Moses Shop Chain Becomes Kosher: “The Demand Came from the Ground Up”

The chain, part of the BBB Group, is shifting direction and gradually making its branches across the country kosher, following growing demand from customers and franchisees.

The group’s CEO: “Since the war, there has been greater sensitivity toward kashrut — even among secular audiences.”

The Moses Shop chain, part of the BBB Group, which currently has 16 branches nationwide, is changing course and gradually becoming kosher — except for one branch in Zichron Yaakov. In the past week, the branch in Savion also received kosher certification, marking another step in a broader trend within the chain.

According to Ahuva Turjeman, CEO of the BBB Group, the move was born out of customer and franchisee demand:

“We’ve encountered a very diverse audience that constantly asks about the kashrut of the meat. Even branches that opened as non-kosher quickly became kosher — in places like Rishon Lezion, Modi’in, and Herzliya. It turns out that the demand isn’t just for kosher dishes, but for businesses that operate under kosher certification and don’t open on Shabbat.”

Turjeman explains that the demand also comes from the franchisees themselves, especially in areas with large religious or traditional populations:

“We’re a national chain, not just a Tel Aviv one. In many parts of the country — even in areas that once weren’t considered kosher markets — the public is asking for it. Since the war, there’s been a rise in sensitivity toward kashrut, even among more secular crowds.”

According to her, one of the factors affecting the pace of the conversion is the shortage of manpower — a challenge facing the entire restaurant industry:

“Since COVID, it’s been very difficult to find permanent staff. There’s high turnover, and the fact that many young people don’t want to work on Shabbat only strengthens the decision to make some of the branches kosher.”

Meting Out National Justice to the Hamas Terrorists

by Yoni Rotenberg, Besheva weekly contributor, translated by Hillel Fendel.

What is needed now is another Eichmann trial – one that will cement in our national consciousness, and that of the world, the ruthlessness of the Hamas massacre of 2023 and the gravity of its memory.

Following the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, my grandfather, Shlomo Yehuda Kirschenbaum, a survivor of the Holocaust, wrote the following to then-Attorney General Gideon Hausner: "I would like to express to you, in the name of my wife and myself, our sincere appreciation of the tremendous work you and your aides invested in this trial. It was conducted on a high international judicial level, based on true justice in the spirit of Judaism. As former concentration camp residents, our wounds have not yet healed, and perhaps never will. But the trial, in all its proceedings, gave us much more than we expected."

Here, he detailed the historic ramifications of that complex and famous trial: "For one thing, we no longer need to justify ourselves before our own people as to why we survived. We had always been constantly asked, 'Why did you not resist? Why did you go like sheep to the slaughter?' This trial has now shed light on these strange questions. If the trial had achieved only that, it would be enough.

"But it also planted within us the faith that behold, as the Psalmist writes, 'the G-d of vengeance has appeared and the Judge of the earth has arisen' to exact justice on all those murderers of our people who still walk free. And further, all our enemies now know that Jewish blood is not cheap and that vengeance will come. Your name will be borne aloft in our national history as one who raised our honor among the nations, and for that may you be blessed."

These words echoed in my mind as I watched the Knesset Law Committee last week discuss putting on trial the Nukhba terrorists imprisoned in Israel – those who took part in the Oct. 7th massacre. Opposition MK Yulia Malinovsky, who is co-sponsoring, together with coalition MK Simcha Rotman, the proposed bill to put them on trial, seemed to be similarly inspired in her words to the Committee members: "Before our eyes stands the goal of setting an international narrative. This is a legal matter, and the professionals will do the hard and important work of managing the investigations. But as legislators, our eyes must be peeled to what this will mean for future generations. Fifty years from now, they will look back at us and our actions just as we look back at the Eichmann trial."

Of course, the State of Israel is now in a very different place, in terms of our international image, than it was in 1961. Less than two decades after the Holocaust and our six million losses, the world received with admiration every act of justice and vengeance that we decided upon. Now, the situation is basically the opposite, and arrows of criticism and hatred are shot at us from every corner. As British anti-Islam campaigner Tommy Robinson has put it: "Denial of the Shoah began [long] afterwards, while denial of the Gaza slaughter began the day afterwards." This reality has great ramifications on the legal-judicial construction of the prosecution's case, and on its diplomatic aspects.

The Law Committee's session dealt primarily with two matters: the specific charges on which to charge the cruel Hamas brutes, and the tribunal that would try them. These discussions are now being held openly for the first time in more than two years (preparing the evidence and writing up the material has been ongoing behind the scenes) because Hamas can no longer threaten to harm our hostages.

