14 thoughts on “Israeli ‘Arsonist,’ Ben Gvir, Stirs Outrage with Haram al Sharif ‘Visit’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Thank you. I try to tune out these days especially since the basics are not changing. But this is the key; people do tune out because of the gradualism of “it all”as you mention since 1967. But again sometimes “these people” do put their foot over the moving red lines too far and all at once, like now. With regard to Netanyahu,he is compromised and weak now along with being deplorable and immoral. I cannot anymore fault Biden and the US government keeping their distance until real violence breaks out.They are political animals looking to keep control they think by avoiding doing the right thing. But, you would think that a man in his 80’s (Biden, still with faculties) could possibly stick his neck out further and really distance us as far as he can from Israel now for LEGACY above politics. But but but.. we probably have geopolitical reasons not to, a full plate. So this is really a test for the Arabs and indeed about the Abraham Accords, the supposed peace component, really a business deal it seems. They have to show their resolve and power if it matters. Or maybe they will calculate, too, geopolitically and leave the Palestinians to sacrifice. But the “it” this time is about Jerusalem, the holy site and the Muslim world, not only Palestinians.

  2. Hello Richard, I have just one question about the article. You write that the site is the 3rd holiest place for Muslims. Why do you refrain from mentioning that it is the first holiest place for the Jews? Why don’t they have any rights there too?
    Thank you for your response.

    1. @ Cristina: Not true. The Temple Mount (I use that term since I’m referring to the views of Jews about it) is not, nor has it ever been the “first holiest place for Jews” for over 1,000 years. In fact Jews, unlike other religions do not worship physical places. At least, not since the last Temple was destroyed. What is true is that after 1967, a small coteries of Orthodox Jewish settlers began a campaign to turn the Temple Mount into something it had been long before: a physical place of worship which would eventually become a Third Temple. This lunacy only began then.

      Further, Judaism for over 1,000 years has prohibited Jews from stepping foot there. The only place they could worship was at the Kotel, which wasn’t even inside the environs where the Temple had stood.

      What is true is that the Temple and restoring it has been a spiritual cause mentioned in the sidur. We also pray to resume animal sacrifice. How many Jews in the past 1,000 years have devoutly wished they or a Temple priest could make an animal sacrifice? The difference between praying this and actually doing it has been a clear distinction since the Second Temple was destroyed.

      You clearly have been reading too much settler propaganda masquerading as Jewish law.

      1. So basically you are saying the Jews who have a different opinion on whether it is right to pray at the site of the Temple have no right to hold a differing opinion. They should acquiece because to do otherwise would be to inflame Muslims.

        Shouldn’t you be asking why Muslims cannot share the holy site with Jews. Prophet Mohammad allowed Jews and Christians to pray in his Mosque in Medina.

        By invoking extremist Islamists views you side with divisive Islamists.

        Jews have every right to pray on their Holiest site.

        1. @ Tamanna:

          …you are saying…

          Don’t ever tell me what I am saying. What I write is what I believe. Not what you claim I believe. So don’t go there. Invariably, you will be wrong, as you are in this case. I never said Jews “have no right to hold a differing opinion.” THeir opinion is their opinion and their problem. I never said anyone should “acquiesce.” I can’t control someone’s opinion. I can only tell you what the histroical facts are: that until 1967 it was forbidden for any Jew to invade the Temple Mount. It still is forbidden for most Orthodox Jews. Most secular Jews have no interest in invading this site at all, though some may visit as tourists with no religion motivation (I have done so decades ago). Those among Jews who share Ben Gvir’s odious views are a minority even of Israeli Orthdox Jews, even more among Diaspora Jews.

          Shouldn’t you be asking why Muslims cannot share the holy site with Jews

          No. I am a Jew. I don’t tell Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu what they should do regarding their religious matters. The fact that you share Ben Gvir’s odious views indicates again that you are a fraud of a Muslim. NO real Muslim believes that Jews who seek to destroy the Haram al Sharif should have any presence there.

          Prophet Mohammad allowed Jews and Christians to pray in his Mosque in Medina.

          Another nonsense claim. Whatever Mohammed did 1,600 years ago has nothing to do with what the Saudi Wahabists do now. Jews aren’t even permitted in Saudi Arabia, let alone to pray Jewishly in Medina.

          divisive Islamists.

          If you are a Muslim, it is you who are an extremist Muslim. YOu hold views that virtually no other Muslim in the world does.

          Jews have every right to pray on their Holiest site.

          Wrong again. This is a halachic directive from Israel’s chief rabbi. Perhaps you know better? Or are taking your orders from the wrong sort of Jews?

          Do not publish another comment in this thread.

          1. there are diff opinions in ‘Halachah’: from the holiness of the temple mount is no longer germane after the destruction to the opinion that it still retains its holiness-and then a plethora of opinions where one cannot go to & where it is permitted. the fact that the Muslims get so upset when a Jew moves his lips makes no sense since there is only one God. Call him/her Allah, Yaweh etc. so maybe it is just a ‘real estate’ problem in the eyes of the Muslims. after all, they claim that King Solomon was a Muslim and King David etc were also Muslims. the Muslims maintain that before the Quran was the era of jahāla[ignorance] so the reason they claim is self-negating.

