 |
   |
||||
|
|
|
 |
||
|
 |
 |
 |
||
|
in Publications: Font size:    
|
|
League of Nations Takes a Closer Look at the 1929 Extreme Violence in Great Britain’s Palestine Mandatory
The extreme country-wide civil unrest following the “Wailing Wall” incident in Jerusalem in 1929 during the Palestine Mandate period caused great consternation among members of the League of Nations’ “Permanent Mandates Commission” whose role was to monitor adherence of the mandatories to “Articles” issued by the League. The violence resulted in 113 Jews killed and 339 wounded (apparently mostly by Arabs), and 116 Arabs killed and 232 wounded (apparently mostly by police and British troops mobilized from Egypt), according to Sherman and described elsewhere. (1a-1c) The Commission deplored the violence and felt in part responsible for it as the monitor of the Mandatory Power’s performance (more below). The members of the Commission were troubled and wanted some answers.
The two main British representatives were the smooth-talking Dr. T. Drummond Shiels, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; and the plain-spoken Mr. HC Luke, Chief Secretary of the Palestine Government AND Acting High Commissioner during the violence while the usual High Commissioner was abroad on holiday. Two staff from the British Colonial Office also attended. Available to all participants were several documents, including the Brits’ internal “Shaw Report” (Commission of Enquiry) conducted by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in September 1929; various petitions and publications that had been transmitted directly to the League of Nations from various observers or through the British Government; and a memorandum by the omnipresent Jewish Agency for Palestine. The clear hotspots that emerged during the lengthy discussions were continued Zionist Jewish immigration, purchase of Arab land by Jews, and development of that land by Jews. All three were indelibly linked to the content of the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, described elsewhere. (2-4) A recurring theme posited by members of the Permanent Mandates Commission, especially M. Van Rees, was the failure of the British Government in Palestine to seek the Arab view 1) in governing the mandate and 2) understanding the violence in 1929 (more below). Here we describe the League of Nations’ Mandate System and gain additional clarity on the immediate causes of the disturbance of 1929. I. Brief Overview of the League of Nations and its “Mandate System” Signatories to the League of Nations Covenant (the United States abstained) created the intergovernmental organization after World War I in 1920 “to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war; by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations; by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments; and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another.” (5)
Article 22 of the Covenant deals with management of the properties transferred from the losers to the victors of World War I, as follows: “To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. [Bolding by editor.] “The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. “The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances. “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. “Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League. “There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population. “In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge. “The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council. “A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.” During the June3-21, 1930, Extraordinary Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, the chairman pointed out that “the supervision of mandated territories form[ed] no small part of the world-wide activities in which the League of Nations [was] engaged.” (6) II. Three Categories of Mandates Mandated territories, of which Palestine was one, fell into three categories--A, B, and C,--according to their stage of development. The “A” mandates were “territories [that] have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by the mandatory, until such time as they are able to stand alone. “A” mandates included Syria and Lebanon under French Mandate, and Palestine, Trans-Jordan, and Iraq under British Mandate. (7-8)
“B” mandates were territories that were at such a stage of development that the mandatory Power must be responsible for the administration of the territory under certain specific guarantees for the welfare of the natives, and for the interest of other countries. The “B” mandates were French Cameroun and British Cameroons (under France and British Mandates); Ruanda-Urundi (under Belgium Mandate); Tanganyika (British Mandate), and British Togoland and French Togoland (British and France Mandates). (7-8) “C” mandates were territories that were to be administered under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory, under similar guarantees for the welfare of the natives. The “C” mandates were Nauru (Australia Mandate), New Guinea (Australia Mandate), South Pacific Mandate (Japan Mandate), South-West Africa (South Africa Mandate). (7-8) III. The Palestine Mandate Document The Council of the League of Nations created the Palestine Mandate document of July 24, 1922, to delineate the terms of the mandate. The preamble to his document and Article 13 are reproduced directly below because they have a direct bearing on the Wailing Wall incident and the following massacres. For the complete document, please see #9 in Sources below. Preamble: “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country [Balfour Declaration. Bolding by Editor.]; and “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and “Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and “Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and “Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations; confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows: ARTICLE 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. ARTICLE 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy. ARTICLE 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. ARTICLE 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. ARTICLE 13. All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.” (9) IV. The “Wailing Wall” Disturbance in September 1928 (Yom Kippur)