The manner in which the discussion or debate was held, it must be noted, was impressive. For one thing, it was clear that Melinovsky and Rotman, who spent many hours preparing the bill, and will yet spend many more, are leaving politics aside as they seek the best possible outcome for the State of Israel. Melinovsky, who ran the session, emphasized that this is how the entire issue must be approached, and in fact, representatives of groups on both the left and right sat together and argued and discussed respectfully the various issues. They asked and answered, listened and clarified, wrote comments and submitted materials, all for the common goal.

What is the ultimate objective? All the participants were in agreement: the death penalty for the Nukhba terrorists. How to do this, however, is not a simple matter. There are various issues that must be dealt with. Let us try to review them in brief.

The first is that of the specific court that will try the terrorists. This is clearly a decision that must be taken with an eye to history. A special court, with all the proper trappings, and a prosecutor and a bench of judges worthy of the occasion, can well serve the purpose of setting the historic narrative. It will be considered a totally unique event in the national and universal memory, and will place Israel in a positive light. In addition, Israel can certainly not afford, in light of the terrible backlog and delays that plague our judicial system, to treat the hundreds of incarcerated Nukhbot the same way as it does other accused criminals.

 However, there is also a grave problem inherent in setting up a special court just for the Nukhbot. Such a court will create, in international opinion, the sense of a rigged trial, and will not concretize the truth and gravity of the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Jews in October 2023. Both Dr. Haggai Vinitzky and Prof. Amichai Cohen – respected judicial figures on Israel's right and left, respectively – agreed that changing the rules retroactively is a bad way to foster trust and confidence in the process.

The Lod Military Court

Vinitzky had an original idea that could solve the problem. He said that in the central-Israel city of Lod exists a military court that was responsible in the past for trying terrorists not from the areas run by the military administration in Judea and Samaria. An example is Kozo Akamoto, the Japanese terrorist who led the Israeli airport murder of 26 Jews and Christians in 1972. Though the court is not active now, its formal validation is still in effect – and employing it for this occasion will ensure that the trial is not considered an on-the-fly operation.

The other question is: What offenses will the Nukhbot and their accomplices in charging murderously into Israel be charged with? This, too, is not a simple matter at all. All agree that to charge each individual with specific crimes of murder, rape, and the like is a mission impossible. Southern Israel on that black day was not a crime scene, but a war scene. Forensic evidence of the type generally collected after a murder was not exactly available at the time, or since then, nor were autopsies carried out, for obvious reasons. And of course, many witnesses to the crimes were murdered themselves and cannot share what they saw.

Rather, a more comprehensive approach is needed, one that will correctly depict the mass-scale invasion and attack on defenseless Israeli citizens in their homes or at the Nova festival.

The question, then, is to determine the precise crimes that they will be charged with. One option is to use Israel's 1950 "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Justice Law." However, this would require the building of a detailed legal case proving that the crimes are included in that law. On the other hand, "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" are not found in the Israeli legal code. To adopt these laws at this point would not be a smart move, as Israel itself is facing similar charges in The Hague, whose right to do so Israel does not recognize. For us to then use these clauses would fuel our enemies' drive to prosecute us, nationally and individually, on the very charges that Israel did not recognize previously.

Genocide, Perhaps?
Not everyone agreed that this is a game-stopper. Maurice Hirsch, former Director of the Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria, for example, said that a strong case that the Hamas terrorists were engaged in genocide can be made based on Hamas documents captured in Gaza and the clear wording of the Hamas charter.

However, Prof. Amichai Cohen made the point that international laws against genocide were formulated after the Shoah, and that Israel has long sought to limit the definition of genocide in order not to trivialize the Holocaust. Were Israel to now change course and term even the attempt to murder "just" a few thousand people as genocide, it would pull the carpet out from under its long-held position. This is certainly a point worthy of consideration.

Another legal obstacle is that the leaders and masterminds of the Simchat Torah massacre are, of course, no longer alive. This means that only the middle-level terrorist operatives will have to pay the price. This is not an insurmountable problem, but one that must be placed on the table.

Significant work remains to be done on this bill, though MK Malinovsky declared that she will not allow the matter to be delayed, as time is of the essence. In general, the points having to do with how the world will view our proceedings are important, but must be placed in their proper proportions. Over the past two year’s we have learned on our own flesh that the arena of international law is mainly a political one, and that claims and counter-claims are raised according to political – or, often when it comes to Israel, anti-Semitic – interests.

