    Church Subdued

    In this weekend edition of the Haaretz newspaper, there is a long
    feature by Meron Rapoport (see below) which provides a clear evidence
    that the State of Israel abuses its responsibilities in respect of the
    Orthodox Church of the Holy Land. The feature offers an insider’s proof
    that the State allowed the manager of Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva, the most
    anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian body in the country, to decide
    whether a patriarch will receive an approval of the State of Israel.

    The feature quotes an official of the Yeshiva saying: “Matti [Matti Dan,
    the head of the Yeshiva] will decide if the patriarch will be patriarch…
    The previous patriarch (Irineos) - four years he wasn't patriarch. Why?
    Because Matti hadn't given his agreement.” The article exposed the
    long-established policy of state-authorised extortion by the Yeshiva and
    its high-placed protectors against the Church; apparently the State
    collaborated with the Yeshiva in order to force the Church officials to
    “sell” the lands and the properties to the Jews.

    Ateret Cohanim is an extremist Jewish body with proclaimed purpose to
    destroy the mosques of Jerusalem and install a Jewish temple in their
    stead. The article refutes the usual Jewish claim that their extremists
    are but a tiny and unimportant section of population: to the contrary,
    these antichrists are the guiding light of Jewish nationalist right.

    In view of this revelation, there can be only one answer: the Church
    must cease immediately the practice of applying for recognition of the
    State of Israel. This application of approval is a relic of the Ottoman
    days, and this is not based on the law of the state of Israel. Indeed,
    no other church in the Holy Land applies for such an approval, neither
    the Orthodox Churches in other lands do it. The Church should issue a
    paper stating that this old practice is to be discontinued, in light of
    the public knowledge that the State of Israel abused its powers.

    A Church Desecrated in Israel.

    The Orthodox Christian Church in the predominantly Jewish town Migdal
    Ha’emek (a former Palestinian village of Majdal near Nazareth) was
    attacked, its icons vandalised and the tombs of priests desecrated. The
    church was built in 19th century but lost its worshippers in 1948, when
    the Jews expelled the Christian population of the Palestinian village
    Majdal and repopulated it with new immigrants. However, last year the
    church was repaired and the services recommenced as many of new Russian
    immigrants increasingly turn to Christ. The church priest and
    worshippers received many threats from the local Jewish community led by
    Rabbi Grossman. The church was attacked a few times in the past, and
    Israeli media reported on it, but the recent pogrom is a new step on the
    scale of anti-Christian violence.

    While every graffiti on a wall of a synagogue anywhere in the world
    receives full (and justified) coverage and condemnation of the US
    President and of the UN Secretary General, the desecration of an
    Orthodox Church in the Jewish state attracted little publicity, and was
    not condemned by the Jewish leaders, said Archbishop Theodosios Atallah
    Hanna, a leading Palestinian cleric of the Orthodox Church, in a
    statement condemning the attack. Archbishop Atallah called upon the
    Jewish religious and civil leaders to dissociate themselves from the
    pogrom and bring the vandals to justice. The worshippers have little
    doubt that anti-Christian instigations of Rabbi Grossman are connected
    to the assault, as he was on record of demanding the church to cease its
    services “in the land of Jews” as he put it. The church is not connected
    to electric grid and has no running water, the city did not even allow
    to put up a fence or guard. The Israeli authorities are too lenient to
    desecrators of Christian shrines, said the Archbishop.

    Characteristically, the Haaretz newspaper carried recently an article
    Jews for Jesus are Evil, containing threats towards the immigrants who
    converted to the Christian faith.

    More about the pogrom: http://newsru.co.il/israel/09jun2006/temple.html
    and http://cursorinfo.co.il/novosti/2006/06/09/pogrom/

    Israel Adam Shamir

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=724669

    How to appoint a patriarch

    By Meron Rapoport

    Maraga says that this time, they asked him "to get on the case" of
    attorney Jawad Boulus. Boulus is an Israeli citizen who frequently works
    with the Palestinian Authority and was considered to be close to
    Irineos, the Greek Orthodox patriarch whose position has recently been a
    matter of great controversy. Irineos was indeed elected to the post
    about five years ago by the Church's Council of Archbishops in
    Jerusalem's Old City. But in order to be legally considered head of the
    Church and to be able to sign documents on its behalf in Israel, his
    appointment had to receive the approval of the Israeli government. This
    approval was withheld for four years, on the grounds that Irineos is
    hostile to Israel.

