A Story of the Status Quo and the Prince (with apologies to Rebbe Nachman)

A story of the Status Quo and the Prince*

Once upon a time, the king's son fell into madness of being in an exiled state, which he called the Status Quo, which is similar to suffering an identity crisis, and decided that the king's palace had to be abandoned as if it had become a desolate place for his enemies, and the king's son would sit outside as if in exile.

All the doctors and prophets despaired of helping him and curing him of this, and the king was in even greater sorrow than that. Until a wise man came and said, "I will take it upon myself to cure him," and he left the palace and sat outside with the king's son. And he asked the king's son, "Who are you and what are you doing here?" And he answered him, "I am in exile, for that is what the status quo is. What are you doing here?" And the wise man replied, "I am also in exile."

And they both sat together like that for a while until they became accustomed to each other. And the Wise Man said to the king's son, "Do you think that those who are in exile cannot live in the Land of Israel under Jewish sovereignty? They can establish a state, and yet it will be a status quo." 

And he continued, "They established a state. After some time, they received a hint, and they went to war and won and conquered the mountain and the valley and Jerusalem." And he also said to him as above, "Do you think that with Jerusalem there cannot be a status quo, etc., until they have settled in Jerusalem and with the rest of the Land?"

And then they received another hint and they began to ascend the Temple Mount and pray there and bow down and he said to him, "Meynstu az aoyb men davent aoyfn har habayis ven es iz nishta keyn status kvo, ken men davenen aun aoykh habn dem status kvo, aun zikh anshtrengen aoyfn har habayis?" (Do you think that if one prays on the Temple Mount while there is no status quo, one can pray and also have the status quo, and prostrate on the Temple Mount?"

And then again the Wise Man spoke and said to the king's son, "Do you think that the status quo must be precisely without sacrifices or that there can be a status quo and there can be sacrifices as well?" And thus he behaved with him until he completely healed him and they returned and built the king's palace and expelled all the king's enemies. And the parable is understandable to those who understand.

*

This tale, whose author I am still searching for, is based on an actual Nachman of Bratslav tale:

Hebrew source.

An English translation.

^

The Status Quo and Two Nails

From 

a story of two nails:

^

The Year Non-Moslem Entrance to the Temple Mount Became the Status Quo

On February 18, 1229, at the end of the Sixth Crusade, the Treaty of Jaffa was signed between Sultan al-Kamil and Frederick II which permitted Christians to reoccupy the holy places of Jerusalem, except for the Temple area which remained under the control of the Moslem religious authorities.

Jerusalem was handed over to Christian rule for ten years, with Moslems denied access to all but the al-Aqsa enclave in the city which was to remain in Moslem hands and where Moslem religious observances would be allowed to continue unobstructedal. The historical record has Kamil saying:

‘We have allowed only ruined churches and monasteries. The al-Aqsa enclave and what is in it consisting of the Dome of the Rock and the rest of shrines are in the hands of the Muslims as before and the sign of Islam is on what is there [al-Aqsa enclave].

Pope Gregory IX wrote to Duke Leopold of Austria (and other prelates and rulers), denouncing Frederick II’s treaty with al-Kamil (18th July 1229):

Secondly, and even more disgraceful and to be abhorred and greeted with astonishment, he has impudently and irreverently ejected that same [faith] from the Temple of God, in which Christ was given and where he established his first cathedral seat when he sat in the midst of the doctors, replying to them, and in His seat he has placed that lost man Mahomed, allowing his evil doctrine and law to be preached and proclaimed in the Temple of God. He has imposed silence on the herald teaching the truth, and entrusted guard on that temple and the keys of His enclosure to the Saracens. He has decreed that no Christian shall enter it, unless having first been questioned from the Temple mount he shall reveal his faith to a pagan. From this it is manifestly clear that it is left to the judgement of a Saracen whether a Christian ought to enter the Temple of God.

1229 - the year non-Moslem entrance to the Temple Mount became the status quo.

^ 

Letter to the Editor Re: Temple Mount

Jerusalem Post Weekend Magazine, Otober 29, 2021

Jeremy Sharon’s excellent overview of the Temple Mount situation at present should have recalled four background essentials for a fuller understanding of the issue.

Firstly, the sanctified Jewish “Temple Mount” area is smaller than the Muslim al-Haram al-Sharif, and Jews do not seek to enter Muslim buildings. There is enough room for Muslims, Jews and Christians to pray without “invading” another’s territory.

The second is that Jewish prayer is recognized as a basic right by decisions of the High Court of Justice based on the 1967 Law for the Preservation of Holy Places. Prayer is not illegal.

Third, the status quo of 1967 is not upheld by the Muslim Wakf, which has built three new mosques within the compound, destroyed historical and archaeological artifacts and altered administrative customs.

Fourth, Jordan, which is responsible for the (Jerusalem) Wakf Islamic religious trust and funds it, refuses to fulfill its obligations as per the 1994 Peace Treaty with Israel. Article 9 reads: “Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance... The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.” Even the positioning of surveillance cameras that could help prevent violence at the Temple Mount was sabotaged by Jordan.

YISRAEL MEDAD

Shiloh

^

A Call to Revolt, 90 Years On

Originally published in the Jerusalem Post Magazine, September 25, 2020

A call to revolt, 90 years on

By YISRAEL MEDAD   SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Yom Kippur 5691 fell on a Thursday – October 2, 1930. The next day’s edition of The Palestine Bulletin, the forerunner of this newspaper, informed its readers on page one that “an incident took place last evening when a young Jewish enthusiast desired to have the ram’s horn blown contrary to the temporary regulations issued last year.... Mr. [Julius] Jacobs argued with the youth and tried to persuade him to visit the synagogue nearby.... This he refused to do, and he was accordingly placed under arrest. One hour later he was released.” But let us go back two years to a previous Yom Kippur, which fell on September 24, 1928, to understand the event.

