We had intended trying to fit in several of the 11 locations at Haifa and Akko within this inscription but, in the end, time constraints limited us to the North Slope of Mt Carmel and its structures - or such as non-believers are allowed to see/enter!! So this means the Terrace Gardens and external views of the Shrine of the Bab together with the “Arc” of administrative buildings which are situated next to the terraces (The Seat of the Universal House of Justice, Seat of the International Teaching Centre, the International Archives and the Centre for the Study of the Sacred Texts).

The Terraces were built as recently as 1990-2001 whilst the Arc buildings date to the 1950s through to the 1980s. The shrine itself dates back to an original “simple” building from 1899-1909 but was given its current grandiose appearance with gold dome and Corinthian columns between 1948/53. There is no doubt that the terraces are “impressive” for their grandiosity, climbing some 225 metres in 1 km, particularly when seen from the bottom (at top end of Ben Guirion St, Haifa’s - main restaurant area). Having seen them from the bottom in the evening (visitors are allowed to ascend just to the first “balcony”) we went to the top the next day and planned to take the noon English tour down through the gardens. There you can again freely descend to the first “balcony” without taking a “tour”. The view from the top over Haifa is fine but no better than from other places along the same road. The view down the terraces themselves I didn’t find as impressive as looking up.

I wish we had limited our visit to these 2 easily accessible areas, but we decided to go for the noon tour even though one can no longer book them. We actually arrived at 10.55 from out of town and found just a handful of people waiting for the 11am Hebrew tour. So we decided to have a look around the top area first and come back at 11.25 to start queuing for the English tour. BIG mistake!!! When we returned, there were well over 100 Russians/Japanese and assorted other nationalities from coach tours all waiting for an English language tour limited to 60 people! At least they didn’t shut the door after the first 60 but it was 12.40 before we got in on a Hebrew language tour we could have gone on 1 hr 40 minutes earlier! Moral – take the first tour you can get and the English language tour is primarily filled with non Hebrew speakers who may or may not speak English! In fact we were given a little brochure in English, the guide had relatively little to say anyway and was able to answer questions in English if asked. Bear in mind that the tour finishes half way down the terraces from where we had to return to our car at the top by road (not as direct as the way down!) on foot or by taxi!

Perhaps I was no longer mentally attuned to appreciating what I was seeing but I found the series of identical balconies with their similar gardens and cheap looking red gravel rather boring – especially as the shrine we were approaching was closed to us anyway. January may not have been the best time to see the gardens even in Israel and large areas were looking a bit thin. This is no “Generalife”, despite the fountains and running water. The buildings making up the “Arc” were pompous copies of classical structures - or perhaps pompous copies of US copies of classical structures? In any case they did not impress.

It is interesting to read the ICOMOS evaluations of the nomination – the first for the 2007 WHC which “referred” it and the second for the 2008. The first concluded that the nominated buildings really had no architectural merit at all (“The OUV of the collection of buildings cannot be justified in terms of their intrinsic historical, artistic or scientific merits”). Such merit as the entire collection possessed related solely to the value placed upon them by the Bahai faith – which ICOMOS didn’t feel qualified to pass judgement on!! As such, only criterion vi could even be considered appropriate (“Directly or tangibly associated with .. beliefs and traditions” etc) which was a problem as the WHC didn’t like inscriptions on vi alone and ICOMOS didn’t consider that criterion iii was met! One year later both iii and vi were considered appropriate although, since the only changes to the nomination were to matters of management and protection plus some additional “arguments”, it is difficult to see why the ICOMOS view of iii changed.

Clearly there is a problem evaluating sites in terms of OUV when their value is primarily/solely to the religion they represent – with their inscription on the basis of just criteria iii and vi the Bahai holy places are in the same company as Lumbini, Fujisan and Sulaiman-too. But where should UNESCO stop in trying to be even handed towards the central sites of all religions and cultures irrespective of their artistic/architectural merit? The Cao Dai temple in Tay Nihn? The Mormon Tabernacle (there are 3 times as many Mormons in the world as Bahais)? Gapyeong Unification Church? The major centres of Scientology in US/UK?

The Bahai religion generally gets a “good press” with its messages of equality, universality and peace and the discrimination against its adherents in many countries past and present. There doesn’t seem much to oppose in fact!! But one thing does surprise me – its approach to Israelis both in Israel and elsewhere - “in keeping with a policy that has been strictly followed since the days of Bahaullah, Baha'is do not teach the Faith in Israel. Likewise, the Faith is not taught to Israelis abroad if they intend to return to Israel”…….”whenever an Israeli citizen living in the West, irrespective of his background and religious affiliation, declares his belief and interest in becoming a member of the Baha'i community, he should be informed that the Faith is not taught in Israel and that there is no Baha'i community there apart from those who are associated with the Baha'i World Center. He cannot be accepted into the Baha'i community if he is planning to return to Israel to reside there. If he plans to continue to reside outside Israel, his enrollment can be accepted, but he will then be subject to the same restrictions about travel to Israel as any other Baha'i, in that he could do so only with the express permission of the Universal House of Justice. In any event, the Universal House of Justice should be informed of any such declaration” Very strange! I can’t work out how much this is driven by Bahais, or how much is a tacit agreement with Israel to avoid upsetting the status quo regarding the Bahai “use” of Israel for its Holy Places.

(PS - some years later we visited (within the limits of what was accessible) the sites in Akko (In the City and Bahji) - but discovered no reason to alter our general assessment of this WHS)