Earlier this week, a judge of the capital's Magistrate's Court overturned the police's decision to remove from the Old City three Jewish boys who bowed and recited Shema on the Temple Mount.
In his view, their actions do not challenge the status quo in the place, or attempt to harm public safety.
This is a precedent-setting ruling, because so far the court seems to have supported freedom of worship for all religions in the holy places, as long as it did not harm what is known as "public peace" or the status quo.
History is known: Ten days after the liberation of the holy place for the Jews, Moshe Dayan decided to keep us away from him.
He formulated a status quo and announced that Jews are allowed to visit it but are not allowed to pray.
The nearest place of worship for Jews was determined at the Western Wall.
And again the exiles defeated the kingdom of Israel: the Jews wept down and the Muslims on the mountain, even though there was no question about our victory.
In the same year the "Law of the Preservation of the Holy Places" was enacted, in which our right to freedom of worship is enshrined in it.
Moreover, it explicitly states that the violator or violator of this right is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
The Minister of Religions may amend regulations in this matter, regulations which have not been written to this day.
In 1983, the High Court ruled in a petition filed by the Temple Mount Trustees Movement that even prayer outside the Mughrabi Gate was forbidden, for fear of violating "public order." A Jew ascends the mountain on Tisha B'Av, because "Petitioner's right to pray on the Temple Mount is not in dispute ... Petitioner argues that police activity should be directed at those seeking to infringe on his right, while providing protection for his own activity ... Of those who seek to maintain it lawfully ... However, we do not act according to the saying: 'Justice will win and the world will be destroyed'.
"When the police - within its limited capacity and powers - do not have the power to ensure the fulfillment of freedom of worship or demonstration, there is sometimes no escape from violating these freedoms to prevent harm to the public interest."
God comes in third place on a good day.
And as for the "public interest", it is a very elusive concept: a survey conducted by the Van Leer Institute a few days ago shows that there is a majority that supports the prayer of Jews on the mountain, even among those who define themselves as leftists.
This is in the public interest.
In light of this, will the High Court change its ruling from now on?
Even the sacred "status quo" is a surprisingly elusive and fluid concept: it has changed so much over the course of its life.
His power is in his definition and in the inertia that derives from it: what has been is what will be, and what has been and will be is the washing of racism against Jews under this concept.
The ruling of the brave judge this week may change the reality a little: more and more Jews will do what their hearts tell them, act according to their interest, it is the public interest, and pray in the holiest place for them in the world.
This is just another small milestone in the great struggle, a struggle that will only be decided when a leader with a floor rate changes the rules.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
