Long simmering tensions at Islam’s third holiest site, al-Haram al-Sharif compound, boiled over this week when Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir again insisted in an interview that Jews have the right to pray there.

Then, when asked if he would build a Jewish synagogue on the holy site if he could, he answered yes.1

His exact words were: “There is a directive that there should be equal law between Jews and Muslims . . . With all due respect, I was elected for this very reason: to ensure that there is no discriminatory policy on the Temple Mount [i.e., al-Haram al-Sharif compound —Ed.] and that there is no capitulation to Hamas on the Temple Mount.” And, “If I was able to do anything I wanted to do at the Temple Mount, the flag of Israel would have been raised there long ago.”2

Ben-Gvir’s comments, uttered live on Israel’s Army Radio, August 26, 2024, drew criticism from his own fellow cabinet minister, the minister of defense, as well as from senior US officials and a myriad of Islamic countries including Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Indonesia, Afghanistan, and Palestine. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation also denounced Ben-Gvir’s comments.3

Israel’s defense minister as well as the office of the Israeli prime minister all reiterated the safe phrase, namely, that the Status Quo has not changed. “Challenging the Status Quo on the Temple Mount [the term Jews use to refer to the site] is a dangerous, unnecessary, and irresponsible act,” Defense Minister Yoav Gallant wrote on X. “Ben-Gvir’s actions endanger the national security of the State of Israel and its international status.”4

But events on the ground continue to suggest otherwise.

Just days earlier, on August 14, 2024, Ben-Gvir, joined by fellow minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf and dozens of Jewish worshippers, marched across al-Haram al-Sharif compound (in English, the Noble Sanctuary, also referred to by Jews as the Temple Mount in English or Har ha Bayit in Hebrew) while an estimated 2,000 other Jews prayed on the compound waving flags and singing the Israeli national anthem and police stood idly by, protecting them.5 While there, Ben-Gvir said, “We’ve made significant progress in Israel’s sovereignty here. Our policy is to permit Jewish prayer.”6

He later piled on to this, saying, “The National Security Minister’s policy is to allow freedom of worship for Jews everywhere, including the Temple Mount . . . The Temple Mount is Israeli sovereign territory. No law exists allowing racist discrimination against Jews in the Temple Mount, or anywhere else in Israel.”7

The move, which followed others like it over the summer, was decried by international leaders as “provocative” and a violation of the Status Quo agreement that has long governed Jerusalem’s holy sites (see below).

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had prior knowledge of his ministers’ actions, was quick to claim that Israel respects the Status Quo and is not changing it.8

But no one really knows what he meant by that, because Israel has more than one interpretation of “Status Quo” and uses them interchangeably to justify anything and everything it does.

The 19th-century Status Quo agreement regulates access to and administration of Jerusalem’s holy sites. Jordan’s Hashemite family has custodianship of all Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, including al-Haram al-Sharif compound, which is waqf property. Despite some violations after the 1967 War, the arrangements specified by the agreement have remained more or less intact.

On June 27, 1967, the Israeli Knesset enacted the Protection of Holy Places Law, which stipulates the right of free access and the right of worship for every person in places holy to him or her.9 According to this law, which is written in general terms, Jews have the right to “freedom of access . . . in places sacred to them.”10 However, the courts also determined that the government had the right not to allow Jews to pray if public order is at risk. Indeed, until 2017, the police did not allow Jews to pray inside the holy compound.

Until 2000, a set of arrangements developed between the police and the waqf administration on some issues, while the two sides maintained dialogue and full coordination, especially regarding visits by religious Jewish groups. It was customary for the police to notify the waqf administration in advance of a visit by groups of no more than three people at a time, to be accompanied by a police officer and a waqf guard to ensure that they do not pray or cause provocations.

In 2000, after then opposition leader Ariel Sharon’s inflammatory visit to the holy compound (generally regarded as triggering the Second Intifada), the entire complex was closed to non-Muslims until August 2003, when Israel unilaterally enforced opening the compound to Jewish visits. In light of the increase in the number of religious Jewish visitors, the police began allowing these groups to enter in groups of 12 at a time. The waqf administration has since not allowed non-Muslims entry into the Dome of the Rock, the al-Aqsa Mosque, or the Islamic Museum.

Starting in 2017, the police, with the unofficial backing of Israeli politicians, began to keep the waqf administration guards away from the Jewish groups. The Israeli police turn a blind eye to the fact that Jews hold silent prayer along the eastern wall of the compound and near Bab al-Rahma. In recent times, the prayer has even been performed aloud.

Jerusalem Story spoke to several religious and academic figures after the August 14 storming of the compound by Israeli politicians and settlers.

Wasfi Kailani, a member of the Islamic Waqf Council and executive director of the Hashemite Fund for the Restoration of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, described al-Haram al-Sharif as an exclusively Muslim holy site; that claim is based on solid and irrefutable religious, political, and legal evidence.11 Its place in Islam is part of the creed: Al-Aqsa Mosque is Palestine’s beating heart. It was for the sake of the liberation of al-Aqsa Mosque that the battles of Mu’ta, Yarmouk, Ajnadayn, Hattin, and Ayn Jalut were fought, he noted. More recent battles include the Arab Revolt (1916–18) and the Great Palestinian Revolt (1936), and the battles fought for the liberation of Jerusalem and the Bab al-Wad pass en route to the city in 1948. In his view, Palestinians (and Muslims generally) will continue to struggle in defense of al-Aqsa Mosque.

