There is a lot of discussion in the media and various studies related to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque about the concept of "the status quo" or "the current situation," and the necessity of preserving it in the holy places in Jerusalem, foremost of which is the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. However, many people do not understand the meaning of this term, its dimensions, and the extent of its danger. Some believe it to be a media or political term with no real applications on the ground, while others dismiss this term and think it is merely a manipulation of words, calling for its disregard when discussing Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The media and various studies related to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque often discuss the concept of "the status quo" or "the current situation," and the need to preserve it in the holy places of Jerusalem, foremost of which is the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. However, many people do not understand the meaning of this term, its implications, or its gravity. Some believe it to be merely a media or political term with no practical applications on the ground; indeed, some dismiss it and think it is simply a manipulation of words, calling for it to be ignored when discussing Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The truth is that the concept of "the status quo" is a fundamental issue in the legal handling of the case of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. No matter what we say or do, the occupying state remains concerned with its legal and media classification in the world. This matter is considered crucial in its appeal for assistance from the international community. Many may not be aware that the occupying state, for instance, still legally relies before the world on the United Nations Resolution No. (181) of 1947, which called for the partition of Palestine. The occupying state considers this resolution a legal basis that grants it legitimacy. Therefore, attention should be paid to how these terms are dealt with and understanding their applications on the ground.
The term "status quo" is a legal term derived from Latin, meaning "the state of things as they are." Practically, it implies that when any force occupies a certain area, the occupying power should maintain the conditions as they were before its arrival. This principle applies to many sites in occupied territories, but the most important and critical among them are places of religious, historical, and archaeological significance.
If we apply this concept to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, it means that the occupying power is obligated under international law to maintain the conditions in Al-Aqsa Mosque as they were before its occupation, specifically before the date of June 7, 1967, which is the date when East Jerusalem, including the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, fell under the control of the current occupation.
This is from a principled perspective. If we apply this principle as it should be applied, we find that the situation at the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque before the date of occupation was that it was under Jordanian sovereignty and managed by the Jordanian Islamic Waqf Department. Legally speaking, no one other than Muslims had the right to enter the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, whether for visitation or otherwise. The right to allow anyone to enter the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque was solely held by the Jordanian Islamic Waqf.
According to this scientific and practical definition of the term "status quo" and its applications, no one from the occupying forces, settlers, or even those referred to as "visitors" and "tourists" is entitled to enter the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque without special approval and arrangement from the Islamic Waqf Department. This does not imply that these visitors or tourists have any right to enter "Al-Aqsa.
However, the occupation authorities give a different definition of the current situation. They rely on a claim made by one of their historians, whose name is Nadia Sharagai, who alleged that during the year of the occupation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the then Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan entered Al-Aqsa Mosque and met with the Islamic authorities, agreeing with them that Muslims have the right to pray in "Al-Aqsa," while Jews have the right to visit without praying! Thus, he claimed a right for Jews to enter the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. Interestingly, when Sharagai made this claim, he relied on the testimony of an Israeli soldier who accompanied Moshe Dayan, and amusingly, that soldier did not even know the Arabic language at all! This matter is extremely strange and illustrates that the occupation authorities invented and asserted this story to establish a primary right for themselves in the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.
This manipulation was the start of the story. When the "Wadi Araba" peace agreement was signed between Jordan and the occupying state, the agreement stated that the occupying state respects Jordan's special role in the "holy sites" in Jerusalem. This phrase limited Jordan's role to the buildings and not the sites, and thus it did not apply to the entire area of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, but rather to the holy buildings within it, which, according to the occupation's definition, are confined to the Dome of the Rock and the Qibli Mosque.
The occupying state did the same in 2015 with what was known as the "Kerry Understandings," where it established a phrase stating: "Muslims have the right to pray, and Jews have the right to visit" in Al-Aqsa Mosque. This was the most dangerous manipulation that occurred during that period regarding this term. Now, it is coming out to reveal its true face and claims that Jews have the right to pray in the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, attempting to establish a new concept of the current status!
This term is important in dealing with the issue of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque legally. However, it is always necessary, when using it, to clarify and establish the term in minds, discussions, and documents to mean maintaining the status quo as it was before the occupation in 1967. By doing so, we close the door on the occupation's manipulation of words, and we can present our cause to the world in a way they understand, leaving no one with a valid argument against our defense of Al-Aqsa and the night journey of our Prophet, neither legally nor politically. Even with modern legal terminology, the truth is too clear to be obscured by these people with a sieve.
------------------------------------------
Sources:
- Cambridge Dictionary.
- Report on the Status of Jerusalem in International Law: Ramallah, Negotiations Affairs Department, 2011.
- Abdullah Ma'ruf, the Eastern Region of the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Zionist movement project, Turkish Vision Magazine, 2022.
Read the article in Arabic
