Israel’s new Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, a leader from the far right Otzma Yehudit party, visited Mosques Square amid rising tensions around the area known to Israelis as the Temple Mount. The visit came with a firm stance: threats will not be yielded to, and the route will be secured to protect movement for all faiths while defending Jewish access at the same time.
He asserted that the site is pivotal for the Israeli people and stressed that freedom of movement should be guaranteed for Muslims and Christians alike, while promising that those who threaten stability will face a firm response. The minister also noted that times have changed and that Mosques Square should remain open to all, though he has previously advocated changes to the current status quo that restricts Jewish prayer there and limits visits to predetermined times along a fixed route, with police ensuring that prayers or displays of national symbols do not occur.
Images circulated showing Ben Gvir among Muslims near Al-Masjid al-Haram in the early hours, captured in social media posts from local observers.
The parliamentarian from Otzma Yehudit, Zvika Fogel, defended the visit, arguing that any disturbance by Hamas would be met with retaliation. Haaretz reported his claim that the move could be worth the risk because it might lead to a lasting peace where other concerns could fade away.
The entry into Mosques Square followed a cabinet decision to postpone the visit at the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Critics from the opposition warned of renewed tension with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, viewed by Israel as terrorist groups. Ben Gvir’s office later emphasized that the decision to proceed was made after security assessments and discussions with the police and Shin Bet. An official statement indicated there were no obstacles to the plan, according to coverage by a major regional newspaper.
Security officials involved in evaluating the situation argued that yielding to threats would reward terrorism and legitimize actions against Israel. Shin Bet and police had not issued a formal statement at that time.
Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid condemned the visit, suggesting that it could end badly if the government is perceived as weak and unable to restrain those who push for explosive actions in a tense area. This critique was echoed by Labor Party members who argued that the minister was prioritizing an extremist nationalist agenda over the security and stability of Israeli citizens. They cautioned about the historical and religious sensitivities tied to the site, noting its deep connections to events that shaped the region and the symbolism of the temple in the past.
international criticism
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry criticized the minister’s move as an unprecedented provocation and a serious threat to the fragile conflict landscape, urging an end to the tensions. Critics in the region also accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of enabling provocative actions. Jordan and other regional actors warned that such steps could escalate the situation and emphasized that Jordan maintains a special role in managing holy sites.
Hamas issued a formal statement condemning the security minister’s entry into the al-Aqsa precinct under protection of security forces, calling the action an aggression that would not alter Jerusalem’s Islamic history. The group asserted that the minister’s visit represented criminal behavior and highlighted fear and insecurity among occupation authorities in the face of Palestinian rights to the city and its holy sites.
In their view, resistance would continue across all parts of the country to defend lands, people, and the sanctities of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa against the occupation. The United States, represented by its ambassador, urged preservation of the status quo and signaled that deviations would not be acceptable, stating that Washington had been explicit in discussions with the Israeli government.
Jordanian officials condemned the move as an unlawful violation of Jerusalem’s historical and legal standing and warned of consequences that may follow. They underscored Jordan’s formal authority and exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of the holy places and urged Israel to halt actions that could provoke further tensions.
The broader narrative described the temple and surrounding areas as points of enduring contention since the 1967 war, with references to the special religious authority Jordan continues to exercise and the long-standing insistence on maintaining the status quo while pursuing a broader peace framework.
Israel continues to regard Jerusalem as an undivided capital, while the international community supports a two-state framework and calls for no unilateral changes to the status quo at sacred sites pending a peace agreement with Palestinian leadership. The debate over sovereignty, religious access, and security remains central to discussions about Jerusalem’s future and the region’s stability.