The Jordanian parliament is a genuinely legitimate institution in an absolute monarchy. In that sense, it is not very different from parliaments in several other Arab states. They reflect the will of their electorates in some way, engage in heated debate and have quite limited authority. Nevertheless, the Jordanian parliament is not insignificant. Its debates and decisions are covered (if cautiously) by the Jordanian media, and the sovereign must take what happens there into consideration in light of the parliament giving voice to the mood of his people.

When the Jerusalem District Court decided on March 17 to extend the temporary closure order for the Muslim prayer room at the Gate of Mercy (Bab al-Rahma) on the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif to Muslims) for another 60 days, a majority of the Jordanian House of Representatives voted to call on the monarch to sever diplomatic relations with Israel and close the country's embassy in Tel Aviv. Nothing more, nothing less.

The legislature referred to the “ongoing Israeli aggression at holy sites in occupied Jerusalem” and Israel's alleged attempts to challenge the status quo at the holy site while also attacking the special status of Jordan as the guardian of the sacred Islamic sites in Jerusalem. The parliament accused Israel of assailing the status of the Islamic Waqf on the Haram al-Sharif. In Israel, news of the parliament’s vote was relegated to the back pages of newspapers.

Meanwhile, the Jordanian government could not ignore the parliament’s demand. In Amman, the Foreign Ministry joined in calls to overturn the closure order, adding that Israel will bear full responsibility for anything that might happen at the site. Yet even this was hardly enough to restore calm. King Abdullah II was also forced to jump into the fray, issuing a statement asserting that a red line had been crossed, that Israel is entirely responsible for tensions with Muslim worshippers and that Jordan has a historic responsibility toward Jerusalem’s Islamic holy sites.