The Temple Mount is under Israeli
law, but authorities must be “extra sensitive” to applying them to the site,
Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein wrote in a letter to legal advisers dealing
with Judaism's holiest site.
Weinstein submitted his letter to
the Jerusalem municipality, the Jerusalem police, and the Antiquities Authority a few
weeks ago, but the issue came to the forefront on Tuesday due to a petition to
the High Court of Justice concerning the Temple Mount which is expected to be
heard within the next week.
Filed Sunday, by
the Temple Mount Faithful group, the petition claims infrastructure work carried
out to strengthen the Dome of the Rock is harming the Foundation Stone, the
large stone on which the Ark of the Covenant is believed to have rested.
The group said work carried out by
the Wakf Islamic trust is not under the supervision of the Israeli authorities
and is damaging the holiest site in Judaism.
Weinstein stressed the Temple Mount
must abide by all laws of the Planning and Building Committee and the Antiquities
Authority.
He also wrote that any time
authorities need to “test the application of law in the Temple Mount
complex,” they should be pragmatic and take the area’s unique status into
consideration.
Weinstein suggested that any reports
on the situation should be sent to the National Security Council and the
cabinet secretary.
Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel
Ben-Ruby said the police maintain a continuous presence on the Temple Mount to
ensure that the Antiquities Authority has full access to the construction
work.
“There are some people who want to
make noise, claiming that the work is damaging,” he said, “but all of the work
being done there are is under supervision of the Israel Antiquities Authority
without any kind of damage to any antiquities.”
Ben-Ruby added that the Foundation
Stone is covered in nylon tarps and the scaffolding has been raised around the
area. The authority refused to comment.
Temple Mount Faithful director
Gershon Salomon accused Weinstein of “fleeing from the issue” and stressed that
even if there is no physical damage the construction is still “desecrating it
in the most grotesque way imaginable.”
A response from the State Attorney’s
Office to the petition from Sunday stressed that since the Dome of the Rock was
built 1,300 years ago, the infrastructure work was essential to strengthen the
roof. The High Court is expected to examine the issue in the coming week.
Guest Comment:
The thrust of his message, which
went to legal advisers: The Temple Mount is under Israeli
law.
Well, of course, you might
think. After all, Israel has sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, and, last
we looked, that's where the Temple Mount is. But the Wakf is forever attempting
to assert its authority on the Mount and frequently makes comments regarding the
fact that Israel has no jurisdiction there.
Simply stating this principle,
which drew an angry response from the PA, is hugely important.
However, we've got a way to go
yet. as Weinstein also wrote that authorities must be "extra
sensitive" in applying Israeli laws to the site. This gives altogether too
much leeway to those who would prefer to back off from the subject or accede to
Arab demands:
For, while Weinstein indicated
that all laws -- or stipulations -- of the Planning and Building Committee
and the Antiquities Authority are applicable to the Mount and must be adhered
to, he also said that any time authorities need to "test the application of
law in the Temple Mount complex," they should be pragmatic and take the area’s
unique status into consideration.
There are claims being made by
Jerusalem police that a presence is maintained on the Mount at all times so that
the Antiquities Authority has full access to what is going on. The issue
at present is repair work being done at the Dome of the Rock.
But it cannot possibly be that the
Antiquities Authority signed off on all the damage that was done to priceless
archeological artifacts on the Mount in recent years. Could it be that
there is more stringency applied to supervision now than was the case
previously? I would love to think so, but do not yet know.
No comments:
Post a Comment