According to a memorandum by Leopold H. Amery, the colonial secretary, issued on November 19, titled “The Western or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem,” what happened was that without “prior consultation with the proper officers of government as to the arrangements for the services at the Wall,” Jews had affixed a mechitza (partition) to the pavement adjoining the Wall, and, among “other innovations,” additional petrol lamps, a number of mats and an ark “much larger than was customary” were brought to the site.

Incidentally, the mechitza itself was put up by the Radzymin Rebbe, Aharon Menachem Mendel Gutterman (1860-1934), head of the Meir Baal Haness charity, who was visiting at the time.

Called to the area, Inspector Douglas Duff and the district commissioner of Jerusalem, Edward Keith-Roach, requested of the chief Ashkenazi gabbai, Rabbi Noah Baruch Glaszstein, that evening to have the screen removed. It did not happen.

The following day, as Duff relates in his book Bailing with a Teaspoon, he and other policemen came down from Mount Scopus. They removed the partition as Jewish women hit them with their parasols. After tearing down the partition, a Jewish man clung to it as Duff and his men pushed through the angry crowd. Duff tossed the partition, along with the man still clinging to it, a distance from the Wall. According to Davar of September 28, an American Jewish woman was injured in the melee.

THIS WAS not the first time the presence of a prayer partition separating men and women at the Wall, had caused some contretemps and Muslim protestations.

During the Turkish regime, there were rulings throughout 1910-1913, regarding Tisha Be’av prayers, Shabbat and holidays, prohibiting Jews to erect a screen on the wall pavement or bring chairs, which were opposed by the Jewish leadership.

In February 1922, the Supreme Muslim Council asked the British Mandatory government to remove seats and benches from the Wall, claiming the Buraq site, the Arab name for the section of the Wall, was Wakf Islamic religious trust property.

Through the period 1922-28 at least 13 additional complaints against Jewish trespassing were forwarded to the Mandatory government by the Wakf and by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti. On Yom Kippur 1925, the Wakf officials forced the removal of benches.

Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook had asked the government already on May 30, 1920, “to entrust the Wall to the care and control of the representative of Jewry.” Three days later a memo was sent to Ronald Storrs, then military governor of Jerusalem, by the Chief Rabbinical Council that the “Holy Wall is the property of Israel. No other person or persons is allowed to touch it.” A petition was sent by Kook to King George V to plead for Jewish rights.

But the mufti would have none of this, and the British regime caved in.

TWO MONTHS after the mechitza incident, on November 19, 1928, one of the least-known British White Papers, Cmd. 3229, was issued. Authorized by Leopold H. Amery, secretary of state for the colonies, it promulgated that the Western Wall is “part of the Haram al-Sharif” and, “as such, it is holy to Muslims. Moreover, it is legally the absolute property of the Muslim community.” As the Mandatory was obliged “to preserve the status quo,” “appurtenance[s] of Jewish worship” needed to be removed. The September 24 ruckus was due to Jewish action, which constituted an infraction of the status quo of the Wall. The shofar’s sounds were silenced at the Wall.

Here is the origin the “status quo” policy which Moshe Dayan adopted in 1967.

Even before the White Paper’s publication, the Muslim Supreme Council had proceeded to renovate the Wall in a transparent attempt to establish primacy.

That spurred Liberal MP Joseph Kenworthy, the Baron Strabolgi, to ask the secretary of state for the colonies on November 12 why the erecting of “masonry constructions on top of the Wailing Wall” was “being permitted... especially in view of the action taken by the authorities in Jerusalem to enforce the removal of temporary screens placed by Jewish devotees against the wall as infringing the status quo.” He continued, “Will [he] give instructions that the status quo is to be preserved and that this new construction on this ancient wall should be forbidden?”

The Mandate regime was not interested in Jewish rights. As the Bulletin reported on December 5, 1928, the day the newspaper published the text of the White Paper, based on Mizrachi UK, “Sir John Chancellor’s attitude in seeking a solution of the Wailing Wall question will be that of benevolent neutrality.” Minnesota’s American Jewish World December 7 editorial asked, “Do the British authorities invoke the “status quo” to reduce the number of tourists, that most profitable “crop” of the Holy Land? Then why conjure up that remnant of Turkish misrule to justify the shortsighted, stupid meddling of Jerusalem police?” 

THE SEPTEMBER-November 1928 events set off a series of incidents throughout the year. Muslim ruffians would throw stones at those who came to pray and grab headgear. They led donkeys through so that their dung could be dropped, and undertook construction projects such as opening a new entrance on the southern side or conducting dhikr ceremonies, ritualized recital of litanies, including singing, music and even dance. Jews, led by Prof. Joseph Klausner and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, established a “Pro-Western Wall Committee” to campaign for Jewish rights, while the Muslims announced a “Committee to Defend the Noble Buraq.” Eventually, all this culminated in the August 1929 riots with the loss of life, property and the abandonment of Jewish communities.

The shaw Commission of Inquiry presented its 200-page report in March 1930. It fully backed the ban on blowing the shofar that High Commissioner Chancellor had earlier decreed on September 1, 1929, when he proclaimed: “I intend to give effect to the principles laid down in the White Paper of the 19th November, 1928.” The inquiry commission specifically added, “It may be that the Jewish religious authorities have a clear and established right to bring the shofar to the Wailing Wall and to use it there as part of the ritual of their devotions, but if that be the case, it is all the more regrettable that they did not take steps to substantiate that right by the production of evidence.” 

The British then appointed a commission consisting of “three members who shall not be of British nationality” to consider “the question of the rights and claims of the Jews and Muslims with regard to the Wailing Wall.” Their report appeared in December 1930 and, among other prohibitions, ordered that “the Jews shall not be permitted to blow the ram’s horn (shofar) near the Wall nor cause any other disturbance to the Muslims that is avoidable,” and a Royal Order in Council published on May 19, 1931, made that absolute.

HOWEVER, ON October 2, as we noted above, an act of protest and revolt took place. Moshe Segal (1904-1985), a member of Betar and a devotee of the Revisionist ideologue Abba Ahimeir and a Chabad adherent, blew the shofar at the Wall without permission.

