A complaint was submitted to the United Nations Security Council on August 28, 1969, by twenty-four Muslim countries due to the attempt to burn Al Aqsa Mosque. Ambassador  Mohammad El Farra of Jordan made a statement to the Council in which he stated:

Today, my delegation joins the 24 other members, representing 750 million adherents of  the Moslem faith, which requested a meeting to consider another, more serious tragedy, namely of Al Aqsa Mosque, and the fire which severely damaged that historic Holy Place on the morning of 21 August 1969. The Israeli authorities introduced more than one explanation for the start of the fire and at last charged an Australian with the arson.

According to news that originated from Israel sources, the Australian suspect is a friend of Israel who was brought by the Jewish Agency to work for Israel. The Jewish Agency arranged for the Australian to work in a Kibbutz for some months, so that he could learn the Hebrew language and acquire more of the Zionist teaching. The report published in the Jerusalem Post- an Israeli semi-official newspaper-of 25 August 1969 concerning the life of this Australian in the Kibbutz and his dreams of building Solomon’s temple casts doubt on the case and adds to the fears and worries of the Moslems about their holy shrines; it also throws light on who is the criminal and who is the accomplice.

We have not forgotten statements in the early days of the 5 June 1967 Israeli occupation about the future of Jerusalem, nor have we forgotten the report of Menahem Borsh, which was published in Yediot Aharanot of 18 August, 1969, only three days before the burning of the Mosque, emphasizing that the Temple would be built anew in the same spot that “Strangers tried to seize”. The desecration of this holy Mosque by a group of the Bitar members only three days before the arson is a living example of Israeli motives and designs.

Let us see what did and what did not happen on Thursday, 21 August 1969. In the early hours of that morning fire broke out the Al Aqsa Mosque. Moslems praying in the Mosque and others rushed to the scene to remove some of the valuables in the Mosque and extinguish the fire. The Jordanian fire brigade in Jerusalem was called. Moslem religious leaders as well as Jordanian officials within the Israeli-occupied area came to the scene.

To the outside world news of the fire came in Arabic from Radio Israel at 8:30 a.m., that is, one hour and ten minutes after the fire started. The broad cast carried the news of the arson; it did not give any reason for the fire and did not say whether it was extinguished.

Meanwhile, Jordanian fire brigades from Ramallah, and even those from Al Khalil (Hebron) and Nablus, were sent to the scene- and we all know it takes an ordinary car more than one hour to reach Jerusalem from those two cities. With the help of those brigades and the co-operation of the local population, the fire was at last extinguished and contained.

According to Reuters, it took the fire brigades over five hours to extinguish the fire; this, to a certain extent, was substantiated by Israeli authorities. As stated at a press conference that same day by Teddy Kollek, the illegally appointed Mayor, and according to Radio Israel , it took them until 10:30 a.m. to extinguish the fire. We think Mr. Tekoah should have exchange notes with his authorities, with Radio Israel and Mr. Kollek, before coming here to say that it took about one hour. We find it took them until 10:30 to extinguish the fire.

Certainly Mr. Tekoah seems to disagree with the Israeli eyewitness who admitted that there was delay and tried to find justification for that delay. There was no doubt among the inhabitants and eyewitnesses that the arrival of the Israeli fire brigades, in short reach of the scene, was delayed and their job was unsatisfactory.

That same afternoon the commander of the fire brigades told the journalists that the pumping of water was working swiftly and in an orderly manner at the beginning but that eight minutes later something happened-the pumping of the water was interrupted and could not work as before. This is something for every member to ponder. The commander of the fire brigades reported that it had not been indicated whether that was due to a technical mishap or to a premeditated act. It must be remembered, however, that after the Israeli occupation the water system in the city was connected to the western part so that the Israelis would be in full control of the water system. This, among other things, elicited Sharp criticism and apprehension from Arab Mayor Rouhi El-Khatib and the former President of the Moslem Council, Abdul Hamid Es-Sayeh, both of whom were expelled from Jerusalem to the East Bank of Jordan.

Was Rohan, after all, acting on his own initiative? Was he not brought to Israel and sponsored by the Jewish Agency? Where did he get all the money which he offered to the guards of Al Aqsa on the morning of the fire and which the guards declined to take?

According to The Times of London, of 12 September 1969: “On Rohan’s way out he offered each 110 pounds sterling but they declined, Mr. Hilwani said.” The Sheikh, thinking there must be something wrong, then entered into the Mosque and rushed out crying”

“They have burnt the pulpit.” According to the same semi-official Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post of 25 August 1969, Rohan’s foster-parents in the kibbutz said: “He never appeared to be short of money to us.”

After several meetings by the Security Council to discuss the complaint, it adopted on September 15, 1969, Resolution 271 (1969), which condemned the act of destruction and profanation of the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque. It states:

Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969

The Security Council,

Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel.

Mindful of the consequent loss to human culture, Having heard the statements made before the Council reflecting the universal outrage caused by the act of sacrilege in one of the most venerated shrines of mankind, Recalling its resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 and the earlier General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, respectively, concerning measures and actions by Israel affecting the status of the City of Jerusalem.

Reaffirming the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible.

1.Reaffirms its resolution 252 (1968) and 267 (1969);

2. Recognizes that any act of destruction or profanation of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem or any encouragement of, or connivance at, any such act may seriously endanger international peace and security;

3. Determines that the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel’s desisting from acting forthwith all measures and actions taken by it designed to alter the status of Jerusalem;

4.Calls upon Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Convention and international law governing military occupation and to refrain from causing any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Moslem Council may desire from countries with predominantly Moslem population and from Moslem communities in relation to its plan for the maintenance and repair of the Islamic Holy Places in Jerusalem;

5. Condemns the failure of Israel to comply with the aforementioned resolutions and calls upon it to implement forthwith the provisions of these resolutions;

6.Reiterates the determination in paragraph 7 of resolution 267 (1969) that, in the event of a negative response or no response, the Security Council shall convene without delay to consider what further action should be taken in this matter;

7. Request the Secretary-general to follow closely the implementation of the present resolution and to report thereon to the Security Council at the earliest possible date.

Adopted at the 1512th meeting by 11 votes to none, with 4 abstentions (Columbia, Finland, Paraguay, United States of America.)

Source: Encyclopedia of Palestine Problem by Issa Nakhleh.