The project\u2019s nationalist intent is mentioned explicitly in the promotional literature: \u201cIn its dramatic five-year plan, the program\u2019s goal is to breathe new life into Zionism. The projects listed here are no mere indulgence. They are an urgent necessity in the face of the danger of ideological and cultural decline, and in light of the loss of identity rampant among the younger generation and the public in general\u2014a crisis that endangers national cohesion and Jewish existence in the land of Israel.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n The program\u00a0 approved by the government in February, 2010 entails the rehabilitation and preparation of the project\u2019s sites for large-scale tourism and \u00a0will last for about five years, with an overall budget of approximately 400 million shekels. Alongside the rehabilitation of the sites, the project proposal suggests two tourist trails that will link them. \u00a0The first trail, called \u201c Historical Trail of the Land of Israel,\u201d connects \u00a0archeological sites such as Tel Hazor, Tel Gezer, and Beit She\u2019an; the second trail is called \u00a0\u201cThe Israeli Experience\u201d and includes sites from the history of Zionism, such as Tel Hai, Mikveh Yisrael, and Kfar Etzion.[3]<\/a> After\u00a0 publication of the initial list, regional councils, the general public, and others were invited to propose additional sites for inclusion,, and of 220 proposals submitted to the project\u2019s management 30 are located in the Occupied Territories. Five of these sites have been approved or are in the process of being approved for the project.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n The National Heritage Sites Project has a blatant Jewish bias; it ignores much of the rich cultural heritage of the land, of which the Jewish history and presence is only one part. No \u00a0Nabbatean sites appear on the list, no Hellenistic remains ( except Tel Maresha), no Roman or Byzantine sites, no Muslim remains, and no Crusader sites. Further, the archeological sites that are included in the project are identified as purely Jewish, obscuring \u00a0the many cultural layers that exist below and above the Jewish remains identified. These omissions will make it virtually impossible for the average visitor to understand the history of the land, without chronological and cultural gaps, or to recognize the rich history of the land and its peoples through the ages. Thus, the sites chosen, the trails connecting between them, and the presentation of their findings, therein, are part and parcel of a larger Israeli policy of spatial control intended to and strengthening the attachment to the land among the Jewish public. The location of several of the sites in the West Bank, and the seamless transition that is created along the two trails between the sites within and beyond the Green Line, serves to blur the distinction between sovereign Israeli territory and the Occupied Territories over which Israel\u2019s sovereignty is considered illegitimate by the international community and agreements.<\/p>\n This document focuses on the archeological sites in the National Heritage project that are located in the West Bank. It does not include sites within the Green Line or in the Occupied Territories that belong to the category of modern Zionist history, such as Kfar Etzion.<\/p>\n The Qumran archeological site is part of\u00a0 Qumran National Park, which came under the jurisdiction of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (then called the National Parks Authority) as early as 1967.[5]<\/a> Located on the northern banks of the Dead Sea, on the main road to Ein Gedi and Masada, the park includes remnants of a settlement that existed on the site primarily from the Second Century B.C.E. until the First Century C.E. The uniqueness of the site is due to the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u00a0 first discovered there in the 1940s in the caves of Wadi Qumran, at whose feet the archeological site is located. The scrolls are essentially fragments and range in length from a few words to complete works. Of about 800 \u201cbooks\u201d from the Second Temple Period, 30 percent \u00a0\u00a0are excerpts from the Old Testament; they include all the books of the Hebrew Bible except for the Scroll of Esther. The remainder are apocryphal books and works considered to be exegeses and instruction books written for the members of the Judean Desert sect.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One of the most important findings is the full text of the Book of Isaiah, discovered in 1947. Another major text is the Copper Scroll, discovered in 1952, which describes in detail the contents (though not the location) of a buried treasure. The discovery of these scrolls, buried deep in the\u00a0 desert, not far from the Dead Sea, and their dating, which overlaps with the early Christian period in the Holy Land, has made Qumran \u00a0a destination for thousands of researchers and millions of visitors from around the world over the last few decades. In 2010 alone, more than 400,000 people visited the site, making it the ninth most visited tourist site in Israel.