As he later recalled, he borrowed a tallit, removed the shofar from a stand and “I wrapped myself in the tallit. At that moment, I felt that I had created my own private domain. All around me, a foreign government prevails, ruling over the people of Israel even on their holiest day and at their holiest place, and we are not free to serve our God; but under this tallit is another domain. Here I am under no dominion save that of my Father in Heaven; here I shall do as He commands me, and no force on earth will stop me.” Until 1948, that act of defiance, despite the resulting months of imprisonment, was undertaken by members of the Jabotinsky movement – by Betar members, those of Brit HaBiryonim and the Irgun. Their shofar blasts were not only acts that “broke the law,” but, rather, they declared that the governmental authority that dared decree the blowing of a shofar as illegal was itself illegitimate.

They sounded a call of revolt. And their shofar blasts eventually turned into armed resistance that led to the collapse of the British regime. 

The writer is a research fellow at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center.

^

A Status Quo for Jews Only

I have published many posts regarding the origin of Israel's post-1967 status quo.

Below is a short parliamentary exchange in late 1928 referring to a British White Paper of November that year which sought too placate Moslems by limiting Jewish rights at the Western Wall. Those rights were to bring chairs and benches in to the courtyard, hang lanterns and lamps, set u a prayer partition and blow the Shofar.

A British MP, using his logic, questioned whether any Moslem infractions of the status quo would be taken into consideration:

WAILING WALL, JERUSALEM.
HC Deb 03 December 1928 vol 223 cc813-4813

§12. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the White Paper Cmd. 3229, purporting to deal with recent incidents at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, contains no mention of alleged infringements of the status quo by the Moslem religious authorities; if he intends to issue a further White Paper on this aspect of the matter; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the addition of further masonry courses to the wall itself by the Moslem religious authorities and the other alleged infringements of the status quo?

§Mr. AMERY The White Paper is confined to the incidents which formed the subject of the question put to me when I undertook to lay that Paper before the House. It does not deal with matters in regard to which, as I have already informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am awaiting further reports from Palestine. I am not prepared to anticipate either the nature of those reports or the action which I shall take when I receive them. As I stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on 28th November, I am not satisfied that there has been a violation of the status quo by the Moslem authorities.

§Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY How will the right hon. Gentleman make the further information known? Will he issue a further White Paper?

§Mr. AMERY I will consider in what way.

§Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when he has the information, so that I can put a further question, if necessary?

§Mr. AMERY Yes, Sir.

Of course what happened was the Shaw Commission of Inquiry and the International Commission of Inquiry during 1930, investigting the 1929 Arab riots, permanently fixed those status quo rules and disallowed any Jewish ownership rights.

^

Hagia Sophia Really Doesn't Interest the NYTimes

Following an editorial published by the New York Times, I sent the newspaper the following letter:

Your editorial, "The Hagia Sophia Is Converted Again" (July 23, 2020), informs that Turkey's President R.T. Erdogan indicated that when not being used for Moslem prayer, the Hagia Sophia, built to surpass Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem as you note, would remain open to the public. This is a welcome sign that Islam can tolerate shared space for holy sites of two different religions.

I hope that this spirit will move the Moslem Waqf authorities in Jerusalem, supported incidentally by Erdogan, to find a compromise whereby Jews can be present within the Haram A-Sharif, originally the Temple Mount, without discrimination or prohibition so they can express respect for our holy site.

It was not published.

Was I being outlandish?

In 2006, Spanish Muslims wrote to then Pope Benedict XVI and ask for hs permission to hold Islamic prayer in Córdoba Cathedral.

In part, it read:

"We invite you to create a new example, to send a message of hope to the world...[it would create a] unique ecumenical space...Do not fear. Together we can show the violent, the intolerant, the anti-Semites, the Islamophobes and also those who believe that only Islam has a right to remain in the world, that prayer is the strongest weapon imaginable..."

Whether or not one assumes that letter was an honest expression of shared place conflict resolution, nevertheless, Moslems should no be allowed to make an unequal claim in Jerusalem, denying Jews a change in the status quo and freed access and the right to worship, while they claim they be afforded those same rights in  Cordoba.

______________

UPDATE

Archaeological finds date a Christian structure at the site to the 5th century, predating Islam by more than a century.

^

We Blew It: On The Prohibited Sounding of the Shofar

These names might not be recognizable to most:

Eliel Lofgren. Charles Barde. C.J. Van Kemken. Stig Sahlin.

Those were the three members of a committee that reviewed the issue of the Western Wall following the August 1929 riots, and its coordinating secretary. 

Matson Collection

In a short 2010 blog post I recalled their activity and I want to return to them and that period, as has been noted, we will soon be marking 90 years to the ban on the blowing of the shofar at the Western Wall by the British, which was vigorously protested by the Chief Rabbis immediately on the day following Yom Kippur 1929:

.

I need present some necessary history and will use material from the Report of the that three-man Commission which had been appointed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the approval of the Council of the League of Nations, to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem.  

As shown, there was a constant struggle of Jews against attempts by the Moslems to deny any legitimacy to customs and even simple decency of comfort of Jewish worshippers:

On 19th February, 1922, the acting Governor of Jerusalem received a letter from the Supreme Moslem Council, asking for the removal, according to the Palestine Government's previous instructions, of seats and benches from the Wall. As the Jews had again begun to place the seats there, the Council wrote again to the Governor on 16th April, 1922, asking him to restrain the Jews from bringing benches or seats to the place. Then the Council, at the request of the inhabitants of the private dwellings near the Pavement, in a letter dated 8th January, 1923, complained of a repeated trespass on the part of the Jews in the same respect. A reply was given by the acting Governor on the 3rd February, 1923, informing the Council that orders had been given for due observance of the earlier instructions.

That was 1922-1923.

