Newspaper Page Text
6
THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE
The
Ever since the controversy over the
Hotel Maaravi, or the Western Wall
of the Jerusalem Temple of antiquity,
began three years ago the Jewish
people have never demanded more
than freedom to pray at this Wall
according to their religion and with
out interference. This has been the
attitude of even the most orthodox
groups of Palestine. I mention this at
the outset, so that the true signifi
cance of the recent Wailing Wall Com
mission Report can be fully under
stood.
Newspaper headlines and fiery
speeches by Jewish politicians are of
course thundering that the chief
among the Jewish Holy Places of the
world has been adjudged Moslem
property. Impulsive Zionist leaders
are letting out a cry that Jewish
hopes in Palestine have received an
other setback through this report of
the Wailing Wall Commission. An im
partial observer, however, cannot fail
to note a strange paradox. The strict
ly orthodox religious leaders of Pales
tine, including Chief Rabbi Kook and
Rabbi Sonnenthal, have expressed
their satisfaction with the Commis
sion’s decision affecting the status of
the Wailing Wall. They are willing to
abide by the findings, convinced that
Jewish demands for free worship at
the Wall have not been seriously af
fected by the report. On the other
hand, Menahem Ussishkin, head of
the Jewish National Fund, a rabid
political Zionist, is urging his follow
ers against the acceptance of the
League Commission’s report. He be
lieves—and he says so quite clearly—
that Jewish honor has been sacrificed
on the altar of political expediency.
His attitude is being supported by a
good number of Revisionists who by
no stretch of the imagination can be
called “shool Yidden.” Thus confusion
might enter the minds of Zionists and
other Jews as to the actual signifi
cance of the report of the Commis
sion appointed by Premier MacDon
ald, with the approval of the League
of Nations, to investigate the Wailing
Wall controversy. In despair they cry:
What is it all about?
The report of the Commission states
unequivocally that “the Moslems have
the sole ownership of and the sole
property right to the Wailing Wall
and the adjoining pavement”; that
the Jews are granted free access to
the Wall for the purpose of devotion,
within certain defined limitations;
that the bringing of screens, benches
and other appurtenances of worship
to the Wall for Jewish services is for
bidden; that the blowing of the sho-
far, or ram’s horn, is prohibited; that
no political speeches or demonstra
tions are to be permitted on the pave
ment before the Wall or in its en
virons.
To the student of Palestine affairs
it is evident that the Commission’s
report merely confirms the status quo
The Right To Weep
Story And Significance Of The Wailing Controversy
By ROBERT STONE
How did the Wailing Wall controversy begin? What is the true
story of the famous “screen incident”? Will the Orthodox rabbis of
Palestine accept the Commission’s report? What did the Grand Mufti
charge Professor Einstein with in connection with the Wall issue?
Why did Premier MacDonald appoint only citizens of Sweden, Switzer
land and the Netherlands as members of the Wailing Wall Commis
sion? Are Jews losing or gaining by the Commission’s decision? All
these questions are discussed and conclusively answered in this author
itative interpretation of the Wailing Wall issue by one of America’s
best-infomned Jeivish journalists.
ut *
mm
RtfjSik II
J ■*>
||/f
■ ip
m
in
to
WAILING WALL OF JERUSALEM
Center of Much Heated Controversy
in force since the famous “incident of
the screen.” It will be remembered
that about nine o’clock in the morn
ing of the Jewish Day of Atonement
falling on September 24, 1928, British
police, acting on orders received from
the Deputy District Commissioner of
Jerusalem, broke through the crowd
of worshipers at the Hotel Maaravi
ana enected the removal of a p
able screen which had been usee
separate the men and women at \
snip, m accordance with Jewish
1 \ entrea ties of the wors
ers that the removal of the screei
postponed until the conclusion of
services and of the fast were igno
ihe police knocked down several a
worshipers, and, as an eye-witness r P
ported, one worshiper, who was hold'
mg on to the screen, was dram,
along the ground. Later on it was r?
vealed that the action of the police
was the result of the Grand Mufti’s
complaints that the Jews were dese
crating Moslem holy ground by build
ing additions to the Wall. Thus began
the Wailing Wall controversy, which
now, with the recently published re
port of the League Commission, is en
tering its final stage.
Ever since that distasteful “screen
incident” the Wailing Wall issue hai
been in the very forefront of Pales
tine news. The Arab Executive ex
ploited the incident to the very ut
most. Under the leadership of the
Grand Mufti it engaged in an inten
sive campaign of propaganda, poison
ing Arab public opinion against the
Jews. Rumors were circulated that it
was the intention of the Jewish peo
ple to capture Moslem holy places and
to violate the sanctity of the Mosques
of Aksa and Omar. Professor Albert
Einstein—of all men!—was charged
with leading a movement to rebuild
the Temple of Solomon on the site of
the Mosque of Omar. In answer to
this ludicrous libel the father of the
Relativity Theory, it will be remem
bered, addressed to British public
opinion an open message in which he
stated: “Does public opinion in Great
Britain realize that the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem, who is the center of ail
the trouble and speaks so loudly in
the name of all Moslems, is a young
political adventurer of not much more
than thirty years of age, who in 1920
was sentenced to several years’ im
prisonments for his complicity in the
riots then, but was pardoned under
the terms of amnesty? Is it tolerable
that in a country (Palestine) where
ignorant fanaticism can so easily be
incited to rapine and murder by in
terested agitators so utterly irrespon
sible and unscrupulous a politician
should be enabled to continue to ex
ercise his evil influence, garbed in a,.
the spiritual sanctity of religion an
invested with all the temporal pc"
ers that this involves in an Eastern
country ?”
This is recorded as an illustration
of the wild heights to which t e
Grand Mufti and his colleague*
climbed in their nefarious canl PpV
to inflame Arab hatred against
estine Jewry, using the unfortune
screen incident as their start ing*P°
and transforming it into a ^
screen behind which they kfP* u ^.
constant bombardment, an nc 5^ a jiy
whispering campaign wh in ^
culminated in the tragic P ; L ’ nl Ti v
August, 1929—which, ;den ‘ a A
was the scene of the wors" ,u . s
disturbance. To any one ' ^ - e aled
these developments it wa ie
clearly that the Wailing Mr o 1
vide the most efficacious
(Continued on Page
ipon
S)