WWI: Did a German officer prevent massacre of Jews in Israel?

WWI: Did a German officer prevent massacre of Jews in Israel?

Did a German officer prevent the massacre of the Jews of Eretz Yisrael during World War I?And later his son-in-law conspired to kill Hitler

Lenny Ben David, 26/05/16 05:46

Falkenhyn on the Temple Mount

 INN" LBD

German General Falkenhayn on the Temple Mt with Jamal Pasha, Turkish governor of Syria and Palestine, 1916 (Library of Congress collection)

The Ottoman war effort in Palestine in World War I was led by German officers, and their involvement was recorded by the American Colony photographers.  German General Erich von Falkenhayn, an able Prussian officer who served as the Chief of Staff of the German Army, was the commander of the Turkish and German troops during the critical 1917-1918 period.

A German photographic collection contains a picture of Falkenhayn leaving Palestine in 1918 and bears an amazing caption which claims that Falkenhayn prevented a Turkish massacre of the Jews of Palestine [Unfortunately, permission was not granted to use the photo, but it can be viewed here]:
"Falkenhayn and the German Staff need to be credited with have [sic] prevented an Ottoman genocide towards Christians and Jews in Palestine similar to the Armenian suffering. Wikipedia: 'His positive legacy is his conduct during the war in Palestine in 1917.  As his biographer Afflerbach claims, "An inhuman excess against the Jews in Palestine was only prevented by Falkenhayn's conduct, which against the background of the German history of the 20th century has a special meaning, and one that distinguishes Falkenhayn."'" (1994, 485)

General Erich Von Falkenhayn (Bundesarchiv)
Is it true? Did a German general protect the Jewish population of Palestine from massacre?  
A Falkenhayn family genealogy, posted on the Internet, elaborates further:  "While he was in command in Palestine, he was able to prevent Turkish plans to evict all Jews from Palestine, especially Jerusalem.  As this was meant to occur along the lines of the genocide of the Armenians, it is fair to say that Falkenhayn prevented the eradication of Jewish settlements in Palestine."

Again, is this true, or is this self-serving German testimony to scrub the stain of Nazism two decades later?



Falkenhayn and Jamal Pasha in the backseat of a car in Jerusalem (The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine, 1922)

The German general is pictured here in a car with the Turkish ruler of Syria and Palestine, Jamal (also written as Cemal) Pasha, a ruthless ruler and one of the "Young Turks" leadership accused of carrying out the expulsion and massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians across the Ottoman-controlled region during World War I. 


Two of the "Young Turks" - Enver Pasha (center) and Jamal Pasha (right). 1916. Were they responsible for the Armenian massacre? What were they planning for the Jews?

Another leader was Enver Pasha who led the Ottoman Empire during World War I and on occasion visited Palestine where he was photographed with Jamal on the Temple Mount and in Be'er Sheva.

Jamal Pasha suspected the loyalties of the Jews of Palestine.  The explosion of nationalistic movements across the Empire was eroding Turkish control, and Arab and Jewish nationalism had to be crushed.

Zionists were particularly suspected of leading opposition to Ottoman rule, and leaders -- such as David Ben-Gurion -- were arrested, harassed or exiled.  Many were relative newcomers from Russia, an enemy state.  Meanwhile, over the horizon, 1,000 Jewish volunteers for the British army, including some from Palestine, formed the Zion Mule Corps in 1915, later known as the Jewish Legion, and they fought with valor against the Turks at Gallipoli.


The two Pashas ride into Be'er Sheva where the British army later broke through and continued to Jerusalem

Sarah Aaronsohn, NILI founder
The Jews of Palestine feared that after the Armenians, the Jews would be next.  The fear motivated some to form the NILI spy network to assist the British war effort.

Eitan Belkind, who infiltrated the Turkish army and served on Jamal Pasha's staff, witnessed the killing of 5,000 Armenians.  Later his brother was hanged by the Turks as a NILI spy.  Sarah Aaronsohn of Zichron Ya'akov was traveling by train and wagon from Turkey to Palestine in November 1915.  On the way she witnessed atrocities committed against Armenians.

In 1916 she joined her brother Aharon Aaronsohn, a well-known agronomist, in forming the NILI spy ring.  Caught by the Turks in October 1917 in Zichron Ya'akov and tortured, Sarah committed suicide before surrendering information.

At the time, the British were moving north out of Sinai and pressing along the Gaza-Be'er Sheva front.

Sarah's brother Aharon wrote in his memoirs, "The Turkish order to confiscate our weapons was a bad sign.  Similar measures were taken before the massacre of the Armenians, and we feared that our people would meet the same kind of fate."
 
"Tyrant" Hassan Bey
One Zionist activist described the cruelty of the Jaffa Commandant, Hassan Bey, already in 1914:
"It would suddenly come into his head to summon respectable householders to him after midnight...with an order to bring him some object from their homes which had caught his fancy.  Groundless arrests, insults, tortures, bastinadoes [clubs] -- these were things every householder had to fear."
The most egregious act undertaken by the Turks was the sudden expulsion of the Jews of Jaffa-Tel Aviv on Passover eve in April 1917.  Between 5,000 and 10,000 Jews were expelled.  The Yishuv in the Galilee and Jerusalem sheltered many of the Jewish refugees, but with foreign Jewish financial aid blocked by the Turks and the land suffering from a locust plague, many of the expelled Jews died of hunger and disease. By one account, 20 percent of Jaffa's population perished.