          2. @ jack52: Not so sure I’m willing to accept you as an authority on halacha or Islamic law, despite your spouting of Quranic terms which you undoubtedly picked up from some settler or far-right source. Jews are not “moving their lips” on Haram al Sharif. They are reciting psalms which envision the rebuilding of the Temple. And as I’ve said here countless times, one who seeks to rebuild can only do so by destroying Al Aqsa. That, of course, is why such prayer is forbidden; and why the Judeo-thugs cry for it to be permitted.

            Nor is it a “real estate problem” for Muslims. Your phrasing is deeply offensive and Islamophobic. So your very way of posing the question shows you are disingenuous. Not to mention a fraud who purports to know anything about Islam.

            You are permitted one comment per thread. This one was yours. No further comments in this thread.

      2. Jews did pray on the Temple Mount, for hundreds of years, even when the Harhabayit was under Muslim control.

        ‘Sebeos, a 7th-century Armenian bishop and historian, wrote about the existence of a Jewish prayer hall on the Temple Mount as follows: After the Jews enjoyed the aid and protection of the Arabs for a long time, they conceived the idea of rebuilding the Temple of Solomon. They identified the location of what they called the “The Holy of Holies” and there they built a prayer hall, using the foundations and the remnants of the original building. Once they had started to build, the Arabs became jealous and banished them from there. Instead, they gave the Jews another area on the Temple Mount for a synagogue.’


        1. @ Bertrand: How curious your sources are. An article written by a Bar Ilan professor, an Orthodox institution known for its right-wing ideology; published in a “periodical” associated with right-wing Orthodoxy; which relies on a claims purportedly made by a 7th century bishop. Pardon me, but this reeks of bias and not solid academic scholarship.

          Not to mention, there had not yet been any definitive rabbinic ruling prohibiting entry to the Temple Mount until centuries after the 7th century. Rambam is the first authority we know of who did so. Which means that any Jew who may purportedly have entered the site in the 7th century did so because there was no rabbinic authority who forbade it.

          But now let’s add another wrinkle: during the periods of the First and Second Temple non-Jews were not permitted entry. Why? Because it was a Jewish sacred site housing an actual physical structure. Just as Haram al Sharif is now a Muslim sacred site housing an actual physical structure. While there was once a standing Jewish temple on the site, there is no longer. That is why the vast majority of Jews pray at the Kotel because it is the last remaining physical remains of what once was the Temple.

          Oh, and which rabbinic group granted permission to Jews to enter it? Settler rabbis in 1996. Again pardon me, but this is by no means a credible set of rabbinic authorities. Which is why the consensus ORthodox view remains that entry is prohibited to Jews.

          1. Actually the sign at the entrance and the halachic ruling is that entry is forbidden to ALL persons, not specifically Jews, because of the inherent holiness of the site.

          2. @ Shai:

            forbidden to ALL persons, not specifically Jews

            So you claim that the Rabbis are forbidding Muslims to enter their own holy site? Or are Muslims not “persons” and so not included in the ban? Or rather, do the rabbis intend “persons” only to refer to Jews since rabbis, as any reasonable person would know, restrict their prohibitions to Jews? I’ll let readers here be the judge of what is reasonable in this case.

          3. [comment deleted: since you are already moderated, I did not want to ban you entirely. BUt you have several times disregarded my warning about publishing only a single comment in a thread. YOu did it again here. So while your comments are often substantive and worth addressing and rebutting, if I don’t enforce a rule here then I can’t enforce it for others. So you are now banned.]

  3. No one here really expected Ben Gvir to stop acting like a rabble rouser and start acting like a Statesman.

    And, he made Bibi look ridiculous.
    And a man in his position can’t afford to be made to look ridiculous.

    Ben Gvir’s … is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
    Signifying nothing.
    — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5)

    1. @ Top Cat: Again with the useless quotations attempting to make yourself look profound. Ben Gvir is far more than a ‘rabble rouser.’ He is a Jewish version of Adolf Hitler circa 1932. He is clever, insidious, and well-organized. In fact, he wants everyone to think of him as a fanatical oddity, just as you have portrayed him. It allows people to dismiss him aberrant. But he isn’t. He’s channeling the hate of a significant minority of Israeli Jews as shown by the 13 seats he won. Remember, Hitler too became chancellor without winning the popular vote. His was a minority (but the largest) party in the 1932 elections.

      But even if Ben Gvir never becomes PM, he has reshaped Israeli politics forever. He has normalized tactics and ideology that has been excoriated in Israel for decades. He has made the unthinkable not only thinkable, but part of the platform of a ruling coalition.

      Regarding the Shakespeare quote: Ben Gvir is NOT an idiot. Far from it. Nor does he “signify nothing.” He is far too significant for that. It is fools like you who try to lull the world into calmness in the face of calamity. I’m sure there were Germans and there certainly were Americans who said the same about Hitler up till 1932. Neville Chamberlain was another. It didn’t end so well for them, did it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link