Thursday, January 18, 2018

Met Elias (Audi)'s Speech about Jerusalem

Arabic original here.

The address of His Eminence the metropolitan of Beirut, Elias Audi, at the al-Azhar International Conference in Support of Jerusalem.

Janaury 17 and 18, 2018-- Cairo

First of all, I would like to salute the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, chairman of the Council of Muslim Elders, Dr Ahmed al-Tayeb, and thank him for inviting me to attend this international conference in support of Jerusalem, which is currently being subjected to a plain aiming to change its identity, obliterate its history, and defeat and displace its people.

The absence of justice suffocates the voice of truth. Earthly justice, whatever it is called, is imperfect, but falsehood is fleeting and the truth will inevitably shine forth and the oppressed will prevail.

What Israel is attempting to do, supported by the latest American decision, aims to present an image of Jerusalem that is contrary to its history, in addition to the architectural, demographic and political changes to the face of the city that it has undertaken in past decades. This causes it to lose its individuality and collective memory, transforming it into a city without a past and without a history.

Jerusalem has been and shall remain in our Christian, ecclesial consciousness the city of peace, the city where the Lord Jesus' feet trod from His childhood, in the corridor of whose temple He prayed, where He proclaimed the good news, and where He sacrificed Himself for humanity in order to save it. How can this city lose its identity and become a place that witnesses persecution of those who believe in God and their being crushed after the expulsion of their parents and grandparents?

We do not look at Jerusalem as a mere place, but as an essence that bears a spiritual meaning that transcends the vicissitudes of history and politics and their enmities and wars.

For us, Jerusalem is the holy city that witnessed the crucifixion, death and resurrection. It shall remain the place where glory is raised up to God Most High unto the ages.

Many have sung of Jerusalem and written poems about it, enumerating this city's qualities and the feelings it provokes. It is not by chance that it has been named "the flower of cities" because it is a white flower that brings together in its folds brothers in God, Christians and Muslims, since there is no true brotherhood except in God. It is the city of prayer, the city of all who believe in the one and only God, which we all long to visit and walk along the path of Golgotha where the Lord stepped, to receive a blessing from the Church of the Resurrection, the site of the ascension, the place where the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, the tomb of the Mother of God, and the other places of Christian and Islamic pilgrimage that abound there.

Human beings are our greatest concern in Jerusalem, which must continue to belong to is people, the Palestinians, and remain the city of prayer and peace, a place of coexistence between religions and peoples.

Here I would like to emphasize that as Antiochian Orthodox, we have always considered ourselves as the first to be in Jerusalem and the first to be concerned with it and its fate. We believe that the Palestinians are the masters of the house and have been made strangers and homeless.

As Middle Eastern Christians, we seek to please God and we seek God's face wherever we are, especially in Jerusalem and in the faces of our brothers, its children. We strive to realize truth and justice, to work to raise man's condition, and to preserve his freedom and dignity.

We are a people who believe that God created us free, that He became incarnate to deliver us from evil and sin and to return us to the bosom of the Father, making us His children by grace given to us from Him.

For us, man bears a divine breath. He is the locus of love and respect because he is created in the image and likeness of God. He is precious in the eyes of the Lord and the eyes of the Lords' beloved ones. Everything that strips man of his being an end in himself is a departure from God's will and His boundless love. Anyone who restricts man's freedom and deprives him of his rights contradicts heavenly teachings. Jerusalem is the right of its children just as Lebanon is the right of its children and so too in every country of our Middle East and the world. Therefore it is the right of the Palestinian people to live in their country, in their land, in their Jerusalem.

Here I recall the words of Patriarch Ignatius IV of thrice-blessed memory at the Islamic Summit in Taif in 1981: "Jerusalem is the heart of our humanity and what afflicts it afflicts every human being to some degree." In Lebanon, we have been afflicted by the wound of Jerusalem and of Palestine in general. We have opened our land and our hearts to our Palestinian brothers. We hoped that our hosting them would be brief and that they would afterwards return safely to their homes. But over a half-century has passed and they are still strangers on the earth. The world ignores them, the Arabs sleep, and Jerusalem still sorrows over the loss of her children.