Next, 1925-1926

After a certain time had elapsed the guardian of the Waqf of the Moghrabis protested again against the Jews for precisely the same reason and on that account in a Ietter dated 28th September, 1925, the Council lodged a complaint with the Governor, referring to the promise contained in his letter of 3rd February, 1923. As the Council did not receive any written answer for some time, they wrote again to the Governor on the 7th June, 1926, asking for a reply and entreating him to prevent the Jews "from repeating this act of theirs so as to abide by the status quo." Along with the said letter, however, there was enclosed a copy of a petition from the guardian of the Moghrabi Waqf, in which complaints were made "that Jews place benches, mats, tables, chairs, and lamps when they have not been previously allowed to do so." The guardian of the Waqf goes on to say that "this has caused a nuisance to passers by, as the road leads to the houses of the Waqf. They have therefore trespassed on part of the Waqf land, because the width of the passage does not exceed 2-1/2 metres. We are in continual quarrels with them as they insist on placing these things."

In other words, the Moslems, who built houses right up to the wall, leaving but a dozen feet or so for Jewish worshippers, then get upset they cannot walk by.

To continue:

Upon an answer being received from the Governor's Office dated the 28th of June, 1926, to the effect that "the matter was under investigation," the Council through their President wrote again on 20th July, 1926 repeating its request of 7th June, but without mentioning any particular appurtenances. As the result of the promised investigation was not forthcoming, the President of the Council sent a letter to the Deputy District Commissioner on the 4th of August, 1926, informing him that the Jews were again endeavouring to put out seats at the Wall. This information, he stated, had reached the Council from the guardian of the Moghrabi Waqf and his repeated request for action on behalf of the Council was dictated by those complaints. This time, however, the Council concluded their letter by saying: "The aim of the letter dated 20th July, 1926, was that the necessary steps be taken to prevent the Jews from putting anything in the Buraq, especially on Saturdays and Jewish feast days." On 25th August, 1926, the District Officer wrote to the President of the Council in reply to the above letter as follows: "That the measures referred to in the last paragraph of your quoted letter have been taken, and that no change in the status quo will take place."

And you wonder where Moshe Dayan got his idea about a "status quo".

After that nothing of any special interest happened up to the beginning of November, 1926, at which date the inhabitants of the Moroccan Quarter complained to the Supreme Moslem Council about the Jews bringing "small portable chairs" to the Wall, under the presence that they had been promised leave to use such chairs by the District Police Officer. Quarrels had arisen between the Moroccans and the Jews on account of that, and the guardian of the Waqf asked that the Jews might be prevented from placing anything there that was not sanctioned by old practice. The said petition caused the Council to write to the Deputy District Commissioner on 7th December, 1926, informing him about the quarrels that had just arisen about the small chairs which were " contrary to the ancient usage and practice," and he concluded his letter in the following way: "We do not believe that the Government desires to alter the ab antiquo state which has been enforced on to the present." (Italics inserted by the Commission.)

On to 1927-1928:

At the end of 1927 the Deputy District Commissioner advised the President of the Supreme Moslem Council that, in his opinion, it was desirable in the interests of public security that during certain hours of the day when Jews were wont to congregate at the Wall for praying purposes, tourists should not be permitted to go there. He, therefore, proposed to give orders to the policemen stationed near the Wailing Wall to refuse admission to tourists during those particular hours of the day.

This letter was written on the 2nd of December, 1927, and was answered very fully by the President of the Council, on the 15th of January, 1928. The Council objected to prohibiting tourists from approaching the Pavement, because any such prohibition amounted to "granting the Jews new rights in the same place, and, moreover, would arouse the feelings of the Moslems." In this letter the view was consequently advanced which came to light later in the proceedings before the Commission, viz., that "several incidents and many problems caused by the Jews around the question of the Buraq plainly indicate that they have laid down a plan of gradually obtaining this place.

Thereafter, the Deputy District Commissioner by letter of 30th March, 1928, informed the President of the Council that he would post a notice in the area of the Western Wall for the information of the tourists stating the special hours of prayer and "requesting the public to respect the privacy of those engaged in prayers at such times." In his answer to that letter on the 3rd of April the President of the Council stated that he could not agree to that notice being put up and repeated his assurance that every attempt by the Jews to extend their claims in the Buraq would be received with the utmost anxiety by the Moslems and would be flatly refused.

Not until the 24th of September, 1928, i.e., on the same day as the disturbances described in the Shaw Commission Report (page 29) took place, did the President of the Moslem Council himself make a direct and detailed protest against the Jews' habit of bringing appurtenances of worship to the Wall. He then specified "a wooden room covered with cloth, screens, mats, a large table in the middle and also the Ten Commandments placed on a chair which should not be there."

There is more but the above is more than sufficient. And it is important to see the development of the issue. The Mufti had his eye on turning the conflict into a religious one early on, prior to 1928 and "Jewish provocations".

The prohibition on sounding the shofar was already in place for Yom Kippur 1929, some two months after the riots, as reported in the Yiddish newspaper the Grodna Express:

and thanks to Bella Bryks-Klein for confirming my presumption that that what was reported.

The Committee concluded in its Report in connection with the shofar sounding:

It forms a part of the Jewish service in the Synagogue to blow the Shofar (ram's horn) on New Year's Day and on the Day of Atonement and the Jews have claimed the right on the said occasions to carry out this ceremony of theirs in front of the Wall too.

That is a claim that has not been recognised in the present administrative regulations or otherwise in actual practice, and the Commission has not found any sufficient reason for assenting to it.

And decided:

The Jews shall not be permitted to blow the ram's horn (Shofar) near the Wall nor cause any other disturbance to the Moslems that is avoidable;

Jews didn't have a chance with the Mandatory Government:

Already, back on November 28, 1928, the British published a 'forgotten' White Paper that was issued after the infamous "Prayer Partition" incident to re-established the principle of a status quo at sacred sites which included that 

a protocol could be mutually agreed upon between the Moslem and Jewish authorities regulating the conduct of the services at the Wall without prejudies to the legal rights of the Moslem owners and in such a way as to satisfy normal liturgical requirement and decencies in matters of public worship.

