Comments on: Protecting Israeli Holy Sites Leads to Outrage

By: Jenna Mitelman

Jenna Mitelman — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:53:49 +0000

Thank you all for your comments!

Paul – I wanted to highlight something you had brought up. I think you are absolutely right to highlight that it is extremely important to consider not only what these editorials say, but also how they will be perceived, or potentially used by others.

Just as when I write something supporting Israel on some particular point, people will jump to the conclusion that I must support any action Israel’s government might ever take (be assures that I most certainly do not); likewise, anything that Rabbi Eilberg writes, however well-intentioned, can and does get used to support a much more extremist, and often more violent ideology than she would perhaps intend.

Under those circumstances, I think it would be incumbent upon any writer of Rabbi Eilberg’s prominence to consider the ways in which her words may be misused, and used to support potentially awful things, and I believe she has the responsibility to phrase things accordingly, saying not only exactly what’s on her mind, but also presenting her ideas in context, so as to minimize how much they might be misused. Not doing so is, in my opinion, frankly irresponsible, and can lead to some unfortunately consequences.

~Jenna

By: Holly Brod Farber

Holly Brod Farber — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:58:08 +0000

Jenna -

Thank you for your response – as I read both Amy Eilberg and you on this issue I come away believing that the voice of reason and compassion belongs to you. What a step in the right direction it would be for the Palestinian Authorities and Israeli Authorities to use this funding to create a better future for everyone in the region, and not as a horrible pretext to violence. I pray for that day.

By: Yehoshua

Yehoshua — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:51:42 +0000

Thank you for well thought out response Jenna. First I must say that I’m so very glad Rabbi Eilberg has come along to elucidate real Judaism for the rest of us. When she speaks of the chutzpah of Israel renovating holy sites I remember Yassar Arafat’s chutzpah when denying any Jewish history at the site of the Temple Mount. Also everyone should read the J-Post article about Ezekiel’s Tomb in Iraq (http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=165879). The issue with holy sites can only be viewed through something called Sacred Space Theory. This basically says that competing sects (or religions broadly) within a religious framework will battle over a defined and restricted space of religious legitimacy (much as the way armies in the past have battled over limited physical space and resources). Holy places (and often nationalism) are physical expressions of religious space, thus we now have the battle over the Temple Mount with Islam on the one hand a supersessionist religion which claims to be the final and perfected fulfillment of the true religion (as opposed to the perverted form of Judaism) and on the other side you have Judaism with truth claims as the original and pure form (unbroken tradition), with Jewish opposition to Muhammad’s supposed perversion of the true religion (Judaism). That being said it’s not surprising the fight over national space, based upon the legitimacy of religious and sacred suppositions in relation to physical constructs, is breaking out between the two sides. I think Judaism was well ahead of it’s time when it envisioned the temple would be a house of prayer for all nations, unlike Mecca in Saudi Arabia where all non-Muslims are banned under the threat of punishment. I just wish Amy would ask any of her Muslim friends if they feel that that Jaffa, I mean Tel Aviv, is any less occupied that lets say a Hebron or Ariel? Then we might just find out that religion like nationalism can be the source for just as much war as peace, and that Judaism like Islam has always been an “unholy mixture” of religion and politics.

By: Sally Abrams

Sally Abrams — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:50:59 +0000

As usual, Jenna’s unassailable logic provides a thoughtful response. If only the PA leadership could see this rebuilding of historic sites as an opportunity to work cooperatively with Israel on a project that benefits all. Imagine the number of tourists that would flock to these sites if safety were no longer an issue! The issue of where the final borders lie will get resolved, eventually. In the meantime, the work of preservation is important, and as Paul Maccabee expressed so well in his reply, preservation is not the obstacle here to peace.

By: Paul Maccabee

Paul Maccabee — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:08:09 +0000

Bravo, Jenna, for articulating how misguided this dreadful editorial was in attacking Israel’s brave and compassionate attempts to preserve Holy sites for all people in the Middle East.

A look at the ugly comments that anti-Israel readers have since added to the end of Rabbi Eilberg’s Star Tribune editorial online suggests how her editorial plays into the hands of those who have publicly embraced the destruction of the Jewish state — criticizing Israel’s every move while ignoring the intolerance and bigotry of the Hamas-led Palestinians.

I read Rabbi Eilberg’s original editorial slamming Israel with growing shock and disbelief. Perhaps the Rabbi’s most puzzling comment was this: “It does not surprise me that Palestinian leaders were outraged.” Well, Palestinian outrage, terrorist attacks and violence by Hamas no longer “surprise” me either — but given the fact that Arab and islamic groups have stood by while Holy sites are desecrated and destroyed, to then condemn Israel’s courageous effort to actually preserve these holy sites, is deeply disappointing.

The fact remains — the Palestinian leadership has made it clear what they desire is not peace, but the death of and exile of Jews from Israel. Steps taken by Israel to safeguard Holy sites will neither hinder nor advance the “peace process”, as long as Palestinians enthusiastically plan for a Jew-free Middle East. I am so proud of Israel’s decision to protect these historic sites.