Jerusalem, like Lebanon, is a place where brothers encounter each other, Christians and Muslims. It is a place where ideas, cultures and religions interact. Jerusalem concerns Christians just as much as it concerns Muslims and the concern for its fate is shared. From Jerusalem Christianity went out to the ends of the earth. There the Lord Jesus commanded His disciples, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).

And so we are natives of Jerusalem just as the Lord Jesus is and no one can ignore history.

The true face of our Middle East, and of Jerusalem especially, is not authentically manifest if two voices are not raised together: a Christian voice and an Islamic voice, which constitute Middle Eastern twins that demand Palestinians' right to their land and Christians' and Muslims' rights to their holy places.

Our Middle East will not be sound in its essence if this core is not sound. And Jerusalem loses its meaning if it loses any one of its spiritual elements.

Let us together refuse for Jerusalem to be a political plaything or the launchpad for goals in which interests prevail over truth, integrity and justice. Let us not allow the earnestness of those who wish to rob us of Jerusalem to be stronger than the earnestness of our will to regain it.

Finally, we repeat with Fairouz:

The house is ours and Jerusalem is ours
And by our hands we will regain the splendor of Jerusalem

In the hope that the Lord God will extend the hand of His mercy to us, stop the bleeding in our homelands, heal our wounds, and spread His peace in our Middle East and throughout the entire world, I wish you every good thing and blessing from Him.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Carol Saba on Macron's Understanding of Laïcité

French original, from the Beirut newspaper l'Orient-le Jour, here. This essay is worth a read because of the importance that French models of secular society continue to have for Lebanese Orthodox concepts of Church-State relations.

Macron, or the Implementation of a Partnerial Concept of Laïcité

During the traditional ceremony of the president of the French Republic's greeting religious leaders (Buddhist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant and Orthodox) on January 4 of this year at the Élysée, Emmanuel Macron gave a speech explaining his thinking on laïcité as well as the way in which he understands the spiritual and existential question, religions' role in society, and the relationship that he is calling for between the public authorities and religions in France.

President Macron revealed some aspects of his "on the move" thinking about the question of French-style laïcité, its joys and sorrows, and prospective elements of its renewal based on the challenges and questions of today's world. On this subject like so many others, Macron's strength is that he moves forward without revealing too much... And, when he reveals himself, he once more hides his thinking by an exercise of methodical balancing, using his formula "while at the same time..." which has become famous since his presidential campaign and which allows him to be heard by everyone, with each person thinking that they have understood the meaning. Once a position is taken, Macron removes the link and once more puts things into perspective by integrating the past, present and future into a narrative dynamic. Thus we detect the influence of Paul Ricoeur, the young head of state's mentor.

Dialogue
His speech to France's religious leaders fits perfectly into this dynamic of thought and style where has succeeded in telling these leaders where we are coming from and where we are probably going. It is worth highlighting one aspect, which falls under the category of a discourse on method and which runs through the president's entire speech: he desires to "dialogue" with religions, not on an episodic basis, but on a permanent and recurrent basis, on various social and political topics (laws on bioethics and the questions they raise, the reception of refugees and the impact of migration, chaplaincies, schools, international crises and the instrumentation of religion, etc.)

The term "dialogue" returns repeatedly to the president's tongue to suggest implicitly his desire to move methodically towards what I have described as being "the partnerial understanding of laïcité" at a lecture I gave in July 2013 at Notre-Dame de La Salette in the south of France entitled "The Ambivalence of Church-State Relations in our Modern Societies." During that talk, I was able to explain the parameters of this partenarial understanding of laïcité by saying that it was not "a history of texts, of laws and decrees, but of the development of a 'partnarial' understanding of laïcité through the search for innovative balances that win the support of all concerned parties."

This 'partnerial' understanding of laïcité implies bringing together three conditions. First, a renunciation of radical, authoritarian and dogmatic understandings of laïcité. Then, recognition of its evolutionary character. Finally, the rejection of both a 'permissive' laïcité that gently sails in the wake of short-term interests at the risk of jeopardizing the foundations of the republican agreement and of an 'identitarian' laïcité that creates useless fights, creating boundaries and divisions that do not need to exist.

