We say: Simply stated, Jews can no more decree what is or is not sacred - or offensive - to Muslims, than Muslims can decree what is sacred, or offensive, to Jews. Arguing that the site designated for the Museum of Tolerance is not sacred to Muslims does not change the fact that many Muslims, in Israel and beyond, believe it is. Defenders of the project self-servingly assert that Muslims adopted this position as part of a cynical plan to attack Israel. They can't prove that assertion and, which is tone-deaf to the realities of the situation.

Moreover, efforts to discredit Muslim attachment to the site are not convincing. The cemetery is well-known and was in active use from the thirteenth century until 1948, when, as a result of Israel's War of Independence, it was cut off from East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Muslims did not abandon the site; they were effectively separated from it. The absence of an outcry from Muslims in the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel began construction on parts of the cemetery, are not proof of Muslim indifference. More likely, it reflects the fact that from 1948-1966 most Arab citizens of Israel lived under virtual martial law, unable to travel freely or organize. One wonders how they would have managed to protest or launch legal action. And the then-physical division of Jerusalem meant that the Arab and Muslim world - including residents of East Jerusalem - would have had little idea what Israel was doing.

Finally, like it or not, what matters most in this case is perception. And the perception in much of the world is that Israeli and American Jews are acting together to demonstrate their scorn of Muslims and of Muslim heritage. In the end, the motivation of those opposing the plan is irrelevant. The relevant issues here are the national security interests of the State of Israel, the interests of the peace-seeking people who live in Jerusalem, and the security interest of world Jewry.

Even if the petitioners were motivated only by a malicious intent to embarrass the State of Israel, insisting on this project only plays into their hands. Israel and the Wiesenthal Center have the opportunity here take the high road and demonstrate that Jews, as responsible stewards of the Holy Land, are respectful of the religious sensitivities of others. To do so does not require canceling the project. All it requires is selecting an alternative site. The Wiesenthal Center's dogged refusal to even consider doing so only fuels the impression that this renowned defender of human rights and dignity has lost sight of the fact that while preaching tolerance is important, practicing it is far more critical.