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n Qumran is a small archeological site that includes a system of cisterns and the scattered remains of humble structures. On the face of it,\u00a0 nothing\u00a0 distinguishes the archeological remains at Qumran from those found at many more impressive sites from the same period, but the combination of the desert landscape, the enigma of the identity of the inhabitants of the place, and the buried scrolls, today housed at the Israel Museum, provide the visitor with an extraordinary experience.<\/p>\n There is no unequivocal answer to the question of who were the inhabitants of Qumran. Possible answers range from radical Jewish sects, such as the Essenes or the Zealots, to early Christians.<\/p>\n The Israeli public in general identifies Qumran as part of Israel, and few think of it as being located in the West Bank. The majority see Qumran as an inseparable part of the history of the Jewish people, and the question of sovereignty over the site in a future political agreement is seldom discussed. C ircumstances that have led to this perception among the public include (1) the location of the site in the desert, far from any Palestinian settlement; (2) its location on the road to Ein Gedi and Masada\u2014two key sites in modern Israeli national consciousness; (3) the buried scrolls\u2014the oldest extant texts of the books of the Bible, from more than two thousand years ago,and \u00a0their importance to Judaism, to Christianity, and to the history of monotheism in general; and (4) the dating \u00a0of the site in \u00a0the Second Temple Period, a period that is considered a golden age \u00a0of Judaism following the destruction of the Kingdom of Judea and the Babylonian exile. The inclusion of Qumran as a national heritage site will probably not affect its already significant public status or the number of visitors.<\/p>\n The Susya archeological site is located about one km north of the Israeli settlement of Susya and one km west of present-day Palestinian Susiya. The site is under the jurisdiction of the Hebron Hills regional council and was declared part of the settlement of Susya. Until 1985 the Palestinian village of Susiya contained the archeological remains within its boundaries. Following the decision to annex the area into the settlement and to create \u00a0\u00a0the tourist infrastructure of the site, the Palestinian residents were transferred about one km from the site\u2014where they live to this day.[7]<\/a> The region also includes the Jewish settlements of Maon, Carmel, Beit Yatir, and others. Most of the Palestinian residents of the area are concentrated in the village\/city of Yatta and in smaller villages such as Khirbet Ma\u2019ein, Karmil, and Tawana, as well as in tents and temporary structures. Other sites of antiquities in the area include Carmel and Eshtamoa (Samoa).<\/p>\n Archeological excavations conducted in Susya beginning in 1970 exposed reliefs of menorahs, ritual baths (mikvehs), and graves that apparently reflect Jewish burial practices. Susya\u2019s central structure is a public building with a mosaic floor that features inscriptions and a menorah, all of which have led archeologists to identify it as a synagogue. The synagogue is dated to between the Fourth and the Eighth centuries C.E., and the main period of the ancient settlement there apparently dates \u00a0from the Second to the Eighth centuries C.E.[8]<\/a> Although the name Susya is not mentioned in\u00a0 ancient Jewish literature, the discovery of the synagogue, the menorah reliefs, and other remains have led scholars to conclude that this was indeed a Jewish settlement. \u00a0The site is currently presented to the Israeli public as an ancient Jewish settlement from the period of the Talmud (parallel to the Byzantine period).<\/p>\n The establishment of the Jewish settlement of Susya in 1983, and the expulsion of the Palestinian inhabitants of Susiya in 1983, facilitated the illusion of Jewish continuity on the site from ancient times to the present. This consolidation of the Israeli-Jewish connection to the site is all the more blatant given that Palestinian residents of Susiya are prohibited from entering the site even if they purchase tickets at the visitors\u2019 center. (It is needless to note the irony of buying entrance tickets to a place that was once one\u2019s home.)