Al-Aqsa Mosque closure requires a collective response

The unilateral decision by Israeli police to close Al-Aqsa Mosque — Islam’s third-holiest site — has ignited a fresh wave of regional concern and international scrutiny. The measure comes at a moment of heightened tension in a city that has long been at the heart of competing religious claims. The closure of the mosque during the last 10 days of the holy month of Ramadan is unprecedented; it has not happened since the Israeli occupation began in 1967. Many are concerned that sinister motives lie behind the restrictions on worship in the large compound.

On the ground, the reality is as stark as it is troubling. Israeli security closed Al-Aqsa’s gates to worshippers during Ramadan, when access, communal prayer and collective fasting define the spiritual rhythm of millions. Israeli authorities have argued that the Old City’s holy sites must be closed because of the broader war dynamic surrounding Iran. Yet Palestinians point to a troubling inconsistency: while access to the Old City is restricted, mosques outside its walls remain open under different parameters and the wider system of movement controls continues to influence who can reach the compound.

The Al-Aqsa complex has long been managed under Hashemite custodianship, with Jordan’s waqf in day-to-day charge. The 144-dunum area of Al-Haram Al-Sharif includes mosques, a museum, other facilities and open spaces. Qur’an studies for small groups, which are traditional during Ramadan, have been banned and families are not being allowed to break their fast and hold Taraweeh prayers.

What makes this moment particularly piercing is the convergence of political rhetoric and religious symbolism

Daoud Kuttab

Worshippers are not only denied entry but all Palestinians except those who can show police ID cards proving residency in the Old City are barred. Even family members wanting to check on aged or sick relatives are barred, while Israeli Jews face no restrictions or requests for ID cards when entering the Old City.

In the Arab world, foreign ministers and senior regional bodies frame the closure not merely as a local security tactic but as a test of the norms protecting sacred spaces in Jerusalem and, more broadly, as a challenge to the rights of worship across faiths. Their message is clear: sacred spaces should shield worshippers, not be pawns in a political contest.

The outcry did not stop at ministerial statements. The general secretariat of the Arab League issued a formal expression of deep concern that continuing closures threaten the freedom of worship and destabilize Jerusalem’s delicate sacred order. In a joint demarche, the secretariats of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League and the African Union Commission affirmed Jerusalem’s central religious status and condemned the closures as grave violations of international law and the status quo. They stressed that Israel has no sovereignty over East Jerusalem or its sacred sites and warned that such actions risk escalating tensions and destabilizing the region’s fragile dynamics.

What makes this moment particularly piercing is the convergence of political rhetoric and religious symbolism. Public discourse within Israel occasionally entertains extreme narratives about altering or even destroying the Al-Aqsa precinct, rhetoric that Arabs and Muslims view as an unacceptable escalation with potential cross-border repercussions.

The risk is not only about a physical act but about the way language and policy can erode trust, inflame communities and undermine prospects for a sustainable peace. The closures — perceived by many as a selective enforcement of access — also highlight broader questions about governance, sovereignty and who sets the terms of worship in a city claimed by multiple faiths.

In response, regional leaders have signaled that condemnation must translate into action. Arab foreign ministers and regional blocs are urged to pursue a coordinated path that reinforces the principle of unimpeded worship for all faith communities in Jerusalem. This entails not only robust diplomatic engagement but also transparent explanations of security measures and assurances that such measures will not become a precedent for eroding religious freedoms. It calls for reaffirming the custodianship model in a manner that genuinely engages credible religious authorities and local communities, ensuring that security considerations do not eclipse the spiritual obligations and rights of worshippers.

The broader implication is clear: the world is watching how the region balances security, sovereignty and sacred space in a city revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Condemnations from Jordan, the Arab League, the OIC and the African Union, backed by a coalition of states including the UAE, Turkiye and Egypt, reflect a shared commitment to safeguarding the integrity of Jerusalem’s holy sites and to upholding international law. These statements are more than political posturing; they are a call for accountability and a reaffirmation that religious freedoms are not negotiable, even amid shifting geopolitical sands.

The world is watching how the region balances security, sovereignty and sacred space in a city revered by multiple faiths

Daoud Kuttab

The closure’s human consequences extend beyond Muslims. Christians, preparing for Holy Week and Easter, fear that the disruption could spill over to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which is closely tied to Jerusalem’s Christian communities’ spiritual calendar. The reluctance of worshippers to participate in Holy Fire ceremonies or Easter services would reverberate across the world, as churches look forward to receiving the light coming from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

Orthodox Christian voices, including Archbishop Atallah Hanna, underscore that war and fasting intensify the longing to pray in sacred places. They remind observers that denying access to Al-Aqsa and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher risks inflaming a multifaith urban mosaic that is already strained by conflict.

Condemnations from across the Arab and Muslim worlds have been swift and united, underscoring a shared conviction that security concerns cannot justify eroding long-standing protections for worship. A bloc of eight states — most notably the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt — pointed to the closure as a violation of international norms that disregards the principle of free worship.

Jordanian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Fouad Al-Majali described the measure as a flagrant breach of international law, the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem, and the unimpeded right to worship. The message from Amman was unambiguous: Israel’s actions not only create a Palestinian grievance but are a broader affront to a shared commitment to religious freedom under international norms.

Ultimately, the test is whether regional leaderships can translate these condemnations into a sustained, practical framework for protecting worship. This means a credible dialogue that calls for proper enforcement of access rights and a refusal to permit security narratives to eclipse the spiritual needs of worshippers. It means preventing future measures that turn a place of prayer into a theater for political contest or a metric of regional power. And it requires steadfast support for all people of faith in a city whose significance transcends borders.

• Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. He is the author of “State of Palestine Now: Practical and Logical Arguments for the Best Way to Bring Peace to the Middle East.” X: @daoudkuttab