T. Belman. At my conference on The Jordan Option, Mudar Zahran said he would give up Al Aqsa custodianship. Later he told me that Saudi Arabia was very interested in receiving the custodianship. This articles says “guardianship of the Haram al Sharif had been the basis of the Hashemite dynasty’s claim to rule Jordan.”
Its all coming to a head. Custodianship will go to Saudi Arabia, king Abdullah will abdicate and Mudar Zahran will take over Jordan with Saudi blessings.
Jordan has been panic-stricken, insecure about its status as the custodian of al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem since the time the news of a meeting between Israel and Saudi Arabia arrived. A deal between the Jews and Saudis could throw the ownership of one of the holiest sites of Islam open to claimants, Amman fears.
With Saudi Arabia and Israel making up, as seen in the weekend visit by Benjamin Netanyahu to Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, Jordan fears Riyadh would ‘compromise’ as Washington pushes it hard to leave a Trump legacy in the Middle East.
The foreign ministry of Jordan released a statement on 25 November that challenged “attempts to alter the historical and legal status quo” of al Aqsa. Spokesman Daifallah al-Fayez said: “The kingdom will continue its efforts to protect and care for the mosque, and preserve the rights of all Muslims to it in compliance with the Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem’s Muslim and Christian holy sites.”
Earlier, a call between US President-elect Joe Biden and King Abdullah II of Jordan’s Hashemite dynasty that has governed the Jerusalem sites (Haram al Sharif) since 1924, the very year the Saud dynasty was given control of Mecca and Medina had sounded the alarm in Amman.
It is the custody of al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock that Jordan’s ruling Hashemite dynasty exploits to establish its legitimacy in the country for nearly a century. This claim pre-dates the creation of Jordan and Israel. It has survived seven tumultuous decades of stalemate, war and eventually peace. In the 25 odd years since the two sides established diplomatic relations, the treaty has been at the core of the deal’s stability.
Jordan is apprehensive that US President Donald Trump, his deputy Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, along with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, may try to change the arrangement by offering the sites to Saudi Arabia to sweeten their deal. The impact of such a move would overshadow the effect of pacts signed recently between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain.
After all, Trump had always wanted to broker better relations Israel-Saudi Arabia relations, which would be like throwing the American weight behind a Sunni Saudi Arabian leadership of Islam in its tussle for supremacy against a Shi’ah Iran. As it wasn’t Prophet Mohammed who had divided Muslims into the two major sects, Tehran claims an equally legitimate theologian right over the two holy shrines, Mecca and Medina.
A former senior aide to both King Abdullah and his father King Hussein, Adnan Abu-Odeh says guardianship of the Haram al Sharif had been the basis of the Hashemite dynasty’s claim to rule Jordan. He recalls that the deal was part of the peace treaty between the two Islamic states. Thus, he says, Jordan’s stakes in the status quo were strong.
“Historically the religious aspect was key in the legitimacy of the ruler and the Hashemites, after leaving Hejaz, derive their legitimacy from Jerusalem,” he said. “Israel practises pressure and extortion over Jordan with the custodianship matter and they threaten to give it to the Saudis and it is not far fetched, and I believe his majesty the king understands that.”
As rulers of present-day Jordan, the Hashemites controlled Mecca for centuries until the House of Saud conquered it in 1924. Mecca and another of uge religious significance, Medina, were incorporated into Saudi Arabia, while al Aqsa went to the Hashemites. Since then, the two powerful bloodlines have verbally sparred over this influence, with Saudi Arabia enjoying an edge, as oil dollars and US patronage have transformed the Saudi kingdom into a regional heavyweight.
Another former senior royal aide and Jordanian foreign minister, Jawad Anani said: “As far as Israel and Netanyahu are concerned Saudi Arabia is the big prize now. “I don’t think the Saudis will be in a hurry to give Mr Netanyahu, or even Mr Trump right now, more credit because they have to deal with four years of a potentially not very friendly American administration [if they did]. Many Jordanians… [are] being vigilant about this. Netanyahu … might find it to be worthwhile giving this to the Saudi royal family rather than keep it with the Hashemites because that would probably bring him the prize he’s seeking, which is open and declared normalisation with Saudi Arabia.”
