Background

History of the city

Chronology

The Israeli Occupation of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem, a city crying out for justice

Palestinian mayors of Jerusalem

Jerusalem, a defacto divided city

Manipulating Jerusalem's history

The Religious Factors in Settlement Patterns in Jerusalem in the early Islamic Period

An old Arab city built 5000 years ago over (Al Dohor) hill known today as Al Tur, overlooking Silwan village south-east of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The city which is 750m above sea level from the (Mediterranean) and 1150m from the dead sea, is the cradle of the three monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In addition to its religious significance, the city has a unique strategic position.

Since the dawn of history, the city has witnessed fierce battles and wars, the destruction of its churches, mosques and old architectural buildings, approximately (18) times.

Factors like its high location, the abundance of water springs such as Um Al Daraj, and the deep and wide valleys of Jahanam (Qadron), Al Rababa (Hanom) and Al Zab’l, were obviously taken into account when selecting its first site, which was an impregnable fortress diffcult to conquer from three corners except from the north. But through the elapse of time the first site was abandoned, to move to the western hills of Al Tur to what is known today as the old city of Jerusalem.

JERUSALEM'S HISTORY

Jerusalem's name is derived from Or Salem, the city of Salem, a Jebusite deity. Throughout its history the city has suffered from many conquests, destruction and massacres. Any reading of the history of Jerusalem shows that the city took the bulk of its shape, its divine character and historical ambiance since the Muslim Caliph Omar Ibn Al Kattab took Jerusalem without bloodshed in 639 AD. 300 years before that, the city was under the uninterrupted hegemony of Romans converted to Christianity in 313 AD. Under the Omayyad Caliphs (660-750) Jerusalem flourished, and from this period important buildings survive: - Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock above all.

During Abbasid rule (750-969) Jerusalem became a religious focal point for Christian and Jewish pilgrims and was home to several prominent Muslim Sufi scholars. At the beginning of the Fatimid period (969-1071) the first recorded complaint against the tourist trade was made by local historian al-Muqqadasi, who wrote that Jerusalem was being overrun by pilgrims. By the time the first Muslim period was brought to an end with the capture of the city by the Crusaders in 1099, Jerusalem was divided into four naturally formed residential quarters - Christian, Muslim, Armenian, and Jewish. The general outlines of the Old City date from the Crusaders' 88 year rule, and many of their buildings are still in use.

A less appealing legacy of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem was its religious intolerance, Jews were burned alive and the Muslim population was slaughtered or expelled. Muslims and Jews were not permitted to live in the city.

Sultan Sulieman al Azeem 'the Magnificent' (1537-1541) took charge in Palestine and rebuilt Jerusalem where his great walls stand to this day. He further improved the city's water system, installed the drinking fountains still visible in many parts of the Old City and lent his support to religious and teaching establishments. The Ottoman rule which lasted until 1918 gave Palestine its longest period of inaction, the price was one of economic stagnation, coupled with perpetuation of ignorance and inactivity. By the end of World War I, the Palestinian population was ready to revolt.

In the meantime, the European powers vied with each other to gain a foothold as they waited for the 'sick man of Europe' to die. New areas with names like the Russian Compound and the German Colony sprouted outside the city walls of Jerusalem. Many of the educational and religious institutions which still exist today - Schmidt Girls School, the Alliance Francaise and St. George's Anglican Cathedral - were founded at this time.

The 20th Century:

By dint of double dealing backed with military muscle, the British obtained control of Jerusalem along with the rest of Palestine, when the 'sick man's' possessions were carved up after World War I. The first British civil administrator Ronald Storrs, declared that all new buildings in the city should be made from local stone. The expansion of the city outside the walls continued, as both Palestinian Arabs and new Jewish immigrants constructed residential quarters spreading out from the Old City. When Britain washed its hands of the mess it had created following World War II, the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 declared Jerusalem a corpus separatum, open to both the Jewish and Arab states. By the end of the 1948 war, the city was occupied by Israeli troops in the west, and the Jordanian Arab Legion in the east. Jerusalem retained its spiritual significance, but temporal power centers moved elsewhere. For Israel, despite the moving of the administration, West Jerusalem became a frontier town and Tel Aviv and the coastal region the economic and cultural center. The east side of the city retained its importance to Palestinians during Jordanian rule, the PLO held its first Palestine National Council conference in the Seven Arches Hotel in Jerusalem in May 1964.

In June 1967, East Jerusalem and the Old City were occupied by the Israeli army. Two weeks after the end of the war, Israel unilaterally annexed East Jerusalem and declared the city the 'eternal, united capital of Israel'. Today, Jerusalem still awaits final resolution of the divisions of 1948, and for all Israel's talk of eternity, the international community does not recognize its jurisdiction. Most western countries still maintain consulates in the east serving the occupied territories, as the Palestinians see the city as the capital of their future independent state. To preempt this, Israel has expanded the municipal boundaries to the very edges of Bethlehem to the south and Ramallah to the north, and ringed the Arab city with three bands of settlements. These fortress-like eyesores are physical evidence of the immense damage done to the holy city in Arab East Jerusalem by current Israeli occupiers, they distort its historical view, wasted its natural beauty and changed its divine character.

Here we are, in a city that has not only emotional and historical importance, but spiritual meaning far beyond its physical confines, a city with its own distinctive mystique, still largely built on an intimate scale, a city with a human face. We have valleys that bring our physical setting to our feet, and every so often, we can lift our eyes to the mountains. But every bit of what we have is in danger, the quality of life in this city is going quickly to the dogs, anonymity replacing intimacy, the sky darkened, the mountains crushed under fortress Jerusalem.’

The Israeli Occupation of Jerusalem

The Israeli Knesset (parliament) endoresed, on 27 June 1967, the annexation of East Jerusalem to Israel to becom since that time, part of Israel by virtue of order no. 2064.

Following this unilateral and illegal decision, consecutive Israeli governments stepped up measures to juadize the city in an attempt to obliterate the Arabic and Islamic features of Jerusalem .

This has been initiated through the expropreation of 116 dunums of the properties of the Muslim Waqf (Religious Affairs), or about 10% of the total area of the old city, to build modern flats for Jewish settlers.

Israel has transferred many public departments including ministries to these new building and went on juadizing education to cope with its expansionest and racist policy. It has also isolated east Jerusalem from the rest of the Palestinian cities in the West Bank through the closure of its main entrances and prohibited Palestinian Muslim and Christian Worshippers from entering the city .

Among its arbitrary measures, Israel sent its archeological teams to excavate arround and below Al-Aqsa Mosque which has caused great damage to the historic buildings.