[9]<\/a><\/p>\n A visit to Susya today provides almost no information about archeological layers or remains that indicate anything other than the Jewish presence. For example, in the Eighth and Ninth centuries, a mosque was built on the remains of the ancient synagogue. The presence of the mosque on top of the synagogue raises interesting questions, none of which are addressed in the visit or in scholarship. Questions such as whether the population of the place changed, whether it became Muslim, and whether the mosque was built by force or voluntarily, could greatly enhance a visitor\u2019s understanding of Susya\u2019s place in the cultural and social space of the South Hebron Hills.<\/p>\n With an ancient synagogue at its center\u2014the most elaborate in the South Hebron Hills\u2014Susya meets the criteria set down by the program as a Jewish heritage site and was indeed on the original list of proposed sites. The projected investment for preparing the site for massive tourism and marketing it as a central tourist attraction in the area is in line with activities already undertaken by the regional council to promote tourism. Its inclusion on the list of national heritage sites further strengthens the widespread perception among the Israeli-Jewish public, who are familiar with the archeological site and the settlement without hearing a thing about the Palestinian inhabitants who were expelled from the place or about any non-Jewish layers of the history of the site and its surroundings.<\/p>\n Herodion, one of the main archeological sites in the West Bank, was declared a national park in 1985. At the center of the site stands a magnificent fortified palace, identified as Herod\u2019s fortress from the First \u00a0century B.C.E. \u00a0Like \u00a0many\u00a0 constructions \u00a0attributed to Herod, Herodion was built according to a deliberate plan and inspired by Roman architecture. Mount Herodion is a round artificial hill that stretches like a rampart along a lower natural hill. Three of the four corners of the site, which is surrounded by a double wall, are fortified with three semi-circles, while its eastern corner is enclosed by a circular tower. Tunnels lead from the top of the fortress halfway down into the mountain.<\/p>\n At the foot of the mountain, in the area known as Lower Herodion, a large pool (46 m x 70 m) was exposed, surrounded by colonnades and a garden.\u00a0 Taken as a whole, this magnificent construction testifies to the technological achievements of Roman monumental architecture. At the time of the Great Revolt of the Jews against the Romans, between 66 and 70 C.E., groups of Jewish zealots entrenched themselves in the site. In the SecondCntury C.E., the site served as temporary shelter for the fighters of Bar Kochba\u2019s revolt (132\u2013135 C.E.), after which it was abandoned until the Fifth Century C.E. The findings from the Byzantine period (Fifth to Seventh centuries C.E.) indicate the presence of Christian monks, and perhaps also a settlement. In this period some of the castle\u2019s rooms were converted into residences, and three churches were built at the top of the hill. Lower Herodion includes many findings from this period.[10]<\/a> In the Seventh Century C.E. the site was abandoned, and it stood empty until the 20th century, when the Palestinian settlement of al-Fureidis was established in and near the site.<\/p>\n Because the \u00a0\u00a0first-century Jewish historian Josephus Flavius noted that Herod was buried in Herodion, extensive archeological excavations have been conducted at the site for the past thirty years. In 2007, the excavation team at Herodion announced the discovery of an ornamented sarcophagus, which they identified as Herod\u2019s tomb.[11]<\/a> The discovery and proposed identification (still not definite) served to heighten the importance of Herodion as a central tourist site in the Gush Etzion area. Second only to Qumran, Herodion is visited annually by 70,000 people. The site has been allocated large budgets, among other things for the reconstruction of the model of Herod\u2019s tomb and the reconstruction and preservation of the bathhouses. The proposed budget for the development of the site is also apparently among the highest in the National Heritage Sites project, amounting to about 16 million shekels.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n In January, 2012, on the recommendation of the chief excavator, the late Prof. Ehud Netzer, a model of Herod\u2019s tomb was placed at the site. The model is based in part on architectural fragments found at Herodion and on similar Roman-era royal tombs. Due to the paucity of actual findings at the site, this model cannot be considered a positive reconstruction, and to date it remains a guess .[13]<\/a><\/p>\n The visit to the site focuses on the history of King Herod and the Jewish revolts against the Romans.