>

Watch out for your own ass next time king
One of the most controversial figures in Israel's incoming government is Itamar Ben Gvir, who is set to become the national security minister and assume control over the police, including law enforcement at Jerusalem's holy sites. Ben Gvir has a long history of inciting violence against Palestinians and Arabs. He has been convicted of inciting anti-Arab racism and supporting terrorism and has openly called for changing the status quo at the holy sites.
"I don't think those individuals are under just a Jordanian microscope. They're under an international microscope," the king said, responding to a question about Ben Gvir's views. "I have to believe that there's a lot of people in Israel also that are concerned as much as we are."
He refused to say how Jordan would respond to changes in the status of the holy sites. "At the end of the day, the Israeli people have the right to pick whoever they want to lead them... We will work with anybody and everybody as long as we can bring people together," he said. >

Realistically, what's Jordan gonna do? >

They'll draw another red line.  Got plenty of red sharpies. >

For the record, the "red line" is Jews being able to visit up top and pray. That's the red line he's referencing.
Israel is unique in that even though they control the Temple Mount, they ban Jews from going up top to pray as a means of keeping the peace with Arab neighbors. Jews get arrested for praying up top. I mean that literally.
This is the equivalent of arresting a Muslim in Mecca for reciting the Shahada. >

Allowing Jewish prayer is a change of the status quo which Israel is obliged to maintain as the occupying power. This status quo was respected by Israel itself on the first day of their presence there in 1967. Jews attaining a right to pray there, while Palestinians are being denied every other right they have: right to a state, right of sovereignty in east Jerusalem, right of return, right of compensation to their lost and looted properties, etc.. is only a recipe for religious strife. Not to mention Jewish extremists who seize on the opportunity to promote the reconstruction of the temple on the ruins of the Aqsa mosque. There is a reason why Israel arrests Jews for violating the status quo arrangement. >

One thing has nothing to do with the other.
The Israeli government's conflict with Palestinians has nothing to do with religious rights.
All 3 major religions in the country have a right to equal access and religious protections at the Temple Mount.
Nothing about this statement is propagandist or extreme. Denying Jewish access simply validates the issue is about Jews rather than Israelis. >

The conflict has everything to do with the status quo, be it relating to religious rights, political rights or any other right. Most Israelis are Jews and Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. That’s enough of a reason to not change the status quo. >

I don't think you understand what you just said.
The conflict is about land rights. The Israelis didn't have control of Jerusalem until 1967.
They were obviously in conflict since before 1948 so you're reframing this as a conflict purely about Jerusalem when it isn't. >

Jerusalem is the epicenter of the conflict, it literally touches on every aspect of the conflict; land, religion, settlements, occupation, etc.. >

Jerusalem is one aspect of the conflict.
Gaza and the West Bank are the core of the conflict. 
You basically just argued a pile of rocks in Jerusalem is more important to the conflict than the places where actual Palestinians live and are struggling.
You get how insane that sounds, right? >

It does sound insane to an existentialist, such as yourself, and myself as well. These pile of rocks in Jerusalem are literally considered the most important aspect to religious people on both sides; the essentialists. Plus it’s not just the religious significance, these rocks are in occupied territory, being forced to adhere to the policies of an occupying power. Not to mention the fact that just a few kilometers away there are entire neighborhoods being vested for their ownership to change the identity of the city and isolate these very same rocks from some groups. >

What's crazy about this reply is you didn't mention Palestinians once.
The entire point of the conflict is people are suffering. That's the core of this. Yet you're caught up on the Temple Mount and Jews saying the Shema up top like that's going to change the nature of Palestinian statehood.
It's nonsense and you're validating that with each reply. >

You really think the Palestinians will be content with a Swiss cheese state with a capital in Abu Deis or Ramallah? It’s all interrelated and to isolate this as something separate is short-sighted to say the least.