In the past weeks, Palestinian leaders from both Fatah and Hamas have been inciting their people to violence with claims that Israel is planning to change the “status quo” on the Temple Mount. By this they mean the longstanding policy that gives administrative control of the area to Muslim religious authorities, allows unrestricted access to Muslims, and restricts Jewish access. But, argues Nadav Shragai, the “status quo” is no status quo at all. The areas designated for Muslim prayer have expanded, and Jews, long forbidden from praying there, are now sharply curtailed even from visiting. At the heart of the problem is Israel’s reluctance to enforce its laws:

Amid ongoing [Muslim] damage to antiquities, blatant violations of the laws on planning, construction, and antiquities on the Mount, and repeated appeals to Israel’s supreme court by different [Jewish] groups, as well as political activity by members of Knesset and other public figures, constant tension has arisen between the Muslim religious authorities and the state of Israel concerning the enforcement of Israeli law on the Temple Mount.

In response, the state has entrusted the attorney general and a special ministerial committee to decide on issues related to law enforcement in the compound. The ministerial committee has not convened for many years, and was reactivated only a few years ago. The attorney general is very cautious about applying Israeli law to the Temple Mount and sometimes has even refrained from doing so, preferring to deal with this issue through unofficial dialogue with the Muslims via the Israel police. The police, for their part, have often preferred to keep things quiet on the Temple Mount even if the “price” entails compromising the rule of law, damage to antiquities, or violating planning and construction laws.

While the far left and the extreme right have responded with frenzied outrage to Israel’s attacks on Iran, middle-of-the-road, establishment types have expressed similar sentiments, only in more measured tones. These think-tankers and former officials generally believe that Israeli military action, rather than nuclear-armed murderous fanatics, is the worst possible outcome. Garry Kasparov examines this mode of thinking:

Now that the Islamic Republic is severely weakened, the alarmist foreign-policy commentariat is apprising us of the unacceptable risks, raising their well-worn red flags. (Or should I say white flags?) “Escalation!” “Global war!” And the ultimate enemy of the status quo: “regime change!”

Under President Obama, American officials frequently stared down the nastiest offenders in the international rogues’ gallery and insisted that there was “no military solution.” “No military solution” might sound nice to enlightened ears. Unfortunately, it’s a meaningless slogan. Tellingly, Russian officials repeat it all the time too. . . . But Russia does believe there are military solutions to its problems—ask any Ukrainian, Syrian, or Georgian. Yet too many in Washington remain determined to fight armed marauders with flowery words.

If you are worried about innocent people being killed, . . . spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution. Or the hundreds of thousands of Syrians whose murder Iran was an accomplice to. Or the Ukrainian civilians who have found themselves on the receiving end of over 8,000 Iranian-made suicide drones over the past three years. Or the scores of Argentine Jews blown up in a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994 without even the thinnest of martial pretexts.

The Democratic Connecticut senator Chris Murphy was quick and confident in his pronouncement that Israel’s operation in Iran “risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.” Maybe. But a regional war was already underway before Israel struck last week. Iran was already supporting the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Russia in Ukraine. Israel is simply moving things toward a more decisive conclusion.

Perhaps Murphy and his ilk dread most being proved wrong—which they will be if, in a few weeks’ time, their apocalyptic predictions haven’t come true, and the Middle East, though still troubled, is a safter place.