'Partner' State
By recognizing diversity and the necessity of approaching particularities with pragmatism and intelligence, such a 'partnerial' understanding of laïcité is the best vector for the fight against communitarianism in France. The partnerial understanding of laïcité  thus implies an evolution of mentalities and methodological and relational approaches. It implies that the state in France accepts not to act as an 'authoritarian' state, but as a state that regulates, arbitrates and organizes the permanent dialogue that promotes the emergence of balances that win the support of the largest number of actors in society. In a word, it is the 'partner' state that sets common limits, taking into account what is essential for each of these actors. For their part, the religions must act as partners of this state by integrating the imperatives of the republican agreement and positioning themselves within society as a factor for cohesion, progress and peace, separating the religious factor from any political or identitarian instrumentalization. Thus the objective is to find balances without calling into question republican fundamentals.

This 'partnerial' concept of laïcité is fully reflected in the remarks made by President Macron: "Religious faith that is intimate does not disqualify someone from being a citizen: it would be crazy to think that the two do not dialogue constantly within the same person."


"The Republic," adds the president, "does not ask anyone to forget his faith, but to make a nation, one must also know how to overcome one's differences by putting them at the service of the community of citizens and working every day to avoid creating something irreconcilable in society. In any case, I will never ask some French citizens, whoever they may be, to belong moderately to their religion or to believe moderately or as they should in their god. It makes little sense. But I will constantly ask everyone to respect absolutely the rules of the Republic. It is in this balance, where the strength of two commitments can be fully compatible, that we will come out stronger."


Has he not thus acknowledged the necessity of taking into account the fact of religion in the life of the polis, thus breaking with the conceptions of a certain radical laïcité that wanted to delete the fact of religion in the private space by excluding it from the public space?

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Fr Georges Massouh: John the Baptist or the Prophet Yahya?

Arabic original here. All Qur'anic passages are taken from Tarif Khalidi's translation.

John the Baptist or the Prophet Yahya?

The text of the Qur'an presents three key figures who appear in the New Testament: Jesus Christ, His mother Mary, and Saint John the Baptist, who is the seal of the prophets for Christians. In what follows, we will examine the figure of John, Yahya in the Qur'an, and his degree of similarity and difference from Yahya in the Islamic tradition.

John the Baptist appears in the Qur'an several times under the name "the Prophet Yahya", which was the usual form for the name John in the Arabian Peninsula before Islam. In Surat al-An'am (83-86), the name Yahya appears in the list that mentions the names of prophets from the Old Testament, from Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David to Zakariya, Isa and Elias... The Qur'an considers all of these to be righteous prophets whom God God to spread His message, guided along the straight path,
and made the most excellent in the universe. I should point out here that this article deals only with the personality of John and not any of the others, so I will not talk about "the Prophet Isa" or, as Christians know Him, the Lord Jesus Christ. That will come in time.

The Qur'an presents the story of John's conception in three different places: in Surat Al 'Imran (83-86), Zakariya asks God to grant him a son, "It was then that Zachariah prayed to his Lord saying: 'My Lord, grant me from on high a blameless progeny. You always hear prayers.'" The angels call out to him, "God brings you glad tidings of the coming of John, confirming the truth with a word from God-- a lord among men, chaste, and a prophet from among the righteous." Most exegetical works say with regard to these two ayas that God brings Zakariya glad tidings of a child, who is Yahya, who will bring glad tidings of the coming of a word from God, which is Isa ibn Maryam. He will be a "lord among men" who "rules his nation with knowledge and virtue", someone who is chaste and "refrains from approaching women", "a good prophet who carries out God's and people's rights and is exempt from sin." It is noteworthy that in this account, when Zakariya asks his Lord to give a sign confirming John's conception, God says to him, "Your sign is that you shall not speak to people for three days, except in gestures. Remember your Lord frequently." The sign of muteness is also mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (1:18-22), not only for three days, but the entire time John was in the womb.

