'File 15/18 FOREIGN AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT CIRCULARS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVT OF INDIA.' [‎6r] (17/370)

3
7~X
tieighhonrs as a "breacli of the status quo should have been obvious to the res-
possible Jewish authorities. Those authorities are fully aware that, in the
absence of any mutual agreement between themselves and the Moslem autho-
rites regulating the conduct of services at the Wall, it is open to the Moslem
authorities to take exception to any innovations of practice, and it is the duty
of the Palestine Government to ensure that there is no infraction of the status
quo. If the innovations introduced on the Jewish Day of Atonement were made
with the assent of the responsible Jewish authorities, that assent must be
assumed to have been given in the full knowledge that, since the permission of
the Government and of the Moslem owners of the pavement had not been ob
tained, the departure from the status quo would have to be stopped by Govern
ment if complaint were made. The Jewish authorities should have been the
more alert to the possibility .that the Moslem authorities would complain against
any departure from the status quo on the Jewish Day of Atonement, since such
a complaint was, in fact, made on the same day in 1925, and, after the police had
intervened to restore the status quo, it had been made clear to those concerned
that the Palestine Government would regard it as their duty to take similar
actioi} in the event of any recurrence.
If, on the other hand the responsible Jewish authorities were not aware of
the innovations introduced on the Jewish Day of Atonement, they cannot rea
sonably expect the Mandatory Administration to countenance the unauthorised
act of a subordinate. In any case, responsible officer of the Palestine Govern
ment was faced with a position callingfor an immediate decisionand the principles
on which he acted cannot, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be called into
question. In the light of subsequent events, it may be thought unfortunate that
the Deputy District Commissioner relied on the undertaking given by the Jewish
official present at the Wall that the screen would be removed ; but he had no rea
son to suppose that that undertaking would not in fact be carried out.
It has been represented that the removal of the screen should have been post
poned until the conclusion of the services and the Fast of the Day of Atonement.
It must be pointed out in reply that it is the practice to take immediate
action where it is established that the status quo has been infringed. In the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other Holy Places, even in the most sacred
services and upon the most holy days, infraction of the status quo lias from time
immemorial been dealt with immediately and on the spot owing to the risk of
creating a precedent which would transform an infraction into an integral
portion of the status quo.
The request has been preferred to His Majesty's Government that they
should use their good offices " to promote an arrangement eliminating the pre
sent obstacles to the free exercise of worship " at the Wailing Wall. His
Majesty's Government regard it as their duty, and it is their intention, to main
tain the established Jewish right of access to the pavement in front of the Wall
for the purposes of their devotions and also their right to bring 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 endeavour to compell the Moslem owners of the pavement to accord any
further privileges or rights to the Jewish communitv. The possibility that such
privileges or rights might be acquired by the Jews by mutual arrangement with
the Moslem authorities has been lessened by the fact that public opinion in
Palestine has definitely removed the matter from the purely religious orbit and
has made of it a political and racial question. Even if the dispute had not
assumed this complexion, it would have been difficult to find a solution satisfac
tory to all parties concerned. In the present state of feeling the difficulty has
been greatly enhanced. Nevertheless, in the hope that more sober counsels will
eventually prevail the Palestine Government have suggested both to the Pales
tine Zionist Executive and to the Supreme Moslem Council that it would be a
convenience to all parties concerned if a protocol could be mutually agreed upon
between the Moslem and Jewish authorities regulating the conduct of the services
at the Wall without prejudice to -the legal rights of the Moslem owners and in
such a way as to satisfy normal liturgical requirements and decencies in matters
of public worship. The Government have also instructed a senior officer to
sound both parties in a tentative manner, in order to ascertain if some such
arrangement can be achieved. If satisfactory assurances are received on this