Read Palestine

Report of the Commission 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

Properties2
tags
aliasesWailing Wall Commission Report, Western Wall Commission Report, International Commission for the Wailing Wall Report

48 min read

Summary

The December 1930 report of the three-member international Commission appointed by the British Government with the approval of the League of Nations Council, under Articles 13 and 14 of the Mandate for Palestine, to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem, after the August 1929 disturbances and the Shaw Commission recommendation of an ad hoc determination. The Commission sat in Jerusalem in June-July 1930, heard 52 witnesses and 61 documents or collections, inspected the site and the Sharia Court title-deeds, and attempted conciliation until 8 October 1930 before pronouncing a unanimous Verdict. Its conclusions: ownership and possession of the Wall, the Pavement and the Moghrabi Quarter in question accrue solely to the Moslems, the Wall and Pavement being Waqf; the Pavement is not a sacred place from a Moslem point of view, while the Wall as a whole is sacred to Moslems by reason of Al Buraq and is also sacred to Jews, whose free access to the place in front of it for devotional purposes is an existing right ab antiquo, a right sui generis founded on ancient custom; the form and extent of those devotions are limited by established custom, the September 1929 temporary instructions on appurtenances being made permanent with the one modification that the Ark and its tables may be brought only on proclaimed fasts, New Year’s Day, the Day of Atonement and other recognised holy days on which it was customary — not on ordinary Sabbaths — while benches, chairs, screens, carpets and the blowing of the Shofar are prohibited, and the Moslems for their part must not build or repair adjacent Waqf property so as to encroach on the Pavement or avoidably disturb Jewish devotions, nor hold the Zikr close to the Pavement during Jewish worship (Report of the Commission 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, lines 946-984).

What the file is

  • The UNISPAL reproduction of the report (December 1930, printed London 1931, price 1s. 6d. net), downloaded from the URL above (access basis: public-domain). It is reproduced there as an addendum to a letter dated 23 February 1968 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the Secretary-General, also issued as A/7057/Add.1 (lines 76-84).
  • About 35,969 words in the supplied text copy, 1764 lines in total as given for this ingest; the text copy is the UNISPAL web page text, preceded by the site’s navigation furniture (lines 1-68), with no page markers. Locators are line numbers; the report’s printed pagination is given in its Contents (main text to printed p.57, Conclusions at p.57, appendices to p.72) and in references in the text.
  • Contents (lines 124-260): I. Introduction; II. Description of the Wailing Wall and its Environs; III. History; IV. The Respective Claims of the Two Parties; V. The Evidence; VI. The Opinions and Conclusions Arrived at by the Commission, (1)-(6) and Conclusions; Appendices I-XI, of which Appendix I (Record of Proceedings) and Appendix IX (the November 1928 memorandum, Cmd. 3229) are stated not to be printed / not reprinted here.
  • Appendices as printed in the text copy: II (Meetings and Witnesses), III (lists of the 35 Jewish and 26 Moslem exhibits), IV (the Secretary’s letter of 17 July 1930), VI (the 1840 document, Moslem Exhibit No. 6), VII (the firman translation, Jewish Exhibit No. 32), VIII (the 1911 decision, Moslem Exhibit No. 7), X (the September 1929 temporary instructions, with a Schedule of permitted objects’ dimensions in centimetres) and XI (the Jewish Side’s note on recent Moslem innovations, Jewish Exhibit No. 29). Appendix I (Record of Proceedings) and the November 1928 memorandum (Cmd. 3229) are stated not to be printed / not reprinted here, and Appendix V (Plans of the Wailing Wall Area) has no text in the text copy.
  • Text quality: the text copy carries slips that byte checks confirm are present in the file as saved, among them “FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS” for “FOR” (line 264), “to studio, define and determine” in Article 14 (line 428), “no precedent for the Jesus carrying out any such repairs” for “the Jews” (line 820), and “Straw Report” for the Shaw Report (line 576); part 2 adds, among others, “more or lass completely accepted” (line 884), “to the WalI” in Conclusions (6) (line 974) and “nosed to provide the nosed illumination” in Appendix XI. Whether these are slips of the printed report or of the UNISPAL transcription cannot be settled from the files supplied, the original supplied being the same web page; they are held as printed in the text copy under Open questions.

Section by section

I. Introduction (lines 270-336)

  • Origin: after the August 1929 disturbances the Secretary of State for the Colonies appointed a Commission of Enquiry on 13 September 1929; in December 1929 it recommended the early appointment, under Article 14 of the Mandate, of an ad hoc commission on the Wailing Wall, as essential “in the interests of peace and good government in Palestine” (lines 272-274).
  • The League Council resolution of 14 January 1930, after hearing the Permanent Mandates Commission: the Commission shall consist of three members not of British nationality, at least one eminently qualified by judicial functions; names submitted for Council approval; its duties cease when it has pronounced (lines 276-294). The Council resolution cites the Mandatory’s responsibilities “laid upon it by Article 18 of the Mandate for Palestine” (line 280, as printed; the Mandate provisions the report itself applies are Articles 13-16).
  • Members notified to the League Secretary-General 12 May 1930 and approved 15 May: Eliel Löfgren (Chairman), Charles Barde and J. van Kempen, with Stig Sahlin as Secretary; informed by Foreign Office letters of 26 May (lines 298-306).
  • Proceedings: assembled Genoa 12 June, arrived Jerusalem 19 June, stayed to 19 July; 23 meetings, 18 of them hearing evidence, in the Government Offices Building near the Damascus Gate; 52 witnesses (21 called by Jewish Counsel, 30 by Moslem Counsel, 1 British official by the Commission) and 61 documents or collections (35 Jewish, 26 Moslem) (lines 308-324).
  • Counsel: for the Jewish Side, Dr. M. Eliash (Mordechai Eliash), Mr. David Yellin and Rabbi M. Blau, credentialled by the Rabbinate of Palestine, the World Association of Rabbis, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the Vaad Leumi and the Agudath Israel; for the Moslem Side, authorised by the Supreme Muslim Council, a list headed by Aouni Bey Abdulhadi, Amin Bey El Tamini, Amin Bey Abdulhadi, Ahmed Zaki Pasha, Fakhri Bey El Husseini, Jamal Effendi El Husseini and Izzat Effendi Darwaza, with delegations said to represent Moslems from practically every country with a Moslem population (line 318). The Jewish Side was treated as plaintiff, the Moslem Side as defendant; English court judicial methods were followed as far as possible; the Commission could not swear witnesses (lines 320-322).
  • Site work: visits to the Harem-esh-Sherif and its Mosques, the Wall and environs and the principal Ashkenazi and Sephardi synagogues; private unattended visits to the Wall and the Harem; inspection of title-deeds at the Moslem Sharia Court in Jerusalem; prolonged visits to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Nativity for the status quo of the Christian Holy Places (lines 326-328).
  • Conciliation: although its mandate did not explicitly refer to conciliation, the Commission tried for a friendly settlement, held the door open first to 1 September, then to 15 September, then to 8 October 1930, and records the failure of the negotiations; it met at Stockholm 27 October-1 November and in Paris 28 November-1 December (lines 334-336).