The emphasis, then, on the debate over this bill must be two-fold: 1) ensuring that the victims' families, and Israel in general, witness true justice being done, and 2) setting the internal Israeli narrative (as my grandfather wrote regarding the post-Shoah atmosphere in Israel). We must take the international view into consideration, but only to a certain extent.

Making this trial into an important national event that will engrave in our consciousness for generations the story of the terrible massacre, the heroism of the survivors and warriors, and the importance of ensuring that we do all we can to prevent its recurrence – is the charge of the hour.

Summing Up the Ceasefire Deal: Joy, Sorrow, and What to Do Now

by Emmanuel Shiloh, editor of the Besheva weekly, translated by Hillel Fendel.

1.    Two years ago on the Simchat Torah holiday, our traditional festive commemorations of the latest annual round of Torah reading and study were cut brutally short by the Hamas massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of 250 others. It was as if a Divine signal had been handed down from heaven, saying, "I don't want your dancing! 'Who asked this of you, to trample My courts?'" (Isaiah 1,12)

One year ago on Simchat Torah, many of us were engaged in trying to find the proper way to celebrate the holiday on the first anniversary of the largest calamity in Israel's history. Some thought we should dance even harder, some asked how we could dance at all, and others replaced (some of) the dancing with songs of sorrow and prayer. 

Finally, this past Simchat Torah, last week, the joy returned. The previous year had seen great military and other successes, with G-d's help, including in Syria, Lebanon, and especially Iran. We were able to sense that the Master of the Universe had once again opened for us the gates of happiness. We entered the holiday fresh off the release of all 20 living hostages from their torturous two years of captivity – and we sang and danced with abandon. 

Would it be that we remain in G-d's good graces and be worthy of His shining countenance. For this deal has clearly led us into a complicated situation, and much Divine assistance and human effort will be needed to conclude it positively. Among the major challenges that await us are: the return of all the deceased captives for burial in Israel, as Hamas committed to do but has not yet fully done; the dismantling of the Hamas regime; and the disarmament of Gaza. 

Of course, the chances that this will happen are not high. Israel and the U.S. have bound themselves with political commitments, and Trump has firmly and repeatedly declared that the war is over. But after all the wonderful events we were blessed with between Simchat Torah 5774 and Simchat Torah 5776, we need not despair of prayers and hope for miracles and good surprises.

2.    Jewish Law relates to complex situations that have aspects of both joy and sadness. For instance, one who is to inherit a large sum from a relative who has just died must recite two blessings: "The True Judge" on the sad news, and "He Who has brought us to this time" (Shehecheyanu) for the good news. Life is complicated, and sometimes our feelings are strongly mixed.

The current ceasefire deal is one of those situations. It is possible and correct to oppose the deal, even as we rejoice at the freedom gained by our 20 brothers who were held in the tunnels of Hamas. There were even some rabbis who ruled that both of the above blessings should be recited, given the release of 250 terrorist murderers from our prisons. For even those who support the agreement certainly know and agree that freeing murderers in this fashion is clearly immoral, infuriating, and very dangerous to Israelis around the country.

3.    It is sad to see how our national heart has become numb and insensitive to the release of terrorist murderers in the framework of such deals. The cruel killers of our fellow citizens should ideally have been executed – but given that they were only to sentenced to life imprisonment, at least they should have truly remained in prison until their death. The Torah sharply negates waiving a murderer's punishment for any type of ransom: "Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer guilty of death; he shall be put to death" (Bamidbar 35,31). The moral injustice of releasing murderers is depicted as one that "defiles the Land" (ibid. 33,34). Even those who believe that saving lives overrides this prohibition – despite the danger that the lives being saved might later cost other lives – should at least feel the pain of defilement of the Land of Israel.

Another facet of the injustice: There are amongst us hundreds and thousands of relatives of terrorist victims for whom the State of Israel has given up on bringing their murderers to justice. Their blood has been rendered not only cheap, but totally forsaken. Some of these relatives have expressed willingness to pay this price for the sake of the hostages, but other have not. The media is busy celebrating the return of the hostages, and does not focus enough on the families' pain. We certainly do not hear any apologies for the sorrow this deal causes them. People of Torah and ethics, people of justice – it would be appropriate for you to sound you voices on this matter.

