This is yesterday's news, but it took some time to put together the necessary illustrations... I was rather shocked when I read the headlines because it had never occurred to me that among the hundreds of cultural sites trhat UNESCO has chosen in the past 40 years as World Heritage sites, the birthplazce of Jesus had never figured till yesterday! And it probably would not have passed muster if it hadn't been presented by the Palestinians, because at the same time the UNESCO also considered it one of the most endangered cultural sites. Somehow, I don't think the Palestinians care; after all, their terrorists used it as a hideout back in 2006 inviting an Israeli siege. But they wanted a cause that would be almost a shoo-in to win (in fact, there were 6 votes against it to 13 for), despite the paradox that the first UNESCO World Heritage site on their territory that they are now boasting about is a completely Christian site which Muslims before now had only ever sought to conquer as a war trophy and for nothing else. It is sad that Jesus's birth site had to be the object of this political one-upmanship. P.S. I must acknowledge, however, that since the Palestinian Liberation Organization came into being, its leaders - first Yassir Arafat and now Abu Mazen - have always made it a point to attend Christmas Midnight Mass at the Church of St. Catherine adjoining the Nativity of the Basilica.
UNESCO adds Christ's birthplace
to World Heritage list, and
Palestinians claim it as a victory
By ISABEL KERSHNER
JERUSALEM, June 29 — The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, along with the Pilgrimage Route, was added on Friday to Unesco’s World Heritage List, a move that was celebrated by Palestinians who hailed it as a significant political and diplomatic achievement as much as a cultural one.
Hanan Ashrawi, who leads the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Department of Culture and Information, called the 13-to-6 vote of the World Heritage Committee meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, “a welcome recognition by the international community of our historical and cultural rights in this land.”
The venerated church, the traditional birthplace of Christ, is in what is now a Palestinian-administered part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. It was the first such site to be nominated since Palestine was granted full membership in Unesco, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, eight months ago.
Israel and the United States lobbied strongly against the church’s listing, which was approved with two countries abstaining, just as they had opposed Palestine’s UNESCO membership, viewing it as part of a contentious, wider campaign for international recognition of statehood in the absence of an agreement with Israel.
Particularly galling for Israel was the fact that the church was also placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, which UNESCO attributed to the damage it has suffered from water leaks. Palestinian officials have also suggested that the site is endangered by Israel.
Ms. Ashrawi said in a statement that Friday’s decision “emphasizes that Israel must be bound by international law and treaties, particularly pertaining to its illegal and detrimental measures as a belligerent occupant and as a major threat to the safety and the responsible preservation of that important segment of human civilization in Palestine.”
Palestinian officials briefing reporters in Bethlehem this week said that a vote to include the church on the list would be a vote in favor of self-determination and cultural rights for the Palestinian people.
“We believe that all of Palestine is in danger,” said Omar Awadallah, who deals with the United Nations at the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Israel has said that it is not opposed to the church’s listing as a world heritage site, but that it objects to what it calls the Palestinians’ using Unesco as a political tool against Israel.
“This is proof that UNESCO is motivated by political considerations and not cultural ones,” the Israeli prime minister’s office said in a statement after the vote. “Instead of taking steps to advance peace,” it added, “the Palestinians are acting unilaterally in ways that only distance it.”
“The world should remember that the Church of the Nativity, which is sacred to Christians, was desecrated in the past by Palestinian terrorists,” the statement said, a reference to Palestinian gunmen occupying the church in 2002 along with clerics and civilians who had taken refuge there as Israeli tanks and troops pushed into Bethlehem. The Israeli military action was part of a broader offensive after months of Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel. The church remained under siege for 39 days.
Because Palestine
[but Palestine does not yet exist as an actual state - that is why its delegation to international organizations is not called Palestine but Palestinian Liberation Organization] was only recently accepted as a UNESCO member, the Palestinians decided to fast-track the church application for inclusion in the list on an emergency basis.
A panel of experts that advises the World Heritage Committee had determined that although the church needed renovation and conservation, it did not appear to be in imminent danger and should not qualify for emergency status. Leaders of the three
churches that share control of the Church of the Nativity, always leery of prospective changes to the delicate status quo, also expressed reservations about the nomination.
