US-Israel plan sparks fears over Al-Aqsa custodianship changes
Report claims Israel may gain greater oversight of Al-Aqsa
U.S., Israel Reportedly Seek New Administration for Al‑Aqsa; Palestinians and Jordan Push Back
A reported US‑ and Israeli‑backed proposal to overhaul the administration of Jerusalem’s Al‑Aqsa compound — potentially displacing Jordan’s long‑standing custodial role — has stirred fresh controversy across the region, according to multiple Middle East and Western sources cited by Middle East Eye. The plan, which critics say would fundamentally reshape access and governance at one of the world’s most sensitive holy sites, underscores how diplomatic initiatives intended to reconfigure regional ties can collide with deep‑rooted political and religious realities.
Sources told MEE that the initiative aims to replace the Jordanian‑supervised Islamic Waqf with a new authority backed by Israel and promoted by senior US envoys, including Jared Kushner and the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Under the reported framework, the compound would be recast as a shared religious destination open to followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism — and allow an expanded Jewish presence including organised prayer visits. Israeli officials would reportedly gain a greater role in approving appointments of imams, preachers and senior mosque staff, and would oversee sermon‑related matters.
Washington, the report said, had circulated a draft vision for the site that framed it as an inclusive spiritual hub designed to normalise interfaith access. Bahraini, Moroccan and Egyptian officials were reportedly briefed on the idea; Saudi Arabia, MEE reported, opposed moves that could inflame regional tensions. Palestinian leaders and Jordanian officials — both directly implicated — reacted with alarm.
Palestinian representatives described the proposal as an attempt to dilute Al‑Aqsa’s Islamic character and alter the delicate status quo that has governed the site for decades. Jordan, whose Hashemite monarchy has acted as custodian of Jerusalem’s Muslim holy places since the 1920s and whose role was reaffirmed in the 1994 peace treaty with Israel, publicly rejected any plan to cede control. A Jordanian government official reiterated that Amman’s custodianship is protected under international agreements.
Following publication of the report, a US official issued an unambiguous denial, calling claims that Washington sought to end Jordan’s custodianship “totally false.” The terse rebuke did little to quiet voices in Jerusalem and Ramallah, where the symbolic and political stakes of any administrative change are enormous.
Al‑Aqsa’s significance is both spiritual and geopolitical. Located in Jerusalem’s Old City, the compound houses the Al‑Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and is revered by Muslims as Islam’s third‑holiest site; Muslims believe the Prophet Muhammad made his night journey and ascended to heaven from there. For Jews, the mount — known as the Temple Mount — is the historic site of the two ancient Jewish temples, making it central to religious memory and nationalist politics. Since 1967, the Islamic Waqf has overseen religious affairs, while Israeli authorities control security and entry around the complex. Non‑Muslim visitors can enter under restricted conditions but are not permitted to carry out prayers.
Analysts say any attempt to alter the balance between religious administration and security control risks igniting widespread unrest. The history of Jerusalem is punctuated by episodes where changes — or even perceived changes — at holy sites have precipitated mass protests, violence and diplomatic crises. For Palestinians, Jerusalem remains the heart of national aspirations; for Jordan, custodianship is both a religious duty and a pillar of regional influence.
Opponents counter that sidelining established religious authorities and reshaping appointments would amount to an erosion of Muslim rights at a site central to Palestinian identity.
The episode highlights the tightrope diplomats walk when attempting to fold local, religiously charged issues into broader geopolitical packages. Whether the reported proposal was a concrete plan or a negotiation starting point, its public circulation has already forced regional actors to recalibrate positions and has underscored the sensitivity of any policy that touches Jerusalem’s sacred landscape.