A German historian, Michael Hesemann, described the horrible situation:
"Jamal Pasha, the Turkish Commander who was responsible for the Armenian genocide... threatened the Jewish-Zionist settlers.  In Jaffa, more than 8,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes, which were sacked by the Turks.  Two Jews were hanged in front of the town gate, dozens were found dead on the beach.  In March, Reuters news agency reported a 'massive expulsion of Jews who could face a similar fate as the Armenians.'"
In 1921, a representative from Palestine reported to the 12th Zionist Congress on "Palestine during the War."
“In Jerusalem [apparently in 1917] …dozens of children lay starving in the streets without anyone noticing them. Typhus and cholera carried off hundreds every week, and yet no proper medical aid was organized. … Through this lack of organization a considerable portion of the Jerusalem population perished. The number of orphans at the time of the capture of Jerusalem by the English Army was 2,700. “  He continued, “In Safed conditions were similar to what they were in Jerusalem; if anything, worse.… The death-rate here also was appallingly high; towards the end of the war the number of orphans was 500.”

What saved the Jewish community before the British completed their capture of Palestine in late 1917 and 1918?

Several accounts confirm that German officers and diplomats protected the Jews. 


Col. Kress van Kressenstein

The Zionist Congress report credited foreign consular officials who "during the whole period of their stay in the country showed themselves always ready to help, and performed valuable services for the Jewish Yishuv [the Jewish community].  Especially deserving of mention are the German vice-consul Schabiner in Haifa... The Jewish population also benefited by the presence of the head of the German military mission, Colonel Kress van Kressenstein, who on several occasions exerted his influence on behalf of the Jews."

Falkenhayn's biographer, Prof. Holger Afflerbach of Leeds University explained, "Falkenhayn had to supervise Turkish measures against Jewish settlers who were accused of high treason and collaboration with the English.  He prevented harsh Turkish measures -- Jamal Pasha was speaking about evacuation of all Jewish settlers in Palestine."
 
Kressenstein reviewing troops with Jamal Pasha

The professor continued, "The parallels to the beginning of the Armenian genocide are obvious and striking: It started with Turkish accusations of Armenian collaboration with the Russians, and the Ottomans decided to transport all Armenians away from the border to another part of the Empire.  This ended in death and annihilation of the Armenians.  Given the fact that Palestine was frontline in late 1917, something very similar could have happened there to the Jewish settlers."

"Falkenhayn's role was crucial, " Afflerbach explained.  "His judgment in November 1917 was as follows: He said that there were single cases of cooperation between the English and a few Jewish radicals, but that it would be unfair to punish entire Jewish communities who had nothing to do with that.  Therefore nothing happened to the Jewish settlements.  Only Jaffa had been evacuated -- by Jamal Pasha."

Hesemann, the German historian, cites Dr. Jacob Thon, head of the Zionist Office in Jerusalem, who wrote in 1917, "It was special stroke of good fortune that in the last critical days General von Falkenhayn had the command.  Jamal Pasha in this case -- as he announced often enough -- would have expelled the whole population and turned the country into ruins...."

[Hesemann has written extensively about the Vatican's role in aiding the Jews of Palestine: "Eugenio Pacelli, who in 1939 became Pope Pius XII, actively supported Zionism during World War I, German historian Michael Hesemann claims in his book “The Pope Who Defied Hitler. The Truth About Pius XII.” Hesemann, who is one of the few historians with access to the Vatican Secret Archives, states he found evidence that Pacelli in 1917 as Apostolic Nuntius in Munich, successfully intervened in favour of the Jewish settlers in Palestine."]
 
Falkenhayn, his daughter Erika, and Jamal Pasha at the Jerusalem train station, 1917. In 1926, Erika married a 
young German officer, Henning von Tresckow, who rose through the ranks. A general in 1944, he was involved
in an attempted coup against Adolf Hitler. He committed suicide in June 1944. Erika and her children were arrested.
 
Erika von Falkenhayn and her
husband Henning von Tresckow
(Wikipedia)
Falkenhayn had no particular love for Jews, according to his biographer, Afflerbach.  "He was in many aspects a typical Wilhelmine officer and not even free from some prejudices against Jews, but what counts is that he saved thousands of Jewish lives."

Why has no one heard about Falkenhayn and his role in protecting the Jews of Palestine?  Afflerbach responded, "The action was forgotten, because Falkenhayn prevented Ottoman actions which could have resulted in genocide... The incident was not discussed for decades.  It restarted only in the 1960s when scholars started to remember it."

Perhaps Falkenhayn was also erased from German history for many years because of his son-in-law's Valkyrie conspiracy against Hitler.


Post Script: Falkenhayn Saved Jerusalem
 
Turkish troops evacuate Jerusalem
Turkish sources indicate considerable tension between Jamal Pasha and Falkenhayn. The following account appears in the English-language Turkey in the First World War:

"The British attack on Jerusalem began on 8 December. The city was defended by the XX Corps, commanded by Ali Fuad Pasha. Falkenhayn did not send reinforcements to Jerusalem because he did not want the relics and the holy places damaged because of severe fighting. [emphasis added.]"