The Israeli government has desecrated the Islamic holy places, attached Muslim worshippers several times, and set on fire Al-Aqsa Mosque on 21 August 1968. The burning of the Mosque and the Israeli attempt to blow it up in 1980 were not the last in its disgraceful acts, but it has also desecrated the holy tombs inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and looted many churches.

Israel has also levied exorbitant taxes against Jerusalem resident like the “Arnona tax”, and at the same time depriving them from any services.

Israel's concepts, policies, and practices in Jerusalem can be summarized in one sentence:

- The Judaization of the Holy City, its land, its population, its history, and its culture. This Judaization began with the emergence of the State of Israel in 1948, intensified in the wake of the 1967 war and has continued ever since.

It is very important for the reader to know that on the ground there exists two separate distinct parts to Jerusalem. The eastern part occupied by Israel in the war of 1967 had no Jewish population whatsoever before this war. The heart of East Jerusalem (apart from the 'Jewish quarter' which was rebuilt in 1967, and the existence of armed Israeli occupation soldiers) is exclusively Palestinian, 180,000 Palestinians rooted in their land are living in this part.

The United Nations resolutions on Palestine and the Israeli Palestinian conflict never recognized Israeli control on West Jerusalem, let alone Arab East Jerusalem. Recently (Nov.1995,) the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to re-affirm its position on Jerusalem specifically stating that all Israeli imposed legislation on the city, its annexation, and its administrative rules are illegal and considered null and void.

The fate of the city can not and will not be determined unilaterally, the fate of the peace process must be conditional to the Palestinian people regaining full sovereignty on Arab East Jerusalem. Many Israelis, in spite of all their rhetoric on Jerusalem being their 'eternal undivided Jewish capital' are beginning to realize that there has to be a compromise solution on Jerusalem, as history, nature, and life taught us that nothing is eternal, and that a lasting solution will have to be a fair solution, in natural terms nothing unfair will last. Effectively, this means a political division of the city and the Palestinian people assuming control, authority, and full sovereignty on their part.

Palestinian mayors of Jerusalem

 It is a well known fact that Jerusalem was the capital of Arab Palestine, the mayors of the city since the municipality of Jerusalem was established in 1863 and until 1948 were Palestinian Arabs. At the turn of the century, Yousef Dia el-Din El-Khalidi was the mayor of Jerusalem, he was mayor of the city between 1899 and 1906, Mayor Faidi el-Alami between 1906 and 1909, Mayor Aref el-Dajani until 1918, Mayor Mousa Kazem el-Husseini (Grandfather of Faisal Husseini) between 1918-1920 when he was forcibly moved by the British, Mayor Ragheb Nashashibi from 1920-1934, Mayor Hussein Fakhri el-Khalidi from 1934-1937.

Up until 1948, West Jerusalem never had a Jewish mayor, simply because the city was Palestinian. However, authentic Palestinian Jews were on the municipality board. As mentioned earlier, Jerusalem city council was first established in 1863 during the Ottoman rule on Palestine. The municipal council was then composed of five members, four Palestinian Arabs and one Palestinian Jew. At the end of the 19th century there was a small Jewish community in Palestine of around 20,000 and they were part of the Palestinian social tissue.

In 1948 the Jewish state was established and the Palestinian Arabs were driven out of West Jerusalem, after which Jewish mayors took office in West Jerusalem. Palestinian mayors remained in charge in Arab East Jerusalem until 1967.

Jerusalem, a defacto divided city

In 1917, the British, in the name of Lord Balfour promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine, they began translating their promise to reality, they succeeded because they were the government in power in Palestine. The British facilitated Jewish immigration into the country, they enacted laws and regulations and deployed their power to allow the Jews to build an infrastructure for themselves in Palestine, arms, guns, training facilities and money were easily available to the Jews. The Palestinians in the meantime were suppressed, their economic conditions made worse, little education and no health services. The British occupation authorities made sure that any Palestinian having a gun was court-martialled, many Palestinians who tried to resist the settling of Jews in Palestine were hunted and executed.

The situation remained the same until 1967. In the periods in between, many Palestinians from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza left their homes looking for work in the Arab gulf countries, hundreds of thousands are still in these countries with homes, property belonging to them, and relatives in Palestine. In 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the remaining Palestinian land in the West Bank. In that year the number of Jews in Arab East Jerusalem was zero, 98% of its land was Palestinian owned.

In an interview with Israel Radio in English aired on the morning of Saturday Jan. 27, 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that Jerusalem will not be on the negotiating table with the Palestinians at any time in the future, and that the city’s population ratio is 3 to 1, i.e. - three Israeli to one Palestinian. This statement on Jerusalem is mistaken on two counts. The Palestinians residing in Arab East Jerusalem now represent 30% of the city in both its parts East and West, i.e. - two Israelis to one Palestinian. Taking into consideration all Palestinian Jerusalemites who were forced to leave the city in the war of 1967, and those who left afterwards due to the severe shortage of housing or who left their city in search for work opportunities, in addition to those who were deprived of their ID’s, the number of Palestinians from Jerusalem origin is well above 400 thousands.

Residential segregation has remained practically complete. No mixed Jewish-Arab neighborhoods have developed during the last 27 years of the so-called reunification. Commercial centers, urban functional zones, and public institutions remain essentially separate; this refers not only to religious or other culturally related institutions such as schools and theaters, but also to various public services ranging from urban transportation systems to the provision of electricity and bottled gas. In all of these, as well as many other cases, aspects of separation are legally sanctioned, and ethnic facilities are distinguished by their ownership, modes of operation, and other distinct identity marks. Practically everything in this “United” city is categorized as either “Arab” or “Jewish.” The boundaries between group members are also taut and impermeable, there are practically no marriages between Jerusalem Jews and Arabs.

The particularly high degree and persistent nature of segregation, as well as the widespread practices of mutual exclusion undoubtedly also stem from the long history of conflict at the national level. Any Jewish-Palestinian daily interaction in Jerusalem is to be interpreted in terms of occupier-occupied relations. This structure also relates to the legal and ecstatus imposed by the occupier on the city and the remaining West Bank. By virtue of power of force, the Jewish occupiers dictate the areas, forms, and terms of exchange with the Palestinians, or alternatively impose practices of exclusion. Jews are willing to employ Palestinians or provide them with certain public or private services since this does not interfere with the sectoral identity of their own entity, but rather reinforces Jewish economic control and Palestinian dependency. At the same time, Jews are in a position to exclude the establishment of Palestinian residences and businesses in their own areas, or the distribution of Palestinian products, if these compete with Jewish products in their market.

