Dear Editor:

The article about Itamar Ben-Gvir's visit to the Temple Mount was described in Isabel Kershner's article as "provocative." This brings up the question: Why should anyone consider it provocative?

The only reason is that the Palestinian Arabs always look for excuses to start riots and launch terror attacks. That's not a good reason.

Over the years, the status quo on the Temple Mount has been changed repeatedly, with the heavy discrimination against non-Muslims and non-Arabs always increasing. This is shameful.

Today, Arabs have essentially unfettered, 24/7 access to the Temple Mount, which their children use as a soccer field. Their adults store weapons in the Al Aksa Mosque, which they call their third holiest site, although it is holy only to Sunni Muslims and has no significance for Shiite Muslims.

Jews have very restricted access, to just some portions of the Temple Mount, for just a few hours a day, a few days a week, with access only through the rickety, dangerous Mughrabi Gate.

The world should be up in arms about that discrimination. Instead, it becomes news and a special session of the United Nations Security Council gets called for when a single Israeli official goes to his holiest site for a short, 15 minute visit.

The United Nations Security Council should pass a resolution demanding free access to all to their holy sites in Jerusalem, subject only to security precautions and only when necessary.

Sincerely,

Alan Stein