Everyone presumes the issue of a “status quo” as regards the Temple Mount began in June 1967 when Moshe Dayan and Chaim Herzog and David Farhi sat down with the Waqf officials and agreed that no overt Jewish act or symbol be permitted. No prayer, no archaeological excavations, no Rabbi Goren’s Yeshiva, no recitation of Lamentations of Tisha B’Av, etc.
It’s a bit more complicated as I once explained.
But to make it fairly simple, let’s use this summary from a British document at the end of 1928, following the “Waling Wall Incident” when a prayer partition was removed from the Western nWall courtyard, an act that eventually led to the 1929 murderous riots of August 1929.
It shows that the concept of a “status quo” in which Jews had no real rights to the Kotel was official policy and that, of course, led to a Temple Mount status quo within the same framework after the International Commission appointed by the British.
First, from the document:
1. That the ownership of the Wall as well as the possession of it and of those parts of its surroundings belong to the Moslems and that the Wall itself, as an integral part of Al-Haram-Esh-Sharif area, is Moslem property.
2. That in no stage of the examination of this matter did the Jewish side make any claim of ownership either to the Wailing Wall or to the Magharba Quarter or to any part of the areas now subjected to Israeli usurpation or so-called “Israeli development projects”. The Commission stressed that the Jewish side, when making their claim, expressly stated that they “do not claim any property right to the Wall” (page 17 of the report, para. 3).
3. That no matter how the Jewish claim is construed, it does not exceed a claim for a privilege to visit the Wall and that this privilege has even resulted from Moslem tolerance.
4. That even the pavement and the area coincident with it were Moslem property and constituted Moslem Waqf by Afdal, the son of Saladin, in 1193 A.D., i.e. Moslem religious endowment owned in perpetuity by the Moslem community.
5. That the Magharba Quarter buildings, which were recently bulldozed by the Israeli authorities, were put up in 1320 A.D. “to serve as lodgings to Moroccan pilgrims” and were also made a Moslem Waqf by Abu Madian.
6. That the Moslems of Jerusalem were always alert to the Jewish attempt to exploit Moslem tolerance in order to claim at a later stage, a right to ownership. In 1911, the Guardian of the Abu Madian Waqf (Magharba Quarter) complained that the “Jews, contrary to usage, had placed chairs on the pavement, and he requested that `in order to avoid a future claim of ownership’ the present state of affairs should be stopped”. The Arab side argued that after stools would come benches, the benches would then become fixtures and before long the Jews would have established a legal claim to the site. As a direct result of the complaint, the British Administrative Council decided that it was not permissible to place any article on the pavement that could “be considered as indications of ownership”.
7. That the British Government stated to Parliament in the White Paper of November 1928 that the Western or Wailing Wall “is legally the absolute property of the Moslem Community and the strip of pavement facing it is Waqf property, as is shown by documents preserved by the Guardian of the Waqf”.
And the relevant conclusions from that report which impact until today vis-a-vis the concept of a “status quo”:
…Furthermore, in conformity with practice, each Jewish worshipper shall be entitled to bring a prayer-mat with him or her on the two holy days of the New Year festival and on the Day of Atonement.
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.
Save as above provided, it shall not be permissible to bring any appurtenances of worship to the Wall…
…(5) 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; the Moslems on the other hand shall not be permitted to carry out the Zikr ceremony close to the Pavement during the progress of the Jewish devotions or to cause annoyance to the Jews in any other way
Is this now clear?
Why is the 1928 British report which is relied on any more authoritative than the 1939 White Paper?
I am impressed that the title to the Kotel and Har Habiet cited in the British Mandate report and in the UN report quotes the Moslem and Turkish claims to ownership. Were not those claims based on the RIGHT of CONQUEST by both the Moslems and the Ottomans? It seems to me that if the right of conquest is a valid legal claim, then those sites are clearly and legally the possessions of Israel from 1967. Maybe the world recognizes or acquiesces to such claims for everyone (China, Russia, the UK, the US) but not for Jews.
In Israel there is a development of a ghetto with european designated boundaries and a judenrat who facilitate and support the agenda of those euros who do the designating…. facts demonstrated by the judenrat freeze on jewish settlement in Judea samaria, incarceration of Jews seeking to pray on the mount, the demonization of real zionists and the appropriation of the name zionist is reminiscent of the church appropriation of the tanakh and naming themselves the replacement Jews.
Was it wise in such circumstances for the Jews to flock to the ghetto of warsaw for safety?
Independence and the 6 day war victory were supposed to end the muslim and euro domination of the Jews in their homeland. do american blacks seek to preserve the status quo of segregation? Did Mugabe seek to preserve the euro colonists privileges? Why fight only to deflect an attack, why obtain a fantastic miraculous victory only to throw it away afterwards for nothing. Only Jews find a way to oblivion through “logic”.
There is no obligation or sense in preserving the privileged status quo of those who teach their children that jews are sons of apes and pigs…. the goal should be the liquidation of such criminals and lunatics seeking jews slaughter without hiatus.