Today’s Temple Mount news reflects a bigger problem

The brief drama over Ben-Gvir's plan to visit the Temple Mount highlights the absurd discourse on the matter, which is too important to be conceded over one controversial minister.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir at the Temple Mount on January 3, 2023. Photo Credit: Temple Mount Administration

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir visited the Temple Mount for 13 minutes this morning, and so far, the sky has not fallen.

There was some political drama yesterday after Ben-Gvir announced his intention to visit the holy site, which highlighted how farcical the discourse about the much-ballyhooed “status quo” on the Temple Mount really is.

Let’s start with the basics: The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism because it is the former site of the two Holy Temples in Jerusalem. There is ample archeological and historical evidence of this fact. (Here’s a good article on that evidence. And if you want to laugh at The New York Times’s expense, check out the first, lengthy correction on this article.)

This is contrary to what is often mistakenly reported, that the Western Wall is the holiest site; the Western Wall derives its holiness from being a Second Temple-era supporting wall for the Mount. Various colonial and occupying powers wouldn’t let Jews on the Mount over centuries, sometimes at pain of death, plus many Orthodox Jews believe the Mount is too holy to ascend in our current impure state, which is why the Western Wall has long been the more popular prayer site.

“Zion” is a term for Jerusalem and for the Temple itself. Zionism is support for self-determination for the Jewish People, and the word is derived from the city that was the Jews’ ancient capital and the subject of countless prayers to return. In other words, the Temple Mount and the Old City of Jerusalem are where Israel’s story began; it’s why we’re here and not, say, Uganda.

Because of the site’s importance to the Jewish People in general and to its revenants in Zion specifically, an increasing number of Israelis have sought to ascend the Temple Mount in recent years, with some also surreptitiously praying, which is prohibited by the Islamic Trust that manages the site.

“The Temple Mount and the Old City of Jerusalem Israel’s story began; it’s why we’re here and not, say, Uganda.”

The almost-daily reaction to this from Muslims at the site is to post videos of Jews on social media, referring to all of them as “settlers” – implying that regardless of where they actually live, their presence is not legitimate – and saying that they are “storming Al Aqsa” even if they are slowly walking along the permitted path for non-Muslims.

But there are sporadic spasms of violence and even war over the Temple Mount. Well, sort of. If you accept that excuse. The 1929 Hebron Massacre was sparked by the Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini lying that Jews were killing Muslims and planning to take over the Temple Mount. Arafat planned the Second Intifada in advance, but he used then-prime ministerial candidate Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount as the excuse on which to pin its launch. In 2021, Palestinians stockpiled rocks and fireworks in the Al Aqsa Mosque, launching them at police, which reacted by entering the mosque to stop them. Hamas took its cues from the mufti and Arafat and claimed that was the reason for its subsequent onslaught of thousands of rockets into Israel – including Jerusalem, the city it was supposedly defending.

Muslims believe that the Temple Mount is where Muhammad ascended to heaven, and that he tied his donkey to the Western Wall. There is no historic or archeological evidence of this, but that shouldn’t be disqualifying, because one can say the same of parts of every religion. Muslims refer to the entire Temple Mount as Al Aqsa but believe that the Dome of the Rock – the shrine in the blue building with the gold dome - is the precise location of Muhammad’s ascendence. The Al Aqsa Mosque is a separate structure on the Mount with a grey dome, contrary to a lot of mistaken reporting and tweets that call the Dome the mosque.

Muslim control of worship practices on the site has been fairly consistent over centuries. One can say it’s one of the few things that have been consistent over that time. (I’ve been reading Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore, and it’s mind-boggling how often the city changed hands over 2000 years.) When Israel won the Six Day War in 1967, attaining sovereignty over Jerusalem and overturning the antisemitic Jordanian policy banning Jews from the Western Wall, then-defense minister Moshe Dayan decided to keep the ban on Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount intact, despite calls in Israel to do otherwise. It was a gesture meant to show that Israel wanted to live in peace with its neighbors - but it was not taken that way.

If we fast forward all those centuries to today, we have a situation in which there is traditional Muslim control over the religious aspect of the site and Israeli sovereignty in all of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount.

