News Brief

ing Wall Alley and to repave the alley ‘at the very earliest possible hour.’ I was the person who bought the thick and plain tiles at Bethlehem and brought them. I was the shamash (sexton, beadle) of the public Burial Society at the Vohlin Kollels, and used always to bring grave stones from Bethlehem; hence this matter was also entrusted to me.’

“In a pamphlet entitled ‘Shemesh Zedakah,’ being the financial statement of the Supreme Committee of the Kollelim in Jerusalem for the year 5655 (1894-95) there is an entry for a sum of 10 napoleons for the repair of the Wailing Wall pavement. The amount in question is also recorded in the account books of this institution: the ledger, the journal, etc. (In the Vaad Hakneseth Israel Books actually recorded and shown Commission of Inquiry.) While this is not introduced for the purpose of setting up any claim of property rights, we think it would be apparent even to a layman that the paying of the cost of paving a street, a permanent improvement, would be a much stronger claim than the temporary placing of portable articles like tables or chairs. It can be said unhesitatingly that no claim has ever been set up by any Jewish authority to any property right to the Wall. Both sides recognized, the one with tolerance and indifference, the other with devoted zeal that the Wall is a place holy to the Jews and that they might pray there even though the surroundings were unlovely. With the war there arose for the first time in any active form the claim that the Wall known as the Kotel Maaravi was the Burak and therefore a place holy to Islam. That this is a very late and it may be feared, political development is suggested by the Report of the Inquiry Commission which on pages 73, 74 and 82 speaks explicitly of the ‘Burak Campaign.’

“There has been a good deal of discussion about a new building erected on the top of the Wall and this new building was allowed by the British Government on the ground that they had no right to interfere since the Wall was the property of the Moslems; but it should be pointed out that the Wall was a Holy Place and a Holy Place cannot be called property in the ordinary and common sense. It cannot be demolished to make way for another construction, it cannot be sold, hence, even as property it is subject to special restrictions. One of these might obviously be that nothing shall be taken away from it and nothing shall be added to it, and to this extent we feel that the decision of the Palestine Government was wrong and should be reversed by your Commission.

“The White Paper of November, 1928, further says that:

“‘His Majesty’s Government regard it their duty, and it is their intention to maintain the established Jewish right of access to the pavement in front of the Wall for the purpose of their devotions and also their right to take 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 endeavor to compel the Moslem owners of the pavement to accord any further privileges or rights to the Jewish community.’

“While it is readily granted that it is not within the duty of the Mandatory to compel the Moslem owners to accord enlarged privileges, still if it should appear, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past ten years, that the privileges claimed by the Moslem owners make it virtually impossible to conduct orderly and decent devotion, then it is within the purview of the Special Commission appointed by the League of Nations to make such arrangements as will render possible the religious services which the Mandatory recognizes as its duty under the Mandate.

“From the same point of view, we are also of the opinion that the opening of the door, which has recently been allowed by the Government permitting access from the Haram to this small pavement, thus causing the probability of collisions, was an error and that the door should be closed.”