In that White Paper, it was made clear as reported in the Palestine Post of December 5, 1928, anything the Moslem Waqf and the Supreme Muslim Council considered as an act that infringes on the status quo would be opposed:

His Majesty 's Government regard it as their duty and it is their intention, to maintain, the established Jewish right of access to the pavment in front of the Wall for the purpose of their devotions and also their right to bring to the Wall those appurtenances that they were allowed to take to the Wall under the Turkish regime. It would be inconsistent with their duty under the Mandate were they to endeavour to compel the Moslem owners of the pavement to accord any further privileges or rights to the Jewish community. 

A previous post of mine on the subject.

Some other historical background here. 

___________________

P.S. Despite the ban, from 1930 until 1947, members of Betar, Brit Habiryonim and the Irgu blew the shofar, some being subsequently detained for up to 6 months in prison. In 1944, the Irgun warned the British not to think of coming into the alleyway in front of the Wall, a suggestion with which they complied.

^

When Jerusalem Becomes Regional

What is regional about Jerusalem's Temple Mount?

PM Netanyahu and Jordanian King Abdullah II Meet Today in Amman

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

The King and the Prime Minister discussed regional developments, advancing the peace process and bilateral relations. Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated Israel's commitment to maintaining the status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem.

^ 

Who Rules the Temple Mount?

As we all know, the (in)famous June 1967 arrangement of Moshe Dayan, then Defense Minister, the "status quo", set a policy that while Israel asserted sovereignty over the site, the practical day-to-day administration is in the hands of the Waqf.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expanded on that, in a statement that explicitly downgraded the status of Jews there when he declared

“Israel reaffirms its commitment to upholding unchanged the status quo of the Temple Mount, in word and in practice. Israel will continue to enforce its longstanding policy: Muslims pray on the Temple Mount; non-Muslims visit the Temple Mount.”

That was in late October 2015. It was thought that those words were said to placate Jordan's King Abdullah and US Secretary of State John Kerry as part of the failed surveillance camera deal.  The cameras were never affixed and neither the US or Jordan paid for that whereas that statement was a significant yielding up of rights which until then had never been so starkly spelled out.

In that connection, it has been pointed out that the next attempt to assure security at the site but also to collect proof who initiated the violence, who had stored weapons of various sorts in the mosques and who was cooperating with terrorists and rabble-rousers which was the metal detectors of summer 2017, was foiled because:

the Palestinian and Muslim discourse the central issue is the need to combat what they believe to be guiding the Israeli policy, namely, the Jewish (or Zionist or settler) effort to take over the holy compound that includes the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and to destroy the mosque and the Dome of the Rock so as to turn the Temple Mount into a place of Jewish prayer. Hence, the Palestinians and the Muslims did not see the installation of the metal detectors as a measure to improve security, but instead, as an obvious way to prepare the groundwork for changing the status quo and thereby advancing the objective that they ascribe to the Jews.

Before then we had statements such as these regarding the nature of the "status quo":

Netanyahu’s spokesman, Mark Regev, said on Thursday: “At last night’s security consultation, the prime minister made it clear that there will be no change in the status quo on the Temple Mount and that whoever expresses a different opinion is presenting a personal view and not the policy of the government.”

Regev said Netanyahu had made the comment at a meeting with security officials late on Wednesday. 

That was in November 2014.  The headline interpreted Netanyahu:

Binyamin Netanyahu rejects calls to let Jews pray at Jerusalem holy site

As Nadav Shragai wrote, it was obvious by then that

the old status quo has been greatly degraded, increasing Muslim control and status on the Mount and greatly undermining the status of Jews and the State of Israel on the Mount.

How degraded has it become?

This past Holocaust Day fell on a Thursday and according to the standing arrangements, Jews and other non-Muslim tourists should have been able to enter the holy compound. But they couldn't because of a Muslim holiday (I discussed that in detail here). But what was clear was that the Palestinian Authority celebrated that holiday on Thursday night-Friday and so the Mount should have been open, at least for morning visiting hours.

A letter from the Israel Police received by Michael Puah who complained explains the situation. The holiday was celebrated on Thursday in Jordan and so, the Temple Mount was closed to all non-Muslims:

If my understanding is correct, the Temple Mount basically is Jordanian property which Israel simply guards and assures that its Muslim status remains supreme and primary. Jordan customs are to be taken into consideration above all other regimes, including the Palestinian Authority (I presume because of the March 2013 agreement) and, of course, that of Israel. That agreement reads in the preamble of:

The continuity of Hashemite King of Jordan's custodianship of the holy sites since 1924 makes His Majesty more able to maintain the holy sites and to preserve Al Masjid Al Aqsa (Al Haram Al Sharif)

Jordan rules and pushes anti-Israel resolutions in such international bodies as UNESCO.

Jordan also is a signatory to a peace treaty with Israel which states in Article 9 that it will:

provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance...promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.

That has never happened.  And Israel has never, to my knowledge, complained about Jordanian moves on the matter.

Jordan rules.

^

There's Also A Christian Status Quo

For the record:

Statement on Jerusalem and Status Quo
By WCC Executive Committee, Amman, Jordan, 22 November 2017

The Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Amman, Jordan, on 17-23 November 2017, has heard of the ongoing struggle of the churches of the Holy Land, and particularly of Jerusalem, for the future of their communities and witness in this region.

In particular, the Executive Committee has heard with concern from the heads of the churches in Jerusalem of the ways in which church institutions and properties in Jerusalem are threatened as a result of a combination of contracts of disputed legality, the efforts of radical settler groups, and policies of the Government of Israel.

...Initiatives that threaten the delicate historic set of relationships, rights and obligations encompassed in the ‘Status Quo’ arrangements risk further destabilization of the situation in Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The Executive Committee calls on the Government of Israel to stop and refrain from any such initiatives that may upset this important foundation for inter-communal relations in the city and region.

^

The Temple Mount Pre-Status Quo

In his 2014 study, Nadav Shragai begins his research on "The 'Status Quo' on the Temple Mount" with "The Birth of the Status Quo in 1967".  A second article also avoids any pre-1967 discussion of the status quo. Likewise, the article by Ruth Lapidot and Tomer Treger, "The Temple Mount: Israel's Commitment to Preserve the Status Quo" assumes 1967 as a starting point.

