Kerry and the legitimacy of the desecration of Al-Aqsa

It is difficult for anyone to argue the United States is not a party within the Arab-Israeli conflict especially in light of its indisputable bias in favour of the occupation against Palestinian national rights and for its direct role in providing Israel with various types of advanced weapons. At the same time, the US continuously works towards ensuring that the Palestinians are deprived of bullets.

The Arabs have tried to negotiate with America for decades, and with the exception of a few Arab countries who continue their orbit around the White House, as if it were the sun, the majority of Arab countries now realise that the US is not a suitable mediator and it is perhaps more suitable to search for another party to mediate the conflict if, of course, a mediator is inevitable.

The role of the US has been made loud and clear over the course of the past few days due to the work of US Secretary of State John Kerry in his efforts to contain the Palestinian uprising in the face of the military occupation, which has been the Palestinian public response in defence of Al- Aqsa Mosque and a blatant rejection of Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territories. Kerry recently announced the emergence of a potential agreement between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jordan’s King Abdullah II with regards to setting up cameras in Al-Aqsa’s courtyards, an Islamic holy site that people of other faiths could visit.

It is a well known fact that the UN adopted various resolutions in the General Assembly in their effort to maintain the historical status quo in Jerusalem and it has called upon Israel numerous times to respect the legitimacy of these international resolutions as they aim to protect the territories that fall under the military occupation. The UN has also insisted upon maintaining the status and categorisation of the sites and has wholly rejected any attempt to disturb the status quo at these sites. Meanwhile, Israel refuses to recognise any of the General Assembly’s resolutions, which were all opposed by the US for Israel’s sake.

While it is true that the US presidential administration has until this point not taken any steps towards officially considering Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the US Congress has vocalised its belief that it considers the holy city to be the capital of the Zionist entity and has since asked the executive branch of the government for permission to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Congress does not miss an opportunity to express its antagonism towards the Palestinian people or to exploit their standing.

Until now, the international community has played a role in protecting Al-Aqsa Mosque and the rest of the Islamic and Christian holy sites in general; however, it has not been out of love for the Palestinians or the Arabs but more so out of fear of an outpour of violence in the region. Colonial countries, including the United States and European countries, are only worried about their regional interests and the harmful impact that an outbreak of violence can have on their standing, especially in terms of economics and internal security. Western countries are invested in the concept of stability for Israel’s benefit because a lack of stability in the region will in turn affect the manner in which citizens in Israel react and how safe they feel. If citizens feel as though they are not safe and secure then many of them will in turn start to think about leaving the land of Palestine and that is what the majority of western states fear.

The possibility of demolishing Al-Aqsa or dividing it, whether literally or temporally, would lead to major instability as we have seen as of late with the Palestinian uprising. This outcome, in turn, explains the amount of pressure that Western countries are placing on Israel to avoid allowing the escalation of violence surrounding the events in Jerusalem and the holy sites. Many do not know that the British used to prevent Jews from praying near the Wailing Wall out of fear that a religious war would break out between the Jews and the Arabs. Britain enforced this decision in 1929 when many Jews attempted to pray at the wall. At that point in time, clashes broke out between the Jews and the Arabs leading to the death of hundreds of people and the violence would have continued were it not for the efforts put forward by Palestinian officials to bring an end to the violence by mobilising a movement against British forces who were attempting to control Palestine in front of the world.

However, what we are witnessing now is that the international community is giving Israel a great gift by supporting its decision to allow non-Muslims to worship in Al-Aqsa Mosque and at the sites in the surrounding courtyard. It should be the Palestinians who get to decide, out of their own will, who is entitled to visit the Islamic holy sites and who is not but all of these agreements ignore the desires of the Palestinian people and put the decision in the hands of countries like the United States and Israel. This is highly disappointing, as the Palestinians had begun to mobilise in defence of the holy sites and the mosque. The recent words of Secretary Kerry expressed the US’s belief that settlers should be allotted the maximum freedoms to visit the holy sites without Palestinian intervention. Kerry went on to say that he believed that Jewish visits to the holy sites should be internationally protected.

Kerry’s words allowed for a new step to be taken in the international arena, one that would classify Al-Aqsa Mosque as an Islamic and Jewish site or maybe even a Jewish only site in the future. The mosque could potentially face the same fate as Palestine itself. Palestine was historically Arab in the beginning then changed to become Arab and Jewish at the same time and later as exclusively Jewish, at least in the eyes of the US. If Kerry accepts Netanyahu’s agreement, the international support for maintaining the status quo will change and Israel will implement the same policies in Al-Aqsa Mosque as it did in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and the rest of the West Bank. Gradually, we are witnessing the achievement of Zionist goals without the fear of a strong Palestinian reaction. The Palestinians have slowly learnt to accept the status of Israel and the need for its security but they cannot recognise their desire to dominate Al-Aqsa Mosque. This is a serious matter that must be rejected through words and actions. The Palestinians must continue to condemn such actions and denounce them.

As for the alleged security cameras that will be installed in Al-Aqsa’s courtyard, they would undoubtedly be under Zionist control and would therefore exclude Palestinians from Israel’s monopoly over all of the sites. For this reason, it is essential that the Palestinians arm themselves with sufficient awareness and do not allow themselves to be influence by American pressure, whether political or financial.

Finally, it must once again be noted that it was countries with colonial histories that allowed for the creation of the Zionist entity and contributed to the displacement of the Palestinian people from their homeland. Despite the fact that many of these countries voted for the Right of Return in the General Assembly’s Resolution 194, they have maintained silence on this issue as a whole. They consider the Right of Return as an expired good and have left the Palestinian refugees to fend for themselves. In short, the countries that consider themselves the international community are not trustworthy and if Palestinians want to deal with things on the international level they must work through the international community via the UN General Assembly. There is no other way.

Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 28 October 2015

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.