Surat Maryam is the sura that dedicates the largest section to discussing Yahya (ayas 2-15). Zakariya asks God to grant him "a kinsman from on high to be my heir and heir of the House of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, acceptable to You." What is meant here by inheritance is not money, but prophethood and goodness. Surat Maryam then continues, "O Zachariah, We bring you glad tidings of a son, whose name is John. Upon none before him have we bestowed this name." Here the Qur'anic account meets the account in the Gospels, which says, "So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said, 'No; he shall be called John.' But they said to her, 'There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name.' So they made signs to his father—what he would have him called. And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying, 'His name is John.' So they all marveled" (Luke 1:59-63). The Qur'anic text adds, "'O John, take firm hold of the book.' And we granted him sound judgment when still a child." Take firm hold of the book. That is, with seriousness and interpretive effort. We granted him firm judgment when still a child, that is, We gave him the power to understand the secrets of the Torah when still a child, before reaching adulthood.


Surat Maryam continues the description of the figure of Yahya, "And tenderness, from on high, and purity. He was truly a pious man, dutiful toward his parents, and was not arrogant or disobedient." Tenderness from on high (the name John in Hebrew means "God is gracious"), he was not arrogant or disobedient, he was not proud and did not disobey his Lord. Surat Maryam finishes the discussion of Yahya by saying, "Peace be upon him the day he was born, the day he dies and the day he is resurrected, alive!" (aya 15). It is the very same aya that the very same sura attributes to Christ the Lord when he says of himself, "Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am resurrected, alive! (aya 33). This means, according to Islamic exegesis, that God announces to Yahya and Isa that they will rise on the day of resurrection. This highlights a fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims regarding Christ's resurrection, which Christians believe has truly already taken place.

There is no doubt that the Qur'an, in comparison to the Gospels, recounts only a part of what these Gospels say about Saint John the Baptist. The Qur'an does not mention the event of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan at the hand of John, John's testimony about the Theophany, his preaching that the kingdom of heaven has drawn near, and his decapitation... In its presentation of Yahya, however, the Qur'an does not present anything that contradicts Christian tradition. It remains that the figure of John in the Qur'an is a radiant personality whom Muslims love and hold in esteem. This is what we must see and take into account in order to build and solidify bridges of love between Christians and Muslims.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Met Georges Khodr: Light has Dawned upon Us

Arabic original here.

Light has Dawned upon Us

Today we take leave of the Feast of Theophany, where we commemorated the Savior's baptism in the River Jordan. The Church saw fit that this passage from the Gospel of Matthew be read to us, in which there is a discussion of light where the Evangelist Matthew mentions a passage from the Book of Isaiah, where he says of Galilee of the gentiles, the region where the Lord lived, "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."

There is an outpouring of light with the coming of Jesus. In Orthodox dogma, we say that the Church is based on what the Apostles have given us, by which we remain in the light. There are many bad ideas in the world and they assault us day after day in various forms: strange doctrines, strange ideas, and strange social behavior in all fields attack the Church and people are confused between the Gospel and these bad things that we are exposed to every day. But the firm believer does not deviate from the good doctrine he has received in the Holy Church, what the Apostle Paul summarized when he said that our belief is that Christ died and rose. We preserve this faith so that we may live secure from sin and error.

Therefore today's Gospel reading ends with the words "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is what I would like to alert you to: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This does not primarily mean that the end of the world has come since Jesus was not talking about the end of the world then, but rather He was talking about His coming. "Repent, for I will be king over you if I am raised upon the cross and escape the tomb." This is the kingdom of heaven, that Christ is king over souls and that we ourselves enter into His possession, into His sovereignty, and that we allow Him to govern us. Jesus governs us in obedience if we obey Him. At that point, we are in the kingdom of heaven.

We will not wait years and years to enter the kingdom of heaven. We will not wait for death to enter the kingdom of heaven. Today we are in the kingdom of heaven if we make Christ king over our hearts. Wherever a person is, he is in God's kingdom if he makes himself a slave of God, obedient to God and to the Gospel in everything, preserving every evangelical virtue and desiring virtue. God's kingdom exists and is not far from any of us, but we nevertheless must enter it. This means that one enters himself into the kingdom or he withdraws himself from the kingdom. He enters himself into virtue or he withdraws himself from virtue.

