On Wednesday 3 June 2009 at 9 am, the Supreme Court of Israel heard a petition submitted by

Adalah and the Association for Support and Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel, which demands the reopening of the Big Mosque in the city of Beer el-Sabe (Beer Sheva) to worshippers. The court decided to give the parties 60 days as a last chance to reach an agreement acceptable to both before the court issues a final decision on the petition, which was filed seven years ago in 2002.

During the hearing, the justices strongly criticized to the state's representative, who is also representing the municipality, for his general allegations and continuing attempts to evade the substantive issues raised by the petition and focusing on other issues not raised at all as part of the case. The municipality's representatives concentrated on the claim that the mosque is municipal property and does not belong to the petitioners. In addition, they claimed that Beer el-Sabe is a Jewish city in which a small Arab minority resides, and therefore, there is no need to open the mosque for prayer. Further, the municipality claimed that "opening the mosque for prayer would undermine the city's public safety."

Adalah Attorneys Adel Badeer and Hassan Jabareen, who represented the petitioners, argued that the issue of the mosque's ownership was not raised in the petition, and therefore, the Beer el-Sabe municipality's attempts to convert the debate into a question of ownership is futile. They added that "the municipality must not deal with the mosque as its own private property, but as public property that is subject to objective standards and particularly the right of Muslims to use it for worship."

Further, the petitioners argued that "the deep-rooted history of the mosque makes it a cultural symbol for all Arab citizens, as well as being a sacred place for Muslims". They emphasized that "The issue of the mosque is also related to the cultural rights of the national minority, because there is no culture without history or a culture without symbols."

In an exceptional step, the court responded to Attorney Hassan Jabareen's request for MK Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsour, the head of the Islamic Movement, to speak before and inform the court of the unique historical and religious importance of the Beer el-Sabe mosque and propose possible solutions and alternatives for resolving the issue.

 
Subsequently, the municipal representative protested and demanded that the mayor of Beer el-Sabe, Rubik Danielovich, who was present in the courtroom, be allowed to speak.  Danielovich repeated the allegations made by the municipal representatives that opening the mosque to worshippers poses a security threat to the residents and affects the Jewish character of the city.  The justices stopped the mayor several times and demanded that he focus on the issues raised by the petition.

This mosque is the only mosque in Beer el-Sabe and should serve the 5,000 Arab Muslims living in the city, in addition to the 150,000 Muslims living in the Naqab (Negev). Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the Beer el-Sabe municipality has prevented Muslims from praying in the mosque; it was used as a courtroom, prison and museum until its closure in 1991, when it was abandoned and neglected.

In 2002, Adalah and the Association for Support and Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel submitted a petition demanding the reopening of the mosque. In 2007, the Supreme Court issued an order nisi against the Beer el-Sabe municipality requiring it to explain why the mosque is not opened for prayer and worship.

On the eve of the court hearing, Adalah presented its concluding arguments in the case stating that: "converting the mosque into a museum does not serve the general public interest. The municipality can choose any neutral venue in the city to establish a museum. At a time when most of the mixed Jewish-Arab cities in Israel are seeking to preserve their old neighborhoods with their historical and religious buildings and to provide large budgets for this purpose, the Beer el-Sabe municipality is taking steps contrary to the logic of proper urban planning. Thus the Beer el-Sabe municipality's position does not serve any public interest; on the contrary, it greatly damages the public interest.

 
Citation: H.C. 7311/02, Association for Support and Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel, et. al. v. The Municipality of Beer Sheva, et. al. (case pending).

For more information, see Eva Mousa, "Beer el-Sabe Municipality Refuses to Allow Muslim Residents and Visitors to Pray in the Big Mosque, Due to Concerns over 'Public Safety and Security'", Adalah's Newsletter, Volume 9, January 2005:

http://www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/jan05/mesq.pdf