Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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)