The existing patterns of Jewish-Arab relationships in Jerusalem have often been the subject of different interpretations. Not surprisingly, these mainly differ between Jews and Arabs, or vary depending upon the contrasting political positions that are present particularly within the Jewish population and between Israeli political leaders. Some have emphasized the long tradition of Jerusalem as a pluralistic, culturally heterogeneous city where, it is claimed, the patterns of segregation are similar to those found in many other multi-ethnic cities around the world; whereas others would stress the ongoing political conflicts and related expressions of a deeply divided, polarized urban community.

The major change to be sure, is that since 1967 power and control have shifted from the Arabs to the Jews. Under Israeli rule, this argument continues. The Arab minority rejects Jewish majority control just as it did of all previous regimes, including that of the Jordanians. Despite all problems, the Jewish occupiers of the Palestinian city believe that it is possible for both Palestinians and Israelis to live together if the Israeli authorities would adopt “liberal, tolerant attitudes and pragmatic policies.” "These should consist of ensuring the Arabs’ own way of life by allowing them maximum autonomous religious, cultural, and institutional authority within their own living areas, by providing them with municipal services that are equal to those received by Jews, and by encouraging voluntary, mutually beneficial social and economic contacts between Arabs and Jews.” According to this formulation, Palestinians will have to accept their permanent minority status within a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.

It can readily be seen that the pluralistic or multi-ethnic mosaic model of Jerusalem fails to adequately emphasize the most critical aspect of Arab-Jewish relations: namely, the continuing Arab-Jew struggle for control, and the antagonism and outright conflict resulting from the hegemony of the Jewish occupation. It is for this reason that Jerusalem can best be thought of as a deeply dichotomized, or polarized, city system, not only in political terms, but equally in regard to its urban structure and the everyday behavior of its residents.

In all of these respects Jewish and Arab positions are symmetrical and uncompromising, since each side denies the collective rights of the other and considers that all gains by one will mean the denial of the rights of the other. However, the basic asymmetries are also clear: while Jews wish to maintain the status quo of total control, Arabs want to completely change it and release themselves from their current occupation. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that Jewish-Arab daily relationships in Jerusalem continue to express patterns of extreme polarization. This is also the reason why conflicting claims cannot be accommodated merely by adopting policies or proposing even the best intended, carefully balanced technical solutions and compromises. As Benvenisti has shown, Jews and Arabs cannot even agree upon the same definition of "the Jerusalem problem." Jews perceive “the problem” as stemming from the fact that their just claim to Jerusalem is not recognized by the Arabs, and consequently Arab opposition undermines their attempt to bring about the desired goal of city-wide integration. For Arabs “the problem” is precisely their difficulty in achieving political autonomy and self-determination, as well as their inability to effectively resist unilateral Israeli actions undertaken to deprive them of control over their own affairs. Jerusalem’s emerging urban patterns and political orientations represent the encapsulation of the national political conflict between Jews and Arabs. Because the conflict is closely related to broader national issues, it becomes even more difficult to resolve. 

The fact of the matter is that almost thirty years of excavations did not reveal anything Jewish, no tangible evidence of theirs was unearthed. Much to their chagrin, what surfaced from their underground excavations turned out to be more Muslim palaces, courts and mosques. Other excavations revealed archeological ruins belonging to the Romans, Greeks and Canaanites.

They began international and local media campaigns aimed at convincing others and themselves of an authentic original historical existence in a kingdom which originated in Silwan 3000 years ago. It is interesting to note that Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a British archeologist, and her teams helped and supported by local Palestinians from Silwan, worked for almost a decade in the 1960's excavating sites in many chosen parts in the city, in search of this so called kingdom. The area they call Ophel located south east of Jerusalem's old city walls was excavated deep into the ground. Dame Kenyon's excavations did not produce anything of significance to support the Israeli claim.

Another biblical myth used as proof of their presence in Silwan is the tunnel connecting the pools of Silwan. They claim the tunnel was dug by the Hebronites, and to prove that, they claim a hundred years ago a boy discovered a stone with Hebrew inscription in the tunnel, but to their 'disappointment' again, they say this stone which they describe as "the largest ever found from the biblical period" was removed by the Ottomans to Turkey (See Jerusalem Post Magazine 1.9.95) In other words their evidence to this claim is conveniently not there, yet they go ahead with their decision to place what they term a 'replica' in the so called original location within the tunnel, and at its entrance, attributing the digging of the tunnel to the Hebronites.

Jerusalem is not a Jewish city, despite the biblical myth implanted in some minds. Nothing tangible has been found to give credibility to these claims.

The excavations taking place alongside the Western Wall beginning at the most southwestern corner of the mosque reaching northwards to El Omariyeh School.

The tunnel leading from the Convent of the Sisters of Zion (better known as Ecce Homo Church) on the via Dolorosa leading south towards the mosque.

In addition, official Israeli policies conducted in Olmert's municipality desecrated the Islamic burial place in West Jerusalem 'Ma'man Allah' (God's place of safety) or colloquially called Mamilla. The area of this burial place was 250,000 sq.m., and most of this land has been used as building plots. At the moment the Sheraton Plaza Hotel, Supersol supermarket, Beit Agron building and the adjacent car park are built on this Islamic Waqf owned land which was used by Muslims until 1948 as their burial place in Jerusalem. Even the dead are not safe here as scores of Muslim graves have been desecrated, moved, destroyed, and damaged, many have been plastered with concrete to obliterate their Arabic inscriptions. What remains of this cemetery is being used as an open park, very few Muslim graves can be seen around this cemetery-turned-park ‘courtesy’ of Olmert and Kollek.

In the early days of the occupation in 1969, an Australian Jew was convicted of setting the Al Aqsa Mosque on fire, in which the southern face of the mosque together with Salah El Din minaret and prayer place was burned to the ground. 

 Jerusalem is better known to the Muslims by the means of Bait al-Maqdis (the holy house) or simply al-Quds (the holy); the latter is the most common name at the present (le Strange, 1890:3). Al-Quds is one of the holiest three cities for Muslims following immediately Mecca and Medina. Its holiness is attributed to two principal reasons: The first stems from its being the first Qibla before Muslims were directed towards al-Ka'ba (sura II.144) and the second form the famous night journey of the prophet Muhammad between Mecca and Jerusalem. The description of this journey is clearly recorded in the Qur'an verse on Isra' to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, where it says: [Gloified be He who carried His servant by night from the invoilable place of worship (Mecca) to the far distant place of worship (Jerusalem) the neighbourhood whereof we have blessed, that we might show him of our tokens! He only He, is the hearer, the seer]. According to historians, the journey was on the back of a wonderous animal, half horse, half man named al-Buraq (lightning). In addition to these two events many of the prophet's Hadiths indicate the holiness and the importance of this city for Muslims. The following Hadith attests to this fact: [You shall journey to but three Masjids (mosques), al-Masjid al-Haram (at Mecca), al-Masjid al-Aqsa (at Jerusalem) and my Masjid (at Medina)]. (Mujir al-Din 1973: 231).

