He didn't even pray there, as far as I can tell from reports.
He has visited the site before without incident. Other ministers have visited the site without incident. Between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews visited the Temple Mount in 2022, according to Palestinian sources.
So what exactly makes this a major news story? Nothing happened that hasn't happened many times before without incident. The only thing slightly out of the ordinary is that there was more security than usual, which makes sense given the threats by jihadists.
This is a perfect example of terrorist supporters manufacturing a crisis, inciting Muslims into a frenzy, and the media happily doing their part to promote the idea that an utterly normal event is a precursor to an apocalypse.
The story isn't the visit.
The story is the incitement and the threats which are independent of anything Israel does or doesn't do. The story is the attempt for Palestinians to impose their own rules on Jews and Israel by using dire threats of war and a new intifada.
Everyone has a script in this play, and everyone plays their own role that matches their agendas.
For the New York Times, it was to describe the visit as a hugely provocative insult to Palestinians in paragraph 1, before admitting that nothing actually happened in paragraph 2:
In one of his first acts as Israel’s minister of national security, the ultranationalist Itamar Ben-Gvir made a provocative visit to a Jerusalem holy site that is sacred to Jews and Muslims early Tuesday under heavy guard, defying threats of violent repercussions from the militant group Hamas and eliciting a furious reaction from the Palestinian leadership.The visit to the site, a frequent flash point in the Old City of Jerusalem where past Israeli actions have set off broader conflagrations, was the first by a high-level Israeli official in years, and passed without incident.
No, past Israeli actions haven't set off broader conflagrations. They were used as excuses for broader conflagrations.
In the case of former prime minister Yair Lapid, this was an opportunity to act counter to the interests of Israel, warning against the visit and saying that if Ben-Gvir visits, "people will die." But as a politician, he is more interested in bringing down the current government than in doing what is best for Israel. (And Netanyahu acted exactly the same when he led the opposition in the Knesset.)
In the case of reporter Barak Ravid, he immediately asked US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides for his reaction. Nides did his part by implying (but not saying) that the US was unhappy with the visit, saying, “To be very clear - we want to preserve status quo and actions that prevent that are unacceptable. We have been very clear in our conversations with the Israeli government on this issue.” Since this visit didn't change the status quo, I'm not sure why Nides said that - whether it was a warning or an implication that this visit was more than it was. I don't know the exact question Nides was answering, so it is possible he was not referring to the visit altogether, and this was Ravid's implication. His job depends on juicy quotes.
In the case of Arutz-7, they chose to interpret Nides' comments as a direct "slam" of the visit. Because that sells papers.
In the case of the Palestinian Authority, this was an opportunity to issue more threats. The PA spent yesterday telling its people that a Ben Gvir visit would be an insult to Islam, and today they are telling their people that it was an grave insult to Islam.
For terror groups, yesterday they warned that such a visit would ignite a religious war and an explosion over the region, and today they are calling for exactly that response - showing that it wasn't a warning but a desire.
For Palestinians, I cannot find any spontaneous protests about the visit. I'm sure that the interested parties are planning these "spontaneous" protests in the coming hours, though. Because that is their role in this play.
Just because nothing happened doesn't mean that the actors don't want to work.