"After withdrawing from Jerusalem, Ali Fuad Pasha sent a cable to Jamal Pasha: "Since my first day as the commander of the defense of Jerusalem, I did not receive any support except one single cavalry regiment.... The British, who benefited from the fatigue of my poor soldiers..., invaded the beautiful town of Jerusalem.  I believe that the responsibility of this disaster belongs completely to Falkenhayn!"

"Falkenhayn put the blame on Von Kressenstein and his chief of staff...Dissatisfaction with the advice and command of General Falkenhayn was growing.  His inability had resulted in the loss of the Gaza-Beersheba line.  His refusal to send reinforcements had resulted in the loss of Jerusalem.... Enver Pasha was losing patience too.  On 24 February 1918, he replaced Falkenhayn."
 

Irony of ironies. The Jews of Palestine owed their survival during World War I to a German army officer, and, by extension, the State of Israel's foundations were established thanks to Falkenhayn.  Some 25 years later the German army would take part in the eradication of the Jews of Europe. Ultimately, survivors of the Nazi genocide would find shelter in Falkenhayn’s legacy.

The Weizmann-Feisal Agreement, January 1919: An Early Peace Agreement with the Arabs

The Weizmann-Feisal Agreement, January 1919: An Early Peace Agreement with the Arabs

During the First World War, Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca, the Hashemite ruler of Hejaz (today Saudi Arabia) led a revolt against the Turks, made famous in the film "Lawrence of Arabia" (T.E. Lawrence). The revolt's British backers believed that Arab and Jewish nationalists could work together to build a new Middle East. 

T.E. Lawrence at Aqaba, 1917 Photograph: Wikimedia

96 years ago this week, Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the World Zionist Organization, signed an agreement with Faisal for peace and co-operation between the two movements at the Paris Peace conference. Weizmann had already met Feisal in 1918, when he visited Palestine with a delegation of Zionists in the wake of the Balfour Declaration. You can see an account of their meeting by the British interpreter here.

On June 17, 1918, Weizmann wrote to his wife Vera in London about the romantic journey along the Red Sea past the "glowing mountains" of Sinai via Aqaba to the Anglo-Arab army in southeast Transjordan. Here he met Faisal: "the first real Arab nationalist I have met. He is a leader! He is quite intelligent and a very honest man, handsome as a picture. He is not interested in Palestine, but on the other hand he wants Damascus and the whole of northern Syria." 

Weizmann and Feisal at their meeting in Ma'an , June 1918. Photograph: Yad Chaim Weizmann, Weizmann Archives, Rehovot, Israel

Faisal was afraid that the French would try to take over Syria. Weizmann noted that he was contemptuous of the Palestinians and did not regard them as Arabs. He saw Faisal as an alternative to the Palestinian leadership which was hostile to the Zionists' aspirations. Although Zionist colonization would benefit the Arab peasants, they wrongly believed that the Jews would take away their land. Weizmann did not realize the depth of Arab nationalism, which was in its early stages but would quickly gain ground.

In December 1918, Faisal and Weizmann met again in London. In the interim, Faisal had captured Damascus, which he hoped would be the capital of the Arab Kingdom promised by the British, but his regime there was fragile. In their talk on December 11, Weizmann promised help from the Zionist movement. They agreed to cooperate against the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which divided Palestine into British and French spheres of influence and gave Syria to the French. An agreement was drawn up, signed on January 3, 1919, in which Faisal expressed approval for the Balfour Declaration and Jewish settlement in Palestine. Other clauses ensured freedom of religion and Muslim control of the Holy Places sacred to Islam. In the original, held in the Central Zionist Archives, you can see the reservation in Arabic Faisal added in his own handwriting, saying: "If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of January 4, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement."

On February 6, 1919, Faisal appeared before the peace conference and demanded an Arab state, excluding Palestine from his demands. However, under pressure from Arab nationalists, he later retracted. In the summer of 1919, the first Syrian Congress proclaimed the Arabs' desire for a united independent Syria, including Palestine and Lebanon. In March 1920, Faisal was proclaimed King of Greater Syria. However, by July the French had driven him out of Damascus, and Syria became a French mandate. The British, who had just created the state of Iraq (a move leading to many current problems), compensated Faisal by making him its king. His brother Abdullah became Emir of Transjordan and later King of Jordan.

The documents and quotes shown here come from the Weizmann Archives in Rehovot and were published in the "Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann" series. In 1994, the Israel State Archives published some of them in Hebrew in its commemorative volume on Chaim Weizmann, Israel's first president.

Labels: "Lawrence of Arabia", 1918, 1919, Abdullah of Jordan, Chaim Weizmann, Faisal of Iraq, Peace Negotiations, Syria, Weizmann-Faisal Peace Agreement

Sunday, December 28, 2014

How Unique Was Israel Granting Asylum to Political Escapees in South Africa? Very.

Six months ago, we published on the Israel State Archives site and on this blog a collection of documents covering the relations between Israel and South Africa. As noted then, while collecting and researching the different documents, we came upon an interesting letter, sent by the Director General of Israel's Foreign Ministry, Dr. Chaim Yahil. In the letter, Yahil allows the legation in Pretoria to give asylum to political escapees, without prior authorization by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Israel State Archives employs former diplomats from Israel's Foreign Ministry. When we showed them this document, we were told that it is quite extraordinary, since this kind of authorization allowing a fugitive into an Israeli diplomatic mission is unprecedented.

