I’ll go one further: I wouldn’t be surprised if they planned it and paid the kid to take it.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. Whatever the case, they aren’t saying they got from Obama, nor are they saying they got his permission.
I suspect that the kid dug it out on a lark because he thought it would be cool, and then sold it to the paper - who published it because it would be big news.
I further suspect any claims to having any sort of authorization or permission to do this are 100% bull, and invented by the paper when they realized what a shitstorm they have stirred up.
Which will probably be forgotten quickly as there is nothing particularly controversial in the prayer - an “I pray daily that no-one discovers my three illigitimate children and the fact I sold Senate secrets to the Chinese to support 'em” on the other hand … 
Oy vey!
How would Israeli law apply in this instance? Do non-Jews actually have no right to privacy, as the comment appears to assert?
My impression is that it’s a question of Jewish religious law (and longstanding tradition), not state law. I don’t know if non-Jews really are exempt to the traditional expectation of privacy, but even if they are, it sounds to me like Ma’ariv is trying to get itself off on a technicality. They may be technically right about religious law (I don’t know), but it sounds like this is not something which is actually followed in practice, and we have no less an authority than the rabbi of the Wall himself saying it was improper.
The TNR blog refers to “Basic Law,” which apparently is the equivalent of the Israeli constitution, since it doesn’t have one. Maariv is not a government newspaper, but I think they mean Obama’s right to privacy was violated:
And he’d have to be a colossal idiot to say “I deliberately wrote a vague and inoffensive prayer because I suspected it might be taken by someone whose curiosity exceeded his moral judgement.” It’d quickly be spun into “Obama suspects Jews of being untrustworthy bastards who would commit sacrelige if there’s profit in it.”
And he couldn’t say, “We confirm that is the prayer, because we kept a duplicate just in case.” People would wonder why he kept a copy, if not for publication.
I mean, what kind of answer can he possibly give, other than a vaguely sad, “We’re sorry it came to this”? Plus, whether or not he gets elected, how should he handle it if he ever goes back to the Western Wall again?
Does the Basic Law permit the stoning to death of editors and seminary students?
Only if they say Jehovah.
Next time, he should write the prayer in code.
G-d doesn’t just read in English, does he? He could probably crack any code there is.
Or he could just leave it filled with difficult-to-decipher references to things that only he and G-d would understand:
Lord, I thank you for answering my prayer about that thing, and that other thing? I could reeeaaalllly use a go-ahead on that one. The blue one would be favorite, but Michelle also likes green, so that would be okay. Please watch over the people I asked you about last time, and keep them the same way I asked you then. Over and out.
This is probably the least debatable debate. People have been putting prayers in the wall for eons with the general idea that nobody is going to read them. Obama of course should be afforded that right.
On the other hand, he’s such a pro, I’m sure he knew not to write anything damaging on it. Like:
“PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Let me win, God?!”
Or
“Please deliver the glorious workers from the white man’s meat grinder.”
Or “La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah…”
Cthulhu ftagn!
That would have been the coolest thing EVER. I would so vote for him after that.
:: eagerly throws a stone at Marley23 ::
Stoned to death? Look, I know people who’ve tried, and it just can’t be done…