"الملف 15/18 المنشورات الدورية لوزارة الخارجية والشؤون السياسية المستلمة من حكومة الهند." [ظ‎‎٥] (٣٧٠/١٦)

2
custom of praying there extends back to the Middle Ages and possibly further.
The Wall is also part of the Haram-al-Sharif ; as such, it is holy to Moslems.
Moreover, it is legally the absolute property of the Moslem community, and the
strip of pavement tacing it is Waqf property, as is shown by documents preserved
by the guardian of the Waqf. The Jewish community have established an un
doubted right of access to the pavement for the purposes of their devotions but,
whenever protests were made by the Moslem authorities, the Turkish authorities
repeatedly ruled they would not permit such departures from the existing
practice as the bringing of chairs and benches to the pavement. It is understood
that a ruling prohibiting the bringing of screens to the pavement was given in
1912.
The Palestine Government and His Majesty's Government, having in mind
the terms of Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine, have taken the view that the
matter is one in which they are bound to maintain the status quo, which they
have regarded as being, in general terms, that the Jewish community have a
right of access to the pavement for the purposes of their devotions, but may
bring to the W all only those appurtenances of worship which were permitted
under the Turkish regime. Whenever the Moslem authorities have preferred
complaints that innovations have been made in the established practice, and the
Palestine Government on enquiry have satisfied themselves that the complaints
were well founded, they have felt it their duty to insist that the departures from
practice which gave rise to the complaints should be discontinued.
An incident which occurred in September, 1925, when the authorities in
Palestine had to remove seats and benches brought to the Wall, formed' one of
the subjects of a memorandum addressed by the President of the Zionist Orga
nisation through His Majesty's Government to the League of Nations in May,
1926. The conclusion of both the Permanent Mandates Commission and the Coun
cil of the League was that a solution of the difficulties could only be found by agree
ment, thus endorsing the comment of His Majesty's Government on the memoran
dum which was that the dispute could not be settled except by common consent.
The Palestine Government, though prepared, if approached by both parties, to
act as intermediaries, felt that the matter was one which could best be settled
by consent between the communities concerned. Neither party, in fact, %
approached the Palestine Government and that Government is not aware of any
negotiations having been initiated between the parties.
From the official communique issued by the Palestine Government it will
be seen—and, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, the fact is not
contested—that on the Jewish Day of Atonement in September last innovations
were made in the existing practice. Complaints about these innovations were
made to an officer of the Palestine Government by the Mutawali of the Waqf
in which the pavement is vested, and, when on investigation he found that those
complaints were substantiated, he was confronted with a choice between ignoring
the Mandatory obligation of His Government to preserve the status quo and the
removal of an appurtenance of Jewish worship. Having decided that the Man
datory obligation could not be disregarded, he obtained from the Jewish officials
present at the Wall an undertaking that the screen which had been introduced
in contravention of established practice would be removed before the service on
the Day of Atonement. Unfortunately, this undertaking w T as not fulfilled ; and
accordingly there was no alternative, bearing in mind the obligation to preserve
the status quo, to the removal of the screen when, on the following morninc:,
worshippers present at the Wall themselves declined to remove it. Though
some of the congregation endeavoured to prevent it, the removal was in fact
effected without casualties of any but a light nature. The Police who undertook
this duty did not include any Jews ; at one time it was the practice to post a
Jewish police inspector near the Wailing Wall on Jewish holy days but, at the
urgent request of the Chief Rabbinate, all Jewish police 'officers had been .
excused dutv on the Day of Atonement. In future, steps will be taken to ensure *
that a Jewish officer is present at the Wall on all such occasions.
It has been urged that the Palestine Government should have exercised
greater judgment and, in particular, should have consulted representative
Jewish authorities before action was taken. His Majesty's Government feel
that the delicacy of the question of procedure at the Wall and the nelM for
extreme discretion with regard to anything that might be regarded by watchful