    A little over a year ago, Irineos' appointment was approved. Shortly
    thereafter, it was reported that he sold two hotels in the Old City,
    near Jaffa Gate, to Jewish organizations. Irineos denied it, but a major
    uproar ensued in the Church. In an extraordinary step, the Council of
    Archbishops decided to remove him from the Patriarchate and to appoint
    Theopilos in his place. However, the Israeli government refuses to
    approve the new appointment and this has given rise to a peculiar
    situation: In the eyes of the archbishops, Theopilos is the head of the
    Church, but according to Israel, Irineos is the head and the only one
    authorized to sign deals on its behalf.

    'He has power'

    These deals are very important in relation to our story. The Greek
    Orthodox Church owns numerous properties in Israel, and more than a few
    of these are in the Old City. Ateret Cohanim is very interested in these
    properties. It will not be satisfied with just the two hotels next to
    Jaffa Gate. It was explained to Maraga like this: Matti Dan has a sort
    of right of veto over the appointment of the patriarch to the Greek
    Orthodox Church. Only someone who assures Dan that he will sell him
    property can be appointed patriarch. Here is one conversation, for
    example:

    Baruchi: "... Everyone knows that if the patriarch wants to be
    patriarch, (he) has to be approved by Matti."

    Maraga: "What do you mean? Why?"

    Baruchi: "He has power. Matti will decide if the patriarch will be
    patriarch. That's how it is. Matti hasn't agreed yet. He's collecting
    information, building the possibilities to make deals."

    Maraga: "Anyone who wants to be patriarch has to be approved by Matti?"

    Baruchi: "I'm saying it in my own words, but the patriarchs, I think
    they know it ... The previous patriarch (Irineos) - four years he wasn't
    patriarch. Why? Because Matti hadn't given his agreement. Because we
    hadn't agreed that he would be ... There are a thousand intrigues, and
    Matti's in all of them. You know how long we've been dealing with the
    Church? Years. When he (Irineos) sold to us, he became patriarch and
    right after that they tossed him out. Now the second one (Theopilos)
    wants to be patriarch. And the second one hasn't become patriarch - why?
    Who's fighting him?"

    Maraga: "You are."

    Baruchi: "You've got it. In the meantime, we're still with the first
    one, because he sold to us."

    The things said by Baruchi are reminiscent of what Irineos himself
    claims. In a lawsuit he filed with the Tel Aviv District Court in August
    2005 in an attempt to block the sale of the hotels, Irineos claims that
    after he refused to approve the sale, Matti Dan and another person came
    to the office of the Church's financial division director and told him
    that if the patriarch did not agree to approve the deal within 10 days,
    "an atomic bomb will explode in the courtyard of the Patriarchate"
    (Matti Dan and Ateret Cohanim denied it).

    About two weeks after that visit, Maariv published a report disclosing
    the sale of the hotels to Ateret Cohanim, and this publication led to
    the decision by the Council of Archbishops to depose Irineos. "Ever
    since," says the lawsuit, "representatives and emissaries" from Ateret
    Cohanim, "including people with official government positions ... acted
    in an attempt to extort from the plaintiff (Irineos) agreement and
    commitment to cooperate in approval of the deals ... The deals were the
    fruit of a conspiracy between opponents of the plaintiff within the
    Patriarchate and extreme right-wing elements who joined together to
    bring him down, ostracize him and have his recognition rescinded."

    In another conversation, Baruchi elaborates even more on the
    give-and-take relationship Ateret Cohanim was trying to conduct with the
    candidates for the position: give properties, get a position.

    Baruchi: "If he (the candidate) says: I'm giving you something else, it
    sounds better. So I can bring financing to the deal, because I need
    financiers, and to get financiers you need something else."

    Maraga: "So he can bring other things."

    Baruchi: "If a person is ready to give something else, even a small
    thing, it means that he's a good guy. If he's ready to give only what is
    signed and sealed (the reference is to the deal for the hotels, which
    was not yet completed), I've already signed with the previous guy, so
    why do I need you?"

    Maraga: "But Irineos says he didn't sell, that someone else sold in his
    name."

    Baruchi: "I don't know anyone who'll admit that he sold to Jews ... If
    he sold to Jews, it tells you that he's for sale. Even if they suddenly
    say that he's so, so bad, he (Irineos) is better for me. Because if he
    sold to Jews, this could be a reason to bring him back. In two years, if
    he doesn't sell, we'll get rid of him ... We'll get rid of him for a
    thousand reasons, but don't get rid of him because he collaborated and
    sold to Jews. In the Jewish state this can't be supported - getting rid
    of him because he sold to Jews. Even if the second one (Theopilos) is
    better than him ... We don't just use and throw away."