ללא מחבר No Author

Six-Day War: At Least Now Jews Aren’t Murdered Upon Entering the Temple Mount!

The Murder at the Temple Mount

Monday, April 05, 2021

This article appeared originally at the Jerusalem Post Magazine and I’ve added more graphics here:

The Murder on the Temple Mount

On April 11, 1947, Asher Itzkowitz, along with his acquaintance – and despite the shared family name no family connection – Yitzchak Itzkowitz, walked from entered the Old City through the Damascus Gate and continued on towards the Western Wall.  It was Asher’s first time visit.

For some reason, perhaps first-time disorientation, they turned left towards a gate and proceeded towards the Temple Mount. Asher never made it to the Wall and never left the Old City alive.

–  – –

It was either during the late Ayyubid 1187-1250, or the early Mamluk (1250-1517) period, or perhaps from the time of Saladin’s victory over the Crusaders in 1189, that a ban was instituted forbidding non-Muslims from entering the compound of the Temple Mount.

Islam’s tenet was it was the sole true religion rather than Christianity or Judaism. It alone carried on the heritage of Abraham. That ban was extended also to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in the form of the infamous ‘seventh step’. It is quite possible that despite Jews visiting the Temple Mount in the previous centuries, notably, Maimonides, that ban was sublimated into later Rabbinic prohibitions on Jews from entering the site.

Nicholas Tavelić, Peter of Narbona, Deodatus of Ruticinio and Stephen of Cuneo became the first Franciscan martyrs of the office of the Custody of the Holy Land when, having been in Jerusalem since 1384, they decided to take their charge to spread their faith to the Qadi of the city who was singularly unimpressed.

On November 11, 1391, they entered the Temple Mound compound, appeared before the Qadi’s gathering and began to preach. They were arrested, refused an option to convert to Islam and near the Jaffa Gate on November 14, they were executed, beheaded, their bodies blown up and their remains completely burned. Their ashes were scattered. In June 1970, they were declared Saints in the Vatican Basilica by Pope Paul VI.

In May 1818, Sarah Belzoni disguised herself as a Muslim female and, retaining the services of a 9-year old Muslim boy in order to facilitate entry, she managed a peek inside the Dome of the Rock. On November 13, 1833, the English architect Frederick Catherwood dressed up as an Egyptian officer and entered the sacred precincts, eventually spending six weeks “investigat[ing] every part of the mosque and its precincts” and made the first complete survey of the Dome of the Rock.

In 1839, following the Tanzimat reforms in the Ottoman administration, non-Muslims were permitted to enter Temple Mount on receiving the special permit from the governor. In the 1850s, an Italian military engineer named Ermete Pierotti was engaged as architect and engineer to the Ottoman authorities in Jerusalem, a position that provided him unrestricted freedom to study the Temple Mount. His 1864 book, Jerusalem Explored, describes his findings.

In March 1855, the Duke of Brabant, the future King Leopold II of Belgium, toured the Temple Mount while club-wielding Sudanese from Darfur guards were locked in their quarters for fear they would attack the infidel. In June that year, Archduke Maximilian, the heir to the Habsburg Empire, also was permitted entry.

As for Jews, Moses Montefiore and his wife Judith toured the site on July 26, 1855 including the underground Ancient Al-Aqsa to the Southern Wall and, apparently, on other occasions. The Palestine Exploration Fund got Charles Warren of the Royal Engineers into the area in 1867 and his diary entry of April 8, 1869 begins, “I visited the Dome of the Rock.”

–    –    –

On Wednesday, January 29, 1873, the 56-year old Yosef Assa, like Asher Itzkowitz six decades later, erred while walking to his study session at an Old City bet midrash. Being blind, he missed a turning perhaps and entered to Temple Mount. As reported in HaLevanon on February 5th, his body was found the next day, seemingly tossed over the ramparts into the valley below. Obviously, unauthorized entry was an extreme danger.

In the few years prior to World War One and just after, matters were more relaxed. We know that Tel Aviv’s Herzliya school pupils toured the site during Passover 1912 as did others during the Second and Third Aliyah periods. Rahel Yannait did so in 1908, Berl Katznelson in 1918 and Uri Tzvi Greenberg in1924.

Asher Itzkowitz, most probably born in Ivanovice in the Máramaros district of north-east Hungary in 1927 although another source has his birthplace as Drohobycz, was taken to Auschwitz during the war. His parents, from whom he was separated, did not survive the Holocaust but a sister did. Making his way to Budapest, he joined a Dror Zionist youth group despite being religiously observant, boarded the Yagur clandestine immigration ship and was sent to a Cyprus detention camp. He arrived in Israel in late 1946. He lived in Tel Aviv and worked as a carpenter.