While Israel grants the Waqf, the Jordanian-backed Islamic trust, the ability to essentially control the way the site is run other than policing, the Waqf does not recognize Israel’s authority nor any Jewish claim to the site. (This was not always the case; see this pamphlet published by the Waqf in 1925.) The Waqf actively tries to block archeological research in the area, conducting illegal construction and destroying and dumping priceless historic artifacts.

Of course, it’s not just the Waqf that stubbornly denies any Jewish ties to the Mount despite ample evidence to the contrary. Arafat famously did so to then-president Bill Clinton, who was outraged by the claim. Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, most Arab members of Knesset, vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause, etc. all do the same. They don’t want Jews anywhere near the Temple Mount and are angry when they “desecrate [it] with their filthy feet.”

This, unfortunately, is one of many clear indications that the Palestinians don’t really want peace and coexistence with Israel, since they won’t even acknowledge Jewish claims, let alone recognize Israel as the Jewish state.

---

All of this background brings us back to Ben-Gvir. Yesterday, he said he was going to visit the Temple Mount today. Then he talked with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said he would visit the Mount “in the coming weeks,” which many thought meant that he had backed down. After all, Netanyahu has talked many ministers out of visiting the Temple Mount in the past. But then, Ben-Gvir – who as national security minister oversees policing of the holy site – visited this morning anyway, unannounced; he and Netanyahu tricked the opposition and the media.

The new minister is, for many reasons I’m not going to get into here but have written about in the past, super-controversial. Is he more controversial than Ariel Sharon in 2000? I’m not sure how to measure that, but it’s worth remembering that at the time, while many respected him as a war hero in Israel, Sharon was best known internationally for his connection to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, 20 years before he became prime minister of Israel.

Unfortunately, many people still accept the falsehood that Sharon’s Temple Mount visit sparked the Second Intifada, which means that they see visits by controversial politicians to the Temple Mount as possible preludes to war.

Never mind that quite a few politicians and even ministers have visited the Mount in recent years, and the fact of their visit is enough to make them controversial. Maybe the reaction was of the social media “storming” video kind. Maybe Jordan had some angry things to say (the hypocrisy of which I documented here). But the vast majority of the time, nothing major happened.

This time, Hamas threatened to attack if Ben-Gvir ascended the Temple Mount.

The reaction in much of the major Israeli media and from the political opposition was paroxysms of fear and righteous anger, and advocating for giving in to the terrorists’ threats. Yair Lapid, who was prime minister just last week, warned that people would die.

What’s especially bizarre is that was not the stance of the Bennett-Lapid government when they were still in power. The logic of people who were cabinet ministers just days ago seemed to be that if Hamas says they’re going to attack, we should stop whatever it is that’s making them angry.

Of course, we know from Hamas’s founding charter, its leaders’ statements, and recent history that what they want isn’t just for Ben-Gvir not to visit the Temple Mount. They want Israel to no longer exist. If Ben-Gvir were to cancel his visit, it’s not like Hamas would lay down its arms. Hamas would just find some other excuse to attack Israel at its own convenience, as it always has.

Then, there’s the fact that Israel is a democratic state with freedom of religion and expression. Even Lapid said not that long ago that it makes him uncomfortable that the rule is Jews cannot pray at their holiest site for that reason. Israel was also established to be the Jewish State – not a state of Jewish supremacy, as Ben-Gvir may argue, but one in which Jews can exercise their collective right to self-determination and security, and their individual rights to be Jews in religion, culture, education, language, etc.

Between Israel’s raison d’etre and the poor security policy precedent, Ben-Gvir should be allowed to pay a respectful visit to the Temple Mount, which is precisely what he did. He even made sure to say after the visit that while "the Temple Mount is the most important place for the Jewish People," he will maintain "freedom of movement for Muslims and Christians." There are enough unique issues with Ben-Gvir that we don’t have to pretend his visit to the Temple Mount is one of them. And the Temple Mount is too important to be conceded over the minister’s other problems.

Ben-Gvir visited the Temple Mount for 13 minutes this morning, and so far, the sky has not fallen. If Hamas or anyone else decides to respond disproportionately - to turn around a phrase people like to use against Israel - it’s on them.