“The Abu Madian Waqf was a foundation believed to have been established by Saladin for the housing of and grant of religious facilities to Moghrabis, that was to say, to Moslems from Morocco. Those Moslems, as was often the case with North African Moslems, were at the same time a confraternity—what in other parts of the Moslem world might be called a confraternity of dervishes. “They not only lived on the property of the Waqf and had housing accommodation, but were also under an obligation to perform certain services—not orthodox Moslem services such as were performed in a mosque, but services of a Moslem confraternity which were called “Zikr”, and these services were performed in a chapel, if it could so be termed, which, in the case of Moslem confraternities, was called a “zawiyah”. (12) A zawiyah is either a monastic complex in the center of a settlement of a Sufi brotherhood or here a small, private oratory not paid for by community funds. (13) Now… “A special difficulty arising from this unfortunate position concerned the form of devotion which the Jews were entitled to perform at the Wall. In accordance with the White Paper issued in 1928, His Majesty’s Government [Great Britain] took the view that it was bound to maintain the status quo which it had regarded as being, in general terms, that the Jewish community had a right of access to the pavement for the purpose of their devotions, but might bring to the Wall only those appurtenances of worship which had been permitted under the Turkish regime. (12) [Bolding by editor.] “Here rose a point of conflict, because the Jews’ contention was that this stipulation meant that they might take to the Wall all the appurtenances which, in point of fact, they had at one time or another taken to the Wall under the Turkish regime. The Arab point of view was that the status quo meant that the Jews might take to the Wall only those things which they had been specifically permitted to take under Turkish rule. In practice, the Jews had at times, as could be determined by photographic evidence and otherwise, taken down various things for which the Arabs maintained they had no specific permission, and for the use of which they had not been able to produce documentary evidence. The Jews, however, claimed that such documentary evidence was not necessary, and they interpreted the right of performing their devotions there as meaning congregational worship; that was to say, services accompanied, when necessary, by the same sort of liturgical and ritual appurtenances, or at all events by some of them, as would be used in a synagogue. The Arabs’ contention was that all the Jews might do was to go to the Wall just as any other person, a tourist for example, and that there was no objection to their saying prayers against the Wall provided they did so quietly. [Bolding by editor]. “The incidents of 1928—the incident of the screen in particular [Jews had brought to the Wall a screen to segregate the men and women during worship]—had brought about a state of mind which led the Arabs to take action in, and around, the Wailing Wall which would tend to have the result of emphasising their rights of ownership, and so arose the question of these new building to the south of the Wall itself—the zawiya, Wall, etc., and also a revival of the Zikr in this neighborhood together with the stationing of a muezzin on the roof of the zawiyah. [The muezzin is the person chosen to lead the call to Friday service AND the five daily prayers from one of the mosque’s minarets or, in this case, from the top of the zawiya.] (12) … “the stationing of the muezzin in this neighbourhood [none had been there for many years] had undoubtedly alarmed and upset the Jews; there was no question about that. The Shaw Commission [said]: ‘The calling of the muezzin was not stopped; the question was, as the Law Officers had said, one of the degree of annoyance or provocation caused by the calling of prayer, and it may be that the Palestine Government decided that this ceremony, taking place as it did at set times, could not legitimately be prohibited.” “In addition to that point of view,” the minutes continued, “there had also been the consideration that it would have been a very difficult and delicate thing to inform the Moslems that they must cause a muezzin to cease from giving the call to prayer in a place which was not only their property, but which was actually Moslem religious property.” (14) As it turned out, the Jews, during the early days of the Mandate, had attempted to purchase the pavement in front of the wall because they were dissatisfied with the state of affairs concerning the place they regarded as the most sacred building to them in the world and that place was owned by another faith (Muslims). The wall is actually what remains of a retaining wall that dates from the time of the Jewish Second Temple, which stood between 586 BC and 70 AD at which time the Romans knocked it down (except for the retaining wall). The negotiations for the pavement in front of the wall had broken down. No actual violence occurred in September 1928. V. Why did the Arabs restart their ceremonies in that neighborhood? One member of the Permanent Mandates Commission asked Mr. Luke this question. Mr. Luke, Acting High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate during the incident, said that “it was difficult to say what had been in the minds of the Arabs in starting the ceremonies in that neighbourhood. All he could say on the subject was that, arising out of the incident of the screen in September 1928, the Arabs had conceived it to be their duty to emphasise their rights of ownership.” (15) M. Van Rees then pointed out the Shaw Report noted that the Jews were