Israeli security officers stand guard outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre blocking Christians from attending Easter events inside in occupied East Jerusalem's Old City on April 5, 2026 [Ammar Awad/Reuters]On Holy Saturday as Palestinian Christians tried to reach the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, Israeli security forces started attacking and arresting them. On the following day, Orthodox Easter, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and his supporters stormed into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, where they performed prayers despite a ban on non-Muslim religious rituals there.
These incidents followed Israel’s unprecedented closure of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for 40 days under the guise of “safety” during the United States-Israeli war on Iran. As a result, prayers at Al-Aqsa did not take place on Fridays or during Eid al-Fitr while Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, and other religious figures were prevented from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday to lead services.
By now it is clear that Israel does not simply violate the Status Quo on occasion. Instead, it is actively trying to impose new rules – under which Muslim and Christian worship would be subject to full Israeli control. Despite what Israeli officials may claim, it is clear that Israeli control over Jerusalem would not guarantee “equality”. Rather, it would normalise a profound disregard for the Palestinian people and their Muslim and Christian heritage.
In essence, the Israeli occupation considers Palestinian Christians and Muslims as “residents” rather than a people with ancient roots in the city and the right to self-determination. Their existence conflicts with the Zionist idea of Jerusalem being an exclusively Jewish city.
Since the 16th century, religious life in Jerusalem has largely been regulated by the Status Quo agreement, articulated during the Ottoman period, which implies a set of historical rights and arrangements. Subsequently, the Status Quo was recognised in the Treaty of Paris (1856), which put an end to the Crimean War between the Russian and Ottoman empires, and the Berlin Treaty of 1878, which settled the loss of territory by the Ottomans in the Balkans.
The Status Quo was in force at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917 and was respected during the British Mandate.
The sensitivity of the issue of the holy sites became clear when the United Nations voted on the partition of Palestine, designating Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a “corpus separatum”, an international status aimed at protecting the Status Quo. This arrangement included several elements, such as exempting church properties from taxation.
After the Nakba in 1948 when Zionist militias ethnically cleansed the western parts of Jerusalem, which particularly affected Christian Palestinians, Israel’s admission to the UN was conditioned upon its commitment to respect, among other provisions, the UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which reaffirmed “existing rights” of worship. This commitment was also reaffirmed in Israel’s agreement with France, known as the Chauvel-Fischer Agreement, in which Israel agreed to respect the Status Quo benefits for Christian sites under French protection in exchange for French recognition of its statehood.
The Status Quo is not ambiguous; it is a well-established system that cannot be unilaterally changed. In other words, the Israeli occupation either respects it or violates it. Clearly, the ongoing normalisation of Israel’s illegal annexation of Jerusalem – supported by initiatives such as the US recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital – aims to strengthen a Jewish-Zionist supremacist system over the city, including its holy sites.
Since 1967, Israel has rarely affirmed any commitment to the Status Quo. That is because doing so would reaffirm the ancient Palestinian Christian and Muslim identity of the city, as well as the historic role of countries such as France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Greece and Jordan in preserving it. Instead, it refers to “freedom of access” to holy sites, a concept that is not only systematically violated but also does not align with the Status Quo.
In fact, the Status Quo dictates, for example, that the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is administered by the Islamic Waqf, which determines who may visit and when. However, Israel’s “freedom of access” policy at Al-Aqsa has translated into thousands of armed settlers entering the compound, conducting Jewish prayers and asserting claims over it as a Jewish prayer site.
Israel has proven it cannot be a guarantor of freedom of worship in the Holy Land not least because its policies do not reflect any concern for the rights of the Palestinian people. This is the same country that has carried out a genocide in Gaza – something that has been established by international human rights organisations and a UN commission of inquiry.
It is the same country that continues to occupy and move towards annexation of Palestinian land despite the International Court of Justice designating such activities illegal under international law. It is the same country that has discriminatory laws for its Palestinian citizens and Palestinians it occupies, amounting to apartheid, and that protects settlers who carry out terror attacks against an occupied population.
Even the Israeli policy of separating Jerusalem from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory is a clear sign Israel does not want to grant freedom of worship. Under this regime, Palestinians holding West Bank or Gaza IDs cannot access the city without Israeli permits, which are rarely granted.
This restriction affects not only ordinary worshippers and families but also clergy. In 2011, the Anglican bishop of Jerusalem, Suhail Dawani, had his residency permit revoked as a means of pressure. This year, Israeli forces detained Sheikh Mohammad al-Abassi, imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque, barring him from entering the compound for a week.
For Palestinian Muslims and Christians, prayer has become an act of resistance. Resiliently, peacefully and quietly, they continue to challenge Israeli attempts to erode the Status Quo, even if the rest of the world ignores their plight.
The Trump administration, a self-proclaimed defender of religious freedom, appointed a Christian Zionist ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, who largely shares the ideology of Israeli settlers. Meanwhile, the European Union, Israel’s main trading partner, under European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, has avoided taking meaningful accountability measures. At the same time, the “Abraham Accords” have proven politically ineffective, including in the very objective they were meant to address in front of Arab audiences: preventing Israeli annexation of occupied Palestinian territory.
Israel shows little regard for its “partners” when they fail to exert pressure. The fact that Israel reversed its decision to prevent the Latin patriarch from accessing the Holy Sepulchre after a strong international backlash demonstrates not a “misunderstanding” that was rectified, as Israeli officials claimed, but rather that international pressure can yield tangible results.
States cannot claim to support the Status Quo while enabling systematic violations of international law. The Status Quo itself is part of international law and remains one of the last safeguards against complete Israeli control over all aspects of life in Jerusalem.
Safeguarding the present and future of Jerusalem’s religious life, including the viability of a vibrant Christian community, goes hand in hand with respecting the Status Quo of the holy sites and, ultimately, with ending what the International Court of Justice has referred to as the illegal Israeli occupation.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