[14]<\/a> For the residents of Gush Etzion, the site is significant for staking their historical claim to the place. Thus, for example, upon the discovery of the compound identified with Herod\u2019s tomb, the former head of the Gush Etzion regional council, Shaul Goldstein (today Director General of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority) said, \u201cThe location of Herod\u2019s tomb in Herodion, one of the most fascinating structures of the ancient world, is further proof of the direct connection of Gush Etzion to the history of the Jewish people and Jerusalem\u2026\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n This embrace of Herod is interesting; until recently \u00a0\u00a0his Judaism was not accepted by Orthodox Jewry because he was of Edumite origin. His grandfather converted to Judaism in the Second Century B.C.E.\u00a0 Furthermore, the halakhic literature of the Second and Third centuries C.E. widely criticizes Herod for his cruel harassment of the Jews.[16]<\/a> The change in attitude towards Herod is surely connected with nationalist political motives.<\/p>\n Herodion itself is a unique compound from the early Roman period, which teaches us a lot about the architectural style that was widespread in the Roman world in general and in our region in particular in the First Century C.E. In many respects, Herodion can serve as a case study for the connection between the dominant Roman culture in the Mediterranean basin during the period and the particular local culture. To assert that it belongs exclusively to the Jewish heritage of the place therefore distorts its importance for the understanding of the cultural complexity of life in the land in the First \u00a0Cntury C.E. Its inclusion in the list of national heritage sites stems from the political need to present a central site in Gush Etzion as part of the Jewish heritage, and accords with the widespread identification by the Israeli public of structures from the early Roman period as belonging exclusively \u00a0to the Jewish culture of the Second Temple Period.<\/p>\n Herodion National Park is also an example of the exploitation by Israel of a potential financial resource for the Palestinian West Bank. \u00a0Visitors are directed to restaurants and businesses in\u00a0 nearby settlements, such as Teqoa and Qedumim, while the tourism development plan does not include the Palestinian villages of Teqoa, al-Fureidis, Za\u2019atara, Khirbet al-Deir, and others\u00a0 near the site.<\/p>\n Tel Shiloh was not on the original list included in the government\u2019s announcement of the National Heritage Sites Program in February, 2010. Of the 220 sites proposed subsequently by regional councils, public bodies, and private individuals to be added to the project, the committee chose 30, among them Tel Shiloh.[17]<\/a> Today the site is run jointly by the Mishkan Shiloh Association \u2013 \u201cThe Center for the Study and Development of the Cradle of Settlement in the Land of Israel\u201d — and the Binyamin regional council. In 2012, 5 million shekels from the government\u2019s budget was allocated to the site for excavations and development, along with 10 million shekels from other sources.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n The site is located in Southern Samaria, between Ramallah and Nablus, north of the Palestinian village of Turmus Iyya and west of the Jewish settlement of Shiloh. The first layer of settlement there is dated to the Middle Bronze IIb Age (18th-16th centuries B.C.E.).\u00a0 The \u00a0\u00a0next layer dates to the Iron I Age (11th century B.C.E.). After that, the settlement was destroyed. The site also includes remains from the Roman and Hellenistic periods (Second Century B.C.E. to First\u00a0 Century C.E.).[19]<\/a> Most of the remains on the site are from the Byzantine period and from the early Islamic period. Four Byzantine churches with mosaics, residential structures, workshops, and more, have been discovered on the site. In the Byzantine period the place was identified as the location of the biblical Tabernacle and declared sacred. In the early Islamic period and in the subsequent Muslim period, mosques were built on the remains of the churches.<\/p>\n According to the biblical story, Shiloh was the location of the Tabernacle\u2014the home of the Ark of the Covenant and the spiritual center of the tribes of Israel. Archeological research cannot find evidence of the location of a temporary structure such as the Tabernacle\u2014in essence a tent made of leather strips. The question of the location of the Tabernacle is a religious-spiritual one\u00a0 that cannot be answered by archeology.<\/p>\n In recent years, the site has undergone intensive development that includes the resumption of excavations and its promotion as a tourist site and an events venue. The goal of all these activities has been to bolster its image as a key tourist site among the settlements in the center of Samaria. Furthermore, Tel Shiloh was included on the Education Ministry\u2019s list of school trips after Education Minister Gideon Sa\u2019ar visited \u00a0the site and\u00a0 declared \u00a0that schoolchildren\u00a0 should come there to strengthen their national identity.