Two Venerated Mothers Separated by a Wall: Iconic Spaces, Territoriality, and Borders in...

nnn

Two Venerated Mothers Separated by a WallIconic Spaces, Territoriality, and Borders

in Israel-Palestine

Nurit Stadler and Nimrod Luz

n ABSTRACT: This article explores the role of sacred places and pilgrimage centers in the context of contemporary geopolitical strife and border disputes. Following and expand-ing on the growing body of literature engaged with the contested nature of the sacred, this article argues that sacred sites are becoming more influential in processes of determining physical borders. We scrutinize this phenomenon through the prism of a small parcel of land on the two sides of the Separation Wall that is being constructed between Israel and Palestine. Our analysis focuses on two holy shrines that are dedicated to devotional moth-ers: the traditional Tomb of Rachel the Matriarch on the way to Bethlehem and Our Lady of the Wall, an emergent Christian site constructed as a reaction to the Wall. We examine the architectural (and material) phenomenology, the experience, and the implications that characterize these two adjacent spatialities, showing how these sites are being used as political tools by various actors to challenge the political, social, and geographical order.

n KEYWORDS: Bethlehem, borders, Israel-Palestine, Jerusalem, Our Lady of the Wall, pil-grimage, sacred places, Rachel’s Tomb

Holy places have long been recognized as contested venues. In such places, ethnic, national, and ideological struggles are spatialized, and borders are defined (Chidester and Linenthal 1995; Eade and Sallnow 1991b; Kong 2001, 2010; Smith 1987; van der Leeuw [1933] 1986). Draw-ing and building on the expansive body of literature on the contested nature of the sacred, the present article suggests that sacred sites are gaining an important role in dictating geopolitical and national borders. Moreover, the rising power of religious factors in multi-scalar settings has led to a growing phenomenon whereby borders are superimposed in juxtaposition to religious landmarks (most often sacred sites).

In this article, we explore religiously inspired border superimposition through the prism of a tiny sliver of land that is claimed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Lodged between the expanding outer limits of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the West Bank village of Beit Jala, the contested land is home to two shrines: the Tomb of Rachel the Matriarch and Our Lady of the Wall. The former is an ancient, well-established, and well-documented monument that is recog-nized and mutually contested among Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. In contrast, Our

Religion and Society: Advances in Research 6 (2015): 127–141 © Berghahn Booksdoi:10.3167/arrs.2015.060109

128 n Nurit Stadler and Nimrod Luz

Lady of the Wall is a new site that centers around a Christian icon, which was painted in 2010 on the Palestinian side of the Separation Wall. This barrier, which is discussed at length below, was initiated by the State of Israel in 2002, and its construction is ongoing. It abuts both of the sites under review and has palpably charged the area with new questions of sacredness, territoriality, and border claiming.

The present article examines the architectural phenomenology that characterizes these two adjacent spatialities as well as their symbolic-iconic implications in the urban and national realms. Our focus is on how these sites are being used as political tools by various actors—hegemonic and marginal, Jewish and Christian—in a dispute over border. We show that in the process of border claims, Jews, Christians, and Muslims mythologize spaces, territories, and borders by embedding symbols and narratives of female sainthood into the public sphere—in our case, the canonical narratives of Rachel and Mary. We show that by producing these religious manifestations, the devout conceive and/or advance new spatialities of territories, borders, and national identities. These claims are intensified by the extremely militarized, masculinized, and often violent environs.

Following in the footsteps of Orsi (1999), Lefebvre (1991), Knott (2010), Beaumont (2010), Beaumont and Baker (2011), Garbin (2012: 401), Cloke and Beaumont (2013), and Molendijk et al. (2010), we document some of the changes produced by religious claimants on the Jerusa-lem and Bethlehem borders over the past 20 years. More specifically, throughout this article, we address the following questions: How are borders reshaped by religious claims that are expressed and advanced through sacred iconic places? Particularly, how have sacred shrines and construc-tions of sanctity become the dominant means of mobilizing religious and political symbols as a way to change and claim lands and borders?

ContextualizingContestedSites:TwoMatriarchalSacredShrinesandaWallbetweenThem

In April 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon initiated the construction of a barrier between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (Arieli and Sfard 2008; Pike 2006). From its inception, this Separa-tion Wall, known alternatively as the Wall or the Separation Fence, drew the wrath of local and international human rights organizations, politicians, and numerous others (Lagerquist 2004), who have accused Israel of exploiting a precarious security situation as a pretext for the appro-priation and annexation of Palestinian lands (Arieli and Sfard 2008; Ibheis and Ayad 2010). When complete, the barrier will wind its way through 430 miles of disputed land between Palestinians and Israelis. It is essentially a daunting obstacle that combines advanced surveillance methods with an elaborate system of physical barriers and security measures. It also includes a variety of open-ings, such as gates and more elaborate passageways, where Israeli soldiers serve as gatekeepers. One of these passages through the Wall is located midway between the two shrines that serve as our point of entry to explore the connections among borders, sacred sites, and territoriality.

