A proper site for a Museum of Tolerance

The Wiesenthal Center's project has been approved by the government and the courts, and will be built on property that is not a cemetery but a parking lot.


Marvin Hier
L.A. Times
12 February '10

Listening to the few vocal opponents of our Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem project -- among them the notorious Sheik Raed Salah, leader of the extremist Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel -- you would never know that the Israeli Supreme Court deliberated for almost three years before unanimously rejecting all their claims and authorizing the Wiesenthal Center to begin construction. Just six weeks ago, Chief Justice Dorit Beinish also rebuked those who re-petitioned the Supreme Court for an "abuse of court proceedings," ordering them to pay professional costs.

Still, our opponents would have you believe that in the name of tolerance, our bulldozers actually have invaded the adjacent Mamilla Cemetery, desecrating ancient Muslim tombstones and historic markers.

They don't want you to know the real facts. The museum is not being built on what can rightfully be called the Mamilla Cemetery, but on a three-acre site in the heart of West Jerusalem that, for more than half a century, served as the city's municipal car park. Each day, hundreds of people of all faiths parked in the three-level underground structure without any protest from Muslim religious or academic leaders or interest groups. Additionally, telephone and electrical cables and sewer lines were laid deep below ground in the early 1960s, again without any protest.

As the Supreme Court noted in its ruling, "for almost 50 years the compound has not been a part of the cemetery, both in the normative sense and in the practical sense, and it was used for various public purposes." It also noted: "During all those years no one raised any claim, on even one occasion, that the planning procedures violated the sanctity of the site, or that they were contrary to the law as a result of the historical and religious uniqueness of the site. . . . For decades this area was not regarded as a cemetery by the general public or by the Muslim community. . . . No one denied this position."

(Read full article)

Related article: Demagoguery at its finest
.

The Human-Rights Organizations That Cried Wolf

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
12 February '10

An appeal filed to Israel’s Supreme Court this week provides a good example of just how morally warped some Israeli human-rights groups have become — and why those who truly need them are suffering as a result.

The appeal was filed on behalf of Gaza resident Atsem Hamdan, who sought permission to enter Israel for medical treatment unavailable in Gaza. The relevant Israeli authorities refused, and a district court upheld this decision. Hamdan, it said, could seek treatment in another country; Israel is not obliged to provide medical care for every resident of a hostile entity, which Hamas-led Gaza certainly is.

In their appeal, Haaretz reports, Gisha Legal Center for Freedom of Movement and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel argue that in fact, Israel is “obligated to see to the welfare and health of residents of the Gaza Strip. … This obligation is a result of the state of warfare, Israel’s control of the border crossings, and the Gaza Strip’s dependence on Israel due to the long years of occupation.”

The sheer absurdity of these claims is mind-boggling. First, if Israel retains responsibility for Gaza’s residents even after having withdrawn every last soldier and settler, merely because it used to occupy the Strip, what incentive would it ever have to quit any “occupied” territory? If Israel is going to be held responsible for the residents’ welfare whether it goes or stays, it may as well stay and at least enjoy the benefits of occupation — like being able to crack down on Hamas’s rocket-manufacturing industry.

(Read full post)
.

Between the vortex and the vacuum

Yisrael Medad
Green-Lined/JPost
05 January '10

If you read this JPost report, you'll find a host of hot items including: "revised order"; "remedies for some of the complaints"; "a 10-month freeze on construction"; "underlined by the Supreme Court"; "I confess that the arrangement we devised is not the best one"; "a heated Law Committee hearing"; "The meeting got off to a bad start"; "the Law Committee was being exploited"; and much more.

All the above refer to the November 25 Cabinet decision to suspend construction beyond the Green Line that was discussed in a Knesset comittee this past week. The suspension order was concieved with no grounded consideration of its possible ramifications - neither political, diplomatic, strategic or the simple aspects of how to compensate builders for their financial losses. This last point even received the sympathy of Israel's Supreme Court, which demanded that the Defense Ministry get their act together quick.

This is but another example of what I term the "between the vortex and the vacuum" characteristic of Israeli politics. Yes, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is, to be fair, in an unenviable position by virtue of his job. As head not only of a coalition government but one that includes the erstwhile main opposition parliamentary faction, the Labor Party, most of his time is usually spent quenching sparks and flames of third-tier politicians, not to mention the ego-busters. That, unfortunately, is the nature of the game and has been for decades.

(Read full post)
.

"Jewish Only Road" Falsehood Corrected

CAMERA/Media Analysis
05 January '10

After dispatching a story that referred to Israel's (non-existent) "practice of reserving some roads for Jews," the Associated Press modified its wording to correctly describe the roads, which in actuality are open to Israeli citizens and residents of all religions and ethnicities.

Before the AP caught and corrected its mistake, though, the Boston Globe published the early version of the story, along with its error. To its credit, the newspaper quickly cleared the record with a correction after CAMERA brought the inaccuracy to the attention of editors there.

The initial AP story, a December 29 dispatch by Amy Teibel asserted:

Israel's Supreme Court ordered the military on Tuesday to allow Palestinians to travel on the part of a major highway that runs through the West Bank, handing Palestinians their biggest victory yet against Israel's practice of reserving some roads for Jews.

Some hours later, on Dec. 30, the AP sent out the same story with corrected language:

(Read full post)
.