Under international law, East Jerusalem (including the Old City and its holy sites) are not legally part of Israel.
The Israeli government took note of the statement issued by the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs, which condemned an Israeli court’s decision to allow extremists to perform rites in the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The Israeli government gave attention to the statement issued by the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs, which also condemned an Israeli court’s decision to allow extremists to perform rituals in the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.
For Jordan’s sake, and for the sake of the PA, the Israeli government decided to appeal to the Israeli courts against the court’s decision, which allowed Jewish extremists to perform Jewish rites in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Did the Israeli government’s decision ease Jordan’s anger and reassure the PA’s concern?
Are Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque an internal Israeli affair, brought before the Israeli courts, and are they authorised to look into cases of dispute?
Discussing the issue of Jerusalem in the corridors of Israeli courts confirms the official Israeli recognition that everything related to Jerusalem is an internal Israeli affair, and neither Jordan nor the PA has the right to interfere in it.
Therefore, the Israeli government itself will challenge the court’s decision, and work to issue a judicial decision that does not allow Jewish extremists to pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Does this end the matter?
Does the issuance of a decision by the Israeli judiciary banning Jewish prayers in Al-Aqsa Mosque comfort the Arab leaders?
Certainly not, because Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa Mosque are a Palestinian, Arab and Islamic affair, and they are a political and national issue that the Israeli judiciary has nothing to do with.
Jordan, in its capacity as guardian over the holy sites, and the PA, in its capacity as the party responsible for the Jerusalem issue, which has been postponed until the final phase of the Oslo Accords which ended in 1999, should have both rejected the issue of Jerusalem becoming an internal Israeli affair by demanding a formal UN Security Council meeting and rejected all means of the Israeli judiciary’s interference in the affairs of Jerusalem.
Moreover, the Arab masses should have been mobilized by calling for an emergency meeting for the Arab League and a joint session between the Jordanian Parliament and the Palestinian National Council to make the appropriate decisions that guarantee the “Islamic-ness” of Jerusalem and the “Palestinian-ness” of the land, etc.
It would be a political sin for Jordan and Palestine’s reaction to such Judaization decision to be condemnation and denunciation.
As of now, the entire nation is waiting for a firm stance from Jordan and the PA, a stance that matches the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and reaches the point of severing relations, withdrawing ambassadors, and halting security coordination and cooperation.
This would help in strengthening the position of the Palestinian resistance, which has clearly and explicitly declared that it will fight back and engage in a battle to defend the sanctities with all of its might, even if it must pay the price for this dearly.