When Ariel Sharon came to power in early 2001, it was almost Pesach. His security advisors asked him to sign the annual directive forbidding the Temple Mount Faithful, a small far-right group, from holding a symbolic service of the Pesach Sacrifice.
Sharon baulked. As leader of the opposition, he had repeatedly called for a Jewish presence on the Mount, even making a controversial visit himself. Eventually, he allowed himself to be talked in to it and signed the directive.
One issue where Israeli prime ministers from both sides of the political divide have been remarkably consistent for the last 52 years is the status quo on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It is a matter best kept untouched.
The anger and violence which could be unleashed by any Israeli move to change the situation in the compound, known to Muslims as the Haram esh-Sharif, is simply too much of a risk.
Therefore the policy has remained the same.
Though Israel extended its sovereignty immediately after the Six Day War to include the newly-captured East Jerusalem and Temple Mount, management of the site itself stayed in Muslim hands.
Jews have been allowed to visit but under severe restrictions. They are forbidden to pray there.
Benjamin Netanyahu has recently capitulated twice over the site. The first time was in July 2017, over metal detectors leading inside, which were removed after a few days of protests.
Then, earlier this year, he agreed to a compromise whereby the Muslim waqf authority could use a building at the edge of the compound that had been ordered sealed by an Israeli court.
In this context, it was totally in keeping with past policy for Mr Netanyahu to decide not to allow Jews to visit the mount last Sunday, which marked both the Tisha B’Av fast and the first day of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha.
For Jews it may have been the annual commemoration of the destruction of the Temple, but on al-Adha, Muslim religious sensitivities take precedence. But this was not a regular Tisha B’Av.
Five weeks before an election in which Mr Netanyahu is constantly under fire not just from the opposition but the right-wing as well, the pressure was too heavy.
He capitulated: later, during the fast, Jews were allowed inside, although not everyone who wanted to do so and only in a much smaller area of the compound than usual.
Both sides claimed victory.
The Islamic organisations that had massed thousands in advance around the Al Aqsa Mosque had prevented Jews from entering the compound for most of the day.
The Jewish groups trying to stoke Temple Mount fervour had overturned a prime ministerial decision and entered despite the Muslim festival — even though they are barred for the rest of the week, until Eid ends.
What does this all mean for the fragile status quo? Policy has not changed but the pressure from both sides is intensifying.
The Israeli Jews who see the Temple as a real objective are still a relatively small minority, but are growing both in numbers and political power.
On the Muslim side, the more moderate Palestinian Authority and Jordanian royal house, which held sway over the compound, have been supplanted to a degree by more radical groups aligned with Hamas.
Both sides are adept at exploiting weaknesses of Israeli prime ministers and Palestinian presidents.