quite irritated because the Muslims had decided to re-establish their religious ceremonies, which would prevent “Jews from carrying out their religious practices in a calm atmosphere” [at the Wall]. Furthermore, said the Shaw Report, “The Arabs could…hardly claim that it was absolutely necessary for them to observe these ceremonies” because they had not observed them for a number of years. The conclusion was that the Arabs had re-established the muezzin calling Muslims to prayer within earshot of the wall five times a day just to annoy the Jews! VI. Jewish Demonstration of August 15, 1929 on the “Ninth Day of the Month of Ab August 15, 1929, was a special days for Jews in Jerusalem: it was the ninth day of Ab, a fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple by the Emperor Titus in 70 AD. Jews typically went to the city walls of Jerusalem, and, in particular, to the “Wailing Wall”. Thus the festival was connected to the walls of Jerusalem. This was the reason Mr. Luke had not been prepared to prevent Jews from having access to the Wall on that particular day. Indeed, the Jews raised the Jewish national flag that day at the wall. No physical violence had been offered by Jews to Arabs. Mr. Luke did note that “although the Jewish demonstration had been a peaceful one and not been accompanied by attacks on Arabs, it had nevertheless been accompanied by certain unusual acts of a political nature, and that in spite of the fact that the Jews usually repaired to the Wall for purely religious practices. The Arab authorities had been asked to keep their people discreetly out of the way owing to the large number of Jews who would be going to the Wall on the occasion of this particular fast. It was the political nature of the demonstration that had excited the Arabs and had led to the counter-demonstration on the next day.” (16) The British authorities had given their permission for the Jews to demonstrate. Then Mr. Luke admitted that the political acts to which he had referred consisted in the “unfurling of the national flag, a political speech, a two-minutes’ silence and the singing of the Jewish national hymn, ‘Hatikvah’ during the demonstration on the Ninth Day of the Month of Ab. Mr. Van Rees responded that this demonstration by the “hothead young” Jews was “an act of pure madness”. Why didn’t the acting high commissioner mobilize a large security force for the Arabs’ counter-demonstration the next day? What counter-demonstration, asked Mr. Luke who said he was unaware that the Arabs had planned this. VII. Arab Muslim Counter-Demonstration on August 16, 1929 “At a quarter to 12 o’clock on August 16, 1929, [Mr. Luke was informed] that the Arabs from the Hiram area were in a state of great excitement and were intending to go to the Wall. Mr. Luke had been immediately struck by the extreme impropriety of any such proceeding, and he had telephoned to the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini to come and see him at once. Upon the Mufti’s arrival Mr. Luke had told him that he had just learned of the intended counter-demonstration and added that he had never heard of such a demonstration being held at the Wailing Wall, and that it would be a terrible shock to the Jews who regarded the Wall as a place of special sanctity to them.” Stop them! But it was too late. Already the “excited” Arab Muslims “were all down on the pavement and the counter-demonstration had begun.” (17) Two thousand “fanatical Moslems” rushed down a narrow lane into the narrow passage before the Wall, but, astonishingly, no actual physical violence occurred. However, exactly one week later, all hell broke loose in Palestine. VII. Arab Muslim Violent Outbreak against Jews Friday August 23, 1929 The outbreak on August 23, 1929 was unprecedented in its ferocity. It apparently began when Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa on the other side of the Wall. The call went out to the Arab masses: “Itbakh al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jews!” Arab mobs proceeded to attack Jews in many cities, including Jerusalem, Motza, Hebron, Safed, and Jaffa. The Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron were hit particularly hard. Mr. Luke was unfortunately unable to muster a police force to re-establish order in the country in a timely manner because first, he was caught unprepared and second, the last British regiment had been withdrawn in 1925. In August 1929 the only British forces in Palestine consisted of an air squadron and a company of armored Rolls-Royce cars with a total effective count of 363 men. At the same time, the Palestine police had 1,300 odd men and 142 British police officers. But about one-half of the indigenous element of the Palestine police force joined the rioters. So Mr. Luke had but 500 police officers for the maintenance of order in a population of 900,000 people. This finding galled the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission. One member, M. Rappard, “thought that the mandatory Power would incur grave responsibility if it found itself one day faced with the impossibility of preventing a pogrom owing to insufficient troops. Its responsibility, indeed, would be shared with by the Mandates Commission if that Commission had not pointed out this danger.” (18) He went on that the Mandatory power (Great Britain) had always shown optimism in regard to the public spirit in Palestine! The Mandates Commission however did not share that optimism, and events on August 23, 1929, showed who was correct. The reduction of troops in Palestine had been a grave error in common sense! The smooth Dr. Drummond Shiels then rebutted the Commission. He said that a lot of troops didn’t necessarily mean that disturbances could be quelled. To wit, he recalled that in 1920, 95 persons had been killed and 219 injured, despite the fact that Palestine, at that time, had a garrison consisting of three battalions of infantry and three regiments of cavalry together with artillery representing a total ration strength of over 13,000 and a total combatant strength of 