II. Description of the Wailing Wall and its Environs (lines 338-360)

  • The Western or Wailing Wall (Arabic Al Buraq; Hebrew Kothel Maaravi) is an integral part of the western exterior shell of the Harem-esh-Sherif, the site of the ancient Jewish temples, now supplanted by Moslem Mosques; the Mosque of Aqsa is contiguous to the southern exterior wall, and the Dome of the Rock (Qubet Al Sakhra, the Mosque of Omar) stands in the middle of the platform (lines 340-342).
  • The western wall as a whole is over 100 metres long and about 20 metres high; the six courses of drafted base stones are dated by most archaeologists to the Temple of Herod, three undrafted courses above them are probably Roman (Hadrian), and the upper strata probably date to about 1500 A.D. (line 344).
  • The disputed part is about 30 metres; the Pavement in front of it is about 4 metres wide (line 348; the 1926 guardian’s petition quoted at line 864 puts the passage width at 2-1/2 metres — see Open questions), bounded opposite by the houses of the Moghrabi Quarter, reached from the north by a narrow lane from King David’s street, and shut off to the south by a wall in which a door was made in 1929. In a niche within the Wall to the south, tradition holds that Mohammed’s steed Buraq was tethered (lines 346-352).
  • Innovations since before the War, as stated by the Shaw Commission: a new structure above the northern end of the Wall; the conversion of a house at the southern end of the Pavement into a Zawiyah; and the door from the Zawiyah to the Pavement, making a through connection from the Harem area through the Moghrabi Gate (lines 354-360).

III. History (lines 362-448)

  • The Commission’s survey: Canaanites; Abraham as common ancestor of Jews and Arabs; David uniting the tribes about 1000 B.C. and Solomon building the first Temple on Mount Moriah; destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Nebuchadnesar in 587 B.C.; rebuilding about 520-515 B.C.; Pompey entering Jerusalem 63 B.C.; Herod reconstructing the Temple; Titus destroying city and Temple in 70 A.D., “a part of the Western Wall being the only remnant left of the building” (line 386); Hadrian’s Aelia Capitolina and prohibition of Jews entering Jerusalem; a more or less continuous tradition of Jewish devotion at the ruins from the Pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333 A.D. (lines 366-392).
  • The Arab conquest about 637; the seventh-century Mosque of Aqsa and Dome of the Rock made the Temple area, the Harem-esh-Sherif, a place of great sanctity for Moslems, a tradition of about 13 centuries save for the Crusader interruption; Jewish authors of the 10th and 11th centuries write of Jews repairing to the Wall under Arab domination; Benjamin of Tudela (1167) describes the Wall as a place of constant prayer in the later Crusader period (lines 396-400).
  • In 1193 an area in front of the Wall was constituted Waqf by King Afdal, son of Saladin, and about 1320 the houses of the Moghrabi Quarter were constituted Waqf by Abu Madian, for the benefit of Moroccan pilgrims (line 402).
  • Turkish rule from 1517 to the Great War; travellers’ statements show the Wall continued as a place of Jewish devotion; “arranged prayers” at the Wall are mentioned for the first time in 1625 (line 404). Decisions cited: Ibrahim Pasha’s decree of May 1840 forbidding the Jews to pave the passage, it being only permissible for them to visit it “as of old”; the Administrative Council of the Liwa decision of 1911 prohibiting certain appurtenances; the Jewish-cited firman of Sultan Abdul Hamid of 1889 that there shall be no interference with the Jews’ places of devotional visits and pilgrimage dependent on the Chief Rabbinate or with their ritual, with a firman of 1841 said to be of the same bearing and firmans of 1893 and 1909 confirming it (line 406).
  • Allenby’s proclamation of 11 December 1917 (quoted, lines 408-410) and the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917 (quoted, line 414); Civil Administration from 1 July 1920; the Supreme Moslem Sharia Council established 20 December 1921 with authority over all Moslem Waqfs and Sharia Courts (lines 416-418).
  • The Mandate, entrusted 24 July 1922 and in force 29 September 1923; Articles 13, 14, 15 and 16 are quoted in full (lines 420-438). The Zionist Organisation was represented until August 1929 by the Palestine Zionist Executive and has been replaced by the Jewish Agency, constituted at Zurich in August 1929; the Wall is an antiquity under the Antiquities Ordinance 1929 (lines 440-442).
  • The November 1928 White Paper (Cmd. 3229) on British policy in the matter, and the High Commissioner’s provisional instructions on the use of the Wall issued at the end of September 1929 (line 444).

IV. The Respective Claims of the Two Parties — The Jewish Claims (lines 450-500)

  • Orally by Dr. M. Eliash, Mr. David Yellin and Rabbi M. Blau, with a written Memorandum by Dr. Cyrus Adler and certain Jewish organisations (line 454).
  • (a) The custom of lamentation rests on the central idea recorded in the First Book of Kings, Chap. VIII, Verse 11 (as cited), that God’s presence is bound up with the Temple; the Jews contend it goes back to the destruction of the Temple, citing Jeremiah Chap. XLI, Verse 5, writers of the first centuries, the Shekinah that never departed from the Kothel Maaravi, Vincent and Abel, Gregory of Nazianzus, 17th- and 18th-century travellers, and Soccin’s description in Baedeker’s guide (1912) (lines 460-466).
  • (b) Frequency and character: once a year, probably on the 9th of Ab, in the first centuries; later at feasts and Sabbaths; frequency much increased since the close of the 18th century. Devotions developed from wailing, foreheads against the Wall and petitions slipped into its crevices, to reciting psalms and prayers, to printed books from at least the 18th century, and to a read religious service requiring synagogue appurtenances. The Jews contend that benches, a screen separating men and women, an Ark with Scrolls of the Law, ritual lamps and a wash-basin were common and allowed long before the Great War, constituting the status quo and the existing rights of Article 13, citing the firmans of 1891, 1889 and 1893 (line 474, dates as printed there; see Open questions) and their alleged contributions to paving costs (lines 468-476).
  • The Jews further claim, under Article 15, a guarantee of free exercise of worship at the Wall without interference, and prohibition of disturbance by donkeys led through the passage, a muezzin installed near the Wall, or the Zikhr ritual in the southern courtyard. They claim no proprietary right: the Wall is res divinum or res extra commercium. They protest every Moslem innovation in the Wall and its surroundings (line 476).
  • (c) The Jews deny that the Wall, the Pavement and the Moghrabi Quarter are Moslem Holy Places; they assert the Buraq legend dates from several centuries after Mohammed, that the Buraq is not mentioned in the Qoran, that the Prophet’s route was never exactly defined, that the Wailing Wall was not called Al Buraq until recent years, and that the official guide to the Harem published in 1914 mentions no special sanctity in the Wall; and they declare the extent of the Waqf areas unclear in the Sharia Court registers, and that Waqf character cannot affect Jewish worship held before and after the Waqfs were created (lines 478-488).
  • Requests (lines 490-500): (1) recognition that the Wall is a Holy Place for the Jews of Palestine and the whole world; (2) a decree of access for devotions and prayers in accordance with their ritual without interference or interruption; (3) a decree that the services may continue in decency and decorum without infringing others’ religious rights; (4) that regulation of devotions be entrusted to the Rabbinate of Palestine; (5) a suggestion to the Mandatory that the Moghrabi Waqf properties be vacated in exchange for new buildings on another site in Jerusalem, so the Waqf’s charitable purpose may still be fulfilled.

