbole from Muslim clerics about the mosque destruction
being a "war on Islam," but one point they make is worth examining.
Why, in the same week as
the demolition, they ask, did Israel reveal it was allowing Jews to
return to Jerusalem's Haram/Temple Mount complex? Non-Muslims have been
banned from the area since Sharon's visit 33 months ago unleashed the
intifada (as de facto have most Palestinians, who can longer get permits
to enter Jerusalem). For a government so zealously concerned about sectarian
provocations, this was a strange decision.
In fact, Jews demanding to
go to the mount are mainly Messianic extremists who want to destroy
the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock mosques and replace them with a reconstruction
of the Second Temple. Mainstream Jews have been prohibited from the
site since rabbis banned prayer there in the Middle Ages.
But that has not stopped
the government from promoting Jewish claims to the mount. In May the
public security minister Tzachi Hanegbi became the latest cabinet minister
to say it was time to let Jews pray there.
The Israeli government's
behaviour in Nazareth is equally baffling. Despite newspaper claims,
the city's Christians and Muslims forgot their differences a while ago,
with the outbreak of the intifada and the more pressing concern of how
to survive the economic slump. The decision to demolish the mosque in
such a heavy-handed manner is far more likely to tear the delicate fabric
of civic life here. Already there are calls for the resignation of Nazareth's
Christian mayor, Ramez Jeraisi.
So why do it now? Nazareth's
Christians and Muslims unite in offering a disturbing explanation. They
say Israel has a vested interest in fomenting trouble in their city
to show that the two religions cannot live together in peace. "If
they cannot share their holy sites in Nazareth, how can they ever do
so in Jerusalem?" is how Nazarenes describe the logic of Israeli
spin.
At the end of the long path
of the US-backed road map to a Palestinian state is an international
conference to decide the most charged question of all: who should have
sovereignty over Jerusalem and its holy places, the Israelis or the
Palestinians? Both peoples hope to be rewarded with control of the Haram
al-Sharif/Temple Mount site.
In the meantime the struggle
for the ultimate prize, including Israeli attempts to weight the decision
in its favour, risks doing irreparable damage to religious tolerance
in the Holy Land.
Jonathan Cook lives in Nazareth and writes for The Guardian (UK) and
Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt).