Is the ICOMOS Report on Sebaste/Samaria Biased?

by Shimon Samuels and Alex Uberti

As we had forewarned, the 48th Session of the World Heritage Committee (being held in Busan, South Korea from 19 to 29 July) is the occasion for the Palestinian Authority to claim yet another piece of heritage that is hardly part of its identity, the Sebaste/Samaria archaeological site.

See: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-sebaste-samaria-a-new-site-of-heritage-warfare/

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), an NGO based in France with national offices worldwide, has filed a report, which partly falls into the biased narrative of the Palestinian Authority, while providing recommendations that are a proper challenge to reality.

BIASED NARRATIVE

1. From its incipit, the ICOMOS report indicates the “Location” of the site as within the “Nablus Governorate, State of Palestine”. Only in the following “Background” paragraph, it ambiguously affirms the site is “not under the control of the State Party” (i.e. the Palestinian Authority). In practice, it hints but omits to clarify that, since it is in «Area C», the archaeological site is under exclusive Israeli civil and military control and responsibility (a status quo dating back to the 1993 Oslo Accords).
2. In its “Brief description”, the report mentions “different civilizations from at least the 9th century BCE through the Hellenistic, Byzantine and Roman periods… Crusader era… Ayyubid/Mamluk and Ottoman periods”, evoking nearly all civilizations that have stepped through the region, but omitting the very first historical record of “Shomron/Samaria” as the capital of the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel, nor does it mention the ancient Israelites as a native civilization compared to most others being foreign. This historical and anthropological bias is repeated throughout the report.
3. The ICOMOS report mentions the “Israeli Civil Administration, that plans to develop on the site the Shomron National Park”, lamenting an “irreversible alteration” through “excavations, destruction, damage…”. Nevertheless, the creation of an archaeological park would, rather than ruin the site, inherently imply treating it with care and ultimately preserving it (as per the numerous other historical sites supervised by the Israeli Archaeological Authority)! On the contrary, the Palestinian Authority is indeed “hungry for land”, in order to expand its residential settlements for a growing demographic. As mentioned in our previous reports, its interest and track record in preserving Jewish or other antique artefacts is questionable, if not disastrous.
4. After a description of King Herod’s architectural additions (with yet no mention of the Jews), the ICOMOS report explains the transformation of the Christian church and Cathedral dedicated to St. John the Baptist into an Islamic mosque… and adds “it continued to fulfill a religious function, thereby preserving the sacred character of the place…”. Letting aside the fact that the historical figure is not presented as a Jewish preacher who is foundational in Christian iconography, but repeatedly as a prophet of Islam, this narrative whitewashes the historical conquest and appropriation by Arab Muslims of a Christian place of worship and its transformation into the Nabi Yahya Mosque for the “sacred” but also exclusive practice of Islam!
5. Further into the “Historical situation assessment”, the report does state “a cautious association between the monumental development of the site and the reigns of kings Omri and Ahab; the former mentioned in the Bible as the founder of the city of Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel”. In this context, “Israel” or the “Bible” are mentioned once, but only as a “cautious association” that sounds barely legitimate, if not outright demeaning.

CHALLENGE TO REALITY

At the end, the ICOMOS report recommends the Palestinian authorities should carry out a plethora of due diligence activities, such as: “assessment of the state of conservation; developing a monitoring system; preparing a research plan; establishing an inclusive governance framework; conducting further archaeological surveys; ensuring a Heritage Impact Assessment consistent with the guidelines; etc…” by a 1 February 2027 deadline (six months from now!).

Today, these represent tasks that have already been planned, financed and are presently carried out by an overwhelmingly more competent instance, the Israeli Archaeological Authority (see our previous report on the topic). Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority would be incapable of fulfilling them, for lack of political will, historical expertise, financial resources, and legal access to «Area C» (as per the Oslo Accords)…

Considering the Palestinian authorities’ track record – the most notable cases being the 9,000 tons of archaeology-rich soil excavated from beneath the Temple Mount and dumped elsewhere, and the continued degradation of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus – there are reasonable fears that also this site might be mismanaged and degraded beyond repair.

Moreover, in the current situation of instability in Palestinian politics, if Hamas or other terrorist factions were to gain the upper hand, then any Jewish, Christian, or other Israeli heritage site (Baha’i, Samaritan, Druze…) would be threatened or targeted for destruction!

CONCLUSION

Why is it that, throughout the whole 10,000 word ICOMOS report on “Sebaste/Samaria”, the terms “Jewish, Israelite or Judaism” are never mentioned?

A simple response could be that it was mostly composed by the «Palestinian National Committee» of ICOMOS, thus satisfying Palestinian and Arab institutional desires, inter alia, by denying Israel’s authority over «Area C» or her ongoing archaeological efforts, and ultimately her legitimacy to claim heritage in a land where Judaism is deeply rooted.

To credit its standard of expertise, ICOMOS sets recommendations and preliminary goals that are close to impossible to fulfil by the Palestinian Authority, thus risking to maintain the archaeological site of Sebaste/Samaria in a state of formal limbo.

As a result, Israeli authorities will assume the responsibility of securing the historical site, protecting it against looting and vandalism, pursuing the archaeological survey, while the international instances such as UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee can continue to exert political bias against Israel… up to the point of demanding that this foundational symbol of Jewish identity and treasure of universal value fall into the hands of those who might want to erase it forever.