Warnings of a 'legal trap'.. How does the Israeli court's decision solidify sovereignty over Al-Aqsa?

The Israeli Supreme Court rejected an urgent petition filed by the extremist Temple organizations' union, demanding that settlers be allowed to storm the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque before the end of the Jewish Passover holiday. Although the decision was a rejection, legal experts see danger in the court's original acceptance to consider matters related to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is considered a تجاوز (transgression) of the existing legal and historical status quo.

This judicial move raises fundamental questions about the legality of Israeli courts' intervention in the administration of Islamic holy sites, especially since international law does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied city of Jerusalem. The occupation authorities continue to ignore international resolutions by imposing a new reality in which they consider themselves the sole decision-maker in opening and closing holy places.

In a related context, the Israeli government extended the state of emergency until mid-April, which resulted in the Islamic Endowments Department being informed of the continued closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Observers believe that this extension comes within the framework of exploiting security circumstances to impose long-term political restrictions on Muslim worshippers' entry to their mosque.

For his part, lawyer specializing in Jerusalem issues, Khaled Zabarka, explained that the mere acceptance by the Supreme Court to consider the petition carries dangerous political dimensions that go beyond the legal aspect. He pointed out that this step implicitly means the court's declaration that Al-Aqsa Mosque falls under full Israeli sovereignty, and that the occupation authorities alone have the authority to control its gates.

Zabarka stressed that any decision related to opening or closing Al-Aqsa Mosque must be exclusively in the hands of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as the internationally recognized sovereign entity through the Hashemite custodianship. He considered that ignoring the role of the Islamic Endowments Department in this petition represents a clear attempt to marginalize the historical and legal Jordanian role in Jerusalem.

Legal sources pointed out that the occupation authorities deliberately closed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre since the outbreak of the recent military confrontations, citing security and safety instructions issued by the Home Front. However, the fact that other places of worship remain open without restrictions proves that the motives behind the closure of Al-Aqsa are purely political motives aimed at imposing a new reality.

With talk of a possible de-escalation, specialists called on the Islamic Endowments Department and the Kingdom of Jordan to take the lead and initiate the announcement of opening the doors of Al-Aqsa Mosque to worshippers independently. This step is seen as an urgent necessity to restore administrative and field initiative and to thwart the occupation's attempts to link the opening of the mosque to settler incursions.

In an interpretation of the implications of the rejection, researcher Ziad Abhais believes that the court's decision did not reject the principle of incursions, but rather returned the authority to assess the situation to the extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. This means that the court is solidifying the endeavor to annex Al-Aqsa Mosque to Israeli administrative and security sovereignty, away from any considerations of international law or signed agreements.

Abhais warns of a dangerous equation that the occupation is trying to impose, which is linking the entry of Muslims to Al-Aqsa Mosque to ensuring the security of settlers during their incursions into the outer courtyards. The occupation authorities exploit the absence of shelters in the open courtyards to justify preventing worshippers, while the covered prayer halls remain safe shelters that are only used to restrict the movement of Palestinians.

For his part, academic Abdullah Maarouf indicated that the opening of Al-Aqsa Mosque in the coming period may be according to Israeli conditions aimed at establishing the concept of 'shared holy site'. Maarouf fears that the occupation seeks to return to the plans of temporal and spatial division more strictly, by allocating specific times for Muslims and others for settlers equally.

Maarouf affirmed that any announcement by the occupation to open the mosque under its own conditions cannot be considered an achievement, but rather an attempt to legitimize Israeli intervention in matters of worship. He stressed the necessity of intense and unprecedented Palestinian presence in the mosque to thwart these plans and prove the pure Islamic identity of the place away from the dictates of the occupation.

In conclusion, Al-Aqsa Mosque remains an arena for intense legal and political conflict, where extremist organizations, supported by judicial and governmental cover, seek to impose a new reality. Attention is now turning to Palestinian and Jordanian popular and diplomatic movements to confront these challenges that threaten the status quo in one of the holiest Islamic sites in the world.

The Israeli Supreme Court's acceptance to consider the petition practically means that Al-Aqsa Mosque is subject to full Israeli sovereignty in the eyes of the occupation authorities.