IV. The Moslem Contentions (lines 502-588)

  • Preliminary reservations by Ahmed Zaki Pasha, repeated by Mohamed Ali Pasha, quoted in full (lines 506-512): first, the Palestine Arab nation has continually rejected the British Mandate and cannot be bound by any arrangement derived from it or by the national home policy; second, contentions relative to Moslem sacred places should be dealt with only by competent bodies as prescribed by the Sharia Law, and other bodies can have no jurisdiction over these places.
  • (a) Historical: the Jews, who acquired Palestine by conquest, were definitely driven out by the Romans; the Arabs conquered the country from the Byzantines, not from the Jews, and held it, except for 90 Crusader years, from generation to generation; Jews were fairly treated, there were no incidents at the Buraq, and the Jews never claimed rights to the Wall; the Balfour Declaration, reiterated in the Mandate, caused the discussion that finally brought bloodshed and incited the claims (line 518).
  • (b) The Buraq forms an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif; the passage in front is not public but was constructed for the inhabitants of the Moghrabi Quarter and Moslems going to the Mosque of Buraq; the quarter is entirely Moslem and the Arabs will never consent to its expropriation for the Jews, whose ulterior aim is a synagogue on the spot. Jewish presence on certain days is only Moslem toleration, shown by the 1840 document; travellers show the Jews restricted themselves to lamentations and held no actual religious services (lines 520-528).
  • (c) Status quo: the status quo of the Holy Places does not refer to the Buraq, where the right, as property and for enjoyment, belongs to the Moslems alone; the only question is the amount of toleration the proprietors extend. Colonel Symes’s 1926 statement to the Permanent Mandates Commission is quoted in full (lines 534-540), including that 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 (line 538). The tears shed during the centuries give no right of property or of enjoyment (line 542).
  • (d) Sacred character: the seventeenth Sura of the Qoran is quoted on the Prophet’s celestial journey; Jerusalem was for a period the first Kibla; the sanctity of the Wall and passage is due to Al Buraq having been tethered to the Western Wall; the surrounding area was consecrated Waqf, with schools, Zawiyahs and houses for Moroccan pilgrims (lines 548-554).
  • (e) Waqf: the conception and its categories are set out; Waqfs cannot be sold or alienated; the Buraq is a Waqf of the first category of the first class, the Pavement and the Moghrabi Quarter of the third category, dedicated to the use of Moslem pilgrims; Sharia Law lays down that Jews can claim no rights whatsoever in them; Waqf property cannot be acquired by usucaption short of peaceful uninterrupted possession for at least 33 years; the 1928 White Paper recorded the Mandatory’s recognition that the Wall and surrounding area are exclusively Moslem property; no right of servitude can exist for indeterminate persons; the Commission cannot allow more than the privilege of simple visits (lines 556-570).
  • (f) Real intentions: the aim is a Zionist movement to obtain possession of the Haram-esh-Sherif; the Shaw Commission itself admitted the Arab fears were reasonable; the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Jewish Encyclopedia are cited, with declarations attributed to Lord Melchett (then Sir Alfred Mond) in 1922, Jabotinsky, Zangwill and Professor Klausner; the best solution would be to forbid the Jews from approaching the Wall (lines 572-588).

V. The Evidence (lines 590-696)

  • (1) Character of devotions: the Jews’ distinction between individual prayer and collective prayer by a Minyan of at least 10 adult males, and their contention that the usual form at the Wall is collective prayer of synagogue type, supported by Frankl, Mahazeh Erez Ha-Kedoshah (1891, on Fridays in summer 1,000 to 1,800 people), Rabbi Meshil (about 1860), Rabbi Moses Hagiz (about 1671), Chief Rabbi Uziel, Rabbi Schorr, Goldberg, the beadle Meyuhas, Richard Hughes and Miss Hussey (line 600). Moslem witnesses, especially fathers or brothers of Christian churches, deposed the opposite, except Father Draissaire, who for 1899-1905 saw Friday afternoon prayers under one person presiding (line 602).
  • Rabbi Uziel’s account of the ritual (Jewish Exhibit No. 11) is summarised in full (lines 604-616): the three daily services, the Musaph and Neilah additions, the midnight service from the 17th of Tamuz to the 9th of Ab, when the Law and the Prophets are read, propitiatory and intercession services, and the services at the Wall; Uziel could not assert from his own experience that the whole ritual was in use at the Wall before the Great War.
  • (2) Appurtenances: Uziel’s lists for individual and congregational prayer and for convenience, including benches, mats, a partition between men and women, and pegs or nails for coats and hats (line 620), are followed item by item against pre-War evidence (lines 622-672): Scrolls, Ark and table (Issacharoff, Federmann, Mosseri; against, Rabbi Schorr, who dated carrying the Scrolls to about eight or 10 years ago, and Meyuhas on Sabbaths; Scrolls on calamity occasions attested back to Rabbi Gedaliah of Semitizi, 1699); the prayer-book stand; ritual lamps; the wash-basin; the Shofar; benches and chairs (Jewish photographs and a film against Arab witnesses who never saw benches, and the 1911 resolution quoted at lines 658-662, followed by the disputed 1912 Haim Nahoum affidavit and telegrams); mats (Christie, 1894); and the screen (Mendle Hacovan Pakover, from 1900 for about 10 years, against Moslem witnesses who never saw a partition).
  • The Moslem case on evidence: their regular pre-War visitors saw only individual lamentations; the 1840 decree quoted (“to pay visits to it as of old”, line 680) and the 1911 decree; the Jewish contest to the 1840 document’s authenticity over the title Khedive, answered from Mohamed Ali’s diary (his use of the title as early as 1838); the Sharia Court registers and Waqf documents of 1193 and 1320; and Al Iqna by Sheik Al Islam Al-Bahuti, quoted against leasing a house to become a synagogue (lines 674-690). The last paving of the passage, about 35-40 years earlier, was claimed by Jewish Counsel to have been paid for by the Jewish community and by the Moslem Side to have been done by the Municipality (line 694).
  • Mr. E. Keith-Roach (Edward Keith-Roach), Deputy District Commissioner of Jerusalem, called at the Commission’s request, listed matters a High Commissioner ruling had not touched: the Zikr, the Muezzin, raising the voice in prayer, prayer slips in the Wall’s crevices, candles, wine at the Wall, hanging coats, beggars, the Minyan, latrine smells, photographing, writing on the Wall, sealing of appurtenances, and the appointment of beadles (line 696).

