Crane Collapse in Mecca 10 Days Before Hajj

The collapse of a construction crane a the Grand Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) in Mecca just 10 days before this year's hajj is likely to spur concerns about pilgrim safety, given the huge construction efforts underway in and around the Mosque. At least 87 dead are reporting and the number may grow.

The massive construction projects have been controversial both within and outside of the Kingdom, involving as they do massive expansion and modernization of the holy sites as well as ambitious projects such as the world's largest hotel, which will dominate he skyline of the Holy City.

Pilgrim safety has frequently been an issue in the past given the huge crowds assembled. It is unclear how much damage was done to the structure of the Mosque itself.

Speaking of St. Francis: The Saint Meets the Sultan

Since the new Pope has taken the name Francis, there has been a fair amount of discussion of Saint Francis of Assisi. Francis himself (and the Franciscan Order to this day) had strong Middle Eastern connections. Those who have visited Christian sites in the Holy Land may be aware that in most cases the Catholic sections of the Holy Sites are under the control of the Franciscans, through the Custodiae Terrae Sanctae, .the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land.

Fra Angelico

Giotto

The origins of the Custody of the Holy Land date from the time of Saint Francis himself, in the midst of the Crusades; by the 14th century, after the end of the Crusader states in 1291, the Franciscans persuaded local Muslim rulers to grant them rights to the Christian Holy Places, and this arrangement has persisted, with various ups and downs, through Mamluk, Ottoman, British Mandate, and Israeli rule in Jerusalem and other holy sites. But the origins of the tale belong to the time of Saint Francis himself, and the curious circumstances of his meeting with the Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt, al-Malik al-Kamil, fourth Ayyubid Sultan and a nephew of Salah al-Din (Saladin). During the fifth Crusade, during the siege of Damietta in Egypt in September of 1219, Saint Francis, a pacifist, crossed the lines and reportedly met with the Sultan. There is no clearly reliable account of what was said; Francis was apparently seeking a truce, and according to some Christian accounts, sought to convert the Sultan to Christianity.

Gustave Doré

That did not occur, of course. Later Franciscan hagiography added a story that Saint Francis offered to undergo a trial by fire to prove the truth of Christianity, and survived it. That story, and the mere fact of the meeting between the saint and the Sultan, have fascinated artists from Giotto and Fra Angelico down to Gustave Doré.

Though we know little about the actual encounter, so encrusted with legend today, this has not deterred a considerable literature on the theme, including academic studies and even lengthy accounts.:  I refer you to these for a full discussion, and provide some of the artistic interpretations through the centuries..

Oh (Not So) Little Town of Bethlehem

Greetings for Latin Christmas to all who celebrate today; of course for much of the Middle East, Christmas is still in the future, and my discussion of Middle Eastern Christmas customs will continue. Last night the Latin Patriarch celebrated in Bethlehem and Manger Square was filled with pilgrims and tourists, as it will be again on January 6-7. But Bethlehem's once flourishing pilgrim trade is not what it once was, as least when it isn't Christmas..

Bethlehem's location just south of the "Green Line" and the proximity of the Israeli neighborhoods/settlements of Gilo and Har Gilo, as well as the presence on the edge of town of the shrine known as Rachel's Tomb, means that few parts of the West Bank feel the presence of Israel's Separation Wall as profoundly as Bethlehem. As the struggle to control the future of the Jerusalem region intensifies, Bethlehem remains caught in the middle.

Each year we see variations on these cartoons:

It's not my purpose here, today,  to rehash the whole Israeli-Palestinian debate; we aren't going to solve it here. on Christmas. Merely to note the profound impact that conflict has had on a city we sing about but far too many never think about.

I still wish everyone Christmas greetings.

 

Coptic Pilgrims', Egyptian Mufti's Jerusalem Visits Stir Up a Hornet's Nest

Thirty-five years ago, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem and spoke to the Israeli Knesset. After the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, regular flights between the two countries were inaugurated. I believe it was in 1983 that I first took an El Al flight from Cairo to Ben Gurion Airport.

