Eight foreign ministers condemned Israeli settler actions at Al-Aqsa Mosque in a joint statement on June 2, calling the incursions and the raising of an Israeli flag inside the compound’s courtyards a violation of international law and of the long-standing status quo at the holy sites in occupied East Jerusalem. The United Arab Emirates released the text from Abu Dhabi.
The statement does something more specific than condemn. It sets out, in plain legal terms, who is allowed to run the 144-dunam compound (roughly 35 acres), and the answer it gives is Jordan, not the Palestinians and not Israel.
Eight Foreign Ministers Put Their Names to One Page
The ministers of the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar signed together, and the text went out through the joint statement published by the UAE foreign ministry. They condemned what they described as continued incursions by extremist Israeli settlers into the mosque, known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary), carried out under the protection of Israeli forces.
The wording runs harder than the usual diplomatic boilerplate. The ministers call the actions a flagrant breach of international law, of United Nations resolutions, and of the historical and legal status quo in occupied East Jerusalem. They warn that repeated violations fuel instability and extremism and undercut peace efforts, and they hold Israeli authorities responsible for stopping them.
The statement closes on the wider conflict. It reaffirms support for a sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital, a two-state outcome, and the Arab Peace Initiative. That part is familiar. The part that gives the document its teeth is narrower, and it concerns who holds the keys to the gates.
Why Jordan, Not Palestine, Administers the Compound
The statement’s most consequential sentence is an administrative one. The ministers spell out the body they say has sole authority over the site:
The Jerusalem Endowments and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department, affiliated with the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, is the legal entity with exclusive jurisdiction to administer the affairs of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif and to regulate entry thereto.
That points squarely at Amman. To readers following Jerusalem only through the Israeli-Palestinian frame, it can be a surprise that a third government runs the day-to-day affairs of Islam’s third-holiest site. It does, and the arrangement is older than most of the states that signed the statement.
From a 1924 Pledge to a 1994 Treaty
The role traces back to 1924, when the Supreme Muslim Council accepted Sharif Hussein bin Ali, head of the Hashemite family, as custodian of the Jerusalem shrines. It passed down through the Jordanian monarchy. The Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem’s holy sites was later written into international agreements, most importantly the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty, in which Israel acknowledged Jordan’s special role at the Muslim holy places in the city. A 2013 agreement between Jordan and the Palestinian leadership on the Jerusalem holy sites reaffirmed it again, with President Mahmoud Abbas recognising King Abdullah II’s authority to defend the sites.
What the Waqf Runs Day to Day
On the ground, the work falls to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, the endowment body funded and staffed largely through Jordan. A waqf is an Islamic religious endowment, and this one employs the guards, imams and maintenance crews, manages repairs to the mosques and the plaza, and decides who walks through the gates as a worshipper. Israel controls the perimeter and security around the compound, but the inside is meant to be the Waqf’s. That split is the heart of what the statement defends, and it is the exact line the dispute now runs along.
The Status Quo, in 144 Dunams
The arrangement the ministers keep invoking has a name: the status quo. It is an unwritten set of customs governing the compound that predates Israel’s 1967 occupation of East Jerusalem and that Israel formally recognised after the war. You can read the long version in the Arab Center Washington’s account of the history of Jerusalem’s status quo arrangement. The short version is a division of labour, and a single rule that sits underneath everything: the whole site is a Muslim place of worship, and non-Muslims may visit but not pray.
| Function | Under the 1967 status quo | What the ministers say is happening |
|---|---|---|
| Internal administration | Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, under Jordan | Waqf authority sidelined |
| Perimeter security | Israeli forces | Forces escorting settler groups in |
| Non-Muslim visits | Permitted during set hours | Expanded hours and group sizes |
| Non-Muslim prayer | Not permitted on site | Public Jewish prayer increasingly tolerated |
| Right to regulate entry | Waqf decides | Police set visitation rules |
The reason the statement keeps repeating the figure of 144 dunams is that the number defines the whole compound, including the silver-domed Qibli mosque, the gold Dome of the Rock and every courtyard and wall between them. By naming the area and the Waqf’s exclusive jurisdiction in one breath, the ministers are rejecting any reading that treats part of the plaza as open ground where prayer rules can be renegotiated.