During the course of a growing geopolitical debate and a series of confrontations between opposing sides, Rachel’s Tomb became the most hotly contested place in the Jerusalem-Bethle-hem region. The site is famous for its religious, historical, and political significance. Its high pro-file also made it the subject of many political disputes and debates between those who wanted to pass it to Palestine and those who were fiercely determined to keep it as Israeli territory. After a lengthy and heated discussion, supported and elaborated with theological argument, the Israeli Cabinet convened a special meeting on 11 September 2002 at which they decided to change the Wall’s proposed route to include the Rachel’s Tomb compound within Israeli terri-tory and under direct Israeli control (Shragai 2002). The official explanation for this measure

Two Venerated Mothers Separated by a Wall n 129

was not theological but security-based. The Cabinet stated the need to “increase security” at the shrine and “prevent infiltration of terrorists.”1 To this end, an 8-meter-high towering wall was constructed around the compound, along with a maze of security roads and several army posts that are manned at all times. Following the same logic, the civilian route for local Palestinians (known as Passage 300 or Rachel’s Passage) was moved a few hundred yards due east of the Tomb in order to prevent Palestinians from approaching the site on foot or by car.

In 2010, at the request of some nuns living near the Wall, a British iconographer painted an icon of Mary on the Palestinian side of the barrier. This icon, known as Our Lady of the Wall, is becoming a site of pilgrimage and veneration. Thus, two sacred sites of venerated mothers exist in very close proximity on opposite sides of the Wall and within this highly nationalistic and militarized environment.

Methodology

As mentioned above, the present article is part of a comprehensive study on the resurgence of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sacred places in Israel-Palestine and their influence on terri-tory, landscape, urban planning, and everyday life.2 Over the course of our research, we have observed, photographed, and videotaped the practices and rituals at these sites. Moreover, we have held informal discussions with visitors and organizers in various languages (Hebrew, Ara-bic, and English) during special ceremonies and everyday practices. The study has also involved extensive archival and library research, including an in-depth survey of print and electronic media articles about the two venues and their surroundings. Our fieldwork on Rachel’s Tomb and Our Lady of the Wall differed notably from our work elsewhere because several unforesee-able challenges arose as a result of the two sites’ proximity to the barrier.

As holders of Israeli passports, we were easily able to gain access to Rachel’s Tomb. However, as soon as we stepped into the shrine’s heavily guarded narrow passage, our view was blocked, and the passage imposed limitations on our efforts to conduct an ethnographic study (see fig. 1). Our main challenge was gaining access to the other side of the barrier. Israeli law requires citi-zens who wish to enter Palestinian-controlled territories (known as Area A) to obtain a formal letter from the army. Upon presenting it, Israeli visitors to Bethlehem face a grueling ordeal of interrogations and intimidation at the Rachel’s Tomb checkpoint.

AWalled-OffMatriarch:Rachel’sTomb

Rachel’s Tomb has been venerated in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions for centuries, and its convoluted history extends at least 1,700 years (Limor 2007; Schiller 1978; Selwyn 2009, 2011; Sered 1986, 1989, 1991, 1998, 1999; Stadler 2013, 2015). The matriarch’s burial place is mentioned in Jewish and Christian canonical texts as well as various Muslim sources (Arafat 2013; Friedland and Hecht 1991). The landscape of the shrine has changed considerably over the course of its existence. The most recent changes are attributed to Israeli narratives of security needs. In 1995, the Israeli architect Yaron Katz was commissioned to restructure the compound in accordance with new security demands and guidelines that were laid down by the Israel Ministry of Defense (Katz 2001). Accordingly, Katz designed a long stone wall lined with sealed arches (see fig. 2). The implementation of this plan enclosed the hitherto unpretentious struc-ture behind a fortified concrete corridor. The new architecture and the surrounding wall gave the shrine an army bunker atmosphere, and visitors have often described it thus.

Figure1: The Road to the Tomb between Two Walls

Figure2: Rachel’s Tomb after the Construction of the Wall


In this reality, as per the 1995 Oslo II Accord (the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement), Rachel’s Tomb was designated as part of Area C, which is under Israeli security control. The original plan called for the site to be fully controlled by the Palestinian Authority (Area A),3 as it was located southeast of Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries at the time. However, it was ultimately annexed to the areas under Israeli control after heavy pressure from several Israeli religious and political figures.4 On 11 September 2002, the Israeli Security Cabinet under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to include Rachel’s Tomb within the ‘Jerusalem envelope’, which effectively meant de facto annexation (Shragai 2002). The transformation of the legal status of the Tomb’s area from A to C was buttressed and confirmed by an Israeli Supreme Court ruling5 that denied Palestinian petitions to allow free movement from Bethlehem to the sacred site.

Since 1996, Palestinians have strengthened their claims to the shrine and its environs. Pal-estinian activists and religious agents are now producing and reinforcing a new religious nar-rative. Muslim accounts of veneration of the site date from as early as the eleventh century and are consistent with Jewish interpretations. The place is aptly named Qubat Rahil (The Dome of Rachel) in Arabic (al-Harawi 1953; Strickert 2007: 87–89). However, in recent years, a new layer of traditions is being produced according to which the site is identified as the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque in honor of the Prophet Muhammad’s personal companion and former slave, who is also considered Islam’s first mu’adhdhin or muezzin (a crier who announces prayers) (Arafat 2013).6 These sorts of counterclaims to Israeli-Jewish narratives of holy places have become a formidable political tool for Palestinians seeking to contest Israel’s hegemonic position and its claims to the land (Luz 2004). For example, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the former mufti of Jerusalem, made the following comments in an interview with the Jerusalem Times, an independent Pal-estinian weekly: “This [i.e., the annexation of Rachel’s Tomb] is unacceptable and a violation of our religious rights … Israel’s policy of discrimination against the Palestinians, the indigenous people, in every aspect of their lives, can be seen clearly through the annexation … We can’t force the Israeli army to cease from carrying out this decision. However, we will continue to cling to our historic and religious rights over all Muslim and Christian sites and shrines in Pal-estine” (Shehada 2002).

