The authors are researchers from the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies who published the study: A City and a Mosque - Settlement of Conflicts in Holy Places: The Case of the Great Mosque in Be'er Sheva
Since the XNUMXs, the historic Be'er Sheva Mosque has been at the center of a dispute between Muslim residents, who demanded to reopen the place as a house of worship, and the Be'er Sheva Municipality, which established a museum in the building and opposed the Muslims' demand. This dispute provokes a discussion of important questions of principle concerning the preservation of holy places, freedom of religion and civil equality and the proper balance between these principles and the concerns of the Jewish residents who live and work in the vicinity of the mosque about harming their quality of life and changing the color of the neighborhood.
Israel has 16 cities with a Jewish majority where mosques are inactive and dozens of abandoned Muslim religious and heritage sites in open areas that are a source of tension between the state and its Muslim citizens. The main problem is that the government drives everywhere between places of members of one religion and places of members of another religion. The Center for the Development of Holy Places takes care of 137 Jewish holy places and there is no entity that takes care of non-Muslim holy places (except for political organizations such as the Northern Islamic Movement which takes advantage of the existing vacuum). On top of that, the regulations for the protection of the holy places refer only to holy places for Jews. Moreover, Muslim holy places were transferred in 1948 to the possession of the state, or the municipality, and they were neglected or used for a different purpose and sometimes a purpose that does not respect the place.
Such is the case of the Great Mosque in Beer-Sheva. This mosque was built in 1906 at the initiative of the Ottoman governor and served the residents of the city and the Bedouin tribes in the Negev region as an important central mosque, until 1948. With the establishment of the state, the mosque was transferred to the government and served as a detention center and a court. In 1953, the building was handed over to the municipality, which turned it into a museum for the history of the Negev. In 1991 the museum was closed and the mosque building remained abandoned and neglected. Arab-Muslim organizations fought over the years to return the mosque to its original purpose, first in the public arena and then in the legal arena. On June 22, 2011, the High Court of Justice ruled that the petition on the subject would be accepted in part "in the sense that the building will be designated as a museum uniquely dedicated to the culture of Islam and the peoples of the East." It was also possible for the petitioners to continue to fight on the planning and legal level for the opening of the building for prayer if the decisions of the planning committees seemed inappropriate to them.
Such a conflict should not have gone to court in the first place. It is not the court that should determine the purpose of a religious building and a holy place, nor the contents of the museum. This is a dispute concerning many sites throughout the country and an issue that is a focal point for tension and instability and for the State of Israel in general, and in mixed cities in particular, there should be a coherent policy that weighs the whole range of interests and considerations in the issue and provides a proper response and solution to this issue. In order to formulate the policy and implement it, it is necessary to create joint bodies, at the national level and at the municipal level, which will include representatives of the establishment, Muslim representatives and Jewish and Arab public figures, who will conduct a regular dialogue and also work to resolve crises if they break out.
The research we conducted on behalf of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies analyzes this conflict as a case study within a series of studies dealing with conflicts in holy places in Israel and in a comparative aspect to other places in the world, including cases concerning Jewish sites in Muslim countries, Muslim sites in Christian countries and holy sites in other conflict areas such as Bosnia and Cyprus. Based on the comparative analysis, we propose in the research a model for "transitional representation" - a practical outline for ethnic-religious-national conflict areas based on the preservation of religious and cultural heritage sites of minorities and their gradual return to the members of the ethno-national minority while taking into account the interests of the majority. This model can be a step as part of promoting the process of reconciliation and "transitional justice" between the majority and the minority.
From other examples in the world we learned about the importance of the existence of communication mechanisms and dialogue as an important tool that has been proven to be effective in many cases. We also learned that Israel's policy, which has not changed since 1948, has not adapted itself to the reality in which Jews demand preservation and control of holy places in Arab countries and Europe, while Israel does not allow Muslims access to their holy places. Therefore, a policy of neglecting holy places for Muslims harms Jewish interests and may create foci of tension and explosive conflict.
In our opinion, we should not wait for the renewal of the legal and public fight on the issue, but start a dialogue between the municipality and the Muslim community and the Jewish residents who own the businesses and apartments around the mosque in preparation for a gradual and limited opening of the mosque in Be'er Sheva for prayer. Our recommendation is based on the following facts: the existence of a Muslim community in the city (approximately 3,000 inhabitants) that needs a large mosque; Allowing worship in a historic building that was initially used for this purpose is one of the basic human and civil rights, and prayer is the former and specific purpose of the site; Israeli Jews also request and receive the right to use worship sites that were abandoned in the past in the countries of the Middle East and Europe. At the same time, we recommend that we also consider the concerns of the residents and Jewish business owners in the area and fully open the mosque for prayer after a gradual process at the same time as a tripartite dialogue between the representatives of the Muslim residents, the representatives of the municipality of Beer Sheva and the representatives of the residents and business owners operating in the vicinity of the mosque.