On the last day of Passover, Shvi’I shel Pesach, April 11, 1947, he walked from the Beit Yisrael neighborhood with a friend (but not a relative), Yitzhak Itzkowitz, 36, to the Western Wall. Becoming perhaps disoriented in the alleyways unfamiliar to them, they walked down David Street and missed the right-hand turn to the Western Wall.

They approached the Chain Gate at approximately three o’clock in the afternoon. The presence of non-Muslims so close to the Haram precincts incensed the crowds. Some records note that the Moslem holiday of Nebi Mussa, always a heightened time of potential violence since 1920, was coetaneous that day. Both were set upon by over 30 rowdies. They were beaten with heavy sticks, called nabbot, metal rods, stoned and stabbed. The newspaper reports were contradictory as to what happened next.

The first information was that they had unwittingly entered the Temple Mount. Such an act would have been cause for such violence. Indeed, as reported in this paper on December 16, 2020, over 70 years later, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein, a Palestinian Authority appointee, declared there is “no place for non-Muslims in any way in this mosque, whether through schools, churches or other places of worship.”

In fact, the Palestine Government press office had issued a press release that was broadcast over the official Mandate’s Voice of Jerusalem radio that the murderous assault indeed took place inside the compound. Subsequent items appearing in the press related that they were attacked outside.

Yitzchak was saved by an Arab policeman, a corporal, who dragged him into the courtyard who then closed the gate on the mob. Asher was left outside to be finished off. Suffering severe loss of blood and critical head injuries, Asher died. The HaTzofe newspaper indicates the corporal, who was on duty inside the sacred compound, at the police station on the north side of the raised platform, found them inside the gate when he rushed over in response to the shouting.

Asher’s funeral service was conducted Saturday night in the courtyard of the Bikur Cholim Hospital and was addressed by Rabbis Aryeh Levin and Zalman Brizel. From there, his bier was carried through Meah Shearim until the police intervened and insisted it be placed in a van. Shouting and shoving then ensued. Eventually, the procession made its way to the Mount of Olives where Itzkowitz was buried. If you seek out his grave, you will find a barely recognizable plot with the text illegible.

The “Situation Committee” of Jerusalem’s Jewish Community Council decried the murder and demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice. At the same time, they called for restraint on the part of Jews as on the Shabbat, two Arab ice cream vendors along Aggripas Street were beaten moderately by a crowd. The previous week, in a retaliation against the Palestine Police for the murder of Moshe Cohen on April 7, the Lechi underground had shot the 20-year old Basil Forth, who had been in the city but a week, killing him.

Most papers did not carry the story on their front pages. By the following Monday, he murder disappeared from the pages of the Yishuv’s press. The Communist organ, Kol Ha’Am, devoted but seven lines to the incident. Other news, of the escape of Geula Cohen and the forthcoming hanging of Dov Gruner and his legal battle were more prominent.

There is no memorial plaque near where he was murdered. He lies in a forsaken near-unmarked grave. He has no progeny. He is a forgotten martyr.

Continue reading…

From My Right Word, here.

Money Is for Mitzvos!

On Amassing Money

Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Some sociologists opined that money is an evil of society. The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 72:2) pointed out that halacha does not share that perspective. Rather, even in an ideal Torah world we would use kesef (money) to fulfill mitzvos.

The halacha declares that in most instances shoveh kesef (a commodity which has value) can be used in place of kesef. For example, we get married by having the chosson hand a ring, i.e. shoveh kesef, to the kallah, as opposed to giving her kesef, and this constitutes a form of kidushei kesef. Nonetheless, one can only fulfill the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel by giving kesef to the Beis Hamikdash for the purpose of purchasing the korbanos tzibbur (Bechoros 51a).

A variety of opinions are presented in Shulchan Aruch (Choshem Mishpat 369) regarding the extent to which halacha recognizes dina demalchusa. The Shach (Yoreh Deah 165:8) points out that all agree that dina demalchusa determines what is considered kesef. Whatever currency the government of any given country establishes has the halachic status of kesef. When the second Beis Hamildash was built there was no Jewish government ruling over Eretz Yisroel. As such, the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel had to be fulfilled by giving a coin recognized as kesef by the ruling non-Jewish government. After several centuries when the Chashmonaim established a Jewish government in Eretz Yisroel and minted their own coins, “Jewish” coins replaced the “non-Jewish” coins for this mitzvah.

The Talmud (Pesachim 54b) speaks of the concept of “money” being part of G-d’s initial plan for creating the world, just as the Torah and the mitzvos preceded the creation of the world. The rabbis of the Talmud (Shabbos 33b) tell us that Yaakov Avinu improved the life of the citizens of Shechem by introducing a monetary system for them. Money is something positive. Without money we can not function.