[20]<\/a> Much of the guided tour at the site is based on biblical accounts. \u00a0For example, one focuses on the estimated site of the Tabernacle. In another \u00a0the remains of a Byzantine structure\u00a0 are identified as \u201cmaybe a synagogue,\u201d even though this hypothesis\u00a0 lacks \u00a0any scientific or archeological basis.<\/p>\n Recently a lookout tower was put up at the highest point in the center of the site, , overlooking the region \u201call the way to the city of Ariel.\u201d The location and height of the tower testifies clearly to the connection between control over the space and control of the historical narrative.[21]<\/a> In March, 2012, the tower was rebuilt as a more massive concrete structure, its concrete base damaging the findings beneath and around it. \u00a0The accepted view in the archeological community\u2014in Israel and in the world\u2014is that there should be no construction whatsoever on top of archeological tels (multi-layered sites). As an example, we should recall that leading archeologists expressed across-the-board opposition to construction in Tel Rumeida in Hebron.<\/p>\n The construction of the tower and its location may stem from the site management\u2019s desire to discount the Christian narrative, which locates the Tabernacle in one of the Byzantine churches i at the site, and to support the Jewish tradition, which locates the Tabernacle to the north of the tel. This is one of many examples of the use of an archeological site to strengthen a particular ideological belief instead of openly exposing all the findings and remains found there. When one examines the findings at Tel Shiloh, it seems that there is no justification for such a massive investment, and certainly not for building a concrete tower that damages the archeological tel. Tel Shiloh is a small site (about 35 dunam) whose most impressive remains are of Byzantine churches. Yet its location in the heart of Samaria in the West Bank contributes to the government\u2019s desire to use it for strengthening\u00a0 settlers\u2019 historical claim to the region.<\/p>\n The Qiryat Sefer archeological site is located in the heart of a built-up area, in one of the open spaces in the ultra-Orthodox settlement of Modi\u2019in Ilit. In 2007, the Israel Supreme Court ruled that the settlement was built in part on the private lands of the Palestinian village of Bil\u2019in.[22]<\/a> Archeological excavations at the site exposed an agricultural settlement dating to the Hellenistic period (\u00a0 Third Century B.C.E.) that was abandoned in the early Islamic period (\u00a0 Seventh Century C.E.). The site was not occupied \u00a0continuously; its main period of settlement is attributed to the First and Second \u00a0centuries C.E. until the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 C.E.). Settlement was renewed at the site in the Third and Fourth \u00a0centuries C.E. \u00a0At the center of the site excavators found a structure identified as a public building, which in their opinion\u00a0 should be seen as a synagogue from the Second Temple Period (1st century C.E.).[23]<\/a><\/p>\n In the original plan of the National Heritage Sites Project for 2011,he site of Khirbet Bad-Issa (Modi\u2019in Ilit) was included. Approximately four million shekels was \u00a0allocated for\u00a0 preservation and development of the site, along with an additional million shekels from other sources.[24]<\/a> Those in charge of the project see the site as a means for bringing the ultra-Orthodox community of Modi\u2019in Ilit closer to archeological research, and to the connection it reveals between their settlement and the ancient Jewish settlement in the region. They believe that presentation of the site as an ancient Jewish settlement strengthens \u00a0the Jewish claim for the right to settle even on private Palestinian lands.<\/p>\n The Biar Aqueduct is located in \u00a0an agricultural area \u00a0in the foothills of the settlement of Efrat, in the western part of Gush Etzion, to the west of Bethlehem. Although it is not included in the list of national heritage sites, it is mentioned in the original program as part of the \u201cHistorical Trail of the Land of Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n The Biar aqueduct originates at Ein Biar and runs for about 4.7 km; most of it is a man-made waterworks made of narrow covered tunnels. The aqueduct has not yet been excavated, and \u00a0archeologists\u2019 \u00a0estimation that it originates from the 1st Century B.C.E. is based on historical sources and archeological surveys. It was in use up until the British Mandate period.[25]<\/a> It is impossible to walk the entire aqueduct, though the spring and an underground section of about 100 m were prepared for hikers and can be used \u00a0during the spring and fall.\u00a0 Despite\u00a0 uncertainty as to the dating of the aqueduct, it is presented as belonging \u00a0to the early Roman\/ Second Temple period and as being a water-tunnel leading to Jerusalem and to the Temple. Thus it serves to emphasize the importance of the entire region as a vital source of life in the golden age of Jewish Jerusalem.