VI. (1) The Task entrusted to the Commission (lines 698-736)

  • This Commission is an ad hoc body appointed by the Mandatory, with the League Council’s consent, as a means of carrying out Article 13; it is not the Article 14 Holy Places Commission, which has never come into being, so the Mandatory alone bears responsibility for the Holy Places (lines 706-716). The Supreme Muslim Council’s letter of 17 February 1930 protesting the appointment, and the Moslem Counsel’s reservations, are recorded; the Commission declares it has no intention of interfering in the parties’ political relations to the Mandatory or the League, and no wish to interfere with the fabric or management of Moslem sacred shrines, whose immunity the Mandate guarantees (lines 710-714).
  • The Christian Holy Places status quo history is given (the Crimean War, the firman of 1852 confirming that of 1757, the 1878 treaty rule against alteration without all Signatory Powers’ consent) to distinguish Articles 13 and 14; Jewish sacred sites were not in that arrangement, though firmans dealt with them — the footnote instance is Rachel’s Tomb, whose keys the Jews possess on an alleged firman of 1815 (lines 718-726).
  • The leading principle of the Balfour and Allenby declarations, the Civil Administration and the Mandate is that free exercise of worship is guaranteed to the three confessions; Article 13 protection includes all religious buildings and sites and the existing rights in them, for religions all over the world, not only communities in Palestine; and disputes of this order are excluded from the local courts by the Palestine Holy Places Order, 1924 (lines 730-736).

VI. (2) The application of the Principles of Status Quo (lines 738-774)

  • The Administration has maintained for the Holy Places the status quo of 1852/1757, apportioned among the Orthodox Greek, Latin and Armenian Orthodox rites in the four categories set out (lines 742-750), with minutely fixed rules in the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Nativity and principles such as repair carrying exclusive possession (line 752).
  • The same principles were applied to the Western Wall. The November 1928 White Paper is quoted at length (lines 760-762): the Wall is holy to both communities; it is legally the absolute property of the Moslem community and the pavement is Waqf property; the Jewish community have an undoubted right of access for devotions but may bring only the appurtenances permitted under the Turkish regime. Supervision has run in both directions, against Jewish appurtenances and against Moslem innovations hindering Jewish devotions; administrative action in 1925, 1928 and 1929, the 1929 temporary rules, the locked southern door and prohibition of driving animals at fixed times, and the 1929 Haram building operations are detailed (lines 764-774).

VI. (3) The Ownership of the Wall and of its Surroundings (lines 776-788)

  • The Jews claim no proprietorship (Jewish Counsel’s concluding speech, Minutes p.908), but the Commission inquires into ownership as the necessary basis, and declares: “the ownership of the Wall, as well as the possession of it and of those parts of its surroundings that are here in question, accrues to the Moslems” and “The Wall itself as being an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area is Moslem property”; the Pavement is also Moslem property (line 780).
  • The Pavement area was constituted Waqf by Afdal about 1193, and the Moghrabi buildings were made Waqf by Abu Madian about 1320; their original title-deeds are lost but the Waqf character of the buildings was confirmed by a Qadi verdict of 1630; approximate boundaries were ascertained in the Sharia Court and marked on the Administration’s map, not questioned by either party (lines 782-784).
  • On Waqf the Commission relies chiefly on the Moslem Side’s elucidation: a Waqf is definitely and irrevocably reserved for a particularised religious or charitable purpose; only a Waqf consecrated to a religious purpose is sacred or holy in the proper sense; the Pavement is of the same category as the Moghrabi lodging-quarters and is chiefly looked upon by Moslems as a passage for the inhabitants of those dwellings (lines 786-788).

VI. (4) The Sacredness of the Wall and of the Pavement (lines 790-800)

  • Waqf character alone does not make the Wall a Moslem sacred shrine, and still less the Pavement, a thoroughfare which has never, so far as is known, been a place for Moslem prayers. The Buraq Mosque, on the spot where the Prophet is believed to have tethered Al Buraq, is not within the part of the Wall skirting the Jewish Wailing Place but in its extension to the south, with access from the Haram, not from outside; “the Commission does not consider that the Pavement in front of the Wall can be regarded as a sacred place from a Moslem point of view” (lines 792-798).
  • The Wall itself: the Commission accepts that the Wall as a whole, by reason of Mohammed’s visit with Al Buraq, is sacred to the Moslems, and holds that this does not exclude its sanctity to the Jews as well; each party can perform its devotions in separate places, the Temple area open to the one, the other claiming only access to the place in front of the Wall (line 800, continuing into the next part).