In turn, the recent identification of the shrine with Bilal was met with an assortment of coun-terclaims that emphasize the biblical legacy of Rachel and her tomb, reinforced by local Jewish voices (Stadler 2015). These opposing religious and political voices express the tensions and the complex politics of borders. During interviews we held with Israeli pilgrims at Rachel’s Tomb, these sorts of territorial claims were buttressed with notions of a divinely chosen and benevo-lent mother. Our interlocutors also emphasized the credibility of the present location of her gravesite. Furthermore, many of them drew a correlation between this shrine and the Jews’ return to their homeland. Put differently, the religious claims were fused with nationalist senti-ments and geopolitical demands, both of which were translated into concrete barriers and bor-der lines that serve to deny Arab claims and to exclude Arab access to the site.

This viewpoint was expressed by Smadar, an Israeli woman in her forties, with whom we spoke at the Tomb in 2009:

Rachel’s life was tragic, but we know that throughout her ordeal she remained absolutely faithful to God. All the sages declared that Jacob buried Rachel on the roadside so that she could pray for them [i.e., her progeny] as they were being led into exile … Jeremiah reminded us all that “Rachel weeps for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children who are gone.” God’s answer was clear: “Restrain your voice from weeping, your eyes from shed-ding tears, for there is reward for your labor.” This is why we know that this place belongs to us today and that the Jews will “return from the lands of their enemies to their own country” [Jeremiah 31:14–15]. These are God’s words to our mother.


Like many other visitors to the shrine, Smadar regards the figure of Rachel as not only a devo-tional mother but a national one. Moreover, she invoked the Tomb’s biblical connection to the “return of the exiles.” By summoning these symbols, Smadar sought to reinforce the long and, in her estimation, undisputed territorial claim and Jewish presence at this contested shrine. Her assertions were echoed by many others. Shulamit, a 33-year-old Orthodox-Israeli woman, enthusiastically explained why she prays at the gravesite of her “eternal mother” on a regu-lar basis: “It is written in the sacred scriptures that Rachel imainu [our mother] labors on our behalf more than all of our holy fathers put together. While they are all hiding in the cave [i.e., the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron], she constantly reveals herself to us here.” Joining the conversation, a 25-year-old woman named Avigail said that “the inspiration of the divine spirit [shkhinah] is here in our mother’s tomb, and we should all pray for our sake here in her eternal land that is ours.” In essence, Shulamit and Avigail have narrated their story of the place. They describe its sacredness and politics by mixing biblical phrases with current events, materiality, and belonging. Moreover, they mobilize biblical passages for the purpose of portraying Rachel as the eternal mother of the Jewish nation, which is thus the owner of the land (Stadler 2013).

As we learned from the narratives and debates of many at the Tomb, religious mythology mingles with land and territory ownership. Although the de facto border was established by a highly secularized national apparatus in concert with a professional military, the main impe-tus behind the border contours was the struggle over the land—a highly political struggle that was cast in religious terms. In this respect, the Tomb’s contentious history and its twenty-first-century appropriation go hand-in-hand with the transformation of the shrine of Rachel and her burial place into a national iconic site and of her tomb into a landmark of territorial ownership. These developments attest to changing dynamics in public spaces, urban landscapes, and deter-minations of national borders as products of a wide range of often contradictory religious, theo-logical, totemic, and territorial claims. Thus, at Rachel’s Tomb, the totemic aspects of religion as belonging are returning to a central role in the reshaping of the public sphere.

AChristianReactiontotheWallasaBorder:OurLadyoftheWall

The case of Our Lady of the Wall can also be discussed as part of this political-religious trans-formation of the border. In 2010, an icon of the Virgin Mary was painted less than 550 yards due east of Rachel’s Tomb on the Palestinian side of the Wall. Given the fact that the age-old shrine is the main reason the Wall runs through that particular location, the relatively new mural can be understood, in a roundabout way, as a reaction to the shrine’s enclosure. Ian Knowles, a British iconographer and former priest, was commissioned to paint the mural by nuns from the nearby Emmanuel Monastery. Nestled among graffiti and new drawings, the icon graces a corner block of the towering gray Wall. In combination, all of these visuals create a very political landscape of resistance and express the pain and frustration that the Wall has caused local residents and visitors from the Palestinian side.

For example, Sister Martha, a monastery nun interviewed by Deborah Pike (2006), explained the disruption caused by the newly constructed Israeli barrier: “Here in Bethlehem, the wall encircles us completely. We face Jerusalem but cannot see it, the view is completely blocked. All around Bethlehem there is this electric wall, the enclosure, it is dangerous and no one can leave. We have now been cut off from our retreat house, the town hall, and the university. Entire families have been cut off from one another; it is really like the Berlin Wall. People try to climb the wall, cross over, leave; the hospitals are full of people who have broken their arms and legs trying to climb over, because, despite everything, they must live.” Like other people we met,


Sister Martha described the experience of being shut out by the Wall. Since its construction, people can no longer reach places that were integral parts of their daily life, such as the churches and sacred places of Jerusalem. It was the Christians restricted by the Wall who called for the establishment of a new Marian site. According to the local narrative, a picture of Mary was first lodged into the crevice between two of the barrier’s concrete slabs, thereby lifting the spirits of Christians in the area. However, the picture was soon frayed by heavy winter rains (interview with Ian Knowles, 7 October 2011).