Judaism, as opposed to certain other religions, has never preached that poverty is an ideal. The Rema (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 248) considers making a living something positive, comparable to a mitzvah. As such, one who lives in Eretz Yisroel is permitted to go to chutz la’aretz for the purpose of making a living. Even if one is making ends meet, but wants to go to chutz la’aretz to make a more comfortable living, the accepted opinion is that this too is permissible. However, we would not allow one who already makes a comfortable living to go to chutz la’aretz in order to become wealthy (see Moed Kattan 14a). There is no mitzvah to be poor, but there is also no mitzvah to be rich.

We all need food in order to survive, be healthy, and function. However, we should not love food. Many Americans suffer from obesity because they love food and overeat. Similarly, we all need money to live in this world. However, we should not develop a love for money. Koheles (5:9) teaches us that one who loves money will never be satisfied with the money he has. The Medrash (Koheles Rabbah 1:34) famously comments, “ein adam yotze min haolam vechatzi ta’avaso beyado“. When those who love money die, regardless of how much money they have amassed it will not be even half of what they desired.

The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 11a) tells us that R’ Yehuda Hanasi was extremely wealthy, which was necessary for his position as chief rabbi. But he did not love the money. In fact, he hardly took any pleasure from this world (Kesubos 104a).

The parsha tells us (Breishis 47:14) that Yosef amassed all of the cash from Egypt and Canaan by selling the grain that he stored. He understood that this was needed for the Egyptian government, and apparently saw this as part of the message of Pharoh’s dream. However, we do not get the impression that he became one who loved money.

The Medrash (Koheles Rabbah 5:8) distinguishes between two types of observant Jews: one who merely observes the mitzvos, and one who loves mitzvos. The one who observes, but does not love, mitzvos will be satisfied with keeping the mitzvos which come his way. But the one who loves mitzvos will always be on the lookout for additional miztvos. He will never be satisfied with the miztvos that he may have fulfilled already – “ohev mitzvos lo yisba mitzvos“.

Rather than love money, or love food, we should all develop a love for mitzvos.

From Torah Web, here.

Ron Paul: The Idea of Minimal Police Authority

Police Problems? Embrace Liberty!

By Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul Institute

April 27, 2021

Many Americans saw former policeman Derek Chauvin’s conviction on all counts last week as affirming the principle that no one is above the law. Many others were concerned that the jury was scared that anything less than a full conviction would result in riots, and even violence against themselves and their families.

Was the jury’s verdict influenced by politicians and media figures who were calling for the jury to deliver the “right” verdict? Attempts to intimidate juries are just as offensive to the rule of law as suggestions that George Floyd’s criminal record somehow meant his rights were not important.

The video of then-policeman Chauvin restraining Floyd led people across the political and ideological spectrums to consider police reform. Sadly, there have also been riots across the country orchestrated by left-wing activists and organizations seeking to exploit concern about police misconduct to advance their agendas.

It is ironic to see self-described Marxists, progressives, and other leftists protesting violence by government agents. After all, their ideology rests on the use of force to compel people to obey politicians and bureaucrats.

It is also ironic to see those who claim to want to protect and improve “black lives” support big government.

Black people, along with other Americans, have had their family structure weakened by welfare policies encouraging single parenthood. This results in children being raised without fathers as a regular presence in their lives, increasing the likelihood the children will grow up to become adults with emotional and other problems.

Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are restrained in improving their situation because of minimum wage laws, occupational licensing regulations, and other government interference in the marketplace. They are also victims of the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.

Many progressives who claim to believe that “black lives matter” do not care that there is a relatively high abortion rate of black babies. These so-called pro-choice progressives are the heirs of the racists who founded the movement to legalize and normalize abortion.

The drug war is a major reason police have increasingly looked and acted like an occupying army. Police militarization threatens everyone’s liberty. Black people have been subjected to drug war arrests and imprisonment at relatively high rates.

Those interested in protecting and enhancing black people’s (and all people’s) lives should embrace liberty. Libertarians reject the use of force to achieve political, economic, or social goals, Therefore, in a libertarian society, police would only enforce laws prohibiting the initiation of force against persons or property.

A libertarian society would leave the provision of aid to the needy to local communities, private charities, and religious organizations. Unlike the federal welfare state, private charities can provide effective and compassionate aid without damaging family structure or making dependency a way of life. In a libertarian society, individuals could pursue economic opportunity free of the burdens of government regulations and taxes, as well as free of the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and peace are key to achieving prosperity and social cohesion. Those sincerely concerned about improving all human lives should turn away from the teaching of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated expansive government power, and, instead, embrace the ideas of pro-liberty writers such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

From KMJ Now, here.