VI. (5) The Access to the Place in Front of the Wall (lines 804-834)

  • Jewish veneration of the Wall is traced to the 4th century, long before the place became a Moslem Waqf; Benjamin of Tudela (about 1167) is quoted: “hither come all the Jews to pray before the Wall in the open court” (line 806). Enclosure of the place did not end free access; interruptions were temporary. The Commission is decidedly of the opinion that the place is a religious site used exclusively by adherents of the Mosaic creed, and that free access for devotional purposes is explicitly guaranteed by Article 13 (lines 808-812).
  • Irrespective of the Mandate, a practice constituting a right ab antiquo exists. Statute law supports no servitude, but there exists a right sui generis, whose basis is an ancient custom arisen under the protection of a tolerance; in the status quo system tolerance is itself a possible basis for an altered legal position and for an existing right (lines 814-816).
  • Past prohibitions never touched the right of visiting as such, only steps held to prejudice Moslem proprietary right. The 1840 firman (24 Ramadan 1256, seal of Mohamed Sherif, Appendix VI), whose authenticity the Commission has no sufficient reason to doubt, rejected the Jewish application to pave because there was “no precedent for the Jesus carrying out any such repairs in that area in the past” (line 820, “Jesus” as printed in the text copy, for Jews) while confirming permission “to pay visits to it (the Wall) as of old” (line 820). The 1911 decision’s motive was likewise to prevent a future claim of ownership, while the long-standing practice itself was expressly recognised in its direction to preserve the old practice (lines 822-828). “the Commission comes to the conclusion that the free access of the Jews to the place for devotional purposes has been recognized by the Moslems themselves as a right ab antiquo” (line 830).
  • The firmans of 1889, 1841, 1893 and 1909: the rival translations of the 1889 firman by Dr. Libanon and Riza Tewfik Pasha are set out; whichever is more correct, the firmans express a policy favourable to the Jews and to their liberty of religion, and those who prayed at the Western Wall were not excepted; the 1889 firman was entered in the Sharia Court’s official register (lines 832-834).

VI. (6) The Form and Extent of Jewish Devotions (lines 836-882, part)

  • The Jews’ claim to decide the form and extent of their devotions, from the Mandate’s “free exercise of worship” (line 838), is answered: that principle cannot mean exercise of worship in all places without consideration of the rights of others, or the whole status quo structure would break down, and the site is itself a Moslem Waqf surrounded by Moslem Waqfs. “due consideration ought also to be paid by the Jews to their hosts, the Moslems” (line 846). Established custom is the proper basis for deciding the Jews’ existing rights, provided the usage is of fairly long standing (lines 844-848).
  • On the evidence, collective or “arranged” prayers were held at the Wall even centuries ago; Minyan groups performed a more or less complete service; women kept apart in a separate corner; the Scroll of the Law was at first brought only on extraordinary occasions (fasts in drought and other calamities), then more often, at great festivals and in later times also on the ordinary Sabbath. Development was not objected to so long as no step suggested an ownership claim: paving, benches, a screen (a substitute for the women’s gallery), a tent on the Wall (lines 850-854).
  • The claimed 1912 alteration of the 1911 decision was not sufficiently cleared up, and Jewish payment for maintaining the Pavement was not substantiated as proving a possessory right; occasional unobjected benches, chairs and screens, and occasional cleaning or repair, do not prove an uncontested practice of long standing (line 858).
  • The correspondence behind the 1928 White Paper is then detailed (lines 860-882): the Supreme Moslem Council’s letters of 19 February and 16 April 1922, 8 January 1923 (answered 3 February 1923), 28 September 1925, 7 and 20 June-July 1926 (with the Moghrabi Waqf guardian’s petition on benches, mats, tables, chairs and lamps), 4 August 1926, 7 December 1926 on the small portable chairs, and the tourist-hours exchange of 2 December 1927 to 3 April 1928, in which the Council objected that excluding tourists amounted to “granting the Jews new rights in the same place” (line 872). Only on 24 September 1928 did the Council’s President make a direct detailed protest against appurtenances of worship, specifying a wooden room covered with cloth, screens, mats, a large table and the Ten Commandments on a chair, with repeated complaints on 2, 4 and 6 October 1928; the guardian’s 23 September 1928 complaint was about a dividing screen, additional petrol lamps, mats and an Ark much larger than customary. The Commission concludes this part by noting that both parties based their arguments on the status quo principle, and that for a long time the complaints were chiefly against benches, chairs and screens, explicit protest against lamps, mats and the Tabernacle or Ark coming only at the last stage, and then about additional lamps and a larger Ark (lines 876-882). The verdict on the individual appurtenances and the Conclusions follow in part 2, immediately below.

VI. (6) The Form and Extent of Jewish Devotions, concluded (lines 883-942)

  • The Commission finds the November 1928 White Paper’s status quo principle was “more or lass completely accepted by the Parties themselves” (line 884, lass as printed), and quotes the Supreme Moslem Council’s letter of 27 December 1928 expressing satisfaction with it and asking that it be applied as early as possible (lines 886-890). Great importance is attached to the temporary rules of 1929, to be modified only as a necessary consequence of this inquiry (line 892). Against the Moslems’ newer objection to any appurtenances as making a synagogue of the place, the Commission holds it the more important that only objects not objected to before the War, tolerated as established by time-honoured custom, be sanctioned (lines 894-896).
  • Verdict on convenience objects: it is prohibited to place on the Pavement benches, chairs or tents; screens or curtains, for separating men from women or any other purpose; and carpets or mattings, except as explicitly noted below (lines 898-904).
  • The Ark and tables: witnesses proved the Ark with the Scrolls and its tables were customarily brought long before the War on New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, and from ancient times on proclaimed fasts and calamity occasions; no proof of similar validity was brought for other High Festivals, but the temporary regulations’ general permission for Jewish holy days is accepted as based on time-honoured practice. The Ark (hand-carried, not affixed to the Wall, removed at the close of the day) may therefore be brought on (a) proclaimed special fasts or prayers, with notice to the Administration, (b) New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, and (c) other special holy days recognised by the Administration as days on which the objects were usually brought (lines 906-916). For ordinary Sabbaths the evidence is contradictory — Issacharoff’s emphatic pre-War evidence, including Mondays and Thursdays, against equally trustworthy witnesses with no remembrance of the Ark on ordinary days before the War — and “does not authorize a confirmation of a Jewish right to place the Ark with the Scroll at the Wall on ordinary Sabbaths” (line 918).
  • Other objects: the daily stand of ritual lamps with its zinc case, the portable wash-basin and water-container on a stand, and the prayer-book stand from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday and over recognised holy days, are permitted, none to be affixed to the Wall or adjoining Waqf walls; each worshipper may bring a prayer-mat on the two New Year holy days and the Day of Atonement. The claimed right to blow the Shofar at the Wall is not assented to. Save as provided, no other appurtenances are permissible (lines 922-934).
  • The Moslem side of the status quo: the Moslems may construct, demolish or repair in the adjacent Waqf properties provided the work does not encroach on the Pavement, impair Jewish access or cause avoidable disturbance during devotions; the southern door, if not closed for good, is to be kept locked from 5 p.m. on the Eve of the Sabbath and recognised holy days until sunset; the prohibition on driving animals at certain hours is confirmed; and the Zikr shall not be carried out so close to the Pavement during the usual hours of worship as to cause annoyance (lines 936-942).