As depicted in the mural, the pregnant mother presses her outer garment close to her chest, while opening her mantle to serve as a safe refuge (see fig. 3). According to visitors we encoun-tered at the site, the mural’s three ancient olive trees symbolize the endurance of faith, hope, and charity. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, olive trees also represent deep feelings for contested, and now lost, lands: “[The] [o]live tree evokes everything for the Palestinians, it is old but it is not dead. It endures, it is old, it does not die, but it is something that is so often desecrated by the wall, it is a scar, it is a desecration. The whole thing is about the land … So the olive tree’s endur-ance is very important. And the mountain, which is the frame, is a very old motive.”7 Beneath the

Figure3: Our Lady of the Wall


painting of Mary, an open doorway offers a distant view of Jerusalem. The image of the Virgin, according to Knowles (interview, 1 November 2012), stands as “a contrast to violence and injus-tice, in the hope of peace and reconciliation for all … It will [also] ensure that the indigenous Arab-Christian icon tradition, now hanging on by a thread, is preserved for a new generation.” Moreover, the mural shows a pair of boots hanging over the top of the slab. Knowles explained that they “represent all those who have hung up their boots because they no longer have land of their own on which to walk.” Although the icon is the cynosure of this site, other less formal elements such as graffiti are constantly being thrown into the mix.

On 13 December 2012, during one of our visits to the site, while enjoying the company of Knowles, we noticed that someone had painted a large dragon on the Wall some 50 yards due west of the painting of Mary. Knowles expressed his view that the recently painted dragon alludes to a passage in the Book of Revelation (12:1–5), which describes two signs that appeared in heaven: “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, tra-vailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.”

During a previous visit on 1 November 2012, we noticed a new graffiti reading “Ride into the sun.” This, and the other elements discussed below reveal the central theme of the nascent site: the Virgin as a symbol of revelation and peace. Its primary audience consists of people who are prohibited from crossing the checkpoint and visiting the established Marian sites in Jerusalem. “Many people here see this wall as the opposition to all that is good,” Knowles postulated (inter-view, 7 October 2011). “It has no future, it ghettoizes, cuts you off from your neighbors—this is what a wall does. You are not free like you used to be.”

For Clemens, a local Catholic woman, the icon is about bringing peace:

The idea behind painting this icon was to bring peace for both sides … if you look at it, you can notice that half of it is here and the other half is on the second block, this is how it unites both sides. To be honest, when they took our lands and built the Wall, we were much affected, we even thought that it was the end of the world for us, because these lands are from our ancestors to the children and because it is what provides a living for us. So when the lands were taken and we weren’t able to reach them, we became desperate, but with the picture of Mary here, we began to feel that there is someone waiting for us. Mary waits for us, gives us comfort and love, and opens her hands to us … So we, as people of this neighborhood, feel a great relief when we look at her.8

This narrative makes obvious Clemens’s ability to associate territorial rights and claims with the figure of Mary and the icon’s sacred presence on the Wall. The icon simultaneously assists her to the reject the Wall and enables her to make peace with it:

Even if it is not now, one day He will hear the echo of our voices and prayers and will bring the Walls down. Because we—as Christians—have the idea that we reject this Wall, first from a political aspect, second from a social aspect, and third this Wall is creating a wall in our hearts … how can I love people who took my land, stole my dignity, and put me behind this wall like the animals, walls without a roof? That is why we are much influenced, but having Mary on the Wall, our psychology has altered … Furthermore, because the painting is some-thing that a person can [see], when we get sick—of course, not only when we are sick—every time we pass by here we greet her, we [make the sign of the cross], we say some prayers … because she is the mother of Jesus Christ … it doesn’t matter from what religious background we come, she is the mother of Jesus.


As shown through the construction of the shrine of Our Lady of the Wall, local Palestinians resist the construction of the Separation Wall by cultivating an alternative sacred venue that not only castigates the massive border obstacle in their path, but also is an antithesis to the domi-nance of the Jews who confiscated the land. This reaction is also manifested with regard to the Rachel’s Tomb shrine in the immediate yet inaccessible vicinity. As we have seen, the two places under study are being shaped by trenchant religious voices that aspire to reclaim the same terri-tory, to Christianize or Judaize the landscape. These opposing, competing narratives are part of the ongoing religious/political contests that underpin the construction and reconstruction of the shrines and their current reformulation and newly emergent understandings. Moreover, these narratives speak volumes about the growing impact of religion on the national conflict and the geopolitical struggle. They clearly demonstrate how totemic and iconic features of religion are being re-established as the public sphere is reshaped and state/municipal borders are redrawn.

