FACTS ON THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT RULING

1. Following the unanimous decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in favor of the Center forHuman Dignity, Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem, the project has now resumed construction inthe heart of West Jerusalem.

The Museum is not being built on the nearby Mamilla cemetery, but on the adjacent site which, for nearly ahalf-century, served as Jerusalem's municipal car park where everyday hundreds of Jews, Christians, and Muslims parked their cars. Electric, cable and sewer lines were laid below the ground.

During all this time, not a single Muslim group or individual, including today's most vociferous critics said a word in protest although they arguedbefore the Court that they had known all along it was a Muslim cemetery, yet they kept silent for nearly a half-century.

2. This is not only the opinion of theSimon Wiesenthal Center but also the opinion of the government ofIsrael, the City of Jerusalem, and the Antiquities Authority – an independent agency responsible for cemeteries and archaeologicalsites – all of whom presented their opinions to the Supreme Court.

Israel’s position before theCourt

“The State agrees with the project owners [Simon WiesenthalCenter] that the claim of the Petitioners [Al-Aqsa Corporation] was tainted by a lengthy delay in filing... Starting from the beginning of the1960’s without any objection being heard from any parties in the Muslim community...the planning procedures on the compound were carried out lawfully without anyobjection based on a claim of the sanctity of the site as a cemetery.”

“In the opinion of the state, the solutions that were proposed by the project owners for dealing with the remains of the gravesreflect a proper balance between giving proper protection to the value of the dignity of the dead in an area where the remains of graves have been found, on theone hand, and the necessity of development and building in the various parts of Israel, and especially in Jerusalem, on the other.”

City of Jerusalem’s position before the Court

“The Jerusalem municipality agrees with the main arguments of the project owners and theState.” Shalom Goldstein, a political advisor to the Mayor of Jerusalem, on east Jerusalemaffairs during the years 1995-2004, told the Court, “that to the best of his memory from his childhood the Museum compound was sometimes used for circus tents andentertainment attractions.” “The opposition to the building is in fact a political ploy which is motivated behind the scenes by Sheikh Raad Salah [Headof the Islamic Movement’s northern branch].”

Antiquities Authority’s position before the Court

“...the action of removing graves from their original site is done as a matter of course ... and despite the importance of the Mamillacemetery as a site of antiquities, already in the Mandate period [1920’s] parts of the area of the cemetery were used for development purposes...the Palace Hotelcompound, [built by the Grand Mufti] the car parks that were built on the museum compound, the construction of the Bet Agron [journalist’s]building and even the building of theExperimental School that is situated to the west of the museum compound...were constructed over the years on the area of the Mamilla cemetery, without any objection from anyparty.”

“Documents prove…the existence of building plans on the area of the cemetery that were prepared with the approval of the Muslimsthemselves as can be seen in correspondence from 1946.”

Major Paragraphs from the Supreme Court’s Decision

“Details of the planning procedures on the museum compound from 1960 onward show that for almost fifty years the compound has not been apart of the cemetery, both in the normative sense and in the practical sense, and it was used for various public purposes. It was classified as an open public area and aroad, an underground car park, two buildings on top of the car park, and finally the Museum ofTolerance were planned for it. During all those years no one raised any claim, on even one occasion, that the planning proceduresviolated the sanctity of the site, or that they were contrary to law as a result of the historical and religious uniqueness of the site.”

"Israel is a small strip of land, of great antiquity, with a history that extends over thousands of years...” “For decades this areawas not regarded as a cemetery by the general public or by the Muslim community... no one denied thisposition."

3. When the design was completed, the model was on display at JerusalemCity Hall and newspaper ads were taken out and posted in the Hebrew and Arab press - again, no protestfrom any Muslim group whatsoever.

They were silent because, as the High Court said, "...the area has not been classified as a cemetery for decades." The bones found during construction were between300 and 400 years old. They were unaccompanied by a single marker, monument, or tombstone, family name or religion.

Imagine the chaos to society if, after fifty years of designation for public use, land would be changed and reverted to what it may have been four orfive centuries ago.

4. Muslim scholars and religious leaders have dealt with such issues for centuries and, inseeking to resolve such difficulties, ruled that a cemetery not in use for 37 years is considered mundras - anabandoned cemetery that has lost its sanctity.

In fact, because the whole area was regarded as mundras, in 1946, the mufti of Jerusalem planned tobuild a Muslim university on the entire Mamilla cemetery (now IndependencePark). We submitted the architectural plans and drawings of that proposed university to the Supreme Court. Today, the concept of mundras is widelysanctioned and practiced throughout the Arab world, in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, SaudiArabia and the Palestinian territories.

5. While Judaism does not have a mundras concept, the Supreme Court, in its decision notes,"That despite the Jewish religious law prohibitions ... to prevent the removal of graves or building on top of them, in practice, in cases wherepublic needs required this, an agreed Jewish law solution has usually been found, and this allowed the building to be carried out in a way that minimized...the violation of thegraves... Jewish religious law also allows, as we have said, the removal of graves in a dignified manner. Balanced solutions of this kind were also proposedby the respondents (Simon Wiesenthal Center), and they even agreed to pay all the expensesinvolved in them."

6. It is important to note that the Sheikh initiated the proceedings before the High Courtbecause he saw this as a land grab in the center of Jerusalem. The Court immediately ordered mediation betweenthe parties to be conducted by former court president Meir Shamgar. Our Center was very sensitive to the issue and offered numerous compromises, but they were allrejected out-of-hand by Sheikh Salah, who refused to even meet to discuss them. He insisted that the Court rule on the matter.

Now, after over two years in the Courts, the Supreme Court has handed down a 119-page unanimous verdict in favor of the Museum of ToleranceJerusalem. Sheikh Salah and his defenders, who eagerly sought the Court's relief, are now agitating against its decision becausethey lost.

7. It is not those who lie beneath the ground who threaten the stability of theMiddle East. It is the intolerance of extremists above the ground and those with an agenda who impede any prospects for civility and respect. Almostevery place you dig in Jerusalem you're going to come into contact with ancient civilizations. Is it betterto let this site remain a parking lot, or build a center for human dignity there, which would teach young people mutual respect and socialresponsibility?

8. In the end, the Supreme Court in its verdict gave the best reasons for the need ofa Museum of Tolerance, "The importance and benefit of realizing the plan to buildthe Museum of Tolerance in the center of the city ofJerusalem are very great. The Museumof Tolerance embodies an ideal of establishing a spiritual center that will spread a message of human tolerance betweenpeoples, between sectors of the population and between man and his fellow-man."

“The establishment of the museum is likely to make an important national contribution to the whole country, in which no center has yet beenbuilt with the purpose of addressing the issue of tolerance in all its aspects, and to bring about the assimilation of this idea among the general public."

"The location of the museum in the center of Jerusalem has special significance, since it is a city that has a special ethical significance for three religions and an ancienthistory, which is unique to human civilization."