The Bahai/British Precedent

Historical parallels are fascinating.

Read what I found:

Question.–Have any restrictions been made upon the free exercise of any form of worship in the interest of the maintenance of public order and morals? What are the effects of such restrictions?

The answer was

…The intervention of the Government in the matters of change of religious community is directed solely to secure that there will be public notification of a change of legal status…The only other case in which the Administration was called upon to take any action affecting worship in the interests of the maintenance of public order was with reference to the tomb of the Baha Ulla, the revered founder of the Bahai sect. The tomb is at Acre, and had been in the custody of Sir Abbas Abdel Bahai, his son. When Sir Abbas died in the summer of 1922, a dispute arose as to the succession to the custody of the tomb between his grandson, who was appointed by his will as the head of the community, and his brother, who was the eldest member of the family. As it was impossible to obtain an agreement between the two parties, the Administration took possession itself of the key of the tomb, and gave free access to the members of both parties…

Now, what the British did in 1922 was prompt, orderly, fair and logical.

So why can’t Israel do the same today as regards the Temple Mount? Why can’t that British action serve as a precedent?  Why cannot Israeli officialdom, instead of kowtowing to Jordan’s “historic role” (see Article 9) — which stems from an 8-month period in 1924 when he claimed to be Caliph — as well as to demands of Hamas to permit hundreds of Gazans to pray at the site every Friday since last October, and to permit those Waqf-paid banshees (the muribatat or the Wicked Witches of the Waqf) to scream and yell and threaten Jews as well as take poor care of archaeological artifacts, simply rule?