We have found reinforcement of the uniqueness of Yahil's directive in another document, discovered while preparing the next project in our series of publications concerning Israel's relations with Africa during the 60's. In this document, we found that a previous request to provide political asylum in Israeli missions elsewhere had been rejected.

The request was made in a letter written by Israel's consul-general in Lisbon, Levy Alon, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We didn't find the original letter of Alon, but rather the response from his superiors, who categorically rejected his proposal. Because we lack his original request, we aren't entirely sure of Alon's intentions. Did he expect political opponents of the authoritarian government in Portugal to try and escape into the premises of Israel's consulate in Lisbon?

In any case, as we noted above, this letter rejecting Alon's proposal underscores the uniqueness of the relatively free hand given to the legation in South Africa, and the level of political risk Israel took on itself in allowing asylum there.

Here is the translation of the letter:

Jerusalem, October 15th, 1963

To: Consul-General, Lisbon
From: Deputy Director, West European Division
Subject: [right] of sanctuary in the mission
Your letter no. 103.1/6922 from July 22nd.

We passed the matter for clarification by the [Foreign Ministry's] senior staff, which decided to produce a standing order for Israel's diplomatic missions, in which it is stated that no political asylum should be allowed in any circumstances. This rule applies also to Jews. It is possible that in some extraordinary cases asylum will be permitted, pending on prior approval of the Ministry's senior staff. This is a summary of the order, and you will receive the full and accurate wording in a general circular that will be sent to all missions.

Therefore, your initiative served all [in the ministry].

Yours truly,
Nissim Yaish

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

A Missed Opportunity for Peace? Begin and Sadat Meet at Ismailia, 25 December 1977

This week, when the Christian world celebrates Christmas, is also the anniversary of the second meeting between President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin. During Sadat's visit to Jerusalem in November 1977 many journalists asked if Begin would be invited to visit Cairo in return. Sadat avoided the question while Israel occupied Egyptian territory, but he offered to invite Begin to his home in Ismailia, on the west bank of the Suez Canal, some 90 minutes from Cairo. 

At the beginning of December, Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister Hassan Touhamy had met in Morocco to discuss a peace agreement (see the Mossad report on the meeting). Israel had agreed that Egyptian sovereignty over all of occupied Sinai should be restored. However Begin and Dayan wanted to keep the settlements Israel had built there and two air bases, Etzion, near Eilat, and Eitam, near El-Arish and the Rafiach Salient,  under Israeli control. Sadat refused.

In return for his gesture of visiting Jerusalem and offering Israel security within recognized borders, Sadat wanted the Israeli government to make a declaration that it would withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967 and seek a just solution to the Palestinian problem.  This declaration would enable him to make a peace treaty with Israel and to invite the other Arab states to join in. But the  government, especially Begin, who hoped to extend Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza, could not agree. Instead Begin drew up a plan for a temporary regime giving the Palestinian inhabitants autonomy and took it to Washington to be approved by US President Jimmy Carter. On 25 December Begin, together with Dayan, Defence Minister Ezer Weizman and a group of advisers and aides, went to Ismailiya to present the plan to Sadat. The records of their meetings are in the Israel State Archives.

 

The atmosphere at the talks was friendly. Sadat was celebrating his birthday and he welcomed the delegation to Egypt "perhaps the first time we sit together since Moses crossed the waters not very far from here. We sit together to tell the whole world that we are working for peace and that we shall establish peace." Begin wished him as many years as Moses lived - to the age of 120. He too was sure that the two nations would make peace. They had already agreed to set up a political and a military working committee.

 



Begin and Sadat after their first meeting in Ismailia Photograph: Yaacov Sa'ar, Government Press Office

But then Begin began to outline Israel's peace proposals and the autonomy plan. He explained that the Palestinian Arabs would enjoy self rule and the Palestinian Jews security. His long explanation tired Sadat, who had no patience for details. Begin, attacked by the right for presenting a plan which might become the basis for a Palestinian state, felt he was making a great concession. But it did not meet Sadat's needs.

 

The Egyptians proposed a joint declaration on Israeli withdrawal, on the right of all states, including Israel, to sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, and on a just solution for the Palestinians based on self-determination. After the legal experts had got together, Begin and Sadat met again. You can see in the record of their meeting how hard it was for each leader to understand the other's background and thinking: Begin, who was so deeply marked by his relatives' death in the Holocaust and by fear of Israel's destruction by the Arabs; Sadat, by his fight for Egypt's independence from colonial rule. He said that for himself, Israel and Egypt could reach a bilateral agreement. "But I cannot do it because Egypt is the leader of the Arab world. Yes, that is right. Egypt has always been the leader." 

 

(Dayan at Ismailia with Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammed Ibrahim Kamel (on the right (and Abd-el Meguid, ambassador to the U.N. (centre Photograph: Yaacov Sa'ar, Government Press Office

Begin refused to mention self-determination, which to him meant a Palestinian state ruled by the PLO, then a Soviet- backed terrorist organization. Sadat's Foreign Ministry advisers refused to back down, the meeting was a failure and the two sides issued separate statements. Dayan felt that an opportunity had been missed. But some of the formulations reached at Ismailia later formed the basis for the Camp David agreements. Begin finally visited Cairo in  April 1979, after the signing of the peace treaty.

