In the 5th century BCE, after the Persians destroyed the Babylonian empire, Jews returned from exile in Mesopotamia—led by Ezra and Nehemiah—and set about building a new temple in Jerusalem. They soon found themselves opposed by a local group, known as Samaritans, who maintained certain pre-exilic Jewish traditions and through the Roman period made up a large segment of the population of the Land of Israel. Leen Ritmeyer discusses evidence that they even built a temple of their own on Mount Gerizim as an alternative to that in Jerusalem:

Archaeological remains of a Samaritan sacred precinct were discovered in these excavations around the turn of the 21st century. These date from the time of Nehemiah (mid-5th century BCE). The Bible doesn’t mention any temple as standing on Mount Gerizim, so we wondered how such a building fit in with the biblical history. It was the reading of Josephus that provided the missing historical information.

During [Nehemiah’s] time, Sanballat the Horonite was the leading figure among those who opposed the building of Jerusalem and the Temple. It is generally believed that he was descended from the Babylonian settlers whom the Assyrians deported to Samaria (2Kings 17:24). Sanballat, whose name means “Sin (the moon god) gives life,” was the governor of Samaria.

[According to the eponymous biblical book], Nehemiah rejected [a high priest named] Manasseh and sent him away. The vital additional information . . . was found in Josephus, who records that Sanballat then offered to make Manasseh high priest and build a new temple on Mount Gerizim similar to that in Jerusalem. The archaeological remains of the Samaritan sacred precinct indeed indicate that at this time a rival temple was built on this mountain by the Samaritans.

Mount Gerizim remains holy to modern-day Samaritans, who today number in the hundreds, and who gather there on Passover to bring the paschal sacrifice. Detailed sketches of the Samaritan temple, and related structures, can be found at the link below.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.