 

4.    And this brings us to the multi-faceted security dangers inherent in the release of terrorist murderers. Firstly, these men are frightfully dangerous, able and willing to kill Jews yet again. Yihye Sinwar himself – mastermind of the Hamas massacre, for those who don't remember – was freed in a similar hostage deal several years ago. At least ten other Jews were murdered after that deal by terrorists who were freed then. What did we gain by liquidating the entire Hamas leadership over the past two years, if we are now freeing many more experienced and cruel potential Hamas masterminds?

Secondly, their release eliminates the deterrent effect of prison sentences on potential terrorists. Any young Arab who considers carrying out an attack will not fear being arrested, confident that sooner or later he will be released in a hostage deal.

And finally: The more we give in to the kidnappers' blackmail, the more they are encouraged to carry out additional abductions. We have now broken new records of caving to blackmail, agreeing not only to release murderers but also to give up on top-notch strategic achievements and goals, including retreating from Gaza cities. This increases the danger of further kidnappings. We all sighed in relief that, with the hostages home, we are now free to fight Hamas without fearing the fate of our brothers. But is it not clear that taking more hostages will be one of the first goals that Hamas will set for itself?

Can we at least hope that finally, now, the Shamgar Commission's recommendations from 2012 – restraining the government's freedom to decide to release crazy numbers of terrorists in exchange for hostages – will finally be adopted?

The entire Nation of Israel – especially those who demanded this deal with shouts and insults, as well as the politicians who caved to their pressure – must ask themselves what they are doing to thwart the next kidnapping. Otherwise, the next kidnapping is much too close for comfort.

 

5.    Though this war brought us some achievements, this was not the conclusion for which we prayed and hoped. The return of all the deceased hostages is far from guaranteed, Hamas is still in power, and it appears to have no plans to disarm. The intended arrival of an Islamic international force in our backyard in Gaza is liable to cause us more harm than benefit. We fumbled the opportunity to encourage the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Gazans. We stopped short of conquering the Gaza Strip and establishing a military administration there, as we did in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War. And of course barely anyone took seriously the option of resettling Gaza with Jews, ignoring its Torah and nationalist values.

The situation can still be saved if Israel takes advantage of Hamas' violations of the agreement, and the fact that our hostages are no longer in danger, to embark on a final military round to crush Hamas and completely occupy the Strip. This is the way to achieve our unfulfilled war goals.

 

Speak Little and Do

by Rabbi Lior Engelman, translated by Hillel Fendel.

How would we feel if the government would send us to fight in Gaza with an end-goal of a Palestinian state there? That's how others feel when we talk about returning to Gush Katif. Consensus is not hard to reach.

At one of the gatherings between religious and secular Jews that I was privileged to take part in during the stormy days of the Judicial Reform controversy, one of the participants asked me: "Do you really believe that we should expel all the Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza?"

I told him, "It doesn't really matter what I believe, or what you believe, because at some point – next week, next year, ten years from now, or even longer – they won't leave us a choice. It won't happen because I support it, or because a right-wing government decides to do it. I will happen because people like you will feel their evil up close. It will be the Arabs themselves who will convince you, through their actions, that we can't let them establish a state five minutes from Kfar Saba and Raanana."

I had no idea, of course, that the massacre of Oct. 7^th was just around the corner, and I never imagined that within such a short time the Arabs would give us a reason to demolish Gaza. I had no idea that so many "peace-loving" Israelis would speak out in favor of that option. I'll just mention one of the statements that I recall: "In this campaign, there can be no humanitarian aid. We have to tell them: 'Free all the hostages, or starve to death.' It's totally legitimate."

And the speaker was none other than Labor Party chief Yair Golan, one of the most extreme personalities in our country's left-wing. We can just imagine what others were saying.

Today, however, Yair Golan doesn't speak that way anymore, and the same for many others. Today their tune is one of ending the war in exchange for all the hostages, placing no other conditions on Hamas. This, even though they know this means the end of any chance to destroy Hamas, or at least removing them from power. And of course they no longer think about starving those who are holding our loved ones; such calls they now consider fascist.

What has brought about this change? It could be because they have become tired of the war, which all agree has taken too long, whatever the reasons for that might be. It could also be that they simply want to topple the Netanyahu government, or that they're more "now"-conscious than "future"-geared. It might be that nationalism is not as popular in certain circles as is individualism, or that being hooked to the media 24/7 is very weakening. It could be that all answers are correct.

In any event, there's not much we can do about any of these – but there is one possible answer that we can do something about. It has to do with the calls to resettle Gush Katif, i.e., the former Jewish communities in Gaza that were dismantled during Ariel Sharon's Disengagement of 2006.

