Arnold Flick

UNESCO and Israel

What’s ridiculous is Israel’s complaints. Can Israel really imagine it can effect this vote by complaining and by reminding UNESCO of history? Do Jews really believe petitions and lawyers will effect change?  As long as Israel gives free reign to Muslims while restraining Jews it is de facto agreeing with UNESCO. There is really only one meaningful action that Israel can take and that is to demonstrate sovereignty.

In the USA, if a property owner extends an easement on his property to outsiders, it is necessary for the owner to occasionally close the easement, perhaps one day a year, to assert the owner’s ongoing ownership; without this assertion, after a designated number of years, there is danger of the owner losing his claim.

My own view from the Diaspora is that this is now happening on the Mount. Obviously, Dayan and Meir did not give the Mount its full importance when it yielded authority back to the Wakf. Maybe those abstaining countries, putative friends of Israel, are absorbing this message. If the Mount is truly of fundamental importance to Israel then even at this late date it should assert ownership. One obvious way to do this is by closing the Mount for a fixed time to all visitors. Israeli flags and no others, days of unrestricted visits by Israelis are other statements of ownership.

Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Arafat would have restricted Jews on the Mount and that this is what Abbas wants? Do the Palestinians love the Mount more than the Israelis?

About the Author
Arnold L. Flick was born 1930 of secular, Zionist, Russian-Jewish immigrant parents. He has followed events in Israel since age seven when he first solicited for the “Jews of Palestine” on the streets of Los Angeles as a young member of Habonim. He was in Israel for four months 1990-91 and for two months 2002. He is active in the House of Israel Balboa park, a non-profit museum in Balboa Park, San Diego, that provides information about Israel to its 15,000 annual visitors.