For this reason He said, "repent." That is, repent so that you may witness God's kingdom. The blind man does not see the light, but the light exists. We do not witness God's kingdom if we are in sin or in false doctrine. Therefore we must change. He says: change, change your minds, change your thoughts. This is the meaning of repentance. Profound repentance is that a person changes his bad thoughts. We are required to change our thoughts in order to enter God's kingdom.

The Gospel challenges us by saying "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," repent, for now you are in the kingdom. If you want to be in the kingdom, be as nothing. "And if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." Open your hearts so that Christ alone may become king over you, that you may be in His possession.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Met Ephrem (Kyriakos): Theophany is the Manifestation of the Holy Trinity

Arabic original here.

Theophany is the Manifestation of the Holy Trinity

We said the John the Forerunner prepared the people of God to receive Christ through humility, "There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mark 1:7-8).

Christ is perfect man and perfect God, who came to baptism as a human person, but without sin. He entered the water and there demonstrated that He would die, so His baptism indicated that He would taste death in the body. But after this baptism, the voice of the Father was heard saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

John the Baptist bears witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him" (John 1:32). 

So the Holy Trinity is who baptizes believers in Jesus: the Father spoke, the Son was witnessed incarnate, and John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit and openly announced the Trintiy for the first time in human history.

This is what Christ publicly declared to His disciples after His resurrection:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20).

Thus God appeared as Holy Trinity on the banks of the River Jordan at Jesus' baptism: God the Father is the source, God the Son is eternally begotten of the Father just as light comes out of the sun, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father: "the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26).

Word is accompanied by a spirit from man. The Holy Spirit is the breath of life that is in Christ and in us in baptism.

Theophany happened once by the River Jordan, but it also happens within us at every moment, in every aspect of our life: in our thoughts, our words, and all our actions.

+Ephrem
Metropolitan of Tripoli, al-Koura and their Dependencies

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Fr Georges Massouh: Salvation is Nobody's Business but God's

Arabic original here.

Salvation is Nobody's Business but God's

When Jesus' disciples asked their Teacher, "Who then can be saved?" He answered them clearly, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:25-26). Jesus' reply came in the context of His discussion with a very wealthy young man who kept to the entire law, practicing it strictly. However, when Jesus asked Him, in addition to carrying out the commandments, to distribute his wealth to the poor and to follow Him, "when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

Carrying out the the commandments and general ethical principles of the law is not sufficient for a person to attain salvation, because one is required to be superior to limiting oneself to fulfilling some of the commandments. One is required to go beyond the commandments to freely love. After Jesus, is is presupposed that those who are new in their spiritual and practical life will practice them, but as believers advance in their spiritual life, love, where there is free giving and self-sacrifice, takes the place of the commandments. After the coming of Jesus Christ, the standard for salvation is not only fulfilling the commandments, but also practicing gratuitous love.

The Holy Apostle Paul says in his Epistle to the Galatians, "No one is justified by the law in the sight of God... the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ" (Galatians 3:11, 24). It is clear, then, that salvation is not automatically tied to fulfilling the law, its rulings and commandments. Salvation is God's business and not the business of us humans. "Who shall be saved?" is a question that no one but God alone can answer. "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
If the matter of salvation were left in human hands, it would be a great catastrophe, as every person would judge others for salvation or perdition according to his whims and prejudices and not according to what the Gospel and the Lord Jesus Christ say. 

In our current reality, there are still those who claim salvation exclusively for their nation [Arabic: umma], their church, or their denomination... They sit on God's throne and condemn someone to becast into eternal hell or send someone to heaven. Is the human person not a bundle of positive and negative emotions? So how can man, who is governed by his inherited hatreds and instincts, his disappointments and fleeting emotions, justly judge the salvation and perdition of others? Therefore, one cannot judge anyone. Rather, one should pray for the salvation of one's own soul and of those who with whom one shares a faith community. It is hoped that one will pray for the entire world and not only for part of it.

When we talk about salvation, we must be aware of the fact that our chances are not better than others' chances. There are those who surpass us in works of love and boundless giving. On Judgment Day, God will not ask us about our religious or denominational affiliation and how much we have practiced laws and commandments, as these things were established to educate us and guide us to the truth. Rather, He will ask us, "Show me where you have loved your brother." Despite people's sins, whatever good they have done, final judgment remains exclusive to God alone: "with God all things are possible." This is the final word and there is nothing else besides it.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Historical Background to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem's Real Estate Portfolio

Source.