Israeli tourists regularly go to Egypt; few Egyptians reciprocate. There are government delegations, businessmen who travel regularly, and so on, but few private Egyptians visit; it's still stigmatized. Though Jerusalem is holy to both Christians and Muslims, neither group has traditionally made pilgrimages. The late Pope Shenouda III banned Copts from making pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and while some have done so (including at least one bishop a few years ago), the Church does not approve. (For the Copts there are two issues: Israeli occupation of the occupied territories, but also the fact that Israel has supported the Ethiopian Church in a controversy over access to the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, claimed by the Copts. This issue, the Deir al-Sultan, is worthy of a post in its own right, but let's leave that for another time.)

First, the Coptic taboo was challenged. With the approach of Easter, regular flights began carrying Coptic pilgrims to Jerusalem; some 2000 had gone by Easter. The Church still disapproves, but Shenouda is gone, and many Copts feel the ban is now collapsing.

Then the Mufti of Egypt went to Jerusalem and all hell broke loose. The senior Egyptian cleric paid a quick visit on Wednesday, prayed at the Al-Aqsa mosque, and was accompanied by the Mufti of Jerusalem and other religious figures as well as a Jordanian prince; the Mufti, Dr. ‘Ali Goma‘a,  explained on Twitter that it was an "unofficial" visit aimed at showing solidarity with the Palestinians and the rights of Jerusalem:







No official meetings with any Israelis have been reported (or even alleged), but there has been a huge uproar from Egyptians who consider such a high-level visit as somehow recognizing Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, despite his Jordanian host. The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party has  denounced it as a "gross mistake" that imposes normalization with Israel on the Egyptian people.

Zeinobia rounds up much of the debate and print pictures. Meanwhile, The Arabist puzzles over what Gomaa was thinking while also feeling the ban on travel is a mistake.  Salafis in Parliament want him fired, which is the President's prerogative (that currently being interpreted as SCAF)..

I have never understood why a religious figure visiting a religious site in Jerusalem, and having no official contact with Israelis other than what is absolutely necessary, is somehow "normalization" or recognition of the occupation. But I also recognize that coming at a time when on the one hand the Coptic taboo seems to be eroding but on the other, Egyptian-Israeli relations are extremely fragile, the Mufti's "unofficial" visit was certain to create an uproar. And it has.

Photoshopping Out the Dome of the Rock

Israel's Haaretz notes that the Israel Defense Forces Rabbinate (the military chaplain corps in Western terms) issued a pamphlet or brochure for Hanukkah with this picture of the Western Wall:

Okay. Inspirational religious image. Obviously Photoshopped to imply the divine presence over the Temple Mount.

But anyone who knows Jerusalem may feel there's something missing here. Like this:

That's right. They also Photoshopped out the Dome of the Rock. The argument that it wasn't there at the first Hanukkah has been used as an excuse, but then shouldn't they have Photoshopped in the Second Temple?

Greek and Armenian Priests at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem Prepare for Eastern Christmas their Traditional Way: the Broom Brawl

As the Eastern date of Christmas approaches, the two faiths that share control of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the Greek Orthodox and the Armenians, are ceremonially responsible for preparing the church by cleaning it. It's a rare year when there are no disputes: every inch, every candlestick, every window sill is claimed by one denomination or the other. (The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is more complex with more denominations, but less polarized; in Bethlehem the Romans have their own church next door and share the crypt below, but the Greeks and Armenians split the upper church, which dates from Justinian's day.) Now I, or perhaps you, would say that if the other fellow wants to sweep up on my side of the aisle, go right ahead. After all, who enjoys sweeping; besides, this is the traditional birthplace of the prince of peace. But priests and monks wielding brooms today got into it again in their traditional way. (The Armenians are in the pointy hoods. The guys in uniform breaking it up at the end are police.) Peace on earth, good will to men:



Adding the Al Jazeera English video:

