Conflict on the Temple Mount: What the ‘status quo’ actually means to the Palestinians

T. Belman.  I wrote to Christine :

I just posted your excellent article even though I had a few problems with it.

” Although Dayan formulated the agreement to pacify hostile Arab forces that were bent on obliterating Israel, this fact does not alter the reality about Jewish rights or about the violent outbreaks on the Temple Mount. “

Dayan gave the keys to the Wakf to Jordan after Jerusalem was liberated in the ’48 war. He did so, not to pacify hostile Arab forces, but to remove a grievance from the Arabs throughout the ME which might result in a forever war with the Arabs.

He did this without the approval of the Israeli government. He acted alone.

It should be pointed out that there is no Israeli law which prohibits Jews from praying on the Temple Mount. The SC acknowledged this but went on to say that the Police can prevent it to avoid violence. Ben Gvir wants to change the police action.

One final thought.  The Al Jazeera article is full of lies.

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS, JIHAD WATCH

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now barred Jewish visitors from the Temple Mount until the end of Ramadan, due to widespread violence. According to the prime minister’s Office, this was done “on the unanimous recommendation of the Defense Minister, the IDF Chief-of-Staff, the Director of the ISA and the Israel Police Inspector General.” But Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir called the move a “‘serious mistake’ that risks further inflaming tensions.”

Ben Gvir argued that “the absence of Jewish visitors on the flashpoint site would mean fewer Israeli police officers stationed there, ‘which will create fertile ground for massive demonstrations of incitement to murder Jews and even a scenario in which stones will be thrown at Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall. When terrorism strikes us, we must hit back with tremendous force, not surrender.’”

Leading up to this decision, it may seem odd to read and watch the barrage of news stories condemning Israeli police for “storming” the al-Aqsa mosque, as though Palestinians at al-Aqsa were being provoked and abused for no reason at all. Bear in mind that Muslims reference the whole Temple Mount compound as the “al-Aqsa mosque compound.” i24 news described a typical scene:

Those detained that had locked themselves inside the Al-Aqsa mosque included “masked individuals, stone and firework throwers, and individuals suspected of desecrating the mosque,” the police spokesperson said. The clashes come nearly halfway through the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and as Jews prepare to celebrate Passover starting Wednesday evening. “Overnight, many dozens of law-breaking and masked juveniles smuggled fireworks, clubs and stones into the mosque and violently barricaded themselves inside of it using iron rods, closets and other objects from the mosque, which they vandalized, aiming to disrupt the order while desecrating the mosque,” the police statement said.

The reason why Israeli police are there goes back to the Six-Day War in June 1967. The “status quo” agreement was reached after that war, during which Israel reconquered the Old City of Jerusalem. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan formulated the agreement. Under its terms, “the Muslim Waqf, a Jordanian religious trust, would retain control of the Temple Mount. Jews would be allowed to visit the site without restrictions, though they would not be allowed to pray there. Israel would also take responsibility for security, though its forces would stay off the mount.”

But it hasn’t been that simple in the face of escalated Palestinian violence, as well as Jewish history and the Jews’ claim to the Holy Land. Although Dayan formulated the agreement to pacify hostile Arab forces that were bent on obliterating Israel, this fact does not alter the reality about Jewish rights or about the violent outbreaks on the Temple Mount. Israel Hayom quotes Yisrael Medad, a Temple Mount activist for over 50 years, making the point that “Israel should not allow threats of Muslim violence to dictate what Jews can or cannot do on the Temple Mount. Once you accept the position that your enemy, or your rival, sets the rules, and you have no say in what those rules are, whatever you do will be wrong in his eyes.” The article also states that Jews have been praying at the site for years, and that in fact, today “thousands of Jews visit the site annually.”

For Jews, the Temple Mount is the most sacred site in the world. It is the place where King Solomon built the first temple 3,000 years ago. The second temple was also on that site, and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. The rage of the Muslim world when Ben Gvir visited the Temple Mount in December was odd, since at no time did he violate the status quo. As Senator Ted Cruz stated:

“A visit by a minister from Israel’s government to a site inside Israel is not a change in any status quo arrangement, and it should not be controversial for a Jew to visit the holiest site in Judaism.” 

