It was only natural for the visit of Grand Mufti of Egypt Sheikh Ali Gomaa to East Jerusalem and his prayer at the Al-Aqsa Mosque to arouse the controversy that it did among Palestinians and among Muslims in general. Such a controversy is justified by the man's religious position, and by Jerusalem's political position at the heart of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Arabs on the one hand and Israel on the other, being the promised capital of the Palestinian state and the alleged “eternal capital” of the Israeli entity. And with religion mixing with politics, talk of visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque and praying there becomes a cause for political grievances, despite agreement over the importance of the religious aspect of the visit, being a religious duty for those who have the means to find their way there. But how the way and the road to East Jerusalem is paved with every kind of landmine – most particularly the landmine of the visitor's recognition, directly or indirectly, of the sovereignty of the Israeli occupation over the city. It is true that the Mufti as an individual was able to undertake the visit without having to have his passport stamped by Israeli authorities, as the matter was arranged in coordination with Jordanian authorities and as he was accompanied by Prince Ghazi Bin Muhammad, cousin to King Abdullah II. However, an opportunity such as this is not available to millions of Arabs and Muslims, who were invited to support Jerusalem by visiting it, in order to show solidarity with its inhabitants and to assert its Arab identity, as called for by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the Jerusalem Conference held in Doha last February. This is regarding the political aspect of the matter, which is the aspect around which discussion reaches the extent of assessing the benefits which the Palestinians and their cause could gain by opening a door like this one. Indeed, if visits by Arabs and Muslims to Jerusalem had been what would decide the fate and the future of the city, then it would not have been a matter for debate. However, the ill-intentioned political exploitation of such visits is what must be paid heed to, and this is exactly what the Israelis did when they rushed to assert that the visit of the Grand Mufti of Egypt had taken place in coordination with them, despite the repeated denial of the man himself. Concerning the matter's religious aspect, the Israeli claim that the gates of all holy places in Jerusalem, and most prominently the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Resurrection (Church of the Holy Sepulchre), are open to all pilgrims and visitors is a trick well-known to the Palestinians, whom Israeli authorities deprive of visiting the mosque and praying there on Fridays except under their own conditions – in addition to the works of demolition being carried out in its vicinity, and the lawsuits concerning the Temple of Solomon underneath it. Indeed, it would have been more fitting for the Israelis to open these places to the native Palestinians first, before inviting others to visit it. All of this must drive the debate around Grand Mufti Gomaa's visit to Jerusalem to its true basis, i.e. to a debate over the political benefit and harm that such a visit could entail, especially as the position of Grand Mufti of Egypt carries greater significance than that of a purely religious position, despite the fact that the Mufti did not want to give his visit any other dimension, considering his visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque to have been “a gift from God”, as he described it. Nevertheless, the ease of some in leveling accusations of treason and in going as far as to compare the Mufti's visit to that of late President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, and their rush to wage a campaign against the Mufti accusing him of normalization, is not justified, especially as the difference between the two visits is quite apparent to those who would wish to see it. Indeed, Sadat's visit was to the Knesset, the heart of the State of Israel, and represented an undisputable recognition of it, regardless of the words spoken by Sadat at the time in his famous speech. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, on the other hand, went as a pilgrim to a place over whose religious standing in the hearts of millions of Muslims there is no disagreement. Furthermore, his visit was arranged with the Jordanian side, which is entrusted with the affairs of holy places in Jerusalem, and he also visited the Church of the Resurrection and met with a number of Muslim and Christian clerics. His visit was also welcomed by the Palestinian Authority, and the man certified that he did not meet a single Israeli during his visit.