Because of the historic and religious significance of al-Aqsa Mosque, Dr. Kailani believes, any change to the historic status, character, or function of al-Aqsa Mosque will be rejected by 1.9 billion Muslims around the world. “Any change to the character or function of al-Aqsa Mosque according to the whims and desires of extremist Jews will lead to a religious war between Muslims and Jews that will most certainly spread beyond the borders of Palestine and will threaten the peace and security of the entire world,” he told Jerusalem Story.

Salah Zuhaika, a well-known Jerusalemite writer and political analyst, said that the latest violation of al-Haram al-Sharif compound reminded him of Ariel Sharon’s ill-fated visit to the site in September 2000. Since the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967, he said, several international resolutions have been issued specifically regarding Jerusalem, which emphasized that no changes should be made to existing arrangements at either Islamic and Christian holy sites. “All agreements signed between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the occupying entity focused on not harming the holy sites and on the necessity of respecting the status quo in the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as it was on June 4, 1967 [before Israel occupied East Jerusalem].”12 Zuhaika believes that any procedures and changes made after that date are legally invalid and rejected by the international community and thus cannot be built upon; they are invalid and illegitimate, like the occupation itself.

Dimitri Diliani, president of the Jerusalem-based National Christian Coalition in the Holy Land, vehemently denounced the recent provocations as severe breaches of the Status Quo agreement, which maintained “harmony among the religious communities.”13 He worried that the actions of the minister and the accompanying settlers on August 14, 2024, could set “a troubling precedent that could extend to other crucial religious sites, notably the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.”

Diliani denounced Ben-Gvir’s action as a strategy that “is incorporated in [the] Ministry of Police’s work plan. It [the plan] blatantly aims to bolster Jewish presence and introduce Jewish prayers at the Muslim holy site, and thus constitutes a glaring violation of the Status Quo, flagrantly disregarding international and regional agreements, including those with Jordan, the internationally recognized custodian of Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.” The strategy “epitomizes the supremacist ideology permeating Israeli society, prioritizing radical Jewish interests at the expense of the historical and religious rights of Jerusalem’s indigenous population of Muslims and Christians. Such provocative illegitimate maneuvers severely undermine the bedrock of international law and regional diplomacy, particularly as Jerusalem remains internationally acknowledged as an illegitimately occupied city by Israel.”

He warned that Israel’s deliberate tampering with the Status Quo at al-Haram al-Sharif compound would have profound ramifications.

“Further exacerbating this volatile situation,” Diliani adds, “is Ben-Gvir’s extensive influence over police operations and control of armed forces. His capability to deploy these occupation armed forces against Muslim worshippers poses a formidable challenge to the Status Quo, potentially leading to violent confrontations and further destabilizing the already precarious situation in occupied East Jerusalem.”

Diliani asserts that the situation at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre reflects this disturbing trend of Israeli aggression. According to him, the Israeli government’s recent impositions of property taxes and financial burdens on the church appear to be calculated and coordinated attempts to disrupt the Status Quo, compromising the church’s ability to function and threatening to extend Israeli control over Christianity’s most sacred site as well.

“Israel’s relentless attempts to recalibrate the Status Quo on these holy sites are recklessly provocative, showing utter disregard for historical agreements. Preserving the Status Quo is about honoring historical accords and safeguarding the sanctity of these sites. Any alterations to this precarious equilibrium could spark religious tensions and potentially lead to widespread conflict.”

Diliani urged the international community to act “swiftly and decisively” to maintain the Status Quo and warned that failure to do so “risks unraveling the fragile situation in Jerusalem, with dire implications for regional and global stability.”

Professor Yitzhak Reiter, president of the Middle East and Islamic Studies Association of Israel (MEISAI), and lecturer at the Emirates-based Al-Qasemi College and Israeli-based Reichman University, told Jerusalem Story that Israelis, too, have grievances. They point to construction operations and major public works in the compound by Palestinians as being inconsistent with the Status Quo agreement and also claim that the space is used for political demonstrations, a reference to the presence of murabitun and murabitat. Dr. Reiter added that Israelis are particularly offended by the Muslim denial of Jews’ historical and religious attachment to the site.14

However, Dr. Reiter acknowledges that irrespective of what the Israeli government claims, in practice, the policy being implemented on the ground is Ben-Gvir’s. “In a normal state of peace, it would have been correct to allow the Jews the right of free access and the right of worship in the holy compound. However, since 1967, the situation in East Jerusalem according to international law is a situation of occupation, and therefore the only way to maintain peace in the compound is to restore the situation that existed between 1967 and 2000.”

The actions of Jewish groups and religious Zionists who are focused on this issue are designed to increase the number of Jewish visitors to the compound in large groups, to perform Jewish prayers and religious ceremonies. Dr. Reiter concedes that such actions, regarded by Muslims as extremely provocative, give the political conflict a much more dangerous religious dimension. “In the eyes of the Muslim world, al-Aqsa Mosque under Israeli rule in East Jerusalem is in danger.”

The importance of al-Haram al-Sharif globally cannot be overstated. Continued Israeli attempts to violate and even overturn an agreement that has served for more than a century risks turning a largely political conflict that can be solved by politicians into a highly charged religious conflict. Muslims and Arabs in Palestine, Jordan, and the rest of the world are determined to prevent the struggle against Israeli colonization of Palestine from becoming fodder for a religious war. The most appropriate mechanism for dealing with all issues of disagreement is to refer to the text of the 19th-century Status Quo agreement and all formal understandings and treaties reached since. The Jerusalem waqf authorities, the Jordanian government, and the people of Jerusalem and Palestine in particular will not allow their holy site to be desecrated and usurped by Israeli Jewish extremists who want to erect a third temple on its ruins.15