Why is it “Provocative” for a Jew to Visit Their Holiest Site?

The Temple Mount, also known as “Al-Aqsa compound”, is the holiest site in Judaism and the third holiest site in Islam. It is known to be the site of both the First and Second Temples, is the location where God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son, Isaac, and is believed to be where God spoke the world into existence in Genesis 1. These factors make it easy to see why it is the holiest site for Jews and why it is important to people such as Itamar Ben-Gvir to advocate for their people’s undeniable connection to this spot.

Why is the world infuriated by Ben-Gvir’s visit?

Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, ascended the Temple Mount along with 2,600+ Jews on Tisha B’Av this week, a day of fasting in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple. Jews are only allowed to ascend the Temple Mount at allotted times and are forbidden to pray or worship. Muslims however, are allowed on the Temple Mount anytime they wish and worship without restrictions.

The controversy surrounding Ben-Gvir’s visit was not that he ascended at an inappropriate time, but rather that he stated his “policy was to allow prayer” on the Temple Mount. This statement was labeled by the U.S. as a “provocative action”.

The U.S. did not label the Arabs’ actions when Ben-Gvir made his ascension as “provocative”, despite the Arab worshippers calling out “Itbah al-yahud” (slaughter the Jew) while he was there. In essence, calling for the institution of prayer is provocative, but calling for the murder of an entire race is not. 

Why is Jewish Prayer “Provocative”?

The controversy over Ben-Gvir’s presence at the Temple Mount boils down to one thing: he is a religious Jew whose motivation is religious freedom and sovereignty at the holiest site in the world for Jews. The motivation of the current war and the turmoil within Israel and the nations surrounding it can be linked to this site. The October 7th massacre was labeled the “al-Aqsa Flood”, the Second Intifada bore the name the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, and Hezbollah militants who were recently killed by the IDF were considered “killed on the road to Jerusalem”. This location is the pinnacle of the conflict in the Middle East. If Jews gain religious freedom on the Temple Mount, it is a significant loss to the Arabs in the region. That’s why a statement advocating for the institution of prayer for the Jews on the Temple Mount is “provocative”.

After the Prime Minister’s Office made a statement condemning Ben-Gvir’s actions, Ben-Gvir reiterated his stance in this statement:

“The national security minister’s policy is to enable freedom of worship for Jews in all places, including the Temple Mount, and Jews will continue to do so in the future as well…. The Temple Mount is a sovereign area in the State of Israel’s capital.  There is no law that permits engaging in racist discrimination against Jews at the Temple Mount or anywhere else in Israel.”

The Palestinian Authority countered Ben-Gvir’s position that the Jews have rights in this area and threatened a “religious war” if Jews continue to ascend the Temple Mount. Sheikh Mahmoud Al-Habbash, the Advisor of Religious and Islamic Affairs to Mahmoud Abbas (President of the PA) made this statement:

“The continuation of the raids on the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque by Jewish colonialists and extremists will fuel the fire of religious war that will consume everything green and dry, and the whole world will be consumed by its fire.” 

What has the global response been? 

Al-Habbash took his aversion for a Jewish presence on the Temple one step further by claiming that the Jewish people should not have a right to any part of Jerusalem:

“Jerusalem is an occupied city with all its Islamic and Christian sanctities, and that the occupying state has no right to any inch of it.”

The United States’ press release on the matter was not far from the PA’s:

“The United States strongly opposes Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir’s visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount on August 13, which demonstrated blatant disregard for the historic status quo with respect to the holy sites in Jerusalem.”  

For a country that focuses its policy on equality and rights, they don’t appear to apply that policy for Jews. 

What should our position be when it comes to Jews ascending the Temple Mount? 

Ben-Gvir stated it best when he said, “The Temple Mount is a sovereign area in the State of Israel’s capital.” If it is labeled “provocative” for Jews to walk and/or pray in their country’s capital and if nobody advocates for the Jews to have complete freedom on the Temple Mount, then it becomes far easier to remove them from, not only from the Temple Mount, but from all of Jerusalem, just as the PA indicated was their goal.

When the “status quo” is based on racism and oppression of a people group, the world needs to demand a change. If Catholics were forbidden to pray at the Vatican, if Hindus were forbidden to worship at the temples in Varanasi, or if the Muslims were forbidden prayer at Mecca, the world would be in an uproar. Since however, the rights of Jews are being infringed on, the world condones this discrimination. It is long overdue that the Jews may walk in freedom and sovereignty at their holiest site.