A report in i24 also stated:

If the UN were a serious and credible organization – and not a hypocritical and biased institution – it would have investigated the multiple Palestinian violations of the status quo on the Temple Mount long ago.

Despite the clear terms set out by the status quo, constant conflict breaks out, even in the face of Jews’ adherence to it. The reason for the violence, according to Nir Hasson, a journalist for Haaretz, was this:

The status quo that Israelis speak about is completely different from the status quo that the Waqf and Palestinians speak about.

The article below is important to understand the mindset of Palestinians, and more broadly what Arab nationalism is about. It is antisemitic at its root. The repeated rallying cry of the Palestinian “resistance” is: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free,” meaning that Israel must be obliterated from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

The bottom line is that Palestinians do not accept the status quo, nor do they recognize the ancient Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria; nor will they accept Jews visiting the Temple Mount, which they call the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound.

“What does the ‘status quo’ mean at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque?,” by Adam Sella, Al Jazeera, April 11, 2023:

The legal status of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, is a recurring flashpoint in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Last week, Israeli police raided the Al-Aqsa Mosque, attacking and arresting Palestinian worshippers who had been inside the prayer hall. Rockets were shot into Israel from Gaza and Lebanon in retaliation, leading to a brief flare-up in violence.

In 2021, a similar raid led to an 11-day Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.

To understand how a single police raid can precipitate a war, one must understand the status quo governing the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

What is the status quo?
For Palestinians – and under international law – the matter is quite simple.

“Israel doesn’t have sovereignty over [East] Jerusalem and therefore doesn’t have sovereignty over Al-Aqsa,” which is in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, says Khaled Zabarqa, a Palestinian legal expert on the city and the compound. Consequently, Zabarqa says, international law dictates that Israel is not authorised to implement any status quo.

For the Palestinians and the Waqf, the Jordanian-appointed body that manages the Al-Aqsa compound, it is a status quo rooted in the site’s administration under the Ottoman Empire, which dictated that Muslims have exclusive control of Al-Aqsa, according to Nir Hasson, a journalist for Haaretz covering Jerusalem.

The Israelis, however, see things differently, despite international law not recognising any attempt by an occupying power to annex territory it has occupied.

“The status quo that Israelis speak about is completely different from the status quo that the Waqf and Palestinians speak about,” explains Hasson.

For Israel, the status quo refers to a 1967 agreement formulated by Moshe Dayan, a former Israeli defence minister. After Israel occupied East Jerusalem, Dayan proposed a new arrangement based on the Ottoman agreement.

According to Israel’s 1967 status quo, the Israeli government allows the Waqf to maintain day-to-day control of the area, and only Muslims are permitted to pray there. However, Israeli police control the site’s access and are responsible for security, and non-Muslims are allowed to visit the site as tourists……

Christine replied:

He did so, not to pacify hostile Arab forces, but to remove a grievance from the Arabs throughout the ME which might result in a forever war with the Arabs.

However one might choose to phrase it, sadly it amounts to the same thing when one accepts the reality of what the Arabs generally are and have always been since the rise of Islam. No amount of [hopeful] intellectualizing according to Western mores could change it. It’s the core of why the West is in the position it’s in.

Indeed! And well understood by perhaps everyone living in Israel and observers beyond.

He did this without the approval of the Israeli government. He acted alone.

Yes and a big, central  issue to this day. How much more patience could Jews be expected to endure?

The Al Jazeera article is full of lies.

Absolutely and the whole point. They lie as a matter of course, religion and culture. It’s an exposé about how they view it, not about civilized logic or truth of which isn’t incorporated into their MO.

It’s a fools errand to try to expect anything different from them—as harsh as I sound.

On a personal level when dealing with Muslim Arabs and Muslims overall, they can be very pleasant as I have experienced. When dealing with Israel on a political level however, that’s entirely another story.