Ok, here’s a couple examples. [
](http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Apr/20060422News008.asp) [
](Streetwise: Dearly Departed - Western Neighborhoods Project - San Francisco History) This is nothing new or unique.
Is this a reading comprehension difficulty you’re contending with, Fear Itself? The portion of your cite I’ve bolded and intensified says that the efforts at negotiations will be about where the disinterred remains will be settled, not to whether they will be removed. It’s pretty clear from the rest of it that failure to reach an agreement on this point will not result in the removal being cancelled; just that the family won’t be given any say in where they do end up.
Also, in an earlier post, you wrote:
Where I come from (planet Earth), we calculate the age of a cemetery from the day it was first used as a cemetery, not from the day it stopped being used as such. Satisfy the xenoanthropologist in me, please, and explain why the opposite tends to be the case on your world.
It’s ironic since the rest of the middle east wants to turn all of Israel into a cemetary.
In September 2000 construction began on a highway-bridge through the ancient Basatin Jewish cemetery in Cairo. Cooperation and funding were provided by the Egyptian Ministry of Housing and an American ultra-Orthodox Jewish Athra Kadisha group. The plans will not harm any tombs and it will honor Jewish law concerning cemeteries.
Lately there has been a spate of half-baked anti-Israel threads here where the OP has wrong information and makes an ass out of themselves, the worst being the anti-Arab germ warfare one. What is up with that?
Your first example contained no objections by living relatives. That was the condition for my challenge to produce a cite.
As for your second cite: Although there were objections and legal battles, all I can say is: Ya got anything dating more recently than 1937? I would think that cultural sensitivity has evolved just a little but since then.
Does no one see the irony here? Shouldn’t the Museum of Tolerance be held to a somewhat higher standard when dealing with the graves of another culture?
So, Jerusalem, like most Middle-Eastern cities, is on a hill, right? While some are built on natural hills, most often, they are millennia-old hills created when older parts of the cities were torn down, pounded to rubble, and new structures were built on top of them. This type of hill is called a tel, as in Tel Aviv. In this way, the entire history of Jerusalem (and most other cities in the region,) is a history of covering up cemeteries, temples, houses, shops, and everything else with new development. God only knows how many cemeteries have been covered over in the last 5,000 years. This is nothing new, unusual, or outrageous. Go have a beer and cool off.
Muslims are normally opposed to moving remains after burial. It’s nothing new.
Honestly, the idea of building a tolerance museum in a spot where it’s going to offend the sensibility of part of the population is a pretty bad one. And going to court to force the matter really isn’t going to help. Is there any reason why they couldn’t build it elsewhere? Is it the only piece of public land available in Israel?
I see the irony, but not where you see it.
The Museum of Tolerance chooses a site, which is (at that point) only known as a parking lot. Architects are called in to design a building using the space to its maximum potential, both artistically and functionally. Once the design is complete, building moves forward.
Then, in destroying the parking lot, they find that over half a century ago, it was a graveyard. And then Muslim groups - some not even representing family members of anyone interred there - jump up and start shouting about the evil Israelis. And when the Museum of Tolerance comes up with what anyone would consider a fair and balanced response - “We’ll take your dead relative out from under this parking lot and put them in another graveyard that we’re gussying up for you” - they get told “No.”
In other words: Israelis do something. Palestinians get pissed off. Israelis attempt to make concessions or compensation for a fair solution. Palestinians prefer to stay pissed off than to work with evil stinking Jews. Thread gets opened on the SDMB to decry evil stinking Israeli actions.
Of course not. It’s because we hate the Jews. Didn’t you guess it?
I believed it was a museum of tolerance, not a musum of retaliation for past wrong doings.
Those are other words, alright. Just not mine.
This episode (or at least the OP’s spin on it) would go well with other current events.
Lessee, we got the Pope pissing off the Muslims:
*“The emperor … said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’” he quoted the emperor as saying.
…the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad termed the remarks “regrettable.”
“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said. *
“Hah, you call us violent? We burning your dog!!!”
I swear, this stuff writes itself. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately- or possibly fortunately - museums usually aren’t designed as standard buildings that can go anywhere, like ranch houses or McDonalds. Most good museums are designed by the architect with the landscape and environs in mind, to best utilize the space for form and function.
Given that, moving to a new location probably means negotiating for new space (which, in a historical city, ain’t gonna be cheap anyways); it will then mean redrawing up the plans for the site, and rehiring construction firms. Given that they had already progressed to the point of hiring crews (who discovered the remains in the first place), getting the current site approved may be the difference between getting it built and going back to fundraising for another five years to hire new architects and construction firms.
No, but these are your words:
Do you stand by that statement, or will you retract it?
I would retract the “dirty stinking” part, if I had ever said it.
Pretty much how I see it.
This pitting pits itself. 
Seems to me that the Museum guys are way in the right on this one.
Apparently, though, they’re not opposed to parking cars on their dead. I learn something every day.
Your point is good and sound, I was not aware that Muslims opposed moving remains. Is it strong resistance or the resistance that the average Jewish or Christian person would feel?
I do not know many religious people that are comfortable with the idea of moving remains, it is only the ungodly atheists and agnostics like me that do not seem to care. 
I do not know the availability of another suitable location but John Corrado covered that better than I could ever hope to.
Really, I actually sympathize with relatives that would object, I do not sympathize with an Op that picked only the details that put Israel in a bad light when the story was fair and balanced and showed both sides. Maybe he forgot how many posters listen to NPR on this board. Overall, I find his Op objectionable to common sense and common decency.
Of course you know that was directed only at fear itself. I have already stated I am not Jewish or Muslim and that I am not religious at all. I wonder if **fear itself ** does dislike or hate Jews. His Op of half-truth leads me to such conclusions.
BTW: you said “We”, are you and **Fear itself ** Muslims?
Jim
I do not hate Jews, not even a little bit. I do hate hypocrisy, though.
For the record, I am not a Muslim. I am an adherent to no religion. Sometimes I am a hard atheist, sometimes I am an agnostic.