4,000 rifles. Meanwhile, Mr. Luke, on August 23, 1929, between 12 noon and 1 o’clock had telegraphed the Colonial Office asking for troops, and the Admiral-in-Command at Malta to request the immediate dispatch of men-of-war to Jaffa and Haifa (ports). He also sent a request directly to Cairo, Egypt, for reinforcements contrary to orders. The situation was still grave by 5 o’clock on August 24, 1929 and troops were immediately sent from Cairo and the civil unrest was ended. The usual High Commissioner made his way back to the troubled Mandate and cut off all friendly relations with the Arabs. Summary During the first two days of the Extraordinary Session of the Permanent Mandatory Commission of the League of Nations (June 3-21, 1930), Members were beginning to uncover root causes of the violence in Palestine in August 1929, not the least of which was the Brits’ persistent rosy optimism about the state of affairs there. As the inquiry continued, the British representatives, especially Dr. Shiels, maintained British and Jewish innocence during the civil unrest, placing blame solely with the Arabs. This failure to probe the deep causes (e.g., the Balfour Declaration) behind the superficial causes (e.g., the muezzin upset the calm of the Jewish worship at the Wall), exasperated Members, especially Mr. Van Rees. The minutes are riveting. Sources: 1a. A.J. Sherman: "Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine 1918-1948." Johns Hopkins Press, 1997, p. 80. 1b. SEMP Biot #398: Bowl of Scorpions: The Britain’s Palestine Mandate June 1920 to June 1929 (September 10, 2006) at: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot_398.html; accessed September 16, 2006. 1c. Minutes of the “Permanent Mandates Commission” of the League of Nation, “Extraordinary Session”, Geneva, Switzerland, June 3-21, 1930, p. 11. Available at: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/5f 1d. Minutes of the “Permanent Mandates Commission” of the League of Nation, “Extraordinary Session”, Geneva, Switzerland, June 3-21, 1930, p. 11. Available at: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/5 2. SEMP Biot #394: Genesis of Britain’s 1917 ‘Balfour Declaration’: Zionist Jews’ Sanction to Populate Palestine (September 1, 2006) at: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot_394.html; accessed September 16, 2006. 3. SEMP Biot #395: Partitioning the Turkish Empire’s Middle Eastern Properties: The Influential 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement That Shaped the Modern Boundaries of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Arabia, and Iraq (September 4, 2006) at: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot_395.html; accessed September 16, 2006. 4. SEMP Biot #398: Bowl of Scorpions: The Britain’s Palestine Mandate June 1920 to June 1929 (September 10, 2006) at: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot_398.html; accessed September 16, 2006. 5. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: “The Covenant of the League of Nations (Including Amendments adopted to December, 1924).” Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm; accessed September 16, 2006. 6. Minutes of the “Permanent Mandates Commission” of the League of Nation, “Extraordinary Session”, Geneva, Switzerland, June 3-21, 1930, p. 9. Available at: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/5f21f8a 7. “Mandates” map and text at: http://www.indiana.edu/~league/pictorialsurvey/p11.jpg; accessed September 16, 2006. 8. “League of Nations Mandate” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate#Class_B_mandates; accessed September 16, 2006. 9. “The Palestine Mandate” is available at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html; accessed September 16, 2006. 10. “Western Wall” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wailing_Wall; accessed September 16, 2006. 11. Minutes, p. 19. 12. Ibid, pp. 19-20. 13.”Zwiyah” in “Encyclopedia Britannica Online” at: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9078276; accessed September 16, 2006. 14. Minutes, p. 21. 15. Ibid, p. 27. 16. Ibid, p. 36. 17. Ibid, p. 40. 18. Ibid, p. 47. |
The League of Nations’ Commission members thus summoned “accredited” representatives of the British Government to an “Extraordinary Session” in Geneva, Switzerland, June 3-21, 1930, to “give the Commission any explanations it might require, to reply to any questions it might put, and to cooperate with it generally in throwing light upon the events which had happened in Palestine in August 1929.” (1d)
The so-called “Wailing Wall” (apparently considered a derogatory term by some because implicit in the phrase is the image of Jews wailing and moaning over the hardships they have endured; however it is the term used by the British at the time) (10) was a wall in Jerusalem against which the Jews had been accustomed for centuries to go and pray at all times throughout the years. (11) The wall was the western exterior wall of the old Temple enclosure, and as such was a part of the Haram esh Sherif, which was one of the holy places referred to in Article 13 of The Palestine Mandate (see above and Note #9 below). According to the League of Nations’ minutes, “[t]he wall was part of the Haram Waqf. [a waqf is an inalienable religious endowment in Islam, typically devoting a building or plot of land for Muslim religious or charitable purposes]. The pavement on which the Jews stood in order to pray against the Wall was a part of another Moslem Waqf, not one of the holy places covered by Article 13 of the mandate, but to a certain extent also Moslem religious property, in that it was part of the Abu Madian Waqf [more below]. In other words, it was Moslem religious property without being a sacred shrine. The initial difficulty therefore existed that for centuries past Jews had carried on the practice of praying at this place which, from the point of view of ownership, belonged to Moslems, not to private Moslem owners but to Moslem ecclesiastical or pious foundations. 
Copyright
2007 - SEMP INC., All Rights Reserved.