Posted by archivista at 6:08 PM No comments:  

1925 Wakf Temple Mount Guide 16 pages or THE MOSQUE OF AL-AQSA or Temple mount - Jewish Temple - YJ Draiman

1925 Wakf Temple Mount Guide 16 pages or THE MOSQUE OF AL-AQSA or Temple mount - Jewish Temple - YJ Draiman

1925 Wakf Temple Mount Guide 16 pages or THE MOSQUE OF AL-AQSA or Temple mount - Jewish Temple - YJ Draiman

1925 Wakf Temple Mount Guide 16 pages or AL-HARAM AL-SHARIF - JERUSALEM - r2

1925 Wakf Temple Mount Guide or THE MOSQUE OF AL-AQSA or Temple mount 

taken by force 16 pages.

Page 1 Cover and page 2 picture view of the Haram area from North to West

In 1925 Muslims that controlled Temple Mount produced this guide which as it turns out is a pretty accurate history showing that they do NOT hold the original claim to the mount, but instead, took it by force. Admitting that even their own scholars admit it belonged to the Jewish people.

Before 637 CE/AD Jerusalem was the Capital of the Jewish people for over a thousand years. Thereafter it was occupied by various conquering Nations as Occupied territory, It was allocated to the Jewish people after WWI under the 1920 San Remo Treaty and confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.

Read it for yourself and decide. Don’t take my word for it.

1925_Wakf_Temple_Mount_Guide.pdf

Text only transcription of the guide for ease of reading.

A Brief Guide To AL-HARAM AL-SHARIF JERUSALEM - Temple Mount

Published by the Supreme Muslim Counsel

PRICE P.T. 15

The Sacred Enclosure will normally be open to visitors between 7.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. daily (Fridays excepted).

Admission may be gained by the gate known as Bab al-Silsileh.

Jerusalem 1925

-3-

IMPORTANT NOTICE.

Visitors should bear in mind that the whole of the Haram Area, and not only it’s edifices, is scared to Muslims; and that they will be expected to pay due regard to its sanctity. In particular, they must abstain from smoking anywhere in the Area, and from bringing dogs with them.
The visiting-hours are from 7.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. daily, (Fridays excepted) and visitors are particularly requested to leave punctually at 11.30 so as not to hinder the observance of the midday-prayer.
Admission may best be gained by the gate known as Bab al-Silsileh. It would save trouble and delay if visitors were to make it a point of entering the Haram by that gate.

N.B. The photographs in this Guide are reproduced by courtesy of the American Colony.

– 4 –

THE HARAM
–
HISTORICAL SKETCH
The words al-Haram al-Sharif, which can perhaps best be rendered by “The August Sanctuary”, denote the whole of the sacred enclosure which it is the object of this Guide to describe.
Its plan is roughly that of a rectangle whose major axis runs from north to south; its area is approximately 145,000 square meters.
If you wish to have some idea of its extent and to see it whole before proceeding to examine it in detail, you would be well-advised to begin your visit by walking to the north-west corner, and there ascending the flight of steps which lead up to the disused building on the right, you will see the whole area spread before you. The view shown on the frontispiece (Fig. 1) was taken, although at a considerable altitude, from the very spot where you are standing.

The two principal edifices are the Dome of the Rock, on a raised platform in the middle, and the mosque of al-Aqsa against the south wall. Other buildings which we shall consider later lie dotted about here and there. On the left along the east wall the double portals of the Golden Gate appear. On every side, trees break the prospect, which lend a peculiar charm to the scene.
The side is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest (perhaps from prehistoric) times. Its identity with the site of Solomon’s is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which “David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings”. (1)

But, for the purposes of this Guide, which confines itself to the Muslim period, the starting-point is the year 637 A.D. In that year, the Caliph Omar occupied Jerusalem and one of his first acts was to repair to this site, which had already become sacred in the eyes of Muslims as the place to which the Prophet was one night miraculously translated. The site had long since been neglected. The Caliph and his four thousand followers found little more than desolation and rubbish. There were the ruined walls of the Herodian and Roman periods, the remains of an early basilica (probably on the present site of al-Aqsa), and the bare Rock. Yet from this rock had the Prophet according to the tradition, ascended to heaven on his steed. So the Caliph ordered a mosque to be erected by its side. His orders were executed, and the building was seen and described by Bishop Arculf who visited Jerusalem about 670 A. D. But no vestige of it remains today, save for the name “Mosque of Omar” which is still, but quite wrongly, sometimes used for the Dome of the Rock.
With the reign of’ Abdul-Malek ibn Marwan, the Umayyad, 685-705 A.D., the history of the present buildings begins. 

Jerusalem
___
2 Samuel XXIV, 25.

