An op-ed in Ha’aretz by Meron Benvenisti laments There is no archaeological peace. The subject is a draft agreement among archaeologists to define ownership of archaeological artifacts.
Indeed, the agreement has sections that deal with the return of archaeological artifacts that were removed from the occupied territories since 1967, preservation of archaeological sites, cooperation on excavations, as well as special arrangements for Jerusalem. But the interest raised by the draft is connected less to its details than to its fundamental approach, which regards Israel’s archaeological activities in the West Bank as a theft of cultural objects rightfully belonging to the Palestinians, as if Israelis were colonialist grave robbers a la 19th century, who stripped the precious historical legacy of the Ancient Near East and transferred them to museums in Europe. Now, goes the logic, as the land Israel is divided into two states and the era of colonialism is brought to an end, what was stolen will be restored to its rightful owners.
Earlier an archaeologist Neal Asher Silberman criticized this draft agreement in Partitioning the Past.
Regrettably, the agreement’s principles cling stubbornly to old-fashioned concepts of territory, sovereignty and exclusive possession of cultural property that dramatically reduce the possibility of ever seeing archaeology as anything more than a zero-sum game. In its vision of archaeology under a two-state solution, each state would have the exclusive responsibility of owning, managing and disposing of the sites within its domain. Finds excavated in the West Bank since June 4, 1967, would be handed over, without exception, to the Palestinian antiquities authorities as would all finds looted from the West Bank in the course of illegal excavations for the Israeli and international antiquities trade. Jerusalem is proposed as a unique island of archaeological condominium, but the proposed “Cultural Heritage Zone,” carefully enclosing the various ancient sites ringing the walls of the Old City, would mostly likely be an entirely voluntary area of cooperation subject to the same partition of sovereignty as the rest of the land.
Asherman sees archeology as a science, something with universal appeal. I expect that Israeli archaeologists treat their field that way. He objects to “ownership” of the past. However Benvenisti is correct, the real problem is the politicization of archeology inherent in this so called agreement.
Palestinian nationalism denies Jewish history. The Palestinian National Charter which has never been revoked or superseded states:
Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality.
Allowing the Palestinians control over archaeological discoveries anywhere, gives them additional control over the past. The lack of regard the WAKF has shown to antiquities on the Temple Mount is a demonstration of this belief. Archeology as practiced by the Palestinians is a political not a scientific activity. An agreement like this, which legitimizes the denial if not the destruction of the Jewish heritage of Israel is outrageous.
Benvenisti may rail against “settlers,” but it is precisely those settlers who know the history of the area. They respect antiquities because they know that the past vindicates their present and future. This draft agreement is a blow against peace, just as it is a blow against the legitimacy of Israel.
A more general problem is the same as the Oslo accords, the hypothetical Geneva accord and that it is an attempt by a small group of people to indulge their moral senses and impose their view on others. Why should three Israeli archaeologists be able to dictate to the Israeli public their past?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