Weekend Historical Videos: the Holy Land 1911 to the 1930s

For my weekly Weekend Historical Videos, I thought it might be seasonally appropriate to show some video of the Holy Land in early travelogues and films. General Allenby entered Jerusalem on December 11, 1917, on foot (because the Kaiser had ridden a white horse, and many commented that Jesus had been satisfied with a donkey). Allenby, whose arrival in Jerusalem is shown on some of the WWI videos I've previously posted, said the taking of Jerusalem from the Turks was "a Christmas present for the British people." Thirty years later the British would not be so thankful for the Mandate. But taking Bethlehem and Jerusalem at Christmas, when the Western Front was still bogged down and Russia was leaving the war, was seen as symbolic. Allenby walking into Jerusalem is shown beginning at the 0:40 second mark on this clip:



Even earlier, this is alleged to be the first film of Palestine, made in 1911:



Most travelogues of the early Mandate era tended to emphasize Christian sites in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, so they're seasonally appropriate. The earliest ones are silent, of course. Many represent the classic travelogue view of the Holy Land (camels, donkeys, "just like in the Bible," unchanging people). I hope running these doesn't reinforce the stereotype; there are a few shots here which aren't as cliche-ridden.

Gethsemane and Bethlehem 1929 (also and inevitably, camels):



Hebron in the 1920s: Old pics of the Haram al-Khalil/Tombs of the Patriarchs, other sites, and of course lots of camels:



Jerusalem in the 20s: Jaffa Gate, Herod's Gate, old cars:



Damascus to Jerusalem, 1932:



Jerusalem 1930: Part Two; I couldn't find part one:



Another Jerusalem in the 1930s



And still stereotypical, Damascus and Jerusalem in 1938 (made for Western audiences, emphasis on camels, donkeys, and "time never changes" themes):



Just for contrast in narratives (and as a lesson in how to frame your message), here's a video presumably made in the Zionist Yishuv about Tel Aviv, an early color video, and clearly sending a completely different message:

June 7: The Day The Central Symbol Changed Hands

Today marks the 43rd anniversary of a day that, if not in fact the central focus of modern Middle Eastern history, then is at least the symbolic focus. It was on June 7, 1967, the third day of the six day war, that the Israel Defense Forces captured Judaism's most famous pilgrimage site, the Western Wall (once, but not since, known as the Wailing Wall), but also, with it, Islam's third holiest sanctuary, the Masjid al-Aqsa, and the adjacent Dome of the Rock, which themselves seit on the great platform where the First and Second Jewish Temples once stood. The site Muslims call al-Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) and Jews know as Har Ha-Bayit (The Temple Mount) has become a symbol of the problem: Of the making of peace plans for Jerusalem there is no end, and many of them deal creatively with the Haram, but the sheer direct-claims to the same holy site aspect of the place, the zero-sum, one side must lose when the other gains, makes it such a potent symbol. We've talked about the potency of religious sites before, but this is the one where it all comes together.

This YouTube video captures the triumphal mood of the Israeli side on that day,with stills of the events and recorded broadcasts:



But, of course, it was a tragedy for the Muslim world, and in that conundrum lies the central symbol of the problem.

Patriarchal Dynamite: The Hebron/Bethlehem Heritage Sites Issue

Father Abraham, Avraham Avinu, Ibrahim Khalil Allah, the kids are fighting over the will again.

There is probably no place in the highly explosive Israeli-Palestinian theater, other than the Haram al-Sharif/Har ha-Bayit (Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount) in Jerusalem itself, more potentially explosive than the massive Herodian tomb-structure (left) rising over Hebron known to Israelis as the Tombs of the Patriarchs (or, Biblically, as the Cave of Machphelah, Me'arat Machpelah) and to Muslims as the Haram al-Khalil or al-Haram al-Ibrahimi. (Khalil, meaning "friend" as in the Friend of God, is a Muslim sobriquet for Abraham, and also the name for the city of Hebron.) It is surely one of the few places on earth (the only one I can think of just now, but I may be forgetting something) where a synagogue and a mosque exist and function within the same very ancient site. In 1994 it was the site where Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein took an automatic weapon and killed 29 Muslims at prayer in the mosque. It's an enormous, amazing place, and perhaps even more than Jerusalem itself, a symbol of the fratricidal nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since Abraham is the founder of both peoples by their own testimony. But it, and another holy site in Bethlehem, Rachel's tomb, though both beyond the Green Line, have now been named Israeli Heritage Sites, at this difficult moment in the peace process, and the results are predictable.