Jerusalem became an Islamic city in the first half of the seventh century A.D. when Muslims entered the holy city in 14 A.H./A.D. 638 during the reign of the second caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. According to historical sources the caliph 'Umar came personally and specially to take over the city from its patriarch at that time Sophronius, who refused to capitulate the city to any one except 'Umar. The sources also indicate that the caliph declared a special Sulh ('Ahd) to the Christians living in the city; its text developed in time to be known as the convenant of 'Umar. In this convenant the caliph guaranteed further religious freedom, safety of churches and secured the lives, fortunes and properties of the people living in the city (Mujir al-Din Vol. 1, 1973: 254).

Despite the above mentioned secured convenant given to the Christian inhabitants of the holy city, many of them according to the historical sources left the city and were replaced by Muslim inhabitants (Bahat 1983: 48), who were according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1980: 324) mostly from Medina. This, as a matter of fact, indicates the start of the Islamic era in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Early Islamic Jerusalem

Through surveying historical sources and travelers' documents, it appears that the early Islamic Jerusalem (from the time of 'Umar until the end of the Fatimid period) is extremely difficult for studying. The reason for this difficulty is attributed to the lack of documented information in these sources. The available information about the city is mostly of general nature dealing mainly with its character, climate, plants, etc. However, none of the historical sources provides a detailed picture of the layout of the city, in order to find out to what extent the city had been changed from its pre-Islamic status and what sort of changes or modifications were done on the plan and the structure of the city during the early Islamic period.

The important historians and travellers of this period include Arculf, Maqdisi and Nasir Khusru. Arculf is the earliest, he visited Jerusalem in A.D. 670 and lived in the city for about nine months. He reports nothing about the Islamic city of Jerusalem except for this short description of the square prayer house: "on the spot where the temple once stood near the eastern wall, the Saracens have now erected a square house of prayer, in rough manner, by raising beams and planks upon some remains of old ruins; this is their place of worship and it is said that it will hold about three thousand men" (Wright 1948: 1-2).

Al-Maqdisi, a native of Jerusalem (d. 380 A.H./A.D. 985), indicates the character of the holy city and describes in detail the Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock (Maqdisi 1906: 165-170). Nasir Khusru, a Persian traveller visited Jerusalem in 438 A.H./A.D. 1035. He described the holy city in general indicating its beauty, buildings and markets in addition to a detailed description for the Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock (Khusru 1970: 20-37).

The extant evidence of the scarcity of information is the new discoveries during the recent excavations which took place in the old city of Jerusalem. In the process of these excavations, archaeologists discovered few buildings which date back to the Umayyad period. The discoveries include a palace in the southwest corner of the Haram enclosure from the outside, two paved streets and early Islamic houses discovered in the Jewish Quarter and Mount Zion. None of these discoveries is mentioned in any of the historical sources. Nonetheless, the discoveries would probably indicate that many other structures were build in Jerusalem during the early Islamic period and played an important role in changing the layout of the city, but they were not recorded in the historical documents.

The question as to what extent Jerusalem had been changed in the early Islamic period still stands. Mainly because if other places in the old city are excavated, additional new discoveries providing more information about the layout of the city may be found. According to scholars, the city underwent gradual change in its character but remained basically Byzantine Christian in design (Maza 1975: 260). However, the extant remains and the new discoveries around the Haram enclosure give indication that there was a significant change in the layout of the Christian city concentrated mainly in the eastern part of the city. This change can also be seen from the religious division of the city during this period - a division not imposed on the inhabitants of the city, but came about naturally as each religious community wished to live in one area separate from the numbers of the other faith (Bahat 1983: 52-53).

The Religious Factors

It is believed that Jerusalem was influenced by Islamic systems as soon as Muslims settled in the city, and there is no doubt that life was built on religious bases. In fact, many religious factors can be indicated in the holy city during the early Islamic period. Physical evidence of the religious factors is of two types: Architectural and ritual. The architectural evidence consists of religious building constructed in the early Islamic period, including mosques, khanqas, domes, cemeteries, minarets and mihrabs.

Mosques: The most important religious factors in the Islamic religion. Muslims used to build them wherever they settled and they can be seen in any town or village in the Islamic world. The location of a mosque was usually in the center of town and often beside Dar al-Imara. The function of the mosque according to scholars is a place of assembly for religious, social and political meetings. In Jerusalem, it is recorded that Muslims erected a mosque soon after they entered the city, it was established as mentioned above by the caliph 'Umar (Wright 1948: 1-2), and was known later as al-Aqsa Mosque (the distant place).

Al-Aqsa Mosque was built by the Umayyad Caliph al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik in A.D 705, and is of great significance for Muslims, being second only to the mosques of Mecca and Medina, and the destination of Muhammad's night journey recorded in the Qur'an. Indeed, it is one of the holiest places of Islam. The Mosque was destroyed by earthquakes several times and underwent many restorations, during which some modification were carried out on its plan.

The other mosque which is related to this period in Jerusalem is 'Umar's Mosque. It was built, according to an inscription found in the Russian Hospice, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in A.D. 935, at the spot where the Caliph performed his prayers when arriving to Jerusalem (Bahat 1983: 53).

Khanqas Another sort of religious Islamic buildings. The word khanqa, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is a composite word of Persian origin meaning a building usually reserved for Muslim mystics belonging to a dervish order. Important evidence of the early khanqas in Jerusalem was recorded by al-Maqdisi. According to him, the khanqas in Jerusalem belonged exclusively to the theological ascetic sect of Karramiyya, which flourished in Khurasan, and a group of them was living in Jerusalem (Encyclopaedia of Islam 1980: 65; al-Maqdisi 1906: 182).

Domes: Many domes were built in Jerusalem in the early Islamic period, mostly to commemorate religious phenomena and reflect the Islamic character. The most significant of these is the Dome of the Rock. It was built by the Umayyad caliph "abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who allocated the taxes of Egypt for seven years to finance its construction. The Dome covers the Holy Rock from which Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on his night journey. The building underwent many restorations that maintained the original plan and design.

