---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:23:00 +0200 (IST)
From: Eliot BRAUN - 892213 <eliot@aleph>
To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Hasmonean Tunnel (clarification-longish)
 
In response to a question about the tunnel I'd like to offer the
following personal observations.  Please excuse the length of the posting.
        I was asked if the tunnel I described is a new tunnel cut into
fills to the north of the plaza where the Western Wall of the Temple Mt
is today.  My answer:
The entrance is now through the W. Wall and the tunnel dug by the
ministry of Rel. Affairs through the mass of material, etc filling the
Tyropoean Valley NORTH OF WILSON'S ARCH (see-its far away from el Aqsa)
and goes further north where it meets the rock-cut Hasmonean tunnel.
From there they seem to have cut another tunnel (through what I don't
know) so as to emerge somewhere in the Moslem Quarter.  Formerly the
passage led to cisterns below the Convent of Notre Dame de Sion on the
Via Dolorosa.  All of this tunneling is below the surface level of the
summit of the Temple Mt. and OUTSIDE of AND NOT BELOW the Haram es
Sharif!!!!. The only possible point of contention is the small tunnel or
passagway or fault in the bedrock that forms a connection with the
surface of the temple mt. and the modern tunnel through the debris.
Since this is closed and has been ever since an incident there, its
obvious that the tunnel, per se, is not the problem, merely a symptom.
These tunnels are at most points adjacent to the Western Support Wall
of the Temple Mt.  These are facts.
         Politics dictates that this tunnel play a
part that it does not deserve.  Let's hope that something good will come
out of the horror of yesterday.  Peace is what we all need.
Eliot Braun
 
On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, ALAN SIMMONS wrote:
 
> Dear Eliot:  Thank you for the clarification--in everything that's been
> released so far in the US press, it is very unclear what the nature of
> this tunnel is:  it's usually referred to as "an archaeological tunnel".
> Your post clarified this considerably--but just to be certain, is "the
> tunnel" that is referred to the so-called "tourist tunnel" (apparently
> created by the Min. of Rel. Affairs) or is it an actual ancient tunnel?
> None of this has been clear.
>
> I'm wondering the the Dept. of Antiquities is planning on issuing a
> clarification?
>
> Certainly I agree that this is a symbol and the rest is politics.
> Hopefully rational minds will prevail in this latest series of
> unfortunate events.  Sometimes peace appears so close...Best wishes, Alan
> Simmons
>