Conclusions (lines 946-1000)

  • A: “To the Moslems belong the sole ownership of, and the sole proprietary right to, the Western Wall, seeing that it forms an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area, which is a Waqf property” (line 948); the Pavement and the Moghrabi Quarter are likewise Moslem ownership, the latter made Waqf dedicated to charitable purposes (line 950). No appurtenance the Jews may place under the Verdict or by agreement shall ever establish any proprietary right for them (line 952). The Moslems are obliged not to build, demolish or repair within the adjacent Waqf property so as to encroach on the Pavement, impair Jewish access or avoidably disturb Jewish devotional visits (line 954).
  • B: “The Jews shall have free access to the Western Wall for the purpose of devotions at all times” subject to eleven stipulations (line 956): (1) the September 1929 temporary instructions on appurtenances are made permanent, modified so the Ark and its two tables may be placed only on proclaimed fasts and assemblies for public prayer, New Year’s Day, the Day of Atonement and other recognised customary holy days (lines 958-964); (2) individual hand-books, customary articles and old-worn garments are unobjectionable (line 966); (3) the prohibitions on benches, carpets, mattings, chairs, curtains and screens, and on driving animals at certain hours, are made absolute, and the southern door is to be kept locked at the stated hours, while the Moslems’ ordinary right of passage along the Pavement remains inviolable (line 968); (4) no tent or curtain even for a limited time (line 970); (5) no Shofar blowing near the Wall and no avoidable Jewish disturbance of the Moslems, and no Zikr close to the Pavement during Jewish devotions and no other Moslem annoyance of the Jews (line 972); (6) the Administration may set dimensions, days, hours and other details (line 974); (7) no political speeches, utterances or demonstrations in front of the Wall or its surroundings (line 976); (8) the Wall is not to be disfigured by engravings, inscriptions or nails, the Pavement is to be kept clean and respected by both, and cleaning and repair of the Pavement are the Moslems’ right and duty on notice to the Administration (line 978); (9) the Wall, as an historical monument, is maintained by the Palestine Administration, repairs only after consultation with the Supreme Moslem Council and the Rabbinical Council for Palestine (line 980); (10) if the Moslems do not attend to necessary Pavement repairs in due time, the Administration shall have the work done (line 982); (11) the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem are to nominate authorised representatives to receive the Administration’s instructions and communications (line 984).
  • The dispute, the Commission closes, arises not from two conceptions of a law both parties accept but from “an existing incompatibility in actual principles of right and religious faith” (line 986); no amicable agreement having proved possible, the Verdict is pronounced on the merits, recalling the Sublime Porte’s Article LXII declaration in the Treaty of 13 July 1878 on religious liberty, and the hope that both parties will accept it with an earnest desire for mutual understanding (lines 988-994). “In its pronouncements and decisions the Commission is unanimous.” December, 1930 (line 998). Signatures: Löfgren, Barde, van Kempen, Sahlin (lines 1002-1008).

Appendices (lines 1010-1696)

  • Appendix II (lines 1010-1258): the 23 meetings, 23 June-19 July 1930, and the 52 numbered witnesses, each marked (J), (M) or, for E. Keith-Roach alone, (C); the final three meetings are the closing speeches of both Sides and the Chairman.
  • Appendix III (lines 1260-1386): the lists of exhibits, 35 presented by Jewish Counsel and 26 by Moslem Counsel, from the Jewish Memorandum, photographs, maps and firmans of 1889 and 1893 to the Moslem Side’s Sharia Court Waqf extracts, the 1840 and 1911 documents, correspondence collections and the Shaw Commission minutes extract.
  • Appendix IV (lines 1388-1424): the Secretary’s letter of 17 July 1930 to the Acting Chief Secretary, recording the close of the sittings and thanking the attached staff by name — the interpreters Abbady and Shaftari, the stenographers Antippa and Eassilian, Marroum, Corporal Christie and Max Nurock as liaison.
  • Appendix VI (lines 1426-1450): the 1840 document in translation, Folio 368 No. 39, Muhammad Sharif to Ahmad Agha Duzdar: the Jews’ application to pave the area contiguous with the Haram wall and “the tethering place of al-Burg” is refused, there being no precedent for such repairs and their being inadmissible under the Shar’i Law; the Jews are to be cautioned against raising their voices and displaying their books, “all that may be permitted them is to pay visits to it as of old.” Its footnotes (Ibrahim Pasha; Representative Council; the steed tethered by the Angel Gabriel) appear in the text copy after Appendix VII (lines 1480-1484).
  • Appendix VII (lines 1452-1478): “ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE FIRMAN 1311” (heading as printed; the exhibit list describes No. 32 as the translation of the Firman of 1889), the brevet appointing Yaco Shaoul Elyashar Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, whose long conditions bar interference with Torah reading, with synagogues and schools held ab antiquo, with communal rites of marriage, divorce, burial, Kasher and Taref, and “with their places of devotional visits and pilgrimage” within his jurisdiction; dated 5 Muharram 1311 A.H., registered at Jerusalem in August 1309 (financial year).
  • Appendix VIII (lines 1486-1520): the 1911 decision in translation, Majles Idarah of the Liwa No. 1680 of 12 November 1327 (1911 A.D.): on the Abu Median Mutawalli’s petition, chairs, screens and similar articles indicating ownership are inadmissible at the Buraq, a Waqf blind alley, and “it is found necessary to preserve the old practice.”
  • Appendix X (lines 1522-1628): the September 1929 temporary Instructions in full — access at all times; the daily lamps, wash-basin and water container; the prayer-book stand, Ark and tables from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday and over recognised holy days; prayer-mats on the New Year days and Day of Atonement; the prohibitions on benches, chairs, stools, screens and curtains; animal-driving hours; locking of the southern door — with the Schedule of maximum dimensions in centimetres (Ark 102 × 50 × 30; table for scrolls 94 × 97 × 74; prayer mat 125 × 50, among the eight objects listed).
  • Appendix XI (lines 1630-1696): Jewish Exhibit No. 29, the Jewish Side’s note on recent Moslem innovations — the new structure above the northern end of the Wall (first observed 15 October 1928), the Zawiyah conversion, the Muezzin’s calling (from late November 1928), the Zikr (from May 1929) and the through connection from the Mughrabi Gate via the Zawiyah — each rested on the Shaw Report’s findings, including its findings (Shaw pp.74-75, as quoted) that the Muezzin calling and the Zikr were “primarily designed to annoy the Jews,” with the Law Officers’ opinions of June 1929 quoted against the structural works, and a closing complaint of the restriction of lighting at the Pavement, one of the two municipal lamps standing so far from the Wall that elderly worshippers huddle in the southern corner for light. Lines 1698-1764 are the UNISPAL closing furniture (document symbol A/7057/Add.1|S/8427/Add.1; publication date 01/12/1930).