Another significant dome is the Dome of the Chain located on the eastern side of the Dome of the Rock, built also by 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. It is similar in its design to the Dome of the Rock and was built to serve as a prototype to the great Dome or a store-chamber where money was deposited. Other smaller domes stand platform of the great Dome of the Rock. Two of them are located northwest of the Sakhra (the Rock) and commemorate the occurrence of the Prophet's night journey. These are the Prophet's Dome (Qubbat an-Nabi) marking the spot where he prayed while in the area, and the Dome of the Ascention (Qubat al-Mi'raj) from where the Prophet ascended to heaven. In addition there is the Dome of Gabreal (Jibril), commemorating the night of ascention (al-Mi'raj), as the steed Buraq was tied up at this spot until the Prophet was ready to mount (le Strange 1890: 71-76).

Minarets: The minarets is an important architectural element which gives the mosque its distinguished character. It is not known whether al-Aqsa had minarets at its first stage. However, Sauvaire in his analysis and description of the al-Aqsa Mosque indicates that the mosque had four minarets since the time of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan three of them on the western side and one on the northern side. He also indicates that the minarets which we see now are reconstructed on the ancient foundations (Sauvaire 1876: 125-126).

Mihrabs (prayer niches): An architectural feature and a principal part of the structure of a mosque. The mihrab is usually placed in the Qibla wall of the mosque, its main function being to indicate the direction of Mecca in prayer. Nasir Khusru, in his description of the al-Aqsa Mosque, indicates many mihrabs, three of them inside the mosque: Mihrab 'Umar, Mihrab Mu'awiya and the central main Mihrab. In the area outside the mosque, he says that there were many beautiful mihrabs occupied by groups of people (Khursu 1970: 23-24). There are in addition the beautiful mihrab in the cave beneath the Holy Rock, and Mihrab Dawood (David's Mihrab) in the wall of Bait al-Maqdis (al-Istakhri 1870: 57; Ibn Hawqal 1870: 141).

Cemeteries: Jerusalem has several Islamic cemeteries. The most important of which is that located behind the eastern wall located near the Golden Gate. Two of the Prophet's companions are buried in this cementery: Shaddad ibn 'Aws (al-Suyuti 1984: II: 29) and Thu al-Asabe' al-Tamimi (Dabbagh 1988, III: 100).

The second important cementery in Jerusalem is Mamilla, which is the largest cementery located on the western side of the city. Many important people were buried in this cementery (Sauvaire 1876: 198).

The ritual religious factors on the other hand are mainly related to Muslim ceremonies and practices - these include prayer (salah), the pilgrimage (hajj), feasts, animal sacrifice, Ramadan, etc...

As-Salah: The most important religious ritual for Muslim and a fundamental part of Islamic religion. Muslims practice it five times a day in addition to Salat aj-Jum'a. According to Khusru the Salah used to take place in the Mosque every friday (khusru 1970: 23).

Visiting the Holy Places: Because of its sanctity people used to come to visit the holy places of Jerusalem. The religious value of Jerusalem is very clear in the Qur'an as it was the first Qibla and housed the third mosque in importance. In the Hadith the Prophet limited the visit to three mosques, the third being the al-Aqsa Mosque. According to Khusru, people unable to go to Mecca in the pilgrimage time, came to al-Quds to visit the al-Aqsa Mosque and make their sacrifices their. In some years the number of these people reached about 20,000 (Khusru 1970: 19-20).

Feasts: There are two main feasts for Muslims. Al-Adha (the feast of sacrifice) which comes in the Hajj (pilgrimage) time and al-Fiter (the feast of breakin the fast) which comes after Ramadan. Both feasts have special ceremonies, such as special prayers, and Muslims visiting each other for blessing.

Animal Sacrifice: A well-known practice by Muslims, done during the Hajj time and al-Adha feast ar as offering to God. That of the Hajj time is well recorded by the Persian traveller Khusru (Khusru 1970: 20).

Al-Adhan (call to prayer): A Muslim religious rite, calling people for prayer. A special person named al-Mu'adhen calls five times a day, from a high place such as the minaret.

From what preceded we conclude that Muslims settled in Jerusalem from the time 'Umar and came mostly from Medina. In addition, it appears that the gradual change took place in the layout of the Christian city in the early Islamic period, mainly in the eastern part. Evidence of that change can be seen in the standing remains and buildings recently discovered around the Haram enclosure. As mentioned above, the religious factors marking Muslims settlement in the city took two forms. The first was architectural and was manifested in new building styles and features which are peculiarly Muslims. The second was ritual and reflected practices and ceremonials related to the basic pillars and teachings of the Muslims faith.

It was a sacred place for both the Christians and Jews, but was under the influence of the Christians who had the upper hand. That area was also part of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire, which maintained a patriarch of Jerusalem. According to historical records, the Temple was completed by King Solomon about B.C 1004.IN 586 B.C by Ezra and Nehemiah. In 167 B.C. it became a Temple for idol worship during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the successors of Alexander. Herod restored the Temple in 17 B.C to AD 29.

In order to have a better insight to the Palestinian issue and thus, the history of Al-Quds, it is important to have some knowledge of the early history of Palestine. The claims of the contending parties-Jews and Palestines-are ‘rooted-deep’ in early history and it is, therefore, imperative to examine the respective claimants’ connection to Palestine as well as the events that brought about the Palestinian problem before its explosion in 1948.

The Canaanites are known to have born the first people to settle in Palestine after 3000 B.C.They lived in cities and engaged in commercial and agricultural activities. These cities were rules by priests - Kings. The name Canaan -the biblical Canaan- denoted the area they lived.

Historians discount the biblical account which ascribe the destruction of Jericho to the period of Joshua. The archeologist, Dr. Kenyon says that « the archeological records does not provide the evidence of a large scale incursion contemporary with the destruction of Jericho... ».

Saul was killed in a battle against the Philistine at Gilboa and was succeeded by David. David crushed the Jebusite and captured Jerusalem, which became his kingdom’s capital. By his conquest, David expanded this kingdom and established a stable administration based on the Egyptian model. But he was, however, unable to subjugate and incorporate the Philistines into his kingdom who were in « control of the maritime plain to a point south of Acco (Accre) and to a point north of Japho (Jaffa). As Aamiry maintains, « at no time, however, did he (David) rule the whole area of Palestine, and the Plains and the coast in particular never fell within his spheres of influence ». Upon his death in the mid tenth century, his son, Solomon succeeded him. Solomon’s reign was marked by general prosperity and was famous for his wealth, wisdom and above all, for the magnificent Temple built in Jerusalem. But his last days were darkened by internal cleavages and shortly after his death the Israelite tribes revolted, thus disrupting the united monarchy established by David. It was divided into the kingdom of Israel in the north and that of Judah in the south. These kingdoms fell one after the other.