Since both Judaism and Islam claim Abraham as their founder, in today's context conflict is inevitable. Since ancient tradition insists this is the site of the burial places of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah, buried in the Cave of Machphelah (and indeed, there are caves beneath the monuments), this is a holy place to all three Abrahamic religions, though relatively few Christian pilgrims visit it. (Some Muslims say Joseph is buried here too, though Jewish tradition venerates his tomb near Nablus.) In other words, patriarchically speaking, pretty much a straight flush. The big six.

On the other hand, it's Leah who's buried with Jacob in Hebron, and generally speaking Rachel is considered the matriarch of record for Jacob, who had two wives, since she's the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, and thus of the main line of Jewish tradition (though Leah bore the patriarchs of the other ten tribes). Biblical tradition placed her tomb a couple of places, but one of the most visited and revered was on the northwestern edge of Bethlehem. Bethlehem, like Hebron, is of course in the West Bank, in territory Israel only occupied in 1967. And Bethlehem and its neighboring towns and the big refugee camp nearby make that area one of the more populous in the West Bank. Rachel's Tomb (pictured) was originally on the Palestinian side of the Separation Wall, but lately an adjacent house has been annexed and walled off and the separation wall has been extended to include the tomb.

Beyond the fact that the Separation Wall itself raises a great many issues, I think it worth just looking at this GoogleEarth picture on the right (copyright by Google fully acknowledged please don't come after me) and noting that the wall actually goes down either side of a road to enclose the tomb in a sort of enclave (below left center of the picture) that really makes its artificiality obvious. You used to go right by it driving into Bethlehem.

And since these patriarchs play a major role in Islam as well — Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaq (Isaac), and Ya‘qub (Jacob) are common Muslim names still — the tombs of the patriarchs/Haram al-Khalil and the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem are two flashpoints which have troubled Jewish/Muslim and Israeli/Palestinian relations since 1967. (But of course all these names belong to all three monotheistic traditions. My mother and my daughter were both named Sarah.)

So why, nearly 43 years after the 1967 war, did Israel wait until this past Sunday to declare these two explosive holy places Israeli National Heritage Sites? Netanyahu said he did it at the persuasion of the religious party Shas. Not surprisingly, Palestinians are protesting and throwing stones in Hebron and elsewhere; the UN's against it, and there's talk of a new restoration plan for the sites. PA officials are protesting, Jordan is protesting — but this happens whenever there is a change in the status quo of religious sites. The question is why was this done now?

Given recent actions by the Netanyahu government it really is getting hard to assume that this is all just poor judgment or ideological purity (why not sooner?), and to assume that there is actually an intention to provoke. I'm trying to find an explanation in my own mind for why this was done now. It seems to have set off a Palestinian reaction — both officially and in the streets where stones are being thrown again — and almost makes me wonder, does Netanyahu want a third intifada? Netanyahu could have done this years ago if it was purely a commitment to ideology: everyone understands the sanctity of these two sites to both Muslims and Jews, and for that reason efforts to change the status quo have been few since the creation of the synagogue inside the mosque.

I fully recognize the veneration both Jews and Muslims have for these sites (especially Hebron), but doing this right now, more than 40 years after the six day war, has a feel of provocation rather than affirmation.

Abraham, that wandering Aramaean as the Bible itself calls him, would, I trust, prefer not to be fought over quite in this way. But this particular time I have to say the Israelis seem to be the provocateurs. And I'm not sure why at this time. They control the sites, and long have. Why change the status now?