TransformingSacredSpaceandSettingBordersonHallowedGround

Our findings suggest that the construction, reconstruction, and renovation of sacred space in the Israel-Palestine region are fueling deep-seated conflicts over physical borders and territori-ality on both the municipal and national scales. The spatial dynamics of Rachel’s Tomb and Our Lady of the Wall reveal how religious symbols, materials, discourse, theology, and rituals can be employed to alter and recreate space and, by extension, to impact municipal/state borders (Ivakhiv 2001, 2006). Needless to say, sacred places have often been recruited in struggles for legitimacy and ownership and, as a result, have continuously become battlegrounds for political conflicts (Bowman 2010; Chidester and Linenthal 1995; van der Leeuw [1933] 1986). In this respect, the present-day circumstances of holy sites reflect the current (albeit perhaps tempo-rary) resolutions to various competing needs and claims to these sites (Chidester and Linenthal 1995: 3). For this reason, they incorporate and embody a farrago of imported, often contested, and radically polarizing interests, perceptions, and narratives pertaining to the object(s) of sanctification (Eade and Sallnow 1991b: 5, 10). In particular, venues with competing ownership claims over a tangible space are the scenes of power struggles between adversarial groups that are locked in complex religious, political, national, ethnic, and territorial disputes (Albera and Couroucli 2012; Bax 1990a, 1990b, 1991, 1995; Bowman 1991, 1993; Brace et al. 2006; Breger et al. 2010; Harris 1997; Herrero 1999; Kong 2005). Such rivalry is glaringly obvious in the political context of Israel-Palestine. Thus, in parallel with the growing popularity of Jewish pilgrimage sites (Ben-Ami 1998; Bilu 2010; Limor 2007; Reiter 2010; Sered 1986; Wilkinson 1990), one may also find local Christian and Muslim Arabs nurturing and enhancing their own sacred sites, his-tories, and landmarks. For this reason, several holy sites in Israel-Palestine, especially those of counter-hegemonic groups, are on the front lines of violent political conflicts (Luz 2004, 2008; Stadler 2011, 2012). Although many of these places have been documented, our current case studies call for a more nuanced theoretical approach because the religious claims to these sites have become legitimate factors in the setting of post-secular borders.

In our analysis, we show that sacred places are not only tangible and highly politicized ele-ments in geopolitical struggles; they are also central agents in settling border disputes. Through our encounters with the sacred in a border zone, we point to a new phenomenon: sacred places used to mark borders.9 David Sibley’s (1995) research on the creation of ‘otherness’ through the ‘purification’ of space is pertinent to the discussion at hand. Sibley argues that dominant groups frequently evoke this idea as a way to exclude and marginalize the ‘other’ from an ultra-puri-fied space. This process inevitably entails the construction of borders and other impediments


with which to exclude the ‘other’ (Paasi 1998). Building on Sibley’s insights, Falah and Newman (1995) demonstrate how both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict point out threats made by the other side on its own members as grounds for mutual exclusion. Rachel’s Tomb fortifications and the exclusion of Palestinians are indeed premised on this sort of threat. In the end, these same arguments led to the placement of the national border in response to the threat and in consideration of the site. Put bluntly, the sacred becomes a factor in shaping boundaries and, in turn, people’s identity, rather than the other way around. In the case under review, the process of establishing territory—a fundamental role of the modern nation-state—was advanced by reli-gious narratives and agents that co-opted the state apparatus.

Our findings demonstrate that holy sites can be crucial to the forging of urban spaces and boundaries, be they symbolic or physical. It is no coincidence that the two studied sites are dedicated to the veneration of matriarchs or that they revolve around themes of fertility, moth-erhood, and female suffering. By reinforcing rituals and memories at Rachel’s Tomb, Jewish devotees promote and mobilize narratives and symbols of the saint for the purpose of strength-ening their grip over a site that they believe to be at risk of falling into the hands of their rivals. Through the reappropriation and feminization of this expanse, they empower Jewish/Israeli belonging. On the other hand, Christian minorities struggle to express themselves against the overwhelming power of Israel’s state apparatus and to find solace through the (highly politi-cized) religious sphere. Thus, local Christians reconstruct their own narrative of the place and challenge the unilateral establishment of the de facto border at this shrine by cultivating a com-peting feminine-matriarchal site. At the heart of Our Lady of the Wall stands a female claim for peace. In this way, both sides to the dispute not only inject religious ideas into public spaces and political debates, but also determine how boundaries are negotiated and decided upon. Moreover, we have seen how these places provide an opportunity to challenge the existing social order. Against the backdrop of militarization, violence, and sequestration, symbols of fertility and pious motherhood reinforce an alternative outlook toward the land and its borders.

Conclusion

In this article, we analyze the construction and reconstruction of two sacred venues, Rachel’s Tomb and Our Lady of the Wall, in the context of the Israel-Palestine Separation Wall. Our over-arching argument is that, against the backdrop of a highly militarized, masculinized, and often violent location, religious matriarchal sites are active as elements in the process of establishing both tangible and intangible boundaries and as symbols of religious and national yearnings.

The article shows how devotees at the two shrines mobilize each site’s ritual emphasis on revered mothers for the sake of advancing their own interests in the public sphere. Our geo-ethnography reveals that national borders and the appropriation of land can be premised on sacred places. In particular, we examine two coterminous sacred places that also abut an emergent border. Rachel’s Tomb has indeed played a critical role in determining the path of the Separation Wall. More spe-cifically, religious actors persuaded the Israeli Cabinet to include the shrine inside the state’s de facto borders. The barrier’s completed construction at this site has intensified the age-old shrine’s standing in the national discourse. No longer merely a holy site, it is now also revered as a national landmark. These developments on the Israeli side of the Wall then triggered Christian-Palestinian reactions, including among them, the establishment of a new Marian site—Our Lady of the Wall.