Palestine Al-Quds under Foreign Occupations :

When the Assyrian Empire was eventually over-run by the Babylonians, Judah was plundered and almost depopulated as the Jews were in exile, the Hebrew language faded away to be replaced by Aramaic which was spoken along side Arabic for several centuries.

In the 4th century B.C. Palestine passed into Macedonian hands following Alexander the Great’s conquest of Phoenicia. Under Greek rule, the Jews enjoyed greater freedom as they were left undisturbed in their religion and custom. In 166 B.C. the Jews led by Judas Maccabaeus threw off the yoke of Greek domination and established the Maccabean kingdom, which however, was short-lived as the Syrian king, Antiochs Sidesten besieged Jerusalem and imposed tribute upon the Jews.

There were two unsuccessful Jewish revolts against Roman rule. The first occurred in AD 66 to 70 when Titus plundered Jerusalem and the second Temple. The second -in Ad 132 to 135- was ruthlessly represented by Julius Sevens. The Jews who survived the massacre were dispersed to the extreme corners of the Empire. Since then, it was only a small Jewish lump that remained in the city and the few in Palestine lived in tiberias and Safad.

Al-Quds (Palestine) under Islamic Rule

The Muslim Arab conquest of Palestine did not involve any fundamental change in the country’s demography, except a change in rulership and, to a large extent, a change in religion. « The Muslim Arabs, Cattan observes, did not colonize Palestine. They brought to the country no immigration; but only their religion and culture ».

Thus, the absence of any Arab colonizing mission to Palestine discount the erroneous claim by some writers that the Arabs inhabited Palestine only after the advent of Islam. These writers ignore the fact that the Arabs, under various ancient tribal names, were the indigenous and dominant inhabitants of not only Palestine but also other parts of the Middle East since the dawn of history, hence Aamiry argues that :

Mrs. E.A.Funn, who spent 20 odd years in Jerusalem as wife of a British Consul, has corroborated these contentions. She carried out some studies on the Palestine peasantry where she observed that :

She went on to argue that there has been no evidence, archeological or otherwise, to contest the claim that the original inhabitants of Palestine had never left the country either voluntarily or forcibly expelled or had never been subjected to any annihilation at any point in their existence. The indigenous inhabitants, Fun maintained, were the Canaanites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Havit, the Penizzites and the Hihptes. And it is these five nations that constitute the natural population of Palestine.

In the foregoing pages we have argued in favor of the probability that the present rural population of Palestine, the Arab Fallaheen, are the descendants of the ancient Canaanite nations. Firstly, because five of these nations continued to exist in the land until the Christian era, and cannot have been annihilated or driven out since. Secondly, because the Fallaheen are apparently aboriginal people and there is no tradition or record to show that they are anything else. Thirdly, because they have preserved the ancient geographical names. And lastly, because there appears to be customs among them derived from the Israelites.

The Ottoman Turks’ occupation of Palestine in the 16th century, like that of its predecessor (the Muslim Arabs in the 7th century), did not involve any colonization or immigration. In fact, the Arabs enjoyed greater autonomy under the provincial administrative system introduced by the Turks. They interfered less officiously in the life of the people or the running of the country except, for certain key positions, which were preserved for Turkish officials.

Gravitated towards Britain and her allies against Turkey in 1914, even though the latter and Germany had similar promises made to them by Britain.

THE WAR AND THE MANDATE AL-QUDS UNDER EUROPEAN RULE

The War

Turkey entered the first world war and the side of Germany; and, in a joint military operation, attacked the Suez Canal. This provided a, unique opportunity for British to break up the Turkish Empire without involving Russia, whose influence she wants to keep out of the area in order to protect the route to India. It is also argued that, quite apart from a safe route to India, Britain had also wanted to create a Middle Eastern Empire in order to get access to Middle Eastern petroleum. The Middle East was also seen as a vital link to her principal naval bases in the East Mediterranean and at Alexandria.

One of these pledges was made in the correspondence between the Sheriff of Mecca and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, in 1915. This was intended to enlist Arab support for the Allied cause. Although Britain has certain reservations, she agreed to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the areas requested by the Sheriff, which as the Arabs understood it, included Palestine. But because of her imperialist ambitions in the areas, Britain kept the Sykees-Picot Agreement secret until 1917, when the Russian Bolshevik government published a copy of it found in the foreign office archives, at Petrograd. It was therefore in ignorance of any other agreement than the « MacMahon pledge » that the Arabs entered into war against Turkey -in 1916. And the Arabs involvement in the war was decisive as it helped to bring about Turkish defeat in 1919, and the expulsion of Turkish forces out of Palestine.

The Turkish defeat and their eventual expulsion from Palestine during the First World War did not usher in independence for Palestine, as in the case of other liberated areas, based on the promise made to the Arabs by Britain and her Allies.

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspiration, which has been submitted to and approved by the cabinet.

Like the « McMahon pledge » the Balfour declaration was intended to win Jewish sympathy and support throughout the world. N unlike the « McMahon agreement » which promised the Arabs independence in their own homelands, the Balfour Declaration promised to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestinian territory. These agreements were a clear manifestation of Britain’s political double-dealings in the Palestine issue and which also explains why she was unable to administer the territory during mandatory rule.

It has been suggested that even though it was Britain who issued the declaration, His Majesty’s government could not commit itself towards its realization. And that it could depend on the efforts and enterprise of the Jews to bring it into being. But if one examines British policy during mandatory rule up to 1939, it becomes clear that she did no only favor the establishment of National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine, but became actively involved towards the realization of Jewish aspiration.

As Stevens remarks :

Hence, the double-promised ‘land’ as Palestine came to be known was doubly promised. But what was unclear was whether it was a National Home or the National Home for the Jewish people. If a Jewish National Home or the National Home for the Jewish people. If a Jewish National Home refers to a Jewish community with minority rights under Arabs rule, to ensure that such community did not threaten the existing population, then it would have been a very tiny community. But later, it became clear that the objective was no longer only to establish a National Home in Palestine, -in accordance with the terms of the Balfour Declaration, but to transform this territory into a Jewish state. This was manifested in the Baltimore program adopted by the American Zionist Movement in meeting held in New York, which forecasts the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish Commonwealth, with unrestricted immigration and the creation of a Jewish state. However, there were varied views on the issue. While some contend that the National Home would evolve into a Jewish state, others countered this view. Among those who hold a contrary view, included Norman Beutwich, a Zionist Jew and former Attorney General of Palestine. He maintained

Similarly, Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who was one of the negotiators of the Balfour Declaration and later became the first High Commissioner in Palestine observed in the House of Lords in 1949 that :

But this common assertions can be dismissed as untenable because if the creation of a sovereign state of Palestine had not been the desired objective of the Zionist leaders, Chaim Weizmann, the principal negotiator of the Balfour Declaration, would not have stressed the need for its inclusion in the peace Treaty with Turkey, nor would Britain had detected the relevance for its inclusion in the peace Treaty which was aimed at giving it (the Balfour Declaration) a legal sanctity. That aside, the Zionists would not have even mounted a powerful lobby at the United Nations to secure a vote in favor of partition or even eject Palestinians from their homes, all in the same of developing their own tradition.

