What the fuss over an Israeli minister's visit to the Temple Mount tells us
It tells us that
Itamar Ben Gvir is Israel’s new minister of national security. He’s also the leader of Otzma Yehudit, a nationalist party that favors annexing the West Bank and opposes the formation of a Palestinian state.
The other day, Ben Gvir visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He did so against the wishes of prime minister Netanyahu and senior security officials who fear the visit will result in heightened unrest by Palestinians and will harm Israel’s relations with Arab states.
A visit by Ariel Sharon in 2000 was followed by the second intifada. Ben Gvir’s visit prompted Jordan to summon Israel’s ambassador in protest.
The Washington Post reports on Ben Gvir’s visit here. However, the Post’s story omits important religious context.
The Temple Mount was the site of the Second Jewish Temple. Jews consider it the most sacred place in their religion.
The Temple Mount is also the site of the Dome of the Rock. It’s the oldest Muslim religious shrine outside of Saudi Arabia. From here, Muslims say, Muhammad ascended into heaven.
Nearby, also on the Mount, sits the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Muslims consider this their third most holy site, behind only a mosque in Mecca and one in Medina.
What we have on the Temple Mount, then, is an area Jews consider their most sacred and Muslims consider their third most sacred.
Yet, even though Jerusalem is the center of the Jewish state, Jews are not permitted to pray on the Temple Mount — a prohibition that even Netanyahu supports. And when Jews do pray there, it can spark violence by Palestinians and condemnation from states like Jordan (the area is managed by the Jordanian religious authority) and Saudi Arabia.
I find it understandable that Ben Gvir does not want to accept this one-sided and unjust state of affairs.
However, I’m not saying that Ben Gvir’s decision to visit the Temple Mount is a good one. I’m the kind of old-fashioned conservative who is sometimes willing to accept flawed arrangements when disturbing them carries the risk of significant harm.
Ben Gvir’s visit won’t change the arrangement at the Temple Mount, but carries the real risk of harm, including bloodshed. Therefore, I agree with Netanyahu that his security minister’s visit was ill-advised.
But there are lessons to be learned from the prohibition on Jewish prayer at the religion’s most sacred site and from the way Palestinians react when Jews do pray there. One lesson is that, whereas Israel has always accommodated Islam, Muslims haven’t reciprocated. A combination of religious fanaticism and anti-Semitism stands in the way of accommodation.
A second lesson — one that follows from the first — is that it’s the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are the primary obstacle to peace in the region. Their posture regarding the Temple Mount perfectly reflects their general unwillingness to compromise with Israel.
The third, and related, lesson is that Ben Gvir has good reason to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. It seems ill-advised for Israel to agree to an independent state for a population that won’t tolerate Jews visiting their most holy place, even when that place sits within the Jewish state and, indeed, its capital city.
Palestinian intransigence in this matter reflects a hostility to the Jewish presence in the Holy Lands that hardly befits a potential peace partner for Israel. It suggests to me that the Palestinians don’t really believe in a “two-state solution” except, perhaps, as a waystation on the road to a single Palestinian state.
Accordingly, common sense tells us that Israel should be extremely wary of accepting a Palestinian state under present conditions.
I agree with most of what the author has written. And incidentally, I miss your commentary at PLB. ;-)
I must emphasize one factual error that is commonly repeated, and which is important to correct. Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was not the precipitating event that caused the Second Intifada. The Second Intifada occurred as a result of Yasser Arafat's unwillingness to agree to the concessions offered to him by Ehud Barak at the Camp David Summit in the summer of 2000, after which he declared that he would seek to attain ALL of his aims by armed means. The concessions at the time included a hitherto unthinkable idea of surrendering part of the Temple Mount compound-- the holiest site in Judaism-- to Palestinian control. Then opposition-leader Ariel Sharon vehemently opposed this, and so visited the mount to emphasize its importance to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel. But this was not the factor that resulted in the Intifada. PLO Chairman Arafat had already declared his intention to engage in an Intifada. And to wit, violence had been breaking out for months before even the Camp David Summit, including an incident in which a Palestinian "police" officer shot an Israeli counterpart on a joint patrol, roughly in March of that year by my memory. I recall those days and months vividly. It was an intensely painful time.
Another interesting point for readers to know. Although Palestinians and many Arab sources oddly deny the importance of the site to Judaism, the Arabic phrase for the compound actually testifies to its Jewish origins, and is almost indistinguishable from the Hebrew phrase, as anyone who knows the language would recognize. It is called, in Arabic, "Bayt Al Makdish." In Hebrew, "Beit Hamikdash." In English, the "House of the Temple."