Not all readers of Besheva are certain to agree with me when I criticize Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich for saying the following at a recent convention: "I don't want to simply return to Gush Katif; that's too small. It has to be something much greater than that. With Gaza we can think big!"

I personally am in favor of returning to Gush Katif, and even on a large scale. Do I think it will happen soon? I don't know, but I do know that every speech like that one probably lessens the chances for the fulfillment of that dream. That type of speech is good for internal political gatherings, to enthuse supporters and even guarantee their votes. But in the real world, where many people are actually not particularly interested in Gush Katif, it does not serve the desired purpose.

Why is that? Because when leaders send their nations to war, the objectives have to be in the broadest consensus possible. In this case, we know that our nation is more than willing to fight so that those who carried out the atrocities of Oct. 7^th will not rule in Gaza, and so that the residents of the south can return home safely without fear of rockets, and certainly so that all the hostages will return home.

But when a flag is raised that is not in the consensus, then that flag becomes, for many, a black flag that prevents them from joining the war efforts. Many people on the left still believe that the "settlements" are not the solution, but rather the problem; they believe that it was not the Disengagement that led to Oct. 7^th, but rather that if not for the Disengagement, Oct. 7^th would have happened in Gush Katif! I don't agree, of course, but that's not the point. The idea is rather that it is hard for some Jews in this country to fight a war for the sake of resettling Gush Katif – and therefore boasting that this is the goal necessarily lowers their motivation to fight.

To make it clearer, let us hypothetically turn the situation around: How willing would we be to go to war in Gaza if the declared goal was to rid the area of Hamas and then build there a Palestinian state with its recognized capital in Jerusalem? Just as we would not be willing, so too they are not – and they therefore end up wanting to give up with barely a fight.

So what do I propose? I favor saying only what is relevant. Messiah, settlements, Gush Katif – all that is not among the war objectives that we must declare at present. I am in favor of straight talk, emphasizing repeatedly that Hamas demands to remain in power in Gaza, no disarmament, the total rebuilding of Gaza, the release of hundreds or thousands of Palestinian terrorists and prisoners – and then they will agree to return all our hostages, alive or dead. Israel is squarely united against these terms, and therefore our "motivating" speeches must constantly harp only on that: We must defeat Hamas, period. And if one day Hamas is actually vanquished and we find ourselves ruling Gaza, then we can talk about Gush Katif. Not until then.

"Speak little and do much" is an important rule in warfare. With little talk, Syria disappeared, and the same with Hizbullah, and nearly the same with Iran and the Houthis. But Gaza is still standing, even with our tough talk about Gush Katif and "voluntary exile." War demands cleverness – including silence when necessary.

Game-Changer on the Temple Mount

by Ze'ev Kam, Besheva newspaper, translated by Hillel Fendel.

With the advent of Public Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on the scene, the status of Jews coming to pray on the site of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem has improved unrecognizably.

In 1992, 16-year-old Itamar Ben-Gvir joined up with the original Temple Mount activist Gershon Solomon and his Temple Mount Loyalists movement. In those days, violent riots were a common sight on the Mount, in response to the Jewish visits arranged by Solomon's Loyalists. At one point, Solomon declared his intention to ceremoniously place a foundation stone on the Mount for the construction of the Third Temple. This prompted the police to forbid him to visit the Mount, and in fact greatly restrict Jewish presence there. The police forbade Jews even from "murmuring" there, for fear that they were actually, Heaven forbid, praying.

The situation became so absurd that even drinking water was banned, because the police suspected that the purpose would not simply be to quench thirst, but to recite a blessing over the water at Judaism's holiest spot on earth. The Spanish Inquisition couldn't have done it more efficiently.

During one of the visits, young Itamar asked the police why they were treating the Jewish pilgrims to the Mount so badly. The policeman said, "That's the decision of the Police Minister" – and then added, "When you become the Minister of Police, you can decide whatever you want."

This disparaging sentence was seared into the boy's head – and this week, 30-plus years later, he ascended to the Temple Mount, this time as Public Security Minister [the equivalent of the Police Minister then], and conducted a full-fledged prayer service, including singing of Kinot, on the fast of Tisha B'Av.

Let's go back two and a half years. In the midst of coalition-formation negotiations between the Likud and Ben-Gvir's Jewish Strength party, with the main points of the agreement essentially agreed upon, Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir sat down for a cup of coffee. The talks were taking place in the Leonardo Hotel, with a fantastic view of the Temple Mount plaza. Ben-Gvir pointed to it and stated, "Without understandings regarding the Mount, we can't come to an agreement." Netanyahu said, "What do you want? To build the Third Temple?"

