We say: We oppose the construction of the museum on this site, the Mamilla cemetery, because - in the name of tolerance - it sends a message of utter intolerance. It sends a message of inconsideration and hubris to Arabs (and to many Jews) in Jerusalem and to the entire world.

We oppose building the project, at the suggested site, because if Muslims say that the construction of this monumental building on the ruins of an important historic Muslim cemetery is offensive to them, we believe them. We know how offended we would feel if someone wanted to build a huge building - a shrine to tolerance, of all things - on top of a Jewish cemetery in the Arab world, or anywhere else for that matter. And we know how offended we would feel if we were told that our protests against such construction was not genuine.

Certain facts are beyond dispute. The Wiesenthal Center acknowledges that the plot it acquired for the museum is part of a large historic Muslim cemetery dating back to the thirteenth century. Some of the tombstones are still visible. Others have been paved or built over. The cemetery was Jerusalem's main active Muslim cemetery until 1948. Many Jerusalemite dignitaries are buried there.

True, Israel's High Court ruled that the Wiesenthal Center had the legal right to build its museum at this location. The Court considered this case on its legal merits. We expect the Wiesenthal Center - a human rights organization concerned with morals and ethics and strongly supportive of Israel - to consider the moral, ethical and political consequences of carrying out this project.

Jerusalem is the focal point of the passions of Jews, Christians and Muslims world wide. Jewish control of the city carries responsibilities, foremost among them, showing respect for the sensitivities of all three religions. Failing to act with sensitivity in such matters can carry a heavy price. It should be recalled that the opening of a tunnel in Jerusalem's Old City a decade ago inflamed passions that led to unrest in which nearly 100 people died, including 17 Israeli soldiers. The second Intifada was sparked by Ariel Sharon's deliberately provocative visit to the Temple Mount. More recently, controversy linked to plans to expand the Mughrabi Gate ramp, leading from the Kotel to the Temple Mount, sparked a huge outcry and unrest.

Moreover, Jerusalem is not Las Vegas: what happens in Jerusalem does not stay there. Conflict over what many Muslims see as an attack on their holy sites might very well spill over to fuel political and religious regional tensions, with dangerous consequences for security and stability far beyond Israel, and for world Jewry.

From a more self-interested Jewish perspective, it is clear that implementation of this plan, at the current site, bodes ill for the future of Jewish historic and holy sites in the region and around the world. How could Jews demand that Arab or Muslim governments protect long-disused, but not forgotten Jewish sites in their countries, when we, diaspora Jews as well as Israeli Jews, summarily dismiss identical Muslim concerns?

And finally, there are consequences of the plan for Jerusalem. We, Jews who live in America and love to visit Jerusalem to admire its glory and to contribute to its grandeur, sometimes forget that there are people who live in that city, people who try to lead a normal, peaceful life there. And for the 460,000 Israeli Jews and 250,000 Palestinian Arabs who live in Jerusalem, a monument to tolerance built on the foundation of intolerance and disrespect is a recipe for disaster.