Editorial Board


The Islamic Endowments Department in Jerusalem published a video clip of a former Zionist soldier named “Yair Barak” handing over the key to the Mughrabi Gate, one of the doors of the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque, 56 years after it was stolen, to the Director-General of the Department, Sheikh Azzam Al-Khatib.

This happened last Thursday during the aggression against Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem on the Hebrew anniversary of the occupation of Jerusalem, coinciding with the so-called flag march.


But publishing this news and video should be a subject of criticism and questioning, not celebration:


First: Was this soldier’s crime an individual act to be whitewashed by individual correction? Has the so-called Zionist left become good and acceptable? It is the most dangerous, most destructive and spiteful enemy, because some of its members have been allowed today to appear as gentle lambs after they have grown old and those with a louder voice have appeared.


Second: What does the Endowments Department have to do with the sins of this soldier and the attempt to correct them so that he is received and his page is whitewashed in this way? Isn’t its official position not to recognize the occupation and its courts, and therefore it abandons its guards and employees when they are tried? Now a former soldier who participated in the occupation of Al-Aqsa is being received as if he were one of the most important guests?


Third: Taking control of the Mughrabi Gate was a decision of the occupation government and not a coincidence because a soldier took the key in his pocket! So what now? Has the Mughrabi Gate returned under the umbrella of the Endowments? Have the raids stopped? What is the benefit of promoting this event if all of this did not happen?!


In conclusion, and to make the picture more clear, earlier and during a lecture at the “leftist” Zionist “Van Leer” Institute, one of the Zionist philosophers stood up and proposed “Zionist generosity” as a solution to the conflict, meaning that the Zionist gives and relinquishes his right to the land and country to the Palestinian, as if it were for the Jews or the Zionists. A historical right in Palestine, which this “philosopher” will transcend and rise above the conflicting national narratives on the ground!!!


In conclusion, returning the key can only be considered an act of colonialism as he took it, and whoever stood smiling to receive it from the Zionist soldier was satisfied to assume the role of the recipient of Zionist generosity with an ignorance that does not befit a person responsible for a spot on earth over which the nations of the earth are clashing in war and thought.