It is unfortunate, and even careless, to discuss and deliberate the Temple Mount status quo without reviewing the history of the concept of status quo at religious sites during the British Mandate administration of Palestine.

The British were required to appear annually before the League of Nations' Permanent Mandates Commission in Geneva and present a "Report of the Commission to the Council.   One book on this oversight institution is The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire, by Susan Pedersen.

At its Eight Meeting, held on Friday, June 15th, 1928, at 4 p.m., one of the subjects was a Petition concerning the Incident at the Wailing Wall, Jerusalem which had occurred on September 24th, 1928.  That incident was at the root of the 1929 riots in Mandate Palestine when, during Yom Kippur services, the mechitza (partition screen), was removed, thus setting off a competition for the rights of the Jews to that site. I have also covered that here, noting the valiant attempt of Lieut.-Commander Joseph Montague Kenworthy, 10th Baron Strabolgi, a Liberal MP to press for Jewish rights at the Western Wall and highlighting the concern of "the infringements of the status quo by the Moslem religious authorities" there.

Here are the Commission's  members in 1937:

The Chairman, Pierre Orts (in the forefront to the left), explained that the Secretariat had received a considerable number of communications from various countries concerning that incident. One protest came in the form of a telegram from the Emir Chekib Arslam, a pan-Islamist against the alleged changes made by the Jewish population of Palestine as regarded the status quo, and demanded that the latter be maintained.

Here he is, second from the right, in Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s with, to his right, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hashim al-Atassi, who later became president of Syria:

Note: the status quo is a central element in the Arab opposition to the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

The Commission would decide its attitude in regard to this matter, and, if it wished,

It could perhaps endorse the mandatory Power's view that, in removing the screen, it had merely acted in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and had preserved the status quo. The Commission could, he thought, at any rate express its regret at this occurrence [and] hope that the mandatory Power would be able to reconcile the parties, while being careful to respect the various rights involved. The Commission must be very careful not to involve itself in any legal debate, for the matter of the rights of the Wailing Wall was complicated and had given rise to many disputes.

One member, the Belgian Pierre Orts,  

wondered whether the agitation which had been aroused in connection with this incident was not a little artificial. The fact in itself did not seem to merit such a commotion. Had not the petitioners given way to the temptation to take advantage of the incident in order to press for a modification of the status quo? 

Lord Frederick Lugard said that 

there were two distinct issues in the petition. First, the improper use of the police and, secondly, an appeal to the Permanent Mandates Commission to use its good offices to secure for the Jews the free use of the Wailing Wall. As regarded the first point, the Jews had been duly warned but had not obeyed the order of the authorities, and this despite the fact that a previous warning had been issued in 1925. If the mandatory Power had failed to enforce its order and to preserve what were admittedly Moslem rights, Moslem riot might have occurred. With regard to the second issue, the Permanent Mandates Commission could not, of course, intervene as an advocate for the Jews, however much as it might sympathise in their distress at this incident. The Jews had admitted the Moslem rights for they had actually tried to buy the Moslems out and had failed to do so. They could not possibly think that the mandatory Power could expropriate the Moslems by force. 

The Dutchman Daniel François Willem Van Rees raised a point that since 

the petition stated that "the identical screen had been in use in the same position ten days previously, and without any complaint or protest having been communicated to any Jewish authority". This statement had not been contested by the Palestine Government.

In other words, there was no alteration of the status quo but quickly, the Swiss William Rappard explained that 

the screen, being small and portable, might on that occasion have been easily overlooked by the Moslems.

The Commission members reviewed documents and were aware that the British Government had shown

that, under the Turkish regime, the use of screens on the site in front of the Wailing Wall had been forbidden in 1912 [and it started in December 1911,

and was over by February] 

a veto which had undoubtedly been observed by the Jews who inhabited Palestine at that time. It seemed, however, that since then considerable changes had occurred in this country and that the local authorities showed more solicitude for the Jews than had been the case during the Ottoman rule. There had been in the meantime the Balfour Declaration, especially confirmed by the mandate for Palestine, which accorded to the Jews a special legal position and special legal conditions. In view of this great change, it would be asked if it were really inevitable on the day of the great pardon to have recourse to force in the Turkish way, instead of trying to lead the Arabs not to oppose the erection of the temporary and portable screen which would not have obstructed the right of way and which had been employed a few days previously, apparently, without provoking any protestations on the part of the Arabs. 

Echoing contemporary musings, Van Rees 

wondered whether these events could not have been prevented if a little more care had been exercised by that authority. 

Martial Henri Merlin, the French member, said that

for centuries, the Wailing Wall had formed part of a mosque, but was in reality the ruins of the Temple of Solomon. The Jews went there at regular periods to lament the past glories of Israel. The Wall, however, and the space in front of it were Wakf property.

In 1912, the Turkish Government had allowed the Jews to use the Wall for religious purposes, provided that no buildings or any material whatever were constructed or placed near it. If this injunction were broken in the slightest degree, the whole arrangement fell to the ground. Therefore, even the introduction of a portable screen had definitely interfered with the rights of the Moslems. Jerusalem was a city containing many fanatics, and incidents of a violent nature had, in consequence, been frequent...Any incident occurring on Wakf property might be considered by the Moslems to be an attempt at annexation. While the mandatory Power must endeavour in all cases to maintain the status quo, in doing so incidents might occur. The authorities should not, therefore, remain inactive, but should do their best to reconcile the conflicting parties by all possible means

All this was predicated on Article 14 and 15 of the 1922 Mandate decision:

Article 14

A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.

Article 15

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language.

