At a time when the region is preoccupied with the ongoing war, and as Palestinians face the complete closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque and are prevented from accessing it since mid Ramadan under the pretext of security conditions, while being suppressed at Bab al-Sahira in Jerusalem, intense efforts are taking place behind the scenes in the Israeli Knesset to accelerate the approval and enforcement of what is known as the “Western Wall Law” (Al-Buraq Wall). This law is expected to have far-reaching consequences in asserting control over Al-Aqsa Mosque, without provoking public attention, potentially becoming a reality even before the current war is declared over.
Before analysing the motives behind the passage of this law and its recent developments, it is necessary to understand its dimensions and meaning. At its core, it constitutes an amendment to the 1967 Law on Holy Places, which stipulated respect for holy sites and prohibited their desecration. This concept, however, refers specifically to the Jewish religious interpretation of “desecration”, which centres on sites considered sacred within Jewish belief.
What is new in this proposal is that it grants the official Chief Rabbinate of Israel exclusive authority to interpret the meaning of “desecration” of Jewish holy sites, making it the sole المرجعية in this context.
The reason it is associated with the Al-Buraq Wall lies in its emergence amid internal conflict between traditional Jewish religious groups, represented by right-wing Haredi parties, and leaders of Reform Jewish movements, some of which lean toward the left and centre-left. These groups advocate for granting women broader space to pray at the Al-Buraq Wall, both geographically and practically, instead of the currently limited designated area, which is rejected by traditional Haredi religious authorities on religious grounds.
The law currently under discussion in the Knesset passed its preliminary reading on 25 February and has since been under review and debate within the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, chaired by Knesset member Simcha Rothman of the Religious Zionism Party, led by the extremist Bezalel Smotrich.
However, new indications from unofficial reports emerging from Knesset corridors suggest that the legislation has already been approved within the committee and is on its way to the Knesset for final readings to become enforceable law. The only factor delaying this process appears to be the disruption caused by air raid sirens in Jerusalem, which partially hinder Knesset operations.
The rapid progress of this legislation appears natural given the broad support it receives from Haredi parties such as United Torah Judaism and Shas, as well as Religious Zionism factions like Smotrich’s party and the Jewish Power party led by Itamar Ben-Gvir.
It is clear that the review and approval process of the law has not been significantly affected by the ongoing war. Procedures are advancing at full pace toward final voting, especially considering that the Constitution Committee consists of 17 members, including its chair, of whom 10 belong to the ruling far-right coalition, 3 to right-wing opposition parties, and only 4 are aligned with the left.
This means the law already enjoys the backing of at least 10 members within the committee, explaining the speed of its advancement.
The proposal was introduced by Avi Maoz, the sole Knesset member representing the religious Noam Party, one of the factions within the Religious Zionism current.
Despite holding only one seat in the Knesset, the party secured a comfortable majority during the preliminary vote, due to the convergence of interests between Haredi and Religious Zionist right-wing factions.
The rapid movement of the law within the Constitution Committee appears to reflect Maoz’s influence among his ideological allies, including committee chair Simcha Rothman.
Thus, the driving force behind this law from beginning to end is in fact the Religious Zionism current, rather than the traditional Haredi factions.
This presents a notable paradox. The Religious Zionism movement is known within Israeli right-wing circles for opposing the decisions of the official state Rabbinate and for seeking to establish its own religious authority composed of West Bank rabbis, commonly referred to in Israel as the “New Sanhedrin Council”, a body of settlement rabbis dissatisfied with the traditionally cautious rulings of the Chief Rabbinate.
This council adopts interpretations of religious texts that are more radical in politicising religious rulings.
One of the clearest examples of the fundamental disagreement between the two sides concerns incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque. The official Chief Rabbinate of Israel continues to uphold the position that Jews are prohibited from entering the entire compound of Al-Aqsa Mosque, referred to by them as the “Temple Mount”, due to the absence of ritual purity from what is termed “impurity of the dead”, which can only be resolved through the “miracle” of the appearance of a red heifer meeting specific conditions, to be slaughtered and burned in prescribed rituals, with its ashes used for purification.
