Published: 31 May 2022
Last updated: 4 March 2024
NOAM GREENBERGER explains why last week's Court intervention over whether a group of Jews to pray on Temple Mount is key to the conflict over Jerusalem
LAST WEEK THE Jerusalem Magistrates Court temporarily overruled a restraining order that had banned a group of Israeli teenagers from Temple Mount, only to have the ban swiftly re-imposed by the District Court.
Israeli police had banned the teenagers from Temple Mount, arguing they were disturbing the peace. What did they do to allegedly disturb the peace? They bowed down and prayed.
Isn’t Temple Mount a place of prayer, one might ask? Well, it depends.
In the wake of the Six-Day War, then Minister of Defence Moshe Dayan ensured that the administration of Temple Mount (historically known to Muslims as Al-Haram al-Sharif, “the Noble Sanctuary”) would be left with the Jordanian Waqf (Islamic trustees), which had managed the site since 1948.
It is generally understood that this was done to avert the prospect of a religious war between Muslims and Jews. The decision sat comfortably with many Jews because there is a widely accepted halachic (Jewish legal) prohibition on entry by Jews to the site of the Temple, due to issues of ritual impurity.
The right-leaning segments of the Israeli public view Israeli government policy regarding the Temple Mount as a test of its sovereignty over Jerusalem
Thus, the status quo was crafted. Jews could pray at the Western Wall, Muslims could pray at the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Christians could pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Under this arrangement, each religion could administer its religious sites and Jerusalem would be a shining example of harmonious religious co-existence. If only it were that simple…
In fact, the status quo is based on premises which are not accepted by all parties. Or to put it another way, the players do not agree on the rules.
