The fuss about 'pluralistic prayer' at the Kotel (Western Wall)
I am sure that many of you, particularly in the US where the reactions have been shrill, have heard the fuss about the government 'abandoning' an agreement to facilitate 'pluralistic' prayers at the Western Wall. There's a lot of misinformation about this decision in the media. This video, which I found on Facebook last night, does a great job of clarifying what's really going on.
Let's go to the videotape (I included the entire Facebook post):
Another article, that destroys the claims about 'mixed prayers' being policy at the Kotel during the Mandatory (pre-State) period appears
here:
Few seem to recall that the conflict between Arabs and Jews in
British Palestine was directly related to the Kotel and Jewish demands
for prayer rights there. The 1929 riots and pogroms against Jews was due
to a conflict at the site and was referred to as the “Wailing Wall
disturbances” for many
years. According to an article on the subject, “The issue of Jewish
rights of worship at the Wailing Wall flared up as a result of an
incident on 24 September 1928 when the screen separating men and women
at the Wall was removed by a British police officer in the midst of
prayers on Yom Kippur.” Before 1967 Jews were forbidden from bringing
many prayer items to the site. The lack of separation between men and
women was not because Jews didn’t want separation, but because they were
forbidden to change the site, because it was run by the authorities and
Muslim religious leaders saw it as being owned by Muslims. Colonial
authorities ran the Wall.
Let’s read on regarding the 1928 incident: “The ensuing outcry of
world Jewry and the Zionist movement in the wake of the screen incident
was accompanied by an increasing Jewish challenge to the status quo
rights of worship at the Wall, as well as demands for possessing the
Wall and its surrounding area. Indeed, during the 1920s a number of
Zionist and Jewish leaders sought to expand the Jewish standing and
rights of worship at the Wall.”
So at the heart of the Jewish and Zionist demands for increased
rights to the Wall was the demand to separate men and women as in
traditional Orthodox services. Wait a sec. But I thought the “good old
days” back then men and women prayed together? Actually they only prayed
“together” because Jews were forbidden from making any changes to the
site by the British, who were listening to the Islamic Wakf and its
demands for a “status quo.”
Read the whole thing.
Labels: British Mandate, Conservative rabbis, Kotel plaza, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Union for Reform Judaism, Western Wall, Women of the Wall
90 years ago today, 78% of 'Palestine' was given to the Hashemites
90 years ago today, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for 'Palestine.' As part of that approval,
78% of the country's territory was turned over to Britain's ally, the Hashemite family of Jordan.
The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1]
Note that Wikipedia has done some clever editing above. They have changed what the document said to make it sound like 'Palestine' would include a national home for the Jewish people. But this is what the preamble to the mandate said:
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 favour 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.[28]
Note - no mention of 'Palestine' 'including' a national home for the Jewish people.
Learn some history:
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Balfour Declaration, British Mandate, Jordan is Palestine, Palestine mandate
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
David Isaac finds some
unfortunate parallels between the Netanyahu government's unwillingness to acknowledge that the Obama administration is not the 'most pro-Israel ever' and Chaim Weizmann's (pictured) unwillingness to bring Israel's problems with the British out into the open (Hat Tip:
Dan F).
But the real problem with the Israeli government’s approach is that it focuses on what goes on behind the scenes as opposed to what’s happening on the world stage.
What we see, and what the Arabs see, isn’t the secret cooperation, which, as Glick points out, isn’t that cooperative, and as Mr. Sisco points out, isn’t all that beneficent. Instead, the world sees a president who tells Israel to get back to the 1949 Armistice lines and tells the Palestinian Arabs that they have the right to a “sovereign and contiguous state,” a proposal that would split Israel in two.
From the start of his presidency, Obama has sent a clear message, starting with his first major policy address on the Middle East in Cairo, where he speechified about how Palestinian Arabs “endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
It’s odd that that a president ‘who has done more for Israel than any other’ should have nothing to say about the suffering of Israelis at the hands of the Arabs. Yet, the Israeli government wants us to believe that relations are excellent – albeit secretly excellent.
