Jerusalem’s Temple Mount Clashes Are Spreading to Jordan’s Royal Palace

In Jordan and Israel, clashes at the holy site not only concern defenders of freedom of worship, but also serve political rivals who could topple the governments in both countries.

By Zvi Bar’el, HAARETZ

“The Jordanian traitor, one of the great normalizers of relations with Israel, is the main reason for the defeat in 1967 and the presence of the Zionist occupier in Palestine to this day,” read a post on social media. At the moment, social media feeds are rife with cursing and accusations directed at King Abdullah II. A petition signed by 86 members of the Jordanian parliament calls for breaking off diplomatic relations with Israel and nullification of the peace treaty between the two countries.

The sharp verbal attacks are also being directed at the king of Morocco, Mohammed VI, who has been derided as the king of normalization with Israel at the same time that he heads the Al-Quds Committee on Jerusalem established in 1975.

King Abdullah, who has returned to Jordan following complicated spinal surgery in Germany, knew even before the current Muslim holy month of Ramadan that Jerusalem’s Temple Mount was expected to be a focal point of unrest. Now, as he recovers in bed, the king has been facing a tsunami from Jerusalem. As a result, he has held discussions with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz, and the king’s representatives held preparatory talks with Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar and his assistants.

According to a senior Jordanian source, the impression gleaned was that Israel would refrain from deploying forces on the Temple Mount and that Jordan and the Palestinian Authority would do everything to prevent clashes. “The entry of the Israeli forces onto the Temple Mount has backed the king into a corner,” the source said. “The criticism at home has heated up and the sense is that Israel has not fulfilled its commitment.”

Three days ago, the king issued unequivocal orders to his country’s prime minister, Bishr al-Khasawneh, to act on the international level, including in the Arab world, “to halt the Israeli attacks on the Temple Mount in order to calm passions.” Over the past two days, the country’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, has maintained intense contact with senior Biden administration officials, the European Union and with leaders of Egypt, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates – demanding that they intervene and pressure Israel not to send forces onto the mosque compound. At the same time, Jordan requested that the UN Security Council be convened to debate the events on the Temple Mount as it steps up its rhetoric against “Israeli aggression” violating the sanctity of the site.

Beyond concern over an eruption of protest in Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, which has already begun on social media, every incident on the mount is perceived as the Jordanian monarch’s failure to assert his authority over the holy places, a role that Israel and Jordan have agreed upon.

The 1994 peace agreement between the two countries grants Jordan special status to administer the holy sites. And in 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the principles drafted by Secretary of State John Kerry that allows all people to visit the site but only Muslims to pray there. This principle, which remains in force today, is what has been motivating right-wing extremist groups in Israel to go to the mount in an effort to change the status quo and to demonstrate Israeli “sovereignty” over the site.

Israel does not intend to change the status quo, but the deployment of police and soldiers to the mount is interpreted, both among Palestinians and Jordanians, not only as a violation of the Kerry principles but as a clear sign of intent to take over the mount and to transform it into a Jewish site – all on King Abdullah’s watch.

Another concern, a hidden threat to the Jordanian monarch: the Saudi aspiration “to annex” the authority to administer the holy sites in Jerusalem in order to oust Abdullah from the role. As a result, two years ago, there was tension between the two kingdoms over Abdullah’s concern that President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” plan for the Middle East was aimed in part at fulfilling this Saudi aspiration in exchange for Saudi support for the plan. As a result, in the view of King Abdullah, any incident on the mount could provide the Saudis with grounds for demanding authority over the site due to what would be interpreted as the Jordanian monarch’s weakness vis-à-vis Israel.

To quell the criticism at home as well as Saudi aspirations, while at the same time maintaining proper relations with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the king stepped up the rhetoric that his representatives have been employing. But this route is not devoid of dangers of its own.

Protesters at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, on Friday.Credit: Mahmoud Illean / AP

On Monday, Jordanian Prime Minister Al-Khasawneh took the unusual step of expressing support and encouragement for the Muslim stone-throwers on the Temple Mount, prompting a furious response from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who said he views statements accusing Israel of violence “which is being directed at us” with “utmost seriousness” and adding that this is unacceptable to Israel. “It constitutes a reward for the inciters, particularly Hamas, which is trying here to incite violence in Jerusalem.”

Bennett refrained from directly blaming the Jordanian prime minister. He also appears to understand that when Al-Khasawneh makes such comments to the Jordanian parliament, most of whose members are demanding that diplomatic relations with Israel be severed, the tough talk is meant to allay parliamentary pressure to cut ties with Israel or to close the Israeli embassy in Amman altogether.

The two countries have essential military and economic interests that they don’t want held hostage by Temple Mount extremists. But it would be a serious mistake to view the mutual recriminations as necessary rhetorical role-playing required to calm passions. As in Israel, in Jordan, the issue of the Temple Mount relates not only to freedom of worship but also serves the interests of political rivals who are liable to bring down the countries’ governments.

Over the past several years in Jordan, there have been a growing number of blocs and movements that have set their sights on deposing the king and the changing the form of government. On that score, it’s worth mentioning the revolt by tribal leaders in the south of the country, the weeks-long protests by the unemployed in front of the royal palace, the unceasing activity of religious movements and last year’s attempted coup by the king’s half-brother, Prince Hamzah.

High unemployment and disparities between rich and poor are usually reasons for protest and civil revolt, but when a mobilizing issue such as an affront to Muslim holy sites surfaces, there is a solidary that transcends class and tribe and the threat that it poses is much greater and more immediate. That is what the king’s political rivals are banking on, and they’re not acting any differently than the Israeli government’s rivals.

The poisonous rhetorical back-and-forth between Israel and Jordan will not be enough to disguise the danger that the Israeli government and the Jordanian royal court face from the Temple Mount. Israel can in fact claim that its sovereignty grants it the authority to deploy forces on the mount, but when Israel itself voluntarily conceded exercising sovereignty over the mount, any show of force that it would make there would not change its status. But it could destroy the fragile fabric of relations that still sustain its ties with Jordan.