Key passages

  • “a measure essential in the interests of peace and good government in Palestine” (Report of the Commission 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, line 274, the Commission of Enquiry on early determination of the Wall rights).
  • “wholly and solely on the Commissioners’ candid convictions upon the bearing of law and equity to the case in dispute” (line 316, the Chairman on the intended verdict).
  • “It is with great regret that the Commission has had to ascertain the failure, up to the present time, of the said negotiations.” (line 334, on conciliation).
  • “It is this Pavement running at the base of the part of the Wall just referred to that the Jews are in the habit of resorting to for purposes of devotion.” (line 350).
  • “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” (line 538, Colonel Symes in 1926, as quoted by the Moslem Side).
  • “The best solution of the whole question would be to forbid the Jews from approaching the Wall.” (line 588, the Moslem contention as summarised).
  • “the ownership of the Wall, as well as the possession of it and of those parts of its surroundings that are here in question, accrues to the Moslems” (line 780).
  • “the Commission does not consider that the Pavement in front of the Wall can be regarded as a sacred place from a Moslem point of view” (line 796).
  • “to pay visits to it (the Wall) as of old” (line 820, the 1840 firman as read by the Commission).
  • “the Commission comes to the conclusion that the free access of the Jews to the place for devotional purposes has been recognized by the Moslems themselves as a right ab antiquo” (line 830).
  • “due consideration ought also to be paid by the Jews to their hosts, the Moslems, whose sacred shrines have been guaranteed immunity by the terms of the Mandate” (line 846).
  • “To the Moslems belong the sole ownership of, and the sole proprietary right to, the Western Wall, seeing that it forms an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area, which is a Waqf property.” (line 948, Conclusions A).
  • “The Jews shall have free access to the Western Wall for the purpose of devotions at all times subject to the explicit stipulations hereinafter to be mentioned” (line 956, Conclusions B).
  • “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” (line 972, Conclusions B(5)).
  • “an existing incompatibility in actual principles of right and religious faith” (line 986, on the dispute’s origin).

Evidence the work relies on

  • The record of its own proceedings in Jerusalem, Appendix I (not printed), with 52 witnesses and 61 documents or collections, listed in Appendices II and III; Minutes page references are given throughout for testimony (e.g. Uziel, Minutes pp.196-197; Jewish Counsel’s concluding speech, p.908).
  • The parties’ exhibits: Jewish Exhibits Nos. 1, 11, 15, 16, 20, 29, 31 and 32 and Moslem Exhibits Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 21 among those cited in this part, including the firmans and decrees annexed as Appendices VI-VIII (1840, 1889, 1911).
  • The Sharia Court registers and Waqf documents of 1193 and 1320, inspected in the Sharia Court, and the Administration’s plan and map of the area (Appendix V).
  • Prior official texts as presented: the Shaw Commission report (Cmd. 3530), the November 1928 White Paper (Cmd. 3229), the High Commissioner’s provisional instructions of September 1929, and Colonel Symes’s statement in the Permanent Mandates Commission Minutes, 9th Session (1926), p.174.
  • Works cited by the parties or the Commission in this part: Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem nouvelle (1922-26); Baedeker’s Palestine et Syrie (1912); The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (Adler ed., 1927); Code de Droit Ottoman (George Young, 1906); Al Iqna by Al-Bahuti; the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Jewish Encyclopedia, as invoked by Moslem Counsel.
  • The appendices printed with the report: the meeting and witness list and the exhibit lists (Appendices II-III), and the documents themselves in Appendices VI (1840), VII (the firman appointing Elyashar), VIII (1911), X (the September 1929 Instructions with their Schedule of dimensions) and XI (Jewish Exhibit No. 29 on Moslem innovations, resting on the Shaw Commission report’s pages 28, 33, 39-40 and 74-75).

Analysis

  • Method in this part: a judicial inquiry on English court methods, with the Jewish Side as plaintiff and the Moslem Side as defendant, oral and documentary evidence tested by cross-examination, site inspection, and inspection of title-deeds in the Sharia Court; the Commission also attempted conciliation beyond its stated mandate and held its verdict open to an agreed settlement until 8 October 1930 (lines 316-336).
  • The Commission reasons in layers: the Mandate’s Articles 13-16 allocate responsibility and guarantee free access and free exercise of worship; the status quo, ascertained from pre-War practice, limits what counts as an existing right; ownership is decided on the Sharia Court evidence, while access is decided on custom recognised in the parties’ own documents, including the Moslem-produced firmans of 1840 and the decision of 1911.
  • Limits visible in this part: the evidence on appurtenances is described by the Commission itself as “by no means complete or adequate” (line 604), and key pre-War testimony conflicts witness against witness on benches, the screen and the bringing of the Scrolls; the Commission’s historical survey rests on the tradition and travellers’ accounts it reproduces rather than on documents produced to it.
  • The Verdict’s structure follows that reasoning exactly: ownership is decided against the Jews’ (unclaimed) side on the Waqf evidence; access is affirmed as an existing right; and every appurtenance is then tested separately against pre-War objection or toleration, so the Ark passes for fasts and the two autumn holy days but fails for ordinary Sabbaths on contradictory evidence, while benches, screens and the Shofar fail altogether. The September 1929 administrative instructions are largely ratified rather than replaced, and reciprocal duties are laid on the Moslem Side (no encroachment, no avoidable disturbance, the Zikr kept away during worship) and on the Administration (maintenance of the Wall after consultation with both the Supreme Moslem Council and the Rabbinical Council for Palestine; Pavement repairs in default). The Commission itself names the settlement’s limit: the dispute springs from incompatible principles of right and faith, was not referred by the parties themselves, and no agreed settlement could be reached, so the Verdict is a pronounced one (lines 986-988).
  • Documentary limits of the file as supplied: the Record of Proceedings (Appendix I) is not printed, the Plans (Appendix V) carry no text, and the exhibits are known through the translations and lists the report prints; the firman translation in Appendix VII is given without its original text.