This was not the first time the Commission dealt with this matter. At a meeting on Wednesday, June 23rd, 1926, at 10.30 a.m, an agenda item was "Incident at the Wailing Wall" and on p. 38, Chiyuki Yamanaka asked for details of "the incident with regard to the lamentations at the western temple wall". And

Colonel SYMES said that the Jews were accustomed to go to the western temple wall to bewail the fallen grandeur of Israel. The site, however, which they occupied for the purpose belonged to a Moslem Wakf, and, while the Jews were allowed to go there, they were not legally allowed to do anything which would give the impression that the site in question was their own property. All religious communities did their utmost to prevent each other from acquiring any legal right in the matter of property which they considered to belong to themselves. This being so, the Moslem who owned the site in question hadraised objections to the bringing of stools by the Jews to the site, for (they said) after stools would come benches, the benches would then be fixed, and before long the Jews would have established a legal claim to the site. However much sympathy the  Administration might feel for the Jews in question, its mandatory duty was to respect the status quo and therefore when stools were brought by the Jews on to the site in question the police had to remove them for the Jews were not legally within their rights. If the police had not taken away the stools a regrettable incident would have occurred similar to past incidents.

The question could only be settled by an agreement between the Moslems and the Jews and the Government would do its utmost to promote such an agreement.

In a missive from the World Zionist Organization, p. 48,  it was explained that the "incident"

occurred in Jerusalem on the Jewish Day of Atonement, when the police were sent by the district authorities to remove seats and benches placed at the Kothel Maaravi (the so-called Wailing Wall) for the use of aged and infirm worshippers during the continuous services held there, in accordance with immemorial custom, throughout the Past. No complaint is made of the conduct of the police, who carried out their instructions as considerately as possible, nor is it denied that those instructions may have been justified by the strict letter of the existing law. At the same time, the Executive feel bound to place on record the painful impression caused by this deplorable incident throughout the Jewish world. They earnestly hope that, through the good offices of the mandatory Power and the League of Nations, means may be found of putting an end, by common consent, to a state of affairs which it is impossible to regard without serious concern.

On November 12, 1926 the JTA published this item:

Petition to Reconstruct Solomon’s Temple Tabled by Mandates Commission

A petition that the League of Nations intervene with the Palestine government to allot a strip of land on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem, for the purpose of reconstructing Solomon’s Temple was tabled by the Permanent Mandates Commission at its session here yesterday.

The petition emanated from a group of individuals of the ultra-orthodox and Kabbalists in Jerusalem, headed by Rabbi Bresslauer.

Several petitions concerning Palestine. Syria and Southwest Africa were considered by the commission at yesterday’s session. The official communique issued by the Commission does not contain any particulars on the action taken.

This episode was researched by Dotan Goren for Yad Ben-Tzvi who identified the petitioner as David Hugo Militscher (who happened to be from the town of Breslau (Wrocław).  He was turned down.  Undoubtedly, however, with the Mufti's agents reading the Hebrew Palestinian press, this minor incident registered with him.

Returning to the matter of the status quo, this was dealt with by the Permanent Mandates Commission in its report of August 4, 1930:

which concludes

In its response, Gt. Britain maintained

placing blame on the Jews as per the minutes of its 10th meeting held on Friday, July 5th, 1929, at 4 p.m. (and also reported here):

[Leopoldo] Palacios [Moriniת the Spanish representative] recalled that during the examination of the last report he had raised before the accredited representative certain questions regarding the Holy Places...a short time later the unfortunate [1928] incident of the Wailing Wall occurred...The report stated (page 123) that the Administration had intervened to preserve the status quo. M. Palacios asked Sir John Chancellor to be good enough to give the Commission information regarding the present situation...

Sir John CHANCELLOR spoke as follows: I have this morning received the following telegram from the National Council of the Jews in Palestine (Waad Leumi):

"Request that Mandates Commission should not proceed with our memorandum dated October 14th regarding Wailing Wall submitted through the mandatory Government to the League, pending submission of additional material. Organisation hopes memorandum may be held over for further consideration by the Commission."

I presume the Commission will not think it necessary for me to postpone anything I have to say on the subject.

...a white paper had been issued by His Majesty's Government in November. That was subsequent to the incident at the Wailing Wall on the Day of Atonement.

The Moslems were satisfied with the views expressed in the paper, which they interpreted as a decision that the Jews were not entitled under the status quo to bring benches and certain other appurtenances to the Wall. The head of the Moslem community recently came to me and asked that decisions contained in the white paper should be enforced. I replied that I was unable to accede to his request without the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with whom I was in communication on the subject.

On the plan which I have brought for the information of the Commission will be seen a blue flat wash which indicates the pavement on which the Jews stand to carry on their worship, and the blue vertical area is the lane by which they have access to the pavement in front of the Wall. Strictly speaking, that is the only part of the Wall in which the Jews are interested, the Wall being the outside boundary wall of the Moslem area -- the Haram-ash-Sharif. It should be made quite clear that the whole of that area, including the pavement and the adjacent buildings, belongs to the Moslem community. You will see on the plan adjacent to the pavement an enclosure containing houses. That belongs to the Moroccans and is Waqf property. It is a collection of mean hovels in which the Moroccans live. Although the Jews have right of access only to the area indicated by the blue flat wash, they claim the right to prevent the Mohammedans making any structural alterations to their property overlooking or in the neighbourhood of the Wall.

On the plan you will see a small wall painted in brown. Subsequent to the trouble last September, the Mohammedans heightened that wall. It is there that the Grand Mufti lives, and the object of heightening the Wall was to screen the ladies of his household from public view. The Secretary of State has ruled in regard to those matters that the Moslems must not alter their buildings in that locality in such a way as to cause disturbance to the Jews in carrying out their accustomed devotions. Anything in the way of erecting buildings in which there would be loud celebrations or other disturbance of the status quo would therefore be illegal. In accordance with that ruling, the heightening of the wall to give seclusion to the ladies of the Grand Mufti's family is regarded as legitimate.

