Egypt’s Foreign Ministry issued a strongly worded statement Tuesday condemning what it called the “storming” of Al-Aqsa Mosque by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. Cairo labeled the visit an “illegal, provocative act” carried out under Israeli police protection and warned that repeated “violations” could spark regional unrest and endanger international peace.
But Israeli officials rejected the characterization outright, calling the visit lawful, peaceful, and entirely within the rights of an Israeli citizen and minister visiting a site that lies within Israel’s sovereign capital.
“There was no storming, no mosque intrusion, no violence,” said a senior Israeli official. “Minister Ben Gvir walked on the Temple Mount—Judaism’s holiest site—without disrupting Muslim worshipers or entering the mosque itself.”
Sovereign Access, Not Provocation
The Temple Mount, where the First and Second Jewish Temples once stood, is the holiest place in Judaism and has been under full Israeli sovereignty since 1967. While the Islamic Waqf administers Islamic sites on the Mount, Israel controls access, and the status quo allows non-Muslims—including Jews—to visit the compound, though often under tight restrictions.
Ben Gvir’s visit, like previous ones, was conducted outside prayer hours and under police coordination to maintain calm. Video footage confirmed the visit passed without incident.
Egypt’s claim of a “storming” is part of a longstanding narrative used by Arab governments to incite anger by portraying Jewish presence on the Mount as inherently illegitimate.
Egypt’s Double Standard
While Egypt presents itself as a broker of regional stability and peace, it has increasingly echoed Hamas talking points on Al-Aqsa. This posture stands in stark contrast to its own domestic policies, where religious freedoms—particularly for non-Muslims—are heavily restricted, and state forces tightly control mosque sermons, church construction, and public worship.
“When Egypt talks about religious rights, it should look in the mirror,” said an Israeli Middle East analyst. “Meanwhile, Jews can’t pray openly on their holiest site without being accused of starting a war.”
Warnings of “Regional Unrest”: Who’s Really Responsible?
Cairo’s warning that continued Jewish access could ignite regional violence reflects a dangerous precedent: rewarding incitement. The idea that a Jewish minister quietly walking on the Temple Mount could “ignite the region” suggests that peace is held hostage by extremists—and that their intolerance must be appeased.
Israel, by contrast, insists that peace begins with mutual recognition, not erasure.
“Our presence in Jerusalem is not a provocation,” said the Israeli official. “It is history, law, and reality.”
If Egypt truly seeks regional calm, it should focus its condemnations not on Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount, but on those who incite violence from its pulpits, glorify terrorism, and undermine the sacredness of holy sites by turning them into battlegrounds.
Israel remains committed to protecting all faiths in Jerusalem. But it will not apologize for exercising sovereignty—least of all in the heart of its eternal capital.