But whatever may have been the intended definition of the Jewish National Home and from whatever perspective one looks at the Balfour Declaration, it was invalid and arbitrary.

In the first place it did not reflect the wishes of the native people of Palestine. Secondly, it was also void because, Turkey as the legal sovereign over Palestine at that time of its issuance did not consent to it. That Turkey refused to become a signatory of the Severs Treaty of 1920 was not surprising. Article 95 of the Peace Treaty provided that the parties should agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22 of the League of Nations covenants, the mandatory who would be responsible for the implementation of the Balfour Declaration previously made by British government in favor of the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The Treaty of Lausanne preceded this Treaty in 1923, which omitted all reference to the Balfour Declaration.

Fourthly, it was arbitrary because Britain highjack independence from Palestine in order to execute the terms of the declaration without even putting the issue to a referendum for the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine to decide.

And finally, it was inconsistent with the previous pledge Britain had contracted with the Arabs- the McMahon pledge. Hence, this controversial document prepared the ground for future friction between the Arabs and the Jews which is yet to be resolved. This friction has degenerated to bitter conflict with its tragic consequences on both sides. These consequences were foreseen by Lord Islington who said that :

 The British Occupation : 1918-1920

 Britain occupied Palestine in 1918 following Turkey’s defeat. In the meantime, the armistice of 1918 excited the Arabs who had been encouraged to hope that allied victory would herald independence for the Arabs in their homelands. And one of President Wilson’s fourteen-point peace plan was geared to that direction. It provided that « the Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secured sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are under Turkish rule be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolute unmolested opportunity of autonomous development ». France and Britain’s joint declaration outlining their objectives was a pointer in that direction.

The declaration stated :

The object aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East, the war let loose by German ambition is the complete and definite emancipation of the people so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of National governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous population. In order to carry out these intentions France and Great Britain are at one in encouraging and assisting the establishment or indigenous governments in Syria and Mesopotamia

It is argued that the Arabs had always regarded Palestine as part of Syria, so this statement seemed to offer all they wanted, and they were shocked to learn that the Allied Powers proposed not only to separate Palestine from Syria, but to place it under a mandatory in order to put in to effect the Balfour Declaration.

But France, who had never felt bound by the « McMahon pledge », vehemently opposed this move by the Arabs since it ran counter to its territorial ambitions in the Arab world. Earlier, France had laid claim on the whole of Syria down to the Egyptian frontier. The round table conference held in London on the 19th of November, 1915 was aimed at reconciling British, French and Arab claims in the Syria area. And the Sykes-Picot Agreement was the outcome of that meeting. So, it was not surprising for France to occupy Damascus and expel the Emir from Syria.

In the meantime, even though the « Special regime » under which Palestine was to be governed had not yet taken legal shape, the Zionist Organization wasted no time to present a draft resolution outlining its plan for the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. This plan was discussed with the Supreme Counsel Mr. Felix Frankfurter, an eminent American Jew who was given the task of drafting a detailed plan. Thus, it could be seen that the Zionist project had already in those days assumed something like shape of a mandate as we know it. It re-affirmed the Jewish historic right to Palestine, Jewish immigration and settlement wars to be promoted. A body representing Palestinian Jews and the Jewry should cooperate with the mandatory in this regard, while Jewish education should be left with the Jews alone and local self-determination should be encouraged.

It is argued that Zionist dream of a sovereign state in Palestine basing their claim on historical rights is vague and baseless. When one takes a look at the history of the Jews in Palestine, there is no denying the fact that they migrated into Palestine at an earlier date. Only that they did not descend from the original inhabitants. Historically, they descended from Pharonic Egypt and came to live with the Canaanited and even ruled the country for a brief period. They, however, disappeared after the devastation of the kingdom of Israel and Judah. What is more revealing is that other peoples also conquered and ruled the area. And, that aside, their rule did not exceed that of other invaders. In fact, the linguist rule was that of the Canaanites, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans. Arab and Turkish rule preceded these and lasted for twelve centuries. Hence, the historical claim is unjustified and unsound, as Aamiry argues; the diverse promise and historical rights claimed by the Jews are scientifically untenable, and studies that the patriarchs never based their action on such promise since the Christians and Arabs can also make similar claims to Palestine.

Palestine under Mandatory Rule

And Article 2 made the mandatory power responsible for :

a- Placing the country under such political administration and economic condition that would be conductive to the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people.

c- Protecting the civil and religious rights of all the institutions irrespective of race or creed.

Article 6 required that the Palestine administration, while ensuring that the rights and positions of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, should facilitate and encourage Jewish immigration and settlement on state lands and wastelands.

It could be argued that the mandate instrument did not reflect the wishes of the people of Palestine because, even though they were the party most affected, they never negotiated its terms, nor were their consent sought afterwards.

Furthermore, the mandate provided for a Jewish agency, a sort of advisory body that became a vehicle for the promotion of Jewish settlement in Palestine and the subsequent partition of the country. But it failed to provide for the establishment of a similar agency through which matters affecting Palestinian Arab agency could be channeled. In other words, to establish a Palestine Arab agency that would protect and promote the interest of its members just as the Jews.

The result was the policy statement of 1930 which suggested a Legislative Council of 28 members, 14 of which were to be Arabs (both Muslims and Christians) and 8 Jews. This proposed Council, though it did not reflect any proportional representation, attested Britain’s attempt to redress the balance, that is, to give some priority to her obligation to the Arabs.

Britain’s second attempt was the white paper of 1930, which placed a definite ceiling of 75,000 on Jewish immigration between 1939-1945, with numbers thereafter to be agreed upon by the Arabs.

It was needless for the Jews to feel upset because Britain was merely trying to allay the fears of the Arabs as, since 1920, Britain’s policy in Palestine was geared towards the realization of Jewish aspiration in Palestine. She manifested this in August 1920 when she announced a quota of 16,500 Jewish immigrants for the first year even though the mandate was yet to approved by the League of Nations.