About two months ago, the Jews complained to me that certain other alterations, against which they protested, were made in the neighbourhood of the Wall. These are shown at the right of the plan. I had, I believe, no legal right to interfere with this building, but I sent for the Grand Mufti and asked him to suspend the work until I could ascertain whether the proposed buildings would interfere with the rights now exercised by the Jews. The Grand Mufti consented to do so, but only as a personal favour to me, and not because he admitted that the Jews had any right to interfere with the construction of the buildings. Subsequently, I received instructions from the Secretary of State as regards the Jews' rights in the matter of the buildings in the neighbourhood of the Wall, and I came to the conclusion that the alterations proposed by the Grand Mufti were not of such a nature as to interfere with the rights of worship enjoyed by the Jews, and, before I left Jerusalem, I gave authority for the construction of the building to be continued.

The Commission will remember that last year it expressed the hope that it might be possible to bring about an agreement between the Jews and the Mohammedans in regard to this question.

Accordingly, when I went to Palestine last November, I lost no time in studying the question and I discussed the position with both the Jewish and Mohammedans leaders. The conclusion I came to was that there must not, in the first place, be any attempt to expropriate, in favour of the Jews, the area of the pavement in front of the Wall.

The Mohammedans are exceedingly suspicious of the motives of the Jews in respect of their rights at the Wailing Wall. They say that there is constant encroachment on the part of the Jews. The Grand Mufti maintained that, if the Moslems made any concession over and above the rights to which they were entitled under the status quo, the Jews would soon be building a synagogue overlooking the Wall. That is of course absurd, but his fears explain the uncompromising attitude which the Mohammedans have adopted in regard to this matter.

...My view was that the difficulty would be overcome if the Moslem authorities would consent to sell the enclosure to the Jews, who would be able to make there a courtyard surrounded by a loggia where they could say their prayers in peace and in dignified surroundings. I suggested this to the leading Jews in Palestine, and to Dr. Weizmann, who welcomed the suggestion. At the present time the Jews have, I understand, a sum of money at their disposal which would enable them to buy the area if the Mohammedans would consent to sell it.

I approached the Grand Mufti on the question, and asked him if he would be prepared to come to terms on that basis. I found the Grand Mufti, however, uncompromising on the subject. He said that the area in question was a Waqf property, and that it could not, therefore, be sold. I suggested that, if superior accommodation were provided for the Moroccans elsewhere in exchange at the expense of the Jews, he might transfer the property to me and I could hand it over to the Jews if he would prefer that to dealing with them directly. He answered that the Mohammedans' feelings were so excited on the question at present that if any such proposition, even from me, were made public it would arouse bitter religious feelings and perhaps cause a disturbance. There is therefore nothing that I can do in the matter until conditions are more favourable.

I explained the position to the Jewish leaders, and expressed the opinion that their best course of action was to be silent on this question and not to fill their newspapers with attacks on Government and the Moslem authorities. By so doing, the bitterness of feeling would die down and the confidence of the Mohammedans would be gradually re-established and an atmosphere would be created in which I might be able to intervene usefully. That being the present position, it became necessary to consider the question of giving decisions in harmony with the policy laid down in the white paper of last November. Both the Jews and the Moslem authorities, in interviewing me, claimed that they could show authority for the practices which the one party desired to carry out and which the other party desired to prevent. The Mohammedans maintained that the right to bring benches to the Wall, as the Jews were now doing, was a practice which had been prohibited by the Turks, and which in addition had twice been prohibited by the mandatory Government since it came into power. The Jews, on the other hand, contended that they had been bringing up benches to the Wall for a long time, and they produced photographs showing that benches were brought to the wall thirty or forty years ago. I showed these photographs to the Grand Mufti and his rejoinder was that anyone could take a photograph of benches put there at a time when the question of the Wailing Wall was not exciting general interest and that he did not therefore attach any importance to such photographs. He also produced a Turkish document in which the bringing of benches to the Wall was prohibited. I therefore asked both sides to produce their documentary authority for bringing benches to the Wall. The Mohammedans produced a copy of the Turkish Government's document to which I have referred above. This information was asked for last January, but I have received no communication from the Jews in support of their claim, and when the incident in connection with the structural alterations near the Wall arose in the middle of May last I asked the Grand Rabbinate to submit without further delay any documentary authority they might possess, as decisions on the question could not be much longer delayed. The head of the Zionist Executive came to see me in order to discuss the question, and I inferred from his conversation that there was no official document authorising the Jews to bring benches to the Wailing Wall.

I asked the Grand Mufti if he would consent to individual Jews being given a licence or a permit to bring up benches, in order that the old and infirm who prayed there could do so in comfort. He declined to consent to this.

...I should like to add that the Jews claim that they should be allowed to do the things which they have been doing in the past, whether they have documentary authority or not. I have been trying to obtain information from both parties that would enable the status quo to be determined. The Secretary of State has instructed me not to make any pronouncement in regard to the status quo without his authority. The Commission will realise that the position is a delicate one and that it is necessary to be exceedingly careful in giving any ruling on the subject.

M. RAPPARD congratulated the High Commissioner on the action that he had taken...Could the High Commissioner state whether both parties regarded the status quo as a legitimate basis for agreement on principle?

Sir John CHANCELLOR replied that the status quo, as they interpreted it, satisfied the Mohammedans, but that to the Jews it represented only a minimum claim. It was necessary, however, to have an authoritative ruling with regard to the status quo -- in the definition of which the two parties disagreed -- in order to enable him to enforce it. Delay was dangerous, for the Mohammedans were circulating certain rumours intended to give Mohammedan sanctity to a section of the Wall...

In the end, after publishing a little-known White Paper in November 1928 which basically asserted that the status quo, as established under the Turkish regime, was infringed by the Jewish worshippers at the Jewish Holy Site on September 24, the Day of Atonement, a post-1929 riots British-appointed "international commission" sealed the framework of the status quo.

And it is quite possible that the imprint of that status quo, along with the Christian version, was stuck in Moshe Dayan's and David Farhi's minds when they sat down with the Waqf reps a fortnight after the 1967 war on June 17 to seal the fate for many years of Jewish rights to the Temple Mount, not to mention the post-Al Aqsa fire situation and a return to the status quo ante of 1967.

^