In summation, we have focused on a pair of interrelated processes revealed over the course of this research project: the political spatialization of the holy and the interplay between reli-giosity and borders. Accordingly, Rachel’s Tomb and Our Lady of the Wall shed light on the


growing significance of religious claims on everyday life. The first development touches on what Peter Berger (1999) has defined as the ‘desecularization of the world’. Although prevailing pub-lic discourse is focused mainly on globalization, capital flows, and the ostensible demise of the nation-state, scholars should take note of recent territorialization processes that are grounded on religious claims to specific places. The advancement of these claims and their influence on the realignment of borders cannot help but trigger opposing actions. In Israel-Palestine, the incor-poration of the sacred into the national discourse has given rise to a newly emerging space that straddles the de facto border between two ancient cities and two inchoate polities. Two devotional matriarchs stand in competition with one another as they establish and inhabit a newly emergent, highly politicized space. Moreover, they also provide living examples of our main theme—that iconic and sacred places have a growing political and spatial role in determining borders.

n ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is part of a wide-ranging project, Sacred Sites in Contested Regions, which studies sacred places in Israel-Palestine. Special thanks are due to the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 0321861) for its generous support and encouragement. A first draft of the article was pre-sented at a symposium titled “Recentering Borderlands: Comparative Cases from Mexico/US and Palestine/Israel,” which was organized by Valentina Napolitano and held at the University of Toronto in September 2013, and we thank Valentina for her invitation. The authors greatly appreciated her companionship on an excursion to Bethlehem during her visit, and we value our ongoing debates on religion and borderlands. We owe a debt of gratitude to Avi Aronsky for his fine editing and helpful suggestions throughout the writing phase. We would like to thank David Lehmann for his continuing assistance, be it his companionship on the ethnographic journey or his sage feedback and prodding. Yoram Bilu’s encouragement and inspiring comments have been a boon to the project. Additionally, we are indebted to Lior Chen, Emily Kattan, and Chen Reuveni for their research assistance and collaboration on various aspects of this work. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and Shawn Kendrick for their advice on the text. This voyage could not have been completed without the help of all these wonderful people.

n NuRiT STADLER is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research interests include Israel’s ultra-Ortho-dox community, fundamentalism, Greek-Orthodox and Catholic rituals in Jerusalem, text-based communities, the veneration of Mary in Israel-Palestine, and the study of current fertility shrines and rituals in sacred places and sacred tombs. Her publica tions include Yeshiva Fundamentalism: Piety, Gender, and Resistance in the Ultra-Orthodox World (2009) and A Well-Worn Tallis for a New Ceremony: Trends in Israeli Haredi Culture (2012); [email protected].

NiMROD Luz is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Western Galilee College in Israel. He is a cultural geographer and a Middle East scholar. He has published on various themes concerning cities and urbanism in the Middle East, Islamization and transformations of the cultural landscape, and the politics and landscapes of sacred sites. His latest book is The Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape (2014); [email protected].


n NOTES

1. “Israel’s Security Fence” [in Hebrew], Israel Ministry of Defense, http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/Heb/shelot.htm (accessed 21 April 2013).

2. Titled “Sacred Sites in Contested Regions,” this ongoing study focuses on emerging and recently revived contested places on the margins of Israeli society. The project aims to identify the nuances and transformation of the Israel-Palestine landscape in order to analyze the role of icons, artifacts, and the sites themselves as spatial metaphors. More information about this project can be found at http://sacredplaces.huji.ac.il/.

3. Area B regions are under Palestinian civic jurisdiction, but joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. 4. Among those who lobbied for the site’s annexation were notables such as Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, MK

Hanan Porat, Minister of Religion Asher Ohana (2001–2003), and the serving chief rabbis, Eliyahu Bakshi Doron (2002) and Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch.

5. Bethlehem Municipality and 22 Others v. State of Israel–Ministry of Defense, the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice, HCJ 1890/03, PD 59(4), 736–766 (3 February 2005).

6. In October 2010, UNESCO’s Executive Board declared that the “Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb” is an “integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.” See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/executive_board_adopts_five_decisions_concerning _unescos_work_in_the_occupied_palestinian_and_arab_territories/#.Va6rAShy90c.

7. “Our Lady of the Wall—UK Launch of the Bethlehem Icon School,” Society of St John Chrysostom, 1 December 2012, http://orientale-lumen.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/our-lady-of-wall-uk-launch-of-bethlehem.html (accessed 11 December 2012).

8. This interview was conducted on 22 September 2013 by Emily Kattan, who is a participant in the Sacred Sites in Contested Regions project.

9. Boundaries are hardly alien to the sacred realm. The classics indicate that the very act of sacralization transforms an otherwise profane site into a transcendent one. Such sacred places are involved—even if only tacitly—in the setting of borders (Eliade 1958; Otto 1923).

n REfERENCES

Albera, Dionigi, and Maria Couroucli, eds. 2012. Sharing Sacred Spaces in the Mediterranean: Christians, Muslims, and Jews at Shrines and Sanctuaries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

al-Harawi, Abi Bakr. 1953. Kitab al-Isharat ila Ma’rifat al-Ziyarat [Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam]. Ed. Janine Sourderl-Thomine. Damascus: Institute Français de Damas.

Arafat, Walid. 2013. “Bilāl b. Rabāh. .” Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. http://www.brill.com/publications/online-resources/encyclopaedia-islam-online (accessed 30 January 2013).

Arieli, Shaul, and Michael Sfard. 2008. The Wall of Folly. [In Hebrew.] Tel Aviv: Aliyat Gag Publishing and Yediot Publishing.

Bax, Mart. 1990a. “The Madonna of Medjugorje: Religious Rivalry and the Formation of a Devotional Movement in Yugoslavia.” Anthropological Quarterly 63 (2): 63–75.

