“Bulldozers razing the homes in Gaza will destroy Israel’s good name,” Lapid declared during an April 5 session of the Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee. “Instead of praising the disengagement, the world will say that Israel has destroyed buildings. We need to destroy only the synagogues.”
Lapid, head of the ultra-secularist Shinui party, is famous for his deep-seated animus toward Orthodox Jews – it is, in fact, his claim to fame and success in Israeli politics. One would think, however, that as a former minister of justice he would display a bit more composure and savvy when it comes to calling for the destruction of synagogues.
In June 2004, the Israeli Cabinet resolved to raze the assets in the settlements to be abandoned in the Gaza and northern Samaria, including synagogues and yeshivot. In the meantime, following a campaign led by the Global Ethics Resource Center to prevent the destruction of religious sites in the disengagement areas, the minister of justice announced that synagogues, mikvaot and cemeteries in the abandoned areas would not be destroyed, but relocated along with the Jewish residents of the settlements.
The goal now must be to influence the Israeli government to allow for this option as well as for the option of protecting the religious sites in their original locations, under international law, with eventual access for Jews under the proper security precautions.
The government’s disengagement plan is based on security and political factors. The plan does not take into account the Jewish people’s right to live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in accordance with basic tenets of human rights – apart from the issue of sovereignty.
It is in this framework that the Jewish and international communities must relate to the fate of the approximately forty-eight synagogues and religious schools in the areas to be evacuated. According to Prof. Nitza Nahmias, an internationally recognized expert on international institutions and international law, synagogues and religious schools have a status beyond sovereignty as a channel for the human right of every individual to “manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching” (in the words of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
This unique status of religious sites is also the basis for the resolution adopted by the General Assembly in its fifty-fifth session (2001) on the Protection of Religious Sites (Res. 55/254). This resolution recalls other pertinent universal and regional human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the resolutions on the elimination of all forms of racism and intolerance; the UN Year of Tolerance; the Hague Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict; and the UN Millennium Declaration to respect the diversity of belief, culture and language and the promotion of a culture of dialogue among civilizations.
The resolution on Protection of Religious sites “Condemns all acts or threats of violence, destruction, damage, or endangerment, directed against religious sites”…. and “[c]alls upon all States to exert their utmost efforts to ensure that religious sites are fully respected and protected in conformity with international standards….”
The Israeli government’s position that protection of the religious sites is impossible from an operative point of view is mistaken. There are precedents – such as the religious schools and synagogues in Jericho that were being used for study and worship even after the Oslo agreements. The government protects Muslim sites throughout Israel from being desecrated. The same should be demanded of the Palestinian Authority, which wishes to be considered a viable partner for peace.
The tragic matter of Joseph’s Tomb is another example of the failure of the Israeli government to invoke international law in the protection of Jewish religious sites. When the Tomb was severely desecrated at the beginning of the intifada, neither the Israeli government nor the international community pointed to the gross violations of international law in that case.
The defensive approach of the Israeli government in calling for the removal of religious sites in Gaza in order to prevent possible desecration constitutes surrender to terrorism and lawlessness. The religious schools and synagogues in the areas to be evacuated are now an important part of the Jewish heritage, not only for the Jewish residents of Gaza and Northern Samaria but to Jews all over the world.
Moreover, the removal of the synagogues and religious schools would set a dangerous precedent in the continuation of the peace process, and could draw a demand for the removal of other religious sites in the future. The option of removing the synagogues should be given to the residents of the settlements. But along with this they should be given the option of demanding the protection of the religious sites in their original location.
How is it possible to cope with this challenge?
* On the political level, the Israeli government needs to adopt a consistent policy of protecting all religious sites – Jewish, Christian and Muslim.
* On the operative level, we need to understand that in the global village of the 21st century there are dozens of international, regional and national forces in different variations (according to circumstance) in areas of political conflict. With good will and mutual cooperation, it is possible to find the right model to suit the needs of both the Jewish community of Gaza and North Samaria and the Palestinian Authority. The purchase of the property in Gaza by the World Bank, as is currently planned, could also be a means for the protection of religious sites in these areas.
Israel has never sanctioned the desecration of any Muslim, Christian or other religious site, but the current government seems not to be demanding reciprocity from the Palestinians or the international community regarding protection of Jewish religious sites. Israel, and Jewish communities worldwide, must demand from the Palestinians and the international community reciprocal respect for Jewish religious sites – along with a guarantee that protection of the sites will be properly monitored.