Page 5 - Pic. The fountain Sabil of Qait Bay

– 6 –

was a holy city, to Muslims as well as to others, and to the energetic and pious caliph its glorification seemed an obvious duty. He collected large sums of money, amounting (say the Arab historians) to “seven times the revenue of Egypt”; and with that he built the Dome (691 A.D.), and the mosque of al-Aqsa (693 A.D.), both of which, according to medieval Arab travelers and chroniclers, were of unsurpassed magnificence. But in subsequent years, the buildings suffered much from earthquake shocks and underwent various restorations. In the year 407 A. H. (1016 A.D.), an earthquake shock caused the Dome to collapse, and it was re-erected six years later by the Caliph Hakem.
A new chapter begins with the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099. They occupied the Haram Area and turned its monuments to different uses. The Dome of the Rock was turned into a church and an alter erected on the Rock itself. The edifice was regarded by them as the veritableTemple of the Lord (Templum Domini) from which the Knights Templar whose Order was formed there take their name. It is interesting to note also that, as Temple of the Lord and symbol of the Order, it served as a model for churches which were later erected at various places in Europe, such as Aix-la-Chapelle, Metz, Leon, and the Temple Church in London; and that it figures in Raphael’s famous picture of the “Sposalizio” (Brera, Milan,) and, still more recognizably,
in the picture of “The Maries at the Sepulcher”, attributed to Hubert von Eyck. The mosque of al-Aqsa, on the other hand, was transformed in to a royal residence known as the Palace of Solomon; while the vast substructures below the south-east corner of the Area were used by the Knights as stables.
The end of this chapter came in 1187, when Saladin captured Jerusalem and drove the Crusaders out. One of his first acts was to put back the buildings to their former use as places of Muslim worship, and he caused every vestige of the Templar's occupation to be removed. At the same time he carried out important embellishments.
In the Dome of the Rock, he caused the walls to be covered with marble, and set up the beautiful inscription which may still be seen above the open gallery of the cupola.
He also restored the stucco incrustation of the inner dome, which remains to this day. In the mosque of al-Aqusa, he carried out restoration and embellishments, of which the chief were the fine mosaics on the drum of the dome and the beautiful pulpit adjoining the prayer-niche.
The Haram Area has remained in Muslim hands ever since.
For although Jerusalem was again occupied by the Crusaders (1229-1244), yet their occupation did not extend to the sacred enclosure which it had been agreed should remain in Muslim possession. During the three centuries which followed, various repairs and additions were made; but the most important restoration was that which was carried out, after the Turkish conquest.
In the reign of Sulaiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). This sultan whose works are still to be found all over the Holy City, carried out a wholesale renovation of the Dome of the Rock. A large part of the decoration in glazed tiles upon the exterior of the shrine and most of the windows were added during his reign. Since then,

Page 7 - Pic The Southern Arcades (Mawazine) and pulpits Burliancddin 

– 8 –

both buildings have undergone different restorations which have for the most part marred rather than enhanced their beauty.
This is more particularly the case with the tiles on the exterior of the Dome of the Rock, which the hand of the restorer has here and there shifted or replaced most unhappily; and it is the present concern of the authorities of the Haram to try and undo the damage and restore to these decorative features something of their former harmony.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK
________________

The Dome of the Rock stands on an irregular platform whose level is some 12 feet above that of the Area. It is approached from every side by flights of broad steps surmounted at the landing by graceful arcades (Fig. 3) known as Mawazin, that is to say ‘scales’, because of the traditional belief that on the Day of Judgment the scales of good and evil will be suspended there.
Having ascended the steps on the raised platform, you should, before entering the edifice, walk around it and examine it from the outside first. Its plan is that of a regular octagon inscribed in a circle of 177 ft. diameter. It has four entrances, each of which faces one of the points of the compass: on the West, The Bab al-Gharb, or west gate; on the north, the Bab al-Janna, or gate of paradise; on the east, the Bab Daud, or gate of David; and on the south, the Bab al-Qibla or south gate. This last gate fixes the direction in which prayers are to be said, namely the direction of Mecca. The walls of the building are decorated with marble facings on the lower courses and with colored glazed tiles above.
The tiles which form this decoration date for the most part from the end of the reign of Sulaiman the Magnificent (v. page 6) when the art of Oriental ceramic decoration was perhaps at its height.
Unfortunately, a great many of the original tiles have fallen off, and others have at various times been set in their stead without apparent regard for the harmony either of color or pattern. Still, the effect is striking and, especially in certain lights, beautiful.
The frieze is inscribed with verses from the Koran. Above rests the Dome, as rebuilt by the Caliph Hakem in 1022, slightly flattened on one side, and surmounted by the Crescent. The edifice itself is substantially that which was erected by ‘Abdul-Malek ibn Marwan; but the outer decorations that we have just seen are mostly due to Suliaman the Magnificent, and to later restorers.