How it relates to other sources

  • The report is the determination the Shaw Commission recommended: the Commission of Enquiry into the August 1929 disturbances whose report (Cmd. 3530) is quoted and relied on here for the innovations at the Wall and the administrative actions of 1925, 1928 and 1929. The Shaw page in this wiki, from other sources, records the commission as established after fighting that started around the Western Wall over access to holy places.
  • Its account of the Moroccan Quarter as a Waqf of 1193 for Moroccan pilgrims agrees in date with the account in Invited to Witness — Solidarity Tourism across Occupied Palestine, which likewise dates the quarter’s Waqf to 1193 (Invited to Witness — Solidarity Tourism across Occupied Palestine, PDF p.145).
  • Its treatment of the Waqf categories and inalienability extends the concept page’s earlier, general account from Palestinian Chicago — Identity in Exile with the Sharia classification the Moslem Side presented and the Commission in part adopted.
  • Its status quo exposition (the 1757 and 1852 firmans, Paris 1856 and Berlin 1878 in other accounts) substantially overlaps the editors’ note summarised on Status Quo (Holy Places) from ‘The House of the Priest’: A Palestinian Life (1885-1954), with a difference in dating of the Crimean War peace, held under Open questions.
  • Appendix XI and the Verdict’s Moslem-side stipulations take up the Shaw Commission’s findings on the innovations of 1928-1929 (the structure above the Wall, the Zawiyah, the Muezzin, the Zikr and the new door) which the Haycraft-era and Shaw pages record as the immediate background to the August 1929 disturbances; where Shaw reported findings, this Commission converts the September 1929 temporary instructions that followed them into a permanent settlement, with the Ark modification as its one substantive change (lines 958-964, 1630-1696).

Open questions

  • Article number in the League Council resolution: the resolution is printed as resting on responsibilities “laid upon it by Article 18 of the Mandate for Palestine” (line 280), while the report everywhere else applies Articles 13-16, and Article 14 is the appointment provision it cites for its own origin (lines 272-274). As printed; not reconciled.
  • Contents appendix numbering (lines 194-260): two appendices numbered XI (the 1928 memorandum at line 244 and Jewish Exhibit No. 29 at line 256), no appendix numbered IX in the list although the text calls the 1928 memorandum Appendix IX (line 444), and the Jewish innovations note is called Appendix XI at line 476. As printed in the text copy.
  • Allenby’s entry date: the history section gives Allenby’s official entry and proclamation as 11 December 1917 (lines 408-410), while section VI(1) gives his entrance as “9th December, 1917” (line 730). Both as printed.
  • Firman dates in the Jewish claims summary: firmans “of 1891, 1889 and 1893” (line 474) against the history section’s firman of 1889 with confirmations of 1893 and 1909 and a firman of 1841 (line 406), and the later references to 1889, 1841, 1893 and 1909 (line 832). As printed.
  • Crimean War peace dating: “At the conclusion of peace (in 1855)” and “In 1878 as well as in 1850” in one sentence sequence about the 1852 firman (line 720). As printed.
  • Pavement width: about 4 metres in the description (line 348); “the width of the passage does not exceed 2-1/2 metres” in the Moghrabi guardian’s petition quoted at line 864. Both figures held as given.
  • Caliph Omar’s dates are given as “(639-644)” at line 396. As printed.
  • Spelling and wording held as printed in the text copy, byte-checked against the file as saved: “FOB” (line 264), “Ezrah” (line 380), “studio” in Article 14 (line 428), “House of the word” (line 462), “Jewish parsonages” (line 454), “MB. DAVID YELLIN” (line 454), “now and them” (line 518), “the tight of holding religious services” (line 528), “Straw Report” (line 576), “volume 27 of lD26” (line 582), “Wailing Wail” (line 600), “ally innovation” (line 658), “have bees to inquire” (line 706), “departures frown the existing practice” (line 760), “character of Waif” (line 782), “vet it can hardly be denied” (line 816), “the Jesus carrying out” (line 820), the garbled sentence on the 1889 firman’s meaning, “must be regarded policy favourable towards the Jews and as an expression of a to their liberty of religion” (line 834), “under the presence that they had been promised leave” (line 868), and “shuts oil the area” (line 346). Whether these are printed-report slips or UNISPAL transcription slips cannot be settled from the supplied files.
  • The second Jewish Temple: the history section says it was destroyed after Antiochus IV’s suppression of the revolt about 170 B.C., and later that Herod reconstructed the Temple “for the second time” and that Titus destroyed this last Temple (lines 382-386). As printed, without outside reconciliation.
  • Witness-name spellings: the witness at line 632 is “Mosseri” and at line 644 “MOSSERI”; the beadle is “MEHUYAS” at line 600 and “MEYUHAS” / “Meyuhas” in the appurtenances evidence (lines 636-648); Appendix II adds “Charlotte Hussay” (line 1098, Hussey in the evidence section) and “Asher Sofer Federman” (line 1128, Federmann in the evidence section). Spellings as printed.
  • The firman of Appendix VII: its heading reads “ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE FIRMAN 1311” and it is dated 5 Muharram 1311 A.H. and appoints Elyashar, while the exhibit list describes Jewish Exhibit No. 32 as “Translation of the Firman of 1889” and No. 26 as the photographic copy of the 1889 firman and No. 28 as that of 1893 (lines 1318-1330, 1452). As printed; the three datings are held side by side, not reconciled.
  • Part 2 slips held as printed in the text copy, byte-checked against the file as saved: “more or lass” (line 884), “in a. Synagogue” and “no unprotected-against practice” (line 918), “to the WalI” (line 974), “up to the present. proved possible” (line 988), “leveling de Rothschild School” and “Die rights” in Jewish Exhibits 5-6 (lines 1272-1274), “prevented considerable difficulty”, “talking down” and “lasher” in Appendix IV (lines 1400-1406), “al-Burg” in Appendix VI (line 1440), “may shave bequeathed” and “Chief Rabbinite” in Appendix VII (line 1462), “in the raid Waqf” in Appendix VIII (line 1498), “Govern-ment” in Moslem Exhibit 12 (line 1358), “Tornai” in Moslem Exhibit 16 and “Dallos’ Répertoire pratique” in Moslem Exhibit 26, the Moslem Exhibit 24 despatch of Sir L. Bols dated “7th June, 1930” (line 1382), “to long as” and “nosed to provide the nosed illumination” and “Sufficient Municipal lighting facilities is” in Appendix XI. Whether printed-report or UNISPAL transcription slips cannot be settled from the supplied files.
  • Appendix V (Plans of the Wailing Wall Area) is listed in the Contents but has no text in the text copy, and Appendix I (Record of Proceedings) is stated not to be printed; the plans and the full minutes are therefore not part of the file as supplied.

Coverage

lines 1-1764 of 1764, read in full in parts 1-2 (part 1: lines 1-882; part 2: lines 883-1764). The text copy as saved has 1763 newline-terminated lines, the final line being the closing UNISPAL furniture; no report content is missing on that account. Appendix V (Plans) has no text in the text copy and Appendix I is stated not to be printed.

Graph View

Backlinks