The Politics of church land administration: 
The Orthodox Patriarchate of  Jerusalem in late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine, 1875 – 1948


by Konstantinos Papastathis and  Ruth Kark


Introduction

The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is institutionally structured as a monastic Brotherhood, having as its primary duty the protection of Orthodox rights over the Christian Holy Places. The alleged lack of pastoral interest in the laity, coupled with prevention of the admission of Arab clergy to the religious bureaucracy by the dominant Greek ecclesiastics, led from the nineteenth century onwards to a significant internal polarization between the two groups. The Arab nation-building process, the Greek  national myth of  Helleno-Orthodoxia, the activity of foreign powers in the Holy Land and especially that of Russia, the overall secularization process after the Tanzimat reforms, and the development of an Arab Christian bourgeoisie have all been analytically described as substantial factors in the formation of the Arab Orthodox movement and the subsequent dichotomy between the Greek Patriarchate and the Arab congregation.

Overall, the local Orthodox viewed Greek rule as the ‘outsider’ that had usurped the Arab cultural patrimony. For that reason they believed that they should acquire full control of Patriarchal affairs or at least participate on equal terms in the administration. Following the paradigm of the other ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and with Russian support, the Arab Orthodox demanded an end to alleged religious imperialism via the laicization of the communal power structures and the establishment of a Mixed Council. On the other hand, the dominance of  Helleno-Orthodoxia, i.e. the complete equation between the Greek national identity and Orthodoxy, led the Greek hierarchy to treat any Arab claim as a hostile act that should be opposed by all possible means.

The dispute, however, had an economic aspect as well, i.e. the administration of the immovable property in which the Brotherhood invested from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. As was noted by James Finn, British Consul in Jerusalem (1846-63), the Patriarchate ‘besides maintaining without diminution its ancient property, … has for several years past pursued a scheme of buying up houses, or shops, or waste ground, or even fractions (kirfits [sic] or twenty-fourth parts) of such properties all over the city indiscriminately, till it is believed that more than a quarter of the whole [within the city walls] has come into their hands as free-hold purchase’. Moreover, certain Patriarchal officials acquired landed properties outside the walls, which were further improved through plantation and cultivation. In the early 1920s the Patriarchate had already become the owner or the trustee of vast amounts of real estate, estimated at about 631 properties. According to Tamari, the Patriarchal vakf, together with the Russian land endowments,were more numerous than ‘Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic endowments put together’. Katz and Kark identified 355 of these properties, of which 176 alone covered an estimated 36,779 metric dunams (1 dunam = 1,000 sq. metres). Moreover, of the total area of 900 dunams of the Jerusalem Old City, 317 dunams belonged to the Patriarchate.

This article suggests that at the core of this rivalry stood the mode of management of the vast Church-owned urban and agricultural real estate. Our aim is twofold: a) to present the historical course of the relevant land dispute from the late Ottoman period to the end of the British Mandate; and b) to critically assess its political connotations within the framework of the nation-building process and the power struggle between state powers with conflicting interests. The general themes under investigation are: Church and state with special reference to the governmental policies towards religious property; and Church and community, with special reference to the ecclesiastical land administration and how this affected the relationship between them. Our thesis is that both the Ottomans and the British pursued a pro-Greek policy.

The article is divided into two main parts. First, we elaborate on the question of land acquisition in late Ottoman times, paying special attention to the instruments used by the Patriarchate to accumulate real estate. In the second part, we examine the dispute in relation to land administration, focusing on its political dimension during a period of extreme social unrest. In conclusion, we critically assess the respective Ottoman and British policies. It is argued that their de facto pro-Greek stance was not only the out-come of their domestic political considerations, but was also dictated by their diplomatic priorities. Moreover, it is argued that the institutional framework established in respect to the vakf  properties was another factor blocking Arab involvement in their administration. To this end, the legal channels through which the Patriarchate accumulated them are of special importance.

[...]

Read the whole article here.