On the east side of the Dome of the Rock, facing the Bab Daub. or gate of David, stands an elegant little edifice, also surmounted by a dome, which look at first sight like a miniature representation of its larger brother. The room which supports the Dome and it’s drum rests on two concentric rows of columns neither of which is encased by walls. On the south side is a Mihrab, that is to say the prayer-recess. The edifice is variously known as Mahkamat Daud, (i.e. Tribunal of David) and Qubbat al-Silsileh (i.e. Dome of the Chain), from the legendary belief that on its site was the place of Judgments where verdicts were given by a miraculous chain. For as the legend has it, a chain was once suspended

Page 9 - Pic The Dome of the Rock (from the North-East)

– 10 –

from heaven over this spot, to which it was the practice in Solomon’s time to appeal in cases of conflicting evidence. Each witness was made to grasp the chain in turn: if he succeed in holding it, his truthfulness was thereby vindicated, but if it eluded his grasp, then he was a manifest liar. The edifice is said by some historians to be contemporaneous with the Dome of the Rock; but it is an established fact that it has been rebuilt more than once, albeit with the original columns which are in the Byzantine style and were undoubtedly taken from other buildings. Their number has varied: at the present time there are eleven in the outer, and six in the inner rows. (Fig. 4) We will now enter the Dome of the Rock (Qubbal al-Sakhra) by the west gate. The metal doors on either side of the entrance are worthy of notice; and inscription which was only recently discovered proves them to have been made and set up during the reign of the Mamluk Sultan Qait Bay, towards the end of the XVth. century. A few steps further, we find ourselves in the interior of the building. At first sight it is almost too dark to see; but as the eye gets used to the subdued light, the beauty of the structure and the splendor for the ornamentation reveal themselves. In the centre, vertically below the dome, is the Sacred Rock, an irregular mass of yellowish stone. This is where the Crusaders had set up an altar and traces can still be seen of the steps which once led up to it. The dome rests on an inner system of piers and columns forming a circle and connected with each other by a wrought-iron grille, dating from the XIIth. century — a unique remnant of the Crusaders’ decorations. This inner row is formed of four rectangular piers, beautifully adorned with marble facings dating from the XVth. century, and twelve monolithic columns with Byzantine capitals carrying semicircular arches. Above is the drum with its rich mosaics, its delicate inscription on bands and medallions, and 16 windows; while, resting on the rim above the clerestory windows, is the inner (wooden) cupola, with its remarkable stucco ornamentation, ordered by Saladin in 1189.
Concentric with inner system which we have just described is the outer octagonal row of piers and columns supporting the roof. The piers in this row are eight in number and are of massive size, covered with XVth. century marble facings; while the columns, of which there are sixteen, are marble monoliths
taken from some older building, probably Hadrian’s Temple of Jupiter. The capitals, which are of varying design, belong to the late Greco-Roman or the early Byzantine period. Above each capital is an abacus on which rests the decorated beam which runs round the octagon and serves as an “anchor” beam from pier to pier–an interesting architectural feature, probably of Arab origin, which is characteristic of the earliest mosques. Between each pair of piers are three arches richly adorned with old mosaic dating, except for certain later restorations, from the VIIth. century. Above is a narrow band of blue tiles on which runs an inscription in gold Cubic letters, which is of great historical importance, for it records the date of the construction of the edifice and the name of the builder, with a chronological inconsequence which tells its own tale. The date is given as A.H. 72 and the

Page 11 - Pic The Rock

– 12 –

name as that of the Caliph al-Mamun who reigned in A.H. 197-218: an obvious anachronism, of which the explanation is that the name of the later Caliph was substituted for that of his predecessor, ‘Abudul-Malek ibn Marwan , the real builder of the Dome of the Rock, while the original date remained unchanged.
The walls of the edifice, which as we have seen form a regular octagon, are covered with marble slabs and pierced with windows dating, for the most part, from Sulaiman’s restorations.
The slabs are of beautiful marble specially chosen for its smoothness and remarkable veining. The windows are made of plaster, and their pattern consists of an intricate openwork tracery in which are inserted bits of colored glass. The effect is one of great softness and richness of color, and this is partly due to
the skill with which the tracery is hollowed out of the plaster and cut away towards the inside in such a way that the openings become provided with a kind of cone for the softer diffusion of the rays of light.
A detailed description of the Dome of the Rock would be beyond the scope of this Guide. Its principal features have been mentioned and described in sufficient detail, it is believed, to give the visitor an adequate summary of its history and some help towards the appreciation of its magnificence.

THE MOSQUE OF AL-AQSA
____________________

Leaving the Dome of the Rock by the west gate, the visitor will notice, some 50 yards away on the right, a small octagonal domed edifice of semi-oriental and semi-Gothic appearance. This is the Qubbal al-Mi’raj or Dome of the Ascension. It was originally built in commemoration of the Prophet’s miraculous ascension, and rebuilt in its present form about the year 1200 A.D., that is to say some thirteen years after the capture of the Holy City by Saladin and at a time when Gothic influence in building, which had been imported by the Crusaders, was still at its height.
The monument is not open to visitors.
Turning towards the south, we cross the platform to the arcades on its southern side, passing on the way the marble pulpit of Burhaneddin (Fig. 3) which was built by the judge of that name in the middle of the XVth. century. The pulpit is crowned by a dome supported by trefoil arches resting on columns,
and is an interesting as well as a beautiful example of the work of that period. Beyond the pulpit are the steps leading down to the court of the mosque of al-Aqsa. Immediately in front is the fountain of ablutions, and beyond that is the mosque itself.
The porch, which is the most recent part of the building, was added by the Sultan al-Mu’azzam, a nephew of Saladin, in the XIIIth. century. An inscription above the middle archway records the date as 634 A.H. (1236 A.D.). The porch consists of a facade of seven pointed arches, corresponding to the seven
front doors of the mosque, and affords yet another example of the Crusaders’ influence, although not a very happy one.
The interior of the mosque is unfortunately only partly accessible