What Israel Has Changed on the Ground
Statements like this are not issued in a vacuum. They follow a month in which the customs above were tested openly, and they land days after reporting that the custodianship itself may be on a negotiating table.
A May of Mass Raids
Through May, Israeli ministers and lawmakers led large groups into the compound. One member of the Knesset called for the mosque to be demolished and a Jewish temple built in its place. Police blocked Palestinian worshippers while facilitating settler entry ahead of the annual Flag March through the Old City. According to figures cited in regional coverage, plans floated a single-session capacity of around 150 visitors, a level that would cut Muslim access by more than 99 percent during those windows. Jordan condemned a settler incursion on May 31, two days before the eight-nation text.
A Reported Push to Rotate Control
Sitting behind the protests is a bigger claim. Middle East Eye, a London-based news outlet, reported in late May that the United States and Israel were “actively working” to end Jordan’s custodianship and replace it with a new structure aligned with Israeli interests. The report, sourced to officials briefed on the talks, described a proposal for rotational oversight of the compound shared among several Arab states, with Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco and the UAE said to have been briefed. The same report said Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Jordan, opposed the idea, and that a Jordanian official insisted Amman’s position “remains firm.” Israel and Washington have not confirmed the plan, and it should be read as reporting rather than settled fact. It still explains the timing. The eight ministers who, in a separate track, have pressed Washington to head off Israeli strikes in Gaza were closing a door before anyone could ask them to walk through it.
Reading the Signatory List
The eight names are worth reading slowly, because they cut across a fault line that usually divides this region. Four of the signatories have formal diplomatic relations with Israel; four do not, yet all eight put their names to the same page.
- Jordan – the custodian, and the party with the most to lose.
- Egypt – at peace with Israel since 1979, and a co-mediator on Gaza.
- United Arab Emirates – normalised ties under the 2020 Abraham Accords, and reportedly among the states briefed on the rotation idea.
- Türkiye – maintains diplomatic relations with Israel despite repeated ruptures.
- Saudi Arabia – no formal ties with Israel, and reported to oppose any change to the custodianship.
- Qatar – no formal ties, and a lead broker in Gaza ceasefire talks.
- Pakistan – does not recognise Israel.
- Indonesia – the world’s largest Muslim-majority state, with no recognition of Israel.
That the UAE signed a defense of Jordan’s role while reportedly being walked through a plan to dilute it tells you how sensitive the file is. The statement was also lodged at the United Nations, circulated through the world body’s Question of Palestine documentation on the joint statement, which keeps the legal claim on the record. The same grouping of capitals has been coordinating elsewhere too, from Gaza to the quieter diplomacy where Qatar and Egypt backed Pakistan’s US-Iran mediation track.
The Christian Sites Left Out of the Plan
One detail in the custodianship debate gets little attention, and it matters for far more than the mosque. Jordan’s role in Jerusalem covers Christian holy places as well, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Ascension, and Amman holds an effective say over the appointment of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Officials briefed on the reported rotation plan said it was silent on what would happen to those Christian sites.
For King Abdullah II, the custodianship is also a pillar of legitimacy at home, where Jordan’s population is heavily Palestinian and where Jerusalem is a defining national issue. Losing it would not only reshape who controls a 144-dunam plaza; it would weaken the monarchy’s standing across the Muslim and Christian worlds at once.
The eight ministers issued a statement, not a sanction. It carries no enforcement and changes nothing on the plaza by itself. What it does is put a legal claim on the record, the same one Jordan has held since 1924, and leave the next move to Israel.
