The day of the event, I think was expected. Maybe even the next morning. Now, a couple of days later and this is still one of the top topics of discussion in Israel is a bit surprising, and it makes me wonder if this is going to snowball into something bigger.

Two comments from Coalition members in particular stood out for me. When coalition members, especially in what has been considered the most homogenous coalition ever where they are supposed to be working in harmony and they each already knew each other well, all the detriments and all the good things, so nothing was unexpected, criticize each other, that points to something bigger. Besides for just the discomfort of criticizing people you are supposed to work with hand in hand, this especially sharp criticism is unusual because they breed bad feelings amongst each other and then they can each be less forthcoming on other issues they were supposed to be working together on.

The two comments that struck me as more interesting are from MKs from UTJ.

Deputy Minister Uri Maklev said "there is a prohibition against going up to Har Habayit. Ben Gvir today is not a private Member of Knesset but is the Minister of National Security of the Land of Israel and he represents the entire public and has double responsibility. It is prohibited to provoke the nations, this is not how we show governance.

MK Yaakov Asher (UTJ) said "Ben Gvir going up to Har Habayit was superfluous, there is no benefit and we are taking this very seriously.

First of all, they knew who they were getting into bed with. Ben Gvir going up to Har Habayit should not have shocked anybody. I wonder if they (TUJ and maybe also Shas, as they are the ones most strongly opposed on a day to day basis to what Ben Gvir does) had a meeting before the government was formed to figure out and plan what to do when Ben Gvir does his various "provocations". 

Second, Asher says it was superfluous and sans benefit. Maybe to him who sees no value in going to Har Habayit. Ben Gvir does see value, both from a religious perspective and from a political perspective in taking a stand on the most important place to the Jewish people.

Third, Maklev talks about responsibility and that is all fair enough. I see it differently, but that is a fair position. I suspect Ben Gvir does as well. I think Ben Gvir sees it more of a responsibility to go and make sure Israeli control over Har Habayit gets stronger and the rights of Israelis on the Mount be expanded.

Fourth, I find it interesting, though it might actually be meaningless, that Maklev said Ben Gvir is a minister f Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, rather than saying a Minister of Medinat Yisrael, the State of Israel. It might be meaningless but it jumped out at me.

Fifth, and last, and this is an old dispute, Maklev said provoking the nations is prohibited and is not how to show governance. While perhaps it would be better to not "provoke the nations" but anything we do provokes the nations. Our very existence provokes the nations, or being in Israel, our having a state, our presence, our mere being, all provokes the nations. And I dont think standing down in the face of threats is much of showing governance.