Bax, Mart. 1990b. “Patronage in a Holy Place: Preliminary Research Notes on a ‘Parallel Structure’ in a Yugoslav Pilgrimage Centre.” Ethnos 55 (1–2): 41–55.

Bax, Mart. 1991. “Marian Apparitions in Medjugorje: Rivalling Religious Regimes and State-Formation in Yugoslavia.” Pp. 29–54 in Religious Regimes and State-Formation: Perspectives from European Eth-nology, ed. Eric R Wolf. Albany: SUNY Press.

Bax, Mart. 1995. Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Beaumont, Justin. 2010. “Transcending the Particular in Postsecular Cities.” Pp. 3–17 in Molendijk et al. 2010.


Beaumont, Justin, and Christopher Baker. 2011. “Introduction: The Rise of the Postsecular City.” Pp. 1–12 in Postsecular Cities: Space, Theory and Practice, ed. Justin Beaumont and Christopher Baker. London: Continuum.

Ben-Ami, Issachar. 1998. Saint Veneration among the Jews in Morocco. Detroit, MI: Wayne State Univer-sity Press.

Berger, Peter L. 1999. “The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview.” Pp. 1–18 in The Desecu-larization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, ed. Peter L. Berger. Washington, DC: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Bilu, Yoram. 2010. The Saints’ Impresarios: Dreamers, Healers, and Holy Men in Israel’s Urban Periphery. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press.

Bowman, Glenn. 1991. “Christian Ideology and the Image of a Holy Land: The Place of Jerusalem Pil-grimage in the Various Christianities.” Pp. 98–121 in Eade and Sallnow 1991a.

Bowman, Glenn. 1993. “Nationalizing the Sacred: Shrines and Shifting Identities in the Israeli-Occupied Territories.” Man (n.s.) 28 (3): 431–460.

Bowman, Glenn. 2010. “Orthodox-Muslim Interactions at ‘Mixed Shrines’ in Macedonia.” Pp. 195–219 in Eastern Christians in Anthropological Perspective, ed. Chris Hann and Hermann Goltz. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brace, Catherine, Adrian R. Bailey, and David C. Harvey. 2006. “Religion, Place and Space: A Frame-work for Investigating Historical Geographies of Religious Identities and Communities.” Progress in Human Geography 30 (1): 28–43.

Breger, Marshall J., Yitzhak Reiter, and Leonard Hammer, eds. 2010. Holy Places in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Confrontation and Co-existence. London: Routledge.

Chidester, David, and Edward T. Linenthal, eds. 1995. American Sacred Space. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cloke, Paul, and Justin Beaumont. 2013. “Geographies of Postsecular Rapprochement in the City.” Prog-ress in Human Geography 37 (1): 27–51.

Eade, John, and Michael J. Sallnow, eds. 1991a. Contesting the Sacred: The Anthropology of Christian Pil-grimage. London: Routledge.

Eade, John, and Michael J. Sallnow. 1991b. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–29 in Eade and Sallnow 1991a.Eliade, Mircea. 1958. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Trans. Rosemary Sheed. New York: Sheed and Ward.Falah, Ghazi, and David Newman. 1995. “The Spatial Manifestation of Threat: Israelis and Palestinians

Seek a ‘Good’ Border.” Political Geography 14 (8): 689–706.Friedland, Roger, and Richard D. Hecht. 1991. “The Politics of Sacred Place: Jerusalem’s Temple Mount/

al-Haram al-Sharif.” Pp. 21–62 in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jamie Scott and Paul Simpson-Housley. Westport, CT: Green-wood Press.

Garbin, David. 2012. “Introduction: Believing in the City.” Culture and Religion 13 (4): 401–404.Harris, Ruth. 1997. “Gender and the Sexual Politics of Pilgrimage to Lourdes.” Pp. 152–173 in Religion

and Rebellion: Historical Studies, ed. Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning. Dublin: University College of Dublin Press.

Herrero, Juan A. 1999. “Medjugorje: Ecclesiastical Conflict, Theological Controversy, Ethnic Division.” Pp. 137–170 in Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 10, ed. Joanne M. Greer and David O. Moberg. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Ibheis, Hasan, and Khaled Ayad. 2010. Al-Jidhar al-Azil: Apartheid Israel al-Mukatmail [The Separation Wall: Complete Israeli Apartheid]. Ed. Muhsin Salah. Doha, Qatar: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.

Ivakhiv, Adrian. 2001. Claiming Sacred Ground: Pilgrims and Politics at Glastonbury and Sedona. Bloom-ington: Indiana University Press.

Ivakhiv, Adrian. 2006. “Toward a Geography of ‘Religion’: Mapping the Distribution of an Unstable Sig-nifier.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (1): 169–175.

Katz, Yaron. 2001. “‘Rei Rachel Rei’: A Response to Eli Mohar’s ‘On Rachel and Us.’” [In Hebrew.] Ha’ir, 4 January (accessed 14 December 2015).


Knott, Kim. 2010. “Cutting through the Postsecular City: A Spatial Interrogation.” Pp. 19–38 in Molendijk et al. 2010.

Kong, Lily. 2001. “Mapping ‘New’ Geographies of Religion: Politics and Poetics in Modernity.” Progress in Human Geography 25 (2): 211–233.

Kong, Lily. 2005. “Religious Processions: Urban Politics and Poetics.” Temenos: Finnish Journal of Reli-gion 41 (2): 225–249.

Kong, Lily. 2010. “Global Shifts, Theoretical Shifts: Changing Geographies of Religion.” Human Geogra-phy 34 (6): 755–776.