Restoring the Monarchy Would Be GREAT – Empirical Research Data

Are Monarchies Better for Economic Growth? Here’s What the Empirical Evidence Says.

04/23/2021

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued that monarchies take a longer-term view of their national economies and therefore are more likely to pursue more stable and secure economies. That is, among monarchs, the desire to maximize wealth promotes more farsightedness than exists in democratic regimes. Due to the lower time preference of monarchs, they are less likely to succumb to the whims of economic populism.

Hoppe outlines this argument in a 1995 article:

A private government owner will predictably try to maximize his total wealth, i.e., the present value of his estate and his current income…. Accordingly, a private government owner will want to avoid exploiting his subjects so heavily, for instance, as to reduce his future earnings potential to such an extent that the present value of his estate actually falls. Instead, in order to preserve or possibly even enhance the value of his personal property, he will systematically restrain himself in his exploitation policies. For the lower the degree of exploitation, the more productive the subject population will be; and the more productive the population, the higher will be the value of the ruler’s parasitic monopoly of expropriation.

A Comparative Analysis

Quite interesting is that research confirms the assumption of Hoppe. According to Mauro Guillen monarchies are more effective than democratic republics at protecting property rights primarily because of their long-term focus. “Monarchies tend to be dynasties, and therefore have a long-term focus,” Guillen says. “If you focus on the long run, you are bound to be more protective of property rights…. You’re more likely to put term limits on politicians that want to abuse their powers.”

Similarly, Guillen in his study points out that monarchies can curtail the negative consequences of internal conflict on property rights:

For instance, the case of Spain has received considerable scholarly attention in terms of both the continuities in the process of transition to democracy during the late 1970s, and the sequencing of political and economic reforms with the crown playing a key role…. The continuity of monarchy in Spain was a major factor in preserving property rights during the political transition. In Portugal, by contrast, a comparable country that made the transition from dictatorship to democracy at roughly the same time but had become a republic back in 1910, nationalized 244 banks and large enterprises during its transition to democracy.

Moreover, Christian Bjørnskov and Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard in their publication “Economic Growth and Institution Reform in Modern Monarchies and Republics: A Historical Cross-Country Perspective, 1820–2000,” present fascinating information: “While large-scale political reforms are typically associated with short term growth declines, reflecting what has become known as the “valley of tears,” the data indicate that this valley does not appear in monarchies. In fact, if anything it has the opposite effect.”

Moreover, the rating agency Standard and Poor’s asserts that monarchies have stronger credit scores and impressive balance sheets relative to republics. Credit analyst Joydeep Mukherji submits that there is no difference between constitutional and absolute monarchies in the assessment of their debt risk. “However, absolute monarchies score higher than constitutional monarchies in external risk and fiscal risk, largely reflecting the strong general government balance sheets and high external asset positions,” he noted.

Like Gullien, Victor Menaldo in “The Middle East and North Africa’s resilient monarchs” posits that monarchies are linked to respect for the rule of law, protection of property rights, and economic growth. As Menaldo shows, the predictability of the political culture embedded by monarchies positively affects the decision to invest: “Given the emergence of a stable political culture … elites and citizens will be encouraged to protect their planning horizons due to longer executive tenures and an institutional succession process. Both elites and citizens will be more likely to make the investments in physical and human capital that encourage capital accumulation and increases in productivity.”

Another argument in favor of monarchies is their relative intolerance for wars, since involvement in warfare has the potential to eviscerate wealth. Though comparing political systems based on the likelihood to wage war is rare, one study written by leading political scientists intuits that premodern monarchies were less likely to fight wars:

There seems ample empirical support for our conjecture that monarchies were less conflict-prone in the pre-modern era. This contradicts the usual impression offered by mythic and historical accounts of kings who make war as a matter of occupation. When Charles Tilly declared that “states make wars and wars make the states”, he was doubtless thinking of kings as instigators. And it is true that the great monarchies (England, France, Spain) had considerably more wars to their credit than their smaller republican neighbors. However, we have seen that this is a product of grandeur rather than truculence. Small monarchies were more peaceful than similarly sized republics.

Suggesting that monarchies display superior characteristics relative to democratic republics does not mean that we should return to the past. However, one cannot criticize monarchy without understanding its strengths and limitations. In much of the world today, there’s a built-in prejudice against monarchies, but the evidence suggests that monarchies—especially small ones—are more peaceful, stable, and protective of private property than their republican neighbors.

Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).

From Mises.org, here.