It is a political error that Jewish leaders have made before and with predictably awful results. The prime example of this approach is Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s leadership of the Zionist movement during the inter-war years. From the start of the British conquest of Palestine, there began a deterioration of British-Jewish relations. Dr. Weizmann chose to support the British publicly and deal with any problems privately. Vladimir Jabotinsky, who would eventually establish a rival Zionist movement, warned him repeatedly to take the matter to the court of public opinion.
In a letter dated Jan. 22, 1919, Jabotinsky wrote: “…Arab impudence is growing daily. No forty-eight hours pass but some inciting speech is heard in Ramleh, concluding in a call to the ‘Arab sword’… [I]f all this exceeds certain limits I shall be forced either to resign altogether or to see to it that the cry of Palestine shall be heard in Europe.”
Weizmann, however, only expressed satisfaction with the British in public. As Shmuel writes in “Lone Wolf: A biography of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky” (Barricade Books, 1996): [The British military administrators] having assured themselves of an accommodating attitude from the outstanding Zionist leader Weizmann, they were able without major effort also to manipulate their pro-Zionist masters in London into broad acquiescence, or resignation, to their anti-Zionist actions.
Weizmann did from time to time, in letters and private conversations, complain bitterly about their behavior, but was careful not to cause them public embarrassment.
Weizmann had many opportunities to change course. In “Lone Wolf”, Shmuel writes that, following the 1929 Arab riots: No moment could have been more propitious for the Zionists, even while mourning the dead, to launch a supreme effort, visible equally to the Jewish people, to the British public and to the world at large, to translate the agonies and pent-up bitterness of the Yishuv into a political offensive for exposing British encouragement as the prime cause of Arab violence; and for demanding a full reinstatement of Britain’s obligations to the Jewish people under the mandate.
Unfortunately, the Zionist leadership had for so long remained silent about the problems with the British that it couldn’t announce its dissatisfaction. As Shmuel writes: It was morally impossible for the incumbent Zionist leadership suddenly to challenge the British government. It was itself too vulnerable. It could, of course, correctly blame the government for not foreseeing the campaign of Arab violence; but had it itself warned the government and aroused public opinion to the danger? Had it not repeatedly pronounced itself “satisfied” with the situation in Palestine and its relations with the government as “excellent”?
Just like the Zionist leadership of the past, Netanyahu’s government is too timid to make waves and, thus, lets things go from bad to worse.
What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, British Mandate, Chaim Weitzmann, Zev Jabotinsky
Why Ayalon's video matters
Jonathan Tobin makes an important point about the importance of Danny Ayalon's (seen here shaking hands with Saudi Arabia's Turki al-Faisal who later claimed he didn't shake hands with Ayalon)
video. This is from the first link.
But for too long, Israel and even most of its defenders in the United States have been so intent on trying to appear reasonable, they have appeared to concede the Palestinians’ false charge the land was stolen from them. That’s the problem for those who worry about the nation’s image and media coverage. If the West Bank is stolen property then it should merely be returned to its owners and not be a subject for talks. By rightly putting forth Israel’s claims, Ayalon is buttressing his country’s negotiating position, not undermining it.
So long as the Palestinians talk of rights and the Israelis speak of security, the Palestinians will win the argument every time. Thus, it’s no surprise Erekat and the Palestinians are so exorcised by Ayalon’s video. If it becomes, as it should, the model for a new Israeli diplomatic offensive, the deputy foreign minister’s mantra that the terms “illegal occupation” and “67 borders” are “simply not politically correct” will become an effective talking point for the country’s defenders.
It's one thing for
Carl in Jerusalem or
representatives of the revenants in Judea and Samaria to say this sort of thing. It's quite another for a Deputy Minister to say it. And if the Prime Minister starts saying it, we'd really be getting somewhere. But Ayalon's video is very significant and that's why the 'Palestinians' have reacted so strongly to it.
Labels: British Mandate, Danny Ayalon, Jordan is Palestine, Judea and Samaria, Saeb Erekat, San Remo Conference
