Why Saudi Arabia Should Not Manage the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf

The Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, the religious trust overseeing Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, has been under Jordanian custodianship for decades. However, in recent years, discussions have surfaced regarding whether Saudi Arabia should take over its management. This proposal arises in the context of regional power struggles, normalization agreements, and Saudi Arabia’s aspirations for a greater role in Islamic affairs. While some argue that Saudi control could bring increased financial and diplomatic stability, others warn of potential geopolitical consequences.
Since 1948, the administration of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf has been under Jordanian oversight. After Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967, Jordan and Israel reached an understanding that allowed the Waqf to continue managing Al-Haram Al-Sharif despite Israel’s overall control of the city. This arrangement was formalized in the 1994 Jordan-Israel peace treaty, which recognized Jordan as the custodian of Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, as the guardian of Islam’s two holiest sites in Mecca and Medina, has long maintained a central role in the Muslim world. More recently, Riyadh has sought to expand its influence over religious affairs beyond its borders, and the idea of Saudi oversight over the Jerusalem Waqf has gained traction in the context of the Abraham Accords and Saudi-Israeli rapprochement.
One of the primary reasons for opposing Saudi management of the Waqf is the potential impact on Israel’s security. The status quo at Al-Aqsa is already a source of frequent tensions, and introducing a new stakeholder could further destabilize the situation. Saudi Arabia’s political ambitions and alliances differ from those of Jordan, and its involvement could complicate Israel’s ability to manage security at the site. Unlike Jordan, which has maintained a stable relationship with Israel regarding the Waqf, Saudi Arabia’s custodianship could introduce new risks, including the possibility of increased radicalization and external influence over the mosque’s administration.
Additionally, Saudi management could invite greater involvement from external actors, including Iran and Turkey, which have sought to expand their influence in Jerusalem. Any shift in custodianship could lead to a power struggle over control of Al-Aqsa, increasing tensions in an already volatile region. If Saudi Arabia uses its influence to push a more hardline stance on the site, this could lead to an escalation of violence, particularly between Israeli security forces and Palestinian factions.
Saudi Arabia’s history with religious extremism further complicates the issue. The kingdom has been a key exporter of Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam that has been linked to the rise of terrorist groups across the Middle East and beyond. While the Saudi government has taken steps to curb extremist influences in recent years, its past associations with radical ideologies raise concerns about how it might influence the administration of the Waqf. A more hardline interpretation of Islamic governance at Al-Aqsa could lead to increased tensions with both Israel and more moderate Muslim actors in the region.
While Jordan has historically provided stability, its management of the Waqf has not been without controversy. Reports of corruption, inefficiency, and the politicization of Waqf appointments have led to concerns over its effectiveness. Additionally, Jordan has struggled to prevent the site from being used as a platform for incitement, particularly by groups aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical factions. While Jordan remains a preferable custodian compared to Saudi Arabia, these shortcomings suggest that an alternative model may be needed.
Rather than entrusting the Waqf solely to Jordan or Saudi Arabia, a more balanced approach would be the creation of a governing committee composed of moderate Muslim nations with a vested interest in stability and religious harmony. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Egypt, and Indonesia—each with strong Islamic credentials and pragmatic foreign policies—could work together to oversee the administration of the Waqf. Such a committee would reduce the risks of unilateral political influence, ensure that religious governance remains neutral, and create a broader framework for cooperation with Israel on security matters.
From the Palestinian perspective, opposition to any changes in the current custodianship arrangement remains strong. Many see Jordan’s role as a safeguard against Israeli encroachment on Al-Aqsa and fear that Saudi involvement might come with political strings attached, particularly if it is part of a broader normalization deal with Israel. Palestinian leaders have repeatedly emphasized that any changes to the status quo must be decided in coordination with them, rather than imposed through regional diplomacy. Given these complexities, a multilateral committee of Muslim nations may be more acceptable to Palestinian stakeholders than outright Saudi control.
Saudi Arabia’s involvement in managing the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf presents significant risks, particularly regarding Israel’s security and regional stability. Jordan’s custodianship, despite its flaws, remains preferable to handing control over to a country with a history of religious radicalism. However, the mismanagement of the Waqf by Jordan suggests the need for an alternative framework. A coalition of moderate Muslim nations could provide a balanced and effective approach, ensuring that religious governance is conducted in a way that maintains peace, respects Islamic traditions, and safeguards Israel’s security interests. Introducing Saudi Arabia as a new player could lead to increased tensions, embolden extremist factions, and complicate Israel’s security operations. Given these factors, a multilateral approach is the best path forward to ensuring long-term stability and protecting the delicate balance in Jerusalem.