Historical Rights

I was perusing head lines in the Jerusalem Post today when I came across this quote (from this article):

"You don’t have to be a biblical scholar to recognize the incontestable Jewish nature of Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs."

Yes, actually, such recognition might flow much more easily if one is, in fact, not a biblical scholar.

Let me back up a little. Recently, Rachel's Tomb (in Bethlehem) and the Cave of the Patriarchs (in Hebron) were placed on Israel's list of Heritage sites. There are generally two responses to this action.

The first reaction is the one taken by the Palestinians, and much of the rest of the world. This is a political move to attempt to claim more Palestinian land for Israel and should not be tolerated.

The other reaction is the one taken by the author of this article. Historically speaking, the Jewish people are connected with the Old Testament and the stories of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Bible records the burial of Rachel near Bethlehem and the burial of Sarah and various other members of that family near Hebron. As these are the tombs of their ancestors, they should clearly have the right to revere them.

A lot of the question comes down to Historical Rights. Everyone in this land who tries to claim it bases their claim in history. In recent history, Palestinian refugees claim houses in Israel (currently occupied by Jewish Israelis) as their ancestral homes, where the lived until 1948. Looking at more ancient history, Jews claim Jerusalem as their capital, citing it's defeat by King David 3000 years ago. In return, Palestinians claim Jerusalem, claiming to be descendants of the Jebusites who controlled it before David. Does history give rights in the present day? And if so, what layer of history do you choose?

The author mentioned above continues his argument, trying to emphasize that the Jewish layer of history predates that of all other claimants, and therefore is the one that counts:

"Sites such as Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are part of the national and religious patrimony of the Jewish people, and we do not need anyone’s permission to renovate and maintain them. Our reverence for these sites and attachment to them predates Muhammad and precedes Jesus, and no one has the right to lecture us about where and how we choose to serve God."

There is, however, a bit of a problem with his argument.

Let's start by looking at the Cave/Tomb of the Patriarchs. To quote Ehud Netzer from The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, "To the present day there is a general consensus among scholars that this structure in Hebron, which is well preserved and perhaps even intact, was built by Herod [the Great]." Admittedly, Herod does still precede Jesus and Mohammed, but not by much. Of course, the fact that this structure was probably built by Herod does not mean that it is not built on top of the Tomb of Machpelah. Tradition may have preserved the actual site, and Herod may have built on top of it, trying to please the Jews. Or, maybe, Herod just built on a random cave with no connection to the Patriarchs. It's hard to say how much validity the Jewish claim to this site has, at least in the ancient past. We'll let it pass for now and move on to Rachel's Tomb.

Rachel's Tomb, clearly of relatively modern Islamic construction, is a sheik's tomb. Again, there is a possibility that it was built on top of the site of Rachel's tomb, but in this case the archaeological connections are even more uncertain.

So do the Jews have the right to claim these sites as heritage sites? Maybe, maybe not. Within more recent history, these sites have probably been revered by the few Jews living in the land for over 1000 years. I know less about modern history, but at the very least, they have apparently been revered for the last 100 years. Does this give them a right?

I'll leave that for you to ponder. I have no easy answers.

I would really like it, though, if people claiming historical rights would check their historical facts.