FOLLOWING three days of clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque compound between Israeli police and Arab protesters, tensions remain high. Dozens of Palestinians have clashed with the Israeli forces around the mosque, throwing stones at police who had used stun grenades on protesters to enter the compound, one of the most sensitive sites in one of the most sensitive cities. The latest violence was provoked by the entry of Jewish extremists into the compound, among them Israeli Agriculture Minister Uriel Ariel and, at the same time, the banning of two Muslim groups which confront Jewish visitors to the compound, this one led by Israel Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, who claimed the groups were the main source of tension and violence at the site. Following this two-pronged strategy, dozens of members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud Party entered the compound escorted by heavily armed Israeli forces. The truth is that these incursions going on in the compound while keeping Muslims out of it are aimed, as a preliminary step, at changing the longstanding status quo at the mosque. Although Netanyahu has repeatedly said he has no intention of doing so, Israel is seeking to change the rules governing the site. These incursions are part of an increasingly aggressive strategy aimed at an eventual takeover of the compound by Israeli groups intent on bringing down the mosque and even building a Jewish temple in its place. East Jerusalem, especially Haram Al-Sharif, is considered one of the most difficult issues — if not the most difficult — of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, owing to its religious and emotional dimension. Israel occupied the city from Jordan in 1967, but since then has carried out intensive and far-reaching changes to the landscape, including building numerous Jewish settlements and bringing in hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers to live in the occupied town. While Israel insists that East Jerusalem is an integral part of its “eternal and undivided” capital, Palestinians and the rest of the Arab-Muslim world insist East Jerusalem must be the capital of a future Palestinian state. In recent years, and with the rise of right-wing Jewish parties in Israel this year in particular, the Israeli government has sought to slowly but definitively impose Israeli sovereignty over the area. Given what is at stake, the international neglect of what Israel is doing in Jerusalem is alarming. The UN special coordinator for the Middle East warned the Security Council that the recent events had the potential to ignite violence well beyond the walls of the Old City. But Nickolay Mladenov failed to call for the occupying power to be held accountable. The EU issued one of its typically weak statements, also failing to call a spade a spade. And the US administration came up with its “deep concern”, a phrase Washington uses routinely to criticize Israeli actions, such as the expansion of Israeli settlements. But in every past case it has meant, in practice, that the US will do absolutely nothing to restrain the Israeli aggressions it is condemning. Israel is testing the limits of what it can get away with; apparently it can get away with a lot. Israel seems hell-bent on changing the rules of the game at Haram Al-Sharif. But any tinkering on Israel's part with the status quo would be a game-changer and might well tear all peace efforts to smithereens. No peace efforts or peace agreement would survive any provocative Israeli measure, such as allowing Jews to pray at the Muslim sanctuary. That could spark off Intifada No 3, which Israel, with all its brute force, will not be able to put down. There is probably no other Middle East issue with the potential of galvanizing and electrifying people's emotions.