In contrast, the New Sanhedrin Council affiliated with Religious Zionism adopts a different interpretation, permitting Jews to enter the Al-Aqsa compound while restricting access to the area of the Noble Rock and preventing approach to the rock itself, which is considered the “Holy of Holies”. This is framed as an effort to prepare conditions for the anticipated divine miracles according to their belief.
The story of the red heifers brought to Israel from Texas in 2022 stands as one of the most prominent examples of this deep disagreement. The Chief Rabbinate continues to reject their validity for purification rituals, as they were not born in what is referred to as the “Land of Israel”, as stipulated in religious texts. Meanwhile, some Religious Zionist rabbis insist on their validity, arguing that they were brought at a young age and thus “raised” in the “Land of Israel”.
As a result, these heifers were placed in the settlement of Shiloh in the West Bank under the supervision of settler rabbis affiliated with Religious Zionism.
Such deep disagreements between Haredi parties and Religious Zionist factions have historically created barriers of mistrust between them, particularly after Religious Zionism failed in 2023 to secure the appointment of one of its members as Chief Rabbi of Israel.
However, the paradox of the so called “Western Wall Law” lies in the fact that it has been championed from the outset by Religious Zionism, despite appearing at first glance to primarily benefit the Haredi current. This is because it constitutes implicit recognition by Religious Zionism that the Chief Rabbinate is the supreme religious authority in interpreting and preventing the desecration of holy sites, thereby theoretically weakening the position of Religious Zionist rabbis. This contradicts the strong enthusiasm expressed by Itamar Ben-Gvir when the law passed its preliminary reading.
What appears on the surface, however, conceals a much deeper reality, as revealed by statements from Ben-Gvir and other Religious Zionist leaders.
After signs of discontent emerged among some factions within Religious Zionism, particularly among extremist Temple groups responsible for incursions into Al-Aqsa, who feared that the law might enable the Chief Rabbinate to prohibit such incursions under the classification of “desecration”, Ben-Gvir reassured his supporters that the law serves their interests entirely. He stated that it grants the Chief Rabbinate the authority to ban activities carried out by Muslims within Al-Aqsa Mosque, including the presence of schools, Quran learning circles, children playing in the courtyards, family gatherings, and other social activities that form part of the daily life of Jerusalem’s residents in Al-Aqsa as a central hub of social life.
In doing so, Ben-Gvir exposed the true intent behind the law, following the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, by utilising the official Rabbinate to target the Islamic Palestinian presence within Al-Aqsa, paving the way for Religious Zionism to later impose its agenda on the site. This reflects an implicit alignment between the two currents against a common adversary: the Palestinian people.
Within Jewish religious law, the definition of “desecration” refers to the performance of worldly activities within a sacred space, as such places are reserved exclusively for religious rituals.
Accordingly, Ben-Gvir aims to use this law to enable the official Chief Rabbinate to issue binding governmental decisions to shut down schools and offices affiliated with the Islamic Waqf within Al-Aqsa Mosque, and to completely prohibit family gatherings and social activities there under the pretext that these constitute “desecration” of a Jewish holy site.
This would effectively transfer the religious administration of Al-Aqsa Mosque from the Islamic Waqf Department to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, in a manner similar to what occurred with the Ibrahimi Mosque, where religious administration was transferred from the Palestinian Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs to the religious council of the Kiryat Arba settlement, rather than even to a formal state ministry.
The current complete closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan may lead to a situation where, after the end of the current war or even during it, a new reality is imposed on the mosque before the eyes of the world.
Therefore, it is imperative that the Arab and Islamic worlds do not become distracted from what is being prepared regarding Al-Aqsa, and that its cause remains a constant presence in media discourse as a central issue for both Arab and Islamic media outlets.
It is evident that the Israeli occupation, through its various arms, does not allow one issue to overshadow another in its operations. While the occupation army engages on multiple external fronts, extremist settlers are working to prepare the ground in the West Bank for the ethnic cleansing they envision. At the same time, another apparatus is actively working to permanently alter the reality of Al-Aqsa Mosque by the end of the war.
This is the strategy of the occupation, one that must be understood, monitored, and confronted to prevent its expansion.