Page 13 - Pic The Al-Aqsa Mosque (front)

– 14 –

to visitors at the present time, on account of the considerable repairs which have to be carried out to that part of the buildings which supports the dome. But visitors are admitted to the nave and aisles and can gain some idea of the whole. The nave, formed by two rows of massive columns with capitals, is the oldest part of the mosque. On either side of it, is an aisle, both of which date also from the earliest period; the outside aisles are of more recent construction. The columns of the nave were probably taken from Justinian’s basilica; while the capitals, which are mostly of the acanthus-leaf and wicker-work patterns,
date from Byzantine times and are probably contemporaneous with the construction of the mosque itself. The columns support a system of pointed arches of which the exact date is not known for certain. Their pointed form, however, shows plainly that they belong to a later period that the VIIth. century, for in that period the pointed form had not yet been evolved and the horse-shoe arch, as we have seen in the interior of the Dome of the Rock, was still prevalent. The columns are connected by wooden tie-beams, which as we have seen (page 10) is a device characteristic of early Arab monuments. Above the arches are two rows of windows; the lower open on the inner aisles, the upper are clerestory windows admitting air and light from the outside. (Fig. 7).
Above the crossing stands the dome resting on a circular drum supported by a system of arches and pedantries, which are themselves borne at the tour corners by groups of pillars and capitals. The dome, which is of wood protected on the outside by a covering of lead sheeting, is ornamented with a handsome stucco incrustation of the same style as that of the dome of the Qubbat al-Sakhra. This decoration may, like its counterpart in the Sakhra, date from the time of Saladin; but be this as it may, it was completely renovated, if not actually made in the first instance, but the Sultan Muhammad ibn Qalaun in the year 728 A.H. (1327 A.D.), as the beautiful inscription on the blue band around the cupola testifies. The drum and the four arches with their pedantries are covered with a beautiful mosaic on a gold ground dating from the end of the XIIth. century, that is to say from the restoration carried out by Saladin (v. page 6).
To the west of the crossing runs the broad transept with its colonnade of pillars taken from older buildings. A few interesting Byzantine capitals of wicker-work design are worth noticing. The transept is continued into a vaulted gallery which dates from the occupation of the Crusaders, and was used as quarters by the Knights Templar.
The Mihrab (or prayer recess) in the south wall, facing the nave, is ornamented with mosaics and flanked with splendor and elegant marble columns. According to an inscription in mosaic above the niche, the work is due to Saladin. To the right of the Mihrab stands a handsome pulpit made of wood and beautifully ornamented with inlaid ivory and mother-of-pearl. It was made in Aleppo, as the inscription on it testifies, by the Sultan Nureddin in the year 1168 A.D., and was brought to Jerusalem by order of Saladin towards the end of the century. Above the prayer-niche are windows dating from the XVIth. century.

Page 15 - Pic The Al Aqsa Mosque (interior)

– 16 –

THE SUBSTRUCTURES

_______________

Leaving the mosque of al-Aqsa by the front entrance, we turn to the left and proceed to the south-east corner of the Haram Area where a staircase leads down in to the vast subterranean substructures known as Solomon’s Stables. The first flight of steps takes us down to the small chamber, now used as a place of Muslim worship, which was believed in medieval times to have been associated with Jesus Christ’s infancy. This belief was prevalent long before the advent of the Crusaders and was subsequently accepted by them. In the angle between the west and south walls of the chamber is a little dome borne upon four marble columns; and underneath the dome is a small niche lying horizontally, which was believed in early times to have been the Cradle of Christ and referred to under that name by several Arab historians.
In the west wall of the chamber, a door opens into a staircase descending to Solomon’s Stables. This is a vast subterranean chamber, of roughly rectangular shape, of which the chief feature is the imposing size of the piers. Of these, there are fifteen rows of varying size and height supporting the vaults on which rests the roof. Little is known for certain of the early history of the chamber itself. It dates probably as far back as the construction of Solomon’s Temple. According to Josephus, it was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D.. We also know that this space was used by the Knights Templar as stables, and the holes to which they tethered their horses can still be seen in the masonry of the piers. Such evidence as is afforded by the masonry itself, and more particularly by the contrast between the lower and the upper courses of the larger piers, would tend to show that they belong to two distinct periods, and that the upper parts and the vaults were of Arab construction superimposed upon ancient foundations.
The substructures supporting the nave of the mosque of al-Aqsa are not accessible.
______________________________________

The best way out is across the esplanade, past the porch of the mosque of al-Aqsa, and back to the Bab al-Silsileh. An alternative would be to continue northwards past the Bab al-Silsileh to the gate known as Bab al-Quttanin, a handsome gate dating from the reign of Sultan Muhammad ibn Qalaun (1336 A.D.) and typical of XIVth century Arab work. To the south-east of this gate is the Sabil (or drinking fountain) built about the year
1460 A.D. by Mamluk Sultan Qait Bay – an attractive building, perfect of its kind. (Fig. 2).

G. A.
___________________________________

Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem - back page

1925 Wakf Temple Mount Guide or Temple mount taken by force.

In 1925 Muslims that controlled Temple Mount produced this guide which as it turns out is a pretty accurate history showing that they do NOT hold the original claim to the mount, but instead, took it by force. Admitting that even their own scholars admit it belonged to the Jewish people.