Wailing Wall Question to Come Up Before League of Nations Council

More light on the attitude of the Palestine government toward the controversy between the Jews and Moslems of Palestine over the right of access to the Wailing Wall is contained in the minutes of the session of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations which met here at its semi-annual session beginning July 1.

The minutes of the Fifteenth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, published yesterday by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, enumerate the various proposals made for the peaceful solution of the question and the views of the Palestine government as well as of the League Commission.

The Wailing Wall question will come up before the Council of the League of Nations at its Fifty-sixth session which will open on August 30. The agenda of the session includes a consideration of the report of the Permanent Mandates Commission and its recommendations in connection with the Wailing Wall problem.

The Permanent Mandates Commission after hearing the oral explanations of Sir John Chancellor, High Commissioner of Palestine, expressed doubt whether the Palestine government is competent to give a definitation of what constitutes the status quo at the Wailing Wall. It also expressed a desire that steps be taken for creating conditions of a moral peace and mutual respect in connection with the Wailing Wall, with the collaboration of the various religious communities concerned.

The High Commissioner of Palestine in his explanations to the Commission maintained that the Arabs are entitled to carry on their structural operations adjoining the Wailing Wall. The government, he said, has arrived at this conclusion after consultation with the British Colonial Office.

Sir John further related the various (Continued on Page 3)

proposals made recently for the solution of the problem. No attempt should be made to expropriate the pavement in front of the Wall in favor of the Jews, he said. The Mohammedans are exceedingly suspicious of the Jewish motives in connection with the Wall. The Grand Mufti is convinced that once the Moslems make concessions in regard to the status quo, the Jews will soon build a synagogue overlooking the Wall. He had thought that the difficulty might be overcome by inducing the Moslem authorities, who own the property adjacent to the Wall, to sell the enclosure to the Jews. The Jews welcomed the suggestion and Dr. Weizmann also agreed to it. However, the Grand Mufti was unwilling to compromise, maintaining that the area is Waqf property and is therefore unsaleable.

The High Commissioner further related that he made efforts to induce the Grand Mufti to exchange the property near the Wailing Wall for another district, but without success. The Grand Mufti did not agree to another suggestion made by the High Commissioner that the property be transferred by the Grand Mufti to the High Commissioner who would later make it available to the Jews. When all possibilities failed, the High Commissioner expressed to the Jewish leaders the opinion that “the best course of action is silence.” He advised them not to fill the Jewish papers with attacks against the government and the Moslem authorities in order to let the bitterness of feeling quiet down, particularly since the Arabs possess documentary evidence regarding their rights to the status quo, while the Jews who were repeatedly asked to submit their evidence, presented documents which appeared to be confined only to a number of unconvincing photographs, the High Commissioner said.

Theodor van Rees, a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission, commenting on the High Commissioner’s explanations, expressed his view that while the Palestine Government acted wisely in stating that it can merely ensure the maintenance of the status quo at the Wailing Wall, if it desired, it was legally in a postion to adopt a different attitude.

It appears from the minutes that the Mandates Commission discussed various Jewish and Arab petitions concerning the Wailing Wall and that it raised the question whether the British government is entitled to give an interpretation of the status quo, whether giving such interpretation is not in contradiction to Article XIV of the Palestine Mandate, which provides that all differences concerning the Holy Places in Palestine shall be settled by a specially appointed Commission on the Holy Places.

Because of this view, the Permanent Mandates Commission decided to eliminate from the text of its then proposed resolution concerning the matter the following sentence: “The Permanent Mandates Commission considers that it has no authority to give or to suggest a definition of the status quo.” The resolution which the Mandates Commission adopted instead, reads as follows:

“The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations refers to its previous recommendations as to advantages entered into under the auspices of the Mandatory Power regarding the rights of Jews and Moslems over the precincts of the Wailing Wall. Failing such agreement, it appreciates the care with which the Mandatory is ensuring the maintenance of the existing situation.”

An Arab deputation was told that the establishment of democratic institutions in Palestine must depend upon the terms of the Mandate, and further, that Palestine is the home of three great religions whose adherents the world over have an interest in Palestine. Therefore certain obstacles lie in the way of the introduction of complete democracy in Palestine, Sir John stated in reply to a question from M. Palagios. M. Palagios asked whether a part of the Arab population has shown a readiness to cooperate with the Palestine government and whether the situation as a whole is improving or opposition is still strong or becoming stronger. M. Palagios further asked whether the Arab Congress still meets. The High Commissioner replied in the affirmative, stating that he lately received two deputations from the Arab Congress who made a strong appeal for the institution of some form of representative government similar to that of Transjordania, which is not more advanced than Palestine.

Sir John delivered a report on the economic and political situation in Palestine, a repetition of the official Palestine government report which was previously published. Following the High Commissioner’s report, the chairman pointed out that from Sir John Chancellor’s report, the Mandates Commission learns that the relations between the Arabs and the Jews remain as a whole unsatisfactory, but some progress nevertheless has been made.

The Secretariat of the League of Nations circulated among the members of the Mandates Commission clippings from the Arab press, complaining that the municipalities had no independence. Regarding this, Sir John explained that he had called a meeting of mayors of the various communities and that they had considered the question of local government. A draft ordinance would soon be issued. The interested parties would be consulted for further proposals and amendments.