The British government played politics with the Palestinian till 1947 when it voluntarily surrendered its authority to the United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly in November 29, 1949 voted in favor of the Palestinian partition plan as recommended by Resolution 181. It states in part, that Independent Arab and Jewish states and the Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem... shall come into existence in Palestine ...

The proposed Jewish state had a starting majority of Palestinian Arabs in the proportion of 509,780, Muslims and Christians to 499,020 Jews. This was against the Zionist philosophy for Palestinian Arabs to exceed the number of the Jews. The Zionists, therefore, had to resort to all types of repression characterized by the naked use of brute force.

With its total occupation of the territory of Al-Quds, Israel started to implement its own plan, that of altering the status of Jerusalem and thus, Al-Quds.

The occupation of Palestine and the occupation of Al-Quds, Masjid Aqsa or Bayt Maqdis by Israel, has compounded, among other things, the problems of the world Muslim community and Christians, and also is a threat to the peace and security of not only that of the world, but the world over.

Israel, over the years, adopted policies aimed at annihilating the religious, historical and civilization importance of Al-Quds. It strives to implant a special culture with roots in Zionism and imperialism, which apes western culture, thus destroying the popular Arab-Islamic culture and character of the city.

DEPORTATIONS

In June 1967, the Zionists captured the West Bank and Gaza, where there was no Jewish presence. Here, they put their policy of deportation immediately into work. All residents not physically present in the West Bank and Gaza were not allowed to return to their homes. Thus, thousands of people who happened to be aboard, for one reason or another, were stripped off their right to return to their homes and lands. These included such outstanding personalities as Sheik Asad al-Tamimi, the Imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque. In addition, the Israelis started a grand settlement program, by usurping Arab lands. with the aim of turning the Jewish settlers into a majority by the turn of the century. This program was carried out by organizing Jewish immigration to Israel from the territories of the then Soviet Union and other countries.

Deportation have continued unabated ever since. During the twenty-six years from 1967 to 1993, the Zionists deported about 2,500 prominent Palestinians, all leaders of their community and in the forefront of the resistance. The basic idea is to render the Palestinians under occupation leaderless, while the Judaization process goes on unabated. In 1993 four hundred Palestinians were exiled by Israel to Lebanon where they had to live in the desert, under strenuous conditions. Later Israel had to back down and allowed the return of these exiles back to their homes by November this year.

Mass excavation is now been carried out underneath the Masjid Al-Aqsa under the pretext of searching for the Temple of Solomon. Zionism is laying waste the first Qibla of the Muslims.

The grand strategy of Zionism cannot be however implemented unless and until they totally destroyed Al-Quds. They have hatched so many plots to either destroy or change the style of the mosque but with no avail.

But for the past 26 years, since Israel occupied Palestine, including the Masjid Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock (which have been the focus of Zionist aggression) it has been trying to replace them with a new (third) temple, 1,990 years after the Romans destroyed the temple of the Jewish King, Herod.

However, it is widely believed by Muslims, especially Palestinians, that this attempt to lay a « foundation » stone was not the « beginning » of the construction of anew temple. The temple is believed by Muslims to have already been partly constructed and efforts by the Zionists at official level, to destabilize the structure of Al-Aqsa mosque in Al-Quds have also already begun.

ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT

The fact also remains that there will be no just and lasting peace in the Middle East unless and until Zionism put an end to its usurpation of the Islamic and Christian holy shrines and the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence restored.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AL-QUDS

The Prophet then commenced the second part of his journey and proceeded from that place to the skies. He then observed the stars and the system of the world and conversed with the souls of the previous Prophets and also with the angels of the Heavens. He saw the centers of blessing and torture (Paradise and Hell) and also saw the places of the dwellers of Hell and Paradise from close quarters and consequently became fully aware of the secrets of creation, the extent of the Universe and the signs of the Omnipotent Allah. Then he continued his journey and reached « Sidratul Muntaha » and found it fully covered with splendor, magnificence and grandeur. At time, his journey came to an end and he returned through the way he had gone. During his return journey also he first came to Al-Quds and then proceeded to Makkah.

The Heavenly Ascension cannot therefore be overemphasized. It was during the Meraj that the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) spoke with Allah and also got the five Times daily prayers in junction for every Muslim. What is already mentioned is just a tip of the iceberg for the significance of Al-Quds. It served as a legitimization process whereby Prophet Mohammed was linked to all the past Prophets.

The irony of the situation however, is that Jerusalem has now become the gunpower magazine that will be capable to blow up the entire world, because of the policies of Israel. Israel wants to monopolize the whole region, excluding both the Christians and the Muslims.

It is argued that Israeli policy in the occupied territories constitutes grave violation of the human rights of the civilian population in the occupied territory, causing even greater suffering to the Palestinian people under occupation with far-reaching socioeconomic, demographic and emotional consequences.

THE INTIFIDAH

The intifidah which has lasted for more than five years, has altered the status quo in the occupied areas, a manifestation on the part of the Palestinian people that despite decades of occupation, they do not intend to accept the way of life which has been forced on them by Israel. The intifidah is not confirmed to spontaneous demonstrations by individual groups of the population. It has become a complex social, economic and political phenomenon, which has effected all aspects of life inthe, occupied West Bank and Gaza. The intifidah manifest the rekindling of the hope for liberation of the Palestinian people and thus, Al-Quds from the oppressive yoke of Israel. The oppressor Israel is aware that no amount of the use of naked power or force will cow down the Palestinians. The intifidah has had far-reaching effects on every case in the body politic of Israel. Intifidah is therefore the hope, the beginning of the glow of light at the end of the tunnel; manifesting that it is just a question of time Palestine and thus Al-Quds will be liberated.

CONCLUSION

Islamic-Christian dialogue must also be intensified in this connection. Christians should be made equally aware that their heritage will be lost if they acquiesce to the Judaization of Palestine and its Holy Places. Attention must also be drawn to the Israeli propaganda tactics in most developing countries, which depicts Israel as the defender of the Christian faith. The Islamic-Christian dialogue must counter such propaganda tactics.

We all wait for the day the Holy Land will become in reality the symbol of religious unity and thus, a genuine hope for world peace and progress for Mankinf. In this connection we hope that recent development in the area particularly the agreement between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel will serve the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2. ISESCO should set up an Ad-Hoc Information Bureau on the Liberation of the Al-Quds. The Bureau will be responsible for dissemination of information to the world community through videocassettes, films, books, leaflets, organization of workshops and seminars, recordings of radio programs etc. depicting the situation of Al-Quds.

4. Seminars and symposia an Palestine should be frequently organized.

Books :

1. The legal status of the West Bank and Gaza, UN publications, N.Y. 1983.