Settler incursions into Al-Aqsa during Sukkot draw police escort and shop closures

Perspective Analysis

On the second and third days of the Jewish holiday Sukkot in late September 2026, groups of Israeli settlers entered the courtyards of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem through the Mughrabi Gate. Palestinian reporting placed the numbers at dozens on the second day, while other accounts recorded 1,500 on one day and 1,271 on the next. The Jerusalem Governorate described successive waves of entrants performing Talmudic rituals near the Qattanin Gate, chanting songs, forming dance circles, prostrating and lying on the ground, and bringing plant offerings into the compound. Israeli police provided protection for the movement, according to the same governorate statements carried across multiple outlets. The Islamic Waqf Department in Jerusalem and Palestinian media noted that National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and, in one account, Defense Minister Israel Katz joined or led groups of settlers.

Palestinian authorities reported that the entries occurred alongside tightened restrictions on movement in the Old City. One detailed account stated that dozens of Palestinian shopkeepers, café and restaurant owners in the Cotton Merchants Market were ordered by Israeli police to close their businesses for most of the holiday period so that Jewish prayers could be held in the market. Around 200 Palestinian residents along the prayer route were told to remain inside their homes. Traders described the order as the first time closures had extended across the full holiday rather than limited hours. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel recorded the instructions, which police delivered first by phone and then in person without a written order.

The Palestinian presidency issued a statement through its spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeineh that the incursions represented a failed attempt to impose new facts on the ground and would not grant Israel any legitimacy. The statement held the Israeli government fully responsible for dangerous consequences and warned that the practices targeted the Islamic and Christian identity of Jerusalem and its holy sites. It stressed that East Jerusalem remained occupied Palestinian territory. The same spokesperson described the actions as playing with fire and a dangerous provocation to Muslims worldwide, carrying the risk of a religious war.

Turkish officials condemned the entries as a raid on the compound that violated its historic and legal status. The Foreign Ministry called for the international community to take deterrent measures, accusing the Netanyahu government of seeking to inflame regional tensions. Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş stated there could be no justification for disregarding the sanctity of holy sites. Presidential Communications Director Burhanettin Duran described the raid as undermining peace efforts, while the Family and Social Services Minister urged concrete international action. The Justice and Development Party spokesperson called on Israel to halt what it termed systematic attacks.

The Arab League’s General Secretariat condemned the escalation in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the repeated settler incursions, and warned of a dangerous deterioration at Al-Aqsa. Hamas warned that the incursions would not change the Islamic identity of the site and denounced the tightening of restrictions on residents and holy sites. Egyptian authorities joined the Arab League in condemning the ongoing escalation.

The accounts agree on the basic sequence of protected entries during Sukkot and the Palestinian side’s rejection of any change to the status quo. They differ in the weight given to specific elements. One Iranian account foregrounded the figure of 1,500 settlers and the explicit role of police protection as evidence of state machinery at work. The Palestinian agency account supplied granular detail on the rituals and plant offerings drawn from governorate statements. The Pakistani outlet that carried Anadolu Agency copy added the forced closures of shops and the lockdown of residents in the Cotton Merchants Market, a dimension not described in the other four pieces. The Turkish daily centered the sequence of official condemnations from Ankara rather than the entries themselves. The Chinese wire amplified the Palestinian presidency’s assertion that the actions would not confer legitimacy and carried the warning of further tension and explosion.

No source in the set contained an Israeli government or police statement explaining the protection provided or the purpose of the movement. The enabling role of Israeli forces therefore appears uniformly across the reporting, while the intent behind the entries and the consequences that follow are framed through the priorities of each outlet’s alignment. Palestinian and Iranian accounts treat the event as an immediate violation experienced on the ground. The Turkish and Chinese pieces treat it as a trigger for diplomatic response and a rejection of legitimacy. The single account that included the shop-closure detail supplied a concrete economic impact on Palestinian traders that the others did not record.

The status quo at the site, long maintained under Jordanian custodianship of the Islamic Waqf, has prohibited non-Muslim prayer inside the compound while allowing visits under strict conditions. Sukkot involves the construction of temporary booths and the use of plant species in ritual; the reported plant offerings and Talmudic practices inside the courtyards directly test that prohibition. The numbers of entrants vary between accounts, yet every source that supplied a count described movement under police escort on consecutive days of the holiday. The absence of any counter-account from Israeli sources in this set leaves the description of police facilitation as the only version available.

The reporting therefore supplies a consistent picture of large-scale, protected entries accompanied by ritual activity and Palestinian restrictions, together with immediate condemnation from Palestinian officials, the Arab League, Hamas, Turkey and Egypt. The differences lie in which aspect each outlet chose to place at the center: the scale and mechanics of the entry, the daily economic burden on residents, or the diplomatic and legitimacy consequences. A reader limited to any single one of these outlets would miss either the ritual detail, the shop-closure order, or the range of state-level condemnations that the others recorded.