The question arose that, considering that Jews immigrated to Palestine from all parts of the world, principally from Eastern Europe, whether the Jewish nation, which is now in the course of reformation, tended to coalesce and whether it revealed the moral unity which was an essential condition for becoming a nation, whether the Jews, who do not possess political experience, showed the hope of being able to direct their own affairs. Sir John replied that a certain antagonism prevailed between different sections of the Jewish population, particularly the Agudah, differing from the less religious Jews and desiring to create their own community, but that the younger generation showed a striking improvement. A political sense is developing, particularly among the Jewish settlers on the land. The interest of the Jews in politics might be termed excessive, he said.

The Palestine High Commissionet denied any knowledge of difficulties experienced by Jewish emigrants from Yemen on which Van Rees submitted a paper.

Replying to the complaint that the Beisan lands were given to Arabs with the right of transfer to other persons, Sir John stated that the settlement was made before his arrival in Palestine. He hopes to transfer to Jews certain lands in the region now held by Arabs, he said.

The government is spending £40,000 annually for the completion of a land survey which is making progress, but it is impossible to know exactly the amount of free lands which is, however, inconsiderable.

Dr. William Rappard, Swiss member of the Permanent Mandates Commission, stated he fails to understand why the completion of the land survey near Ceasarea takes so long, to which Sir John promised to attend.

Mr. van Rees asked what facilities are offered to Jews for the acquisition of Palestine citizenship. Sir John replied that the Mandate does not discriminate between the inhabitants of Palestine, but the granting of immigration certificates is almost entirely confined to Jews.

As to the position of the Jews in Palestine agriculture, the High Commissioner stated that the number of Jewish farms is growing. The Jewish population is extending the area under cultivation. The orange growing industry is largely being developed by Jews. The export of oranges now about one and a half million boxes a year is expected to be increased to six million boxes in the next five years. The Jews are also developing the dairy industry, but the cultivation of grain, wheat, barley, maize and durra are mainly in the hands of the Arabs.

Mr. Merlin disagreed with the statement of Sir John that the economic position in Palestine is improving. He showed a number of instances indicating a decline, such as the reduction of exports, the diminished growth of tobacco and the increasing number of bankruptcies. The High Commissioner agreed that the balance sheet is not satisfactory, but a closer examination (Continued on Page 4)

reveals that the position is not so gloomy.

The most important factor in the situation was that the Zionist Organization spent in Palestine three quarters of a million pounds annually. The tourist traffic is also not included in the balance sheet. Over 63,000 travelers visited Palestine in 1928, with the average expenditure for each being ten pounds, which increases the country’s income. The reductions were due to the crop failure of last year, he said.

COMMISSION WANTS TO KNOW MORE ABOUT JEWISH AGENCY

The minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission further disclose the great interest of the members in the then contemplated extension of the Jewish Agency. In this connection a number of questions were asked, concerning the difference between the Zionists and the non-Zionists. Sir John Chancellor explained that the non-Zionists were not satisfied with the Zionists’ ability in the administrative and economic fields, particularly concerning the economic position of the agricultural colonies. The Jewish Agency proposes to considerably strengthen the Palestine Zionist Executive by adding men with wide administrative and business experience. Another difference is that many American Jews do not approve of the political objects of the Zionist Organization, but they are, nevertheless, anxious to assist the Jews who live in oppressed countries to establish themselves in Palestine.

To the questions concerning the relations between the Jewish Agency and the Palestine government, Sir John emphasized that the Jewish Agency is merely a consultative body. Sometimes the Jewish Agency takes the initiative in approaching the government and sometimes the Palestine government asks the Jewish Agency for its opinions.

LEAGUE MEMBERS DEMAND ECONOMIC EQUALITY

A debate then developed in the Permanent Mandates Commission, the minutes show, as to whether the members of the League of Nations enjoy an equal economic footing in Palestine, to which the Mandate entitles them. The Palestine government, it was pointed out, has ignored this equality in connection with the grant of the Dead Sea concession. Similar tendencies were also shown in the Haifa harbor construction plans. It was further pointed out that the Mandatory Power is wrong when it employs the British Crown Agents for the execution of works, as the Crown Agents naturally have recourse exclusively to British firms, while the concessions ought to be granted on the basis of an international public tender. Mr. van Rees referred to a publication in 1927 by the Washington State Department concerning the Palestine Mandate, according to which the Mandatory Power is entitled to act as it wishes in regard to concessions. To this objections were raised, the argument being made that the legal interpretation of the Mandate is insufficient. The Permanent Mandates Commission is entitled to interpret the articles of the Mandate and give them the broadest meaning, as otherwise the Mandate is valueless. Debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords laid emphasis on the necessity to protect British interests in Palestine. This is incompatible with the principle of economic equality to all members of the League of Nations.

To these statements. Sir John Chancellor stated that he finds it difficult to reply on the subject, but he can say that the interests of Palestine and Transjordanian citizens were protected in these concessions under the best possible terms. He denied that the Crown Agents are in charge of the construction of the Haifa harbor. The Haifa harbor will be constructed by the Palestine government, the working being executed departmentally.

The question was then raised as to why the Ruthenberg concession was not offered for public tender, to which Sir John stated that the concession is operated by a private company not under government control. It was granted in 1921. The hydro-electric power house is now being constructed on the Jordan and will be completed in October.

The devotion and zeal of the teachers in the Zionist schools were praised. Although their salaries were months in arrears, they continued their work in the schools.