Ignoring the cynicism, Ben-Gvir responded, "That's not a bad idea at all, but for now we can start with some smaller things."

Following this exchange, talks began between the parties regarding exactly that issue. Ben-Gvir made it clear that he would not accept a continuation of the manner in which Netanyahu had agreed to run the Temple Mount up to that point. Precisely then, Ayalah – Mrs. Ben-Gvir – walked in. After the sudden death of her younger sister some years before, Ayalah had begun to visit the Mount frequently to find solace – and took part in meetings with the police to find ways to make it easier for Jews to visit.

Her presence at this coalition meeting apparently did something to Netanyahu, who heard from her about the discriminatory and unfair treatment the Jewish visitors faced. Netanyahu also heard from the Ben-Gvir couple the words of Uri Tzvi Greenberg, a nationalist poet of pre-State days who was a close friend of Netanyahu's father, regarding the centrality of the Temple Mount. It became clear to all that something had touched the Prime Minister regarding the difficulties facing Jews who seek to visit their holiest site.

It's not that all of a sudden Netanyahu ordered an about-face in Jewish visits. Rather, he stopped fighting the changes that were sought, and he seemed to accept that things would no longer be the same on the Mount. Ben-Gvir, too, who generally fights for what he wants in a "here and now!" manner, understood that the changes would have to come slowly. And in fact, the first changes came exactly that way: Instead of 4.5 hours of Jewish visiting hours each day, including one hour in the afternoon, small additions were made here and there – and the situation today is that the Temple Mount is open for Jews for 4.5 hours in the morning, and 1.5 hours in the afternoon.

Taking Charge

But of course, much more important than visiting hours is the question, "Who's in charge?" If in the past it was well-known that the police more or less disappeared during the Muslim prayers, and especially during the Friday mass prayers, today the story is quite different. Israeli policemen now actively arrest Temple Mount rioters and instigators – most notably, preachers who incite against Israel – even during the prayers. Add to this the fact that public Jewish prayer is now allowed on the Mount, complete with prostrations and singing, and it appears that a veritable revolution has taken place.

One thing remained unclear, however. Why did PM Netanyahu insist, after every well-reported visit by Minister Ben-Gvir to the Mount, on releasing a statement claiming that the status quo there remains stable and will continue as such in the future?

No Phones During the Prayers

The answer lies in a meeting of several people in the Knesset last year shortly before Tisha B'Av, on the topic of the Temple Mount. Ben-Gvir stated there that from his standpoint, as a member of the government, Jewish prayer is officially permitted. And in fact, that very year on Tisha B'Av, Jewish prayer was no longer held in a clandestine fashion, but quite openly. And thus, when Netanyahu says that the status quo is being maintained and will be maintained, he is quite correct, in that the nature of the status quo is determined by the government echelons – in this case, the Public Security Minister.

Sometimes, the status quo is determined by mistake or non-action. One day a few years ago, the Waqf decided unilaterally to open another mosque on the Mount, within the Mercy Gate compound on the eastern side. Israel found itself unable or unwilling to fight it. Interesting, none of those who today decry and protest the "changes" in the status quo, protested the Waqf's trampling then of the status quo…

Shabak Meddling

Let us return to Tisha B'Av of last year. The Shabak (General Security Service) was not happy with the Jewish prayers, and demanded that the Police Commissioner remove the public Jewish worshipers and stop them from "violating the rules." The commisioner responded, "Sorry, I have a Prime Minister and Public Security Minister who tell me what to do, and you can turn to them if you'd like." The Shabak contacted Netanyahu, who called Ben-Gvir, who at first did not answer. When he finally did answer, the Prime Minister asked him why he hadn't answered at first. "I was precisely in the middle of praying on the Temple Mount," he said.

After a few seconds of pregnant silence, Netanyahu said, "It's precisely about that that I wished to speak to you." After he explained, Ben-Gvir answered, "I told you at the very beginning that I will not allow apartheid against Jews at the holiest Jewish site in the world."

This past Tisha B'Av, a year later, Jewish singing could be heard vibrantly on the Mount. Just as Netanyahu's statement announced, the status quo there is being precisely maintained, exactly according to the outline set by the relevant Cabinet minister. And if there are some bleeding-hearts who want to turn up their noses at it, then, as the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin once said about those who reacted similarly to certain proactive Israeli moves, "let them have crooked noses."