At least we now know what "status quo" means to the Biden administration ~ EoZ

Friday, January 6, 2023

At least we now know what "status quo" means to the Biden administration

Earlier this week, after Itamar Ben Gvir visited the Temple Mount without incident, there was a very telling exchange at the daily State Department briefings:

QUESTION: Just to cut to the chase on this, you talk about how you’re opposed to any unilateral actions and that you support – or oppose any effort to change the status quo. So do you believe that this visit alters the status quo in any way?

MR PRICE: Look, Matt —

QUESTION: And do you not support it? Do you think that it was a bad idea? Would you prefer that it had not happened?

MR PRICE: This visit has the potential to exacerbate tensions and to provoke violence. As we’ve said, we’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions that have the potential to do that. So yes, we’re deeply concerned by this visit. Now, when it comes to the historic status quo, it’s not for me to define from here what the historic status quo is; it’s not for the United States to prescribe what the historic status quo is. That’s a question of history. It’s a question for —

QUESTION: Certainly you know what the historic status quo is?

MR PRICE: It’s a question for the parties themselves, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose role as the custodian of Jerusalem’s holy sites, again, we deeply appreciate.

The United States position is that the status quo must not be violated, but it doesn't know what the status quo is.

Yesterday's address by the US Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood at the UN Security Council sheds some more light on the US position:

Secretary Blinken has said very clearly that it’s absolutely critical for all sides to exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount and other holy sites in Jerusalem, both in word and in practice. In this spirit, we oppose any and all unilateral actions that depart from the historic status quo, which are unacceptable.

While he didn't directly say that Ben Gvir violated the status quo, in the context of an emergency Security Council session to condemn Israel for allowing the visit, and with not a single word to tamp down the anti-Israel rhetoric there, it seems pretty clear that the US position is that any "provocative actions" are violations of the status quo.

But only "provocative actions" on the Israeli side.

When Palestinians stockpiled stones, fireworks and Molotov cocktails inside the actual Al Aqsa Mosque multiple times over the past decade and then used them, I could find no mention by the State Department that these actions were "provocative." At the time, they said "we welcome the steps the Israeli Government has taken in recent days aimed at avoiding provocations" but I do not see any indication that turning the mosque into a weapons cache has ever been considered provocative.

In fact, I cannot recall a single time that any country besides Israel has accused Palestinians of violating the status quo, even when they excavated hundreds of tons of rubble that contained countless priceless Jewish antiquities to build a brand new, 7000 seat mosque underneath the Temple Mount in the 1990s. It is hard to imagine a bigger violation of the status quo than that, but there were no UN sessions about it.

Putting it all together, we see that according to the US, anything that upsets Palestinians is a violation of the status quo. Because by definition, anything that upsets Palestinians is "provocative" - it provokes them, no matter how trivial it is in practice. And the US makes no distinction between "provocation" and "violating the status quo."

Looking back on the January 3 State Department statement, this becomes clear. If the status quo is defined by "the parties themselves" and Israel's opinion is ignored on the issue, as it has been this week, that means that the only people who define the status quo are the Palestinians and Jordanians - and they can define it however they want, even to change it daily, based on what "provokes" them.

A few months ago, they were "provoked" by a Spanish Christian tourist (that they called a "Zionist settler") showing her legs on the Temple Mount. They were "provoked" by other Christian tourists who carried some Jewish-looking souvenirs they had just bought in the souk on their tour. They are provoked every day that Jews visit the Temple Mount, with headlines in the newspapers about Jews "desecrating" the holy site with their very presence.

According to Israel's best friend, any "provocation" by non-Muslims that causes an uproar is a violation of the status quo and deserves condemnation. And that should concern anyone who cares about Jewish rights.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!