Itamar Ben-Gvir's Al Aqsa rhetoric must not be normalised

This week’s incendiary comments by Israeli Cabinet minister Itamar Ben-Gvir that he would like to see a synagogue built at Al Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem were met with condemnation across the region. The UAE Foreign Ministry denounced Mr Ben-Gvir’s statement as “serious and provocative”, while the Muslim Council of Elders said it was a "violation of international laws and UN resolutions" that preserve the site's legal and historical status. Jordan called it “incitement” and Saudi Arabia said it was extremist. Even some leading Israelis were unhappy, with Defence Minister Yoav Gallant accusing Mr Ben-Gvir of endangering national security – a particularly pointed criticism given that this is his fellow minister’s portfolio . In reality, Mr Ben Gvir’s outrageous remarks are not out of character. Twice this year, the US government has publicly criticised him – in January for his call that Palestinians be displaced from Gaza and in August after a visit to the Al Aqsa complex that the State Department said “demonstrated blatant disregard for the historic status quo with respect to the holy sites in Jerusalem”. Such repeated irresponsibility must not be normalised. Jordan’s historic role to administer Al Aqsa and other holy sites in Jerusalem is a rare – if imperfect – example of a workable solution in this conflict. As such, swift international rejection of Mr Ben-Gvir’s divisive remarks is important because it makes clear that there are still some red lines that must not be crossed. However, Palestinians understand that the rhetoric used by Mr Ben-Gvir and other ultranationalist Israelis is just an unfiltered version of long-running attempts to undermine Jerusalem’s historic diversity. Over the years, Israeli authorities have repeatedly imposed restrictions on Muslim worship at Al Aqsa. Christians in the city have reported being accosted on the street by radical Jewish Israelis and have had their businesses, churches and graveyards vandalised. Palestinian homes are frequently demolished or taken over; in April, the long-running legal saga over the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood was reignited by a Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court decision that the Palestinian Diab family be evicted. Sheikh Jarrah has also attracted the attention of Mr Ben-Gvir who in October 2022 was filmed pulling a gun during disturbances in the area. These are acute examples of the pressures faced by non-Jewish communities in Jerusalem. Less visible, but no less damaging, are chronic inequalities in political and social rights. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in annexed East Jerusalem are regarded as residents, not citizens , so can vote only in municipal elections. According to Israel NGO, B’Tselem, “permanent residency confers fewer rights than citizenship”. Although it is tempting to dismiss Mr Ben-Gvir’s comments as extremist rhetoric, the history of ultra-nationalism in Israel shows that such ideas can lead to dangerous confrontation. Indeed, the Israeli settler movement – going back to the outposts built in the occupied Sinai Peninsula from 1967 to 1982 – has repeatedly made clear its intention to control and dominate the land it believes belongs to Israel. The rights of people already living on that land are secondary, if they are even a consideration at all. The UAE is right when it says Jordan’s role in managing what is often a difficult situation should be respected “in accordance with international law and the historical status quo”. The fact that Ramadan and Eid celebrations at Al Aqsa passed relatively peacefully this year, despite the fury caused by Israel’s war in Gaza, shows what can be achieved with pragmatism and restraint. Sadly, these are two things that hardliners cannot abide by.