An important addendum from
Fr. Pizzaballa, Franciscan Custos of the Holy Land expresses quiet acceptance of the UNESCO decision, which he calls "great news". At first, when the proposal had been raised, all the churches who officiate in the church (Greek-orthodox, Catholics and Armenians) had expressed opposition over fears that the action of the PNA could distort the use of the holy place.
Speaking at the Franciscan Media Center, Fr. Pizzaballa, however, ruled that "President Abu Mazen, the president of the Palestinian Autonomy, has said very clearly, even in writing, in a formal letter to our Churches (Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Armenians and Custody) that guarantees the full autonomy of Churches in management of holy sites and respect the status quo and normal functions. This insurance is very important. "
"Our hope as churches - he added, reiterating the position always taken in the issue - is that ... the holy places are considered first of all holy places and religious and that cultural, political, local or international issues, are excluded from the management, life, and dynamics of the holy places. They must remain a place of peace and serenity for all pilgrims and not become a place of difficult coexistence. This is our hope for Bethlehem and all the holy places. "
The Basilica of the Nativity was built in the fourth century under Emperor Constantine, and encloses the cave and the manger where Jesus was born and laid. In the sixth century, it was destroyed in a fire and rebuilt under Justinian. According to tradition, in 614 the church was saved from Persian destruction, thanks to the depiction in the upper part of the structure of the three Magi in national costume.
In 2002 it suffered a siege by Israeli troops who wanted to flush out some Palestinian militants who had taken shelter there. It has long been in need of urgent restoration of the walls and columns, blackened by the fires and the roof, which is very unstable is in need of repair. In 2011 the church was visited by at least two million pilgrims.
The physical placement of the Basilica of the Nativity is rather awkward, and in fact, it is all rather unprepossessing. Center, the Door of Humility, which is the entrance to the Basilica of the Nativity. Right, an old photo shows better where the entrance is located.
Benedict XVI in Manger Square during his visit to the Holy Land in 2009.
And in the Grotto of the Nativity:
World Heritage sites:
As of now, 951 sites in 155 nations have been declared World Heritage sites by UNESCO - 739 are cultural sites, 183 are natural sites, and 23 are mixed. The complete list can be consulted here: whc.unesco.org/en/list
As old churches go, one does not really visit the Basilica of the Nativity to appreciate the church built over the site of the Nativity. The whole impression one gets is of neglect and a paucity of features to 'admire', so you simply head down to the grotto just to be physically inches away if you can from the star on the floor that Tradition says marks the spot where Jesus was born, and ite adjoining altar of the manger. Even down in the Grotto, the fact that three Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian) have their respective 'turfs' staked out is a distraction. The attendant priests, at least the times I've been there, are surly and unfriendly, and being in a crowd of tourists each elbowing their way to come close to the altars is quite a distraction. I had to close my eyes and will myself to hear 'Silent Night' and 'O Little Town of Bethlehem' in my mind to achieve the sense of awe that the place demands. On my second visit to Israel, I deliberately went back to the Basilica twice on separate days to see if the experience would be more 'spiritual' but I concluded it must be me who was deficient and unworthy. How different from being at the Calvary chapel of the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre just a few feet away from the rock of Golgotha on which the Cross stood! [For some strange reason, this spot does not seem to be 'popular' with pilgrims.] Or standing on the Mount of the Beatitudes and looking down on the Lake of Galilee. Both very sublime spiritual experiences which I relive with Proustian vividness and immense gratitude every time I pray the Rosary.
My point is that the Basilicas of the Nativity and the Holy Sepulchre have not seemed to benefit at all from having too many Christian churches in charge with rival claims that have often led to physical hostilities. If each shrine had been the responsibility of one Church alone, I think no one would spare any expense or effort to make them worthy of the Lord, as Christian churches have done over the centuries. As it is, both basilicas are in a state reflecting a weird and warped (and quite un-Christian) stalemate that can only be dispiriting when one looks to be uplifted. And I certainly do not count out the fact that much of it has not changed in centuries, and that in itself is admirable.
A great comparison could be made with the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth, a magnificent modern shrine with all the traditional elements present and as beautiful as Catholic shrines usually are. Of course, having been built and laid out specifically and literally around the site traditionally believed to have been that of the Annunciation, the design is compelling, and the chapel on that site is everything one expects as a spiritual oasis. Besides, the trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth and back, with an excurion around the Lake of Galilee, is easily the most New Testament-evocative experience one could have in the Holy Land.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 02/07/2012 00:36]