<\/p>\n The area of this site includes the walls of the Old City and the City of David National Park, located in the Palestinian village\/neighborhood of Silwan. It also includes Mount Zion and its slopes. The Jerusalem Walls Park is run by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, while the City of David is operated by the Elad settler organization. It comes as no surprise that the City of David should be included as one of the national heritage sites; it suits the government\u2019s goals of supporting \u00a0archeological sites that testify to the Jewish-Israeli identity of the area around the Old City. The NGO Emek Shaveh has published several articles about the political use that is made of the City of David site and its effect on the Palestinian residents of Silwan. (You can read those publications here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n In the government\u2019s 2010 session, when the National Heritage Sites Program was instiituted, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the program would include Rachel\u2019s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs.International criticism followed his statement;\u00a0 development in the West Bank, it was said, \u00a0upset the status quo and would \u00a0change the negotiation towards a final status agreement. The prime minister\u2019s announcement apparently stemmed from pressure put on him by the Yesha council and government ministers, who demanded inclusion of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel\u2019s Tomb in the list of national heritage sites.[26]<\/a> However, after reevaluation it was decided not to include the two sites on the list.<\/p>\n Rachel\u2019s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs are under the jurisdiction of Israel\u2019s Ministry of Religious Affairs, while the National Heritage Sites Project is under the\u00a0 Prime Minister\u2019s office. The removal \u00a0of these tombs from the heritage sites may stem from a dispute between the Prime Minister\u2019s office and the Ministry of Religious Affairs over the management of\u00a0 holy places. After Rachel\u2019s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs were removed from \u00a0the heritage plan, right-wing Knesset members and the Yesha council renewed their demand.[27]<\/a> The settlers continue to declare their intention to work toward the inclusion of additional sites in Judea and Samaria, such as Joseph\u2019s Tomb, Mount Eibal, and the ancient city of Samaria, on the list of national heritage sites.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n Archeological sites in the Occupied Territories have a double political significance: spatial control and influence over public consciousness. The sites of Susya, Tel Shiloh, Qumran, Herodion, and others, are presented as part of the past of the Jewish people.\u00a0 Visits to these sites and the display of their archeological remains ( including those whose origins are disputed) are meant to imbue\u00a0 visitors with the feeling that they are standing amid \u00a0an integral part of the past of the Jewish people. For the most part, the guided tours and explanations in the sites mention nothing, or very little, about other peoples or cultures who live or have lived\u00a0 in the region. In some\u00a0 sites, such as Susya, the Palestinian inhabitants were even physically expelled from their houses in order to make room for visitors. Claiming these sites as part of the Israeli national heritage, while ignoring the Palestinian villages and residents in the area, is aimed at strengthening the legitimacy of the settlements within the Israeli consensus.<\/p>\n Most of the Israeli public is not aware of this conscious omission of the influences of other cultures\u2014whether they be \u00a0Roman and Byzantine, Samaritan, Muslim (early and late), or other\u2014in the history of the land. In the eyes of many in Israeli society, these cultures are only secondary to the Jewish heritage in the history of the land of Israel, and the stories told at the archeological sites both within the Green Line \u00a0and in the West Bank fit\u00a0 this perception. From these half-truths it is easy \u00a0to justify the settlement project in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. The promotion of tourism \u00a0to archeological sites in the Occupied Territories does not\u00a0 appear to be \u00a0the work \u00a0of radical Israeli Jewish groups, but it is coopted into the Israeli consensus and the Israeli historical and national consciousness. The archeological sites in the territories are used to maintain control over the physical space, not through massive construction or military presence but by bringing in hundreds of thousands of visitors\u00a0 who identify \u00a0each place as an inseparable part of the Jewish people\u2019s history and heritage in the land.