FIGURE 16 - uploaded by Arieh Saposnik
Content may be subject to copyright.
Police post outside the Wall Compound, 1933. Photograph by Zoltan Kluger. Courtesy of the Israel Government Press Office, Photography Department, National Photo Collection.
Citations
... The disturbances of the Wall of 1929 in Jerusalem that harvested the lives of dozens among Jews and Arabs in Palestine signaled, according to some scholars, the beginning of the conflict between two communities given the violent nature of these confrontations that resulted from the conflation between religion and nationalism (Cohen 2013). These events, furthermore, constituted a formative moment in the construction of the Palestinian Arab national movement and had a considerable impact on the development of the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine and the establishment of many central ideas and beliefs that would shape the unique form of Zionist nationalism (Saposnik 2015). A central development that emerged from this decisive historical moment in the relations between Jews and Arabs was turning the Western Wall into a symbol of national identity, incorporating it into a growing national culture, and using it to create a new sense of sacredness that is associated with the nation (Saposnik 2015). ...
... These events, furthermore, constituted a formative moment in the construction of the Palestinian Arab national movement and had a considerable impact on the development of the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine and the establishment of many central ideas and beliefs that would shape the unique form of Zionist nationalism (Saposnik 2015). A central development that emerged from this decisive historical moment in the relations between Jews and Arabs was turning the Western Wall into a symbol of national identity, incorporating it into a growing national culture, and using it to create a new sense of sacredness that is associated with the nation (Saposnik 2015). Against the watershed of the transformation and the nationalization of such a religious icon, Isaac Yahuda utilized his knowledge of Islam to produce polemical discourse to underscore the indigeneity of Jews in the East, to protect the religious identity of his Hebrew readership, to undermine Muslims' claim to "contested" scared sites, and at the same time to demonstrate his authority among members of his community in the Yishuv and to show his loyalty to the Zionist enterprise. ...
How did an Arab Jew read the Quran against the backdrop of contradictory ideologies and the rise of key movements, including nationalism, colonialism, and Zionism, in Mandate Palestine? Approaching Isaac Yahuda as an Arab Jew challenges the binary opposition between Arabs and Jews in Zionist discourse, a linkage perceived as inconceivable, and on the other hand, that linkage is asserted, contested, and tested in the context of nationalism. This article also challenges the advancement of Jewish singularity and superiority by exploring how Jewish writers interacted with the Islamic scripture in Mandatory Palestine rather than dismissing it. This article examines Hebrew interpretation of various passages from the Quran that produced an understanding of the Quran that advanced Zionist ideals, including the nationalization of contested religious sites and the consolidation of the indigeneity of Jews in the East. Isaac Yahuda’s Hebrew commentary on the Quran challenged his Arab Jewishness in such a divisive nationalist atmosphere in Mandate Palestine. His hybrid background and dynamic connections with both Jews and Arabs enabled him to navigate these turbulent times by invoking the Quran, demonstrating respect for it, and at the same time challenging the understanding of his contemporary Muslims while utilizing German Jewish scholarship on the origins of Islam.
... He regards Jews as an ancient people who have undergone many changes in their long historical path toward a modern national identity, and he recognizes the religious component that has played a key role in Jewish culture throughout the generations (Smith 2000: 44-50) Against this background, it is interesting to examine the perception of the Western Wall as one of the prominent sites in the Jewish tradition, a place that represents the past (religious, biblical, and exilic, and the yearning for redemption), and one that was adapted to meet evolving national needs after it came under Israeli-Jewish sovereignty. The State of Israel's appropriation of the Western Wall area in June 1967 further reinforced the national status of the site, a process that had already begun during the period of British rule (Saposnik 2015;Cohen-Hattab and Kohn 2017). In the wake of the Six-Day War, the site became a Jewish and national holy place under Israeli control for the first time, an extraordinary phenomenon on an international scale. ...
This article focuses on the changes that occurred in the significance of Israel’s Western Wall after the Six-Day War in 1967, when the site became a prominent Jewish and Israeli symbol. We examine the processes that established the Western Wall as a site combining both Jewish and Israeli components of identity — a place of national importance in Israeli consciousness. During these processes, the religious and historic contexts of the site remained intact and were even strengthened, but they were now supplemented by modern Zionist-national values and expressions. The new reality created at the Western Wall accorded it a new and extraordinary status as a national holy place. The site continued to represent the past and Israel’s religious and historical heritage, and Jews continued to visit it for religious and traditional reasons. The innovation was that the Western Wall was now infused with new content relevant to the post-Six-Day War period and to the social and cultural characteristics of Israeli society during those years. The site served as a source of connection for the diverse expressions of Israeli identity, and it accommodated a relatively wide range of worldviews, from religious-traditional (and perhaps even ultra-Orthodox) perspectives to civil-national perspectives.
The significance of the Western Wall in Jerusalem has undergone numerous transformations over time. Originally a supporting wall for the Temple Mount, it became the focus of mourning after the Temple's destruction, and later a symbol for national rebirth; after the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel reclaimed it as part of its capital. Since then, two trends have been notable: strict religious authorities have taken charge of the site, and this transfer has been portrayed as part of an overall and purportedly inevitable shift in modern Israeli history. But the subsuming of national-historical significance of the Western Wall into a narrower religious one was not inevitable, and this article presents a number of viable policy alternatives that were available in 1967. Moreover, it suggests that the current status of the wall and policy towards it are outliers relative to mainstream public opinion, an example of political expediency conflicting with public interest.
We ask how the theopolitics of a nation-state, and especially its soteriology, engage with traditions that preceded the state and relay messages that contradict this theopolitics. To discuss this question, we address the evolving (re-)interpretation of the Ninth of Av—a ritual commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of Jewish (Judean) self-rule in ancient times—by Religious-Zionist commentators. We further compare this interpretation to the Religious-Zionist appropriation of Jerusalem Day, a civic holiday celebrating the establishment of Israeli control over East Jerusalem in the June 1967 war. We argue that the statist imperative of the superiority of nation-statist theopolitics suggests that traditions are co-opted to fit in with its soteriology, with varying degrees of resistance or willing accommodation by carriers of these traditions. This co-opting may result in either the de-politicization of what the statist view would see as religion or the religionization of the state's own civic and so-called secular holidays.