Lagerquist, Peter. 2004. “Fencing the Last Sky: Excavating Palestine after Israel’s ‘Separation Wall.’” Jour-nal of Palestine Studies 33 (2): 5–35.

Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. Malden MA: Blackwell.Limor, Ora. 2007. “Sharing Sacred Space: Holy Places in Jerusalem between Christianity, Judaism, and

Islam.” Pp. 219–231 in In Laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in Crusades and Medieval Culture in Honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar, ed. Iris Shagrir, Ronnie Ellenblum, and Jonathan Riley-Smith. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Luz, Nimrod. 2004. Israel: Identity, Collective Memory, and Social Construction. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Achva Press and Floersheimer Institute for Policy Study.

Luz, Nimrod. 2008. “The Politics of Sacred Places: Palestinian Identity, Collective Memory, and Resis-tance in the Hassan Bek Mosque Conflict.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (6): 1036–1052.

Molendijk, Arie L., Justin Beaumont, and Christoph Jedan, eds. 2010. Exploring the Postsecular: The Reli-gious, the Political and the Urban. Leiden: Brill.

Orsi, Robert A. 1999. “Introduction: Crossing the City Line.” Pp. 1–78 in Gods of the City: Religion and the American Urban Landscape, ed. Robert A. Orsi. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Otto, Rudolf. 1923. The Idea of the Holy. Trans. John W. Harvey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Paasi, Anssi. 1998. “Boundaries as Social Processes: Territoriality in the World of Flows.” Geopolitics 31 (1):

69–88.Pike, Deborah. 2006. “Sharon’s Wall and the Dialectics of Inside/Outside.” Borderlands E-Journal: New

Spaces in the Humanities 5 (3). http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol5no3_2006/pike_sharonswall.htm.Reiter, Yitzhak. 2010. “Contest of Cohabitation in Shared Holy Places? The Cave of the Patriarch and

Samuel’s Tomb.” Pp. 158–177 in Breger et al. 2010.Schiller, Eli. 1978. Rachel’s Tomb. [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: Ariel Press.Selwyn, Tom. 2009. “Ghettoizing a Matriarch and a City: An Everyday Story from the Palestinian/Israeli

Borderlands.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 24 (3): 39–55.Selwyn, Tom. 2011. “Tears on the Border: The Case of Rachel’s Tomb, Bethlehem, Palestine.” Pp. 276–

296 in Contested Mediterranean Space: Ethnographic Essays in Honour of Charles Tilly, ed. Maria Kou-sis, Tom Selwyn, and David Clark. New York: Berghahn Books.

Sered, Susan S. 1986. “Rachel’s Tomb and the Milk Grotto of the Virgin Mary: Two Women’s Shrines in Bethlehem.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 2 (2): 7–22.

Sered, Susan S. 1989. “Rachel’s Tomb: Societal Liminality and the Revitalization of a Shrine.” Religion 19 (1): 27–40.

Sered, Susan S. 1991. “Rachel, Mary, and Fatima.” Cultural Anthropology 6 (2): 131–146.Sered, Susan S. 1998. “A Tale of Three Rachels: The Natural Herstory of a Cultural Symbol.” Nashim 1 (1):

5–41.Sered, Susan S. 1999. “Women Pilgrims and Woman Saints: Gendered Icons and the Iconization of Gen-

der at Israeli Shrines.” National Women’s Studies Association Journal 11 (2): 48–71.Shehada, Bassem. 2002. “Mufti Claims Ownership of Rachel’s Tomb.” Jerusalem Times, 19 September.

http://www.jerusalem-times.net/article/news/details/detail.asp?id=2042 (accessed 11 July 2012).Shragai, Nadav. 2002. “Rachel’s Tomb to Be Annexed—de Facto.” Ha’aretz, 12 September. http://www.

haaretz.com/print-edition/news/rachel-s-tomb-to-be-annexed-de-facto-1.34418 (accessed 23 April 2015).

Sibley, David. 1995. Geographies of Exclusions: Society and Difference in the West. London: Routledge.Smith, Jonathan Z. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Stadler, Nurit. 2011. “Between Scripturalism and Performance: Cohesion and Conflict in the Celebration of the Theotokos in Jerusalem.” Religion 41 (4): 645–664.

Stadler, Nurit. 2012. A Well-Worn Tallis for a New Ceremony. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press.Stadler, Nurit. 2013. “Two Venerated Mothers Separated by a Fence: Iconic Spaces as Border Makers in

Israel/Palestine.” Paper presented at the “Recentering Borderlands: Comparative Cases from Mexico/US and Palestine/Israel” symposium, University of Toronto, 20 September.

Stadler, Nurit. 2015. “Appropriating Jerusalem’s Disputed Lands through Sacred Spaces: Female Rituals at the Tombs of Mary and Rachel.” Anthropological Quarterly 88 (3). Forthcoming.

Strickert, Frederick M. 2007. Rachel Weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb. Colleg-eville, MN: Liturgical Press.

van der Leeuw, Gerardus. [1933] 1986. Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Trans. John E. Turner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wilkinson, John. 1990. “Jewish Holy Places and the Origins of Christian Pilgrimage.” Pp. 41–53 in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Two Venerated Mothers Separated by a Wall: Iconic Spaces, Territoriality, and Borders in...

Documents

Transcript of Two Venerated Mothers Separated by a Wall: Iconic Spaces, Territoriality, and Borders in...