Former Israeli leader Ehud Olmert had tabled the fate of Haram al Sharif the during peace talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, says Elie Podeh, a professor of Middle East studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “Olmert was very forthcoming on this issue,” Podeh said. “He suggested the Old City of Jerusalem be an international city run by a committee of five — Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, the US and Israel. The idea was raised, but nothing substantial ever transpired. The question of Jerusalem might come up in the current context. The Saudis would want to have some role. There is now an opportunity to do something bilateral, and with Trump, it would be much easier than under Biden. But whether it would be wise to do so is another thing.”
“It would radically crush the Hashemite monarchy and it would change the guarantee of sorts that Jordan has been providing for Israeli and regional security. It would be like throwing a grenade into a crowded room. As for the Saudis, there would be some appeal there. Iran has always challenged them on the legitimacy of their custodianship of Mecca and Medina. If they were to add a third shrine to their list, it could enhance their claims to be the absolute leaders of the Islamic world,” a former UK consul general to East Jerusalem and ex-ambassador to Riyadh, Sir John Jenkins said such a move would expectedly have widespread implications for Israeli security and for Jordan.
Transferring custodianship to MBS would certainly be a “sweetener” he would find difficult to resist; but if JRB becomes US President, all bets are off. Besides Jordanian, Saudi and Iranian claims to custodianship, credible claims could be advanced by Turkey and Egypt and perhaps others.
If MBS Al Saud does replace Abdullah as custodian, the status of Al Aksa would certainly be downgraded. After all, why would the custodian of Mecca and Medina even care about Al Aksa? But for the Hashemite king, inflating the presumed holiness of Haram al Sharif is vital to his legitimacy.
I’m expecting an earthquake, as well as a Turkish attack.
@ Bear Klein:
No Bear, I don’t agree…The Saudis should be offered the “custodianship” of their religious buildings on the Mount, but with very limited land surrounds.. They are there, and can’t be removed…(unless Saudia gets the bright idea of transporting the Dome to Mecca, which could easily be done with modern technology). All under Israel Sovereignty of course. .
It would be a inducement, to make Peace, and elevate Saudi Arabia into the pre-eminent Arab country in the world, with NO disagreement from other Arab states.
Israel wouldn’t want to run smelly mosques full of dirty carpets anyway.. Let the Arabs run their own affairs…if it means genuine peace with the Jewish World. Cheaper and more productive anyway.
Bear Klein Said:
Of course we should. But Bibi didn’t even have the balls to keep metal detectors there when all reason demanded he do so. Forgetting the fact that the one-eyed grave robber will forever rot in hell (or at least I hope so) for turning over the keys to the Temple Mount in ‘67, we should of course reassert sovereignty there and the Muslims be damned. Conventional wisdom said that exerting sovereignty over the Golan would bring war, just as the moving of the US embassy to its’ rightful place in Jerusalem would, wait for it….bring war. They will scream and rattle their sabres but in the end they will do nothing. It is well past time, and it is the right and just thing to do.
Too bad we don’t have leaders worthy of that label.
The Israelis have been doing everything in their power to see that its enemies destroy the State of Israel. The giving up of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in all of Judaism, immediately after the six day war in 1967 proves this point. Why would Israel give up its holiest site to its sworn enemy, likewise saying that the Temple Mount is being run by Jordan leaves out the murderous so called Palestinians in this equation. Unless we are to believe that all of these followers of Amalek are indeed Palestinians/Jordanians rolled into one group. If that is the case, then who is Abbas and whom does he represent? The Arabs posing as Palestinians, or the Jordanians?
Israel should assert its sovereignty over the whole Temple Mount Area.
It should let the mosques residing within that territory be run by local Israeli Arab Iman’s just as they would any other mosque within the territory of Israel. Screw Jordan and Screw Saudi Arabia.
We want peace and normalization but that does not mean the hassling of Jews who want to pray or visit Judaism’s most holy site and allowing foreigners to manage part of its territory or sites.
@ Ted Belman:
I don’t mean to intrude or be offensive, but should that not be “renegotiate”, or…”change that clause”…..?? Ot does “reaffirm” mean something more than it seems, in legal terms??
@ Marjorie Stamm Rosenfeld:
Perhaps, but Mudar will reaffirm the Treaty.
Israel’s 1994 peace treaty with Jordan gives the Jordanian Waqf control of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Temple Mount in Jerusalem but also gives the Jordanian border with Israel as the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers. That puts Judea and Samaria squarely within Israel. Changing this treaty would mean foregoing Jordan’s recognition that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel.