How do you make apartheid sound good? Easy. Just call it the “historic status quo”.
Under Muslim rule, the historic status quo by the invaders was to ban Jews from their own holiest site, the Temple Mount. When Jerusalem was liberated, there was a vocal insistence by the Muslims who had launched a war to destroy the Jewish State and by the “international community” that Jews continue to be barred from their own holy site in the name of the “historic status quo”. And if that sounds too unbelievable, here’s Ned Price, Biden’s State Department spokesman saying that Jews must continue to be banned.
So let me say broadly on the first question that the United States stands firmly for preservation of the historic status quo with respect to the holy sites in Jerusalem. We oppose any unilateral actions that undercut the historic status quo. They are unacceptable. The President has previously underscored the need to preserve that historic status quo at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, as has the Secretary. We have done so repeatedly with our Israeli partners; we have done so repeatedly with our Jordanian partners, whose special role as custodian of Muslim holy places in Jerusalem we deeply appreciate. That is a message we will continue to reinforce.
Historic status quo sounds much better than apartheid, doesn’t it?
Jews visiting the Temple Mount is “unacceptable” to the Biden administration.
Ned Price then goes on to defend the Muslim terrorist heckler’s veto and to blame Israel for provoking the violence by… visiting a Jewish holy site.
“As I said before regarding this visit, we’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions that have the potential to exacerbate tensions, precisely because we want to see the opposite happen. We want to see tensions reduced; we want to see tensions diminished. The – we know that the exceedingly rare instances of previous high-profile visits to Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount have only exacerbated tensions. This is not an academic question. We have seen what has transpired in the past, and we continue, as I said before, to strongly support the longstanding, historic status quo at the site.”
The “longstanding, historic status quo” was the product of conquest, oppression, slavery and mass murder.
What would the “historic status quo” of non-Muslims in the Middle East be in general? Or black people in the West?
“By the way, we also know and we took note of the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s governing platform calls for preservation of the historic status quo with relation to the holy places. We expect him to follow through on that commitment. The Secretary has said very clearly before that it’s absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve that historic status quo at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice. That’s what we’ll be watching for; that’s what we’ll be using our words to encourage.”
That’s the State Department spokesman demanding that Jews be banned from their holy site because their visits are “provocative”.
Muslim violence is not provocative.
This obscene show somehow gets worse with a question from an Islamist propagandist.
QUESTION: Ned, just let me remind you – and if you’ll allow me a couple more questions on the Palestinian issue. If I may remind you, back in 2000 – September 2000, September 28th, as a matter of fact, 2000 – Ariel Sharon stormed Haram Sharif and launched one of the most violent episodes in Palestinian-Israeli history that went on for a very, very long time. We see the same thing happening again. I mean, Mr. Sharon went on to become prime minister at the time. Ben-Gvir may become the next prime minister.
You said you are going to judge these people by their actions. I think you said that, the Secretary of State said that, everybody said that in government. So that is the action. This is the action. How are you going to deal with this government?
MR PRICE: Well first, Said, Prime Minister Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he is setting the policy of this government. We will be dealing directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We already have been dealing directly with senior representatives of the prime minister.
But your point is precisely the one I alluded to just a moment ago. This is not an academic question. We know the historic – historical analogies, the historical corollaries. And that’s why we’re deeply concerned. We’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions because – precisely because they have the potential to exacerbate tensions, or worse. And that’s why we can look back to 2000, we can look back to previous instances. It’s also why we call for the preservation of the historic status quo.
Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. Islamists insist on describing Jewish visits as “storming”. It’s also been widely established that his visit had nothing to do with the violence which was already being prepped.
Price however agrees and echoes that particular Big Lie.
There is a historical analogy here. It’s apartheid.
“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 —”
It’s a question for the Muslim conquerors who lost, but whose bigotry and oppression, the Biden administration is determined to uphold.