<\/p>\n Archeological sites in the territories\u00a0 are generally run by private bodies or regional councils that are associated in one way or another with the settlers. For example, the South Hebron Hills Regional Council is responsible for the Susya archeological site; the Mishkan Shiloh Association runs Tel Shiloh; \u00a0the Biar Aqueduct is under the jurisdiction of the Gush Etzion Development Company and the Gush Etzion Field School; the archeological site in Qiryat Sefer is under the jurisdiction of the Modi\u2019in ilit municipality. This reality, of archeological sites and heritage sites run directly by settlers or settler associations, is comparable to the operation of the City of David National Park in East Jerusalem by the Elad organization, whose aim is to increase Jewish settlement in the village of Silwan. For this reason the Israeli public largely perceives the archeological sites as a legitimate part of the settlements and has no knowledge \u00a0of any claims the Palestinians may have to the land.<\/p>\n The declaration of Israeli national heritage sites in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem facilitates the government\u2019s efforts to blur the cognitive distinction among the general public between Israel and the Occupied Territories. The decision to include archeological sites in the Occupied Territories among the list of national heritage sites testifies to the government\u2019s desire to legitimate in public opinion the annexation of some or all of the territories to Israel. Once the mainstream Israeli public assimilates the view that these areas are part of the Israeli landscape and history, any public opposition to their annexation will subside. On the contrary, any opposition to annexation will be seen as an attempt to harm Jewish identity and heritage.<\/p>\n Introduction: The Rehabilitation and Empowerment of National Heritage Infrastructures Project In February 2010, the Israeli government adopted the \u201cNational Heritage Sites Project.\u201d The project\u2019s stated goal is to strengthen the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel through the development and promotion of two kinds of sites: historical sites from the history […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":388,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"site.php","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"class_list":["post-531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-west-bank","tag-biar-aqueduct","tag-herodion","tag-susya"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n![\"20131230EmekShaveh-ArchaeologicalSites_25x18_English-page-001\"](\"http:\/\/151.236.48.166\/~altarch1\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/20131230EmekShaveh-ArchaeologicalSites_25x18_English-page-001-737x1024.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nQumran<\/h2>\n
![\"qumran1\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/qumran1-300x223.png\" "\\"View")
<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0![\"qumran2\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/qumran2-300x223.png\" "\\"Qumran")
<\/a><\/p>\nSusya (Susiya)<\/h2>\n
![\"susia1\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/susia1-300x225.png\" "\\"View")
<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0![\"susia2\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/susia2-300x224.png\" "\\"The")
<\/a><\/p>\nHerodion (Jebel al-Fureidis)<\/h2>\n
![\"herodion1\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/herodion1-300x225.png\" "\\"Herodion")
<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0![\"herodion2\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/herodion2-300x224.png\" "\\"A")
<\/a><\/p>\nTel Shiloh<\/h2>\n
![\"tel](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/tel-shilo1-300x225.png\" "\\"Tel")
<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0![\"tel](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/tel-shilo2-300x225.png\" "\\"Looking")
<\/a><\/p>\nModi’in Ilit – Qiryat Sefer\/Khirbet Bad-Issa<\/h2>\n
![\"modiin1\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/modiin1-300x224.png\" "\\"Archeological")
<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0![\"modiin2\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/modiin2-300x226.png\" "\\"Remains")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Biar Aqueduct<\/h2>\n
![\"biyar1\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/biyar1-300x224.png\" "\\"The")
<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0![\"biyar2\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/biyar2-300x224.png\" "\\"Steps")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Jerusalem Walls National Park and the City of David<\/h2>\n
The Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb<\/h2>\n
Summary: Heritage Sites and Control of Space<\/h2>\n
\n