Rosner’s Domain: A Passover Volcano

Maybe that’s the way the Temple Mount reminds us of its importance. Maybe that’s the way the Temple Mount reminds us of what’s really at stake. Maybe that’s testimony to the Temple Mount’s miraculous power to sway world affairs. Maybe not. Maybe the Temple Mount is just an unremarkable geographic location, with no special intentions or powers, and it is all about us. We are the ones making it important. We are the ones insisting on fighting for … for what? There are thousands of locations more impressive than this one. There are thousands of mountains higher, mightier, than this one. And yet, that’s the one threatening to ignite violence and terror once again. 

Jews are celebrating Passover. Muslims are marking the holy month of Ramadan. Jews go mostly to the Western Wall, yet some desire to climb the short road leading to the actual place of the Hebrew Temple. Muslims go mostly to praise God, yet some desire to turn the place of holiness into a place of war. On Sunday, stones were thrown by Arabs, targeting Jews. Israeli police barged into Temple Mount to clash with the violent mob. Arabs attacked public transportation to the old city, wounding passengers. Israeli police arrested hundreds of young Arabs. 

Jewish leaders protested the disruption to what ought to be a quiet religious celebration. Arab leaders protested police behavior and blamed the violence on Jewish provocation. Was there a provocation? An honest response would be: Yes, there was, there is, an ongoing provocation. Arabs across the Middle East are still provoked by the idea that Jews insist on sharing the Temple Mount. The provocation of the Temple Mount is no different, in essence, than the one of the State of Israel. For many years there was a convenient status quo that excluded Jews from their land. The status quo was disrupted, in stages. Israel was born, then became an established presence, then conquered more land in war — a war not of its own choosing. Then it established its presence in more areas, the Old City of Jerusalem among them. Jews returned to visit the Western Wall, with frequency and without having to ask for favors. Then some of them decided that Temple Mount cannot be out of bounds for the people who made it what it is. 

Arabs never wanted to share any land with the returning Jews. They considered them invaders, colonialists. Unlike most other past conquerors of Jerusalem, Israel did not use the pretext of victory in the Six Days War to take full control over the Temple Mount. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan has let the Muslim Waqf remain in control of the area. There are those who think this was a wise decision that prevented a grand religious war. There are those who think it was a mistake that Israel failed to seize an opportunity to establish its claim on the Temple Mount.

What we do know is this: The current state of affairs is an invitation for instability and recurring chaos.

We can never know what would have happened had Israel decided to take over the site. What we do know is this: The current state of affairs is an invitation for instability and recurring chaos. Arabs, by and large (and this is true for Israeli and non-Israeli Arabs) still deny any Jewish connection to Temple Mount. Many of them refuse to acknowledge that a Jewish Temple is a historical fact. Jews are split, but the more they recognize what’s at stake, the more reluctant they become to accept a status quo whose main purpose is denying their roots. A few years ago, I wrote the following paragraph at The New York Times: “The Jewish state prevents Jews from expressing deep Jewish sentiments in the holiest place of Judaism … This policy doesn’t make sense — and yet, maintaining it, as Mr. Netanyahu has pledged to do, is the only reasonable course for a responsible Israeli government to pursue.” In essence, I argued that the only way to keep the genie of great violence in a bottle is to choose the lesser evil and keep the absurd status quo. 

I am gradually losing my faith in this status quo. I am gradually becoming convinced that the idea of barring Jews from Temple Mount — because of the threat of Arab violence — rather than keep a lid on a barrel of dynamite, only begets more violence.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

In Israel, a debate about the right to carry guns is much different than the American debate, and yet, there are similarities. Here is what I wrote a few days ago:

In 2020, 12 women were shot dead in Israel. Of them, five were shot with a licensed weapon. Now, one has to ask, is this a lot or a little? On the one hand, licensed weapons were used to murder women. On the other hand, most of the murders of women were carried out using unlicensed weapons. So, one side will say, let’s at least spare the murders done with a licensed weapon, and the other side will say, here, again you take the weapons from those who want to keep the law and apply for a license, while leaving the weapon in the hands of those who do not bother to apply for a license.

A week’s numbers

The polls from 2015 and from last week show a change in support of a nuclear agreement with Iran among U.S. Jews — and yet, the share of opponents remained almost the same. What does it tell me? That what U.S. Jews think about the agreement has almost nothing to do with what Israel says or does. 

A reader’s response:

Gabby Schwartz sent me a letter in which she says: “Your podcast is fantastic, and I eagerly await every episode of it. I wish more people knew about it.” So — now they know. This week we interviewed historian Ohad Leslau about operation Defensive Shield of 2002. 

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.