In addition, we recommend establishing a national body that will deal with the question of the holy places for Muslims and will include personalities of public weight, from the majority and minority groups, who are highly sensitive to the values of mutual respect. This body will be budgeted by the government, similar to the 'National Center for the Development of the Holy Places' which handles holy places for Jews only.
The authors are researchers from the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies who published the study: A City and a Mosque - Settlement of Conflicts in Holy Places: The Case of the Great Mosque in Be'er Sheva.
* There is no connection between the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Research and the Jerusalem Institute for Market Research.
12 תגובות
It is true that this article is very foreign to most of the published material on the site, but...
It's just very interesting how all the reactions, without exception, are of a very specific tone, or in other words: "If science was democratic, then woe betide Muslim prayer in the Bish". This is completely fine, logical, scholarly and maybe even humane, so why complain about the use of Rabbi Yehuda's ruins in Jerusalem until 67 for the needs of the Muslim residents and in Kerem???
In my opinion, the main problem is the muezzin. Islam imposes itself on the environment. They are simply inconsiderate. In Islam there is a ban on listening to music, in order to create a monopoly for the religious-Muslim music
Since the Muslim Waqf destroyed the archeological findings on the Temple Mount, if we wish, there is a possibility of building a third Temple. Without the dilemma of destroying antiquities. It is possible to build a Jewish community on the Temple Mount, without destroying the mosque. But the Muslims are opposed to the very existence of the Jews.
It is strange that politics is a topic on this site, and another thing, the first victims of Islam are people of the type of the writers of the above article, please note.
Regarding a political article on a scientific website, a website that is fundamentally secular,
So while we're on the subject, what stands in the holiest place for Hindus? What is in the holiest place for Jews? That's right, a mosque! whose meaning is ownership of the environment, it is not only a prayer area between man and his God,
Islam is a religious philosophy that advocates
In world conquest without any pretense he has done it in the past and is doing it in practice,
There is no place to give Jesta to a religion that wants to destroy you and your life, this is folly of the first order.
But I'm not trying to convince the writers that their agenda is clear and that's exactly what they and theirs want. But I'm trying to warn all the rest, who are the majority, not to put them to sleep because the snowball is already halfway there.
It always starts small and after that comes the claims of my great-grandfather who bought this land and then the snowball grows until the demands for autonomy and independence and the deportation of the Jews at best... like in Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority who at the beginning did not even demand independence and there is no difference between them and the rest of the Arabs of the region so why do they deserve Another independent country?
The Islamic current in Israel advocates the destruction of the Jewish people. How does it fit into this beautiful "research"?
Mosques are a focus for spreading an ideology of hatred and terrorism.
They are also a nuisance because of the muezzin.
In short, I invite the authors of the study to live near a mosque (like me) and see how nice it is and how much Islam contributes to connecting hearts...
There is no place for such publication on the science website.
The above is my subjective view and not Sinai Torah. I do not believe that they are inferior to us, or do not deserve to be equal in relation as human beings in an objective world free from a war of cultures on the same piece of land. The increasing number of publications by Arabs in science will testify, and the progress of Arab countries in technology that cannot be ignored. While we run at a steady pace not to say slower, they increased speed from walking to running. A relative effect is created that they catch us.
But in my view there is a conflict between cultures on the same piece of land and giving them up does not lead to coexistence and understanding the other, but to the search for additional points on their part to win the duel.
First of all, what does this have to do with science? Secondly, are Jews allowed to pray on the Temple Mount? The holiest place for the Jews which they built in the first place and the Muslims who build a mosque on every holy place of the other religions. Would it be conceivable that we would turn a mosque into a synagogue?! Or even rebuild the temple? If not, then the hypocrisy cries out to heaven.
In the conflict with the Arabs, there is no connection between enlightened opinions about the rights of human beings by virtue of being human. This is a pure confrontation in which giving up is a victory for the other side and not an opening for negotiations.
That's why so many people who are social democrats in economics, do not stay away from voting for neo-conservative or right-wing parties. The concept of dialogue and enlightenment does not seem practical to them and rightly so.